Обсуждение:‘Умар ибн аль-Хаттаб
ʿUmar (I) b. al-K̲h̲aṭṭāb // Encyclopaedia of Islam, Second Edition
ʿUmar (I) b. al-K̲h̲aṭṭāb, the second caliph (r. 13/634-23/644), one of the great figures of early Islam, a driving force behind the early conquests and the creation of the early Islamic empire.
There is some contradiction among the historical and biographical traditions on ʿUmar b. al-Ḵh̲aṭṭāb, and many of these contain exaggerated or legendary deails. However, a consistent character emerges out of this material: stern, strong-willed, prone to anger, devoted to Muḥammad, the Ḳurʾān and Islam, ʿUmar seems to have had a coherent political programme during and even before his caliphate.
ʿUmar reportedly began as an enemy of the cause which he later supported with all his might. Once, upon hearing his sister Fāṭima and her husband Saʿīd b. Zayd reciting verses of the Ḳurʾān, he fell (as often) into a rage, which was soon followed by his conversion to Islam. This sudden reversal, together with his later position in the history of Islam, has led to ʿUmar’s being known as "the St. Paul of Islam" (see Lazarus-Yafeh in Bibl . below), though the two seem actually to have had little in common other than their stubborn energy in championing the cause against which they had originally fought. ʿUmar’s conversion is often placed in his 26th year, four years before the hid̲j̲ra [q.v.] in 1/622; the resulting figure of 30 for the beginning of the new age may have its own significance (Conrad, Abraha and Muhammad ). As a member of the ʿAdī b. Kaʿb, a minor clan of Ḳurays̲h̲ [q.v.], and the son of a Mak̲h̲zūmī mother, ʿUmar could not assert much influence, though he may have tried to do so (Watt, Muhammad at Mecca , 7, 91-2). It was only after the migration to Yat̲h̲rib/Medina that ʿUmar emerged as a principal organiser of the new theocratic state. He played the part of counsellor more than that of soldier; although he took part in Badr, Uḥud [q.vv.] and later battles, little is recorded of his military exploits, unlike the cases of ʿAlī b. Abī Ṭālib [q.v.] and other Companions. He is said to have claimed that at least three Ḳurʾānic verses were revealed at his request (II, 125; XXXIII, 53; and LXVI, 6), and everything indicates that he had the Prophet’s ear. Despite the differences in their characters, harmony prevailed between ʿUmar and Abū Bakr [q.v.] during this period. Even ʿUmar’s becoming, like Abū Bakr, father-in-law to the Prophet through the marriage of his daughter Ḥafṣa, provoked no jealousy between them. ʿUmar was unquestionably the superior intellect in the circle around the Prophet, and he avoided the limelight both during Muḥammad’s ¶ lifetime and during the brief caliphate of Abū Bakr. However, Lammens’ theory of a "triumvirate" of Abū Bakr, ʿUmar and Abū ʿUbayda b. al-Ḏj̲arrāḥ [q.v.] which would have dominated the Prophet and monopolised his authority, either directly or through his wives ʿĀʾisha bt. Abī Bakr and Ḥafṣa bt. ʿUmar [q.vv.], has not been generally accepted. Meanwhile, ʿUmar greatly extended his influence through strategic marriages (Lecker).
Upon the death of the Prophet in 11/632, ʿUmar played a central role in the events leading to the acclamation of Abū Bakr as caliph [see al-saḳīfa ]. During Abū Bakr’s caliphate, ʿUmar remained close to the centre of power, advocating hard-line positions which the caliph did not always adopt. Upon Abū Bakr’s death in 13/634 he achieved the caliphate in his own right. The question of whether or not the dying Abū Bakr designated ʿUmar as his successor has been much discussed by jurists and historians. Caetani ( Annali , iii, 128) and Levi Delia Vida (in the EI1 version of this article) stated that ʿUmar easily assumed power de facto and immediately received the recognition of a majority of the Companions, in a manner similar to the nomination of a leader according to old Arab custom. Caetani also saw ʿUmar, both before and during his caliphate, as favouring the old Meccan aristocracy of Ḳurays̲h̲ (the Umayyads). Against this view, Madelung ( Succession , 55) has pointed to resistance against ʿUmar’s elevation to the caliphate on the part of members of Ḳurays̲h̲, including field commanders such as Ḵh̲ālid b. al-Walīd [q.v.], upon whom Abū Bakr had depended; Abū Bakr would have had no choice but to designate ʿUmar in order to guarantee his succession.
When ʿUmar became caliph, the movement of conquest was already well under way. The decade of his rule saw the extension of this movement over Syria, Egypt, ʿIrāḳ and al-Ḏj̲azīra, and far into Persia and other countries. The Arabic sources tend to ascribe a greater degree of central control to the caliph than was technically and perhaps even politically feasible at the time (Caetani, v, 32; Noth, Tradition , 12, 55-7, passim ; idem, Früher Islam , 80-100). ʿUmar was nonetheless a strategic and political genius. He showed his harsher side in demoting Ḵh̲ālid b. al-Walīd, as he had done previously during Abū Bakr’s caliphate with Ḵh̲ālid b. Saʿīd b. al-ʿĀṣ [q.v.]. He appointed able commanders such as Abū ʿUbayd b. Masʿūd and Saʿd b. Abī Waḳḳāṣ [q.v.], whose relatively weak tribal and local affiliations made it impossible for them to set up as independent rulers in the new territories. In other instances, ʿUmar allowed members of the Meccan aristocracy to hold important positions, as when Muʿāwiya b. Abī Sufyān [q.v.] succeeded his own brother Yazīd as governor in Damascus in 18/639, and when ʿAmr b. al-ʿĀṣ [q.v.] took the initiative in the conquest of Egypt. Here ʿUmar recognised the limits of his own power, a sign of political aptitude; and he also sent an old Companion, al-Zubayr b. al-ʿAwwām [q.v.], to keep an eye on ʿAmr. But for the most part, ʿUmar did not appoint respected Companions to high commands but preferred to keep an eye on them from close by, while granting them the revenues from the conquered royal domains of ʿIrāḳ and Syria [see Ḍayʿa ; [see iḳṭāʿ ; Ṭalḥa ].
As the conquests proceeded, ʿUmar mostly remained in Medina. An exception to this was a journey to Syria, dated to various times between 15/636 and 17/638. There is much divergence in the sources regarding this journey (or journeys). ʿUmar apparently stopped at al-Ḏj̲ābiya [q.v.], where he consulted his ¶ commanders and then, according to some versions, received a delegation from Jerusalem, who would agree to a treaty with the Muslims only if ʿUmar guaranteed it; or else, according to other accounts, he went on to Jerusalem and there received the submission of the city. Busse has shown, however, that Jerusalem had probably surrendered at least a year before, and that divergent accounts of ʿUmar’s stay in Jerusalem may be related to stages in the Islamisation of the city’s holy places (see al-Ḳuds ). A text, existing in a number of versions, in which ʿUmar receives the submission of the inhabitants of Jerusalem to the Muslims and formally sets out the rights and obligations of both parties, became known as the Pact or Covenant of ʿUmar ( ʿahd ʿUmar ), a foundational text of the d̲h̲imma [q.v.]. Much of the Pact has been shown to have originated in later times; here, as elsewhere, developments extending over generations have been concentrated into idealised pictures associated with the revered figure of the second caliph. For indeed, ʿUmar’s caliphate has traditionally been regarded as the time in which nearly all the major political institutions of Islam had their origin, which cannot have been so in every instance.
Yet the Muslim state and the lives of its inhabitants did undergo profound changes during ʿUmar’s reign. As before, the conquerors adapted (often with little change) the existing administrative structures in the new territories, as well as coinage, personnel, languages of administration and so on. But now came the institution of a register ( dīwān [q.v.]; Puin, Der Dīwān ) containing the names of all those entitled to military pensions or stipends ( ʿāṭāʾ [q.v.]; see also daftar; d̲j̲ays̲h̲ ). In drawing up the dīwān and dividing revenues among the Muslims the principle of sābiḳa , precedence in Islam (length of adherence to the cause) was observed, together with (and partly in contradiction to) tribal and family affiliations. The institution of the dīwān is almost universally ascribed to ʿUmar, as is a deliberate policy—for the Sawād of ʿIrāḳ but arguably elsewhere as well—of preventing the Muslim Arabs from dispersing and settling as a landed aristocracy in the newly-conquered regions. ʿUmar intended instead that they should cluster together in towns, remaining available for further military expeditions and retaining a distinct identity as Muslim warriors. Meanwhile, they would receive stipends ( ʿaṭāʾ ) from the proceeds of taxation on the conquered peoples. Thus, while the conquered peoples enjoyed protection in their persons and property, together with the right to practise their religions, the conquered lands as a whole became a kind of trust in perpetuity for the benefit of future generations of Muslims. The land-ownership theory behind all this is complex (see fayʾ ; Schmucker, Untersuchungen ), but there is no reason to doubt that its original impetus came during ʿUmar’s caliphate. ʿUmar is likewise given credit for founding the new garrison towns, the amṣār which quickly grew into flourishing urban centres [see al-baṣra ; al-kūfa ; al-fusṭāṭ ; miṣr. B]. Subsequent generations of jurists and administrators added to this complex but conceptually unified system of military service, taxation and land tenure, but they continued to view it as ʿUmar’s creation.
ʿUmar’s other accomplishments are said to have included the creation of the office of ḳāḍī [q.v.], the new calendar which dated from the hid̲j̲ra [see taʾrīk̲h̲. I. l. iii], and a great number of religious and civil ordinances regarding prayer, pilgrimage, fasting (see Ḥad̲j̲d̲j̲ ; ramaḍān ; Ṣalāt ; Ṣawm ; tarāwīḥ ), penal law and indeed nearly every conceivable area. We cannot know how much of this is historically accurate, ¶ but certainly ʿUmar has always figured as an authority of the first rank. His role in the collection of the Ḳurʾān has been debated, but was certainly important. ʿUmar also ordered the expulsion of the Christian and Jewish communities of Nad̲j̲rān and Ḵh̲aybar [q.vv.], and forbade non-Muslims to reside in the Ḥid̲j̲āz for longer than three days.
Under ʿUmar the office of caliph (see k̲h̲alīfa ) gained in solidity and prestige. Abū Bakr had styled himself k̲h̲alīfa in the sense of successor to the Prophet (though see Crone-Hinds, 19-20, 111-12); this title remained, of course, but ʿUmar also assumed the title amīr al-muʾminīn [q.v.] "Commander of the Faithful". On occasion, the sources convey a sense that ʿUmar held more prestige and authority than a strict Islamic understanding of the matter would really have allowed; or to put it differently, at times his role seems less that of a St. Paul and more that of a St. John the Baptist, in danger of encroaching on the unique authority of the Founder. Uneasiness over such a role may possibly lie behind the ḥadīt̲h̲ "If God had wished for there to be another prophet after me, it would have been ʿUmar" (Ibn Ḥanbal, Musnad i, 29, iv, 154; al-Muḥibb, Manāḳib , i, 259; cf. Lazarus-Yafeh, 7). Similarly, the epithet often associated with ʿUmar, al-Fārūḳ , is generally understood to mean "the one who distinguishes truth from falsehood" or "the true faith from the false," but Sachau and Levi Delia Vida (in RSO, iv, 1074-6) already detected an association between Arabic fārūḳ and Syriac pārōḳā , "saviour, redeemer" and related words in Semitic languages denoting a messianic element. Traditions on ʿUmar as al-Fārūḳ are indeed connected with the ahl al-ḳitāb , especially the Jews, though the epithet is also said to have been given him by the Prophet; and some of the accounts of ʿUmar’s entry into Jerusalem have a messianic flavour (see Cook-Crone, 5-6; Bashear).
As caliph, ʿUmar was only primus inter pares, and numerous anecdotes illustrate his accessibility. He nonetheless enjoyed a vast authority deriving from the respect and awe in which people held him. A stern, uncompromising character—in many anecdotes he chastises with a whip—he was no doubt more feared than loved. He was certainly famous for his temper, as in the story of his conversion, mentioned above, and in the episode of his throwing stones at the Muslim commanders at al-Ḏj̲ābiya when they appeared before him clad in silks and brocades (see Busse, ʿOmar as conqueror, 59, for a possible messianic aspect of some versions of this story). To the extent that ʿAlī and others opposed him, they did so quietly.
Apparently, ʿUmar gave little thought to the succession. He may have had Abū ʿUbayda in mind, but the latter died in any case of the plague in the year 18/639. ʿUmar was assassinated, at the height of his powers (his age is given variously as 53, 55, 60, 61 and 63), on 26 Ḏh̲u ’l-Ḥid̲j̲d̲j̲a 23/3 November 644, by Abū Luʾluʾa, a Christian slave of al-Mug̲h̲īra b. S̲h̲uʿba [q.v.], then governor of Baṣra. The sources give as Abū Luʾluʾa’s motive a tax against which he had appealed in vain to the caliph. Caetani (v, 40-51) thought that Abū Luʾluʾa was the instrument of a conspiracy of Companions which included ʿAlī, Ṭalḥa and al-Zubayr. One of ʿUmar’s sons, ʿUbayd Allāh (who died at Ṣiffīn in 37), believed in such a conspiracy, but he seems to have gone insane, and Levi Della Vida and Madelung ( Succession , 69-70) have shown that the suspicion was unfounded.
On his deathbed, ʿUmar called for a council or s̲h̲ūrā [q.v.] to choose a successor, though this too has been disputed, as has the question of whether he actually ¶ proposed ʿUt̲h̲mān b. ʿAffān [q.v.], the council’s eventual choice. At any rate, it is consistent with all that we know regarding ʿUmar that he would have insisted on the principle of s̲h̲ūrā, together with that of sābiḳa , already mentioned. Throughout his caliphate ʿUmar adhered to these two principles (Madelung, 58-9, 76-7), and yet there was contradiction between them. Thus we find ʿUmar advocating the equality of all believers before God ( fī d̲h̲āt Allāh , al-Ṭabarī, i, 2217), while at the same time favouring particular groups in the allocation of offices and revenues.
ʿUmar did much to provide—if not as completely as is sometimes thought—a social and political framework for the religious edifice which had begun to rise in the days of Muḥammad. But the rapid expansion of Islam which occurred during ʿUmar’s caliphate put that same framework at risk. Major questions remained unresolved, including that of relations between the early converts and the first Helpers ( Anṣār [q.v.]) on the one hand, and the ambitious Meccan aristocracy on the other; emerging jealousies between the first Arab conquerors in the newly-conquered lands and the waves of immigrants who came after them; and the general question of whether the Arab forces scattered throughout the immense territories would accept subordination to the central authority in Medina. Modern discussions of these questions see the ruling élite as largely unified and concerned with maintaining its power over the tribesmen (Donner), or else as deeply divided (Madelung). Either way, severe tensions remained for which ʿUmar’s successor, ʿUt̲h̲mān, would later pay the price.
S̲h̲īʿī tradition has never concealed its antipathy to ʿUmar for having thwarted the claims of ʿAlī and the House of the Prophet. Sunnī tradition, however, reveres ʿUmar not only as a great ruler but also as one of the supreme models for all the Islamic virtues. He appears often in Sunnī ḥadīt̲h̲, both transmitting from the Prophet and as an authority on his own, and sometimes in association with his son ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar [q.v.], a great jurist in his own right. In many ḥadīt̲h̲s and in the speeches and sermons attributed to ʿUmar in biographies and chronicles, he expresses concern with intention, niyya [q.v.]—a theological topic much discussed in later ages, and perhaps an instance of later retrojection upon ʿUmar—and in general with what we might call the internalisation of norms. Probably less anachronistic on the whole are ʿUmar’s exhortations to his fellow-Muslims to follow the simple, rough style of living which he himself practised ( s̲h̲iddat al-ʿays̲h̲ , Ibn Saʿd, iii/1, 199-200). This stopped short of self-deprivation: himself an active and vigorous man, ʿUmar is said to have denounced extreme ascetics and mutawakkilūn (another likely anachronism) for their weakness and dependence, and he was quoted as saying that he preferred to die while travelling in search of legitimate gain ( abtag̲h̲ī min faḍli ’llāhi , cf. Ḳurʾān, II, 198, LXII, 10, LXXIII, 20), rather than in the d̲j̲ihād (al-S̲h̲aybānī, Iktisāb , Cairo 1938, 14, 37; Kasb , Damascus 1980, 40-1, 61; on ʿUmar’s engaging in commerce while caliph, see Ibn Saʿd, iii/1, 199, ll. 19-20). A distinctive type of symbolic poverty may be associated with ʿUmar, different from that of other Islamic rulers, including the other Rās̲h̲idūn (I. Mattson) [see al-k̲h̲ulafāʾ al-rās̲h̲idūn , in Suppl.].
Always the paradigmatic just ruler for Sunnīs, ʿUmar appears in some 20th-century works as a model for democratic leadership and other modern values. Thus in greatly different circumstances, this austere, majestic figure continues to inspire respect and awe in the community of believers. ¶
- Bibliography
Materials relating to ʿUmar were collected and analysed by Caetani, Annali, iii-v, index in vol. vi. These include Ibn Saʿd, iii/1, 190-274
the section of Ṭabarī’s chronicle covering ʿUmar’s caliphate is now translated in The history of al-Ṭabarī, xi, tr. Kh.Y. Blankinship, Albany 1993
xii, tr. Y. Friedmann, Albany 1992
xiii, tr. G.H.A. Juynboll, Albany 1989
xiv, tr. G.R. Smith, Albany 1994. In addition, see Ibn S̲h̲abba, Taʾrīk̲h̲ al-Madīna al-Munawwara, Mecca 1979, esp. ii, 654-948
S̲h̲aybānī, Iktisāb/Kasb, Cairo 1938 and Damascus 1980
relevant sections of Balād̲h̲urī’s Ansāb, repr. in I.Ṣ. al-ʿAmad, al-S̲h̲ayk̲h̲ān i Abū Bakr wa-ʿUmar b. al-Ḵh̲aṭṭāb wa-wulduhumā, Kuwait 1989
Ibn al-Ḏj̲awzī, Manāḳib Amīr al-Muʾminīn ʿUmar b. al-Ḵh̲aṭṭāb, Beirut 1980
al-Muḥibb al-Ṭabarī, al-Riyāḍ al-naḍira fī manāḳib al-ʿas̲h̲ara, Ṭanṭā 1372/1953
Ibn ʿAsākir, Taʾrīk̲h̲ Dimas̲h̲ḳ, i, Damascus n.d.
Ibn Ḥad̲j̲ar, Iṣāba, Cairo 1970, iv, 588-91. See also I. Goldziher, Spottnamen der ersten Chalifen bei den Schîʿiten, in WZKM, xv (1901), 321-34
E. Sachau, Über den zweiten Chalifen Omar. Ein Charakterbild, in SBBayer. Ak. (1902)
H. Lammens, Le “triumvirat” Aboû Bakr, ʿOmar et Aboû ʿObaida, in MFOB, iv (1910), 113-44
G. Levi Della Vida, rev. of Caetani, Annali, v, in RSO, iv (1912), 1057-79
W.M. Watt, Muhammad at Mecca, Oxford 1953
S. al-Ṭamāwī, ʿUmar b. al-Ḵh̲aṭṭāb wa-uṣūl al-siyāsa wa ’l-idāra al-ḥadīt̲h̲a, Cairo 1969
G. Puin, Der Dīwān von ʿUmar ibn al-Ḫaṭṭāb. Ein Beitrag zur frühislamischen Verwaltungsgeschichte, Bonn 1970
W. Schmucker, Untersuchungen zu einigen wichtigen bodenrechtlichen Konsequenzen der islamischen Eroberungsbewegung, Bonn 1972
M. Cook and P. Crone, Hagarism, Cambridge 1977
G̲h̲.ʿA. al-Ḳurashī, Awwaliyyāt al-Fārūḳ al-siyāsiyya, Riyāḍ 1401/1981
H. Lazarus-Yafeh, ʿUmar b. al-Ḵh̲aṭṭāb—Paul of Islam? in eadem, Some religious aspects of Islam, Leiden 1981, 1-16
F. Donner, The early Islamic conquests, Princeton 1981
H. Busse, ʿOmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb in Jerusalem, in JSAI, v (1984), 73-119
idem, ʿOmar’s image as the conqueror of Jerusalem, in JSAI, viii (1986), 149-68
P. Crone and M. Hinds, God’s Caliph, Cambridge 1986
L. Conrad, Abraha and Muhammad: some observations apropos of chronology and literary topoi, in BSOAS, 1 (1987), 225-40
S. Bashear, The title Fārūq and its association with ʿUmar I, in St. Isl., lxxii (1990), 47-70
A. Noth, Früher Islam, in U. Haarmann (ed.), Geschichte der arabischen Welt, Munich 1987, 11-100
idem, The early Arabic historical tradition: a source-critical study, Princeton 1994
W. Madelung, The succession to Muhammad, Cambridge 1997
M. Lecker, The Medinan wives of ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb and his brother Zayd, in Isl., forthcoming
work in progress by I. Mattson (symbolic poverty) and R. Fulton (ʿUmar as messianic figure).
- Cite this page
- Levi Della Vida, G. and Bonner, M., “ʿUmar (I) b. al-K̲h̲aṭṭāb”, in: Encyclopaedia of Islam, Second Edition, Edited by: P. Bearman, Th. Bianquis, C.E. Bosworth, E. van Donzel, W.P. Heinrichs. Consulted online on 08 June 2023 <http://dx.doi.org.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/10.1163/1573-3912_islam_SIM_7707>
- First published online: 2012
- First print edition: ISBN: 9789004161214, 1960-2007