An Introduction To the Political Upheaval At Medina

Introduction

There was a great upheaval, a veritable revolution at Medina on the death of the Pro- phet.

Muhammad had not left the community in any doubt as to the person who was to suc- ceed him in the spiritual and temporal headship of Islam.

He had often, notably at Ghadir Khumm on the occasion of his return journey from the last hajj, declared in unequivocable terms that `Ali would succeed him, and on this occasion, he formally announced his appoint- ment as his successor.

But there was a party among his companions who were determined to seize power and place their own man on the throne.

How they achieved their object is fully described in this book: "The Political Upheaval at Medina on the Death of Muhammad, the Prophet of Islam." by Aqa Muhammad Sultan Mirza, District and Sessions Judge, (Retd.).

The Book is concerned chiefly with analysing and criticising the theory on the basis of which the so-called election was arranged at Saqifah.

This theory is the dogmatic assertion, supported nei- ther by facts nor by logic, that the Prophet of Islam did not designate anyone as his successor.

From this they wanted the people to conclude that their meeting at Saqifah to select a successor of the Prophet was not only quite justified but was also absolutely necessary. All the rewards and allurements that a ruling fiction can offer and all the threats and punishments that are in its power were employed to weave this idea into the warp and woof of the very existence of the Islamic Nation.

To give it greater security and immunity from criticism, it has been taken into the fold of religion. But after all, the fact remains that this is purely a question of history.

and must be treated as such. It is the first con- cern of the historians of Islam to describe the constitution of the Islamic State founded by Muhammad; and how the head of a State is to be appointed, is the chief question relating to the constitution of that State.

It has been proved in this treatise that the arrangement by which the head of the State was appointed at Saqifah was neither open election nor honest selection.

An appeal is made to impartial historians, un- hindered by considerations of religion and un- mindful of noisy propaganda, to examine this assertion and theory critically in the light of proved facts and dictates of sound reason, and give their own finding, regardless of all con- siderations, political, religious or social.

That his "loving" companions left the dead body of the Prophet to take part in the meeting at Saqifah, that his relatives including `Ali remained by his side, overwhelmed by the great calamity that had befallen the whole nation,

that he died before noon on Monday and was not buried till late at night on Wednesday according to some 1 and till late at night on Tuesday according to a minority including Mawlawi Shibli,

2 that his funeral was not taken through the town to a secluded place in the graveyard and that on this occasion also as on other similar disputed occa- sions Abu Bakr came out with an alleged saying of the Prophet which no one else had heard and which has no rationalistic basis that Prophets are buried at the very place where they die, 3 and that, therefore, he was buried in the hujrah (room) of Abu Bakr's daughter,

`A'ishah, are clear indications that all was not well, and that there was something wrong somewhere. This book discloses what that something was and where it was wrong.

It must be patent to every student of History that some of those historical facts the correctness of which had for centuries been considered as finally established were eventually discovered to be incorrect,

but that it was only when the causes that had given rise to them had ceased to exist, and the passions and prejudices that had nursed them had subsided.

He often finds crystals of historical truth lying concealed in the layers of falsehood accumulated through centuries of religious fanaticism, personal pre- judices or state policies of rulers who had gained the throne after a struggle, open or secret, but not based on right and justice.

Their first neces- sity is to gain control of History and Propaganda, and stiffle any the slightest voice that is or may be raised in favour or sympathy of their defeated rivals. A criticism of their policy, nay, even of their daily movements and actions is taken to be an offence against State to be atoned for with nothing less than life.

This has been the govern- ing principle of politicians from the age of Hannibal to the days of Hitler, and this in spite of that much-talked-of boon called Modern Civilisation which is held to be the last word on all that is best and wisest in Man. That great historian of Muslim Spain, Dr. J. A.

Conde, has laid down a maxim of universal application which may serve as a guide to all who want to write impartial history, and have an ambition to occupy the position of an impartial judge of the Past. He says:

"A sort of fatality attaching itself to human affairs would seem to command that in the relation of historical events those of the highest importance should descend to posterity through the justly suspected channels of narrations writ- ten by the conquering parties.

The mutation of empires, the most momentous revolutions and the overthrow of the most renowned dynasties seem all to be liable to this disadvantage; it was by the Romans that the history of their own aggrandisement was written;

the narration of their rivalry and sanguinary wars with the Carthaginians has come down to us from them- selves; or if Greek writers have also treated the subject, these men were the tributaries and dependants of Rome, nor did they spare the flatteries best calculated to conciliate her favour.

Scipio thus appears to us the most admirable of heroes, but is not that in part because the history of his life is the work of his admirers and flat- terers? 1t is true that the noble and illustrious Hannibal cannot look otherwise than great and glorious even in the narratives of his mortal enemies,

but if the implacable hatred and aggressive policy of Rome had not commanded the destruction of all the Punic annals, the renowned African general would doubtless ap- pear to us under an aspect differing much from that presented by the ruthless barbarian, des- cribed by Livy and accepted by his readers as the portrait of Hannibal., ,4

What a striking resemblance with the early history of the khilafah (caliphate) and its heroes, which was the result of a struggle between two parties, one of which won the throne by a very clever coup d'etat.

Under the circumstances, it is apparent, as Conde goes on to remark that "a sound and just discrimination forbids us to content ourselves with the testimony of one side only, this requires that we compare the rela- tions of both parties with careful impartiality, and commands us to cite them with no other purpose than that of discovering the truth."

It is really very strange that the European writers on Islamic History have entirely lost sight of this wholesome axiom based on mere com mon sense, and have accepted, with credulity almost criminal,

the version of the events of that troublous period as published by the party that had won the throne and displaced the rightful heirs by means of a very skilfully planned coup d'etat giving rise to a fierce and long drawn struggle between the two parties and their representatives, in which one party had almost always the upper hand.

And this in spite of their knowing, or having enough material at their disposal to know the following facts: The appointment of a successor to the Prophet at Saqifah Bani Sa'idah was not an open, sincere and peaceful affair.

It was a very skillfully arranged scheme to capture the throne after the death of the Prophet. That it was nei- ther open and sincere nor peaceful is apparent from both (a) direct and (b) circumstantial evidence.