Alhassanain(p) Network for Heritage and Islamic Thought

Chapter Eleven: Nepotism or Sheer Justice

The view that the opposition party formulated and propagated for political purposes, was that Muhammad (P) was unjustly, and merely out of domestic love and affection, trying to install Imam Ali in his place, and was thus adopting the means to perpetuate the rule of his family, and to raise his own tribe to dominance over others. This may well also be the opinion of non-Muslim readers of this book.

This view was very readily accepted by those parties or sections of the people who, for one reason or another, were unfavorably disposed towards Imam Ali and the Prophet (P), for example the MUNAFIQIN of BANU OMAYYA, the families whose men Imam Ali had killed in the battles for Islam, and those numerous tribes who were jealous of the rise of BANU HASHIM. Thus the ranks of the opposition were swelled to a considerable extent. Even in foreign non-Muslim countries, which were naturally averse to the new religion and its founder, this view and all those views akin to it found a ready response and were greedily welcomed.

They gained easy currency among the non-Muslims, with the result that the only Islam that they know today is that which has resulted from the twisting and stretching of its principles by those with an interest in molding it into a shape suited to their ends. The have accepted a distorted view of Islam so readily because in it they find reflected their own opinions about Muhammad (P) and Islam, and have, therefore, patted this faction on the back. This situation, coupled with the active propaganda that has been carried on in foreign countries throughout these thirteen centuries, is responsible for the crass ignorance in Europe of the true principles of Islam. Every book on Islam published there bears testimony to this.

To continue the thread of our narration, we must revert to the criticism of the accusation, if true, exposes the Prophet (P) to many other charges which flow from it as a consequence, for example falsehood, injustice, want of love for Islam, selfishness, and so on. Nepotism implies that one prefers one's own unfit relatives to others who are more able, suitable and competent. But it, on the other hand, the particular relative is indeed more competent, more suited to the post, and more properly deserving in every respect than any of the men available for selection, then it would be sheer injustice to disqualify him for the simple reason that he is related to the person making the selection. Let us see to which side the scales of justice incline.

We have to judge between Imam Ali on the one hand, and those who contrived to secure the caliphate at the SAQIFA, namely ABU BAKR and UMAR, on the other. For an agent, successor or caliph, it is absolutely essential that he be as much like his principal as possible. The greater the similarity, the greater the fitness. The continuance of the work of Government, Caliphate, or any other institution for that matter, with the same efficiency, control and spirit as prevailed in the principal's own lifetime, cannot be assured without this likeness in the successor.

Succession to the Prophet (P) meant taking his place in both the Spiritual and Temporal Government of Islam.

For the spiritual branch of government, the caliph had to be on a level with the Prophet (P) in respect of the following criteria:

1. Freedom from the vice of idolatry.

2. Precedence over all others in accepting the truth of the Prophet's mission.

3. Purity and strength of faith.

4. (Unfaultable) courage and unflinching faith, to enable him to stick to his post at the risk of his life, whether on the field of battle or whether in the humbler sphere of everyday life.

5. Invincibility, both into the teachings of the battle and in the field of learning.

6. Deep insight into the teachings of the QUR'AN and a perfect knowledge of its correct interpretation.

7. Superiority to all in every good quality and human virtue.

8. Selfless devotion to the cause of Islam.

For the temporal branch of government of the pattern set by Islam, the following qualities must be present in the successor, just as they were found in the Prophet (P).

1. The ability as well as the desire to do justice between men.

2. The sagacity to order state policy in strict conformity with the tenets of Islam.

3. The realization of his responsibility for the actions of his governors and subordinates.

4. Good management at home and the ability to command respect abroad.

5. The ability to conduct wars to the standard set by the Prophet (P), that is, with their initiation and promulgation only in strict accordance with the principles of justice, equity and good conscience, and in keeping with the behests of the QUR'AN, never being undertaken with the intention of extending the limits of the realm, obtaining booty, or keeping the armies occupied abroad in order to avoid their mischief at home.

6. The desire to extend the limits of Islam by means of peaceful persuasion.

7. Submission to the laws of Islam without any attempt to amend or cancel them.

It must also be noted that the Prophet's opinion about him is also an asset which must count. I now proceed to judge all these personages according to the standards set down above. It is a painful task, as comparisons are said to be odious. But in the case of leaders, comparison is unavoidable.

SPIRITUAL GOVERNMENT:

Criterion No. 1: Freedom from Idolatry:

It is a fact that Muhammad (P) never for a single moment worshipped any idol. Similarly, all historians are unanimous in saying that Imam Ali did not for a single minute worship any idol. ABU BAKR accepted Islam at the age of thirty-nine and UMAR at the age of thirty-five. Before that, they had both been worshipping the idols like other QURAISH individuals.

When an infant of four or five years. Imam Ali was taken away from his parents by Muhammad (P), with whom he lived thereafter. His education and upbringing under Muhammad's very eyes was an asset for Imam Ali. Muhammad, even before the revelation, had never worshipped the idols. It was but natural for Imam Ali to follow him in not polluting himself with the filth of idolatry. He was ten years of age when he accepted Muhammad's mission, though in manner of speaking he had been Muslim before that.

In contrast, UMAR'S family was noted for its staunch support of paganism. When five persons from QURAISH, namely ZAID, QAIS, WARQA, ABDALLAH IBN JAHSH, and UTHMAN IBN HUWAIRI (not UTHMAN, the caliph) became disgusted with idolatry and decided to abjure it, even before the advent of Muhammad (P), AL-KHATTAB came down very hard on ZAID for this. (ZAID was UMAR'S first cousin, his father AMR being the brother of UMAR'S father AL-KHATTAB).

ZAID had intended to go to different lands in search of the genuine religion of IBRAHIM, but AL-KHATTAB had asked SAFIYYA, ZAID'S wife, to let him know when ZAID planned to go off. Therefore, whenever ZAID tried to set off, his wife would convey the news to AL-KHATTAB, who would come and rebuke ZAID for leaving the religion of his fathers.

AL-KHATTAB used to severely ill-treat him, and finally expelled him to the outskirts of MAKKA, sending the rogues of QURAISH after him to torment him and to prevent him from entering the town. ZAID could therefore only enter MAKKA in secret, and whenever discovered would be tortured by those ruffians at the request of AL-KHATTAB, and would be expelled again. AL-KHATTAB took great care thereafter to ensure that no one else abjured idolatry.

Criterion No. 2: Precedence in Islam:

Imam Ali was the first man to accept Islam and to offer prayers with the Prophet (P). When entrusted with the mission, the Prophet (P) came home and disclosed his experiences to his wife KHADIJA, who at once acknowledged the truth of what he said. The Prophet (P) then mentioned it to Imam Ali, who accepted it immediately. There is almost unanimity on this point: KHADIJA among women, and Imam Ali among men, were the first to accept Islam. AMIR ALI says:

KHADIJA was the first to accept his mission…. In the beginning Muhammad opened his soul only to those who were attached to him, and tried to wean them from to gross practices of their forefathers. After KHADIJA, Imam Ali was the next disciple. Often did the Prophet (P) go into the depths of the solitary deserts around MAKKA with his wife and young cousin, that they might together offer up their heart-felt thanks to the God of all nations for His manifold blessings. Once they were surprised while in the attitude of prayer by ABU TALIB, the father of Imam Ali, and he said to Muhammad (P) "O son of my brother, what is this religion that thou art following"? "It is the religion of God, His angels, His Prophets, and our ancestor IBRAHIM", answered the Prophet (P). Then turning towards Imam Ali, his son, the venerable patrician enquired as to what his religion was. "O father", replied Imam Ali, "I believe in God and His Prophet, and I go with him". "Well my son", said ABU TALIB, "he will not call thee to aught save what is good, wherefore thou art free to cleave unto him".

Soon after, ZAID IBN AL-HARITH, who notwithstanding his freedom had cast in his lot with Muhammad (P). became a convert to the new faith. He was followed by a leading member of QURAISH community named ABDALLAH IBN ABI QUHAFA, who afterwards became famous in history as ABU BAKR.

AFIF AL-KINDI relates his testimony as an eye-witness thus: "Before Islam had entered on its general proselytizing mission, I came to MAKKA and stayed with ABBAS IBN ABD AL-MUTTALIB. When the sun had risen and become high, I turned towards the KA'BA; a young man came and looked up at the sky, and then stood in front of the KA'BA. Soon afterwards a boy came and stood to the right of the young man, and then performed the RUKU', and the boy and the woman followed suit. The young man then stood erect, and the boy and the woman did likewise. Then the young man fell prostrate in SAJDA, and the boy and the woman did the same.

I said to ABBAS, "O ABBAS, this is a great event". ABBAS said, "Yes, this is a great event; do you know who they are"? I said that I did not know. ABBAS then said, "This young man is Muhammad, the son of my brother; and the woman is KHADIJA, the wife of Muhammad, my nephew. This young man says that your God, who is also God of the heavens, has ordered them to worship Him in this manner; and by God, I do not know anyone else on the face of the earth in this religion besides these three persons". AFIF used to say that had he accepted Islam at that time, he would have been the third person in Islam.

This shows conclusively that for a long time there were only these three persons in the fold of Islam. This is corroborated by what Imam Ali himself said: "I am the brother of God's Prophet (P), and am God's worshipper. I am the "SIDDIQ-AL-AKBAR". Anyone who claims this title for himself is a liar. I offered prayers to God side by side with the Prophet (P) for seven years before anyone else did". He expressly asserted that he was a Muslim long before ABU BAKR became one.

AT-TABARI says that ABU BAKR embraced Islam after fifty persons had done so.

ABU AL-FIDA' writes: "All agree that the first person to accept Islam was KHADIJA. The question is who was the next Muslim. The Author of "SIRAT IBN HISHAM" and a great majority of the learned writers are of the opinion that after her, Imam Ali embraced Islam…. The author of the SIRA says that after him ZAID came into the fold of Islam; it was after ZAID that ABU BAKR became a Muslim.

AS-SAYYUTI says: "IBN ABBAS, ANAS, ZAID IBN ARQAM, SALMAN AL-FARISI, and a large number of companions say that Imam Ali was the first man to accept Islam. Most of the learned men say that there is agreement of the whole UMMA on the point that the first man to accept Islam was Imam Ali".

AL-MAS'UDI says: "A majority of the writers say that Imam Ali never associated anyone with the one true God, and that therefore there was no time when he was not a Muslim, and we cannot say that he accepted Islam afterwards; he followed the Prophet (P) in all his deeds. He attained the age of discretion in this manner; God saved him from every sin on account of his following the Prophet (P) in all his actions. With no compulsion from outside, both of them chose to obey and worship God of their own free will, and abstained from all sins and prohibited things. Another class of writers think that the Prophet also offered Islam to Imam Ali formally and he accepted it at once, and that he was the first to accept Islam…. Then ABU BAKR entered into the fold of Islam".

There is no dispute in the case of UMAR. He was twenty-seven years of age when Muhammad was charged with his mission, and he accepted Islam at the age of thirty-three of thirty-five. During this period he had been the deadliest enemy of Muhammad and Islam. He embraced Islam after more than fifty persons had already done so.

Criterion No. 3: Purity and Strength of Faith:

It is obvious that there is no comparison between the purity and strength of faith of a man who has been bred and brought up from his infancy under the supervision and education of the Teacher himself, and the faith acquired at a more advanced age. In the former case, the sheet is a clean one; the first impressions of a religion that it receives are those of Islam. In the latter case, the slate is already written upon; the impressions of idolatry acquired at an age when impressions go very deep are indelible, and it takes a long time to make the new impressions felt. Even when this happens, both sets of impressions live side by side, and react upon and compete with each other. Under these circumstances, the purity of the faith is impossible, and its strength is unreliable. It was for this reason that these aged pupils of the Prophet (P) were never able to shake off the last vestiges of idolatry and fully realize and comprehend the true principles of Islam and the full nature and real import of Prophet-hood. This will be readily apparent to anyone who tries to study how UMAR could sit down to amend, modify and set aside certain fundamental principles of Islam as taught by the Teacher himself. A revealed religion does not brook this treatment at the hands of a follower, no matter how high he may be placed in worldly position.

Religion must either be accepted as it is, or else be rejected entirely; there is no middle course. They failed to realize this, because in paganism, which they had known from their infancy, there is no such limitation; it is wholly a sport of imagination. They applied the principle of paganism, which they could never entirely shake off, in preference to the doctrines of the revealed religion, the true import and certain and permanent nature of which they never fully appreciated. Modern writes like SHIBLI, whose eyes are dazzled by the glare of the modern age, extol these amendments on the grounds that without them, modern people would blame Islam for being inelastic. Call it inelastic if you will, but absolute truth does not stoop to compromise.

The strength of the conviction of Imam Ali in the truth of his religion is evident from his entire conduct from the cradle to the grave. He never fled the field of battle, he risked his own life many time to save the Prophet (P) and Islam, and he placed the good of Islam before every other consideration. His most stupendous sacrifice for Islam was made when, on the death of the Prophet (P), he was superceded, yet refused to take up the sword lest it endanger the interests of Islam.

The details of this will become known as we proceed. The student of history known how well or ill his rivals withstood the stress of striving for Islam. The only virtue of ABU BAKR that could be cited at the SAQIFA was that he had been the companion of the Prophet (P) in the Cave on the night of the flight. And on that occasion ABU BAKR had cried for fear of the enemies, with the result that the Prophet (P) had had to remind him that God is always with the righteous. This is far from being a sign of a firm conviction in the righteousness of the cause.

Criteria Nos. 4 & 5: Conduct in Battle:

For a man to flee for his life from the field of battle is conclusive evidence that he has no real faith in the promises of reward and the threats of punishment set forth in QUR'AN; furthermore, to abandon the Prophet (P) when in the midst of foes proves that he has little, if any, love for him. Thus, it is absolutely essential that the successor of the Prophet (P) should be a man who has the courage to stick to his post in the face of every danger, and who is ready to lay down his life for Islam and the Prophet (P). On no account must he run away from the field or battle to save his own life. Moreover, it is also necessary that he should not be defeated by anyone, either on the field of battle, or in the lecture-room. He should be second to none in any contest or in any walk of life. With him is bound up the dignity of Islam; if he is defeated, Islam is defeated. Let us review the battles of the Prophet (P) from this point of view.

(a) The Battle of BADR; 19th Ramadan A.H. 2 (A.C. 624).

This was the first battle of Islam; had it been lost, Islam would not have survived. The Prophet (P) fully realized its importance when he prayed to God in these words: "O God, it today this army is lost. Thou wilt not be worshipped on the face of the earth till eternity". MARGOLIOUTH says; "It certainly appears that the winning of this most important fight was in the main due to the prowess of Imam Ali (who fought without armor on his back) and HAMZA". Seventy warriors of QURAISH fell dead on the battlefield, half of this number having been slain by Imam Ali alone, with the remainder killed by the rest of the Muslim army.

Included among those killed by Imam Ali were members of almost all the important families of QURAISH. Some of their names are: AL-WALID IBN UTBA, brother of HIND, wife of ABU SUFYAN and the mother of MU'AWIYA; SHAIBA IBN RABI'A, uncle of the same HIND; AL-AS IBN SA'ID BIN AL-AS AL-AMAWI; NAWFAL IBN KHUWAILID IBN ASAD; MAS'UD IBN AL-MUGHIRA, who was the brother of AL-WALID, father of KHALID; ABU AL-QAIS IBN AL-FAKAH; ABDALLAH IBN AL-MUNDHIR; AL-AS IBN MUNYA IBN AL-HAJJAJ; HANZALA and ABU UMAR, sons of ABU SUFYAN; ABU UBAID IBN AL-HARITH; and AQIL IBN NAWFAL. This list included five close relatives of MU'AWIYA.

In this battle we do not hear the name of UMAR mentioned at all. UTHMAN was absent, and ABU BAKR was sitting safely in the ARSH, a high place of refuge constructed for the Prophet (P), where ABU BAKR had gone uninvited.

(b) The Battle of UHUD; 11th SHAWWAL A.H. 3(A.C. 625).

MARGOLIOUTH writes; "It appears, too, that start events were proceeding as the Prophet had imagined. The champions of BADR, ALI and HAMZA, dealt out death as unsparingly as before; the heroism of QURAISH compelled them to meet these companions in a series of single combats, in which their own champions were killed, and their overthrow spread discomfiture and panic".

When the battle began, Imam Ali, HAMZA and ABU DUJANA went straight towards the enemy, engaged the armies and fought at the risk of their lives. Imam Ali killed all the standard-bearers of QURAISH, and panic took hold of the armies, who fled leaving behind their goods. The detachment of archers, whom the Prophet (P) had ordered to guard the pass in the mountains and remain there in all events, left their post and engaged themselves in looting the enemy's goods. KHALID IBN AL-WALID of QURAISH, finding himself presented with the opportunity, descended upon the Muslims, and their victory was turned into defeat. Now the Muslims began fleeing in all directions, leaving the Prophet (P), who had been wounded, alone. I cannot do better than to quote a passage (in translation) from "MADARIJ-AN-NABUWWA" by SHAIKH ABD AL-HAQ, a great SUNNI divine and historian:

During the battle of UHUD, the enemy fought so desperately that the Muslims took to flight, leaving the Prophet (P) alone. He got so angry that the sweat dripped from his forehead. In that condition, he looked round and saw Imam Ali standing by his side. The Prophet (P) looked at him and asked why he did not take to flight and join his comrades.

Imam Ali replied, "Should I turn KAFIR after having once accepted IMAN (faith in God)? I will follow you everywhere. "Now a party of the enemy advanced towards the Prophet (P), who said to Imam Ali, "O Ali, protect me from this party; do this service to me, as this is the time for help". Ali therefore turned to that party and killed so many of them that the rest ran away. It is said that on that day Ali received eighteen wounds, four of them being so serious that on receiving each wound, he fell down from his horse…. The famous phrase "There is no courageous man like Ali, and no sword like his DHU AL-FIQAR was uttered on that day".

Those who hold that the Prophet (P) did not designate Imam Ali as his successor, or that he was wrong in selecting Imam Ali for the caliphate, think that the Prophet (P) forgot or ought to have forgotten, when in prosperity, the service which Imam Ali had rendered to Islam and its founder in adversity.

Now let us turn to the others. UMAR said that on the day of UHUD, the Muslims fled for their lives from the field of battle, and that he himself fled and climbed a hill, jumping from place to place like a mountain goat. It appears that after some time, he and his companions sat down to take rest. From AT-TABARI we learn that UMAR and TALHA together with some of the MUHAJIRIN and ANSAR, ran away from the field and were sitting on a rock, when someone called out that Muhammad had been killed. ANAS IBN AL-NADR went up to these persons and asked them why they were sitting there. The men on the rock replied that Muhammad (P) had been killed, and expressed their wish that there had been someone who would go to ABDALLAH IBN UBBAI, a MUNAFIQ at Medina, and request him to intercede with ABU SUFYAN and get an amnesty for them.

Seeing Imam Ali and the Prophet (P) standing firm on the field of battle, Muslims began to rally round the Prophet (P). ABU BAKR says that the people began to return to the Prophet (P), that he was the first to come back to him, and that after him came ABU UBAIDA IBN AL-JARRAH. UTHMAN IBN AFFAN had fled with two others to a great distance, and returned on the third day. The Prophet (P) remarked to UTHMAN that the distance he had fled was great.

We learn the following from "HABIB-AS-SAYYAR":

One day, ZAID IBN WAHAB said to ABDALLAH IBN MAS'UD, "I have heard that on the day of UHUD, no one except Ali, ABU DUJANA and SUHAIL IBN HANIF remained in the field with the Prophet. Is this information correct"? ABDALLAH IBN MAS'UD replied that in the first instance when the Muslims took flight, no one but Ali had remained with the Prophet. Again ZAID asked, "ABU BAKR and UMAR, where were they"? ABDALLAH IBN MAS'UD replied that they also had run away. When ZAID asked about UTHMAN, he replied that UTHMAN had fled to a great distance, and returned on the third day, whereupon the Prophet remarked to him that he had run to a great distance.

We do not hear of ABU BAKR, UMAR or UTHMAN taking part in the battle; we hear only of them taking part in the flight. Discomfited by the firm and courageous attitude of the Prophet and the fierce fighting of Ali, the MAKKANS broke off and went back to MAKKA.

(c) The Battle of AHZAB ("The Ditch"); SHAWWAL A.H.5 (A.C.627):

This was the last concerted attempt by the MAKKANS to crush the new religion, and it was an enormous one too. All the Jews of Arabia made common cause with them, and even those who had made treaties of peace with the Prophet (P) joined the invading hordes. It was thus a huge army ten thousand strong that advanced on Medina. The majority of the Muslims were seized with terror and lost heart; their faith in God and the Prophet (P) was shaken. Their picture has been vividly drawn in the QUR'AN.

It would have been an injustice if the QUR'AN had ignored those who remained firm and unshaken in their belief in God and the Prophet (P) in this hour of severe trial; it therefore describes their feelings too, and applauds the firmness of their faith and the strength of their conviction. At the suggestion of SALMAN the Persian, a ditch was dug round Medina wherever it was not protected by the hills, and fronting where the invading armies had encamped.

At a time when terror, anxiety and doubts had unnerved the Muslim army, AMR IBN ABD WUDD, with a detachment of one thousand men, crossed the ditch, and coming towards the Muslim army, began to challenge them to send their champion to fight him. He was considered to be on his own equal in prowess to one thousand soldiers. The Muslims were dumbstruck with awe, and their fear was greatly heightened when UMAR related to them his own personal experience of how once this AMR, when surprised by brigands while traveling in a caravan, picked up a young camel, and using it as a shield attacked and dispersed the whole gang single-handedly. The Muslims were therefore in great awe of this man, who, emboldened by this attitude of theirs, repeated his challenge, adding biting taunts. When none in the army dared accept it, Imam Ali stood up and requested the Prophet (P) to permit him to go and meet him. The Prophet (P) asked him to wait, and turned to the older and more experienced men to accept the challenge of AMR. Not one of them responded to the Prophet (P). AMR again threw out his challenge, and Imam Ali again got up and repeated his request to the Prophet, who again asked him to wait. The Prophet (P) once again turned to his companions and asked them to save the honor of the Muslim army; again he was met with sullen silence. Now AMR repeated his challenge with the sarcastic remark, "You Muslims believe that anyone among you who falls fighting in the holy war goes straight to paradise. Is none among you prepared to enter the abode of everlasting bliss"? Imam Ali could restrain himself no longer, and asked the Prophet to permit him to fight the infidel, as he could bear that taunt no longer.

The Prophet (P) again asked him to wait, adding "You know that it is AMR IBN ABD WUDD." Imam Ali replied, "Yes, I know that, and with that knowledge I beg you to permit me". The Prophet (P) looked round, but non one else was courageous enough to defend the honor of Islam. At last the Prophet (P) gave the required permission, but not until he had shown the world who, out of Imam Ali and his rivals, was more passionately and sincerely devoted to Islam, and whose sword won this kingdom, which everyone strove to lead after the death of the Prophet (P). Was the Prophet (P) indulging in nepotism when he selected this Imam Ali to succeed him? Was not this an act of justice and of appreciation of services? I quote from "TARIKH-AL-KHAMIS":

AMR IBN ABD WUDD was one of the greatest warriors of Arabia. He had received a wound in the battle of BADR, and therefore did not join 'UHUD. People used to regard him as equal to one thousand soldiers. He came out for the Battle of the Ditch with great pomp and show and the intention to show the people his high degree of bravery. He crossed the ditch and began to challenge the Muslims to send a champion to fight him. The companions of the Prophet (P) were so terror-stricken that it looked as if a bird was sitting on their heads (meaning that they were motionless with terror), because they were aware of his bravery.

IBN ISHAQ, the historian, writes that when AMR IBN ABD WUDD threw out the challenge, Imam Ali, who was standing armed, requested the Prophet (P) to permit him to go out to fight AMR. (The writer here describes the repeated challenges of AMR, the stony silence of the companions, the repeated requests of Imam Ali to get permission, the delaying of the permission by the Prophet (P), the taunts of AMR, and the emphatic request of Imam Ali). At last the Prophet (P) gave the required permission, giving him his own sword, coat of iron and the turban, and dressed Imam Ali with his own hands…. Imam Ali came out reciting these couplets…. Imam Ali and AMR began to fight with each other, until finally Imam Ali killed AMR IBN ABD WUDD. His companions, who were on horseback, ran away and fell into the ditch. Imam Ali ran towards them and put them to flight.

The facts of this battle are similarly described by other writers. Contrary to the usual practice of the Arabs, Imam Ali did not take away the dress and armor of AMR IBN ABD WUDD. Seeing his dead body fully clad, his sister said that had the slayer of her brother been other than the noble Imam Ali, who did not stop to rob him of his armor, she would have wept for him for the whole of her life. UMAR was greatly surprised at the conduct of Imam Ali, and asked him why he did not take AMR'S armor, which was of very high value. Imam Ali relied that he did not like to render him naked. This one of those battles on the result of which hung the fate of Islam. The Prophet (P) fully recognized the importance of Imam Ali's victory when he rightly said that this one blow of Imam Ali on the day of the Ditch was of much greater value and virtue than the good deeds of the whole of the world up to the Day of Judgment.

It is not irrelevant to note that when on the day of HUDAIBIYYA the Prophet wanted to obtain some information about QURAISH and asked UMAR to go to MAKKA, UMAR flatly refused, saying that he was afraid of QURAISH, who did not like him, suggesting that UTHMAN, whom QURAISH liked, would be a more suitable person for the purpose.

(d) The Battle of KHAIBAR; MUHARRAM A.H.7 (A.C.628):

Owing to the intrigues and overt acts of violence of the Jews, the Prophet (P) was compelled to lead an expedition to KHAIBAR, a cluster of forts some ninety miles from Medina in the direction of Syria, where the Jews from the whole of Arabia had collected together, awaiting an opportunity to fall on Medina. Some of the fortresses fell to the Muslims without much effort. But the greatest of them all, called AL-QAMUS, held out much longer. ABU BAKR led a detachment to conquer it, but was defeated. On the following day, UMAR went out to it with a great force, but was also repulsed and defeated. On their return to the Prophet (P), the army accused UMAR of cowardice, and UMAR similarly accused the army. The Prophet (P) was annoyed and spoke the following celebrated words:

"By God, tomorrow I will hand over the flag to a man who loves God and his Prophet, and whom God and the Prophet love; he is very brave, he never flees the field, and will take it forcibly".

Everyone was filled with the hope of being given the flag. UMAR said that he had a great longing to get the flag on that occasion. But early in the morning, the Prophet (P) sent for Imam Ali and handed over the flag to him with the orders that he should go and conquer the fortress. When he arrived there, MARHAB himself came out to fight Imam Ali, who had already killed two of his brothers before. The fight lasted for some time, and finally Imam Ali killed him. He then attacked the party accompanying MARHAB, and during this fight his shield fell to the ground. Undaunted by this accident, Imam Ali went up to the gate of the fortress, unhinged the iron door, and using it as a shield fought until the citadel was conquered. It is an established fact that the ruler of the place, MARHAB, was killed by Imam Ali in a well-fought duel.

First his brother. AL-HARITH or ANTAR, who had defeated UMAR and ABU BAKR on previous occasions, had come out to meet Imam Ali, but was killed by him. Enraged by the death of his brother, MARHAB himself then came out, and fought and was killed by Imam Ali. The authorities on this point are unanimous. MARGOLIOUTH is laboring under a mistake when he says that MARHAB was not killed in open fight, but was taken captive after the submission of the citadel and handed over to MUHAMMAD IBN HASLAMAH, whose brother he had killed. This is entirely erroneous; MARHAB, a man of courage and pride and the ruler of the place, was not likely to stoop to submit himself to capture only to meet death after that humility in any case, for he could not have expected any better treatment after all that he had done, knowing that this was the usual practice in those days.

(e) The Battle of HUNAIN; 6th SHAWWAL A.H.8 (A.C.630):

After the fall of MAKKA, it was now the turn of the BEDWINS to make a bid for victory on behalf of paganism. They were the HAWAZIN and the THAQIF, who collected in large numbers in the desert of HUNAIN. The Prophet (P) came out to meet them wit an army twelve thousand strong. The BEDWINS fought so furiously that the Muslims could not withstand their onslaught and took to flight. Only four men remained with the Prophet, one of whom was Imam Ali. The Prophet (P) asked ABBAS to call them back to duty, and it was only after great delay and hesitation that they returned.

Let us see who remained with the Prophet (P), and who ran for his life, abandoning him. We learn from "AS-SIRA AL-HALABIYYA" that "When on the day of HUNAIN the Muslims fled the field of battle, four men only remained with him: three from BANU HASHIM and one beside them, namely Imam Ali, ABBAS, ABU SUFYAN IBN AL-HARITH (not the OMAYYAD), and ABDALLAH IBN MAS'UD".

In "SAHIH AL-BUKHARI" we read, "ABU QUTADA says that on the day of HUNAIN, he and the Muslims fled, and UMAR was among those who had fled". ABU SUFYAN IBN HARB (the OMAYYAD) was jubilant over the defeat of the Muslims. This was after he had outwardly accepted Islam. It shows that he always remained a pagan at heart. He said sarcastically, "This day we have seen the last of the witchcraft of Muhammad. This headlong flight of the Muslims will be stopped only by the sea".

I cannot resist the temptation of quoting MARGOLIOUTH, who says:

The capture of MAKKA was followed almost immediately by a dangerous struggle with a host of nomadic Arabs, led by some of those pagan heroes with whom the old poetry and the works of the archaeologists are constantly preoccupied, but who have not hither to figured much in the life of the Prophet, which had been spent mainly in debate with the civilized Jews or the partly civilized denizens of the towns. The growth and consolidation of the Muslim State had thoroughly alarmed these BEDWINS, to whom the liberty of the desert was dear, and they had thought that the expedition against MAKKA, the purpose of which had at first been concealed, was directed against them.

But even after it was known that it has been aimed at MAKKA itself, and had terminated successfully, the leaders of the assembled forces determined to make a stand for the liberty of Arabia… and their chief at this time was MALIK IBN AWF, of the NASR clan, a branch of the HAWAZIN. In the early morning, the Muslim forces entered the valley of HUNAIN, and were speedily attacked on all sides by the enemy, who had been ordered to break their scabbards when the engagement commenced, as a sign that they were to be wholehearted in their enterprise. The plan of MALIK IBN AWF was, for the moment, completely successful.

The Muslims turned and fled in headlong confusion -and not, according to some, without the set purpose of some of the new converts, who thought the occasion a good one for dealing the conqueror a blow. Indeed, one of these unwilling followers is even said to have readied himself to attack the Prophet, only to find his nerves fail him…. Some of the fugitives are said to have carried the tidings to MAKKA, where they were received with acclamation. One of the MAKKANS declared (somewhat prematurely) that that day had seen the last of the witchcraft.

The Muslims had been discomfited by a shower of arrows, with which the HAWAZIN were skilled marksmen. The Prophet was completely clad in armor and had no occasion to fear this weapon. But as at UHUD, he exhibited presence of mind, for he was conscious of the fact that a defeat in the neighborhood of MAKKA, for so long obstinate and so recently overcome, would be a disaster of a very different magnitude to one near his devoted Medina….

Whether, however, the angels had a hand in the matter or not, a highly important success was gained, and the Prophet's fortune proved constant at a time when a reverse would have had serious consequences; for ABU SUFYAN might have been equal to taking advantage of a disaster, even though not sufficiently energetic to help to bring one about. A sarcastic comment of his is reported to the effect that the headlong flight of the Muslims would have to be stopped by the sea.

These, then, were the five decisive battles of Islam, the ones which decided its fate. Islam and paganism were in a life and death struggle with each other, in which defeat meant death. These were the real battles of Islam, and for Islam. The battles, which were fought after the death of the Prophet (P), were only of the Empire, and for the Empire. The former were for religion and for God; the latter were for this world and for worldly gain.

It is evident that these five battles were won chiefly by the prowess of Imam Ali and his selfless exertion. Was it nepotism to recognize the services of this man to whom Islam owed its existence? One has only to look at how the others acted. I need not dwell on their shortcomings and failures, but suffice it to say that they are such that people can say, whether openly or in their hearts, "Look at this Caliph; he claims to be the successor of the Prophet (P), yet he is the same man who used to flee from the field of battle and leave the Prophet (P) among his foes. And today he is not ashamed to occupy the throne acquired by the exertions of another man"!

Criteria Nos. 6&7: Ali's Claim to Superiority:

Imam Ali himself claimed superiority, and others also admitted it. He used to say in his public lectures, "Acquire knowledge by questioning me about everything that you do not know, before you lose me. By God, regarding nothing which you may question me will I be unable to enlighten you. Enquire of me the correct meaning and interpretation of the Book of God, because by God, there is no 'AYA in the QUR'AN about which I do not know whether it was revealed at night or during the day, whether on the mountain or in the plains". Among the Prophet's companions there was no one except Imam Ali who could make this claim to universal knowledge.

There are many lectures of Imam Ali in which he has tried to acquaint people with his worth, so that they might take the opportunity to avail themselves of it. I quote below a few sentences from a long lecture of his given in "YANABI'-AL-MAWADDA" of SHAIKH SULAIMAN (Chief MUFTI of Constantinople), "TAWDIH-AD-DALA'IL" of SHAIKH SHAHAB-ED-DINE and 'AD-DUR-AL-MANZUM" of SHAIKH MUHAMMAD IBN TALHA:

I am the light, I am the dispeller of darkness; I am the Straight Path, I am the depositary of knowledge; I am the heir to the knowledge given to the Prophet; I am the "FARUQ-AL-A'ZAM", I am the "SIDDIQ-AL-AKBAR" I am "SAQI-AL-KAWTHAR"; I am the guardian of the knowledge of the QUR'AN; I am the conqueror of the brave; I am the bearer of the flag of the Prophet; I am the slayer of the heathens; I am the leader of the pious; I am the first man to accept Islam; I am the man who never stooped so low as to worship the idols; I am the conqueror of the battles of BADR and HUNAIN; I am the sword of God; I am the conqueror of the confederates at the battle of the Ditch; I am the expositor of the Realities; I have opened the treasures of knowledge; I am to Muhammad as HARUN to MUSA; I am the keeper of the secrets of NUBUWWA; I am the chosen one of God; within me the sea of knowledge is surging; etc.

In one of his lectures, Imam Ali addressed the people thus: "Through us you got the Light when you were in darkness, and reached the heights; and through us you obtained guidance towards light in the dark night…. On account of the sincerity and purity of my heart, I have been given eyes, which see the truth. And with those eyes I watch and guide you. I have taken you out of the desert of darkness and sinfulness, and brought you onto the straight path. You had gathered at a place where there was no guide for you. You were digging wells but could not get water.

This is the way in which the successor of the Prophet (P) chosen by God and appointed by the Prophet speaks to his people. Let us see how the caliph selected by the SAQIFA introduced himself to his people. On retuning from the SAQIFA where he had been elected caliph, ABU BAKR spoke to his people thus: "O people, I have taken into my hand the rein of you affairs. But I am not better than you. Therefore, if I stray from the right path, you should set me straight. You should know that sometimes the Devil takes possession of me, so if you ever see me beside myself with anger, you should avoid me".

By comparing these two sets of speeches we get a true estimate of the personalities of the speakers, for they have themselves revealed their personalities to their subjects. The following points must be borne in mind:

1. They were not the presidents of a republic; they were the successors of a Prophet who based his right and source of knowledge on revelation from God.

2. Their first and foremost duty was to guide the people on the path of righteousness, and diffuse a correct knowledge of the QUR'AN and its interpretation.

3. It was absolutely necessary that the people should know the true Imam from the false one, as the Prophet (P) had said that he who died without knowing the true Imam died the death of a KAFIR.

4. The tenor and tone of the talk of ABU BAKR betrays his consciousness of the fact that he is entirely dependent on the people for his power and position; he dares not give any offence to them, and supplicates them to continue bestowing favors on him. His address bears the stamp of an after-election speech, which in reality it was. By contrast, the loftiness and dignified tone of Imam Ali's speech indicate that he is conscious of his own worth and position, and is also aware of the shortcomings of the people entrusted to his charge. The plane on which Imam Ali stands is also apparent. He knows that he does not depend upon the people for his position as the successor of the Prophet (P), being selected by God and appointed by His Prophet (P). He is anxious for their welfare and salvation, and does not care at all whether his speech is palatable to them or not. They cannot deprive him of his real care -his position as a successor of the Prophet (P) and a chosen one of God.

5. ABU BAKR never meant his speech to be taken seriously, nor was it ever acted upon, even though many occasions arose for the enforcement of the direction so piously laid down. Everyone knew that to set a ruler straight was totally impracticable; there never was and never can be a tribunal to judge the rights and wrongs of a dispute between a ruler and the ruled. Very often ABU BAKR differed with the entire body of his subjects, for example in the matter of the fight against the withholders of the ZAKAT who were Muslims, and the dispensing of punishment to KHALID IBN AL-WALID who was a firm friend of the caliph. But the people were unable to set him straight, and in the end they themselves had to be straightened.

6. The QUR'AN says that Devil cannot get power over the virtuous. But ABU BAKR said the Devil was able to control and overcome him. 7. If the successor of the Prophet (P) can stray from the right path, to what quarter should the Muslims look for guidance?

The recognition by the other caliphs of their own inabilities also serves as an admission of Imam Ali's superiority. During the caliphates of ABU BAKR and UMAR, it often happened that difficult problems of Islamic law and intricate questions about the interpretation of the QUR'AN came up for decision before the caliph, who found himself unable to solve or answer them. He would then either go himself to Imam Ali, or else send for him at the mosque, and put the problems or questions to him. Imam Ali would solve them directly. It was on occasions like this that UMAR used to say, "Had there been no Imam Ali, UMAR would have been lost". (On account of passing wrong judgments).

UMAR and all the other companions of the Prophet (P) used to say that Imam Ali knew the Law better than any one of them, and that he was the best judge among them. It is the unanimous verdict of the historians that one of the chief causes of the people being against Imam Ali was that he used to deal out equal justice to all, and divide lands and booty equally without any regard to the wealth, position or influence of the parties. The rich and influential persons were inevitably offended by being treated on a par with the poor. The granting of "political" favors to the rich and influential of the days of the first three caliphs was unknown in the time of Imam Ali's caliphate.

Criterion No, 8: Selfless Devotion to Islam:

Little needs to be written under this heading. The entire history of Imam Ali is an unbroken record of devotion to Islam and to the Prophet of Islam. This can be verified from the facts already mentioned. But out of the long list of sacrifices made by Imam Ali in the cause of Islam, chief place must go to his conduct after the death of the Prophet (P). He made the greatest sacrifice of his life when he conquered his own self by not taking up the sword when he saw another man taking the Prophet's place, even though right, justice, law and custom were all on his side. It is most strange that though every philosopher urges, every leader of men admits, every religion lays down as a main principle of its code, and even the man in the street does not deny, that the conquest of the self is the greatest and hardest-won victory, when it comes to estimating the value of men and things, they unconsciously assign the first place in the list of esteemed values to the conquering of other people's lands and acquisition of their goods, knowing full well that what has been done is only a repetition on a magnified scale of the actions a thug or a fool in his last analysis. The world appears to have been dazzled by the rapidity and extent of the conquests made by the armies of the first two caliphs, and nobody seems to realize that those conquests were made possible only by this stupendous sacrifice on the part of Imam Ali. Had he been unmindful of the interests of Islam and the last wishes of the Prophet (P), who had advised him to take to piety when he saw other people running after the world, and taken up the sword at that time, it is certain that Imam Ali, in whom were combined might and right, would have taken back by means of the sword what was his by right. But it is also certain that Islam would have been torn to shreds in the struggle. One is reminded of the story of the two women who quarreled over who was the owner of a baby boy; the judge thought of a clever move to ascertain the truth, by ordering the boy to be cut into two equal parts, one for each of the two claimants.

The spurious mother was revealed by her silence, while the real mother cried out, "No, better that my boy should live and be given to this other woman". It was the same sentiment which compelled Imam Ali to forego his right. He bore the taunts of friend and foe as well as the spectacle of his rights being trampled upon, struggled against the promptings of his own self, and suffered the mortification of the appropriation by his enemies of the fruits of his own labors. But he put up with all this for the sake of Islam.

Now contrast this attitude with that which he met with from others when he became the caliph. Even those persons who had not the semblance of a title to the caliphate made a bid for it and created all manner of troubles, culminating in the battles of JAMAL and SIFFIN. Could Imam Ali not have done the same thing when he found others usurping his rights? Had Imam Ali resorted to arms at that time, battles fiercer than those of JAMAL and SIFFIN would have been fought, and troubles greater than those that confronted Imam Ali would have face the other rulers, and neither conquests nor kingdoms would have been possible.

Temporal Government

Having dealt with the qualities needed for spiritual government, we now turn to temporal government. I have listed at the start of this chapter the seven qualities necessary in a successor to the Prophet (P). I do not think that it has ever been asserted or even hinted that Imam Ali was inferior to anyone in any of these qualities. In fact, he possessed them to their fullest extent, whereas his rivals were deficient in most of them. The political propaganda that has been disseminated against the children of the Prophet sums up the case against him in these words: "He was inferior to the first two caliphs in diplomacy and political acumen in as much as he failed to secure the caliphate, though well-knowing that the honor of the position was his by right, as the person indicated by Muhammad (P)".

Then the civil wars and his inability to extend the limits of the Empire are taken to point in the same direction. It is also said that he showed lack of tact and wisdom in dealing with TALHA, AZ-ZUBAIR, MU'AWIYA and the murderers of UTHMAN. A historian passes judgment in these words: "His wisdom in counsel and his reputed sagacity in framing sententious proverbs were great, though he was not wise enough to escape the doom, that was the certain result of a policy so little characterizes by strength as was that which he followed". Gibbon accuses him of rashness and indiscretion as "He neglected to secure, either by gifts or fetters, the doubtful allegiance of TALHA and ZUBAIR, two of the most powerful of the Arabian chiefs". These kinds of accusation indicate that the critics have not studied the character of Imam Ali as closely and carefully as they ought to have done before passing judgment on him. To mete out punishment on mere suspicion was not Imam Ali's way, as it was quite opposed to the spirit of Islam. Nor would Imam Ali stoop to bribe his enemies into submission. Bribery and intrigue, two powerful weapons of his adversaries, were foreign to his nature and contrary to the tenets of Islam.

The criticism resolves itself into the following:

1. Inability to secure the caliphate.

2. TALHA, AZ-ZUBAIR, and the battle of JAMAL.

3. MU'AWIYA and the battle of SIFFIN.

4. The murderers of UTHMAN.

5. The foreign conquests.

1. Inability to Secure the Caliphate:

To judge a man and to pass judgment on his life as a success or failure is one of the most difficult tasks of the historian. He has to study the man very closely and fine out what goal he set out on life's journey to attain, the opposition he encountered, the means he adopted to overcome it, and his ability to maintain the highest standard of character under the temptations and pressures of his long drawn out struggle with its many ups and downs. The historian will also have to judge whether the object, which the man set his sights on, was worthy of the sacrifices he made for it. Then, and only then, will he be in a position to pass judgment on his life and say whether it was a success or failure.

A close observation of conduct of Imam Ali throughout his life shows that his solitary object in life was to safeguard the interests of Islam, to defend it against the onslaughts of paganism, to see that its purity remained undefiled, and to ensure that it was running on the straight path that had been marked out for it by the Prophet (P). Imam Ali was ready to give up not only the caliphate, but even his life for the Islam.

The Victor of BADR and HUNAIN showed that for him, victory over his self was as easy as victory over formidable foes. Those who have had the experience of a struggle against the self know that it is much more difficult to gain victory over one's self than to gain victory over enemy armies. The victors of AUSTERLITZ and DUNKIRK could not gain victory over themselves; Napoleon yielded to the temptation of marrying into a royal family of Europe to create a line of emperors, thus having to commit the misdeed of divorcing the loving Josephine, and was punished with waterloo. And Hitler's ambition to conquer the world (if we are to believe what we are told by his vanquishers) got the better of him and led to his downfall.

That Imam Ali did not secure the caliphate in the first instance is correct. He could however have done so without difficulty, had he left the body of his dead Prophet (P) alone and gone to the SAQIFA to present himself with the other candidates. He would certainly have been chosen, because the only argument whereby ABU BAKR and UMAR managed to silence the ANSAR was that they were related to the Prophet (P) and were his heirs, while the ANSAR were total strangers, and that the Arabs would not agree to the rule of anyone who was not of the family of the Prophet (P). Imam Ali fulfilled these conditions to a much greater degree than ABU BAKR or UMAR, and in view of his services to Islam no one would have raised a single word against him.

But it would not have been an easy thing for Imam Ali to have left the dead body of the Prophet unattended, waiting for the last rights with not a single man there, all having gone off to fight for an empire which had been acquired by the man lying there dead - that man who was not only a Prophet, but also the benefactor of a nation, who had given them a religion, made a nation of them, acquired for them an empire, reformed their society, and taught them lessons of virtue. They were poor; he made them rich. They were as beasts; he made them men. They were at daggers drawn with each other; he made them live like brothers.

In fact all that they had, had been given to them by this man whose dead body was lying there in its forlorn condition. Besides the duties made incumbent upon them by Islam, this was a shameful demonstration of the most base vice in man- ingratitude. As if this was not enough, they added insult to injury by declaring as their excuse for this conduct, which must have appeared even to themselves as highly improper, that they were obliged to adopt this course because the appointment of a successor to the Prophet was of the highest import and called for their immediate attention, as the Prophet (P) had neglected to discharge this very important duty. This surely was the unkindest cut of all, as it implied that they were wiser and more solicitous about the good of Islam than the Prophet himself. Do those critical of Imam Ali's "political acumen" think that he should have joined them in this scramble for power? Had he done so, it would have been served to open the door to the following inferences and outcomes:

1. The Prophet (P) was careless enough to leave Islam (un-provided-for by not appointing his own successor or not making any arrangement for it.

2. This carelessness was so palpable and so grossly sinful that it leads to the obvious conclusion that the Prophet (P) had no love for Islam.

3. This, coupled with the attitude of his nearest relative in discarding all the maxims of virtue, morality, decency and humanity professed by Islam to indulge in the unseemly quarrel for power, would have confirmed the charge made by the heathens that Muhammad (P) was aiming at monarchy in the garb of Prophet-hood.

4. Imam Ali's conduct would have furnished a precedent to the ensuing generations of Muslims to put their selfish ends before any considerations of decency, morality and religion.

5. The enemies of Islam, the MUNAFIQIN and the pagans, would have been furnished with deadly effect.

It is therefore clear that by remaining at the Prophet's bedside at that moment Imam Ali saved Islam from dishonor and ignominy, and shut the door against all the criticisms that could otherwise have been raised by the MUNAFIQIN and the pagans. He saved Islam, and lost the caliphate. And later on, he avoided causing the ruination of Islam and the reversion to paganism, by desisting from taking up the sword to avenge his wrongs.

This was what ABU SUFYAN had wanted, and he incited Imam Ali to act. But Imam Ali foresaw this and refrained from bringing it about. When one looks at the provocations to which Imam Ali was subjected, one has to admire the patience with which he put up with them. Imagine the consequences had he not exercised a self-control which was almost superhuman. He was called to the DARBAR and prevailed upon under threat of death to make the BAI'A to ABU BAKR; is friends and partisans were dragged to the DARBAR and compelled to make the BAI'A; fire was actually brought to the house of the Prophet's daughter, who was threatened with arson if her husband did not come out. He put up with all these threats and insults, and did not raise a finger against those people. Why?

It was not the cudgel of UMAR that kept him back; "DHU AL-FIQAR" had tasted the blood of much greater warriors than him. But Imam Ali knew full well that if he ejected them from the caliphate, they would resort to intrigue, collusion and mischief -making on a scale that would lead to the deprecating of Islam and the denouncing of the Prophet (P). They would have openly said that the only object of Muhammad (P) had been to acquire a kingdom for his family, and that Islam was simply a cover. Reversion to paganism would have been a certainly. Not willing to allow Imam Ali any credit for standing firm, they resorted to a stratagem: they let it be known that Ali had acquiesced in the selection of ABU BAKR, in the nomination of UMAR, and in the farcical election of UTHMAN. Nothing could have been further from the truth; the threats made against Imam Ali themselves furnish testimony to its being a lie.

It is an enormity, as well as a good demonstration of the power of propaganda, that the first two caliphs should have been given the credit for there having been no civil war in their time, and that Imam Ali should have been taken to task for its incidence during his caliphate. The fact of the matter is that the credit for there being no civil war on the death of the Prophet rightly belongs to Imam Ali; and its occurrence in imam Ali's time was in fact due to the policy followed by his three predecessors.

2.TALHA, AZ-ZUBAIR and the Battle of JAMAL:

Gibbon writes: "In the first days of his reign, he (Imam Ali) neglected to secure, either by gifts or fetters, the doubtful allegiance of TALHA and AZ-ZUBAIR, two of the most powerful of the Arabian chiefs. They escaped from Medina to MAKKA, and thence to BASRA; erected the standard of revolt; and usurped the government of AL-IRAQ, or Assyria, which they had vainly solicited as the reward of their services. The mask of Patriotism is allowed to cover the most glaring inconsistencies; and the enemies, perhaps the assassins, of UTHMAN now demanded the vengeance of his blood. They were accompanied in their flight by A'ISHA, the widow of the Prophet (P), who cherished, to the last hour of her life, an implacable hatred against the husband and the posterity of FATIMA".

This charge sheet framed by Gibbon against Imam Ali is in effect Imam Ali's reply to the charge. Let us analyze it. It comprised the following informative statements:

1. As soon as Imam Ali ascended to the caliphate, he ought to have purchased the submission of TALHA and AZ-ZUBAIR by gifts.

2. By "gifts" is meant the governorships of KUFA and BASRA.

3. Alternatively he ought to have coerced them into submission by sending them to jail.

4. In either case their allegiance would only have been doubtful.

5. TALHA and AZ-ZUBAIR were responsible for the murder of UTHMAN, for it not themselves the actual murderers, they certainly instigated it.

6. They made the murder of UTHMAN an excuse for revolting against Imam Ali.

7. A'ISHA was the inveterate foe of Imam Ali and his children, and remained steadfast in her enmity against them right up to her death.

8. She instigated the revolt against Imam Ali.

As I have already said, to punish people before having committed an offence was not in accordance with the tenets of Islam. As to the gifting of KUFA and BASRA, only those persons could be appointed as governors whose fidelity and loyalty to the central authority was above suspicion. Moreover, according to the theology of Islam, the caliph is responsible for the misdeeds of the subordinates appointed by him; he is accountable to God for the actions done in their official capacity. Leaving aside these pious considerations, which are beyond the comprehension of the Modern Age, even ordinary statesmanship requires that the governors be selected from among those fidelity and loyalty to the ruler can be depended upon under all circumstances and against every enemy. TALHA and AZ-ZUBAIR did not fulfill this important condition. Gibbon himself says that even after the gifts of these two provinces, their allegiance would have at best been doubtful. To purchase doubtful allegiance at this huge price and involving so many risks would not have been a wise act.

The governorships of KUFA and BASRA were in any case not their ultimate objective. As they had both been members of the SHURA and had thus been candidates for the caliphate, they considered themselves to be as much entitled to it as Imam Ali, and were lamenting having allowed him to obtain it. They were aiming for the caliphate itself, and were desirous of getting BASRA and KUFA only as stepping-stones to the main goal. Gibbon is right in saying that these three persons, if not the actual assassins of UTHMAN, were certainly the instigators of his murder. TALHA himself boasted of having brought it about by his tactics. Now to make that murder an excuse for raising a revolt against Imam Ali, and to demand satisfaction for it, was as much derogatory to the position of the Prophet's companions as it was indicative of their real nature and enmity for Imam Ali.

Such unscrupulous men could not be entrusted with the government of Islamic provinces, as piety was one of the preconditions of appointment; nor could they be depended upon as true friends. Had Imam Ali complied with their request, KUFA and BASRA would have been made the centers of a huge revolt against Imam Ali, who would then have had to fight three MU'AWIYAS instead of one. For Imam Ali to have given them the governorships of KUFA and BASRA would have been to strengthen them and supply them with the means to carry on their struggle against him in their quest for the caliphate. On the other hand, to have sent them to jail on mere suspicion before having actually committed any act meriting imprisonment, would have been against the rules of Islam and unworthy of a successor of the Prophet (P), and would moreover have set a very dangerous example for his governors and the succeeding tyrannies in the ensuing generations.

3. MU'AWIYA and the Battle of SIFFIN:

On this point Imam Ali has been criticized thus: "The first thing that Imam Ali did on his accession was to dismiss MU'AWIYA from the governorship of Syria, who had acquired great influence there. AL-MUGHIRA IBN SHU'BA and ABDALLAH IBN ABBAS advised him to postpone his dismissal after he had taken the BAI'A from him…. Imam Ali refused to follow this advice, and sent the order of dismissal not only to MU'AWIYA but to all the governors appointed by UTHMAN…. His first great mistake was not to accept the advice of AL-MUGHIRA and IBN ABBAS; his second great mistake was to install in government posts such men as MUHAMMAD IBN ABI BAKR and AL-ASHTAR AL-NAKH'I, who had been suspected of having a hand in the murder of UTHMAN".

This criticism is based on a defective survey of the events of that time. A mere BAI'A would have been of no avail, as a insincere BAI'A in the case of TALHA and AZ-ZUBAIR had proved to be of no use. Moreover, MU'AWIYA was not a man to be deceived by a postponement of his dismissal. He had studied the situation so closely that it was inconceivable that he would fail to see that Imam Ali was temporizing. It must also be borne in mind that MU'AWIYA would not have sat idle during this interval. He would have been able to utilize it too much greater advantage than Imam Ali. He had the crafty AMR IBN AL-AS with him. One trip of his to BASRA or KUFA would have been sufficient to win the people over to his side, with the help of the most effective weapon-money. And for those, and they were few, who were likely to resist the temptation, the other weapon, poison, was ready.

This is abundantly proved by the fact that before Imam Ali could even issue the order calling upon MU'AWIYA to make the BAI'A to him, the bloodstained shirt of UTHMAN and the fingers of his wife, NA'ILA, had already reached Damascus, and were being exhibited publicly in the mosque to incite the hatred of the people against Imam Ali. Had Imam Ali remained silent, MU'AWIYA would have taken the initiative and invaded "AL-IRAQ. More than twenty-five years" rule with kingly pomp and show had firmly established him in his position. He had freely used the money to attach the people to himself. He had purposely kept them in complete ignorance of political affairs, and most of them did not even know who Imam Ali was or what his connection with the Prophet was. For example, when interrogated as to who Imam Ali was, some of them replied that he was one of the highway robbers against whom it was their duty to fight. Some said he was the father of FATIMA. When asked who FATIMA was, they replied that she was the wife of the Prophet (P) and daughter of A'ISHA, who was the sister of MU'AWIYA. When asked about Imam Ali, a man who was the wisest of them all said that Imam Ali was killed at the battle of HUNAIN with the Prophet (P). They were deliberately taught that there were no heirs or relatives of the Prophet (P) besides BANU OMMAYA.

Such was the hold that MU'AWIYA exercised over the perceptions of the people he governed. The most important thing to bear in mind is that MU'AWIYA had his eye on the caliphate, and from the moment that UTHMAN ascended the throne, the fulfillment of his heart's desire had appeared certain to him. His culpable inaction during the long period when UTHMAN had been besieged, in spite of the fact that UTHMAN had nervously beseeched him to come to his aid, points in the same direction. His masterly inactivity when the battle of JAMAL was being fought betrays the same state of mind. The whole show of clamoring for vengeance for the blood of UTHMAN was a contrivance to weaken Imam Ali, not a sincere desire to avenge the murder. MU'AWIYA did not therefore really want to help the nobles of Medina.

His desire rather was to have them blotted out of the picture, so that in case of final victory there would be no one else to claim the caliphate. The suggested procrastination would have been of immense value to the governor of Syria, and decidedly detrimental to the interest of the caliph in Medina. It appears to me that AL-MOGHIRA IBN SHU'BA gave that advice to Imam Ali in the interests of MU'AWIYA. He had been Imam Ali's bitterest enemy since the day Imam Ali advised UMAR to stone him to death in accordance with QUR'ANIC Law when the offence of adultery was proved against him. AL-MOGHIRA'S advice was based on the supposition that by means of Imam Ali's apparent silence, MU'AWIYA would be hoodwinked into believing that he had become his friend overnight, and would therefore give up all thoughts of opposing Imam Ali. No one with a knowledge of MU'AWIYA'S nature and record can believe that he was a man to be fooled like that, especially in view of his long-cherished desire to become the caliph of the Muslims and the founder of a dynasty of kings. I for one cannot assign that degree of stupidity to him.

Ali's strongest motive for removing MU'AWIYA was one, which will be scarcely appreciated in this age of atheism. He firmly believed, with an ardor wholly unintelligible today, that the person having the right to appoint and dismiss the officers of State is responsible before God and man for all the misdeeds committed by those officers, and will also have to answer for any injustices, tyrannies, ungodly acts, and contraventions of the QUR'AN and the SUNNA of the Prophet (P), committed by those officers.

As to the second part of the historian's criticism -the employment in government service of men suspected of having a hand in the murder of UTHMAN- I will discuss it when I come to that subject.

4. The Murderers of UTHMAN:

It is said that Imam Ali ought to have punished the murderers of UTHMAN and ought not to have employed in government service the men who had been suspected of this offence. This criticism betrays the same carelessness and absence of historical insight that generally characterizes the accusations leveled at Imam Ali by his detractors. The simple facts are:

1. In spite of Imam Ali's requiring them to establish who the assassins of UTHMAN were, they were unable to name any.

2. Those who claimed, as heirs of UTHMAN, to be avenging his blood, had themselves instigated his murder.

3. This cry of vengeance was only a political slogan to rouse the people against Imam Ali.

The circumstances in which UTHMAN was killed indicate a woeful moral state in the OMAYYA community. In the midst of his own kinsmen and in his own house at Medina, this caliph remained besieged for full forty days, and no attempt to rescue him was made by his kinsmen, who were numerous and upon whom he had lavished gifts, favors and positions of honor. In fact, his undue partiality to his kinsmen had been the cause of all his misfortunes and troubles. His enemies, while on their way back from Medina where a sort of compromise had been effected between them and the caliph through the intercession of Imam Ali, had intercepted a letter from UTHMAN addressed to the Governor of Egypt ordering him to do away with the leaders of this disaffected array of men. As soon as they returned to Medina to demand an explanation, UTHMAN sent information of this rising and a request for help to the places from where it would be possible for it to arrive in time, such as MAKKA, Syria, KUFA, BASRA and important places in Arabia.

It was the time of HAJJ, when people from all parts of the Muslim Empire had assembled at MAKKA. He therefore sent a long letter there containing an urgent summons for help; messengers were sent for this purpose, and the letter was read before the assemblage. UTHMAN also sent a special and very forceful communication to MU'AWIYA. The following is the translation of an extract from AT-TABARI:

When UTHMAN saw the calamity, which had befallen him, and how people had risen against him, he sent the following letter to MU'AWIYA in Syria: "In the name of the most merciful and compassionate God, the people of Medina have rebelled against me, and have broken the BAI'A. Therefore, please send to me an army from Syria immediately and without delay". When this letter reached MU'AWIYA, he did not obey the order, and thought it inadvisable to oppose the companions of the Prophet (P), even though he had known that they had banded together against UTHMAN. Before this, MU'AWIYA had been present at a meeting of the governors of the provinces, and had given UTHMAN some advice to dispel the clouds, which were gathering round the caliph.

As for AMR IBN AL-AS, he had become the bitterest enemy of UTHMAN, who had removed him from the governorship of Egypt and appointed his own kinsman in his place. This action earned him the undying hatred and enmity of AMR, who excited the Egyptians to rise against him. UTHMAN had called him, and addressing him as the son of NABIGHA (a prostitute), had demanded to know why he had joined his enemies, when in the days before Islam UTHMAN had been more respected than him. In reply, AMR cursed and abused UTHMAN'S father. When he had gone, MARWAN came to UTHMAN and taunted him that matters had come to such a pass that the sons of prostitutes should have the courage to abuse his father. When the news of the murder of UTHMAN reached AMR, he exclaimed proudly, "I am ABU ABDALLAH; when I scratch a wound, I remove the skin completely. I used to incite people to rise against UTHMAN to such an extent that I incited even a shepherd who was grazing his goats on the hills".

As for TALHA and AZ-ZUBAIR, I have already quoted Gibbon to show that they had at least instigated UTHMAN'S murder, even if they were not the actual assassins. And it was on TALHA that the blood of UTHMAN was avenged by MARWAN. As both of them were aiming at the caliphate, they turned against Imam Ali when he became the caliph. They were the chief conspirators in leading the people against Imam Ali on the field of JAMAL. MARWAN thought it the most convenient occasion for taking revenge on TALHA for the murder of UTHMAN. He therefore killed him by means of an arrow while he was walking in the lines of his own army. MARWAN then turned towards ABBAN son of UTHMAN, and said, "I have taken revenge for the murder of UTHMAN at least against one of your father's murderers".

WELLHAUSEN writes: "In Egypt, instead of the conqueror AMR IBN AL-AS, UTHMAN appointed his cousin IBN ABI SARH, although the latter was outlawed by Muhammad (P). AMR, a very dangerous man, consequently became his foe, helped to arouse feelings against him in Medina, and probably did not refrain from doing the same in Egypt".

Describing the policy of MU'AWIYA concealed behind his demand of revenge for the blood of UTHMAN, OSBORN writes"

This dexterous policy, however, had not merely the effect of throwing a cloud over the fair name of Imam Ali, but of attaching to the cause of MU'AWIYA a man, without whose cunning and fertility of resources his machinations would not, in all probability, have terminated in success. This was AMR IBN AL-AS, the conqueror of Egypt. He had been deprived of the governorship of that province by UTHMAN, and had labored assiduously, but in secret, to embitter the conspirators against the caliph. In so doing he was actuated partly by desire for revenge, but more so by simple ambition….

He had hesitated for a while which side to espouse, but it did not require much time to convince him that the tortuous paths in which he delighted to treat were alien to the simple and candid mind of Ali. When intelligence reached him of the effect MU'AWIYA was producing in Damascus by his exhibition of the bloody shirt of UTHMAN, AMR broke out in an exclamation of delight, as of one who recognized a kindred spirit, and repaired to Syria without loss of time. Between these two arch-conspirators there was no attempt to conceal the real character of their cause under a veil of specious pretences. AMR said, candidly enough, that in espousing the cause of MU'AWIYA in preference to Ali, he had chosen the good of this world rather than the rewards of the next, and that he must be paid accordingly. He demanded the government of Egypt in perpetuity, with the revenues of that rich province entirely at his disposal. MU'AWIYA joyfully acceded to these terms.

Regarding the policy of MU'AWIYA, Gibbon writes: "The sacred duty of pursuing the assassins of UTHMAN was the engine and pretence of his ambition". These were the pampered favorites of UTHMAN who turned against him and contrived hid death. Ingratitude of this kind can be neither forgiven nor forgotten in any religion or code of morality, but surely the lowest depths of degradation to which human nature could fall were reached when these very same persons turned round to demand vengeance for the blood of UTHMAN and excited people against Imam Ali in UTHMAN name. They asked Ali to deliver up to them certain persons whom they were pleased to name as UTHMAN'S murderers, while they were quite unable to bring the accusation to bear. Their demand was that the whole of the Egyptian army should be disgraced and sent home, and that the selected persons named by them for punishment as the murderers of UTHMAN. Could anyone in whom the slightest trace of judicial sense was left agree to this wholesale slaughter of his friends on the mere asking of his foes? They named those persons not because they honestly believed them to be the murderers of UTHMAN, but because they were the staunch friends of Imam Ali and were stalwart warriors on his side. The only person present with UTHMAN at the time of his murder was his wife NA'ILA, and on enquiry being made of her, she said, "Only two persons murdered UTHMAN; I do not know their names, but if they come before me. I shall be able to identify them. MUHAMMAD IBN ABI BAKR is right; he did not kill UTHMAN". This clinches the whole matter.

Obviously the whole army could not have killed UTHMAN, nor was there any intention common to all of them to do so. They had come not with this intention, but simply to demand MARWAN, whom they considered to be at the bottom of all this mischief. The letter mentioned above was in his handwriting. When UTHMAN refused this, the demand developed into one for abdication. There is absolutely no evidence to show that all or any of them had any idea or intention of killing the aged caliph. It appears that when the siege was prolonged due to the obstinacy of the caliph, the mob was enraged. But even then there was no intention to kill him. All at once, from among the defenders of the house, someone threw a stone at a companion of the Prophet (P), killing him. The event is described by a European historian thus:

The decisive change for the worse, the first bloodshed was caused by the defenders of the DAR. One of them threw a stone at the head of an old Companion who was standing outside in the crowd, and killed him. UTHMAN refused to deliver up the culprit. The besiegers felt justified and duty bound to cast aside all considerations, and began the attack upon the DAR; the Egyptian IBN UDAIS of the BALI tribe commanded, leaning against the mosque. At the door, the friends of UTHMAN fought for him, and even after it was set on fire they tried to keep the assaulters at bay. But a few of the latter had meanwhile penetrated the DAR through a neighboring building, and now pressed into the very chamber of the caliph.

It must have been the friends or relatives of the Companion thus killed whom, on the refusal of UTHMAN to hand the culprit over, took it into their head to kill UTHMAN. MUHAMMAD IBN ABI BAKR was certainly in the army besieging UTHMAN. But the Egyptians arrived on the scene when the siege had already lasted for twenty-two days. They came only one week before his murder. MUHAMMAD IBN ABI BAKR went into the house where UTHMAN was, but came out without doing the caliph any harm. When he went in and caught hold of caliph's beard, and the caliph rebuked him and saying that his father would not have treated him like that, MUHAMMAD IBN ABI BAKR came out, saying that he did not intend to kill him. AT-TABARI says that the persons who actually killed UTHMAN were SAWDAN IBN HAMRAN and perhaps QATIRA. But both of them were then killed on the spot by the slaves of UTHMAN. Imam Ali sent his own sons to defend the caliph, and they actually fought the besiegers and kept them from the house. It was only through the adjoining house that the besiegers were able to get in.

It is thus established beyond all doubt that the persons who actually killed UTHMAN did not survive the tragedy. At least, they could not be spotted afterwards. It was therefore impossible for Imam Ali to punish the murderers. He could not punish the whole army, because in all this consternation it was not evident that they were in the wrong. They were simply demanding redress for the wrong that had been done to them. In fact at one stage they left the siege of their own will after an understanding had been arrived at between them and the caliph through the mediation of Imam Ali. They went back only when, on their way home, they intercepted a message from the Government of Medina to the Governor of Egypt aski9ng him to kill the leaders of the Egyptians when they arrived back.

The Egyptians were naturally and justly incensed at this flagrant breech of faith by the caliph, and returned to Medina and demanded an explanation. The caliph said that it had been written without his knowledge. As the letter was in the handwriting of MARWAN, the Egyptians demanded that he should be handed over to them, but UTHMAN refused. Who was in the wrong? Whom was Imam Ali to be expected to punish? The real fact of the matter is that the demand for vengeance for the blood of UTHMAN was only an excuse for creating trouble for Imam Ali. Had he punished the whole army of Egypt, who were quite innocent of the blood of UTHMAN, he would have lost the sympathy and support of a large army, and that was what MU'AWIYA wanted.

5.The Foreign Conquests:

I have already remarked that the conquests were made possible in the time of the first two caliphs because of the peaceful conduct of Imam Ali, who controlled himself and did not create any trouble; and that foreign conquests were made impossible in the time of Imam Ali because of the turbulent conduct of his enemies, who had become firmly entrenched during the reign of the first three caliphs. But the matter does not stop here. The historian has also to investigate the circumstances that produced TALHA, AZ-ZUBAIR and MU'AWIYA and created the atmosphere under which they could thrive and prosper. A perusal of this book from its beginning up to this point must have made it clear to the reader that it was the well-organized and successfully conducted conspiracy to take the caliphate out of the family of the Prophet (P) which gave rise to those circumstances which eventually culminated in this woeful state of affairs.

But apart from what has been stated above, a close and careful study of Islamic history reveals the following undeniable facts about the unnaturally rapid conquests of the days of the first two caliphs:

(a) They were undertaken not in the interests of Islam, nor according to its dictates, but for internal political reasons.

(b) They were hasty and premature.

(c) They were against the laws of JIHAD as laid down by the Holy QUR'AN and enforced by the Prophet (P).

(d) They were therefore more harmful than beneficial to Islam as a world movement for the spread of universal love, brotherhood of man, and the idea of the fatherly oneness of the God of all mankind.

Unjustifiable use of the sword, that began just after the death of the Prophet (P) and became a model for all future rulers of Islam, created that deep-seated hatred and undying disgust for Islam in the hearts of the people of the world, which the passage of time has been unable to erase. The scope of this book does not allow a thorough discussion of the subject, which requires a volume to itself. But its importance does not permit me to pass it by. I therefore merely touch here on the salient features of each of the points noted above.

(a) The Foreign Expeditions were due to Internal Exigencies:

The following needs prompted these expeditions:

1. To engage the people elsewhere and escape their criticism, which had started on the very day following the SAQIFA coup. The rapidity with which the coup had been carried out confounded the people of Medina into silence for the time being. Imagine their state of mind: their Prophet is dead; his body is lying before their very eyes; they are expecting everybody to mourn, to be submerged in grief and sorrow, to go and offer condolences to the Prophet's only daughter, to sympathize with his close relatives, and to share the grief of his grandsons whom he loved so dearly; they look around to see how his death is being borne by his UMMA; but instead of what they imagine, they behold their new ruler returning from the SAQIFA; they can hardly believe their eyes, and for the present they are confounded. However, this state of bewilderment was not likely to last long; it was bound to give place to a more thoughtful survey and scrutiny of events. It soon wore off, and people began to ask each other why Imam Ali was ignored and how the caliphate could go to a comparatively unknown and unimportant tribe. The boded ill for the new government, but the man who had masterminded its coming into being was equal to the situation, and he adopted many methods to win the people over to his side. One of the most effective measures for avoiding the ill effects of the coup was to send the people out to foreign lands. If they won, well and good; The "GHANIMA" (war booty) that they brought would seal the lips of every man. If they perished in the attempt, then the government would be rid of a turbulent section of the people.

2. To prevent the people from aiding and sympathizing with Imam Ali.

3. To provide an occupation for the people who were likely to create trouble at home. "The young man surplus". Wells has well said, "if it is not consumed, is the main source of rebels, revolutionaries and disturbances of all kinds". In the case of the Arabs, fond as they were of war and booty, these expeditions were the surest means of relieving "the accumulated tensions of unsatisfied youth".

4. To extinguish the smoldering fire of disaffection and to acquire the sympathy and goodwill of the people by means of the wealth and booty obtained in the wars.

5. To have ready at hand a well-equipped army for any emergency that might arise in view of the uncertain attitude of BANU HASHIM. The value of war booty for motivating the expeditions to Iran and Syria in the time of the first two caliphs, and for winning popularity with the War Lords of Medina, cannot be overemphasized. The following is a translation of a passage occurring in SHIBLI'S "SIRAT-AN-NABI":

The greatest difficulty was that the people were unduly saturated with a passion for booty, so much so that it was the most potent cause of wars. The Prophet (P) took very gradual steps to correct this tendency. In the Days of Ignorance, war booty used to be the most alluring object for the people. From ABU DAWUD we learn that a man asked the Prophet (P) whether a man would get any reward for the JIHAD if he also had some worldly gain in view. The Prophet (P) replied, "No". But the people regarded this as very strange. They sent man after man to put the same question to the Prophet (P). Each time, the Prophet (P) replied that he would get no reward in the next world for a JIHAD in which he had some worldly gain also in view. It was then that the people believed that the Prophet (P) really meant what he said.

Once the Prophet (P) sent certain companions of his to fight a tribe. One of the companions was walking a littler ahead of the army. The tribesmen came out weeping, and met the man who was walking in front of the rest of the army. He told them that they could escape the fate that surely awaited them if they recited the KALIMA. They embraced Islam, and thus the fight was avoided. His comrades blamed him for converting them to Islam, as by their becoming Muslims, the army had been deprived of the booty. ABU DAWUD records this in that man's own words: "My comrades reproached me and said that I had deprived them of the GHANIMA". They took it so much to heart that they complained of his conduct to the Prophet (P). But the Prophet (P) applauded hid deed, and said that for each man that embraced Islam, he would get a high reward in the life to come.

In spite of such strictness and the frequent admonitions, the battle of HUNAIN in A.H 8 was lost on account of the people occupying themselves with gathering the booty. In "SAHIS AL-BUKHARI" where this battle is described, it is said, "The Muslims proceeded towards the GHANIMA, and the enemy attacked them with their arrows".

In ABU DAWUD, the statement of an ANSAR is thus recorded: "Once we went out on an expedition; we met with great privations and hardships. By chance we espied a flock of goats belonging to the pagans. We all looted the goats. When the Prophet (P) came to know of it, he came up to the spot, and saw the flesh of the goats beings cooked on the fore. There was a bow in his hand. With it he overturned all the vessels in which that meat was being cooked, and said that the looted property was like dead animals' flesh". Gilman writes:

Despots have always found it necessary to employ their subjects in foreign wars from time to time, in order to keep them away from feeling the galling chains by which they are bound, or to hear their clanking; and it came to pass that when the caliph had all the tribes of Arabia under control, he saw no better way to restrain them from new revolts than by tempting them to make inroads upon their neighbors. Nothing could have been better planned by a ruler acquainted with the volatile nature of his subjects.

I cannot help quoting from a very carefully written chapter in "The Cambridge Medieval History". The learned historian says"

Just as the ecclesiastical conception on the one hand broke the historical continuity, it perceived on the other hand in the expansion of the Arabs noting but a further extension of the religion of Islam and therefore totally misunderstood the real nature of the movement. It was not the religion of Islam, which was by that time disseminated by the sword, but merely the political sovereignty of the Arabs. The acceptance of Islam by other than Arabians was not only not striven for, but was in fact regarded with disfavor. The subdued peoples might peacefully retain their old religions, provided only that they paid ample tribute.

As on conversion to Islam these payments ceased, at least in the early times, such changes of religion were disliked. The circumstances that a few pious men subsequently practiced such proselytism, or that the material advantages of apostasy gradually led the population of the conquered countries to Islam, must not blind our eyes to the fact that the movement originated from quite other motives. The sudden surging forward of the Arabs was only apparently sudden. For centuries previously, the Arab migration had been in preparation. It was the last great Semitic migration connected with the economic decline of Arabia…. In short, long before Muhammad, Arabia was in a state of unrest, and a slow, uncontrollable infiltration of Arabian tribes and tribal branches had permeated the adjoining civilized lands in Persian as also in Roman territory, where they had met with the descendants of earlier Semitic immigrants to those parts, the ARAMAEANS, who were already long acclimatized there.

Persia and Byzantium suffered severely from this constant unrest in their border provinces, and both empires had endeavored to organize the movement and to use it as a fighting medium, the one against the other. The Romans had organized the Syrian Arabs for this purpose under the leadership of princes of the house of GHASSAN, the most celebrated of whom even received the title of patrician, while the SASSANIDS founded a similar bulwark in HIRA, where the LAKHMITES, under Persian sovereignty, lived a princely life, greatly celebrated by Arabian poets. A short-sighted policy, and probably also internal weakness, permitted the ruin of both of these states, which would have offered an almost insuperable barrier to the Islamic expansion…. Thus the great empires had succeeded in destroying the smaller Arabian states, which had grown too powerful…. The expansion of the SARACENS is thus the final stage in a process of development extending over centuries. Islam was simply a change in the watchword for which they fought…

Under these circumstances it would be a mistake to regard the Arab migration merely as a religious movement incited by Muhammad. The question may in fact be put whether the whole movement in not conceivable without the intervention of Islam. There can be in any case no question of any zealous impulse towards proselytism. That strong religious tie, which at the present time binds together all Muslims, that events, not the primary cause of the Arab migration, but merely a consequence of Islam in this direction lies in its masked political character, which the modern world has even in our own time to take into consideration.

In the outset Islam meant the supremacy of Medina, but it soon identified itself with ARABIANISM, i.e. it preached the superiority of the Arabian people generally. This great idea gives an intellectual purport to the restless striving for expansion, and makes a political focus of the great Arabian State of Medina, founded on religion. Hunger and avarice, not religion, are the impelling forces, but religion supplies the essential unity and central power. The expansion of the SARACENS' religion, both in point of time and in itself, can only be regarded as of minor import and rather as a political necessity. The movement itself had been afoot long before Islam gave it a party cry and an organization.

It is thus evident that these expeditions were not sent out for the sake of Islam, or in its interests. Avarice and political needs, not religion, were the driving forces, and as a matter of fact conversions to Islam were discourages as tending to lessen the income of the State. With them, Islam was merely their cry.

(b) The Conquests were Hasty and Premature:

The majority of the Arabs accepted Islam when it was well-nigh on the road to success, and when its victories had assured them that it was the dominating force in Arabia, and that the interests of their worldly welfare required that they side with the Muslims as the winning party. They cared little to know what were its principles, and less to put them into practice. Their period of contact with the Prophet (P) was much too short to accustom them to the practice of those austere rules of Islam which, as we have seen, opposed to their nature and conflicted with their immediate good as they understood it to be. As attested to by the Holy QUR'AN, most of the conversions took place after the conquest of MEKKA, and the Prophet (P) lived for only two years after that event. The accumulated experiences and habits of centuries could not yield to a halfheartedly learnt lesson of but two years duration. Gibbon thus writes of these people:

The revolution of Arabia had not changed the character of he Arabs; the death of Muhammad was the signal of independence; and the hasty structure of his power and religion tottered to its foundations… the increasing myriads, who acknowledged Muhammad as their king and Prophet, had been compelled by his arms, or allured by his prosperity. The polytheists were confounded by the simple idea of a solitary and invisible God; the pride of the Christians and the Jews disdained the yoke of a mortal and contemporary legislator. Their habits of faith and obedience were not sufficiently confirmed, and many of the new converts regretted the venerable antiquity of the law of MUSA; or the rites and mysteries of the Catholic Church, or the idols, the sacrifices, the joyous festivals of their pagan ancestors.

The jarring interests and hereditary feuds of the Arabian tribes had not yet coalesced in a system of union and subordination; and the barbarians were impatient of the mildest and most salutary laws that curbed their passions or violated their customs. They submitted with reluctance to the religions precepts of the QUR'AN, abstinence from wine, the fast of Ramadan, and the daily repetition of five prayers; and the alms and tithes, which were collected for the treasury of Medina, could be distinguished only by a name from the payment of a perpetual and ignominious tribute.

Turning to ABU BAKR, the Prophet (P), who knew well his countrymen, once said, "Heathenism is still working imperceptibly within you like the movements of ants". AL-ALLAM AL-MASHRIQI has well said that though Islam and the QUR'AN did much for the Arabs, yet they could not change their nature and alter their habits in such a short time. The old habits and ideas, which had become ingrained in their nature over a span of thousands of years, could not leave them all at once. Those old beliefs and ideas still lingered on in their mind. Speaking of the high moral tenets and lofty principles of Islam, NICHOLSON says:

Against such doctrines, the conservative and material instincts of the desert people rose in revolt; and although they became Muslims en masse, the majority of them neither believed in Islam nor knew what it meant. Often their motives were frankly utilitarian; they expected that Islam would bring them luck; and so long as they were sound in body, and their mares had fine foals, and their wives bore well-formed sons, and their wealth and herds multiplied, they said, we have been blessed ever since we adopted this religion; and were content; but if things went ill, they blamed Islam and turned their backs on it.

Apart from their natural inability to appreciate and assimilate the doctrines of Islam, political exigencies required that the doctrines and principles of Islam should be so molded and shaped, and the QUR'AN so interpreted and explained, as to be of use in the propaganda of the men who had seized power on the death of the Prophet (P). They had to justify their actions to the nation and prove that they had divine sanction for what they had done. With this end in view, they sat down to "amend", modify and abrogate the various provisions of Islamic Theology. (for a detailed account of this systematic attempt at molding Islam to suit their ends, I refer the reader to my book in Urdu entitled "KITAB-AL-TAFRIQ WA AL-TAHRIF FI AL-ISLAM"). Here I shall mention but one or two examples. The first doctrine to receive their attention was the concept of "JIHAD". They so molded it by precept and practice as to bring every manner of looting and exploitation under it.

I will discuss it at its proper place under the next heading. Another of the doctrines invented for their purposes and given wide publicity was this: "We must submit to what has actually taken place, because whatever happens does so with the will and pleasure of God". MAWLAWI SHIBLI says that this and like doctrines were invented and added to the Theology of Islam for political reasons by the OMAYYAD despots, who wanted to silence their critics and make them bear their tyrannies and oppression with patience. For obvious reasons the learned historian throws the blame on the OMAYYAD rules, but it is evident that this doctrine was invented by UMAR. It is proved by the conversation, which UMAR had with ABDALLAH IBN ABBAS in which UMAR is reported to have said Imam Ali could not succeed the Prophet because it was God's wish that he should not, just as his father ABU TALIB did not accept Islam because that was God's will.

The weakness of this logic is plain, and that it is foreign to Islamic Theology is plainer still. Were we to accept it, virtue would have no reward, and vice would incur no punishment; complete chaos would reign. If we succeeded in committing a robbery or murder, we would have to be reworded, because we had aided the will of God; but if we failed in the attempt to commit those offences, we would have to be punished because we had attempted what was not willed by God. But due to this force of propaganda, Islam, on the basis of this doctrine, has been misunderstood by aliens as a religion teaching fatalism. It is a tragedy that a religion that inculcates such clear doctrines as "Man can have nothing but what he strives for", should come to be described by others thus:

Fatalism is thus the central tenet of Islam…. History repeats itself in MUHAMMADAN countries with a truly doleful exactness. The great bulk of the people are passive; wars and revolutions rage round them; they accept them as the decrees of a fate, which it is useless to strive against. All power passes accordingly into the hands of a few ambitious and turbulent spirits unencumbered with scruples of any kind, animated by no desires except those of being rich and strong. There is never a sufficient space of rest to allow institutions to grow up. Each adventurer as he rises to the summit of his ambition can keep his unsteady footing only by smiting down those who are climbing after him. Sooner or later, of course, he sinks to give way to another; and so the scene shifts and changes, until utter exhaustion and swift corruption (the state of the MUHAMMADAN world at the present day) supervene on this insane and convulsive activity.

These observations are quite justified, in as much as, from the distorted view of Islam that has been presented to them, they can draw no other conclusions.

These were the people, still saturated with (paganistic) ideas, and immersed in the civilization of their pagan ancestors that were borne on the crest of the waves of conquests to foreign lands; and this was the Islam they carried with them, misinterpreted by ignorance and intentionally disfigured by ambition.

Now let us follow the Arabs on their career of conquest. We come first to Syria. It was given over to BANU OMAYYA as a measure of political necessity, to set up a sure and reliable center of opposition to BANU HASHIM headed by Imam Ali, whom they had deprived of the caliphate by their coup d'état at the SAQIFA; and though Imam Ali was not inclined to seek redress through an appeal to arms, yet those at the helm of affairs, who naturally judged others by their own standard, deemed the possibility to be there. And then again, no one could foresee the future turn of events. From the moment Syria was handed over to BANU OMAYYA, it must be considered to have been lost to Islam. Speaking of the times when this policy brought forth its anticipated fruit, Professor Browne writes about them thus:

the triumph of the OMAYYADS was in reality, as Dozy well says, the triumph of that party which, at heart, was hostile to Islam; and the sons of the Prophet's most inveterate foes now, unchanged at heart, posed as his legitimate successors and vicegerents, and silenced with the sword those who dared murmur against their innovations. Nor was cause for murmuring far to seek even in the reign of MU'AWIYA, who in the splendor of his court at Damascus, and in the barriers, which he set between himself and his humbler subjects, took as his model the Byzantine Emperors and Persian Kings, rather than the first vicars of the Prophet.

He then goes on to describe "the sacrilegious actions, the ungodly lives, the profanity and worldliness of these rulers". I cannot help quoting another European writer, Osborn says:

History records few stranger freaks of fortune than that which seated the son of ABU SUFYAN on the throne of the Caliph. ABU SUFYAN was the bitterest and ablest opponent of the Prophet. His wife, HIND, was one of the few specially excluded from the mercy of the Prophet when he made his triumphant entry into MAKKA as the greatest chieftain in Arabia -an exclusion richly merited by her conduct after the battle of UHUD. The conversion of ABU SUFYAN himself was merely a political man-oeuvre, the insincerity of which was apparent. The children of ABU SUFYAN made some clumsy endeavors to smooth over the awkwardness of these antecedents by putting certain sayings in the mouth of the Prophet attesting the zeal and devotedness of ABU SUFYAN…. But even to the almost unbounded credulity of the Arab, these traditions must have come under the heading "MUNKAR", i.e. traditions proceeding from a reporter of feeble authority.

MU'AWIYA, the son of ABU SUFYAN, seems to have been in almost every respect the duplicate of his father. Faith in Islam he had none; in his contest against Imam Ali he was spurred on simply by worldly ambition, as was also his friend and colleague, AMR, the conqueror of Egypt. Astute, unscrupulous and pitiless, the first caliph of the OMAYYA shrank from no crime necessary to secure his position. Murder was his accustomed mode of removing a formidable opponent. The grandson of the Prophet he caused to be poisoned; MALIK AL-ASHTAR, the heroic lieutenant of Imam Ali, was destroyed in a like way. To secure the succession of his son YAZID, MU'AWIYA hesitated not to break the word he had pledged to IMAM AL-HUSSAIN, the surviving son of Imam Ali. And yet this cool, calculating, thoroughly atheistic Arab ruled over the regions of Islam, and the scepter remained among his descendants for the space of nearly one hundred and twenty years. About another OMAYYAD king, the same writer says"

AL-WALID ll was surnamed "The Reprobate". He was dissolute in his life, revolting in his language, and disgusting in his habits. In one of his orgies, a chamberlain said to him, "Prince of Believers, the approaches to the palace are filled with delegates from the Arabs and QURAISH, and your condition is not becoming the dignity of the caliph". By way of reply, the prince ordered the chamberlain to seat himself among the drinkers, and on the latter refusing to do so, he had him seized and bound, a tube forced between his teeth, and wine poured through it till the wretched man fell dead drunk. On another occasion, happening to repeat the following verse of the QUR'AN, "Then sought they help from God, and every proud rebellious one perished; hell is before him, and of tainted water shall he be made to drink", he ordered a copy of the sacred book to be brought before him, and, setting it up as a mark, pierced it with arrows, while he recited the verses of pagan poetry to the following effect….

Were these conquests of any use to Islam, as distinct from the Arab nation? Islam should not be confused with the Arab Nation. The two are not the same thing.

It has thus been abundantly proved that genuine Islam had not been assimilated in the Arabs' nature before they embarked on their career of conquest. Referring to a fragment to YAZID'S verses preserved in the pages of IBN KHALLAKAN'S Biographical Dictionary, Osborn writes: "It is important, as showing at what an early date the contact with Christian and Persian thought commenced to undermine the doctrines of the QUR'AN". I should rather say, "the doctrines of the QUR'AN as interpreted by those Muslims".

Speaking of the influence of the subject races on the religion of the Arabs, Browne says, "Amongst the most striking illustrations, which he (GOLDZIHER) gives of the preponderating influence of those foreign MAWALI, is a dialogue between the OMAYYAD Caliph ABD AL-MALIK and the famous theologian AS-ZUHRI, whence it appears that alike in MAKKA, YEMEN, EGYPT, MESOPOTAMIA, KHURASAN, KUFA, and BASRA, foreign "clients" held the chief positions of authority in religion".

As to Persia and the ABBASSIDS, things were in no better condition. Every religion that existed in Persia exerted its influence on Islam and destroyed its purity. The ZOROASTRIAN religion was introduced into Islam through the natives, with the result that it came to have great attraction for these Muslims. Many ideas were borrowed by Islam from Zoroastrianism. The first two or three centuries immediately following the Muslim conquest of Persia were a period of immense and unique interest, of fusion between the old and the new, of transformation of forms and transmigration of ideas. In the intellectual domain, Persia soon began to assert the supremacy to which the ability and subtlety of her people entitled her. Even the forms of state organization were largely adapted from Persian models. Various departments of the State founded by UMAR were almost entirely based on Persian and Roman models.

The ABBASSIDS were no less perfidious and unscrupulous than the OMAYYADS. Speaking of the revolution brought about through the propaganda carried on by the ABBASSIDS, Browne says:

Many of those who had worked so strenuously for the revolution were most bitterly disappointed when it was an accomplished fact. More especially was this so in the case of the SHIA who, misled by the delusive belief that by the term "HASHEMITES", in whose name the propaganda was carried on, the House of Imam Ali was intended, discovered, when it was too late, that not even in the OMAYYADS had the true descendants of the Prophet enemies more implacable than in their "HASHEMITE" cousins of the House of ABBAS.

The greatest orient-list of our century quotes the historian AL-FAKHRI in these words:

Know that the ABBASID dynasty was a treacherous, wily, and faithless dynasty, wherein intrigue and guile played a greater part than strength and energy, particularly in its latter days. Indeed, the later rulers of this House lost all faculty of energy and courage, and relied solely on tricks and stratagems. Browne goes on to quote Dozy thus:

The ascendancy of the Persian over the Arabs, that is to say, of the conquered over the victors, had already for a long while been in course of preparation; it became complete when the ABBASSIDS, who owed their elevation to the Persians, ascended the throne. These princes made it a rule to be on their guard against the Arabs, and to put their trust only in foreigners, Persians, especially those of KHORASAN, with whom, therefore, they had to make friends. The most distinguished personages at court were consequently Persians. The famous BARMECIDS were descended from a Persian noble who had been superintendent of the Fire-temple at BALKH.

Again, to draw upon that same inexhaustible storehouse of information: The BARMECIDES naturally used their great influence in favor of their compatriots, but they had to be careful lest a too evident partiality for the institutions of Persia should bring them under suspicion of being still at heart MAGIANS…. VON KREMER treats fully of the Persian influences, which were everywhere, active, and which so largely molded not only the organization of the Church and State, but in ABBASSID times, even the fashions of dress, food, music and the like.

This state of things, coupled with the fact that the Muslims, during the early caliphate, had been given the sanction to use their own judgment in religious matters if they thought there was nothing in the QUR'AN or HADITH applicable to the case under consideration, led to Islam being rent asunder into different sects, most of them taking their inspiration not from the QUR'AN, but from the atheistic philosophies of Greece and India. The example of the sect known as the "MO'TAZILA" is a case in point.

The stamp of Greek philosophy is boldly imprinted on their main beliefs. They refer to the QUR'AN also as their authority as a last argument, the QUR'AN as interpreted by them under the influence of Greek philosophy, and not as explained by the Prophet (P). The other source of their beliefs was Christian Theology. There arose in Persia, therefore, many "outwardly MUHAMMADAN heresies embodying and reviving in new forms per-Muslim and non-Muslim ideas". Under the direct influence of OMAYYAD rule, a sect called "MURJI'A" arose. Imam ABU HANIFA was one of them. It was on account of OMAYYAD influence that they entertained the obviously untenable belief that no Muslim, whatever sins he may have committed, will be doomed to everlasting perdition.

Clearly discernible in this license to a Muslim to commit any number of the most heinous crimes with impunity, is the OMAYYAD anxiety to save from present calumny and future damnation their rulers, among whom were included such profligates as AL-WALID and such tyrants as YAZID.

Sufism, which has had great influence on Muslim conduct, is another product of the same combination. There are two schools of thought regarding the source of Sufism. One school represented by Von Kremer holds that "Sufism took into itself two different elements, an older Christian-ascetic, which came strongly to the front even in the beginning of Islam, and then later a Buddhist-contemplative, which soon, in consequence of the increasing influence of the Persian on Islam, obtained the upper hand, and called into being the Mystic-proper of Islam". Te other view is expressed by Browne in these words: "SUFI pantheism presents far more striking analogies with neo-Platonism than with either VEDANTISM or BUDDHISM, while historically, it is much more likely that it borrowed from the first that from either of the two last". The following passage from Professor Browne's excellent History throws considerable light on the subject under discussion"

And now, under the ABBASSID Caliphate, it was these pagans of HARRAN, who, more than anyone else, imparted to the Muslims all the learning and wisdom of the Greeks which they had so jealously guarded… and, thanks to their influence at a court singular in the world's history for its devotion to learning, their coreligionists were suffered to continue in their thinly disguised paganism…. Thus did the civilization of BAGHDAD become the inheritor of the ancient wisdom of Assyria, Babylonia, Persia, India and Greece; and for this it was chiefly indebted to heathens like… Christians like…. MAGIANS, converted or unconverted, like… besides sundry Jews and NABATHAEANS. To this splendid synthesis the Arabs… lent little save their wonderful and admirable language….

That they were sensible of their own indebtedness to these Non-Muslims who bestowed upon them the wisdom of the ancients appears amongst other things, from the elegy composed in praise of THABIT IBN QURRA, the SABAEAN physician and mathematician…. Strange and heterogeneous were the elements, which made up the intellectual atmosphere of BAGHDAD during the first century of ABBASSID rule. The pious Muslims of MAKKA and MEDINA who came thither were scandalized to find unbelievers invested with the highest offices at court, and learned men of every religion holding friendly debate as to high questions of ontology and philosophy, in which, by common consent, all appeal to revealed scripture was forbidden.

To acquire knowledge from every possible source, heathen or Muslim, is commendable, and both the QUR'AN and the Prophet (P) urged the Muslims to set out in quest of knowledge. It is matter of pride for us that the Muslim kings patronized learning to such a great extent. All praise is due to them for their toleration, which permitted every religion to exist side by side with Islam in their dominions. But so far and no further. The passages quoted above show that the Muslims assumed the role of pupils, while the rod of teaching was put in the hand of the heathens and Christians. What did they teach? The ancient wisdom of Assyria, Babylonia, Persia, India and Greece.

That is a euphemistic way of saying that they taught their own philosophy as tinged by their religion. Philosophy was the most popular branch of learning in those days, and the Muslims were eager pupils who considered themselves indebted to their teacher for what they imparted. They felt that they had nothing suitable to give in return for the Greek Philosophy and HINDU VEDANTISM which was so graciously granted them by those heathens. The poverty of Islamic thought could not be described in more appropriate terms. Most significant of all is the fact that all appeal to revealed scripture was forbidden. Why this ban on revealed scripture? Greek Philosophy did not claim any revealed origin; there was no revealed scripture for VEDANTISM or Neo-Platonism; ZOROASTRIANISM had no divine background. As to the Bible, it is a holy scripture, but I do not think any claim is generally laid these days to its being a divinely revealed scripture. But it there should be any doubt in the reader's mind; I would refer him to the excellent work of ERNEST RENAN on the "Life of Jesus". It is thus evident that this condition was intended to exclude the QUR'AN had no place. And this was conceded by the Muslim theologians when they consented to the condition of its exclusion from the discussions.

This discomfiture on the part of the Muslims was due to the fact that the early and premature conquests had brought them to the world stage before they had thoroughly imbibed the principles of Islam for it to be infused into their very existence. They had only outwardly left paganism, and old habits of thought that had been ingrained in their nature by centuries of continuous conduct and practice, were still lurking in their minds, and like old companions of childhood, held more attraction to them than the new tenets of Islam that were so different to what they had hitherto known and experienced.

Their minds were still saturated with (paganistic) ideology, traditions and customs, with the result that when they saw their old likeness reflected in the teachings of those heathens, they felt an uncontrollable propensity towards them, and eagerly and fondly embraced those teachings like old friends whom an inexorable fate had so long kept apart. They could not abjure Islam all at once; they rent it into sects, the leader of each sect trying to absorb into his teachings as much of the pagan philosophy as he could manage consistent with his position, which compelled him to refer to the QUR'AN as his authority in order to make his teaching acceptable to the man in the street.

To those people, the truth of a religion was in proportion to the compatibility of its doctrines with Greek Philosophy or HINDU VEDANTISM. This should not excite any feelings of surprise, as in our own day we see the tenets of Islam being tested daily on the touchstone of European thought and civilization. Referring to the verses of RABI'A, a female SUFI saint, NICHOLSON says:

These lines serve to mark the end of orthodox Sufism and the rise of a new theosophical system which, under the same name and still professing to be in full accord with the QUR'AN and the SUNNA, was really founded upon pantheistic ideas of extraneous origin-ideas irreconcilable with any revealed religion, and directly opposed to the severe and majestic simplicity of the MUHAMMADAN articles of faith.

Further on, the same writer says:

Under the OMAYYADS, the old pagan spirit asserted itself once more. Consequently the literature of this period consists almost exclusively of poetry, which bears few marks of Islamic influence…. The poets of the period with which we are now dealing follow slavishly in the footsteps of the ancients, as though Islam had never been.

Speaking of the evil influence of wealth that followed in the wake of these conquests, the same learned historian says:

The conquests made by successors of the Prophet brought enormous wealth into MAKKA and Medina, and when the OMAYYAD aristocracy gained the upper hand in UTHMAN'S caliphate, these towns developed a voluptuous and dissolute life which broke through every restriction that Islam had imposed…. It is characteristic of the anti-Islamic spirit which appears so strongly in the OMAYYADS, that their chosen laureate and champion should have been Christian (AL-AKHTAL) who was in truth a lineal descendant of the pagan bards.

Of the influence and position of these poets he says: We must remember that the poets were the leaders of public opinion; their utterances took the place of political pamphlets or of party oratory for or against the government of the day.

It can well be imagined in what shape Islam emerged from this medley of ideas, in which the doctrines of genuine Islam had the weakest position. It was itself an immature, imperfect and defective Islam, which the armies carried to foreign lands and gave to the converts, who in turn mixed with it their old ideas and habits of thought. It was almost inevitable that their Islam should have more of a (paganistic) beliefs, for example those regarding the AUTARS, AVA GAVAN, Self-annihilation (NIRVAN), and KARMA etc, found their way into Islam under the Arabic-zed names of HULUL, TANASUKH, HAQIQA and FANA'. Their FANA' is nothing but the Self-annihilation, or NIRVAN, of BUDDHISM. MAWLAWI JALAL-ED-DINE AR-RUMI expresses his belief in TANASUKH in the following couplet:

I have, like vegetation, grown many a time; I have inhabited no less than seven hundred and seventy bodies". They have clothed the vagaries of their imagination under the name of "HAQIQA" as opposed to the SHARI'A. By this they mean that the laws and rituals prescribed by the Prophet (P) form only the kernel; Reality, that is, Truth, is not found there; it is found in their Sufism, and can be discerned only by those who seek it in the bottom of a cup of wine. They closely guarded secrets of Divinity, which are said by the SHARI'A to be beyond human understanding, and which even a man learned in the SHARI'A can never know, are intuitively known, it would seem, to the tavern boy. For them, "SANAM" (idol) alone is entitled to their love, and can guide them to Truth. Dancing and Music, proscribed by Islam, are the necessary rituals of their religion. Looking to their aversion to Islam, foreign critics have come to the conclusion that Sufism is the reaction of the Aryan mind to a Semitic religion imposed upon it by force.

Professor Browne writes:

AL-JUNAYD spoke much in the same fashion. "For thirty years", said he, "God spoke with mankind by the tongue of AL-JUNAYD, though AL-JUNAYD was no longer there, and men knew it not. The supreme degree of the Doctrine of the Divine Unity is the denial of the Divine Unity". In short, with these men, whom the SUFIS reckon amongst their teachers, a very thoroughgoing Pantheism is superadded to the quietism of the older mystics. Some of them like AL-JUNAYD and HUSSAIN IBN MANSUR AL-HALLAJ claimed that they were the Truth (i.e. God). The author of that monumental work on Persian literature, Professor Browne, says:

We have seen that the creation of a common national feeling amongst the Arabs, nay more, of a common religious feeling among all Muslims, in place of the narrow clannishness of the heathen Arabs, was one of the greatest and most notable results of the Prophet's mission. But such counsels of perfection were from the first hard to follow, being too radically opposed to ancient and deeply-rooted national instincts.

The learned might well have referred to the manner in which the caliph was appointed at the SAQIFA after the death of the Prophet (P). The most reasonable way would have been to consider impartially the merits and qualifications of the respective candidates, and to select the best man from among the whole of the Muslim community. But instead of doing this, they cut the Muslim community in two, and the only question, which they brought into the controversy, was from which of the two divisions, ANSAR or MUHAJIRIN the caliph should be taken. This was the old tribal spirit brought into play. Speaking of the un-Islamic haughtiness of the OMAYYAD rulers, the same writer says:

The "Clients" (MAWALI) or non-Arab Muslims, who, far from being treated by the government as equal to their co-religionists of Arab birth, were regarded as subject races to be oppressed, exploited and despised by the rulers…. The clients were indeed regarded by the Arabs as an inferior race, little better than slaves.

Another European critic says:

Conquerors of Asia, of Northern Africa, of Spain, the Arabs never rose to the level of their position. Greatness had been thrust upon them, but in the midst of their grandeur they retained in all their previous force and intensity the passions, the rivalries, the petty jealousies of the desert. They merely fought again on a wider field the battles of the Arabia before Islam. The explanation is the same: they went out to meet the world prematurely, before Islam had had the change to penetrate deep down into every fiber of their frame and so bring about harmony between belief and conduct.

It has been admitted by Muslim historians that the greatest possible harm was done to Islam under the OMAYYAD and ABBASSID rules, and than in the midst of worldly grandeur and power, Islam stood deserted and forlorn.

(c) The Foreign Expeditions Were Against the Laws of JIHAD:

The Holy QUR'AN deals with the subject of JIHAD very fully and forcibly. According to that book, war is exclusively a political affair, and its object is only to protect the nation from outside aggression and defend it from encroachment on its honor and prestige. Though absolutely essential as a defensive measure, it should on no account be made a weapon of offence or a means to acquire kingdoms. It cannot be used to extend the boundaries of the realm or to place one nation over the head of another.

Its interference in the domain of religion had been prohibited in the QUR'AN in these words: "There is no compulsion in religion". This principle of allowing the greatest possible freedom of opinion in religious matters was entirely unknown to, and sharply in contrast with the intolerant views of the rest of the world, from the beginning of history right up to the nineteenth century (C.E.), from the Laws of Plato and the Twelve Tables to the Inquisition and the Pillory, and is clearly demonstrative of the prophetic nature of Muhammad's mission. That this principle should have been entirely ignored by the non-Muslim world is most unfortunate, but can easily be explained. It can be attributed to the fighting started by the early caliphate against its non-Muslim neighbors, for in reality they were not religious wars, and were not prompted by religious motives, as we have shown above.

But a religious coloring was given to them for the sake of infusing in their armies that zeal and disregard for life which is so essential for winning a war, and it was thus represented to the credulous Arabs that they were fighting in the way of God, and that if they won they would get GHANIMA, and if they fell fighting they would be admitted into Paradise. To complete the illusion, when the two armies were face to face and on the point of starting to fight, their generals would offer Islam to the enemy, adding that if they refused they must be prepared to fig0ht. Prepared to fight they already were; this was neither the occasion nor the manner for inviting an outraged enemy to accept the teachings of Islam when those teachings were presented to them in such an un-Islamic way. They fought and won, and the vanquished were quite justified in proclaiming to the world that Islam was thrust on the people at the point of the sword. The cry was eagerly taken up by the Clergy of Europe and preserved in their books for the coming generations. This was a great injustice of Islam, which even in that age of bigotry and intolerance taught that there was no compulsion in religion. This mistaken view of the world about Islam was due to the unjustifiable wars carried on by the Early Caliphate against Persia and Syria, and imitated by the OMAYYAD and ABBASSID kings. The teachings of the QUR'AN, as enforced by the Prophet (P), were quite contrary to this. There was no element of force in the promulgation of Islam, as I will presently show. But I must first describe the laws of JIHAD as laid down in the QUR'AN.

As a safeguard against the indiscriminate resort to war, no Prophet, or his community of followers, have been permitted to make war on the infidels without divine permission to that effect. This rule is very clearly demonstrated in the story of Samuel and Saul as given in the QUR'AN. When hard pressed by the Philistines, the Israelites asked their Prophet Samuel to appoint a king, and to get God's permission to fight their enemy. Their Prophet asked whether, if God commanded them to fight. It was then that the permission was given. Similarly, the Muslims did not fight unless and until they were commanded to do so. As in the case of the Israelites, so with the Muslims; this command or permission to fight was given on certain conditions and with certain reservations, which constitute the rules of Holy War, or JIHAD. They are contained in the following verses:

1. "Fight in the cause of God those who fight against you, but transgress not the limits, for God loveth not the transgressors". (SURA II, 190).

2. "Slay them wherever you find them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out; for FITNA (oppression, tumult) is more grievous than slaughter; but fight them not in the Sacred Mosque, unless they attack you therein; but if they fight you, then slay them. Such is Oft-forgiving, Merciful. And fight them until FITNA is no more and the religion is for God; but if they desist, then let there be no hostility except to the oppressors. A sacred month -and prohibited things - as per the law of retaliation. Whoever transgresses against you, then transgress against him in like manner; and fear God, and know that God is with the MUTTAQIN (heeders of their obligations)". (SURA II, 191-194)

3. "…and let not hatred of a people induce you to act with injustice; act justly, that is the nearest to TAQWA (piety, righteousness); and fear God…" (SURA V, 9)

These are the QUR'ANIC laws of Holy War, or JIHAD; and it is impossible to find rules on the subject more sane and reasonable, or more in keeping with justice, equity and good conscience -even in the modern code of international morality. Study them very closely; a general permission to fight every infidel or unbeliever is not given. The Muslims are to fight only those who have already declared war and have committed acts of hostility against them. Mark the very healthy rule that they should not be the first to attack. This rule alone, if scrupulously observed and faithfully put into effect, is sure to eliminate war. Exhortation to do justice even with one's enemies is another beautiful doctrine peculiar to Islam, which proves the divine source of these mandates. There is nothing in these rules of JIHAD to be afraid of for those who want to live peacefully as the neighbors of the Muslims, and who do not transgress the limits of co-existence by being the first to attack.

But if they do, then no quarter is to be given, except, of course, if they desist from their evil course. Osborn is certainly in error when he asserts that SURA IX (AT-TAWBA) "is that which contains the Prophet's proclamation of war against the votaries of all creeds other than that of Islam". In fact, it is limited to those pagans of Arabia who had treacherously broken their terms. It is they alone who are denounced, and who have their treaties annulled.

But even among them, those who have scrupulously kept the terms of the treaty are excluded from the purview of this SURA. Past experience had shown that they would never rest contented, and that they would go on intriguing against the Muslims and damaging and injuring their interests. It was therefore ruled that the Muslims must fight them wherever they were to be found. This is made perfectly clear in that SURA thus: "Will ye not fight against people who have violated their oaths, and conspired to expel the Messenger, and who were the ones to start hostilities against you". (SURA IX,13). And in another verse of the SURA: "How so (i.e. how can there be a league with the idolaters), since if they prevail against you, they do not have regard for you by way of either kinship or covenant". (SURA IX,8).

It is thus abundantly clear that this SURA refers to the infidels of Arabia only, who had been the deadly enemy of the Muslims and were at war with them. It was not a declaration of war against the unbelievers of the beautiful doctrine "There is no compulsion in religion" was the Prophet's motto only when he himself was persecuted, and that in success, he laid down a rule quite the reverse of it, namely "Kill them wherever you find them until they accept Islam". I have already shown that this is a mistaken view. Had the first rule been abrogated, the verse would not have found its way into the QUR'AN. The fact is that the former rule relates to the promulgation of a religion, while the latter rule governs the conditions of war. "Them" here refers to the pagans who had already been at war with the Prophet (P). MAWLAWI SHIBLI says:

The only object of Islam is to spread its mission by persuasion. If a nation does not obstruct this peaceful mission, Islam has no dispute with it and must not fight against that nation: a pact of peace is enough. There are many instances of this. But if a nation, without any cause, stands up to oppose Islam and wants to annihilate it, then Islam is bound to take up the sword in defense and keep that nation under subjection. KHAIBAR was the first conquered place in accordance with this rule.

The Prophet (P) conducted his wars in accordance with the rules laid down in the QUR'AN, and observed all the limitations and restrictions prescribed by that authority. It was for this reason that the majority of the nations did not respond to his call to arms with any alacrity or zeal. The Holy QUR'AN bears testimony to this reluctance of theirs, and mentions various false excuses made by them for being allowed to stay at home and not join the army. On the other hand, when the expeditions of the early caliphate were sent to Persia and Syria, knowing that the rigidity of the rules was no more, they vied eagerly with each other to join the armies. During the time of Imam Ali the application of the rules was (reimposed), with the result that the same reluctance to join the armies was once again in evidence.

The following rules of JIHAD are deducible from the verses quoted above:

1. The Muslims must not be the first to attack a nation; they are to fight only those who begin to fight against them.

2. Even towards an enemy they must behave with justice and equity.

3. The Muslims are to observe the sanctity of the prohibited months and the mosque; but if the enemy fights them during that time or in that place, they are also to do the same.

4. In war, they should not be the transgressors.

5. It is thus apparent that the law of JIHAD is nothing more than the Law of Retaliation.

These rules are illustrated in the wars of the Prophet (P). It has been thoroughly proved that these were in self-defense. Controversial writers have tried to find fault with the battles of BADR and KHAIBAR, and the words "brigandage" and "loot" have been used in connection with the former. But all this is entirely wrong. There had been continuous warfare between QURAISH and the Muslims since the time that the latter had been obliged to flee from MAKKA. They were expelled by QURAISH from their native town, as alluded to in the above-mentioned verses. The Prophet (P) was therefore quite justified according to all canons of warfare, in utilizing his opportunity when it presented itself. On this occasion also QURAISH were the first to begin the attack. They sent no less than three armed bands, one after the other, towards Medina. AMIR ALI says: "The MAKKANS and their allies commenced raiding up to Medina, destroying the fruit trees of the Muslims and carrying away their flocks. A force consisting of a thousand well-equipped men marched under the noted ABU JAHL, the "Father of Ignorance", towards Medina to destroy the Muslims, and to protect one of the caravans bringing munitions of war".

This was the battle of BADR:; no one can now say that the Prophet (P) took the offensive or was the first to attack. As to the battle of KHAIBAR, all the Jews of Arabia had collected there. "The Jews of KHAIBAR, united by an ancient alliance with the BEDWIN hordes of BANU GHATAFAN and other cognate tribes, worked incessantly for the formation of another coalition against them. This was as much a defensive measure as the digging of the ditch round Medina when the Confederates invaded. He who cannot anticipate, and provide against the next move of the enemy is certainly a bad statesman. Writing about the battles and expeditions of the time of the Prophet (P), MAWLAWI SHIBLI says:

The SARAYA (expeditions under persons other than the Prophet) were of different kinds, according to the object with which they were undertaken, that is, (1) expeditions sent to ascertain the movements of the enemy, (2) on hearing the preparations of the enemy some detachments were sent, (3) expeditions sent to harass the enemy through his trade caravans in order to make him leave his habit of preventing the Muslims from performing the HAJJ, (4) punitive expeditions to keep to peace, (5) Muslim missionary parties accompanied by some soldiers who were expressly directed no to use the sword.

The GHAZAWAT (battles personally under the command of the Prophet (P)) were to two kinds, according to the object with which they were undertaken, viz. (1) to defend Medina when actually attacked by the enemy, and (2) to anticipate the hostile movements of the enemy and to defeat his designs, when the Prophet (P) received information of those designs.

All the wars that were fought, and all the expeditions that were sent out in the time of the Prophet (P) were for either of these objects. But the wars against Persia and Syria undertaken by the first two caliphs do not fulfill these conditions and were, therefore, against the teachings of the QUR'AN. The Persians and Syrians had given no offence, and were not preparing to attack the Muslims. It was quite unjust and un-neighborly to attack them unawares. Apart from doing Islam n o good, these attacks definitely injured its cause by furnishing its enemies with an argument to justify their accusation that Islam owes its existence to the sword. These conquests led directly to the establishment of Imperialism, and the domination of the Arab nation over the weaker nations. This was the object neither of Islam nor the Prophet (P), and therefore Imam Ali could not indulge in the same pastime as these weaker souls, destroying others for the sake of their own glory.

If any doubt still remains, there are three facts, which prove conclusively that foreign conquests by means of the sword were not the object of Islam. Warlike expeditions are impossible without a well-furnished treasury and a well-equipped standing army. The fact that the Prophet (P) made no arrangements for these two things shows that his mission did not include territorial expansion through the sword. He had neither a state treasury nor a standing army.

These two institutions were brought into existence for the first time by UMAR. The Prophet's practice was to distribute among the people at one sitting everything he received by way of war booty or KHIRAJ. Whenever he wanted to send out an expedition, he called upon the people to come and form an army. The need for these two institutions was felt in the time of ABU BAKR, who established BAIT-AL-MAL, or State Treasury, which UMAR made full use of.

It was the first two caliphs who needed and established a standing army. The third fact, which goes to show that Islam does not permit the conquest and annexation of other people's lands, is this. The QUR'AN prescribes very definite and rigid rules regarding the disposal of property of the enemy acquired in war. But it does not even mention conquered lands, let alone give any rules for their disposal. This conclusively shows that Islamic Theology does not contemplate the eventuality of other people's lands taken by the Muslims.

The fact is that Islam does not countenance large empires, just as it does not favor big business concerns dependent for their working on the labor of countless human beings, as the one leads to Imperialism and the other to Capitalism, and both tend to create a slavish mentality in people, eventually giving rise to riots, disturbances and bloodshed when an awakening finally comes to the sleeping masses. Some theologians of Islam have, therefore, held that the lands acquired in consequence of the conquests were MAGHSUBA (usurped) lands, and they avoided and prohibited their mortgage and sale. On the basis of analogy with the rules for movable properties acquired during the war as GHANIMA, the soldiers demanded that the conquered lands should also be divided among them. It was obviously inadvisable from both social and political considerations to annex conquered cities and vast tracts of land as private property. The caliph therefore rejected their demand, but with unconvincing arguments.

The SUNNI writers have also awakened to the reality that the grandeur of Granada and Baghdad was in fact the death of Islam. SAYYID. ABU AL-HASSAN AL-NADAWI says that during the ascendancy of the Muslim nation, Islam was neglected and forsaken in its own land, and that the Muslims were treated like DHIMMIS.

A word of warning is needed here. Islam should not be confused with the Muslim community current, or the Arab nation. Muhammad (P), peace be upon him, was not sent to extend the limits of Arabia, nor to acquire a kingdom for the Arab nation. The only object of his mission was to bring humanity round to the worship of the One God. He wanted, undoubtedly, to spread his teachings to every corner of the world; but his desire was to extend the limits of Islam, not the territorial boundaries of Arabia. He wished to rule the heart of Man in every part of the world, and not his lands. But the way taken by the first two caliphs and the succeeding kings was not the way to rule the heart. That was the way to alienate hearts, not to win them. Had the way shown by the Prophet (P) been followed by those caliphs, the Empire of Islam would be found today over the whole of the world, as strong and dazzling in its pristine glory as ever. But what we actually find is the Muslims beaten on every field, and the divine words of the QUR'AN brought into full significance: "You will gain mastery if you are true in faith". (SURA III,139).

But true in faith they were not, for they used the hand of force to gain an empire. And the same hand of force snatched it from them. Those who depend on force must be prepared to face any eventuality that force may bring about. They took the models of a state treasury and a standing army from Persia and the Roman Empire; but they failed to take note of how Christianity had captured the world. It slowly made its way from the commonalty to the Crown, and therefore its rule in the world endured; they hurried to the Crown, and missed their chance.

Let us describe the programmed set out by the Prophet (P) for securing the sovereignty of the world for Islam. The rules for inviting people to Islam and for conveying its message throughout the world are mentioned in the QUR'AN:

1. "There is no compulsion in religion". (SURA II,256).

2. "Invite people to the way of the Lord by wisdom and goodly exhortation; and argue with that are best" (SURA XVI,125).

3. "Let there be from among you a party who invite to goodness, and enjoin that what is right, and forbid what is wrong". (SURA III,104).

These are the three rules, which the Muslims must observe when they invite the people to their religion. The sword, or force, finds no place here; on the contrary, it is expressly prohibited. Not to mention the sword, even injury to the feelings of opponents in argument is forbidden. They must be persuaded by means of that which looks most pleasing. One of those means is that the Muslim must model his life, his way of living, his manners, and his behavior according to the tenets of Islam; he must himself observe its rules, and go among them with his actions, words, manners and conduct all bearing the stamp of Islam.

When they see from the picture of Islam in action that it is very pleasing and inviting, they will be attracted towards him and hence towards Islam. The Prophet (P) put these rules into practice; he sent missionary parties to the neighboring places, and also to the crowned heads of the world. To head these missions he chose those persons who were best able to translate the tenets of Islam into action. Imam Ali was at the head of a party that was sent to the important places of Yemen. We learn from AT-TABARI: "The Prophet (P) used to send missionary parties to places round MAKKA; they strictly enjoined not to fight. It is a pity that the first two caliphs did not follow this procedure.

SAYYID ABU AL-A'LA AL-MAWDUDI is one of the greatest thinkers of Islam of the present century. His writings are generally characterized by sound logic and convincing arguments; and what is more valuable; he has the courage of his convictions and publishes his conclusions fearlessly. It is only when he has the courage of his convictions and publishes his conclusions fearlessly. It is only when he has to discuss the topics that involve the taking stock of the beliefs of his childhood that his pen begins to stumble, and then this stumbling is so marked that even he cannot conceal it. His sound judgment and accurate reasoning have led him to the conclusion that Islam does not only not permit wars of conquest, but it also prescribes punishment for those who indulge in such wars. His definitive finding is that the Holy QUR'AN does not contain any direction to convert people to Islam by means of the sword, and moreover that there is no AYA which can lend itself, even with twisting or stretching, to an interpretation favoring conversion by that means. Naturally enough, this led him to ponder the wars waged by the first two caliphs, which he tries to justify by the following argument:

I have, in this book, mentioned many a time, and will have occasion to repeat this absolute truth as I proceed, that in Islamic Theology, it is religiously prohibited to make war for the sake of conquering lands. Now the question arises that if the wars of conquests are religiously prohibited, what explanations will you give for the invasion of AL-Iraq, Syria, Iran, Armenia, Egypt and Northern Africa and other countries by the Companions and the KHULAFA AR-RASHIDIN.

This objection has been very seriously made by the opponents of Islam, and the Muslim Historians and authors have tried to meet them. But none of those Muslim Historians and authors has taken into consideration the difference that exists between the viewpoints of Islam and the Non-Muslims in this matter. For this reason, those of the Muslim writers who have met this objection from the viewpoint of the Non-Muslims have misinterpreted Islamic Theology; and those of the Muslim writers who have entirely ignored that viewpoint, have succeeded only in raising other doubts.

The fact of the matter is that so far as the right and title to govern is concerned, Islam recognizes no difference between foreign and national governments. It regards Justice and Tyranny only as the discriminating factors. If the rulers of a national government are tyrannical, unjust, ungodly, lovers of oppression and selfish, Islam discards them as much as it would shun foreign rulers having the same defects….

The idea that an Arab tyrant has a better right to rule over Arab than Non-Arab, though he has all the good qualities of a ruler, and that a Turk though just, virtuous and Godly cannot be accepted by the Iraqis solely because he is a Turk, is not tolerated in Islam. This is an idea, which Islam detests as wholly wrong and entirely untenable. Islam regards the matter of government, not from the point of view of a nation or a country, but from the broader outlook of Humanity as a whole. Its irrevocable decision is that a just and virtuous man is in every case preferable to a vicious tyrant, and that in this selection to differentiate between Indian and Iraqi, national and stranger, black and white is a sinful prejudice.

According to this view in Islam, the criterion of a good government is not its being national or self-chosen, but its being just and upright. The only question is whether a government is just, equitable and fair in its dealings with its subjects, or whether it is the reverse of it. In the former case, Islam does not, cannot, even think of replacing it, but if otherwise is the case, Islam considers it its first duty to subdue and replace a tyrannical rule by a just and upright government…

From all this it should not be inferred that Islam is an enemy of a national government. It admits the right of every nation to reform its rule and set right its affairs; but if it is unable to do so, and falls so low as to obey its vicious and wicked persons, then according to the tenets of Islam, that nation loses its right of self-determination, and another nation which is more virtuous and upright acquires a right to rule over that nation.

The writer quotes three QUR'ANIC verses (see below) as his authority for the views enunciated above, which I shall discuss presently. He then goes on to say that as the governments of Iran, Syria, Egypt etc. had fallen to the lowest depths of degradation, the Islamic Caliphate, which had a better government, had every right to conquer and annihilate them.

Consider this quotation very carefully, and say whether it is not the same thing as has so often been said from time immemorial, and is even now being said by all conquering, imperialistic nations. We have heard the imperialistic nation of Europe repeating and nauseam their pious resolve to subdue weaker nations only in order to improve their mental, moral and material condition, and to replace a tyrannical and oppressive rule with their own benign government. In so many conflicts each of the parties tries to convince the world that they are the angels and their opponents are the devils, and that they are fighting only to rid the world of those SATANS. AL-MAWDUDI anticipates this criticism, but meets it by asserting that Islamic rule was in truth a blessing. But every class of people honestly entertains the same conviction about its own system as AL-MAWDUDI has about Islam. You can silence the Muslims in this way, but you cannot convince strangers to Islam with this argument.

If such a way of arguing, and the principle on which it is based were accepted, there would be perpetual warfare in the world. Are the Muslim countries, as we find them today, now prepared to be annihilated in accordance with the principle by the stronger nations of the world who are decidedly better governed and in a better social and moral condition? The reply that the QUR'AN of the Muslims is much better than the code of laws of those nations would not hold water for a single moment; the principle must be acceptable to Non-Muslims, for it is they whose conquest is sought to be vindicated, and for them the question is not of what is written in the books, but of how the people are governed and what their moral, material and social condition actually is. As the Muslims of the present age currently stand very low in comparison with the progressive nations of the world, then were we to accept the formula laid down by AL-MAWDUDI, we would deserve to be turned out of our possessions bag and baggage.

AL-MAWDUDI uses the word "ZULM" for that which, if indulged in by a nation, incapacitates it from governing its own affairs. "ZULM" means injustice or usurpation. Now in the QUR'AN, SHIRK (association of false gods with the true God) is described as the greatest ZULM. If the formula of AL-MAWDUDI is carried to its logical conclusion, no Non-Muslim nation had the right to rule over its own country, and they should all retire in favor of the Muslims. This is exactly what Islam's detractors mean when they say that the Muslims in their heyday wanted to convert the whole world to Islam by means of the sword. An argument, which leads to such absurd conclusions, must surely be rejected.

The learned writer himself is conscious of the weakness of his arguments. Realizing that they cannot carry conviction to an impartial reader, he winds them up by saying, "You are at liberty to attribute these expeditions to dictatorial arrogance and imperialism; but you cannot deny this historical fact that the Muslim rule pulled these nations out of that abyss of degradation into which they had fallen, and raised them to a high level of moral, material and spiritual progress".

AL-MAWDUDI bases his arguments on the following three verses of the QUR'AN.

1. And if you turn back, He will substitute another people in your stead, who shall not be like unto you". (SURA XLVII,39).

2. "Unless you go forth (when you are summoned to war). God will punish you with a grievous punishment; and he will place another people in your stead, and you shall not hurt Him at all, for God hath power over all things". (SURA IX,39).

3. "If He pleased He could remove you, O people, and bring others…" (SURA IV,133).

It is obvious that these verses are quite wide of the mark as far as the point under discussion is concerned. The first two verses are addressed to the Muslims, and this fact is sufficient to show that the Iranians and Syrians are not threatened, and are not meant to be substituted by others. The third verse is general, and refers to the human race as a whole, and means substitution by some other race. By no stretch of the imagination can these verses be said to authorize the Muslims to undertake wholesale extirpation of any nation, which, in their opinion, is on a lower plane of civilization or morality. These verses are in fact intended to impress upon the minds of Muslims and other people the omnipotence of God, who does not stand in need of their obedience of faith. If they do not mend their ways in spite of all this teaching, they cannot hurt God; He is able to replace them with others. This power is God's; He has not delegated it to the Muslims.

The weakness of the argument of those who support these expeditions is plain. Their untenable insistence on its validity makes people think that these expeditions and wars were motivated by the teachings of the QUR'AN, and thus Islam gets a bad name. It would have been much better to concede the fact that these were the actions of individual kings, and were not in accordance with the teachings of the QUR'AN and the Prophet; Islam is not responsible for them, just as it is not responsible for the un-Islamic actions of any other individual Muslim.

But here a word of warning is needed. The only object of my arguments, which are intended to show the religious point of view, has so far been to prove that these expeditions that were led into foreign countries under orders from the caliphate were neither based on a desire to spread Islam, nor were authorized by that religion. The primary object of these wars was entirely secular. They must, therefore, be taken out of the category of religious JIHAD altogether. Moreover, the controversial writers have no right to criticize Islam as a religion on the basis of those wars.

But so far as the Muslim nation and its secular interests are concerned, they were of immense value. These conquests opened up great possibilities for Islam, and provided means for its expansion. To have conquered two of the greatest empires of the ancient world within such an incredibly short period, and to have acquired and built up an empire "which in less than a century spread itself over a greater part of the world than the Romans were ever masters of", is a feat of arms, nay a miracle, unparalleled in the history of the world.

European writers, whose fears, hopes and expectations do not, and from the nature of their civilization cannot, go beyond the scope of the present life of man on this earth, are filled with admiration for the first two caliphs, and allot them a very high place among the great men of history, like CAESER, HANNIBAL, HITLER, NAPOLEON, and others of the same caliber. Yes, it was an imperialism - but imperialism of the best kind; it was despotic - but despotism of the most liberal sort, having the interests of a majority of its subjects at heart. It was despotism of a type, which even democracies of the modern age might well envy.

Descriptions of the courts of HARUN and AL-MA'MUN, whence flowed streams of charity and munificence, still excite the wonder of the world. Their patronage of art and learning has elicited admiration even from their enemies. Not to speak of the kings, the nobles of their court also vied with each other in emulating the liberality and munificence of their sires. There is no doubt though, that side by side with this, there existed in individual cases instances of utmost brutality and injustice on the part of these rules; there were executions on the slightest suspicion, torture, life imprisonment, and killing by poison, just to eliminate the possibility of any threat to their position by those who had a much superior claim to rule. We accept these accusations, which are true and which we have condemned in the preceding pages of this book. At the same time however, we should also keep in view some of the deeds of the "civilized world" of the twentieth century, which blotted out of existence millions of innocent men, women and children under the pretext of the exigencies of war; we should also remember the cold-blooded murders by the so-called "Tribunals of Justice" of NUREMBURG, which sullied the fair name of justice by passing sentence which were determined solely by enmity and revenge.

Thus, despite the weakness from which the Muslim rule suffered due to the original wrong perpetrated by the usurpers of Imam Ali's claims, the European historians should not adopt a holier-than-thou attitude and paint Islam as a barbaric religion. We do not blame Christianity for what these Christians have done, and are doing; and similarly we urge that Islam should not be called to account for the evil deeds of the Muslim kings.

(d) The Damage Done to Islam through these Early Conquests:

That these early conquests proved more destructive than beneficial to Islam must be evident from the preceding discussions. Here is a list summarizing some of the evil consequences that ensued:

1. A wrong impression was created that Islam owed its existence to the sword.

2. The violations of the QUR'ANIC injunctions on the subject gave rise to the idea that Islam was a bloodthirsty religion, which advocated the use of force.

3. In the clash with other religions systems and philosophies in foreign lands, this mutilated Islam of the still-raw Muslims was at a disadvantage, with the result that it became adulterated and lost its purity forever.

4. The sense of injustice that was created in the minds of the conquered peoples on account of the invasion of their countries without reasonable cause, proved very harmful to Islam.

5. Islam claimed to be the teacher of the world, with a mission to raise humanity to a higher level; but the Muslims betrayed this claim by showing scanty regard for reasonableness, justice, and good neighborly relations in their dealings with other nations.

6. The accumulation of immense riches, which they did not know how to utilize properly and beneficially, led to numerous vices.

7. Imperialism and Capitalism were the direct result of these conquests.