3
Islam
after the Death of the Prophet
AFTER the death of Prophet Muhammad, the Muslims elected
Sayyidina Abubakar as their Caliph. When he died Sayyidina Omar was elected,
and then Sayyidina Othman and finally Sayyidina Ali. These were the four Caliphs
of Muslims after the death of the Prophet.
Differences among the Muslims came about
during the last days of the third Caliph—Sayyidina Othman, and during the whole
period of the last Caliph—Sayyidina Ali. To understand the reasons of the
differences, we have to know something about the reign of each of the four
Caliphs.
1.
Sayyidina Abubakar
His
full name is Abubakar Al-Siddiq Abdullah bin Othman bin Amur bin Umru bin Kaab
Ibn Saad bin Tamim bin Murrah; and here his tree meets with that of the Prophet—
Peace be upon him.
The
Sahabas, companions of the Prophet, unanimously agreed that he was the most
beloved person to the Prophet. He accompanied the Prophet when he migrated from
Mecca to Al-Madinah. He was thus elected Caliph in the year 632. He enjoyed
full confidence of the Prophet and was entrusted with the responsibility of
leading the prayer during the last days of the Prophet’s life.
There
is no need to go into details about his leadership because, in spite of petty
differences with his colleagues, Abubakar led the Muslims as an exemplary
Caliph until his death in the year 634 the age of 63.
2.
Sayyidina Omar
His
full name is Omar bin Al-Khattab bin Nafiyl bin Abd Al-Izza bin Karat bin Ribah
bin Abdullah bin Razat bin Ady bin Kaab, and here he meets with the family of
Prophet Muhammad—Peace be upon him. He was born 13 years after the Prophet’s
birth and embraced Islam four years before the Prophet’s migration to
Al-Madinah.
His
physical strength, bravery and courage made him an outstanding figure in his
society. When he decided to join the Prophet in Al-Madinah he did not go
secretly but made his departure openly known and challenged anyone who dared to
prevent him from migrating to Al-Madinah.
During his period as Caliph many
countries such as Syria, Iraq, Palestine, Iran and Egypt came under his rule.
He was the first person to decide the Muslim calendar basing it on the Prophet’s
migration from Mecca to Al-Madinah. In fact, he did many things for Islam but
had a sad end when one, Abi Luiluah stabbed him in the stomach with a poisoned
knife in the mosque when the Caliph refused his plea for the reduction of taxes
imposed upon him by his master. The assassin killed himself and Sayyidina Omar
died three days later in the year 645.
3.
Sayyidina Othman
He is
Othman bin Affan bin Abi Al-As bin Umayyah bin Abd Shams bin Abd Manaf—and here
he meets with the Prophet’s tree. He was born six years after the Prophet’s
birth. He married two daughters of the Prophet—Ruqayah and Um Kul-Thoum. Othman
was a member of the committee of six appointed by the late Caliph Omar to
select their next Caliph. Other members were Ali, Abdul Rahman bin Auf, Talha,
Zubeir and Saad bin Abi Wiqas. As
these were also candidates for the Caliphate after the death of Omar, they had to
agree among themselves as to who should be the Caliph. Abdul Rahman bin Auf who
withdrew his candidature voluntarily was requested by his colleagues to
nominate a suitable candidate from amongst his colleagues. He chose Othman who was
accepted by all but was opposed initially by Ali, who later withdrew his
opposition in the interest of preserving stability and avoiding internal conflicts.
Othman was charged with nepotism and
favouritism to his relatives and serious frictions developed among the Muslims and
there were many attempted coups and upheavals challenging his authority. The
dispute which led to the end of Othman’s life was between Amr Ibn Al-As who was
appointed Governor of Egypt by Caliph Omar and Abdullah bin Saad who was appointed
Governor of Egypt by Othman to replace Amr. This ended in a revolt by the
Egyptian people who went to Al-Madinah and attacked Othman with a sword which
ended his life in 656, after imposing a siege on his house lasting for one month
while the people in Al-Madinah merely watched.
4.
Sayyidina Ali
Following
the death of Caliph Othman, Sayyidina Ali was elected Caliph. He was the last
Caliph whose reign ended in 661. There was unrest and instability in Al-Madinah
after the death of Othman but normal life returned when Ali was elected. Being
brought up by the Prophet as an adopted son, Ali was very close to the Prophet.
He also married the Prophet’s daughter Sayyida Fatma. When the Prophet took refuge
at Al-Madinah, Ali was entrusted with the responsibility of looking after the
Prophet’s property in Mecca and of restoring the property entrusted to the
Prophet by their owners.
It was
Ali’s desire to punish the people who killed Othman, but it was not possible
for him to take immediate steps because the Muslim Army was not in Al-Madinah
at that time.
The
decision to appoint new governors to replace those appointed by Othman was
challenged by Muawiya who was the Governor (and king) of Syria. Muawiya charged
Ali that he had failed to punish those who killed Othman. Fierce fighting took
place and thousands of people lost their lives and Muawiya was nearly defeated
but he resorted to a trick demanding compromise. Ali sought the advice of his
people but many of them refused any compromise with Muawiya on the grounds that
Muawiya and his supporters were Muslims and since Ali was the Caliph for all
the Muslims, they had no right to wage war against him; and since they decided
to fight him, they were mistaken; hence no reason for a compromise. If Muawiya’s
group wished to point out mistakes, they had the right to approach the Caliph
with their complaints, which would have been dealt with peacefully according to
the teachings of the Kuran, but not to wage war against the Caliph. Hence there
was no need for a compromise. That was the ruling of Ali’s people, but on the
other hand, another group from among his people favoured the compromise, and
through much persuasion, Ali agreed to a compromise. This marked the beginning
of the division between the supporters of Caliph Ali.
A big
group consisting of many companions of the Prophet defected from Ali in protest
against the compromise. This resulted in the creation of three groups—Muawiya’s
group, Ali’s group and the defectors’ group.
The compromise, however, was not in
Ali’s favour for he was removed from the Caliphate and Muawiya was placed in power.
The results being that, Ali refused the compromise, but it was too late as a
long period had already passed since fighting was stopped, and Ali could not convince
the group which refused the compromise to come back to him, and at the same
time Muawiya’s group had already gathered strength and it was not possible to
attack them. Ali was attacked when he was going to a mosque and died three days
later in the year 661 at the age of 63.
Sayyidina Hassan
His
full name is Al-Hassan bin Ali bin Abi Talib. He was the son of Caliph Ali bin
Abi Talib and the grandson of the Prophet from his daughter Sayyida Fatma.
Al-Hassan
was elected Caliph but he resigned after nine months in favour of Muawiya.
On
being elected, he made two conditions, viz.:
1.
All
people should support him if he decides to wage war against whoever he decides
to fight.
2.
All
people should support him if he decides to make a compromise with anyone.
With
these two conditions people with speculation understood that Hassan would not
fight Muawiya, but would leave the Caliphate to him in order to save the people
from distress. The inference was correct. When one person congratulated him on
being elected Caliph and told him that he should lead them according to the
Kuran and the prophetic traditions and fight the rebels who destroyed the rule
of Islam, Hassan made it quite clear to all the people that it was enough to
emphasize on following the Kuran and the traditions because these two include
everything. Hence there was no need to add other things. With this statement
people who did not like peace and stability became unhappy.
When
Muawiya heard about the election of Hassan as a new Caliph he organised an army
of 60,000 people and set off to fight Hassan. Hassan on his part, when he heard
about Muawiya’s army, organised his army of 40,000 people and set off to meet
Muawiya’s army. Muawiya was coming from Syria and Hassan from Iraq, and they
met somewhere on the borders between Arabia and Iran. There happened some
dishonesty in Hassan’s army and Hassan sensed that he could not trust his soldiers,
and accordingly he called his colleagues and asked them for their advice
according to the Kuranic teachings that people should consult each other. When
they met, Hassan told them that he had seriously considered the situation and
had prayed to the Almighty to show him what is beneficial in his Caliphate, and
he had decided to:
(a) Abdicate,
and
(b) Leave
the Caliphate to Muawiya on the following condition:
(1) That
when he dies (Muawiya being older than Hassan) then he takes the Caliphate.
(2) When
he (Hassan) dies, Hussain should take over.
(3) That
he (Muawiya) should not harm or annoy anyone who supported his father (Ali) or
himself.
(4) That
he should be allowed by Muawiya to settle in Al-Madinah with complete freedom
of speech and movement.
(5) Anybody
among his supporters and his father’s should be allowed to settle anywhere he
liked without any hindrance.
(6) That
Muawiya should help him in maintaining the poor people who are
dependent upon him.
(7) That
Muawiya should help him in other things also.
After long discussion with his colleagues a consensus was reached in
support of Hassan. Hassan then wrote a letter to Muawiya informing him of his
decision and entrusted Amr bin Salamah to send it. Muawiya replied to him and
delegated Abdul Rahman bin Samura and Abdullah bin Amur with full powers to
conclude an agreement on the issue. When discussions were held with Hassan, an
agreement was reached favouring all conditions put forward by Hassan.
The
two armies met on the borders at Miskin and Sayyidina Al-Hassan made a
speech and informed his Army about the compromise. Many people were
disappointed but they could not do anything. Qais bin Saad, however, revolted against
Hassan and defected with some soldiers who supported him to fight Muawiya.
Muawiya, however, succeeded to persuade Qais to join him—an incident which
ended the conflict.
The
two armies went to Al-Kufa where Sayyidina Al-Hassan handed over the Caliphate
to Muawiya. The Scene was sad and many people were disappointed but that was
how it came about through the wisdom of Sayyidina Al-Hassan who is considered
the fifth Caliph.
The
dissatisfied people remained unchanged, and we have seen that when Sayyidina Ali
accepted a compromise with Muawiya, people were divided into three groups.
(1)
Supporters
of Ali who was no longer Caliph because of accepting a compromise and be ousted
by Muawiya.
(2)
Supporters
of Muawiya.
(3)
Those
who refused a compromise and left Ali. These elected their own leader whom they
called Imam and led their lives according to the teachings of the Prophet.
The
Islamic law requires that Muslims should have their leader whether they call
him Caliph or Imam. For this reason, those who opposed a compromise elected
their Imam before they knew the results of the compromise, which they opposed. When
the results of the compromise were unfavourable to Sayyidina Ali, he decided to
resume fighting with Muawiya, but failed as his army was weak.
At this stage we shall stop
discussing the disputes and misunderstandings which led to divisions among the
Muslims. The theme of the discussion is about Oman and Ibadhism; hence we shall
base our discussion now on how Oman emerged out of the diversity with a
doctrinal unity that has been subjected to many misrepresentations.
4
Causes
of Misunderstanding
FOR the mistakes made by writers of Islamic history in
explaining the events of Tahkim, it has come to be widely believed that
the people who refused the arbitration between Caliph Ali and Muawiya—an event
which was known as “Al-Mahakama—” against whom Caliph Ali waged war at
Nahrawan, are the Khawarij, (the breakaway sect). This is wrong
understanding.
After
refusing the Tahkim, these people settled at a town called Nahrawan
and were later killed at their own town and only nine persons survived.
Thereafter many people revolted against the rule of Bani Umayya until the
appearance of Khawarij under the leadership of Nafy bin Al-Arzaq.
The
Nahrawan battle, therefore, is a discord between the companions which resulted
in fighting between Caliph Ali and people who refused arbitration (Tahkim).
As for Khawarij—the defectors—they were of two types:
(1)
Political,
like Al-Hussein, Ibn Al-Zubeir, Bilal, Mukhtar, Suleiman bin Hard and others.
(2)
Politico
religious; and this too was initiated by Nafy bin Al-Arzaq and resulted in Khawarij.
To
explain the meaning of Fitna (discord) among the companions, it simply
means differences of opinions and what follows therefrom in disputes and
fighting. A number of cases happened among the companions which led to disputes
and wars and these became known as discords or Fitan. The most noteworthy
among these were four:
(1)
Fitnat
Al-Dar (House discord)
(2)
Fitnat
Al-Jamal (Jamal discord)
(3)
Fitnat
Safiyn (Safiyn discord)
(4)
Fitnat
Nahrawan (Nahrawan discord)
The
first discord happened during the last year of Caliph Othman when some people
criticised and accused him of misrule. When they told him their charges, he
apologised for some of the criticisms and prayed for God’s forgiveness. For some
criticisms he rejected them and said it was his right as a Caliph to act as he
did. This caused resentment from his opposers to the extent that they asked him
to abdicate to which he refused. They attacked him and killed him; an incident which
resulted in two opposing groups—those who supported him and those who opposed
him. This incident was called Fitnat Al-Dar, and it was the first discord
between the Muslims.
The
second discord was in connection with election of Caliph Ali when the opposers
and supporters disputed and fought on the day known as the Jamal Day. According
to Al-Masuudy, eighteen thousand people were killed. This was the second
discord between the Muslims.
When
Caliph Ali was elected, he decided to remove the governors in different
countries, among whom was Muawiya. Muawiya resented and demanded the blood of
Caliph Othman claiming that he was his successor. He also accused Caliph Ali to
have had a hand in the assassination of Othman or at least in allowing the assassination.
Fierce fighting took place at a place called Safiyn. According to
Al-Masuudy in Muruji Al-Dhahab, one hundred and ten thousand
people died in this battle. This was the third discord between the Muslims.
In the
battle of Safiyn we have seen that when Muawiya felt the weakness of his army he
demanded arbitration. This resulted in hot contentions between supporters and
opposers of Muawiya’s plea. Finally, Caliph Ali agreed to a compromise following
the opinion of the majority. Representatives of the two sides were nominated to
conclude an agreement. Ali’s representative announced that he had agreed with
Muawiya’s representative that the two leaders be ousted from their positions and
people should elect their new leader. Muawiya’s representative denied having
made that announcement and said that he had agreed with Ali’s representative to
oust Ali and to establish Muawiya as the Caliph. Ali then denounced the
arbitration—Tahkim—because the arbitrators had not relied on the Kuran
and that they did not agree with each other. Ali then resorted to the people
who opposed the Tahkim and had abandoned the army when Ali agreed to the
Tahkim and who had by then elected their Imam. Ali asked them to rejoin
him and continue to fight the people of Sham, but these people refused. Long
discussions followed between them and Ali’s people but to no avail. Ali then
decided to fight them at their town of Nahrawan. According to Al-Masuudy four
thousand people were killed. This was the fourth discord.
In
looking into these four discords, it is clear that the main cause was
difference opinions between two parties. On one side there was the Caliph with
his followers and on the other the opposition, and each side believed in its
opinion. Yet another party stood aloof and did not take sides with the
contending parties. An interesting thing to note is that in each party there were
a number of the companions of the Prophet—Sahabas.
It is
noteworthy, in spite of disagreement among the historians, that in the first
discord, the problem came from the opposers only and the Caliph, i.e. Othman,
did not use force even during the critical moments. Thus, the discord ended in his
assassination without involving others. It is known that his assassination came
after a siege which lasted for one month and nobody fought the assassins—an
indication that he was unpopular.
As for
the second and third discords, the problem also came from the opposition and
the Caliph did not remain passive, but met the force with force. Thus, the
result was mass loss of lives.
The
fourth discord came from the Caliph after he had failed to convince the
opposition to join him; and they retaliated with force when attacked. The
result was, again, loss of lives.
Again,
the fundamental cause of all discords was religion in that in each case each
party believed that its opinion was the most correct.
An
illustration of each of these events may clarify the Stand of each party. In
the first event, Othman was accused that he was giving his relatives wealth and
positions and when he was criticised and told that Omar did not do that, he
replied saying that Omar prevented his people because for God and he was giving
them because of God.
In the
second event, Ali was elected but he did not wish to take immediate revenge
against Othman’s assassins. When those interested in taking revenge told Ali
that they would not listen to him or obey him until he killed Othman’s
assassins, Ali replied to them saying “Listening and obeying first, then decide
the targets. And how can the Caliph decide the targets, if among the people are
those who do not listen and obey!”
In the
third event, Ali was too preoccupied to think of killing Othman’s assassins or
he did not wish to; but Muawiya claimed that he was responsible for (revenging)
for Othman’s blood and insisted on retaliation. Ali told him that he should first
pledge and join the Muslims and then fight for his rights. But Muawiya insisted
on retaliation first and foremost. Muawiya used Othman’s assassination only as a
pretext to come to power because he never took any revenge after becoming a ruler.
In the
fourth event, the Holy Kuran was raised in asking for the truce. Ali’s people
disagreed among themselves, then a truce was granted in compliance with the
wish of the majority and before arbitration—Tahkim—many of his people
left him. Those who supported Ali said that they had accepted the truce knowing
that it was a trick, but in fear of the army and following the Prophet’s
example in similar cases. The others said that it was known that these were a
band of transgressors and that he (Ali) was fighting them by God’s authority and
it was not up to him to leave them until either they yielded to God’s cause or
one of the parties perished.
From
these simple references, it is clear that all the events were strictly
religious, and that each party’s persistence to its opinion had nothing to do
with worldly gains. For us, it is worth our while to restrain ourselves from
getting involved in these past disputes. Those were matters between the companions
of the Prophet, and whether they were correct or wrong, it is a fact that they
were fighting for justice.
Tracing the historical effect of the
events, it is encouraging to note that the memory is now fading away. The
people of Nahrawan were killed and those who survived scattered here and there
and that was all. Also, Caliph Ali was assaulted in a plot in which the Khawarij
were accused as it had been the practice of the day to accuse them for any
unfortunate event in the history of Islam. The facts are known to the Almighty
alone, though it is believed that Ali’s assassin was Al-Ashath Ibn Qais. Then Imam
Al-Hassan handed over power to Muawiya after a few months of his being elected Ca1iph.
That marked the end of the chapter between the people of Nahrawan and Caliph
Ali.
An
important question is the relation between the people of Nahrawan and Khawarij.
Much has been said about this but a straightforward answer to this question is
that there has been no relations whatsoever between the people of Nahrawan and Khawarij.
The event was a discord among the companions similar to other discords and it
is not up to us to find out who was right and who was wrong. We have to leave it
to the Almighty.
Writers
of Islamic history will do well to avoid calling people of Nahrawan, Khawarij,
just to find themselves confronted with the problem of finding a proof for that.
Those who have done so have been in a difficult position in getting convincing
grounds for their accusations to the end that they related imaginary stories
and connected them with events which took place long before the battle of
Nahrawan. Then they mix strange references between defection (Khuruj)
from religion and defection from loyalty to the government. The fact is that
all that has been said about Khawarij is subject to criticism, and doubt is
more accurate than a fact.
According
to Abu Is-Haq Atfeish, Khawarij are a community who were led by Nafiy bin
Al-Arzaq, Najdah bin Amar and Abdullah bin Al-Safar. They were called Khawarij because
they abandoned righteousness, and deserted the Caliphs, and judging those who
committed sins as polytheists. They allowed what was forbidden by God by giving
themselves the right to shed the blood of Muslims and confiscate their properties
basing their judgement by interpreting the Kuran wrongly thus: “If you obey
them then you are polytheists:” They claimed that the meaning of this revelation
is obeying in eating the dead, whereas the correct meaning is “Obeying in permitting
(to eat) the dead”; which is permitting what God has forbidden; and this is
polytheism.
They thus judged the sinners as polytheists
and permitted shedding of Muslim blood and taking their property. They massacred
women, children and old people. When Imam Al-Rabia bin Habib Al-Farahidy was
told about these peoples’ activities, he said “If they remain with their theory,
let them free, but if they put their theory into practice then we shall deal
with them according to God’s Judgement.” When they practiced their wrong interpretation,
they were chased away from every corner and everywhere people cursed them and announced
their non-involvement with them.
It is
interesting to note here that it was an Omani, Al-Muhallab bin Abi Safrah Al
Uzdi who took leadership in fighting these people.
Since
the Khawarij happened to be among the opposers of Tahkim, many people
have accused the Ibadhis as being Khawarij as opposition to Tahkim
is the only thing in common between Khawarij and Ibadhis. Those writing about
the subject find good, but unacceptable, excuses to call Ibadhis, Khawarij.
When
people of Nahrawan chose their Imam—Abdullah bin Wahab Al-Rasby Al-Uzdi, Imam
Ali felt that the leadership has been in favour of Al-Uzdi instead of Qureishi
and he decided to fight them before they became strong and retain the power.
This is the sole reason for the Nahrawan event. For this he invited them, when
he debated with them to join him in fighting their common enemy, Muawiya and his
group, but it was late, because Muawiya had, by then, already taken the
decision from the two arbitrators—Amru bin Al-As and Abi Musa Al-Ashary, in
maintaining the downfall of Imam Ali. The Muslims were then free to decide
their cause because election of Abdullah bin Wahab as Imam the of people of Nahrawan
did not take place until the results of Tahkim were known (and which
were expected and warned against by those who could speculate them that Tahkim
was merely a plot organised by Al-Ashath bin Qais against Ali in favour of Muawiya).
It is not, therefore, correct, as historians like to put it, that the
Nahrawan event was a result of the revolt against Ali, because people of
Nahrawan did not step out after pledging allegiance to Imam Abdullah bin Wahab.
The
term Khawarij was not known before and was never used to refer either to
supporters or opposers of Tahkim. It was used for the first time after
Muawiya was installed into power, when Al-Ahnaf bin Qais Al-Tamimy, who was
from Nahrawan, visited Muawiya. Muawiya told him “How do the people like you
since you are one of the Khawarij?” Al-Ahnaf replied to him
saying, if people condemned water, he would not drink it. He meant those who
opposed Muawiya.
It is
not clear whether Muawiya branded Al-Ahnaf bin Qais with the title of Khawarij,
because he was one of the people of Nahrawan against whom Ali waged war or
because he did not support him. If Muawiya’s choice to call Al-Anaf, Kharij,
because he was from Nahrawan, then Muawiya himself was more appropriate to be
called Kharij, because it was he who withdrew his
sword against Ali in the battle of Safiyn, in spite of the fact that it was he
who opposed Ali’s election as Caliph, whereas the situation was such that Ali
was the appropriate candidate and his being elected Caliph was most legal for
which all the Muslims had to support.
In all
the preceding discussions with regard to disputes among the companions of the
Prophet, we have seen that the people of Nahrawan did not take sides. But these
people who later became known as Ibadhis are being accused as being segment
of the Khawarij. Judging from the preceding discussion it will be found that
the only thing in common between Khawarij and Ibadhis is their resentment of Tahkim.
Apart from this the Ibadhis do not accept that they are Khawarij.
Ibadhism as a sect was born in Basra
but it was essentially conceived in Al-Madinah. The Omanis have a saying that “The
egg was laid in Al-Madinah, it was hatched in Basra and (the bird of knowledge)
then flew to Oman.” This brings us to the discussion of Ibadhism in Oman.
5
Ibadhism
in Oman
IBADHISM in Oman is almost as old as Islam itself.
Sheikh Ahmed bin Abdullah Al Salmy in his reference to the doctrine of the
people of Oman says: “The Ibadhis have clung to the original doctrine and have
not changed anything.”
After
the battle of Nahrawan the Khawarij dispersed, and as there is no evidence that
any Omani forces fought in this battle, it is presumed that some of these
Khawarij fled to Oman.
After
Amr bin Al-As, the Omanis maintained continuous contact with the Prophet’s
companions and learned much about Islam from them. Out of this contact emerged
a renowned theologian called Jabir bid Zaid who was born in the village of Faraq
near the old centre of learning of Nizwa. He was born sometime between the year
18 to 21 after the Hijra during the Caliphate of Omar Ibn Al-Khattab. Jabir can
rightly be said to be the rock foundation of Ibadhism. He spent his childhood
in his native town and showed a remarkable aptitude for learning. He learned
the Kuran at a young age and then dug deep into theology. His thirst for
knowledge took him to Basra which was then a great centre of learning. He spent
the rest of his life between Basra and Al-Madinah in the course of which he
came into contact with the greatest authorities on Islam among the companions
of the Prophet, and took from them much of the tenets of Islam in all its
aspects. He is quoted as having said that he met seventy of the survivors of
the Battle of Badr among the companions of the Prophet and he learned all they
had to teach him with the exception of Ibn Abbas whom he called “Al-Bahar” that
is, an ocean of Islamic knowledge which was inexhaustible.
From
Ibn Abbas, Jabir acquired a wealth of knowledge and also from Sayyida Aisha,
the wife of the Prophet, Abi-Huraira, Anas Ibn Malik, Abi Said Al-Khudry and
Muawiya among many others. Ibn Abbas is reported to have told people to resort
to Jabir whenever they had problems “for if the people of the East and the West
asked him questions, he would be able to satisfy them.” Referring to the people
of Iraq at the time, Ibn Abbas is also reported to have said: “It is surprising
that the people of Iraq need us when they have Jabir with them.” This is when
Jabir was in Basra preaching the doctrine of Islam as he had received it from
his tutors. He eventually became a tutor himself in Basra and had many
followers some of whom became great scholars themselves, amongst whom was
Abdullah bin Abadh.
The
Ibadhis of Oman, and indeed of many other countries such as North Africa drank
from the fountain of Jabir’s knowledge. This could explain how the “Bird of
Islamic Knowledge” flew to Oman. The saying indicates the earliest links between
Al-Madinah and Oman and how the people of Oman drank from the foundation of
Islam at its very source.
Jabir
bin Zaid collected many prophetic traditions, Hadith, from the companions of
the Prophet. Thus, Ibadhism depends upon Jabir’s collection of Hadith which he
learnt from the companions who, in turn, received them direct from the Prophet
himself.
From a
number of Jabir’s students, it is sufficient to mention only a few who played
important roles in teaching the Religion in different countries. Abdullah Ibn
Abadh and Murdas Ibn Hadyr who were his contemporaries in Basra and Abu Ubayda
Muslim bin Abi Karima, all of whom are cornerstones of Ibadhism.
Ibadhism
takes its name from Abdullah bin Abadh. The people of Nahrawan who refused Tahkim
during the dispute between Caliph Ali and Muawiya requested Abdullah bin Abadh
to give a formal legal opinion as to which group among the three groups was on
the right path. Abdullah’s ruling was that the group which refused Tahkim
i.e., the people of Nahrawan was correct. People of this group were known as
people (or followers) of Abdullah bin Abadh—hence Ibadhis. It should be clear
that these people did not call themselves Ibadhis, but they were branded with
this name by others.
Among
the later scholars, or students of Jabir’s students, Al-Rabia Ibn Habib Ibn Amr
Al-Farahidy Al-Azdy deserves special mention. He compiled the famous books of
traditions—Al-Jamii AI-Sahih—in which he compiled a collection of
quotations from three people of unquestionable integrity. These are Abu Ubayda,
Jabir bin Zaid and Abdullah Ibn Abbas. The book is generally known as “Thulaathiya”
meaning the work of the three people. Sheikh Ahmed bin Abdullah Al-Salmy produced
a commentary “Sharh” on Al-Rabia’s book which ran into four volumes. A
foreword to Al-Salmy’s book was written by Izzi-Din Al-Tanukhi of Damascus—who
is a Sunni—and he said in his foreword: “The Thulaathiyat Al-Rabia Ibni-Habib
Al-Azdy and the traditions in his book are among the most authentic, and the
people quoted, Abu Ubayda Al-Tamimy and Jabir bin Zaid, and that mine of information—Abdullah
bin Abbas—Jabir’s tutors—are all famous for their knowledge, precision, and
faithfulness and modesty.”
Al-Rabia
Ibn Habib himself was a student of Abu Ubayda. The other students of Abu Ubayda
were Abdul-Khattab Al-Maafiry and Abdul Rahman bin Rustam and Abdullah bin Yahya
Al-Kindy. The first two were Ibadhi Imams in Africa and Al-Kindy in Yemen.
Referring
to Al-Salmy, Al-Tanukhy said that he was one of the more recent Omani scholars
who wrote many books. He must have been a very great intellectual and a highly
intelligent scholar to have been the author of so many books, considering that
he died before he reached the age of fifty and was blind from his childhood.
Al-Tanukhy listed seventeen of Al-Salmy’s books in his foreword.
In
going through Al-Salmy’s commentary Al-Tanukhy was very impressed with his wide
knowledge and the clarity and precision of his style. Another thing that
impressed him was Al-Salmy’s objectivity, for he found that Al-Salmy was unprejudiced
and would quote from outside the sect if he found truth there. He, therefore,
placed truth before sectarianism. Al-Tanukhy went on to show that among the “Khawarij”
Ibadhism was the closest to the Sunni sect and the most moderate. He was not
correct, however, to call Ibadhis Khawarij.
For all
this, one can conclude that the Ibadhi sect is older than its name, for it derives
its name from Abdullah bin Abadh who grew up during the period of Muawiya bin
Sufyan and lived up to the time of Abdul Malik bin Marwan. He was a great
teacher and a staunch Muslim who would not compromise his faith or allow
himself to be lured by worldly attractions. His belief was unshakable and he
knew no fear except his fear of God, and would not hesitate to speak the truth
or reprimand when necessary. He always preached to people to go back to the
Kuran and to the Prophet’s traditions to preserve the purity of Islam.
Abdullah
bin Abadh received a letter from Abdul Malik bin Marwan in which he sought his
opinion with regard to the then prevailing events and those which took place
previously, and in reply, he wrote, his famous letter of reproach explaining to
him the mistakes which have been made by religious leaders after the death of
Caliph Omar which caused divisions among the Muslims into various groups and
sects.
Among
other things, Abdullah wrote in his letter to Marwan the following: “You have
written to me (asking me) to reply to your letter and I make an effort to
advise you. I make it clear to you that I have explained to you from my
personal effort and I explained to you about the people, and it was my duty to
advise you and explain to you what I have learnt.”
“God
says that those who conceal with what we have revealed in manifestations and
guidance after we had made it clear to the people in the Book, that God curses
them as well as people (who have been permitted to curse i.e., Prophets) except
those who repent and correct (their mistakes). To those I forgive, and I am the
forgiving and Merciful. So, God has not created me to become ungrateful to Him
nor to deceive people in ought not in myself and do the opposite of what He has
forbidden. I call upon you to the Book of God and traditions of his
apostle—Peace be upon him—to legalise what He allows and forbid what He had
forbidden and to accept His judgement and to lean to your Lord and to return to
His Book; and I call upon you to God’s Book to (which should) judge between me
and you in matters which we differ, and we forbid what God has forbidden, and
we swear in God’s oath, and judge according to God’s judgement and purify what
God has purified and His apostle, and avoid what God has avoided, and obey what He has allowed us to obey in
his Book and disobey whom God has instructed us to disobey. This is what we have
learnt from our Prophet—Peace be upon him—and these people have not forbidden
what has been forbidden, and have not shed blood except when they ignored the
Book of their Master which has ordered them to adhere to it and believe in it;
and they are still divided until they return to the Book of God and to the traditions
of His Prophet, and take advance from the Book of God for themselves and take
from it judgement in what they dispute among themselves. God says: “In God my
Master—on Him I trust and Him I lean, and this is the clear path which cannot
be compared with anything, and it is this path that God hath guided before us,
Muhammad—Peace be upon him—and the two appropriate Caliphs after him. So,
whoever follows him does not go astray and whoever abandons him does not
receive guidance.”
In
conclusion, Abdullah bin Abadh winds up his letter saying: “Do not exhibit to
me the world because I have no ambitions in it, but let your advice be on
religion, and what comes after death will be the best advice. God is most able
to bring us together in obedience, because there is no good for any person who
does not live in God’s obedience.”
So, Abdullah bin Abadh’s letter to
Abdul Malik bin Marwan is a sufficient evidence of his sagacity and religious fervour.
Ibadism, which is based on these roots is a sect to which a big majority of the
people of Oman adhere. In simple terms, Ibadhis seek no more than to worship
their God in accordance with the Kuran and the Hadith, regarding all Muslims as
their brothers, and treat those of other faiths with respect while preserving
the sanctity of their religion.
6
Conclusion
IT has often been said that the Ibadhi sect is in
harmony with the Sunnis. There should be no controversy about this since the
four Imams of the Sunni sects came after Jabir bin Zaid from whom must have
descended their tutors.
Imam
Jabir bin Zaid was born in the year 21 Al-Hijri (A.H.). He died in the year 98
A.H.
Imam
Abu Hanifa (leader of the Hanafy sect) was born in the year 80 A.H. He died in
the 150 A.H.
Imam
Malik bin Anas was born in the year 95 A.H. and died in the year 179 A.H. He is
the Imam of Maaliky sect.
Imam
Muhammad Idris Shaafy—Imam of the Shaafy sect—was born in the year 150 A.H. and
died in the year 204 A.H.
Imam
Ahmed Muhammad Hanbal—Imam of the Hanbaly sect—was born in the year 164 A.H.,
and died in the year 241 A.H.
Looking
into dates of birth and death of these Imams, it is quite clear that Imam Jabir
bin Zaid was the earliest Imam. When Imam Jabir died, Imam Hanafy was 16 years
old, and Imam Malik was only one year old, whereas the other two Imams—Shaafy
and Hanbal—were not yet born when Jabir died.
Jabir’s
colleagues and students became tutors in different parts in the Muslim
countries. It is not strange, therefore that of these, some could have been the
tutors of the four Imams of Ahli Sunna.
During
the early days of Islam, there were no sects and all Muslims in Al-Madinah,
Mecca, Iraq, Egypt, Oman etc. lived as Muslims and not as Ibadhis or Sunnis. It
was only when people began to think in terms of leadership rather than the
Islamic orthodox that disputes emerged and people played with religion and
divided the Muslims into sects. Countries which lie far from Hijaz, Sham and
Iraq, where disputes were prevailing, were saved from the discords. Oman being
far from those centres of disputes, retained the original teachings of Islam based
on the Kuran and traditions.
Apart from
Abdullah bin Abadh many others studied from Jabir, among them the most
distinguished were Amr bin Diynar, Murdas bin Hadyr, Abu Ubayda Muslim bin Abi Karima,
Dhamam bin Al-Saib, Abu Nouh Saleh Al-Dahan, Hiyan Al-Aaraj, and Salmah bin
Saad.
Salmah
bin Saad went to Maghrib to teach and from his teachings the Ibadhi sect spread
there and many students went to Basra to study from Abu Ubayda.
There
is a wider scope to dwell on the subject but since the story of Muslim sects
is, strictly speaking, limited to only three points; viz—those supporting
Caliph Ali; those supporting Muawiya and those opposing Tahkim, we shall
summarise this book by emphasising that Ibadhism has been saved from many
inventions which find no trace to the Religion. It is thus the duty of each and
every Muslim to preserve his Religion and go according to the Kuran and the recognized
prophetic traditions.
There
has been much attempt to distort the facts about Islam by the non-sympathisers
of this Religion, but even the Muslims themselves, through lack of proper
understanding of their own Religion, have tended to lean against the wrong
picture presented by those seeking to sow seeds of discord among the Muslims. A
simple reference in this is to believe that Ibadhis are a segment of Khawarij
which is incorrect, as Khawarij and Ibadhis only meet in their common resentment
of the Tahkim, but are, otherwise widely apart; or to believe that Ibadhis
recognise only the first two Caliphs, Abubakar and Omar, which is also incorrect.
There is a difference between being loyal to a leader and recognising a leader.
All the Muslims have been loyal to the first two Caliphs following the advice of
the Prophet when the said “Fallow thou the example of two persons,” pointing to
Abubakar and Omar. When the two Caliphs had died and until the last days of
Caliph Othman there were no sects yet; hence all the Muslims recognised him and
obeyed him. When Othman died and Ali was elected, that was the time when divisions
into sects began as all the Muslims, except the followers of Muawiya recognised
Ali as their Caliph. The Ibadhis who were branded with that name were known
after the last discord at Nahrawan and only after rejecting the Tahkim,
and consequently being attacked by Caliph Ali; but from the time Imam Ali was
elected until he waged a war against the people of Nahrawan, there was no sect known
as Ibadhi, and those who later became known as Ibadhis recognised Imam Ali as
the Caliph of the Muslims. Thus, the accusation that Ibadhis recognise only the
first two Caliphs is not valid.
No comments:
Post a Comment