Abu Bakr in History

Role of Abu Bakr

Abu Bakr's place in history. Abu Bakr became the Caliph on the 8th of June 632 C.E. and he died on 23rd August 634 C.E. The period of his caliphate covers two years, two months and fifteen days only. Judged by the usual standards this period was too short to make an impact on history. Surprisingly enough, however, the caliphate of Abu Bakr did not merely make an impact on history; it changed the very course of history. The suppression of apostasy, the unification of Arabia, and the conquests of greater parts of Iraq and Syria within the space of two years are the extraordinary marvels of history. The speed, the magnitude, the extent and the permanence of these campaigns excite our wonder and evoke our admiration. For these achievements, Abu Bakr holds a unique position in the history of the world in general and the history of Islam in particular.

Dynamics of the leadership of Abu Bakr. Abu Bakr came to power in the midst of a crisis-loaded situation. The crises which he was called upon to encounter were multi-dimensional in character, being psychological, religious, political and international. Islam stood at the brink of a precipice, and any wrong step on the part of Abu Bakr at that stage would have led to the disintegration of Islam. That he not only averted the process of disintegration, but made Islam a world force which could successfully contend against the giant empires of Byzantium and Persia speaks for the dynamics of his leadership.

Historic role of Abu Bakr. The historic role of Abu Bakr comprehends the following achievements:

His supporting role of Islam,
His suppression of apostasy and unification of Arabia; and
His confrontation with the giant empires of Byzantium and Persia and conquests of parts of great Iraq and Syria.

Supporting role of Islam

Conversion to Islam. He accepted Islam without any hesitation, argument or reluctance. His conversion to Islam became a landmark in the history of Islam. His conversion according to Muir proved to be the greatest guarantee of the sincerity of Muhammad (peace be on him).

Missionary of Islam. He was the greatest missionary of Islam after the Holy Prophet. Through his efforts many young men among the Quraish joined the fold of Islam.

Liberation of slaves. When the slaves who had accepted Islam were tortured by the Quraish, Abu Bakr purchased these slaves from their masters and set them free.

Persecutions of the Quraish. Whenever the Quraish maltreated the Holy Prophet and did him violence, Abu Bakr always intervened to protect the Holy Prophet.

Ascension. When the Holy Prophet gave an account of his ascension and some of the Muslims, even, were overcome by doubts, Abu Bakr declared in unequivocal terms that what the Holy Prophet said was the truth. Abu Bakr became a witness to the truth.

Migration. When the Holy Prophet migrated from Makkah to Madina, Abu Bakr was his companion. Abu Bakr looked after the Holy Prophet with the affection and tenderness of a true friend. He met the entire expenses of the journey.

Masjid-i-Nabvi. When the Holy Prophet purchased a plot of land for constructing a mosque at Madina, Abu Bakr paid the price.

Battles. In the battle of Badr, Abu Bakr acted as a bodyguard of the Holy Prophet. In the battle of Uhud when there was confusion and other companions dispersed, Abu Bakr was the first to join the Holy Prophet. In the battle of Hunain when the other companions dispersed, Abu Bakr continued to attend the Holy Prophet.

Hudaibiya Pact. When the Hudaibiya Pact was executed and some of the companions, including Umar were critical of the terms of the Pact, Abu Bakr supported the Holy Prophet, and held that it was in the best interest of the Muslims.

Liberal contribution. When the Holy Prophet invited contributions for the financing of the Tabuk expedition, Abu Bakr donated all that he had, saying that for him and his family Allah and the Holy Prophet were enough.

Psychological crisis. When the Holy Prophet died the entire Muslim community was in the throes of a psychological crisis, and even such a man as Umar declared, "Who says that the Holy Prophet is dead? Moses like he has gone to meet the Lord, and would return to us after some time". At this juncture, Abu Bakr perceived the grim reality and said, "He who worships Muhammad let him know that Muhammad (peace be on him) being a mortal is dead. But he who worships the God of Muhammad (peace be on him), let him know that He being immortal lives and would live for ever".

Support for the Holy Prophet. Abu Bakr did not support the Holy Prophet in his lifetime alone; he supported him even after his death. When it was suggested to him that Usama's expedition should not be dispatched or at least Usama should be replaced by a veteran commander, Abu Bakr rejected the demands on the ground that the orders of the Holy Prophet had to be followed at all costs, and could not be reversed.

Zakat. When some tribes sought exemption from Zakat, Abu Bakr refused the demand on the ground that with regard to a fundamental injunction of Islam there could be no compromise.

Caliphate. When a political crisis threatened the Muslim community in the matter of the successor to the Holy Prophet, Abu Bakr was able to persuade the Ansar to relinquish the caliphate in favor of the Quraish.

Savior of Islam. When after the death of the Holy Prophet the Muslim community came to be threatened with danger from all sides, Abu Bakr piloted the crisis with consummate skill. He did not merely save Islam in Arabia; he made Islam a world force which successfully confronted the empires of Persia and Byzantium. Abu Huraira, an eminent companion, declared that but for Abu Bakr, Islam would have disintegrated. Abu Bakr, verily, played the role of the savior of Islam.

Preservation of the Holy Ouran. Abu Bakr sponsored the compilation of the Mushaf, and in this way the Word of God was preserved for all times for the guidance of mankind.

Apostasy Campaigns

Apostasy campaigns. When after the death of the Holy Prophet, the storm of apostasy burst in the country and most of the tribes transferred their allegiance to false prophets' things for Islam appeared to be very dark. Abu Bakr faced the crisis with strong determination that knew no wavering. Apostasy campaigns began in August 632 C.E. and by February 633 C.E., apostasy was totally suppressed; Arabia stood unified, and all people in Arabia joined the fold of Islam. That was a remarkable achievement which changed the course of history. One shudders to think what would have been the fate of Islam, if Abu Bakr had, God forbid, failed in suppressing apostasy.

Riddah campaigns. These campaigns are labeled by the Muslim historians as Riddah campaigns, i.e. campaigns against apostasy. Some western writers have found fault with this approach.

J. Wellhausen, a German scholar has advanced the view that the Riddah was a break with the leadership in Madina and not with Islam qua religion. Caetni, a French author has advanced the view that certain tribes regarded Islam as an agreement with Muhammad (peace be on him), and considered the election of Abu Bakr as a private affair in Madina with which they were not concerned. Becker, an English writer, has held that the majority of those who seceded had never adopted Islam, and as such the campaigns against them could not be regarded as apostasy campaigns. Dr. Elias S. Shoufani, a Jewish scholar has held that contrary to what Muslim historians have claimed, the Riddah was not a religious movement; it was the Nejd tribes' repudiation of their fiscal obligations to Madina. Dr. Shoufani argues that in fact Arabia was far from being unified at the time of the death of the Holy Prophet. In the words of Dr. Shoufani: "The appellation of Riddah was carelessly expended by early story tellers to cover all movements in Arabia which were antagonistic to Madina. Later, the Muslim jurists adopted the facts to fit in their legal discourse, thus giving their accounts, a religious turn, and after that, historians embraced the early jurists' interpretation".

Implications of the viewpoints of western writers. In the ultimate analysis the implications of the viewpoints of western writers work out as follows:

By holding that Arabia was far from being unified at the time of the death of the Holy Prophet, the point sought to be made out is that the Holy Prophet in spite of his claim had not succeeded in completing his mission.
By holding that the Riddah was a break with the leadership in Madina, and not with Islam qua religion, the point sought to be made out is that Abu Bakr was guilty of waging war against the Muslims for political and selfish ends.
By holding that the majority of the people had not accepted Islam and as such there was no question of their apostasy, the point sought to be made out is that Abu Bakr was guilty of war of aggression against the people of Arabia and forcing Islam through the sword.
By holding that the Muslim jurists adopted the facts to fit in their legal discourse, the point sought to be made out is that both the Muslim jurists and historians have distorted and perverted history.

All these are wild allegations and baseless accusations which do not stand the test of any analysis of the course of history.

Unification of Arabia under the Holy Prophet

Dr. Shoufani's thesis is that, at the time of the death of the Holy Prophet, Arabia was far from being unified, and many people had not accepted Islam. It is accordingly argued that where the people had not accepted Islam, the question of apostasy did not arise. There is fallacy in this thesis as the following arguments would show:

The society in Arabia was tribal in character. The tribes sent representative delegations to Madina and these delegations accepted Islam for their tribes. Regular agreements were drawn up, and it cannot be said that only some persons accepted Islam, and most of them did not. As a matter of fact all the tribes who sent delegations accepted Islam. It is on record that all tribes had sent their delegations. It, therefore, follows that all the people in Arabia, other than those like the Christians of Najran with whom there was an agreement to the contrary, had accepted Islam.
When the Sura "AI-Bara'ah" was proclaimed on the occasion of the pilgrimage in 631 C.E., the "declaration of discharge" signified in specific terms that Arabia had been unified under Islam, for unless there was unification there could be no discharge.
When in 632 C.E. over one hundred thousand Muslims assembled on the occasion of the Farewell Pilgrimage, it was a proof positive of the unification of Arabia. On this occasion the Holy Prophet declared in unequivocal terms that two religions were not to be tolerated in Arabia, and that Islam alone was to prevail. How could the Holy Prophet make such a declaration, if Arabia was not unified?
On the occasion of the Farewell Pilgrimage God revealed that God had completed the religion and chosen Islam for them. That clearly means that by the time of the revelation Arabia had been unified under Islam.

In view of the testimony of the Holy Quran, the view of the western writers that Arabia had not been unified under Islam during the lifetime of the Holy Prophet cannot be accepted.

Leadership in Madina. The view that the Riddah was a break with the leadership in Madina, and not with Islam qua religion is fallacious and cannot be accepted for the following reasons:

There is no authority in support of the point that any tribe ever raised the issue of non-recognizing the leadership of Madina.
The western scholars are apt to view things in the light of the separation of the church and the state, and have failed to realize that there is no such separation in Islam and as such any defiance of the authority at Madina which was the custodian of Islam had a religious connotation.
The western scholars are under the impression that Zakat is a tax. Zakat is in fact not a tax; it is a religious obligation. Any refusal to pay Zakat was the refusal to follow a basic injunction of Islam, and as such this refusal was not a mere repudiation of a fiscal obligation; it meant refusal to accept a fundamental injunction of Islam. Any attempt to enforce such obligation was religious and not merely political in character.
It is on record that Abu Bakr laid down in specific terms that before fighting any tribe, it was to be given the option to accept Islam, and where it accepted Islam, no action was to be taken against it. It was further laid down that where a tribe responded by calling the "Adhan" it was to be presumed that the tribe followed Islam. No Riddah war was fought against any party which responded by "Adhan" and professed to be Muslim.
The tribes against whom punitive action was taken definitely repudiated Islam. It is therefore absolutely wrong to hold that the Riddah was a break with the leadership in Madina, and not with Islam qua religion.

Significance of apostasy. The question that has been posed is that where the majority of the people did not accept Islam, the question of their apostasy did not arise, and hence, any campaign undertaken against them could not be an apostasy campaign. In the first instance it is not correct that the majority of the people had not accepted Islam. When delegations went to Makkah, and undertook to accept Islam on behalf of their tribes this implied that by agreement the entire tribe had accepted Islam. The position on the ground was that these tribes had accepted Islam, but when false prophets rose in their midst they transferred allegiance to them. The very process of offering allegiance to false prophets was apostasy pure and simple, and when the Muslims took action against the false prophets and their followers, such campaign was an apostasy campaign even though any of the followers might not have formally accepted Islam previously. After the revelation of Sura al-Bara'ah it was proclaimed that no religion other than Islam was to be tolerated in Arabia. This meant that if any attempt was made to enforce any new religion the Muslims could take up arms to suppress such religion and such a campaign taken in the name of religion would be an apostasy campaign.

Analysis of Montgomery Watt. Among the western scholars, Montgomery Watt has understood the position correctly. His analysis of the situation is as follows: "Moreover, as in the movement towards Islam, so in the Riddah, religion and political factors were inseparably mixed with one another. The Muslim historians were therefore right in regarding it as a religious movement; it was European scholars who erred by taking religion in a European, and not in an Arabic sense. The Riddah was a movement away from the religious, social, economic, and political system of Islam, and so was anti-Islamic".

Confrontation with Byzantium and Persia

International background. When Islam appeared on the world stage, the then world was dominated by two powers, Byzantium in the east and Persia in the west. There were spells of war as well as peace between these two years. During the sixth century, Justinian (507-565 C.E.) was the emperor of Byzantium, while Anaushirwan (531-579 C.E.) was the emperor of Persia. Both of them were contemporaries and great rulers of all world fame. In Byzantium, Justinian was succeeded by Maurice, and in Persia, Anaushirwan was succeeded by Khusro Perwez (Chosroes II). Chosroes II was overthrown in a military coup in 590, and he had to seek refuge with Maurice, the Byzantine emperor. With the Byzantine help, Chosroes II was restored to the Persian throne. Maurice regarded Khusro as a son, and during the last decade of the sixth century the two countries forged strong links of friendship. In 602 C.E., there was a revolt against Maurice. Maurice was killed, and Phocas became the emperor. There was another revolt in 610 C.E. when Heraclius became the Byzantine emperor. After the death of Maurice, the friendship between the two countries was over. In the second decade of the seventh century, Chosroes II invaded the Byzantine territories. Syria and Jerusalem fell to the Persians in 614 C.E. The Persians carried away the Holy Cross from Jerusalem. The Persians next marched to Egypt and annexed it in 616 C.E. For some time, the Byzantines lay low, but by 622 C.E. the Byzantines were strong enough to launch an attack against Persia. In the battle of Issus in 622 C.E., the Persians suffered a defeat. Other battles were fought during 623-625 C.E, which were not conclusive. The decisive battle was fought on the banks of the Tigris near the city of Mosul in 625 C.E. when Persia surrendered and asked for terms. As a result of this reverse, there was a revolt against Chosroes II in 628 C.E., when he was killed by his own son Sheroyah. Sheroyah who ascended the Persian throne as Kobad II made peace with Heraclius. By the terms of the peace treaty Persia abandoned all the conquests that it had made earlier in the second decade of the seventh century. Sheroyah died within a year. After him there was complete anarchy in the Sassanian empire, and during the next four years, there were a dozen kings including, two women. The Byzantine Empire on the other hand enjoyed a measure of stability under Heraclius.

Arab buffer states. When the two empires of Persia and Byzantium expanded, these came to include territories populated by Arabs. As a matter of policy both the empires found it expedient to set up Arab buffer states at the periphery of their empires. In the sixth century, a Ghassanid Arab state was set up in Syria under Al Harith b Jabala. This state acknowledged the suzerainty of Byzantium. In the Persian Empire a Lakhmid state was set up in Iraq with the capital at Hira. The Lakhmids acknowledged the suzerainty of Persia. The Ghassanids and the Lakhmids were often at war with each other. When Islam appeared on the world stage, the position about these buffer Arab states was changed. In Syria after the death of their king Al Harith b Jabala the Ghassanid State split into fifteen principalities. In Persia Chosroes II did away with the Lakhmid State, and took over the territory under the direct rule of Persia. The policy of the Holy Prophet was to win over the border Arab tribes to Islam. It was with a view to this end that the campaigns of Muta and Tabuk were undertaken during the lifetime of the Holy Prophet. When Abu Bakr insisted on sending Usama's expedition to Syria, it was in continuation of the policy laid down by the Holy Prophet. With the disintegration of the Persian rule, there was a power vacuum in the coastal areas of east and south Arabia. Islam succeeded in filling up this vacuum. In Iraq, Islam had yet to make headway.

Campaigns of Abu Bakr. When Abu Bakr became the Caliph in 632 C.E., Islam was threatened with disintegration. Within a year, Abu Bakr was strong enough to attack the Persian Empire on the northeast and the Byzantine Empire in the northwest. These were giant empires with history extending over hundreds of years. They had large resources at their disposal. But yet against the Arab hordes the Persian and the Byzantine forces were not able to take a stand. In Iraq the Muslim forces gave blows after blows to the Persian armies. In Syria the same story was repeated and the Byzantine forces in spite of the superiority in strength and vastness of resources could not withstand the Muslim forces. The story of the victory of the Muslim armies in Iraq and Syria read very much like a tale of the Arabian Nights, too difficult to believe, but yet an established fact of history. In this respect, Professor Hitti observes as follows in his History of the Arabs: "If someone in the first third of the seventh Christian century had the audacity to prophesy that within a decade some unheralded, unforeseen power from the hitherto barbarians and little known land of Arabia was to make its appearance, hurl itself against the only two powers of the age, fall heir to the one-the Sassanids, and strip the other, the Byzantine of its fairest provinces, he would undoubtedly be declared a lunatic. Yet that was what happened."

Causes of Muslim success. How the Muslims were able to overpower the gigantic empires of Persia and Byzantium is one of the great mysteries of history. Various western writers have tried to discover in their own way the causes of the astounding success of the Muslims. They have referred to four main causes, namely racial, political, economic and moral.

Racial affinity. Von Kremer has observed as follows in his book The Orient under Caliphs: "Instead of fighting their powerful kinsmen, the people of the frontier towns who were in the play either of the Byzantine or the Persian empire found it much more to their advantage to make common cause with the Arabs. It was thus that a comparatively smaller army which penetrated Syria and Iraq quickly grew like an avalanche, and crushed down all obstacles that stood in its way."

In his book, The age of Faith, Will Durant has held that the racial factor was an important cause of the success of the Muslims, as both Syria and Iraq contained Arab tribes who had much in common with the Muslims.

In their book, World History, Flenley and Welch have held that the racial affinity of the people made the extension of the Muslim rule easier.

When Abu Bakr undertook campaigns in Iraq and Syria, these campaigns were really not directed against the Byzantine or Persian empires; these were really directed to bring the Arabs living in Iraq and Syria to the fold of Islam. In the wars in Iraq and Syria many Christian Arabs fought against the Muslims, but many of them sided with the Muslims as well. We can thus concede that in the success of the Muslim arms in Iraq and Syria, Arab nationalism played its part.

Political cause. Will Durant has held, in his book The Age of Faith, the political cause of the success of the Muslims was that both Byzantium and Persia exhausted by war and mutual devastation were in a state of decline.

In his book The History of the World H. G. Wells has observed as follows: "It (Islam) prevailed because every where it found politically apathetic people, robbed, oppressed, bullied, uneducated and unorganized and it found selfish and unsound governments out of touch with the people." In their World History, Flenley and Weleh have also held that the political cause of the success of Muslims was that the Persian and Byzantine empires stood exhausted by mutual wars.

This analysis of the political situation is basically correct, and we can very well hold that when Islam appeared on the scene, these old empires were in the process of decline.

Economic causes. In his book The History of Syria, Professor P. K. Hitti has expressed the following views with regard to the economic causes about the success of the Muslims in Iraq and Syria: viewed in its proper perspective the Islamic expansion was one in a series of migration waves carrying a surplus population from a barren peninsula to a border fertile region with a more abundant life. It was in fact the last stage in the age long process of infitration which had begun with the Babylonians some four thousand years before the Islamic movement. The Islamic movement, however, did possess one distinctive feature-the religious impulse. Combined with the economic factor this made the movement irresistible and carried it far beyond the confines of any preceding one. Islam admittedly provided a battle cry, a slogan comparable to that provided by democracy as a cohesive agency cementing tribes and heterogeneous masses never united before. But while the desire to spread the new faith or to go to paradise may have been the motivating force in the lives of some of the Bedouin warrior, the desire for the comforts and luxuries of settled life in the fertile Crescent was the driving force in the case of many of them."

The analysis of Professor Hitti is at the most partially correct. In the context of the events that led to campaigns in Iraq and Syria, there is nothing to show that such campaigns were undertaken because of any economic considerations. As a matter of fact economic considerations were a consequence and not a cause of the wars in Iraq and Syria.

Religious and moral causes. About the religious cause, Will Durant observes as follows in his book The Age of Faith: "The Muslim leaders were passionate disciples of Muhammad; prayed even more than they fought, and in time inspired with a fanaticism that accepted death in a holy war as an open sesame to paradise."

About the moral factors, Will Durant observes as follows in his aforesaid book: "Christian ethics and monasticism had reduced in the Near East that readiness for war which characterized Arab custom and Muslim teaching The Arab troops were more rigorously disciplined and more ably led; they were used to hardships and could fight on empty stomachs."

In their World History, Flenley and Welch have observed that new religion Islam provided the necessary unity, leadership and driving force for the Arabian expansion. They also hold that the Arabs were brave and determined fighters, and were more mobile than the Persians or the Byzantines.

Whether Islam was spread through sword. Some western writers have taken pains to build up the thesis that Islam was spread at the point of sword. It is preposterous to hold that the Muslims won in Iraq and Syria because of their military strength. In the matter of military power and material resources the Arabs could never be a match for the empires of Byzantium and Syria with sophisticated military power and great economic resources. Under these circumstances there was no question of a great power asserting its faith backed by military strength. Islam was on the other hand a revolt against power; a militarily weak people contended against mightier people, and surprisingly enough they won. In the conquered territories the Muslims did not insist on the people becoming Muslims. They were allowed to follow their religion subject to the payment of 'Jizya'. As such there is absolutely no weight in the argument that Islam was at any stage spread through sword.

Fulfillment of history. Whatever the causes that led to the success of the Muslims when they emerged on the international horizon, so much is certain that the astounding success of the Muslim forces in Iraq and Syria reads very much like a tale from the Arabian Nights. Truth is said to be stranger then fiction, and it was certainly so in the case of the Muslim conquests of Iraq and Syria. It appears that the Muslims were merely an instrument for the fulfillment of history. Iraq and Syria fell to the Muslims just as a ripe apple would fall to the ground under the law of gravitation. It is an undeniable fact that by overpowering the empires of Persia and Byzantium, Abu Bakr changed the course of history. The story of Abu Bakr is the story of faith that moved mountains.