Editing Umar (section)

== Foundation of the caliphate ==
{{Wikisource|Letter to Usama bin Zaid}}
Umar's political capacity first manifested as the architect of the caliphate after Muhammad died on 8 June 632.{{sfnp|Madelung|1997|p={{page needed|date=June 2022}}}} While the funeral of Muhammad was being arranged, a group of Muhammad's followers who were natives of Medina, the ''[[Ansar (Islam)|Ansar]]'' (helpers), organised a meeting on the outskirts of the city, effectively locking out those companions known as ''[[Muhajirun|Muhajireen]]'' (The Emigrants) including Umar.{{sfnp|Madelung|1997|p={{page needed|date=June 2022}}}} Umar found out about this meeting at [[Saqifa|Saqifah Bani Saadah]], and, taking with him two other Muhajireen, Abu Bakr and [[Abu Ubayda ibn al-Jarrah|Abu Ubaidah ibn al-Jarrah]], proceeded to the meeting, presumably to head off the Ansars' plans for political separation. Arriving at the meeting, Umar was faced with a unified community of tribes from the Ansar who refused to accept the leadership of the Muhajireen.{{sfnp|Madelung|1997|p={{page needed|date=June 2022}}}} However, Umar was undeterred in his belief the caliphate should be under the control of the Muhajireen.<ref name="history">{{cite book |title=The History of al-Tabari |publisher=[[SUNY Press|State University of New York Press]] |date=1990}}</ref> Though the [[Khazraj]] were in disagreement, Umar, after strained negotiations lasting one or two days, brilliantly divided the Ansar into their old warring factions of [[Banu Aws]] and Khazraj tribes. Umar resolved the divisions by placing his hand on that of Abu Bakr as a unity candidate for those gathered in the Saqifah. Others at the Saqifah followed suit, with the exception of the Khazraj tribe and their leader, [[Saʽd ibn ʽUbadah]], who were ostracised as a result. The Khazraj tribe is said to have posed no significant threat as there were sufficient men of war from the Medinese tribes such as the Banu Aws to immediately organise them into a military bodyguard for Abu Bakr.{{sfnp|Madelung|1997|p={{page needed|date=June 2022}}}}
[[File:Signature Believed To Be Of ʿUmar B. Al-Khaṭṭāb.png|thumb|upright=1|Transcription of a undated rock inscription found in Saudi Arabia in 2012, without definitions such as [[Caliph]] or [[Amir al-Mu'minin]], claimed to be [[autograph|Umar's signature]]<ref>{{cite book |last1=Imbert |first1=Frédéric |date=2019 |chapter=Espaces de liberté et contraintes graphiques dans les graffiti du début de l'islam |title=Savants, amants, poètes et fous - Séances offertes à Katia Zakharia |pages=161–174 |location=Beirut |publisher=Presses de l'Ifpo |chapter-url=http://books.openedition.org/ifpo/13413|isbn=9782351595503 |doi=10.4000/books.ifpo.13413 |s2cid=213324606}}</ref> (See:[[Islamic archaeology]]]]
[[File:First_Islamic_coins_by_caliph_Uthman-mohammad_adil_rais.jpg|thumb|230px|right|[[Sasanian Empire|Sasanid style]] coins during the Rashidun period,<ref>{{cite encyclopedia|author1-last=Album|author1-first=Stephen|author2-last=Bates|author2-first=Michael L.|author3-last=Floor|author3-first=Willem|author3-link=Willem Floor|title=COINS AND COINAGE|url=https://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/coins-and-coinage-|volume=VI/1|pages=14–41|encyclopedia=[[Encyclopædia Iranica]]|publisher=[[Columbia University]]|location=[[New York City|New York]]|date=30 December 2012|orig-date=15 December 1992|doi=10.1163/2330-4804_EIRO_COM_7783|doi-access=free|issn=2330-4804|access-date=23 May 2022|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150517020427/https://iranicaonline.org/articles/coins-and-coinage-|archive-date=17 May 2015|url-status=live|quote=As the Arabs of the Ḥejāz had used the ''drahms'' of the Sasanian emperors, the only silver coinage in the world at that time, it was natural for them to leave many of the Sasanian mints in operation, striking coins like those of the emperors in every detail except for the addition of brief Arabic inscriptions like ''besmellāh'' in the margins. [...] In the year 79/698 reformed Islamic dirhams with inscriptions and no images replaced the Sasanian types at nearly all mints. During this transitional period in the 690s specifically Muslim inscriptions appeared on the coins for the first time; previously Allāh (God) had been mentioned but not the prophet Moḥammad, and there had been no reference to any Islamic doctrines. Owing to civil unrest (e.g., the revolt of ʿAbd-al-Raḥmān b. Ašʿaṯ, q.v., against Ḥajjāj in 81/701), coins of Sasanian type continued to be issued at certain mints in Fārs, Kermān, and Sīstān, but by 84/703 these mints had either been closed down or converted to production of the new dirhams. The latest known Arab-Sasanian coin, an extraordinary issue, is dated 85/704-05, though some mints in the east, still outside Muslim control, continued producing imitation Arab-Sasanian types for perhaps another century.}}</ref> similar designs were minted in the names of important leaders such as [[Muawiyah I]] and [[Ibn Zubayr]].  ([[Crescent and star (symbol)|crescent-star]], [[fire altar]], depictions of the last Sasanian emperor [[Khosrow II]], Arabic ''[[Basmala|bismillāh]]'' in margin)]]

[[Wilferd Madelung]] summarises Umar's contribution:{{sfnp|Madelung|1997|p=33}}
{{blockquote|Umar judged the outcome of the Saqifa assembly to be a falta [translated by Madelung as "a precipitate and ill-considered deal"{{sfnp|Madelung|1997|p=22}}] because of the absence of most of the prominent Muhajirun, including the Prophet's own family and clan, whose participation he considered vital for any legitimate consultation (shura, mashwara). It was, he warned the community, to be no precedent for the future. Yet he also defended the outcome, claiming that the Muslims were longing for Abu Bakr as for no one else. He apologised, moreover, that the Muhajirun present were forced to press for an immediate oath of allegiance since the Ansar could not have been trusted to wait for a legitimate consultation and might have proceeded to elect one of their own after the departure of the Mekkans. Another reason for Umar to censure the Saqifa meeting as a falta was no doubt its turbulent and undignified end, as he and his followers jumped upon the sick Khazraji leader Sa'd bin Ubada in order to teach him a lesson, if not to kill him, for daring to challenge the sole right of Quraysh to rule. This violent break-up of the meeting indicates, moreover, that the Ansar cannot all have been swayed by the wisdom and eloquence of Abu Bakr's speech and have accepted him as the best choice for the succession, as suggested by [[Leone Caetani]]. There would have been no sense in beating up the Khazraji chief if everybody had come around to swearing allegiance to Umar's candidate. A substantial number of the Ansar, presumably of Khazraj in particular, must have refused to follow the lead of the Muhajirun.{{sfnp|Madelung|1997|p=33}}}}

According to various [[Twelver]] [[Shia]] sources and Madelung,<ref name="iis.ac.uk">{{cite web |url=http://www.iis.ac.uk/view_article.asp?ContentID=106316 |title=Institute of Ismaili Studies |access-date=7 April 2023 |archive-date=3 July 2015 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150703110811/http://www.iis.ac.uk/view_article.asp?ContentID=106316 |url-status=dead |author=Dr Paul E Walker}} <!-- It is unclear what article is being referenced or what it is being referenced for--></ref><ref name="us.macmillan.com">{{cite web |url=http://us.macmillan.com/author/wilfredmadelung |title=Wilfred Madelung |work=us.macmillan.com |access-date=7 April 2023 |archive-date=26 June 2013 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130626141253/http://us.macmillan.com/author/wilfredmadelung|url-status=dead}} <!-- It is unclear what article is being referenced or what it is being referenced for--></ref> Umar and Abu Bakr had in effect mounted a political coup against [[Ali]] at the Saqifah.{{sfnp|Madelung|1997|p={{page needed|date=June 2022}}}} According to one version of narrations in [[primary sources]], Umar and Abu Bakr are also said to have used force to try to secure the allegiance from Ali and his party. It has been reported in mainly Persian historical sources written 300 years later, such as in the [[Muhammad ibn Jarir al-Tabari|History of al-Tabari]], that after Ali's refusal to pay homage, Abu Bakr sent Umar with an armed contingent to [[Fatimah]]'s house where Ali and his supporters are said to have gathered. Umar is reported to have warned those in the House that unless Ali succumbed to Abu Bakr, he would set the House on fire<ref name="history"/>{{page needed|date=August 2021}} and under these circumstances Ali was forced to capitulate. This version of events, fully accepted by Shia scholars, is generally rejected by Sunni scholars who, in view of other reports in their literature, believe that Ali gave an oath of alliance to Abu Bakr without any grievance. But then other Sunni and Shia sources say that Ali did not swear allegiance to Abu Bakr after his election but six months later after the death of his wife Fatimah putting into question al-Tabari's account. Either way the Sunni and the Shia accounts both accept that Ali felt that Abu Bakr should have informed him before going into the meeting with the Ansar and that Ali did swear allegiance to Abu Bakr.

Western scholars tend to agree that Ali believed he had a clear mandate to succeed Muhammad,{{citation needed|date=July 2012}} but offer differing views as to the extent of use of force by Umar in an attempt to intimidate Ali and his supporters. For instance, Madelung discounts the possibility of the use of force and argues that:

{{blockquote|Isolated reports of use of force against Ali and Banu Hashim who unanimously refused to swear allegiance for six months are probably to be discounted. Abu Bakr no doubt was wise enough to restrain Umar from any violence against them, well realizing that this would inevitably provoke the sense of solidarity of the majority of Abdul Mannaf whose acquiescence he needed.{{sfnp|Madelung|1997|p=43}} His policy was rather not isolating Banu Hashim as far as possible.}}

According to Tom Holland, Umar's historicity is beyond dispute.<ref name="holland">{{cite book |title=In the shadow of the sword, The Battle for Global Empire and the End of the Ancient World |first=Tom |last=Holland |date=2013 |isbn=978-0-349-12235-9 |publisher=Abacus |pages=381–382}}</ref> An Armenian bishop writing a decade or so after Qadisiyya describes Umar as a "mighty potentate coordinating the advance of the sons of Ismael from the depths of the desert".<ref name="holland" /><ref>Sebeos 139</ref> Tom Holland writes "What added incomparably to his prestige, was that his earth-shaking qualities as a generalissimo were combined with the most distinctive cast of virtues. Rather than ape the manner of a Caesar, as the Ghassanid kings had done, he drew on the example of a quite different kind of Christian. Umar's threadbare robes, his diet of bread, salt and water, and his rejection of worldly riches would have reminded anyone from the desert reaches beyond Palestine of a very particular kind of person. Monks out in the Judaean desert had long been casting themselves as warriors of God. The achievement of Umar was to take such language to a literal and previously unimaginable extreme."<ref name="holland" />