Introduction:

 

  We mean by the politicized judicial authority the case when the tyrannical rulers/caliphs were persecuting and prosecuting their political foes and opposition figures within their caliphate or empire using the judicial, executive, and legislative authorities, thus making despots foes and judges/arbiters at the same time while making the political foes and opposition figures as weakened, oppressed, and suppressed parties. Such politicized judicial authority within tyrannical theocracies/caliphates  would seem – only apparently – as unrelated to ordinary litigation among people suing one another away from politics, but in reality, tyrants monopolize and confiscate the political rights of people and this is the severest form of injustice leading to other injustices of monopolizing and confiscating other legal, economic, and human rights and to creating corruption and confiscation of other people's money, possessions, and so on. Hence, tyrants and their cronies within caliphates were leaders of spreading of and participating in corruption, making tyrants and despots foes and arbiters/judges within courts against the people, whether they were involved in political opposition or not. As for our topic of this book about the judicial authority, theocratic tyrants usually fully controlled this judicial authority within their empire or caliphate to make it serve their purposes; they never employed in it anyone except those trusted followers who were obsequiously subservient and loyal to them to help in maintaining injustices, oppression, and tyranny. Thus, caliphs typically employed judges who were haughty, arrogant, and unjust who felt superior to people inside and outside courts and would support injustice all the time while never caring to satisfy oppressed people looking forward to achieving justice; those judges were only eager to please despotic caliphs and their well-off powerful cronies. On rare occasions, there were some just and fair judges within theocratic rule of caliphates, but they were few exceptions of centuries-old theocracies of suppression, oppression, and tyranny. We trace below how the unjust judicial authority emerged for the first time during the era of the four pre-Umayyad caliphs (whom Sunnites sanctify and deify as the 'infallible' and 'wise' caliphs!) and how the politicized judicial authority negatively influenced ordinary judicial authority, using an example from the reign of the Abbasid caliph Al-Maamoun, who was known or his open-mindedness and love of justice, pardoning, and patience.                

 

 

 

Firstly: is this shift to tyranny could be deemed as a failure of Islam and the Quran-based rule?

 

1- This shift to tyranny away from the direct democracy of the Quran-based rule of the Yathreb city-state began once Muhammad died, even before he was buried, as per historical accounts tell us about the dispute over choosing a ruler/successor or a caliph. This is why some non-Muslims would wonder about the use or suitability of Quran-based rule ruined by the so-called companions of the prophet who tyrannized and conquered other nations. Indeed, we must bear in mind that Islam (the Quran) made the biggest victory that seemed impossible in this location and era (7th century Arabia), which is creating (for ten years) direct-democracy city-state ruled by citizens despite its being surrounded by the dominant culture of enslavement and tyranny, within a desert tribal environment, before and after the death of Muhammad, during the Middle-Ages. Creating the Quran-based rule and direct democracy within Yathreb city-state was not easy, as the dominant culture of injustice and tyranny at the time and in that location had many supporters who hated and fought Islam and its Yathreb city-state from inside (by the hypocrites/agents and their intrigues and plots) and from outside by waging aggressive wars (by the Umayyads in the Qorayish tribe and the Bedouin desert-Arabs). After the death of Muhammad how founded and led this Yathreb city-state, it was expected that the countdown for its collapse would begin soon enough, which was an island of direct democracy surrounded by an ocean of tribalism, injustice, corruption, and tyranny, factors bent on submerging it and destroying it forever. Yet, such collapse of the Yathreb city-state did not occur easily, because of the great influence of the Quran on souls of many Arabs who converted to the new religion. The Quran was revealed gradually for about 23 years (as per historical accounts) that included ten years of the short-lived Yathreb city-state (1-10 A.H./622-632 A.D.) that ended when Muhammad died. Supporters of corruption, injustice, and tyranny could not destroy the Yathreb city-state except gradually and with difficulty within years of aggressive wars and civil wars within the era of the four pre-Umayyad caliphs (11-40 A.H./632-661 A.D.) that led eventually to the re-establishment of the dominant culture of tyranny, corruption, enslavement, and injustice represented by the Umayyad caliphate (41-132 A.H./661-750 A.D.). Indeed, the Umayyads established a tyrannical Arab empire based on tribalism (favoring some Arab tribes over the others) and racial bias for Arabs and against non-Arabs (natives and indigenous people of the nations conquered by Arabs) in general, along with justifying tyranny, injustices, and inequality with primitive and naïve quasi-religious pretexts based on the philosophical idea of fatalism and predetermination by attributing all events to God and His divine will. The Abbasid caliphate (132-658 A.H./750-1258 A.D.) has provided the theorization basis, written down as required for theocracies and tailored for their political clergymen and theocratic rulers/caliphs to maintain tyranny and injustices on a firm. Solid grounds of fiqh (religious jurisprudence) of the earthly religions of the Muhammadans ascribed forcibly to the name of Islam. The military Mameluke State (648-921 A.H./1250-1517 A.D.) followed the footsteps of the Abbasid caliphate, and Mameluke sultans moved the Abbasid caliphate to Cairo (by making the last descendants of the Abbasid dynasty reside in Cairo, after the collapse of the Abbasid caliphate after the destruction of Baghdad by the invading Mongols) in order to maintain the political clergymen to lend quasi-religious 'legitimacy' to the Mameluke Empire. When the Sufi Mameluke State collapsed as the Ottomans conquered Egypt, the Ottoman sultan Selim I returned to his capital with the last descendants of the Abbasid dynasty to give himself more 'legitimacy', until Selim I became a caliph within a Sunnite-Sufi theocracy. When the Ottoman caliphate ended in 1924 A.D., the Wahabis in the 20th century ardently desire to revive a Sunnite empire/caliphate controlling the Arab world and the 'Islamic' world while facing the West world, as per what the image had been during the Middle Ages. Such is the historical background within which the politicized judicial authority emerged in the history of the Muhammadans and in the present time as well.             

 

2- Within the Muhammadan history filled with shameful crimes and  sins committed and tragedies that took place within their manipulating the name of Islam to achieve their political ambitions, the main features of Islam (i.e., the Quran) were abandoned and ignored and so were those of the Quran-based rule of the democratic Yathreb city-state. In the 20th century, the West knew mostly and applied partially the notion and culture of democracy, whereas the Muhammadans still suffer enslavement, corruption, and tyranny within theocracies and military regimes that both manipulate and hijack the name of Islam shamelessly. The lower depth of degeneration of the Muhammadans at present is manifested in the contradiction between views of Islam (i.e., the Quran) and those of the Muhammadans (who deem themselves as 'Muslims') regarding democratic rule. Within the obscurantist Middle-Ages of tyranny and injustice, Islam managed to establish in the 7th century Arabian deserts a model of direct democracy, not the democracy of parliamentary representatives, within a geographical location that never witnessed before the establishment of any states before the advent of Islam. In our modern-age, we live the era of the dominant culture of democracy, and scientific and technological advancements in communication in the global village make achieving direct democracy easier than ever, and this is why democratic transition of power and elections occur in the third-world countries that never existed 50 years ago, whereas the cursed backward Wahabi Sunnite imams  want to make the Muhammadans (who are among the oldest nations in the world) move backward in time and maintain regressive mentality by spreading the myth that democracy is the impure work of Satan!         

 

3- Let us get back to our topic; the disobedience, deviation from, and violation of the essence of the celestial divine messages of God are typical and recurrent in human history before and after the revelation of the Quran. This is part of the reason why there is essentially the same content in all of the celestial divine messages of God, as disobedience usually occur once a messenger or a prophet died. This is what occurred once Muhammad died; Satan and devils never tender their resignation and twill go on tempting human beings until the end of days:  "He said, "Give me respite, until the Day they are resurrected." He said, "You are of those given respite." He said, "Because you have lured me, I will waylay them on Your straight path. Then I will come at them from before them, and from behind them, and from their right, and from their left; and you will not find most of them appreciative."" (7:14-17).

 

4- Conditions and motives for such violation of the celestial, divine messages differ, but they end up in establishing earthly, man-made, and fabricated religions that supplant and replace the divine one of God while using its name; this occurred to the three Abrahamic religion of course. For instance, Jesus was a prophet sent to the Israelites with but one clear message: (There is no God but Allah), a message conveyed by all prophets and messengers before him, but deviation, violation, and disobedience of this message began with Paul who deified Jesus Christ as a son of God, and deifying the so-called disciples, saints, clergymen, etc. Likewise, Muhammad was a prophet sent with but one clear message: (There is no God but Allah), a message conveyed by all prophets and messengers before him, asserted before by the religion of Abraham as well. Yet, deviation, violation, and disobedience of this message began with deifying Muhammad (as a deity beside God and a 'beloved' of God!) and deifying many historical figures, imams, theologians, saints, etc. following political conflicts that used the method of ascribing lies and falsehoods to Islam and to Muhammad after his death, by people such as Abou Hurayrah, who obsequiously served the Umayyads. Hence, millions of hadiths/narratives fabricated by countless people formed the basis of establishing the three earthly, man-made, and fabricated religions of the Muhammadans (and Sunnite, Shiite, and Sufi ones), as the three creeds deify Muhammad (among other mortals) and helped to found tyrannical theocracies aided by the unjust and unfair judges within the judicial authority controlled by despots. Until now in the countries of the Muhammadans, tyrants manipulate and control the judicial authority and use it against their political foes and opposition figures. Hence, deliberately discarding God's religion occurred soon once a prophet/messenger died, and such deviation and intentional disregarding had occurred within various conditions and circumstances in different eras. For instance, within the Israelite environment, Jews attempted to kill Jesus but God saved him; Satan and devils made polytheists and disbelievers at the time claim that Jesus was God or a son of God, as per notions that dominated the pagan culture at the time. The military-political deviation and aggression of the Muhammadan Arabs matched the  bellicose and belligerent nature of the Arabian tribes in the deserts of the Arabian Peninsula that used to raid, loot, massacre, rape, and enslave as ordinary lifestyle and means of living.                

 

5- Religious deviation of Arabs began soon once Muhammad died, and Arabs in Yathreb refused to bury him until they settle their disputes revolving around choosing a ruler/caliph. Later on, more deviation and violations of the Quranic teachings were committed by the power-seeking Umayyads and tribes of the Najd region. Indeed, the Najd region in Arabia has been the source of all evil against Islam and Muhammadans as well as all peaceful people; from it emerged a false prophet, known as the leader Musaylimah, and the cursed M. Ibn Abdul-Wahabi who invented the Wahabi religion that caused thousands of people to lose their lives, countless terrorist acts, millions of victims, and it has tarnished the image and name of Islam manipulated and hijacked by Wahabis. When we tackle the judicial authority of in the history of the Muhammadans, we must refer to certain political roots that shed light on how the post of judges was corrupted and distorted since the era of the four pre-Umayyad caliphs and within all caliphates, as per the gradual change (by means of political conflicts, Arab conquests, massacres, and armed civil strife) from direct democracy of the Yathreb city-state to theocracies that were founded falsely in the name of Islam, as per the belligerent and military nature of power-seeking and wealth-seeking Arabs.      

 

6- Once Muhammad died, the first civil war broke out as Abou Bakr fought the renegades (i.e., those who forsook Islam) who refused to be ruled by Abou Bakr and pay zakat money (or taxes) to him by force, and those rejecters of faith who followed a self-proclaimed prophet named Musaylimah, who emerged in the Najd region and whose military troops of renegades sieged Yathreb in the physical sense of the word. The main figures among the so-called companions of the prophet were sieged in the figurative sense of the word by the Umayyad influence (the Umayyads were the most powerful faction in the Qorayish tribe of Mecca). Indeed, the Umayyads led all factions of the Qorayish tribe, whose most people feigned conversion to Islam shortly after Muhammad's death, after their 10 years of war against Islam and against Muhammad and the early believers in Yathreb. Another figurative siege surrounding the main figures among the so-called companions of the prophet was by the hypocrites among the Yathreb dwellers, whom the Quran has exposed as those who feigned conversion to Islam but conspired and plotted against it and against Muhammad and the early believers in Yathreb. It is naturally expected that when the revelation of the Quran ended and when Muhammad died, the conspiracies of hypocrites would increase and they would unite with their allies the Umayyads overtly. Such unprecedented circumstances led to the choice of Abou Bakr as ruler/caliph and a military leader. This has been the first step away from the direct democracy of the Yathreb city-state that Muhammad left it while its dwellers enjoying self-rule and autonomy within Shura consultation. The one leader who opposed the appointment of Abou Bakr as caliph and of Omar Ibn Al-Khattab as his successor was Saad Ibn Eibada, who was soon assassinated during the reign of Omar, because of his refusal to swear fealty to Omar as a caliph and to Abou Bakr before him within the Thaqeefa council (i.e., the meeting held hastily in Yathreb before the burial of Muhammad to choose a ruler/caliph, which was a meeting controlled by agents loyal to the Umayyads; for more details, we refer readers to our book in English titled "The Unspoken-of History of the Pre-Umayyad 'Righteous' Caliphs").         

 

7- Moving and breaking away from the political ways of the direct democracy of the Yathreb city-state was asserted after the crushing of armed rebellions of renegades within this first civil war, and those 'renegades' re-converted back to Islam. The Umayyads aimed at the time to regain control of the trade routes between India and Europe within the winter and summer trade journeys to Yemen and the Levant. Circumstances and conditions at the time were favorable to the Umayyads, as they managed to control the belligerent nature of the Najd region tribes by moving their military power (the one of most other tribes in Arabia) into conquering the countries dominated by the Persian Empire and the Byzantine Empire. Such Arab conquests were a crime and a violation of the Quranic teachings that allowed no room for aggressive military attacks to occupy and invade lands of innocent non-aggressive people who never attacked Arabs, as fighting in Islam is required only in cases of self-defense and to stop religious persecution. This deviation from and disregarding of the Quranic teachings was affirmed when conquests began to prove a success in terms of forming an empire that brought lots of money and riches into the capital, Yathreb, during the reign of the second caliph Omar Ibn Al-Khattab, who enslaved so many free people from Iraq, Persia, the Levant and Egypt; yet, fabricators of history attribute to him that he said that it is a disgrace to enslave people who were born free. Hence, Omar as a caliph, like his predecessor and successor, paved the way for the Umayyads to continue their expansionist conquests, despite the fact that aggressive wars are prohibited in the Quran. This means that most Arabs violated the Quranic teachings on purpose when they joined such conquests before and during the Umayyad caliphate. This means that the judicial authority was corrupted since the reign of Omar Ibn Al-Khattab and beyond within the history of all caliphs, and PART II of this book traces some events that show how corruption dominated the judicial authority within the history of the Muhammadans.    

 

 

 

Secondly: the four pre-Umayyad caliphs and the emergence of the unjust politicized judicial authority for the first time:

 

1- Judges must be neutral; they cannot be foes or opponents of the defendants and their judges at the same time; yet, this sometimes has occurred within the absolutist rule of a tyrant, past and present, and how a tyrant would deal with opposition figures and other foes. This links political deviation and corruption to how the Muhammadans moved away from direct democracy, and this is closely linked to corruption within the judicial authority dominated and controlled by tyrants. Within the direct democracy of a Quran-based rule, there is no such a thing as a ruler, but rather many responsible persons/groups of experts liable to be checked, watched, and questioned, as we have inferred from Quranic verses related to the Yathreb city-state, and no absolutist ruler was there to be a foe of any citizen in Yathreb at the time.      

 

2- Within the Thaqeefa council, Abou Bakr became a caliph, and the title 'caliph' emerged for the very first time to express the idea of a one ruler dominating over all affairs as per the Middle-Ages dominant culture of tyranny. Saad Ibn Eibada, a leader of the Yathreb dwellers who supported Muhammad before, protested verbally against appointment of Abou Bakr as a caliph, and he was outspoken in calling for the due share and right of the Yathreb dwellers in rule as before during the lifetime of Muhammad, reminding everyone of the role of the Yathreb dwellers as supporters of Islam and Muhammad and how their city was the location of the Quran-based rule and how they were generous in hosting the immigrants coming from Mecca and elsewhere, etc. The vociferous and public peaceful opposition led by Saad Ibn Eibada was true, just, and logical, and some people joined him as a leader as they wanted to maintain the direct democracy and share the rule as was the case when Muhammad led the Yathreb city-state. The collective memory at the time in Arabia still retained how Muhammad allowed the opposition of the hypocrites to act, move, and speak freely, while the Quranic sharia laws have commanded to stay away from them, and NEVER to punish or to stop them, leaving their case to God as the Supreme Judge in the Hereafter. Hence, the public opposition movement led by Saad Ibn Eibada was deemed acceptable in terms of its form, type, and magnitude, and it was different from the one by hypocrites who opposed Muhammad; Abou Bakr and Omar were never compared to Muhammad of course. Indeed, Saad Ibn Eibada was never punished, but totally ignored, by the caliph Abou Bakr, who was busy fighting the renegades and to start the Arab conquests; the persecution of Saad Ibn Eibada began with the second caliph, Omar, whom was expected to deal with Saad Ibn Eibada as per the Quranic sharia of God (i.e., to leave him be), but Omar as an absolutist ruler persecuted Saad Ibn Eibada until this man had to leave Yathreb and moved to Houran (or Auranitis), in the Levant, where he was soon assassinated in 15 A.H., two years after Omar became a caliph, and news of his assassination reached Yathreb in poetic lines that claimed that Jinn murdered him ("Al-Tabakat Al-Kobra" by Ibn Saad, 3/2/145). Thus, in that case ofSaad Ibn Eibada, the caliph Omar was an arbiter/judge and a foe at the same time; he invented for the first time the sin/crime of politicized judicial authority in the history of the Muhammadans when he made it a habit that the ruler (as an absolutist despot) would have the 'right' to punish (or assassinate) his foes without being questioned and without giving them the right to defend themselves. Hence, in modern times, Mubarak, the Egyptian president, follow the footsteps or Sunna (i.e., traditions) of the unjust Omar, when he manipulated and controlled the judicial authority to serve his purposes like court-martialling people, imposing the Emergency Law, and establishing State Security Apparatus courts so that Mubarak would be judge/arbiter and foe at the same time to get rid of the opposition figures.    

 

3- Omar as a caliph or an absolutist ruler took the first step of the route of tyranny (followed by all caliphs later on) by monopolizing and confiscating the three authorities: the judicial, executive, and legislative ones. History tells us that he used to beat people by his cudgel as he roamed streets of Yathreb almost daily and would see those who deserve to be punished (History of Al-Tabari, 4/209).  This bad violent behavior of Omar that seemed 'small' apparently underlie the fact that he took the first step of the route of tyranny in that way: he would spot a defendant/offender, issue the law to punish him, and would punish him himself with his cudgel! Omar was never questioned or checked by anyone who dared not to oppose him to avoid his fury. A tyrannical ruler like Omar is expected to deal severely and unjustly with any opposition figures. 

 

4- History tells us that Omar used to roam streets of Yathreb by night with his cudgel in his hands, checking everyone, and historians refer to him as a "shepherd" and to people as "subjects", as if people of Yathreb were herds of cattle in the eyes of Omar! The bad, corrupt notion of ruler/shepherd and his subjects is the basis of tyranny, as rulers feel as if they own people and had the right to control them and do anything they liked without being questioned or held accountable! No one dared to question Omar or any caliphs about their decrees, and soon enough, people formulated phrases describing caliphs and sultans as the shadow of the Lord God owning the earth and those living on it, animals and humans! This of course was the dominant Middle-Ages culture before the advent of Islam in the earthly, man-made religions, and this culture of tyranny and enslavement returned with a vengeance within the tyrannical theocracies of the Muhammadans, because Omar was the first ruler to revive such culture.  It is noteworthy that the Quran prohibits the idea of addressing God as a 'shepherd' and people as His 'subjects'; see 2:104 and 4:46, and yet how come this was adopted by Omar and his successors?! For further details on that topic, we refer readers to our article (in English) titled "The Falsehood of "The Lord Is My Shepherd" Is Contrary to the Islamic Faith" found on the following  link: ( http://www.ahl-alquran.com/English/show_article.php?main_id=13964 ).

 

5- The presence of a strong viable opposition movements in a given country is a good sign of its being democratic. After the tragedy of the assassination of Saad Ibn Eibada, after his persecution and exile, Omar the caliph deprived the Yathreb dwellers (who were the staunch supporters of Muhammad in earlier times) from all political participation, and Omar never allowed any burgeoning opposition movements to evolve to emerge as he nipped them in the bud during his reign, even when he was at his death bed; while dying, as he suffered serious injuries after an assassin of Persian descent attacked him in Yathreb, he wrote a will that only six persons among the immigrants (thus excluding the Yathreb dwellers) are to consult one another in a closed council/meeting to choose from among themselves one caliph to succeed Omar. Those six persons were as follows: Othman Ibn Affan, Ali Ibn Abou Talib, Al-Zubayr Ibn Al-Awwam, Talha Ibn Obaydillah, Abdul-Rahman Ibn Awf, and Saad Ibn Abou Waqqas. Omar included in this group his son Abdullah who can vote but never to present himself as a candidate for caliphate. Omar in his deathbed authorized this group of men to put to death any minority that would dare to oppose the majority. This is sheer tyranny and injustice; yet Sunnites until now worship and deify Omar as the embodiment or paragon of justice! Even these men chosen by Omar were threatened to be put to death by one of them, Talha, when they procrastinated, as he led 50 men to threaten the rest to hasten with their meeting and deliberations to choose a caliph from among them   (History of Al-Tabari, 4/229). The contradiction here is very clear when we compare such tyranny of Omar (committed few years after Muhammad's death) to the justice and fairness of Muhammad during his stay in Yathreb as its leader; Omar is supposed to have lived in Yathreb during Muhammad's stay there and witnessed how the Yathreb city-state was filled with political activities and movements and had its opposition movements led by male and female hypocrites who spread their ideas and built a mosque of their own, and no one used violence against them or threatened them with brandishing a cudgel; see 9:67, 9:71, and 9:107. Thus, during the reign of Omar, all voiced were hushed except for his own, and all people (even children!) of Yathreb were terrorized by him; Omar was the only ruler and only judge who assumed the three authorities with a firm hand, and the masses felt frightened by his cudgel. Let us remember that most men and young men left Yathreb at the tie to join troops of the Arab conquests, leaving their children and women at the mercy of Omar's cudgel! Omar focused on tyranny and monopoly of all authorities as well as collecting all money from conquered countries from taxes and tributes to distribute this money on Arabs in shares as per their contribution in the military conquests (this means that financial corruption was not introduced during the reign of Omar). As an authoritarian ruler, Omar prevented most of the famous ones among the so-called companions of the prophet from ever leaving Yathreb to stop them from settling in any of the conquered countries so as not to allow them to form power centers that might shatter and divide the Arab Empire later on, and he made them merely his consultants whose views may or may not be taken into consideration by him.   

 

6- When Othman succeeded Omar as a caliph, he introduced a new policy that combined tyranny and financial corruption. We have tackled such a topic in detail in many of our previous articles, asserting how Othman allowed the so-called companions of the prophet  to settle and move freely within the conquered countries if they wished, and how they were allowed to hoard ill-gotten money and immense wealth in huge jars filled with gold. This way, Othman got rid of their political opposition against him as a caliph; he appointed instead his Umayyad relatives as his consultants, and thus, the Umayyads were allowed full control of the Arab Empire and all rule affairs during the caliphate of Othman, especially Mu'aweiya who was the governor of the Levant at the time. The closest consultant and trusted ally/secretary of Othman was the Umayyad  Marwan Ibn Al-Hakam, who was the actual ruler and controller of the caliphate behind the curtains. Moreover, Othman gave the Umayyads countless amounts of money. This means that Othman adopted a policy of bribing and silencing most men in return of making his faction, the Umayyads, confiscate and monopolize power and authority to pave the way for themselves later on to establish the Umayyad caliphate and fight Ali in the second Arab civil war, and he allowed Umayyads to get huge amounts of money saved for their future as well. Of course, such policy of Othman would not pass without opposition; those who politically opposed Othman included Ali Ibn Abou Talib, Ibn Masood, Ammar Ibn Yasser, Abou Al-Dardaa, and Abou Zar Al-Ghifary. Othman as a caliph could not use his authority to punish Ali for preaching and sermonizing him many times till Othman got bored and estrangement occurred between both men. Yet, Othman could not bear patiently with the others as he did with Ali; he used his tyrannical authority to banish, humiliate, torture, and severely beat his foes who opposed him. Ammar Ibn Yasser was humiliated in public and beaten severely until his intestine burst open, while Ibn Masood was beaten so brutally till he had fractures and his money and possessions were confiscated. Abou Zar Al-Ghifary and Abou Al-Dardaa were forced into exile. All these men, among others, were punished because they dared to criticize Othman and his Umayyad relatives that assumed full control of the caliphate. Thus, Omar unwittingly introduced the Hisbah (i.e., inquisition-like measures and spying) when he beat people in the streets and brandished his cudgel to terrorize them (thus, he was a precursor to the religious police), whereas Othman was the one who introduced for the first time the notion of a caliph who would torture people, when he committed this sin/crime against his peers among the so-called companions of the prophet. Othman was the first caliph to introduce the punishment of public humiliation, applied on those among the Bedouins and desert Arabs who opposed his policies. Most of these Bedouins and desert Arabs – described in the Quran as the most disbelieving and hypocritical people – were mostly violent belligerent ones from the Najd region, and they never thought with their brains but by their swords, and this was part of the reason why they had undergone many changes in their circumstances and situations. At first, Bedouins and desert Arabs converted to Islam during the lifetime of Muhammad to spite the tribe of Qorayish, especially the Umayyads, but once Muhammad died, they became renegades and rebels who forsook Islam (they rebelled because of the return, with a vengeance, of the Qorayish-Umayyad influence and control) and they were fought by Abou Bakr who defeated them, and they declare their re-conversion to Islam. They were the main soldiers in Arab conquests led by Qorayish and the Umayyads, but they resented the fact that they earned little from the fruits of conquests as Othman gave most of the money to the affluent Umayyads. This was why Bedouins and desert Arabs rebelled and raised arms against Othman, and after they invaded Yathreb, they eventually assassinated him inside his house. They forced Ali Ibn Abou Talib to be the caliph and became his staunch allies at first and fought in his armies within the battles against Mu'aweiya, but Ali suffered from their foolishness, their recklessness, their domination over him, and their fickleness as they shift alliances and stances so easily without prior notice. Of course, these Bedouins and desert Arabs who supported Ali forced him to accept arbitration, the trick of the shrewd, sly, and cunning military leader, Amr Ibn Al-As, who served Mu'aweiya, when he made his nearly defeated soldiers raise copies of the Quran on their spearheads to demand arbitration as per the criterion, the Quran. This ploy allowed Amr Ibn Al-As to save troops of Mu'aweiya, led by Amr, from crushing defeat. When the farce of arbitration ended, the Bedouins and desert Arabs blamed Ali and rebuked him severely for accepting the trick of arbitration, and many of them turned against Ali and they were named Al-Khawarij (i.e., literally, the rebels), who assassinated Ali eventually. This means that the Bedouins and desert Arabs within one generation had undergone many changes within their fickleness and belligerence: civil war of renegades, participating in the Arab conquests, rebelling against Othman and assassinating him, civil wars siding with Ali against Mu'aweiya, then rebelling against Ali and assassinating him. In fact, the leaders of the Bedouins and desert Arabs began in the city of Kufa, Iraq, to criticize Othman, who invented a special punishment for them in 33 A.H., which was making them walk their way, while heavily guarded, under arrest to Mu'aweiya, governor of the Levant in Damascus, who was commanded by Othman to make them walk to Kufa, and then its governor was commanded by Othman to make them walk to Homs, etc. Thus, they were forced to walk under arrest and disgrace to and from many cities in Iraq and the Levant while being publicly humiliated (History of Al-Tabari, 4/317). This means that Othman was the very first caliph to introduce this sort of punishment, now adopted by the policemen of the Mubarak regime to humiliate Egyptian suspects by making them visit all police stations in all Egyptian governorates to make sure they are not wanted or involved within any other cases. This punishment invented by Othman led more people to criticize and oppose Othman, and the Bedouins and desert Arabs when reached Egypt caused a Arabs settling there to join their rebellion, and they led rebels to storm, siege, and invade Yathreb and then surround house of Othman for a while until they assassinated him in 35 A.H. Indeed, Othman could have avoided being murdered if he would have followed the pieces of advice offered to him by Ali Ibn Abou Talib, and if he would have listened to the demands of so many to step down and leave his position as a caliph, but he adhered to the throne adamantly and asserted that he would never leave a royal garment ordained to him by God! (History of Al-Tabari, 4/371). This phrase by Othman is utter blasphemy; he considered ascending to the throne of caliphate as a divine deputization or right granted to him by God! This is the basic notion in tyrannical theocracies introduced by Othman shortly before his assassination.  

 

7- Ali assumed power as a caliph amidst troubled conditions and unrest, as most people of his era stood against his wish to introduce reform; Ali tried to adhere to the policy of a fair judge and a just arbiter, not adopting the political policy of seizing chances and opportunities within seeking to achieve all ends/goals with any possible means (Mu'aweiya of course adopted this policy). Hence, it was too late for Ali to deal with people using reformist attitude, because the new capitalism of Qorayish quickly established by Othman stood as insurmountable dam before Ali's attempts to introduce reform to achieve justice. Those who lead such new capitalism of Qorayish and opposed Ali were two among the known and popular 'companions' of the prophet: Al-Zubayr and Talha, who were joined by Aisha, widow of Muhammad, for other reasons of her own. The three of them were soon joined by the Umayyads led by Marwan Ibn Al-Hakam and Mu'aweiya. Ali could have defeated them in this civil war, and he did defeat them in several battles, but at one point, in 37 A.H., his chief allies and soldiers in his troops (i.e., the Bedouins and desert Arabs of the Najd region) rebelled against him and declared him as an infidel, and they raided, looted, and massacred the peaceful ones until Ali had to fight them in 37 A.H. Even Abdullah Ibn Abbas deserted his paternal uncle's son, the caliph Ali, in 40 A.H. in a very bad timing, as he stole all money of the Treasury in Basra and fled to Mecca  (History of Al-Tabari, 5/141:143).  In the same year, Ali was assassinated by Abdul-Rahman Ibn Muljam. Ali's sons, Al-Hussein and Al-Hassan, and the most of Shiites (supporters of Ali, who later on deified him and his two sons) swore fealty to Mu'aweiya and obeyed him as the new caliph, and the rebels named Al-Khawarij fought and resisted the Umayyad caliphate until they sapped its energy and it sapped theirs in so many military conflicts until the Umayyad caliphate collapsed in 132 A.H. We have, of course, mentioned such history briefly to assert the fact that the policies of corruption and tyranny led to civil wars, which in their turn led to power-seekers and rulers who wanted to monopolize and maintain power to wage wars in the name of religion to commit heinous massacres. Such events and policies contradict Islam and its Quranic sharia and the Quran-based rule; yet, such policies of corruption and tyranny have become the sharia of the Muhammadans and their rulers until now.       

 

 

 

Thirdly: the politicized judicial authority within the rest of the caliphs:

 

 The persecution of the opposition figures went on during the reign of the very first Umayyad caliph, Mu'aweiya, despite his being known for his patience, and those among his foes who raised arms against him in military attacks were defeated and crushed, and this was acceptable as long as they were violent belligerent ones who refused to negotiate and talk, and Mu'aweiya had power-seeking and influence-seeking foes who feigned being loyal and obedient to him as a caliph; he tolerated them and also those who criticize him verbally, as long as they would not seek to dethrone him, as he said. Yet, such a policy of Mu'aweiya allowed some exceptions; such as the one time he commanded Hajar Ibn Uday of the Arabian Kinda tribe and his Shiite followers. Hajar was a leader of the Shiites in Kufa, Iraq, who adored and supported Ali, but he and some of his followers went on hating Mu'aweiya as their enemy, despite their having to swear fealty to him like the rest of the Shiites. Hajar and his followers used gather in meetings to remember and lament Ali and talk about his good qualities and curse Mu'aweiya. Hajar and his men opposed the Umayyad governor or Kufa, Al-Mughira Ibn Shu'ba, as he began Friday sermons he delivered by cursing Ali. When Mu'aweiya appointed Ziyad Ibn Abih, and Hajar and his men opposed him for his beginning Friday sermons he delivered by cursing Ali as well. Ziyad arrested Hajar and his men and threatened dwellers of Kufa never to support them or to ally themselves to them. When question by Ziyad about disobeying the Umayyad rule in peaceful times, Hajar insisted that his loyalty and fealty was for Ali and he did not disturb the peace, but Ziyad made his judges and about 70 eye-witnesses in Kufa bear false witness and provide fabricated evidence that Hajar and his men plotted sedition and incited people to revolt and join military troops prepared by him. Among those judges was Abou Burda Ibn Abou Moussa Al-Ashaary. Ziyad sent Hajar and his men to Mu'aweiya in Damascus, who never investigated the matter and commanded Hajar and his men to be put to death ("Al-Muntazim" by Ibn Al-Jawzy, 5/241 – year 51 A.H.). This was the very first unjust and mock trial of peaceful non-violent opposition figures in the history of the Muhammadans who were put to death by virtue of framed accusations. This precedent paved the way to make other caliphs, for centuries, put to death all political foes and peaceful non-violent political opposition figures using politicized judicial authority the support such injustices, even sometimes without a fair trial or any trial at all; it was enough that their being put to death was the command of a caliph, a military leaders, or a governor. We provide some examples below.

 

A) Al-Tabari the historian asserts in events of 58 A.H. that Obaydillah Ibn Ziyad Ibn Abih, governor of Kufa, Iraq, chased, arrested, and killed many men of Al-Khawarij group; he used to kill them by putting them in prison cells (or preventing them from getting out of their heavily guarded houses) without food or drink until they die of hunger and thirst. This punishment and way of death was so popular and frequently used by the Umayyads.  Ibn Ziyad put to death in that manner one of Al-Khawarij leaders, named Orwah Ibn Udayya, because he preached to Ibn Ziyad the governor while he enjoyed watching horse-races, and Orwah quoted the Quranic verses 26:128-130, and Ibn Ziyad ordered his hands and feet cut off and had him thrown into a prison cell to die of hunger and thirst. When Ibn Ziyad visited him to mock him in the prison cell and to assert to him how he deserved to be put to death, Orwah told Ibn Ziyad that he may have anyone killed but he lost his place in Paradise and will certainly go to Hell. Once he heard this, Ibn Ziyad killed Orwah instantly and commanded that his two sons be put to death at once (History of Al-Tabari, 5/312).

 

B) Persecution and injustices committed against the peaceful political opposition figures and movements went on and grew more brutal after the death of Mu'aweiya, especially during the reign of the caliph Abdul-Malik Ibn Marwan, and he started his reign by delivering a speech/sermon in Yathreb in 75 A.H., asserting that he would 'cure' all ailments of the subjects by his mighty sword and he would put to death (by beheading) anyone who would advise him to adhere to piety and the fear of God! It is noteworthy that he delivered such a speech among his supporters, in peaceful times, so that he would deter any potential troublemakers or revolting men. The most prominent and blood-thirsty vizier and governor of the caliph Abdul-Malik Ibn Marwan was of course Al-Hajaj Ibn Youssef, who was at first appointed governor of the Hejaz region (where Mecca and Yathreb are located) and he humiliated, incarcerated, and put to death so many of the so-called companions of the prophet, and he then was appointed as governor of Iraq and Persia to face and quell the enemies of the Umayyads there after he rushed all opposition in Hejaz, and he became very close to the Umayyads and their grand-vizier, until he died in 95 A.H. during the reign of Al-Waleed Ibn Abdul-Malik Ibn Marwan. Historians assert that Al-Hajaj Ibn Youssef murdered, assassinated, and put to death at least 120 thousand persons, and at least 50 thousand men and 30 thousand women died in his prisons out of hunger and torture. When Al-Hajaj Ibn Youssef died, there were at least 33 thousand people incarcerated by him without accusations or trials at all (fair or otherwise), for merely being suspects. The brutal and heartless Al-Hajaj Ibn Youssef used to put to death thousands of innocent peaceful people.        

 

C) The fast-paced events during the Umayyad caliphate and its military aspect, racism, and tribalism never left room or any chance to theorize and institutionalize injustices and persecution by fiqh written and codified by any religious scholars and fabricators of hadiths. This writing down of all these traditions, fiqh, and hadiths and more other writings of history began and went on during the Abbasid Era, within settled civilized societies. In fact, even before establishing the Abbasid caliphate, its propaganda during the last deterioration period of the Umayyads was based on religious mottoes such as seeking just and fair imams/rulers from the household of Prophet Muhammad. The Umayyad caliphs used to be similar in appearance and manners to the leaders of tribesmen and warriors, whereas the Abbasid caliphs gave the image of themselves as 'holy' saints and imams as self-deified theocrat inspired by God, as per the Middle-Ages dominant culture of theocracy and tyranny. It was natural then that the Abbasid caliphs would attempt to justify their tyranny, crimes, persecution, oppression, and brutality by quasi-religious notions and by mottoes that they adhere to 'justice' and rule people 'justly'. We provide some examples below.

 

A) Before the establishment of the Abbasid caliphate, Suleiman Ibn Habeeb was the Umayyad governor of some Persian regions, and he employed under him a Hashemite youth of the Bani Abbas family (Abbas was one of the paternal uncles of Prophet Muhammad), and this youth was named Abdullah Ibn M. Ibn Ali Ibn Abdullah Ibn Abbas. This youth stole a sum of money at one time, and Suleiman Ibn Habeeb had him flogged in public and forced him to pay a fine and return the sum he stole. Years later, when this youth became the redoubtable Abbasid caliph Abou Jaffer Al-Mansour, he had commanded putting Suleiman Ibn Habeeb to death without a trial ("Al-Muntazim", 8/15).

 

B) This thief who became an Abbasid caliph later on, Abou Jaffer Al-Mansour, at one time delivered a sermon/speech in Al-Raqqa city in the Levant, after the pestilence/plague came to an end and moved away from this city, and he told people to thank the Almighty as the plague stopped once he ascended the throne as caliph, and a man responded to him by saying that God is merciful; He would not plague us with pestilence and with an enthroned murderer at the same time. Once Al-Mansour heard this, he commanded this man to be put to death immediately ("Al-Muntazim", 8/29, and History of Al-Tabari, 7/504).

 

C) As Abbasid caliphs gave themselves the 'right' to put to death anyone for whatever reason without trials and without anyone questioning caliphs, the same 'right' was practiced by leaders and governors under the Abbasid caliphs. For instance, the Abbasid military leader Oujayf Ibn Anbassa (who was later on put to death upon the command of the Abbasid caliph Al-Motassim) used to be in his full authority and power when he commanded the death of his scribe M. Ibn Al-Fadl Al-Jeirjany, when accused of embezzling money, but the life of this scribe was spared and Al-Motassim appointed him as a vizier later. Al-Jeirjany was in charge of orchards and farms of Oujayf , and the latter accused him of stealing money and of ruining the farms and orchards, and he swore to put Al-Jeirjany to death and called upon the executioner, but as Al-Jeirjany was being prepared to be put to death, he urinated out of fear and wetted his clothes, as he beseeched Oujayf to imprison him instead to investigate and verify the matter, and if any theft is proven, he would be ready to die and if discovered to be innocent, he would be released, and thus, Oujayf would be spared the sin of murder. Indeed, Oujayf incarcerated Al-Jeirjany for a few days. When the furious Al-Motassim commanded putting Oujayf to death for some reason, Al-Jeirjany the scribe was released and when he went into a public bath to get clean, he urinated in a nearby cemetery first, and a man told him that he had urinated upon the tomb of Oujayf. Al-Jeirjany wondered at such turnabout of events and thanked God for his own safety, as he went out of the public path and Al-Motassim appointed him as a vizier ("Al-Muntazim", 11/85).

 

 

 

Fourthly: the loss of the ordinary judicial authority within the tyrannical caliphate State:

 

1- The Abbasid caliph Harun Al-Rasheed was temperamental and tended to get furious easily, and in his fits of fury, he would not hesitate to put to death even his closest most loved ones, such as his dearest and most loyal friend and vizier Jaffer Al-Barmaky, who was commanded to be put to death without a trial and the rest of Al-Barmaky family members were sentenced to imprisonment for life while their possessions were confiscated by Al-Rasheed, and he issued a decree to prevent people from ever talking about the plight of Al-Barmaky family during his lifetime. Another story is about a man from Qorayish hearing Al-Rasheed in his palace court quoting a hadith ascribed to Muhammad about Adam's meeting with Moses, and he expressed wonder at such hadith and described it as a false one. Al-Rasheed felt curious and screamed because he was being contradicted, and he was about to command to put the man from Qorayish to death, but the frightened shivering man was spared as other retinue members in the palace court managed to calm Al-Rasheed who spared his life and left him to return home. This means that Al-Rasheed wanted others never to contradict him at all, let alone opposing him, on the pain of death to any violators (Al-Siyouti, p. 454).

 

2- Hence, Al-Rasheed was a mighty tyrant, and the following story tells us about the judicial authority during his reign. Abdul-Rahman Ibn Musshar Ibn Omar (died in 197 A.H.) was a judge in city in Iraq during the reign of Al-Rasheed, and this judge was among the followers of the Abou Hanifa fiqh school of the supreme judge at the time Abou Youssef (who was the favorite disciple and close friend to Abou Hanifa). When this judge knew that Al-Rasheed and the supreme judge Abou Youssef were near Basra and would pass by his city, he requested from the city dwellers to praise him in the presence of Al-Rasheed. But after they promised him, they reneged on their promise and left him to meet Al-Rasheed alone. the judge felt despaired and he dressed up to hide his identity and wore a false beard, as if to appear as an ordinary man, and he met Al-Rasheed at the port when he disembarked from his ship, and he began to praise himself as the judge of the city, but Abou Youssef recognized him by his voice and laughed, telling Al-Rasheed that this was the judge of the city himself, and Al-Rasheed laughed as well and ordered this judge to be dismissed from his post, but the judge implored Abou Youssef to convince Al-Rasheed to appoint him as a judge in any other city, as people here hated him, and Abou Youssef did so because this judge threatened to spread the news (by fabricating a hadith) that the surname of the Anti-Christ was Abou Youssef! ("Al-Muntazim", 10/41). We see here that people hated this judge naturally because he was unfair and unjust, and this was why people refused to praise him in the presence of the caliph, even Abou Youssef had to convince Al-Rasheed to appoint this judge elsewhere when he was threatened by this judge. The supreme judge, Abou Youssef, was the favorite disciple of the scholar Abou Hanifa, the founder of the Sunnite Abou Hanifa doctrine, and he was trusted by Al-Rasheed despite his being a corrupt judge, as we will tackle in a coming chapter, but we assert here how the corrupt hypocritical Abou Youssef used to appoint unfair, corrupt judges like him, and the above story was told by the bragging judge Abdul-Rahman Ibn Musshar Ibn Omar himself; what would have been the case if his victims would allowed to talk and record his injustices?  

 

3- Injustices of the judicial authority increased during the reign of the Abbasid caliph Al-Maamoun; the historian and scholar Ibn Al-Jawzy mentions in his book that this caliph complained that judges of his era were never fair and just and how they received bribes and embezzle money despite their high salaries, as per words of Bishr Ibn Al-Waleed, one of the closest judges to Al-Maamoun and how they talked about crimes and the lack of honor of judges at the time, and their conversation ended by the hypocritical judge Bishr Ibn Al-Waleed heaping praise on Al-Maamoun for his justice and Al-Maamoun praising this corrupt judge for his being the only fair and just judge in the Abbasid caliphate ("Al-Muntazim", 10/61). This same caliph who feigned to complain about lack of honor among judges in the entire Abbasid Empire, and their injustice and taking bribes, was the one who persecuted many people as a tyrant when he wanted to force all religious scholars, theologians, statesmen, and authors to agree with his opinion that the Quran was 'created' and those who disagreed were persecuted, incarcerated, tortured, and sometimes put to death.  

 

 

 

Lastly:

 

  Thus, we have shown how the notion of the 'just' tyranny is a myth; no just and fair ordinary judicial authority can exist along with politicized judicial authority controlled by tyrannical rulers who dominated over all affairs. Hence, unjust tyrants would never employ except unjust and unfair judges to support their own injustices. On very rare occasions, few just and fair judges emerged within the reign of unjust, despotic rulers/caliphs. This is tackled in the next chapters of this book. Please read on.