The Caliphate Its Conception and Consequences

Chapter Four : Why the Theory of Non-appointment Is Highly Improbable and Entirely Illogical

One fact, which cuts to the root of the Theory of Non-appointment, is that its advocates are unable to find any sensible explanation or show any reasonable grounds for why the Prophet (P) should have adopted this attitude of "non-cooperation", so to speak, towards this very important problem of the Caliphate. Without this explanation, no intelligible history of the Caliphate can be written. In fact, a true conception and thorough understanding of the History of Islam and the Muslim peoples is absolutely impossible without a correct answer to this very essential question.

The entire course of Islamic History, for good or for bad, was shaped by the way in which this problem was handled after the death of the Prophet (P). The innumerable wars and massacres which throughout the long period of Islamic rule almost continuously drenched the Muslim world with blood and eventually brought it to a sad close, and the sighs and sorrows of countless Muslim widows and orphans that saddened the heart of man and brought the wrath of God upon erring humanity, can be traced directly, with not a single "missing link", to the wrong and sinful manner in which this problem was approached on the death of the Prophet (P), I say sinful, because it implied a contumacious disregard of the orders and wishes of the Prophet (P), implicit obedience to which had been enjoined by the QUR'AN. On account of this, Islamic History became a long tragedy of errors,

from the horrible massacre of KARBALA' to the more recent times of AURANGZEBE whom a misguided zeal to serve his religion induced to invade the SHI'A States of DECCAN, and thus clear the way right up to Delhi for the pagan MARAHATTAS. How the succession to the state acquired by Muhammad was to be regulated was the question. They rejected the principle of selection or nomination as not having been ordered by the Prophet (P); but at the same time they could not formulate any rules of their own. Sometimes the nomination of one man, sometimes the nomination of six candidates,

out of whom the candidates themselves were to select one man -a queer method of succession- but no definite rule was fixed. The organizers of the opposition to the Prophet were afraid of an open and free election; UMAR said publicly that the manner in which ABU BAKR was elected to the Caliphate was a calamity from whose evil effects God saved the Muslims; he ordered that no one in future should attempt that method, and in the event that anyone did, both he and his candidate would be beheaded. From all the different methods adopted, only one principle seems to emerge, and that is "Get your man in by any means you can". Obviously the result was reversion to the Rule of Might, which destroyed the spirit of Islam. Any rational human being would realize that the Theory of Non-appointment is untenable, unreasonable and illogical, and this will be apparent when we consider the following points:

There is no explanation of, nor reasonable grounds for the silence of the Prophet regarding the Caliphate. There is nothing in the QUR'AN requiring the Prophet to observe this silence.

The first Caliph nominated UMAR as his successor, and UMAR nominated six persons as the only allowable candidates, from amongst whom one candidate was to be selected as the Caliph by those candidates themselves. As affirmed by the first two Caliphs, they were anxious to nominate their successors for two reasons, viz. In the interests of Islam, and to guard against confusion and commotion, the nomination of their successors was absolutely essential; They would have to answer before God as to what arrangement they had made for the leadership of the UMMAH after them, and also as to the personality of the Caliph they had appointed.

Was not the Prophet then also aware of this immediate necessity and of his liability to answer before God? The people themselves never demanded the right to appoint the Caliph; on the other hand, they would implore the dying Caliph to nominate his successor.

Did the constitution of the theocratic state founded by the Prophet demand that he should not select or nominate his successor, or that he should put a seal on his lips on this point? There was no precedent of a Prophet keeping silence on this point. On the contrary, every one of them nominated his own son or relative as his successor.

Did the Prophet consider each and every one of his followers to be equal in the qualifications required of his successor, and thus not mind which of them happened to step into his place? Was there no likelihood of an undesirable person installing himself in power and elbowing out, by fair means or foul, a more fit and deserving person?

10 Were the people fit and qualified to choose the Caliph by election?

11 In view of the Prophet's claim that he was the last messenger of God to man, and that Islam was to continue till the end of the world, does it stand to reason that he would not give even a passing thought to the question of the succession? 12 In view of the fact that the Prophet claimed to have direct communion with God, is not this omission unbelievable? I will now expand on most of the above points in turn.

Point (1): No Reasonable Grounds for the Prophet's Silence:

Mr. S. KHUDA BAKHSH, a famous SUNNI historian, thinks, that he has discovered the reason. He says "Muhammad, who issued laws and directions regarding quite unimportant questions and ceremonies, maintained as regards the constitution of the state the profoundest silence. The unbiased reader can scarcely find the smallest hint in the QUR'AN as to how the newly founded Islamic Empire was to be governed after his death. Not only as an inspired Prophet did Muhammad fail to give any direction as to the most important branch of the law of the constitution, but even as a temporal ruler he made no arrangement as to be governed. No other reason for this silence can be suggested or accepted than his desire to avoid all reference to his death".

S. KHUDA BAKHSH is a staunch SUNNI historian, and he has said many nasty things about the SHI'AS. His well considered opinions quoted above are, therefore, of immense value in the present enquiry, and they conclusively prove many important points. I invite attention to the following: There is not the smallest hint the QUR'AN that democracy is favored by Islam. This knocks the bottom out of the whole controversy. To say that all persons are equal in the eyes of Islamic law is one thing, and it is true; but to say that the constitution of the Islamic State is democratic is another, and there is no authority for it.

The Prophet (P) maintained (as believed by the majority section) the profoundest silence about the important question of the Caliphate. The question of the succession to the Prophet was the most important branch of the Islamic law of the constitution.

The "profoundest silence" of the Prophet on this most important branch of the law of the constitution is inexplicable, incomprehensible, unintelligible, and inconceivable from every point of view expect the one discovered by the writer. The sole reason discovered by the writer is that Muhammad desired to avoid all reference to his death.

It is an undeniable fact, and is evident from the writing quoted above, that no other explanation has ever offered by any other writer and that none else is possible. As to the explanation offered by Mr. S. KHUDA BAKHSH, it is obvious that it cannot hold water for a single moment. The QUR'AN expressly states that Muhammad will die like other prophets that have gone before him, that he is subject to all the physical laws just like any man, and that he will die as other Prophets before him have died. This takes him out of the category of the one or two Prophets who are believed to be still alive (e.g. ISA, KHIDR). The final illness of the prophet extended over a period of no less than fourteen days.

Is it possible that during all this time he was concealing his coming end from his companions, or was it even possible to so conceal it, especially in view of the fact that his house was open day and night for the anxious visitors? The Muslims of those days were constant readers of the QUR'AN, some of them reading it daily from cover to cover. Thus, the fact of Muhammad's certain death being mentioned in the QUR'AN meant that it must have been constantly before the Muslim's eyes. How could reference to it be avoided? And what could be the object of avoiding reference to it? Had he ever claimed that he was immortal? In his last speech to the congregation he expressly informed them that he was leaving them for his eternal abode.

During his journey to and from MAKKA to perform his last Hajj in February 632 A.C., he unequivocally told the audience on more than one occasion that it was his last Hajj and that he would soon die. On the return journey at KHUM he collected almost the whole of his UMMA and expressly said, "I am soon to respond to Call from on High, and will be leaving you shortly. I am leaving behind two precious things, namely the QUR'AN and my children. You shall never go astray so long as you follow them both".

Gibbon gives an account of the Prophet's end in these words:

"As soon as he was conscious of his danger, he edified his brethren by the humility of his virtue of penitence". "If there be any man" said the apostle from the pulpit, "whom I have unjustly scourged, I submit my own back to the lash of retaliation. Have I aspersed the reputation of a Muslim? Let him proclaim my faults in the face of the congregation. Has anyone been despoiled of his goods? The little I possess shall compensate the principal and interest of the debt". "Yes" replied a voice from the crowd, "I am entitled to three drams of silver". Muhammad heard the complaint, satisfied the demand and thanked the creditor for accusing him in this world rather than at the Day of Judgment. He beheld with temperate firmness the approach of death, enfranchised his slaves (seventeen men, as they are named, and eleven women), minutely directed the order of his funeral and moderated the lamentations of his weeping friends, on whom he bestowed the benediction of peace".

It is therefore patent that the explanation for the Prophet's "profoundest silence", and do not go beyond mentioning it. This one fact alone is sufficient to take the wind out of the sails of this theory!

Point (2): Nothing in the QUR'AN Requiring the Prophet's silence:

This point is amply proved by the statement of MR. S. KHUDA BAKHSH quoted above. It is also obvious to any careful reader of the QUR'AN. On the other hand, there are clear indications in it to the contrary. From the instances of the previous Prophets cited in the QUR'AN, it is evident that the KHALIFA or Imam, meaning ruler, is always designated by the Prophets in compliance with divine injunction. IBRAHIM was expressly appointed an Imam by God Himself, and for his progeny it was ruled that this office would not be given to those of them who were ZALEMIN. This word is fully defined and illustrated in the QUR'AN. Those who usurp the rights of others are ZALEMIN, as well as those who wrongfully assign the attributes of God to others whom they worship as gods. David was made a KHALIFA by God, and not by the people.

The Israelites asked their Prophet SAMU'IL to appoint a king over them. SAMU'IL informed them that God had appointed TALUT as their king. They objected to his appointment on the grounds that he was not as wealthy as they, and said that it was they therefore who were better fitted to exercise authority. SAMU'IL silenced them by saying that God had chosen him above them and had gifted him abundantly with knowledge and bodily strength. Similarly, God gifted Adam with the KHALIFA, silencing the angels, who had protested, with the reply that Adam had been endowed with more knowledge than they.

The Holy QUR'AN makes it quite clear that no one can be a ruler in the theocracy of Islam unless he has been gifted with this peculiar knowledge as a precondition. We have seen some instances above; here are some others. In respect of all the Prophets the QUR'AN says: "We gifted all of them with knowledge and right judgment". Prophet ISA is thus addressed: "I taught thee the Book and wisdom, the Law and the Gospel". "Verily we gifted David and Solomon with knowledge".

It was the one who had been given some of the knowledge of the Book who undertook to bring the throne of BALQIS in the twinkling of an eye. (Here the reference is to ASIF IBN BARKHIYA, the Vizier of Solomon). This knowledge of the Book is given only to those whom God selects out of His creatures. In respect of Moses and Aaron, the QUR'AN says; "To both of them we gave (knowledge of) the Book which makes things quite clear".

Thus it is obvious that no one can be a Prophet or a Prophet's KHALIFA (successor) unless he is given this knowledge of the Book. It is plain that this condition is just as necessary for the KHALIFA carries on the same kind of word as the Prophet had been doing. In fact, KHALIFA involves something of NUBBUWWA (Prophet-hood). MAWLAWI SHIBLI says, "The imamate contains something of the NUBBUWWA, and the nature of the Imam is created almost similar to that of the Prophet". SHAH WALI Allah says that among the peoples there is a class of men whose inner self has been created by God almost similar to that of the Prophets. This class of men by their very nature are the leaders and rulers of the UMMA in place of the Prophets".

SHAH WALI ALLAH, very well respected and acknowledged as a learned man of the highest authority among the SUNNIS, also says "The possession of the highest qualities of the heart and head is an essential condition for the Caliphate. And those persons alone are entitled to be the Caliph who possess these qualities to a greater degree than the rest of the people". From all this it follows that the Caliphs or IMMAS are created for this very purpose by God, and that they cannot be manufactured in the factory of elections.

It is therefore up to the Prophet to declare his Caliph, created and appointed by God for this purpose, and not fore the common folk to sit together and elect one from among themselves according to their own likes and dislikes. A reference to the discussions that took place at the SAQIFA at the time of the selection of the Caliph should that the solitary question which they formulated for determination and consideration was as to which group the Caliph should be taken from, the two groups being the MUHAJERIN and the ANSAR. No thought was given to the really vital problem as to who was the ablest and fittest person in the whole of the UMMA to be installed as the Caliph, nor any regard given to the criterion laid down by the Book of God.

Point (3): The Conduct of the Immediate Successors of the Prophet (P):

The attitude of the immediate successors of Muhammad towards the problem of the succession in their own case is a matter in point. They did not leave the question open for the people to elect their Caliph.

In his last illness, when ABU BAKR felt that he was dying, he sent for UTHMAN, and asked him to write down his will. ABU BAKR began dictating it, but had given only a few preliminary sentences when he became unconscious, and UTHMAN extemporized by inserting the following sentence: "I have nominated UMAR as my successor". This sentence was the core of the will; in fact it alone was the will. When consciousness returned to ABU BAKR, he asked UTHMAN to read what he had written. UTHMAN read out the will with the added sentence. ABU BAKR was relieved to know that UTHMAN had of his own accord written down the name of UMAR, and applauded his action, saying "You perhaps feared that if I died while the name of UAMR was not there, serious differences might arise among the Muslims". UTHMAN replied in the affirmative, and ABU BAKR sought God's blessings for this insertion and interference in the will, and completed it.

When the people came to hear of the nomination of UAMR, they came and remonstrated with ABU BAKR, saying that his choice had fallen on the wrong person, and that they wondered what answer he would give to God for selecting the wrong person to guide and lead the Muslim nation. TALHA and ZUBAIR also came and said the same thing. ABU BAKR asked his attendants to help him sit, and when he had sat up said "You threaten me with God's displeasure. When questioned by God, I shall reply that I put Muhammad's UMMA into the charge of the best man of that UMMA". He then announced this nomination from his own house, and gave the written will to UAMR, asking him to go and reconcile the people to it. The people meekly submitted. UAMR took the written will, went out, sat in the mosque, and with his rod in his hand, asked the people to promise obedience to what was written in that document. The slave of ABU BAKR was by his side. In pondering over this affair, the following points deserve consideration:

The nomination of UAMR was against the wishes of the people.

The people were not consulted.

Nonetheless the people never maintained that they had a right to elect the Caliph. The clique against Ali was so strong and determined that they were prepared to go to the extent of forging a will, this being applauded by the Caliph.

1. It further shows that the designs of the party were well known, and everybody knew even before the actual nomination that UMAR would succeed ABU BAKR.

2. When the Prophet (P) had intended to write a similar will nominating Ali as his successor, and demanded writing materials for the purpose, UMAR interposed between the Prophet's desire and its fulfillment, obstructing the supply of writing materials, and asked the people not to listen to the Prophet as the Book of God was sufficient for all purposes, adding that it was due to febrile delirium. But now the Book of God was forgotten, no delirium was suspected, even though ABU BKAR had actually fainted during the writing of the will, and the writer had made an insertion in it. Yet a will written under such suspicious circumstances was accepted and acted upon.

3. All the people, including the Caliph himself, realized that the ruler of this Islamic State would be answerable to God as to the man in whose charge he left the UMMA when on the point of himself leaving the world; yet according to this Theory of Non-appointment, we are expected to believe that Muhammad himself had no such sense of answerability.

4. It is thus obvious that it was the duty of the dying ruler to nominate his successor.

The manner in which UMAR nominated UTHMAN was one of those deep-laid plans whereby Ali was kept out of the Caliphate. I will be discussing it in its proper place. Suffice it to say here that when UMAR was fatally wounded, people came in groups to request him to nominate his successor, and A'ISHA sent word to him asking him not to leave the UMMA leaderless, entreating him to nominate his successor as she feared serious disturbances and grave consequences if he failed to do so. It surpasses one's comprehension why of all persons Muhammad alone should be unmindful of his duty to man, this answerability to God, this liability as a Prophet, this responsibility as a king, and this need as the founder of a religious state. This then is the Non-appointment Theory.

Reason refuses to accept it, common sense scoffs at it, and sanity rejects it. The matter does not end here, none of them thought to remind the Prophet of this urgent need, yet this same crying need for the appointment of a successor to the Prophet, which brooked no delay, is cited as an excuse for the unseemly haste with which they hurried to the SAQIFA, leaving the body of the Prophet unburied while they attended to the election of a caliph. But when it comes to the Prophet, they say no, he did not think of it.

Points (4) & (5): Was the prophet Unaware of the Need?

These points have already been discussed above. The prophet could not have been ignorant of the necessity of nominating a successor before his death.

Point (6): The People Made no Demand:

This also has been dealt with above. Not only did the people make no claim to a right to appoint the caliph, but they implored the dying caliph himself to nominate the next one.

Point (7): The Constitution:

In an enquiry into the form taken by the government of the state founded by the Prophet, it is necessary, as a preliminary step, to ascertain whither the control of human affairs was included in the mission which Muhammad was to fulfill, or in other words, whether the Church and the State go together in Islam, or whether each was to have a separate and independent sphere of its own. If the latter were the case, then the mission of Muhammad could not have been accomplished and his duties as a Prophet could not have been discharged in their entirety, unless he had also had the direction of the affairs of his people in his hands.

Before I proceed further, I must refer to two formidable, almost insurmountable difficulties that lie in my way when discussing this subject. In the first place, I am supporting theories which have become out of date and are diametrically opposed to the common perception of the people, bred and brought up as they are in the materialism of today, for example the combination of Church and State, and the rejection of Democracy as a form of government. In the second place, the claim of Muhammad as the last of the prophets and the most complete specimen of humanity, and of Islam as the last and, therefore, most perfect religion revealed by God to man, go directly against the grain of the non-Muslim world. Even though his own religion may have lost all influence with him, a non-Muslim is not prepared to listen to these claims. In addition to all this, it must be borne in mind that such words as God, Prophet, Book of God, Inspiration from God to Man, all jar on the ears of a modern man for whom the only viewpoint from which to judge the progress of a class or community of men, is their propensity to discard these ideas as suitable only for a man of the Dark Ages.

The reader, to understand fully the scope and meaning of this enquiry, in fact of the whole book, must try to imagine himself living in Arabia in the company of Muhammad in the seventh century A.C., when these concepts were in full force and these words understandable everywhere. In an enquiry into whether the HUKUMA (governance of men's affairs) was included in the NUBUWWA (Apostolic Mission) of Muhammad, we must bear in mind the claims that have been made by, and on behalf of, Muhammad and Islam. They are as follows:

1. Muhammad is the last of the Prophets, and closes the long list of messengers that have been sent by God to his creatures from the beginning of the world to the time of Muhammad.

2. His mission, being final, is complete and comprehensive, embracing all items of human existence, and providing the most perfect guidance, both as needed at the time the mission was sent, and also as might be needed by man in times to come. This final code o flaws is to last until the end of the world.

3. This mission is for the whole world, and not just for one country or race.

It is hardly necessary to give references to substantiate these claims as they are conceded by every Muslim and are known to every reader of the QUR'AN and HADITH. The QUR'AN addresses itself to the whole of mankind, and describes the Prophet as having been sent to all races in all countries. This is sufficient for my present treatise; to establish that these claims are beyond doubt is outside its scope, and for that purpose I have written a separate tract.

Now, think for yourself; and then think again very deeply, and answer my question: Does it stand to reason that a Prophet who claimed and taught that he was the last of the Prophets, that his religion was the final and complete word of God to Mankind, and that his message was to continue until the end of the world, would not bestow even a single thought on the most difficult of all problems, namely what arrangements to make for its continuance in its pristine glory and purity after his death;

and that he would not select, train, and designate a fit person for this very difficult task? Whatever Muhammad's enemies may say about him, even they cannot deny the keenness of his intellect, the depth of his thought, and the penetrating reach of his foresight. Could such a man leave this important question, indeed the life and soul of his mission, to the chance of an election where merit is sacrificed at the altars of selfishness, wealth, and friendship, personal likes and dislikes, hopes of personal gains, and fears of possible pains, and other motives of like nature?

As the final Divine dispensation to mankind, made to last till the end of the world and intended to provide a complete code of human conduct, Islam must govern and control all the activities, desires, and emotions of man from the cradle to the grave, and must lay down rules to regulate his entire life. It is also relevant to know how a Muslim is required to live his life on this earth. The QURA'N ordains: "Say, truly my prayer and my service of sacrifices, my life and my death, are all for Allah, the cherisher of the worlds. No partner hath He: to this I have been commanded, and I am the first of those who are Muslims, that is, who bow to His will". It is enjoined upon every Muslim that when any misfortune befalls him or he faces any calamity, he should say that we are all from Allah, and that in the end we shall all return to Him.

This absolute submission to the will of God, this clear realization of a Muslim's life being wholly for Allah, is the distinguishing feature of Islam. This realization must mould every idea, direct every action, and guide every step of a Muslim. Thus is to be fulfilled the will of God, who says, "I have created the Jinn and Man only that they should serve and obey Me". From this it clearly follows that the Islamic laws ordained by God must govern the entire life of a Muslim and regulate his whole conduct. In Islam there is no separation between public and private life. Putting this argument into a nutshell, HUKUMA was included in the NUBUWWA of MUHAMMAD.

As a matter of fact, there is now a consensus of opinion among Muslims on this point. SAYYID ABU AL-HASSAN AL-NADAWI says:

"To establish God's kingdom upon earth and to enforce His heavenly code of politics, morals, and social life was one very important task of Muhammad on earth and the chief purpose of his mission… Another important point is that without an Islamic State, the rules of the QUR'AN cannot be enforced. Islam has given the world a competitive system of its own which is entirely based on "HUKUMA". Without HUKUMA, a considerable portion of Holy QUR'AN remains un-enforced. It is not possible even to defend Islam without HUKUMA. For instance, the whole of the revenue, civil and criminal systems are in abeyance without this force.

For this reason, the QUR'AN lays emphasis on securing strength and enforcing respect, and for this reason the setting up of the caliphate on the death of Muhammad was considered a very important matter by the companions who left the dead body of the Prophet, and preferred the settlement of the caliphate to the interment of the body. (Author's note: but this unseemly haste points to something more significant than this anxiety; Ali and the relatives of the Prophet remained at his bedside.

If there was no intention to steal a march over Ali, the nominee of the Prophet, this matter could have been settled amicably a few hours later with the consent of all). To order the people to observe the commandments and to abstain from breading the rules is a very important duty in Islam, so much so that it is declared to be the sole object of the existence of the UMMA of Muhammad (SURA III.104)…. But remember, the words "AMR" (order) and "NAHI" (forbid) have been used. They carry a sense of dignity and command. It is not said that they should make a request to the people to be so kind as to do-good deeds. Thus, for "AMR" and "NAHI", political supremacy and political force are required".

Again, while speaking of UMAR IBN ABD AL-AZIZ, an OMAYYAD ruler, the same MAWLAWI says, "Once more, by his ability and excellent management of public affairs, he disproved the un-Islamic view that church and State should not be combined".

The well-written introduction to the study of the QUR'AN, "TAZKIRA" by ALLAMA ENAYAT ALLAH AL-MASHRIQI, concerns itself entirely with proving that the object of Islam was to establish God's kingdom on earth, and the "HUKUMA" was an integral part of Muhammad's mission. Another thinker of Islam, SAYYID ABU AL-A'LA AL-MAWDUDI, has stressed the same truth in his tract entitled "HAQIQAT- AL-JIHAD". Even the foreign scholars of Islam have not failed to notice this fact. MR. D.B. MACDONALD writes as follows:

"Life is manifold; it is also one. So it is seldom possible and still more seldom advisable, to divide a civilization into departments and to attempt to trace their separate developments; life nowhere can be cut in two with a hatchet. And this is emphatically true of the civilization of Islam…. In Europe, the State may rule the church or the church may rule the State, or they may stand side by side in somewhat dubious amity, supposedly taking no account of each other. But in Muslim countries, church and State are indissolubly one, and until the very essence of Islam passes away, that unity cannot be relaxed. The law of the land is, too, in theory the law of the church; in the earlier days at least, Canon and Civil law was one. Thus we can never say in Islam "he is a great lawyer", "he is a great theologian", "he is a great statesman". One may be all three, it is almost a case that he must be all three, if he is to be any one".

Another scholar writes:

"Since the Muslim church and State are essentially one. It is impossible to treat politics apart from religion, nor can religious phenomena be understood without continual reference to political events".

Now we come to the main question. Was the Constitution of the Islamic State founded by Muhammad democratic? Obviously it was not. From its very nature it could not be democratic. A Prophet who claimed his office from Divine source, and exacted implicit obedience to his command, would not frame a democratic constitution, which rests solely on the votes of the public. He had a bitter taste of such voting when he was condemned to death by the unanimous suffrage of this nation without a single dissenting voice. The lifeblood of democracy is the vote of the majority, and the Holy QUR'AN abounds in declarations condemning the majority. To mention but a few of them are the following examples:

1. "The majority of men have no knowledge". (SURA VII,187).
2. "(WERT) thou to follow the majority of those on earth, they would lead thee away from the way of God". (SURA VI,116).
3. "The majority of the people do not believe". (SURA XI,17).
4. "Verily most of you are rebellious and disobedient". (SURA V,62).
5. "But most of them follow nothing but fancy". (SURA X,36).
6. "But most of them have no understanding". (SURA XXIX,63).
7. "But most of them ignore the truth". (SURA VI,11).
8. "Yet most of them turn away, so they hear not". (SURA XLI,4).

The famous poet IQBAL condemns democracy in these words:

"Flee from democracy, and obey one with mature experience and wisdom; for the brains of two hundred asses cannot think life the mind of one human being".

We reproduce below the sayings of European philosophers and intellectuals in condemnation of majorities and democracy:

1. "Public opinion, a vulgar, impertinent tyrant, who deliberately makes life unpleasant for anyone who is not content to be the average man".
2. "There is not a more mean, stupid, dastardly, pitiless, selfish, spiteful, envious, ungrateful animal, than the public". -WILLIAM HAZLIT
3. "when a genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign, that the dunces are all in a confederacy against him". -JONATHAN SWIFT
4. "I hate the vulgar herd and hold it far".

-HORAC

5. "The first and last thing that is demanded of a genius (or a righteous person) is truth".

-GOTHE 6. "Who over the herd would like to reign, fantastic, fickle, fierce and vain? Vain as the leaf upon the stream. And fickle as the changeful dream. Fantastic as a woman's mood. And fierce as Frenzy's fevered blood. Thou many-headed monster thing. Oh who would wish to be thy king?" -WALTER SCOTT

7. "Avoid the reeking herd, Shun the polluted flock, Live like that stoic bird, The eagle of the rock". Writing about the state founded by Muhammad, WELLHAUSEN says:

"Nor did the theocracy resemble a republic, notwithstanding the idea that all the subjects of Allah stand in equal relationship to Him. The chief characteristic of the republic, election through the people, was absent altogether. The supreme power rested not with the people but with the Prophet (P). He alone had fixed - even Divine- office; all authorities had their origin in his supreme authority. However, he did not appoint actual officials, but only gave certain commissions, after the execution of which the commissioners retired of themselves. His advisers too, were private individuals with whom he was on terms of friendship, and whom he gathered into the circle of his society".

On the death of the Prophet (P), his successor stepped into his place and occupied exactly the same position. The constitution could not change on his death: no one had the right to change or amend it. It could not swerve round from monarchy to democracy. VON KREMER thus describes the position of the caliph:

"At the head of this mass of tribes, risen suddenly to worldly powers and united by one common interest, stood the caliph who, in the earliest times, simply passed as the representative of the deceased Prophet (P). He commanded expeditions, which were undertaken with the advice of the most important Companions of the Prophet (P). He organized and conducted military affairs. He administered the state revenue and dealt with the finances. He had full powers of disposal over the treasury, "Bait al-Mal", the name by which the treasury is known to this day. He even exercised judicial functions and administered criminal justice, and finally - this was the most important of his duties- he led the entire Divine Service, and was, so to speak, the supreme pontiff of the religious community of the Muslims".

As a legitimate inference from all this, it follows that the caliph could be lawfully entitled to his office only in he had been appointed thereto by the Prophet himself. There could be no other legal source of his authority as a caliph, which means "successor". This fact was clearly recognized by those "Caliphs" themselves. Writing about UMAR IBN AL-KHATAB, WELLHAUSEN says:

"He first supported ABU BAKR, Muhammad's most trusted friend, and it was not till after the latter's death, which took place soon after, that he took over the ruling power in name. ABU BAKR transferred it to him, in his last will and testament, but that was only a confirmation of what was already an accepted thing. ABU BAKR was quite aware that they had no legal title to the ruling power but had usurped it. All they could do was afterwards to legitimize their original illegitimate power by wielding it according to the idea of theocracy".

Those of the Muslim writers, who have thought closely and carefully, have come to the conclusion that democracy has no place in Islam. In its issue of December 1939 "TULU' AL-ISLAM", a respectable monthly journal, carried and article on "Islam and Democracy". The writer, speaking about democracy, says:

"We challenge the whole group of the nationalistic ULAMA' to show from the QUR'AN or the HADITH that Islam prescribes this form of government (democracy) for its followers to live under, calling it liberty. I wonder what has become of the reasoning powers and wisdom of these gentlemen. According to them, if one man singly comments dacoit, he is guilty, but if a number of dacoits combine together to commit dacoit with the votes of their majority, then this dacoit is entirely in accordance with the precepts of Islam (God forbid), because this dacoit has taken place according to the principles of Democracy. In their opinion, if one man as against two says that two and two make five, he is wrong, but if the same thing is said by five men against two, it is wholly correct, as then it will have the certificate of the democratic sanction.

If this alone is sufficient to decide the correctness of a dogma or principle, then why do you contradict those who say that Christ is the Son of God, as they are in the majority? Do not go so far. Take the case of Hindus: they form the majority, while the Muslims are in the minority. If its is admitted that what the majority says is correct, then you will have to admit that the Hindus are in the right. Perhaps, you may say that these are religious matters, having no connection with the affairs of State. But the question is not of religion or politics: it relates to the foundation on which Democracy rests. And that foundation is, that the majority is always in the right. This foundation itself is wrong. And when the foundation is unstable, the whole of the edifice that is built on it will be shaky, no matter if the departments of the church and state are separate in it". A famous Muslim historian, S. KHUDA BAKHSH of BANKURA, belonging to the majority section of the Muslim, says:

"Muhammad not only founded a new religion but established a new polity. By converting his countrymen to the faith in one God, he destroyed the old constitution of his native town, and in place of the old aristocratic tribal constitution, which meant conduct of public affairs by the ruling families, set up an out-and-out theocratic constitution at the head of which he stood as the representative of God on earth. Even before his death, almost the whole of Arabia- which had never bent its neck to a prince or ruler- lay all of a sudden at his feet, as a national unit, paying homage to the will of an absolute master".

Two points have been established, namely (a) the control of the affairs of the UMMA, that is HUKUMA, was within the orbit of Muhammad's NABUWWA, being an integral part of it, and (b) the constitution of the state founded by him was not democratic. Both these matters are so obvious and plain that one wonders why they should have been brought under discussion at all. The controversy has been created intentionally to serve political ends, and to confuse many issues, as will presently be shown.

As we have definite knowledge of how Islam has solved these two important problems, we have no need to stop and consider how they are solved by others. I am aware of the fact that Europe does not agree with Islam on these points. But Europe is liable to make mistakes, and we have had many examples of them to our great misfortune. One of those mistakes is the craze for democracy. The natural form of government as evolved out of the exigencies of human society was kingship. From the head of the family to the chief of the tribe, and thence to the chief of a combination of tribes,

that is, the king, the stages were natural and evolved. Every country in the world has started from kingship. At times, the kings exercised their powers arbitrarily and tyrannically, with heartless disregard for the happiness of the people. This naturally led to opposition by the people, who would combine forces to overthrow the tyrant. This is the origin of democracy, which in the beginning was nothing but a contrivance for self-defense. The important thing to bear in mind in this connection is that the tyranny of the king was generally directed towards one class of people, who in many cases happened to be the rich and influential persons, as the king apprehended danger from that side, and therefore his engines of oppression were directed towards them. When the tyrant was overthrown, this class of people stepped into his place.

Kingship yielded place to an oligarchy of rich and influential persons; one tyrant was gone, but his place was taken by many tyrants. This, in effect, is the real nature of democracy. This oligarchy, to achieve its end with the help of the mob, had adopted the slogan of "The government of the people, by the people, for the people", but once the object was achieved, the spirit of the slogan was strangled, though the slogan itself was kept to please the fools and hoodwink the mob; and to perpetuate the fraud, the oligarchic government christened itself with the name "Democracy" or "Republic", whichever name suited itself at the time. Even a cursory glance at the Roman Republic, the most ancient democracy in the world, will fully illustrate the views expressed above, and bring into relief the native features of modern democracy, which is modeled on its ancient prototype.

Rome, like other countries, started with kingship, and Romulus, its fabulous founder, was the first king. He chose a senate of one hundred as an advisory body to aid him by their counsels. This may be placed somewhere around B.C. 753. The kings ruled, one after the other, until the last king, TARQUIN, ascended the throne. How royalty came to and end is an interesting story to tell. It was ended not by the spontaneous suffrage of the people, but by the ambition of one man who, as a sympathizer of one class of people, that is the rich and influential, called "patricians", and avowedly in their interests only, seized power and started the Republic. It happened in this way. While TARQUIN was away, his son SEXTUS violated the honor of LUCRITIA, a Patrician Roman lady. She summoned her relatives, and having informed them of the outrage, committed suicide.

LUCIUS JUNIUS Brutus, who held an important magistracy, convened an assembly of the people, and exhibited the bleeding body of LUCRITIA to the multitude (B.C. 509). A decree was immediately passed expelling the TARQUINS and abolishing the Royalty. A celebrated historian says: "The abolition of royalty was a purely patrician revolution, from which the great body of the people gained no immediate advantage. Two annual magistrates, initially called Proctors, but afterwards called Consuls,

chosen from the patrician ranks, inherited the entire royal power but did not, like the kings, possess any priestly dignity. The first magistrates elected under the new system were Brutus and COLLATINUS, the husband of LUCRITIA. A revolt headed by the nephews of the late king TARQUIN and the sons of this same Brutus was put down. Brutus not only pronounced the sentence of death upon his sons, but witnessed their execution without shedding a tear. This is typical of the way burning ambition consumes every softer and nobler feeling. This was not done on account of patriotism; it was purely due to a desire to retain power. To earn popularity and security of position, ambition frequently adopted such heartless tactics; Napoleon, in order to procreate a progeny of kings and to connect himself with royal blood, put away the loving Josephine, his partner in life for sixteen years, with the excuse "My dearest affections must yield to the welfare of France".

From the very beginning of her existence, the population of Rome had been divided into two classes, namely the Patricians, who were the rich and influential section of the people, and the Plebeians, who were poor and belonged to the inferior ranks. The Republic always represented the interests of the patrician class from whom the senate was formed. The consuls, who wielded kingly powers, were always patricians. In B.C. 450 a new constitution was established, known to historians as "The Laws of the Twelve Tables", which continued right down to the time of the emperors to be the basis of all civil and penal jurisprudence.

It established the legal equality of all citizens; but it also preserved some of the most odious privileges of patrician over plebeian. This state of affairs continued almost without change until the end of the Republic in B.C. 48, when the people became thoroughly disgusted with it and reverted to kingship. Now arose that famous and magnificent Roman Empire which ruled the world for centuries. And the struggle between the patricians and the plebeians, which had distracted the peace of the country form the foundation of Rome till the end of the Republic, disappeared in a moment. By no stretch of the imagination could this one-sided Government have been called a government "of the people, by the people, for the people". More than half the nation had been un-represented and had nothing to do with government. The poor are always more in number than the rich; and this was the Government of the rich only.

This was the democracy of the ancient world; let us turn to the modern world for a better insight. It is only a truism to say that present civilization is based on the past, and that the modern world has copied the institutions of the old Roman Empire. By "modern world", one generally means Europe, America and Japan. Of these, Britain and the United States are commonly upheld as shining examples of democracy, and will certainly suffice to apprise us of what democracy really signifies.

Taking first the case of Britain, an Englishman, H.G. Wells, has described the democracy of Britain in these words:

"The disintegrating British Empire is now, one has to recognize, a system of government almost completely out of popular control. Practically, it has undergone a reactionary revolution in the last decade, and loose knit combination of court, churches, army and wealth, intensely class conscious, intensely self-protective, has resumed control of affairs. It is an oligarchy, skilful in the assimilation of useful or formidable individuals, but without the slightest disposition to amalgamate with anything else on earth.

Its ruling motive is the fear of dispossession. Decisions involving peace or war are made without any pretence of consulting any surviving popular will, and the whole capitalist press, the cinema, the radio, and indeed all possible means of influencing opinion concentrate upon the assertion of the rightness and inevitability of these decisions. Dissent is a muffled and ineffective squeaking, and inconvenient facts are dept from the public by requests for suppression that are in effect commands.

There is a special "form D" ("D-notive") sent round to the press which it is extremely unwise to defy. Many of the acts of Mr. Chamberlain since September 1933 were as irresponsible as those of any dictator, equally unscrupulous and far more shameful. He made himself a dictator by tact and betrayal instead of by violence. There is in the long run very little to choose between a bully dictatorship and a "tacit" dictatorship. The latter may be less crushing but is more insidious in its attack upon human dignity".

From this writing, we can discern the following facts:

1. The so-called democratic government of Britain is nothing but an oligarchy, intensely class-conscious.
2. Important decisions such as those involving peace and war are made without consulting the people.
3. Democracy is unable to cope with situations requiring important decisions.
4. All manners of tricks and fraud are practiced to keep the public ignorant of the real facts.
5. When all is said and done, democracy can be worse than dictatorship. Mr. Wells speaks of Mr. Churchill's time will not hesitate in saying that he was a greater dictator than Mr. Chamberlain.

Our second example is the United States of America, said to be the home of democracy, bred and brought up there from its childhood. But the treatment meted out to its native Red Indian inhabitants is a blot on democracy, which cannot be washed away. And the power that the dollar has over the deliberations of Congress is too well known to need discussion. It wages wars, enters into alliances and makes peace; in fact everything that it does is done in the interest of the wealthy only.

It is evident that there is no real democracy anywhere. In an article on democracy in the Encyclopedia BRITTANICA, it has been said that if there has at any time been any form of government bordering on democracy, it has been in the city-states of Greece, and that thereafter there has never been democracy anywhere. But an English writer has made it abundantly clear that even in the city-states of Greece there was no genuine democracy. He says:

"It follows that, as slave population in Athens, for example, was as great or greater than that of the freemen, and as women took no part in the assemblies, there has never been a perfect democracy, according to modern political ideas, in the history of the world, nor is there any likelihood of one in future"

Modern parliaments and congresses have been modeled after the Roman Republic in which one party that is the patrician, alone was represents. In the modern age, the same thing is attained by other means. All parties are permitted inside the hall but the power is exercised by the majority determined? By the counting of the votes. How are the votes attracted? By means of wealth. Then, comes to govern the country? The rich. The same patrician class has come in by the back door.

Take whatever precautions you any contrivance that your ingenuity can suggest, you cannot prevent wealth from ruling the world unless man first changes his entire mental outlook, and comes round to the view shown by the QUR'AN that "The most honored of you in god is he who fears God most (is the most righteous of you)". (SURA 49/13). In other words, the recognition of a man's rank should be according to the extent of his purse. The world will never know peace until it is ruled by righteous, God-fearing people. This is both the teaching of the QUR'AN and the lesson of history. In party governments, which are the fashion of the day, only half of the population of the country has any voice, if at all.

In fact, my view is that in effect only a few of the upper rank actually rule the country, with the rest as mere tools to bring those few to power. But no one would deny that in a country ruled by party government, only the majority rule the nation. The rest are helpless lookers-on. This is one defect; let us proceed further. The division of the population of a country is made solely with a view to each party having a chance to rule. To deal out equal justice to all is neither their motto nor their motive. Equal justice is impossible with party government. The members of the minority must remain out of office, and cannot secure important posts.

Is not this an injustice? The courts of justice are open to all: but not so the administration. The men in office, who depend on the votes of the party for the position they hold, cannot afford to offend them. This is another serious defect of democracy. Then again, as every child is taught, unity is better than discord. The nation is one; but parties are a source of discord thrown among the people, resulting in dissention and disunity. This is also a very serious defect of democracy, as discord is created solely to enable a few of the upper rank to take the reins of power by turn.

Government by numbers can lead to ludicrous results. Take the example of a country with a population of four million. The election takes place, and a party with two million and one supporters comes to rule the other party, which has two million less one. In this way, so-called "representative" government passed on the principle of the greatest good for the greatest number, can lead to an absurd situation.

The ideal government according to the QUR'AN is one under which there should be no injustice even to a single man. The QUR'AN lays down that "if anyone slays person, unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land, it is as if he has slayed the whole people; and if anyone saves a life, it is as if he has saved the whole people". Just look at the standard of justice fixed by Islam and the rule of conduct laid down by the majority-ridden world of today.

The one criterion by which to judge the correctness of a rule of law or administration, as with a theory of science, is that it must hold good at all times and under all circumstances. History tells us that whenever put to the test of emergency, or under circumstances when exceptional qualities of the head and heat are required, the Rule of the Majority has invariably failed. When a man of genius appears on the scene, can this medley of mediocre men find it within themselves to give directions of him or lay down a code of do's and don'ts? Had they attempted to do so, neither Hannibal nor Napoleon would have been allowed to cross the Alps, and two of the greatest lessons of history showing the capacity of human determination would have remained untaught. The proponents of democracy are themselves conscious that in moments requiring extraordinary abilities or quick decisions, their democracy cannot stand, and the instinct of self-preservation compels them to yield to one-man rule. There is ample evidence of this in ancient annals, and this is abundantly corroborated by modern history too.

During the Acquaint war (B.C. 457), a consular army was intercepted by the enemy in the defiles of mount AEGIDUS, and so closely blockaded that there seemed no choice but death or disgraceful submission. Some horsemen, breaking through the hostile lines, brought the news to Rome, and the Senate, in alarm, resolved to appoint a dictator. Titus QUINCTIUS CINNCINATUS, a patrician violently opposed to popular claims, became dictator and delivered the army from the danger.

Manlius, who had bravely defended the capital during the Gallic invasion (B.C. 383), finding himself excluded from office by the jealousy of his brother patricians, declared himself the patron of the plebeians. This revived the old dissentions with all their former virulence. This was too much for the Republic to cope with, and Camillus was at once appointed dictator. By his orders Manlius was brought to trial, convicted of treason and thrown from the TARPEIAN rock (B.C. 382). What a close parallel to the modern "trials" of the defeated war "criminals" and the ready convictions, which ensued.

During the Punic wars this occasion arose many a time. When FLAMINIUS, the Roman consul was ambushed and slain with the greater part of his army (B.C. 216), the senate was alarmed, and FABIUS MAXIMUS was created dictator.

As I have stated above, the Roman Republic, from its inception, was completely captured by the patricians, and remained under their domination until its downfall. If foreign wars are excluded, Roman history is a long drawn-out story of the struggle between the patricians and the plebeians. From time to time persons arose to root out the corruption that had crept into patrician senate, but except for certain minor improvements, the situation remained unchanged. The last attempt to reform it was made by TIBERIUS GRACCHUS. He gained some initial success, and the senate, thoroughly alarmed, hastily assembled and passed a vote investing OPIMIUS whit dictatorial powers. GRACCHUS, with his men, fell (B.C. 120). A historian says, "With GRACCHUS perished the freedom of the Roman Republic; henceforth the supreme power of the state was wielded by a corrupt, avaricious and insolent aristocracy, from whose avarice and oppression even the worst tyranny of the worst of the emperors would have been a desirable relief".

Another serious drawback in the democratic form of government is that in its climate genius cannot thrive. The vice of jealousy implanted into the nature of man finds a congenial soil there for its speedy growth and easy propagation. In a democracy-ridden country, men have no encouragement or incentive to indulge in healthy rivalry with each other, because what decides fate there is not merit but votes, and votes can be had for money. It thus becomes a nation of mediocre talents. Men like Hannibal, Caesar, Charlemagne, Louis XIV, Philip II, Napoleon, and William would find no scope for the exercise of their God-given gifts in a democratic country. Jealousy nips budding genius in its first spring of flowering.

The fate of Hannibal and Scipio AFRICANUS is an apt illustration of this jealousy that governs the "home" policy of democratic governments. Having performed the superhuman task of crossing the Alps, Hannibal carried the war right into the heart of the enemy. For full fifteen years the Lion of Carthage was thundering at the gate of Rome and kept her trembling.

With all his supplies having to come from home, beset all round by enemies, and with lines of communication at the mercy of doubtful allies, Hannibal continued the war against the Mistress of the Ancient World solely to enhance the prestige and glory of Carthage. But his government became jealous of him and failed to send him succor, leaving him at the mercy of his and their enemies. His historian remarks, "the Carthaginian Government, never well inclined to Hannibal,

sent MAGO to Spain with the large contingent which it had promised to land in Italy, neglecting the decisive point in the theatre of war and sacrificing the principal to a subordinate interest". Even after the victory of CANNAE, Carthage failed to support her general in Italy. The historian says, "it is evident that for some time after CANNAE, Carthage had again, to some extent, the command of the sea; her conduct towards Hannibal is all the more to be condemned". In the end Hannibal was, so to speak, besieged and cornered in the south of Italy. In the hope that he might obtain some help from his country, he firmly held on to the Greek port of Croton, which gave him a good harbor. But, the historian rightly laments "he received no assistance from his ungrateful and base government".

There he maintained his position, his name still inspiring terror in Rome, when he was recalled home, and thus the Lion of CANNAE was balked of his prey. Carthage met the fate she deserved at the battle of ZAMA (B.C. 201) and an ignominious peace ended the glorious career of the hero of a hundred fights. But the "offence" of having ability and genius had yet to be sufficiently punished. Hannibal tried to improve the affairs of his country. But he was denounced to the Romans by his treacherous countrymen,

being accused of having secretly intrigued with Antiochus of Syria, who had caused a renewal of the wars in Greece. Having fear that he would be surrendered to his enemies, Hannibal fled his country and took refuge with Antiochus, who, when eventually defeated by the Romans, promised to give Hannibal up to them. That illustrious exile fled for refuge to the Prussian king of BITHNIA, but finding that he was still pursued by the vindictive hatred of the Romans, he put an end to his life by taking poison.

Now we turn to the conqueror of ZAMA, Scipio AFRICANUS, who saved Rome from certain death. Scipio AFRICANUS, and his brother LUCIUS Scipio, were sent to Antiochus. They pacified Greece and crossed into Asia, where they forced Antiochus to a general battle near the city of Magnesia where they completely routed him. He was forced to sue for peace by renouncing all his possessions in Europe, as well as those in Asia north of Mount Taurus, paying additionally a fine of about three million sterling, and promising to give up Hannibal (B.C. 189). But the SCIPIOS had won too many laurels to be allowed to wear them peacefully; the jealousy of the senate had been excited. On their return home the SCIPIOS were accused of having taken bribes from Antiochus and embezzling public money (B.C. 186). AFRICANUS refused to plead and went into voluntary exile at LITURNUM, where he died. LUCIUS was condemned, and on his refusal to pay the fine imposed, had all his property confiscated. This is the government "of the people, by the people, for the people".

History records many cases of faithful servants being degraded by their masters. To mention but three of them are General BELISARIUS, the BARMECIDES and WOLSEY; but their monarchs, JUSTINIAN, HARUN AL-RASHID and HENRY VIII respectively, convinced by the evidence, believed that their servants had ceased to be faithful. Anyhow, they were tyrants, and that is the nature of tyrants.

The above instances illustrating the defects of democracy have been drawn from ancient history. As the modern institutions are based on the old ones, their defects have crept into these modern ones too, with perhaps even greater force and effect. He, who says that there is democracy in Islam or that Islam favors it, must be entirely ignorant of the principles and spirit of Islam. Would Islam tolerate this glaring "DHULM" inherent in the nature of democracy?

It is sometimes suggested that the Prophet copied the institution of the tribe, in which the oldest man was selected as the leader. The following points deserve consideration in this connection:

1. The whole teaching of Islam is against division by tribe; as a matter of fact Islam leveled all such divisions to the ground. One united nation of Islam was evolved out of all these jarring elements. The Prophet could not follow the constitution of the tribe.

2. The tribe was a stage in the evolution of society, and had ceased to exist as a living institution by the time Muhammad appeared on the scene, though in the deserts of Arabia certain nomadic tribes till survived. The institution of tribe is based on joint ownership of land. The office of leader of chief is no doubt elective, but election is confined to one line and generally follows the rule of primogeniture. The Prophet had no grounds for following a dying institution and selecting it for his Islamic community, which was a progressive one that was to last for ever.

3. However, even if that rule is used, ABU BAKR had no place, for according to it Ali was the rightful heir.

4. If it is true that the Prophet wanted to follow the tribal law, why was this not pleaded at the SAQIFA? It was not even mentioned.

5. If tribal law was to remain, why did the Prophet not say so? As everything else relating to the "JAHILIYYA" (pre-Islamic days of ignorance) was being discarded, it would have been of immense importance to mention any such exception.

6. The tribes comprised only the BEDWINS of the desert; in the QUR'AN, they are described as the greatest enemies of the Prophet and God: "The Arabs of the desert are the worst in unbelief and hypocrisy, and most fitted to remain in ignorance of the laws laid down by God in the QUR'AN sent by God to His apostle; and God is All-knowing, All-wise". In view of this, would the Prophet imitate them in the way they conducted their government, bearing in mind that imitation always implies an acknowledgement of the superiority of the thing imitated?

7. Roaming with herds of cattle from pasture to pasture indicates a lower stage of society than settling down in cities and engaging in trade and agriculture. If the Prophet had any need to imitate anyone, why would he not imitate the most settled and advanced communities of HIRA and GHASSAN? R.A. Nicholson says, "In the kingdoms of HIRA and GHASSAN, pre-Islamic culture attained its highest development and from these centers it diffused itself and made its influence felt throughout Arabia". Both of them were kingdoms ruled by hereditary princes, and were on the northern borders of Arabia.

8. If the Prophet had needed to imitate anyone, why would he not imitate the government of MAKKA, which was confined to the men who served the KA'BA. The servant of the KA'BA used to be the ruler of MAKKA. This service was confined to the QURAISH who divided it into different departments entrusted to different families. These offices were hereditary and descended from father to son. There was no election here. In fact the Prophet was not to imitate anyone. He was commissioned to establish God's kingdom on earth, and was to lay down that constitution most suited to this objective. It was theocracy, in which the only ruler was God and the only law was that of the QUR'AN. For a knowledge of the constitution of this theocracy we should closely study the Holy QUR'AN, and find out whether it requires the government to be democratic or monarchical. The following verses are relevant in this connection:

"Tell them, obey God and His apostle. But if they turn back, God does not love the disbelievers. (SURA III, 32) "Those who obey God and His apostle will be admitted to paradise with rivers flowing beneath". (SURA IV, 13) "O ye who believe, obey God and obey His apostle and those who have received the commandment, if you are in dispute regarding anything, refer it to God and the Prophet, provided you believe in God and the Last Day". (SURA IV, 59)

"But no, by thy Lord, they can have no real faith until they acknowledge thee as their overlord in all disputes between them, and find in their souls no resistance against thy sentences, but accept them with the fullest submission". (SURA IV, 65) The requirements of a theocracy are (1) implicit obedience to the king, (2) a fixed and fully known law based on strict justice, and (3) gradation in society that is not according to wealth but according to piety and fear of God.

The QUR'AN says: "The most honored of you in the sight of God is the most righteous and pious of you". (SURA XLIX, 13). Status in society is determined according to the honor and respect to which each of its members of society is entitled. To acquire as much honor and respect in eyes of his fellows as possible has been the ambition of man from the beginnings of society. Personal valor, beauty, learning and wealth have been the chief means of attaining this object. Of these, the first three are neither easy to attain nor of permanent effect. Moreover, the notions about them have been changing with time. There was an age when personal valor was everything, and the knights of Middle Ages were the most respected members of society. But the present age of technology has entirely changes the angle of vision.

Beauty has been relegated to the region of taste, and the effects of learning can be purchased by wealth. Now wealth has come to stay as the solitary criterion of social honor, and yet this is the main source of all evils and vices, allowing free course neither to justice nor to sanctions. The Holy QUR'AN does away with this source of evil, and says that the criterion of social honor should be virtue and not wealth. If a men fears God, he may be safely trusted to act with justice between men, and will not intentionally do anything, which may incur the displeasure of God, and this entails exhibiting every virtue.

Useful hints on the subject are to be had from the story of TALUT. The rich chiefs of the Israelites objected to his being the king on the grounds that he was not as wealthy as they were, and urged that a king be selected from their rich men. The Prophet replied, "God has chosen him above you, and has gifted him abundantly with knowledge and bodily prowess. God grants His authority to whom He pleases. God cares for all, and He knows all things".

From this story of TALUT, the following principles can readily be inferred:

1. In the kingdom of God on earth, that is, the theocracy, it is for God to appoint a king.
2. The people have no hand in that appointment.
3. Wealth or influence is not the determining factor.
4. The appointment is made on the basis of personal valor and knowledge. Personal valor in a king is necessary even in this age of technology; and the type of knowledge required is that which is gifted by God to the selected few, as is mentioned in the QUR'AN in many places.
5. The obvious conclusion is that the ruler of a theocracy cannot be appointed by the suffrage of the people.

The QUR'AN also prescribes the qualities, which must be present in a person who is to rule the theocracy. Personal valor and divinely-gifted knowledge have been mentioned above. Besides those qualifications, there are other requisites. He must be the most honored man in the community; honor being based on the fear of God, he must therefore be the most God-fearing of all his subjects. Now, God ordains that implicit obedience must be rendered to Him, the Prophet and the rulers of the theocracy, which is in fact the kingdom of god on earth. From this it follows that the head of this theocratic state must always be immaculate, the most learned in law, the best in knowledge of the correct interpretation of the QUR'AN, and entirely free form personal bias or selfish considerations, and must always follow the straight path prescribed by God, fearing or favoring no one,

and making every decision and giving every order strictly in accordance with justice, equity and QUR'ANIC law, correctly understood and rightly interpreted. In short, he must never perform even a single act which is not in conformity with QUR'ANIC law, otherwise it could be argued that God, in having unequivocally and unconditionally commanded the Muslims to implicitly obey the ruler of the theocracy appointed by Him, had condoned that unlawful, unjust or incorrect order. In anticipation of this argument, the theologians have laid down that obedience is not due in matters of sin. But a flaw in this dogma is that in the relevant verse of the QUR'AN, the order to obey them is unconditional,

and does not say that obedience is due only if their order is in conformity with God's law. This un-conditionality is based on the idea that the men of authority appointed by God, like the prophet to whom obedience is made obligatory, are the vicegerents of God on earth in the true sense of the word, and are so learned in law that they are sure not to commit any mistake or sin, in either their words or deeds. A second flaw is that this dogma of the ULEMA could be true only so far as it goes, but this is not far enough. Words and deeds can be of two kinds, namely (a) those words and deeds whose sinful nature is apparent on the surface, and (b) those whose sinful nature is not commonly known,

and can be disclosed only by a close reading of the QUR'AN and its correct interpretation. Further compounding this problematical flaw of how to readily differentiate a ruler's sinful acts is that, just as ordinary people are loath to admit their guilt even in glaring cased of sin, with some explanation always ready, so too rulers and men in authority. History does not record a single instance of a ruler having confessed his guilt before his subjects. NERON burnt Rome without remorse of regret, though Rome's are not burnt every day. In such glaring cases of tyrants who are also fools, sins may be obvious, but then it is rare to find tyranny combined with stupidity. Tyrants always have explanations ready to hand. With Muslim rulers the case was much more difficult. The QADIS and Muftis were at their beck and call to pander to their wishes by giving a "FATWA" legalizing their actions. I give below an English translation of an extract from "TARIKH AL-KHULAFA" of JALAL-ED-DIN AS-SAYYUTI to illustrate my point:

"When HARUN AL-RASHID ascended the throne, he fell in love with a concubine of his father, who objected to his advance by urging that as she had shared a bed with his father, according to the QUR'ANIC law she could not lawfully submit to his embraces. He sent for the famous ABU YUSUF, pupil of Imam ABU HANIFA, and ordered him to find a means of making her lawful for him. ABU YUSUF told him to adopt the easiest course, which was not to believe that she had been the concubine of his father…. What is one to think of the QADI of the town, who allowed the king to indulge in his unlawful lust, and thus took the sin on his own neck? ABDALLAH IBN YUSUF says that once HARUN told his QADI ABU YUSUF that he had purchased a slave girl and wanted to have sexual connection with her before the prescribed period of "ISTIBRA", and asked him to devise a means of avoiding the Islamic law. The QADI replied that the device was to gift the girl to one of his sons, and then marry her. ISHAQ IBN RAHUYA says that one night,

HARUN sent for ABU YUSUF, took a FATWA from him according to his desire, and ordered one hundred thousand DIRHAMS to be paid to the QADI by way of reward. ABU YUSUF prayed that the money should be paid to him at that very moment. HARUN asked his servant to pay the amount to the QADI there and then. The man said that it was night, the treasurer had gone home, and that all the gates of the town had been closed. ABU YUSUF said that the city gates had been closed even when he had been sent for. On his insistence, the money was then paid to the QADI".

The facts speak for themselves and fully demonstrate the impracticability of the dogma that there is no obedience in matters of sin. Sinful potentates can compel obedience even in matters of sin. The only conclusion is that this verse of the Holy QUR'AN is applicable only to those successors of Prophet who were created and intended by God to succeed Muhammad, and in whose nature both justice and knowledge were blended. The check on power, to be effective, must come from within; the check from without has always proved ineffective.

It is admitted by all Muslims that in the Islamic State, the real ruler is God, and the only law is His Book. But then why is it that in spite of God and His Book, there has never been Islamic rule in any Islamic country from the death of the Prophet up to the present time? All the Muslim historians agree on this point; however, they make an exception for the thirty-year period of rule of the first four Caliphs. This exception is based on religious scruples, and not on the testimony of facts. Many instances may be cited to disprove this exception. To quote but one of them, was it justice to invade Persia, kill her inhabitants, loot their property and bring ill repute to their religion by pleading that it was in the interests of Islam, when Persia had given them no cause to justify the invasion? Was it justice to kill thousands of Muslims, simply because they had refused to pay the ZAKAT, when death was not the penalty for non-payment of ZAKAT? Anyhow, it is certain that strict, impartial justice is impossible for a man who depends for his authority on the votes of his partisans.

It is, therefore, patent that the head of a theocracy having the necessary qualifications can be selected and appointed by God alone. He is, of course, to be declared by the Prophet, as was the case with TALUT.

Point (8): Precedents of the Previous Prophets:

The QUR'AN says that God's ways are the same as they have been with those who have gone before, and that "You will never find any change in God's ways (of dealing). Therefore, what God's ways have been with regard to the succession in the case of the Prophets before Muhammad is a very relevant question? An enquiry into those cases thoroughly disproves the Non-appointment Theory. Such accounts of the previous Prophets as were available have been very carefully collected and arranged by TABARI, IBN AL-ATHIR, AL-MAS'UDI, and ABU AL-FIDA in their Histories. Those Histories, the Bible and the QUR'AN are the authorities for what follows in this connection.

We learn that when Moses went to the mountain to "meet" God, he appointed his brother Aaron as his Caliph among the children of Israel to represent him during his absence. Moses prayed to God to associate Aaron with him in the work of his NUBUWWA. We further learn from the Bible that God selected Aaron and his sons out of all the Israelites, and appointed them as the representatives of Moses in the matter of officiating as priests at the altars. This reminds us of the prayer of Muhammad to God at the commencement of his ministry that He might associate Ali in the work of his mission, just as He had accepted the prayer of Moses regarding Aaron. The following table is prepared from the various historical books; it shows that each Prophet appointed his own brother, son or relative as his Caliph or successor after him.

Name of Prophet Nominee (and also nominator of successor) ADAM (His son, SETH) SETH (His son, ENOS (ANUSH) ENOS (His son, CAINAN) CAINAN (His son, MAHALALEEL) MAHALALEEL (His son, JARED) JARED (His son, ENOCH(IDRI) ENOCH (His son, METHUSELAH) METHUSELAH (His son, LAMECH) LAMECH (His son, NOAH) NOAH (His son, SHEM)

In the Bible, the message, which is thus transferred, is called "God's Covenant", and in Muslim theology it is called AL-WASIYYA. TABARI writes, "When death approached METHUSELAH, he nominated his son LAMECH as his successor, and transferred God's covenant to him". In the same manner, JACOB nominated YUSUF, one of his younger sons, and YUSUF appointed his brother YAHUDHA as his successor. The principle of heredity was carried to such an extent that the elder brothers of YUSUF, who were by another mother, were not appointed, while YAHUDHA, who was by the same mother as YUSUF, was preferred. Job nominated his son as his successor. Christ also nominated his own successor. In "MURUJ AL-DAHAHB" of AL-MAS'UDI, we find a very relevant passage, which is translated as follows:

"This WASIYYA (God's Covenant) continued to be transferred from time to time, until God entrusted the NUR (Light) to ABD AL-MUTTALIB, and then to his son ABDALLAH. Here the Muslims differ; one party believes in "NASS", that is, express nomination by the Prophet Muhammad (P), and the other section believes that the people had the right to select the Caliph. Those who believe in the nomination by the Prophet are the SHI'AS of Ali and his children. They are of the opinion that the Prophet nominated Ali as his successor, and that in every age there is bound to be an Imam appointed under the express command of God; he is either a Prophet, as was the case before Muhammad, or the Prophet's WASI, as in the case of Ali. Those believing in selection by the people are the SUNNIS, including the MO'TAZILA, KHAWARIJ, MURJI'A and ZAIDIYYA, who believe that God and the Prophet delegated the power of appointing the Imam to the UMMA, and that there are intervals of many ages when there is no Imam".

This passage deserves careful consideration, as it clarifies many important points:

(a) It shows that the main divisions of the Muslims are only two, the SUNNIS who believe in the Non-appointment Theory, and the SHI'AS who believe in the Nomination Theory and maintain that the Prophet (P) designated Imam Ali as his immediate successor. (b) This division has been created only on the question of the Imamate or Caliphate.

(c) Notice the word "WASIYYA" in this passage. It is the same WASIYYA, which the Prophet wanted to set down in writing on his deathbed, but which UMAR prevented him from doing for obvious reasons. This will be narrated in its own place shortly.

(d) Notice the "NUR". In Muslim theological parlance, "NUR" is much more subtle and ethereal than "soul". It is generally spoken of as the source of the soul of the soul of those persons of a high, sublime and celestial nature who are intended by God to be far ahead of ordinary people in spiritual matters. It is impossible to define it more accurately or to know its nature more exactly. And no wonder, because science, in spite of the miraculous discoveries and inventions that it has made, still does not know exactly what light is, beyond the fact that it comes to us from bodies which themselves give out light, such as the sun, the stars and some meteors in the heavens, and from burning substances on earth. Here it refers to the Prophets and their Caliphs. Now remember the saying of the Prophet (P) "I and Ali are portions of the same NUR". I will have to come back to this saying later.

(e) Note the belief of the majority section that there are many intervals when there is no Imam of the Muslims, and contrast it with the recognized saying of the Prophet that the man, who dies without recognizing and acknowledging the Imam of his time, dies the death of a heathen. The belief in intervals without any Imam is therefore wrong, as it is in direct conflict with this saying of the Prophet, which is admitted to be genuine by the whole of the UMMA. If this belief is proved to be wrong, then the main belief of which it is a corollary, that is, the Non-appointment Theory, must also be wrong.

If the reader belong to that class of "learned" people who do not believe in God, Prophets, God's Covenant, and so on, it is have no matter for the present argument. The prophet, Muhammad (P), believed in all these things, and we are concerned only with what in all probability Muhammad did, or should be presumed to have done, considering his knowledge and beliefs, and what God (whose attributed were related to us by the Prophet, one of which is that his orders, dispensations, laws and rules are immutable and liable to neither conflict nor contradiction with each other) did in the case of the succession to Muhammad, or should be presumed in all probability to have done in the matter. Can anyone honestly say that with these precedents before him and his UMMA, he did not nominate his successor? Reason refuses to believe it. Did God change his own established law in this solitary case? I for one could not believe so.

Point (9): The Electors and the Candidates - What the Prophet Thought to them:

To secure ideal results at an election, the electors, or at least the majority of them, must be scrupulously honest, selfless, intelligent, sufficiently educated to realize the requirements of the office for which they have gathered to elect a person, and must be entirely without bias or selfish motives, so that they may coolly, calmly and dispassionately discuss and discriminate between the qualifications of all the persons from whom they are to elect the most able. The names and information about the abilities of the candidates should also be in front of them. We shall come to see the qualities of the electors of the SAQIFA, and their propensity or ability to select the most suitable person to the Caliphate, when we come to narrate that momentous event, which had such a potent influence on the course and shape of Islamic history, and which entirely changed the character of Islamic theology through the adverse influence of this political coup d'etat. UMAR, realizing the full significance of the action,

exhorted the people not to emulate it in future; but it was so closely in consonance with the tendencies of the flesh that in spite of this exhortation, political maneuvers on the lines of this coup d'etat became the order of the day. Each successful party tried to justify its actions from the principles deducible from this first great political act of the companions of the Prophet (P). Muslim theology thus became subject to many and various changes, conflicts and contradictions, as those political actions, based on the exigencies of the moment, were bound to be contradictory and conflicting, and the actors had thus to mould the shape of Muslim theology to suit their own ends. Suffice it to say here that the Prophet knew full well that the majority of his companions were not up to his standard, and were quite unfit to elect the head of this theocracy, and that therefore he should not leave this matter of far reaching consequences to their own will.

Every book wherein the sayings of the Prophet have been collected contains a chapter headed "KITAB AL-FITAN" containing the Prophet's predictions, and describing the men left behind on his death. They are more in the nature of foresight than prophecy. Even "SAHIH AL-BUKHARI" has this ominous chapter. I quote from it very briefly below.

The Prophet said: "Tumult, oppression and faithlessness will arise when I am gone; they will attract towards themselves every man that stops to look at them".

Looking down from a hillock, the Prophet said: "I see what you do not see. I see tumult, oppression and tyranny entering your houses as do the drops of rain".

"Just after my death, confusion, tumult, oppression and faithlessness will arise and surge like waves of the sea. They will be as dark as the darkest night".

(See also in this connection the HADITH of HAUD, mentioned on pages 24-25 of this book). The Prophet said: "Just after me, there will come rulers who will lead you to ungodliness and heathenism if you obey them, and they will kill you if you refuse to obey them".

The Prophet said" "After my death, my children will literally meet usurpation, oppression and assassination at the hands of my UMMA". The Prophet likened his UMMA to that of Moses, who asked Aaron to make a god for them when Moses had gone to the Mount to meet God; the Prophet added that they would commit all sorts of iniquities that had been committed by the UMMA before them. It is Imam Ali who will drive away the guilty companions from the Prophet's HAUD.

The Prophet said: "By God, after me, tumult, oppression and iniquities will arise from this mosque of mine". This means that people would gather there on the pretext of saying prayers, but would collude with each other to deprive his children of their rights. The Prophet said: "After my death, there will come a time when a man will be Muslim in the morning, and KAFIR in the evening, MO'MIN in the evening and KAFIR in the morning, and they will sell their faith very cheaply".

I ask you in the name of justice and equity whether the Prophet was likely to leave the question of his successor to the tender mercies of such people, and whether he would have been unconcerned as to who out of such people would succeed him.

Point (10): The Dangers of Leaving the Question of Succession to the Votes of the People and the Prophet's Knowledge of those Dangers:

In view of the condition of the people, as related above in the words of the Prophet himself, the danger of leaving the succession to be made the plaything of trivial jealousies and individual ambitions must have been obvious to the Prophet (P). The fact that in the case of the majority of the people the training and education received from the Prophet was only a veneer over their native ungodliness and refractoriness, as observed by various writers and proved by subsequent events, was of course known to the Prophet, as has been shown above. S.KHUDA BAKHSH of BANKEPUR says: "The most striding feature in the character of the Arabs is their nervous excitability; the Arab character may accordingly be divided into two classes.

In the one, the wild, unrestrained BEDWIN disposition shows itself. Its characteristics are greed, fondness for plunder, excessive sensuality, and an unrefined pride. In the more enlightened nature, where these wild impulses were suppressed or controlled by a more highly developed sense of morality, one finds a deep pervading melancholy, insensibly passing into religious fervor and ecstasy…. We notice the two aspects of the Arab character in the companions of the Prophet. The majority of the companions fall under the first heading; gold and property were everything to them. The most distinguished companions of the Prophet, especially those nominated by UMAR to the Council of Regency, acquired immense wealth".

Referring to the change wrought by the QUR'AN and Muhammad's teachings, AL-ALLAMA ENAYAT ALLAH AL-MASHRIQI writes in his "TADHKIRA".

"All this was the undeniable miracle wrought by Islam and the QUR'AN. But no one could change the nature and character of the Arabs. Those habits and peculiarities of character, which had been ingrained in their nature for thousands and thousands of years, could not leave them in such a short time. Those paganistic ideas, which had become part of their nature for aeons could not but leave their effect on them. Under the influence of the monotheistic and orthodox teachings of the QUR'AN, they could change the superficial form of their rituals and customs and could also appear to have left their forefathers' beliefs and traditions outwardly; but they could give up only outwardly their family disputes and tribal feuds.

They cold also take leave, though very reluctantly, of their personal pride in their beauty of speech; but they could in no case change their nature inclinations and habits of thought…. They were in fact the same superstitious dwellers of that very land, and had been bred and brought up in that very atmosphere of feuds, disputes and factions, as the Israelites who, after accepting the teachings of Moses, had discarded them during his short absence on the mountain of Sinai, and had begun to worship the calf in place of the true God".

Another, German, scholar says:

"In Arabia, the transformation of conditions had been effected far too rapidly and radically to alter the Arab nature". S.KHUDA BAKHSH again:

"The pagan Arab still lurked behind the thin veneer of Islam. He could not imagine Muhammad's prohibition of wine, which according to the Arab was the fountain of honor, virtue, bravery and generosity…. It seems that the Arabs did not very scrupulously observe the laws of the Prophet concerning matrimony and the relation of the sexes".

MAWLAWI SHIBLI says that in the case of a majority of the Companions, the only incentive to war against the infidels was not the love of Islam but the love of booty ("GHANIMA"). He recites many instances of their improper and inordinate indulgence in this passion. Once an army was sent by the prophet to fight a tribe of the infidels. One man was walking ahead, when a man of the enemy tribe met him, and asked if there was any means of escaping their fate. He replied that it was the acceptance of Islam. The entire tribe adopted this method, and the war was averted. The whole army was greatly incensed against the man who had suggested this remedy, as they were balked of their prize,

namely the booty. When the prophet was apprised of this, he approved the conduct of the man. Here is yet another instance. Once they were reduced to great straits. They espied a flock of goats belonging to the infidels, and looted it, killing the goats. When the flesh was being cooked on the fire, the prophet was informed about it. He came to the spot and threw away the contents of the pots, saying that the looted property was as unlawful as the dead animals' flesh. Another example is the battle of HUNAIN, which was lost because the Muslim soldiers occupied their selves with looting.

It is obvious that it was very dangerous to leave question of the succession to be solved by such people through election, and that the prophet knew this.

Points (11) & (12):

These have been dealt with above under the other points.