The first and second successors to the Prophet Muhammad were his father in laws, while the third and fourth were his son in laws.
The first successor, Abu Bakar Abi Quhafah, was not only the Prophet bosom friend, but also his father in law, because Abu Bakar was the father of Aisyah. The second successor, Umar al Khattab, was the father of Hafsah, another wife of the Prophet. Hence, Umar too was the Prophet's father in law.
The third successor, Uthman Affan, became the Prophet's son in law because Uthman married two of the Prophet's daughters, Ruqayyah and Umm Kulthoom. He married Ruqayyah first, and then Umm Kulthoom after Ruqayyah died. The fourth successor, Ali Abu Talib, was not only the Prophet's son in law, but also a cousin to the Prophet. He even grew up in the Prophet's household, as the Prophet grew up in the household of Abu Talib, the Prophet's uncle who happened to be Ali's father.
These four successors were known in the annal of Islamic history as the rightly guided caliphs.
After that the caliphate turned into dynasties, beginning with the Umayyid dynasty and followed by the Abbasid dynasty. Still, the founders of these dynasties are those closely related to the Prophet.
The first successor, Abu Bakar Abi Quhafah, was not only the Prophet bosom friend, but also his father in law, because Abu Bakar was the father of Aisyah. The second successor, Umar al Khattab, was the father of Hafsah, another wife of the Prophet. Hence, Umar too was the Prophet's father in law.
The third successor, Uthman Affan, became the Prophet's son in law because Uthman married two of the Prophet's daughters, Ruqayyah and Umm Kulthoom. He married Ruqayyah first, and then Umm Kulthoom after Ruqayyah died. The fourth successor, Ali Abu Talib, was not only the Prophet's son in law, but also a cousin to the Prophet. He even grew up in the Prophet's household, as the Prophet grew up in the household of Abu Talib, the Prophet's uncle who happened to be Ali's father.
These four successors were known in the annal of Islamic history as the rightly guided caliphs.
After that the caliphate turned into dynasties, beginning with the Umayyid dynasty and followed by the Abbasid dynasty. Still, the founders of these dynasties are those closely related to the Prophet.
As for the first, it was founded by Muawiyah bin Abu Sufyan. Muawiyah was the brother of Umm Habibah, one of the Prophet's wives, who was the daughter of Abu Sufyan. He was therefore the Prophet's brother in law.
The second dynasty was founded by Abu Abbas as Saffah and his older brother Abu Ja'far al Mansur, the descendants of Abbas bin Abdul Muttalib. Abbas was none other than the Prophet's uncle.
This group of people who are closely linked with the Prophet had led the Islamic world with an almost absolute control for more that three hundreds years: about 30 years during the rightly guided caliph, about 90 years of the Ummayid dynasty and the first 200 years of the Abbasid caliphate.
The Abbasid dynasty did not end until 1517, when the caliphate was transferred to the Ottoman family, but after the first 200 years, the family's control on the empire was very much weakened. After the Mongols razed Baghdad to the ground in 1258, the Abbasid dynasty moved to Cairo, Egypt. By then, their control was merely symbolic, since the family did not hold any political power at all.
After the Abbasid dynasty, the caliphate moved to the Ottoman or Uthmaniyyah dynasty, which dominated the Islamic World until WWI in 1917. Some sources said that the dynasty, which is not of Arab stock, but Turkic, derived its name from Uthman, the third caliph. It is alleged that one of the descendants of Uthman Affan married a woman of Turkish origin, and from this family rose the Ottoman dynasty. If the claim is true, it would appear that the long history of Islam is dominated by a few closely knit family, all related to the Prophet.
Sounds very much like the story of cronyism, nepotism and favoritism, is it not? Well, such is almost always a case in every great endeavor. The terms used of course are differents: companions, friends, associates, family members. But they are essentially means the same thing. After all, to whom would you rely, except those who you know very well and trust fully.
The Abbasid dynasty did not end until 1517, when the caliphate was transferred to the Ottoman family, but after the first 200 years, the family's control on the empire was very much weakened. After the Mongols razed Baghdad to the ground in 1258, the Abbasid dynasty moved to Cairo, Egypt. By then, their control was merely symbolic, since the family did not hold any political power at all.
After the Abbasid dynasty, the caliphate moved to the Ottoman or Uthmaniyyah dynasty, which dominated the Islamic World until WWI in 1917. Some sources said that the dynasty, which is not of Arab stock, but Turkic, derived its name from Uthman, the third caliph. It is alleged that one of the descendants of Uthman Affan married a woman of Turkish origin, and from this family rose the Ottoman dynasty. If the claim is true, it would appear that the long history of Islam is dominated by a few closely knit family, all related to the Prophet.
Sounds very much like the story of cronyism, nepotism and favoritism, is it not? Well, such is almost always a case in every great endeavor. The terms used of course are differents: companions, friends, associates, family members. But they are essentially means the same thing. After all, to whom would you rely, except those who you know very well and trust fully.
Sir,
ReplyDeleteCan we say appointment of Saidina Hassan (RA) is a kind of hereditary succession?
Thank you Sir
I think you nail it right in the bud, for what else can we make of it except hereditary. But due to our prejudice, we generally feel it was only right that Saidina Hassan (RA) replaced his father Saidina Ali, while we criticize Saidina Muawiyah for taking his son Yazid to replace him.
DeleteIs Hadith also considered as Revealed Knowledge?
ReplyDeleteYes, given that what he says is not out of whim or desire, but rather a revelation revealed (an Najm: 3-4).
DeleteCaliphates/Sultanates history seems to be characterised with bloodshed intrastate power struggles (game of thrones) that each era was punctuated with coup and assassination attempts among the royalty and nobles. So much so that it has always become Muslim historians predicaments to tell the whole truth. Many would rather skip some dark episodes thought best kept the general public untold.
ReplyDeleteOrientalists on the other hand, had a field day comparing with the seemingly less turmoils modern democratic countries.Suggesting not only Democracy is a far better system but also as if democrats, republicans and etc are far more civilised politicians.
However as we go deeper into the finer points it appears, casualties of Caliphates/Monarchy intrastate power struggles were (more often than not) contained among the contenders only - royalty and nobles (except for those episodes construed as Fitnas/Civil Wars which civilians got dragged into).
While Democracy is supposedly about empowering the commoners, casualties of Democracy (also Communism and etc) are ironically the general public - the unassuming pawns in the game! More so when protests met with unrestrained enforcers or turned into armed revolts.
As for civilised politicians; as opposed to Royalty of the past who always led the charge themselves(including during armed campaigns); today's politicians are only good at pitting their supporters (and general public) into duel (both online and at streets) on their behalf which made them not much difference with Terrorists.
In their pursuit of political aims both Terrorists and Rogue Politicians would not hesitate to resort to violence against general public (as target, as human-shields, put as ransom or as inevitable collateral damage) . The only difference is the former"s act is considered outright unlawful use of violence; the latter instigates violence and got it legitimate out of political expediency.