What does the history of the early period of Islam have to
say about the early divisions in Islam? Who was Abdullah bin Saba?
Very few Islamic scholars nowadays write or talk about him. Yet history tells
us that he was the main figure in sowing the seeds of early division in Islam.
He was the first person who promulgated the idea of Imamate and propagated it
with so much passion that it ultimately became the foundation of Shiite Islam.
From a historical perspective then, it is important
to talk about him. No matter how sensitive this topic, we cannot ignore the
fact that it was his role in the early history of Islam that was mostly
responsible for laying the foundation of Islam’s permanent division into Sunni
and Shiite sects. But before we address that, it is important to provide some
backdrop about the Iran
of those times as it came into the fold of Islam. (This has nothing to do with
the present Iran
and Iranian people. The present Iranian people are not responsible for what
happened then.)
The Prophet (PBUH) of Islam
first started preaching the Divine message of the Quran among the Meccans and
those around them. He then enlarged his sphere to include the people of Medina and its surroundings. His companions
understood this divine message and true Iman entered their hearts.
Consequently, the depth of their conviction and the presence of the Prophet
(PBUH) among them transformed their character (48:29). Later, when all of
Arabia came under the fold of Islam,
fresh converts (especially Bedouin)
merely ‘surrendered’ to it without internalizing its Divine message so much so
that they had to be reminded (according to the Quran) that true Iman had not entered their hearts (49:14).
The earlier Muslims were fortunate compared to the later ones as these
later Muslims missed the Prophet’s personal attention and training. They were
scattered far and wide, their number was very large, and the Prophet’s early
demise had cut short the opportunity for them to benefit from his personal
attention. Moreover, during the time of Caliph Abu Bakr (R) and Caliph Umar
(R), the Islamic State expanded far and wide and covered an area of almost two
and a half million square miles, embracing practically the whole of the Persian Empire and the greater part of the Roman Empire.
People inhabiting these vast areas could have maintained their old
religion (if they so wished) by having treaties with the Islamic State, but
most of them preferred to become Muslims. As converts to a new religion they
were in an even less fortunate position than the later “Bedouin” converts. The
Arab converts had the advantage of having true Muslims around them and being
exposed through them to Islamic concepts and principles on a daily basis. The new
converts had none of this facility. Their number was large, the area that they
inhabited was immense, and the means of communication were extremely limited.
All these factors made it almost
impossible for their education and training to be on the same level as those of
the earliest Muslims.
This problem greatly worried Caliph Umar (R) and he gave serious thought to it as dictated by the Quran: “When comes the Help of Allah, and Victory, and thou dost see the people
enter Allah’s Religion in crowds,” let not complacency overcome you (that your purpose has been achieved
and your program is over); instead you should redouble your efforts with
greater vigor and “Celebrate the praises of thy Lord, and pray
for His Forgiveness: For He is Oft-Returning (in Grace and Mercy).” (110/1-3).
According to Ibn-e-Hazm, Caliph Umar (R) distributed a hundred thousand copies of the Holy Quran
throughout the new State. He had further plans to educate and train the new
converts to Islam, but he was assassinated unexpectedly before he could realize
his dream. A mass conversion of the type that had occurred (especially as in
Iran) could be no more than political surrender to the new State without an
attending change in people’s old beliefs and customs. Proper education and training
alone could have brought about that change.
The masses are usually quick to accept a new system of
life if it guarantees their freedom and dignity and meets their basic needs.
And that is what Islam offered them at the time. So people quickly accepted
Islam en masse. (This may now sound
strange especially because of the prevailing misconceptions about Islam –
thanks to our corrupt Muslim rulers – but the period of Caliph Umar (R) is
legendary for both men’s and women’s rights and freedoms.)
However, those who had lost their power and authority
could not as easily accept their loss. They were sore at having been defeated
by the Arabs, whom they considered uncivilized and even barbarous, and now they
found that these same lowly Arabs had dismantled their empire and destroyed
their ancient culture and civilization. No doubt the defeat made them surrender
to the Islamic State, but they continued to harbor feelings of revenge against
the conquering Arabs.
Since they could not take on the Arabs in the battlefield, they used political intrigues and religious
corruption to avenge their defeat. It was not hard for them to realize that the
secret of the over-whelming power of the Arabs lay in their belief in Islamic
principles. When the defeated Persian governor and military commander Harmuzan
was brought before Umar(R) in Medina, Umar(R) asked him how it was that the Arabs, who until recently had dared not come near the
Persian borders, had now inflicted heavy defeat on them on all fronts? Harmuzan
answered: “Before, it was force against
force, of which we had more. Then God was neither with you nor with us. Now in
our new encounters there is God with you and no God with us”. Harmuzan had
confirmed the words of the Quran: “That
is because Allah is the Protector of those who believe, but those who reject
Allah have no protector” (47/11).
Since the aristocrats and the intellectuals among the Iranians – Iran
was a superpower having the most advanced civilization in the world at the time
– had recognized that it was the adoption of the eternal principles of the
Quran that had brought about such a tremendous change among the Arabs, they
based their scheme of revenge on a plan designed to wean the Arabs away from
those principles.
The plan consisted in gradually introducing into the body politic of
Islam such un-Islamic beliefs and concepts which would, in the end, cause the
eternal divine principles to be lost to manmade laws and concepts. But first
they had to get rid of the biggest obstacle in their way – the person who was responsible for their defeat – Caliph Umar (R). Therefore, it is no accident that the person (Abu Lulu
Firoze) who assassinated Caliph
Umar (R) while he was leading the morning prayer in the Prophet’s mosque was a
Persian.
As a result of the scheming and machinations that ensued, what we have
now as Islam is composed mostly of the stuff introduced by this Ajami (Persian) scheme of revenge. The
Egyptian historian Muhammad Husain Haikal has described the situation aptly in
his book The Great Umar. He first
quotes from the Historians’ History of the World by Henry Smith Williams, followed by his own comments.
“The reaction went still further, and the
principles of political theology which had ruled ancient Persia returned to affirm their empire almost
the day after the national ruin. According to Persian theory, the power
belonged to the King, the son of God, invested with divine glory by his
super-terrestrian origin. Owing to political revolutions, Persia united on the head of Muhammad’s
legitimate successor, the Arabian Ali, who had been excluded from the
caliphate, all the splendor and sanctity of the old national royalty. The one
she had once called in her protocols “the divine King son of heaven”, and in
her sacred books the “lord and guide” --
lord in a worldly sense, guide in an intellectual -- she now called by the
Arabic word imam, “the Chief’. This
was the simplest title imaginable and at the same time the most august, for in
it was included all the sovereignty of the world and of the mind. In regard to
the Caliphs, who were raised to power by the blind clamour of the masses, by
crime and intrigues, she upheld the hereditary rights of the imam Ali, the
infallible and sacred of God.
“At his
death she gathered about his two sons, Hassan and Husein, and afterwards about
their descendants. Husein had married a daughter of the last Sassanid king, so
that the imamate was fixed in his blood by a doubly divine right; and the union
of ancient Persia
and Islam was sealed in the blood of Husein on the plains of Kerbela.
“The revolution which overturned the Omayyad usurpers
in favour of the Abbasides, the nephews of the Prophet, was the work of Persia.
If she did not bring into power the favourite family for which she thought she
was fighting, she at least caused her principle to triumph.” (Historians’
History of the World by Henry Smith
Williams, pp. 489-90, Vol. 24,
1907 edition)
Haikal
comments on the above quotation as follows:
“The events recorded by the Historians’ History of the World, which
are corroborated by all other historians, occurred after Umar. We have referred
to them with a view to draw the attention of the reader to the fact that the
Iranians never reconciled themselves to Arab domination and in fact resisted it
from the very beginning. At first they revolted openly: but failure in the
attempt turned their efforts to arrest power by other means. They succeeded
here and obtained considerable power in the various spheres of life’s
activities. They were so sore against Muslim domination that they decided to
kill Umar. It has been said that the assassination of Umar coming soon after
the conquest of Khorasan was the result of Iranian conspiracy” (The Great Umar, 420).
Iranians
believed that their emperors were not normal human beings but superhuman and
bearers of Divine virtues and rights; that they were not elected or selected by
people but were commissioned by God. They were the only ones entitled to rule
in the land, that nobody could seize this right, that their right to rule was
automatically transferred to their progeny, that they were shadows of God and
His representatives on earth, and that they were not prone to any mistakes.
Therefore submission to their command was incumbent on everyone. During the
reign of the Sassanid emperors, these beliefs had reached their apex, and, at
this time, too, the Quran was revealed. The Quran declared false all such
beliefs.
During
the time of Caliph Othman (R), a strange and astonishing person appeared on the
stage of history, named Ahdullah bin Saba,
who became commonly known as Ibn-al-Sauda. Some historians, like Dr. Taha
Hussain of Egypt, hold him as a pseudo personality, but
those who accept him as a real person say he was a Yemeni Jew, who came to Medina and converted to Islam. During his stay
in Medina, he learnt the intricacies of statecraft
and then shifted to Kufa and made this city a center of his scheming. Some
historical narrations say that he stayed in Madain (Iran) for sometime and then went to Egypt and, from there, further extended his
sphere of influence.
His
plan was aimed at forcing Caliph Othman (R) to relinquish Caliphate in favor of
Ali(R). Consequently in the year 35 A.H., an army composed of soldiers from Egypt, Basrah and Kufa reached Medina, laid siege, eventually murdered Caliph
Othman (R) in
broad day-light, and pronounced Ali(R) as Caliph. After the martyrdom of Othman
(R), when factions under the separate commands of Ali (R) and Ayesha (R)
clashed against each other (named as Battle of Jamal), Abdullah-bin-Saba was
present amongst the forces under Ali's command. It was Abdullah-bin-Saba and
his troops, who on observing the signs of truce, attacked Ayesha's contingents
and inflamed the battle further. Later, it was the same Abdullah-bin-Saba and
his group that joined Ali's forces during his confrontation with Muawiyya in
the battle of Safeen.
But all this pertained to Abdullah-bin-Saba’s political
role. His conspiracy that caused irreversible damage to Islam is even greater.
He questioned the simplicity of Muslims’ belief about the Prophet (PBUH) saying
the Muslims believed in the return of Christ but not in the return of Muhammad
(PBUH)!
This idea of the return of Muhammad (PBUH) could not gain
much ground among the majority of Muslims, but it flourished among some in relation
to his idea about Imams. History tells us that Abdullah-bin-Saba then started
propagating the idea that each Prophet carried a Caliph and a Wasee. The
Wasee of the Prophet (PBUH) was Ali (R) who should have been appointed the
Caliph after the Prophet (PBUH). Those who opposed his appointment usurped
Ali’s right. Muslims, therefore, should either dismiss Othman (R) or kill
him, and appoint Ali (R) as the Caliph and thus make an atonement of their past
mistakes.
Propagation of such a belief was in accordance
with the Iranians’ belief about their emperors (as mentioned before) and
therefore it soon started having effect among some Muslims, especially of
Iranian descent. According to this belief, Caliphate (the term now adopted for
it was Imamate which is more comprehensive than Caliphate) is not one of those
common issues that can be left to be decided by humans but that it is a basic
pillar and foundation of Islam. This must be decided by the Prophet (PBUH)
(through Allah's command) before his departure from this world. And Prophet
Muhammad (PBUH) did leave his decision in favor of Ali's imamate. Therefore,
Ali (R) was
the Wasee of the Prophet (PBUH).
Likewise, according to this belief, every
Imam leaves a bequest for a future Imam and this bequest is made under Allah’s
command. The Imam is free from any faults since he is appointed by Allah. And,
appointment of anybody other than the nominated Imam as successor of the
Prophet (PBUH) is usurpation of Imamate. Thus the Imamate was the right of Ali and must remain
in his progeny.
Thus it was that the idea of Wasee,
propagated by Abdullah bin Saba, became the foundation of Shiite Islam
and took practical shape in the form of Imamate.
Should today’s Muslims accept this
permanent classification into Sunnis or Shiites based on the past? What about
those who do not want to be classified in either category? Should the fear of stirring age-old
controversy prevent us from talking about this issue? Or, should we just forget
about this issue, noting that nothing can be gained by talking about it now
except bad feelings among fellow Muslims?
Or, should we face the reality anyway, and examine this issue in the
light of history – and the Quran? The choice is ours but so are the consequences.
There are consequences for doing
nothing. Just like cancer cells, human divisions also have the tendency to
multiply further if left alone.
The enemies of Islam have taken full
advantage of this division throughout history and do so now. When all else fails, the Sunni-Shiite card is
played. But it is Muslims who allow it to happen. Muslims are their own worst enemies.
Who was Abu Muslim Khorasani? We will
talk about him in the next article.