With the death of Muhammad, the Muslim community was
faced with the problem of succession. Who would be its leader? There were
four persons obviously marked for leadership: Abu Bakr al-Siddeeq, who had not
only accompanied Muhammad to Medina ten years before, but had been appointed to
take the place of the Prophet as leader of public prayer during Muhammad’s last
illness; Umar ibn al-Khattab, an able and trusted Companion of the Prophet; Uthman
ibn ‘Affan, a respected early convert; and ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib, Muhammad’s
cousin and son-in-law. There piousness and ability to govern the affairs of
the Islamic nation was uniformly par excellence. At a meeting held to decide
the new leadership, Umar grasped Abu Bakr’s hand and gave his allegiance to him,
the traditional sign of recognition of a new leader. By dusk, everyone
concurred, and Abu Bakr had been recognized as the khaleefah of Muhammad. Khaleefah
- anglicized as caliph - is a word meaning “successor”, but also suggesting
what his historical role would be: to govern according to the Quran and the
practice of the Prophet.
Abu Bakr’s caliphate
was short, but important. An
exemplary leader, he lived simply, assiduously fulfilled his religious
obligations, and was accessible and sympathetic to his people. But he
also
stood firm when some tribes, who had only nominally accepted Islam,
renounced it
in the wake of the Prophet’s death. In what was a major accomplishment,
Abu
Bakr swiftly disciplined them. Later, he consolidated the support of
the
tribes within the Arabian Peninsula and subsequently funneled their
energies
against the powerful empires of the East: the Sassanians in Persia and
the Byzantines in Syria, Palestine, and Egypt. In short, he
demonstrated the viability
of the Muslim state.
The second caliph,
Umar - appointed by Abu Bakr -
continued to demonstrate that viability. Adopting the title Ameer
al-Mumineen,
or Commander of the Believers, Umar extended Islam’s temporal rule over
Syria, Egypt, Iraq, and Persia in what, from a purely military
standpoint, were astonishing
victories. Within four years after the death of the Prophet, the Muslim
state
had extended its sway over all of Syria and had, at a famous battle
fought
during a sandstorm near the River Yarmuk, blunted the power of the
Byzantines -
whose ruler, Heraclius, had shortly before refused the call to accept
Islam.
Even more
astonishingly, the Muslim state administered
the conquered territories with a tolerance almost unheard of in that
age. At Damascus, for example, the Muslim leader, Khalid ibn al-Walid,
signed a treaty which read
as follows:
This is what
Khalid ibn al-Walid would grant to the inhabitants of Damascus if he enters
therein: he promises to give them security for their lives, property and
churches. Their city wall shall not be demolished; neither shall any Muslim be
quartered in their houses. Thereunto we give them the pact of God and the
protection of His Prophet, the caliphs and the believers. So long as they pay
the poll tax, nothing but good shall befall them.
This tolerance was typical of Islam. A year after Yarmook,
Umar, in the military camp of al-Jabiyah on the Golan Heights, received word
that the Byzantines were ready to surrender Jerusalem. Consequently, he rode
there to accept the surrender in person. According to one account, he entered
the city alone and clad in a simple cloak, astounding a populace accustomed to
the sumptuous garb and court ceremonials of the Byzantines and Persians. He
astounded them still further when he set their fears at rest by negotiating a
generous treaty in which he told them: “In the name of God ... you have
complete security for your churches, which shall not be occupied by the Muslims
or destroyed.”
This policy was to
prove successful everywhere. In Syria, for example, many Christians who
had been involved in bitter theological disputes
with Byzantine authorities - and persecuted for it - welcomed the coming
of
Islam as an end to tyranny. And in Egypt, which Amr ibn al-As took from
the
Byzantines after a daring march across the Sinai Peninsula, the Coptic
Christians not only welcomed the Arabs, but enthusiastically assisted
them.
This pattern was
repeated throughout the Byzantine Empire. Conflict among Greek
Orthodox, Syrian Monophysites, Copts, and Nestorian
Christians contributed to the failure of the Byzantines - always
regarded as
intruders - to develop popular support, while the tolerance which
Muslims
showed toward Christians and Jews removed the primary cause for opposing
them.
Umar adopted this
attitude in administrative matters as
well. Although he assigned Muslim governors to the new provinces,
existing
Byzantine and Persian administrations were retained wherever possible.
For
fifty years, in fact, Greek remained the chancery language of Syria,
Egypt, and Palestine, while Pahlavi, the chancery language of the
Sassanians, continued to be
used in Mesopotamia and Persia.
Umar, who served as caliph for ten years, ended his rule
with a significant victory over the Persian Empire. The struggle with the
Sassanid realm had opened in 636 at al-Qadisiyah, near Ctesiphon in Iraq, where
Muslim cavalry had successfully coped with elephants used by the Persians as a
kind of primitive tank. Now with the Battle of Nihavand, called the “Conquest
of Conquests,” Umar sealed the fate of Persia; henceforth it was to be one of
the most important provinces in the Muslim Empire.
His caliphate was a high point in early Islamic history.
He was noted for his justice, social ideals, administration, and statesmanship.
His innovations left an all enduring imprint on social welfare, taxation, and
the financial and administrative fabric of the growing empire.
No comments:
Post a Comment