March 14, 2015
The word Khalifah in the Arabic language linguistically means ‘successor’. But, the Shari’ah (laws) of Islam have given us another, more comprehensive definition of the word Khalifah. The Prophet of Allah (saw) said, “…there will be no more prophets after me, only Khulafa’a.” (Bukhari) In this hadith the word Khulafa’a is not referring to successors, …View full post
By Imam Kalkashandi (died 820H) The Islamic history reflects much of the prosperity enjoyed by the Citizens of the Islamic State. The following extract highlights many examples from the past in order to highlight the supremacy of the Islamic infrastructure. Imam Al-Kalkashandi wrote about the infrastructure of the Islamic state in his book “Reflecting On …View full post
The vital issue for Muslims today is none other than to re-establish the Khilafah in order to implement the Divine Law. There can be no strength and unity for the Muslims without political unity which can only be realised through the Khilafah, the Authority whose basis is Islam. Unity is Fard (an obligation) upon Muslims just like …View full post
The ruling system in Islam is based on four principles. The first principle The supremacy is to the Shari’ah and not to the Ummah. The individual and the Ummah’s actions and initiations are subject to Allah’s commands and prohibitions.1.Evidence from the Quran: Allah (swt) has indicated: “Allah bestows His sovereignty on whom He will Allah is …View full post
The word Khalifah in the Arabic language linguistically means ‘successor’. But, the Shari’ah (laws) of Islam have given us another, more comprehensive definition of the word Khalifah. The Prophet of Allah (saw) said, “…there will be no more prophets after me, only Khulafa’a.” (Bukhari) In this hadith the word Khulafa’a is not referring to successors, but to heads of the Islamic State. The word Khalifah is, therefore, taken to mean ‘that man who rules over a people by Islam,’ acting as the head of the State. The same Shari’ah definition would apply if we used the word Imam, instead of Khalifah, to indicate the head of State. And since in Islam, the bay’ah (pledge) is given only to a head of the State, both the words Khaleefah and Imam are pertaining to the head of the State.
The Process of Bay’ah, the method of installing the Khalifah is through the process of bay’ah. The power to rule by Islam is given by the Ummah (attribute of the muslims) to the Khaleefah. Authority belongs to the Ummah and it deputises the Khalifah to enact the Shari’ah. This is done through a contract between the Khalifah and the Ummah. The Ummah must obey as long as the Khalifah implements Islam on them. The process of bay’ah may occur after a general vote given by all the Muslims of the Islamic State or it may occur after a vote among the Leaders of the Ummah (ahl-al-halli-wal-‘aqd). Voting is merely a means to determine the choice of the Ummah, it does not substitute the bay’ah. Non-Muslims, children, and Muslims residing outside of the State do not have the right to vote. If all the Muslims of the Islamic State are voting then the bay’ah of in’iqad (pledge of acceptance, by which he becomes Khalifah) is given to the man elected. However, if the vote occurs through the representatives, then a bay’ah of in’iqad is first given by the representatives, after which a second bay’ah of obedience (ta’aa) is given by the Ummah, to the person elected. The silence of the Ummah over the elected Khalifah can be considered as the bay’ah of obedience (ta’aa). It is through this bay’ah process that a person attains his position as Khalifah. The candidates for the position of Khalifah may, in addition to self nomination, be chosen by the Majlis al-Ummah. It is from these candidates that the Ummah chooses for itself a ruler.
Once the appointment is made, the Ummah then has no right to dismiss the Khalifah, as long as he upholds the Shari’ah and fulfils the conditions to be a Khalifah. Since the contract made between the Ummah and the Khalifah is for the Khalifah to rule over them with Islam, the Ummah has no right to dissolve the contract, as long as he maintains his part of the contract. Therefore, a Khalifah has no term of office. He remains the head of State, as long as he is able to uphold the contract or until he tenders his resignation.
On the other hand, a Khalifah may be dismissed for the following Islamic reasons:
- If he becomes an apostate (i.e. becomes a non-Muslim).
- If he neglects the prayers and proposes for others to do the same.
- If he becomes physically incompetent to handle the duties assigned to him in his contract, such as by losing his sight, hands, both legs, etc. However, losing one ear or his nose or his sexual organs does not impair his ability to perform his duties.
- If he persists in debauchery and immoral behaviour (fisq), injustice in public behaviour, and negligence of the Islamic laws.
- If he changes his sex, since women are not allowed to assume positions of ruling.
- If he becomes a captive, under the kuffar, from where he cannot enforce his rulings upon the citizens of the State and freely maintain the operation of the State (in addition to the absence of any possibility for his return.)
- If another person dominates him in his opinions and the Khalifah is unable to exert his own opinion in the process of running the State. Here, the case would be that a second person is running the State, while the Khalifah becomes symbolic.
In each of these situations, the case is brought to the highest court of the Islamic State i.e., the Court of Madhaalim (complaints against the State). The court arbitrates according to the Qur’an and Sunnah and the decision (based on divine law) made by the Court of Madhaalim is binding on both parties.
By Imam Kalkashandi (died 820H)
The Islamic history reflects much of the prosperity enjoyed by the Citizens of the Islamic State. The following extract highlights many examples from the past in order to highlight the supremacy of the Islamic infrastructure.
Imam Al-Kalkashandi wrote about the infrastructure of the Islamic state in his book “Reflecting On The Supremacy Of The Infrastructure Of the Islamic State” which is in three volumes and discusses the Khilafah up until the 7th and 8th century hijri.
The following article contains extracts from his book.
“… From the beginning of the Khilafah the Khaleefahs matched the way of life of Rasoul Allah. We can describe their lifestyle as difficult and close to the people. They were never arrogant despite Allah (swt) giving them much power. The khulafah thereafter continued but in time acquired much wealth and power. They had great a reputation from the non-Muslims who would say of them that although they were the ‘kings of the Muslims’ they ate stale bread and they would wander by foot around their subjects to see if they needed help despite having conquered the east and the west of the Earth…” He is referring to Omar Al-Khattab (ra) here as it has been narrated “that when he conquered Bait Al-Maqdis he was in his tent and upon opening his bag Omar (ra) produced an old dried piece of bread which he proceeded to dampen with water before eating it. It was said of him that ‘we have never seen anyone like this’.
This situation continued until the time of Mu’awiyah who agreed that the Khilafah must spread everywhere and upon consulting the ulema he adopted the opinion because part of the preparation for jihad was to strike fear into and to shake the enemies or non-Muslim kings it is allowed to create a high profile image of the Khilafah until the structure of the Khilafah changed from what they had to a very strong kingdom type of Khilafah. This continued until the kings of that era began to say that they wanted to be like the Khilafah (especially during the Abbasid period).
During the time of Mu’tasim (35H) a Roman king took a prisoner from among the family of Rasoul Allah (saw) whose name was Fatima. Fatima pleaded for the help of Mu’tasim who said no one could help her except the one who had ablak (a rare expensive type of white horse) since the Romans boasted of having 60 of them. Mu’tasim ordered his Amirs to ride only these horses and when he eventually rode to free Fatima, Mu’tasim did so at the head of 4000 ablak. When freed he asked Fatima to testify to her great, great, great grand-father Rasoul Allah (saw) on the Day of judgement that Mu’tasim came to save her with 4000 ablak and that he was at the front of them.
Ibn kathir narrated that when the Roman ambassadors came in 305H during the time of the Khilafah of Mu’tadir, the Khilafah prepared a reception which consisted of 160, 000 fighters on horse-back, 700 assistants of the government department and 7000 servants surrounding the palace (4000 white and 3000 black). He decorated the palace of the Khilafah with weapons taken from other nations. The floor was covered by carpets consisting of 22,000 pieces of basut (1 basut is 10 Foot by 10 Foot in area). There were 38,000 curtains, 12000 of which were covered with gold embroidery and in the middle of the palace was a large tree of gold with silver branches. In addition there were 18,000 horse-carts and 100 live lions together with their trainers around the palace. When the guests arrived it took them between Zuhr and Asr inside the palace to reach the Khaleefah.
Imam Qudai’ described the same thing, he said:”this continued until the time of Khilafah of Al-Mu’taqi who said that he wanted to maintain the high profile image but that he wanted the governors to have it as well. He said ‘every governor of the state needs to ensure that no one ever feels that he wants to leave before his application is heard.’”
In the time of Bani Buway in Baghdad the name of the Khaleefah was put on the Dinar, 5,000 silver Dirham was allocated for him every day for personal use and all the khateebs were to mention the Khaleefah in their Khutbah. In addition 2,000 silver Dirham were to be allocated for every governor per day.
In the time of Muawiyah a bed to carry the Khaleefah was made due to his ill health. This however became permanent, it was adopted for subsequent khulafah and in time became carriage 7 arms high. The matress used to be well decorated upon which the Khaleefah would sit and the Khaleefah would be allowed to carry something, which belonged to the messenger Muhammad (saw). He would pray publicly at the head of the Jama’a and a mobile Mihrab would stand before him so that the citizens knew where the Khaleefah was. The mimber was decorated with jewellery. Othman Ibn Affan (ra) was the first to have a curtain around him where he prayed outside of which stood soldiers from his army.
The Khaleefahs name used to be sown into many clothes and curtains in gold and silver and this became a common sign of the Khulafah. Another custom was that the new Khaleefah would address the nation upon receiving the bay’ah and on every Juma’a and this continued up until the 7th century hijri when a khateeb was delegated for this. The first khaleefah to receive du’ah from the mimber was Imam Ali (ra) which caused concern for Muawiyyah because he felt the same should have been the case for Abu bakr (ra) and Omar (ra).
The logo for the Khaleefah was a ring at the beginning, it is narrated in Bukhari and Muslim that the Sahaba said to Rasoul Allah (saw) “the kings do not read a letter unless it is stamped with authority” and so the Prophet (saw) asked them to make one for him. Abu Bakr (ra) wore the ring and held the Prophets cloak and stick. Othman (ra) lost the ring in a well and so after this each Khaleefah had his own ring with his own name on it (up until the time of imam Kalkashandi).
It is narrated in Ibn Kathirs Kitab al-Tarikh that the Prophet (saw) gave his cloak Burda to Kaab Ibn Suwayr who never gave it to anyone and that Mu’awiyyah brought it from his son for 10,000 silver Dirhams. The Burda of the prophet (saw) used to be black with white lines.
The stick Khatib of the Prophet (saw) continued to be carried by the Khaleefahs through the time of Bani Abbas up until the time of imam Kalkashandi.
The Khaleefah clothes were special, for example, the sleeves used to be 20 hand spans rolled back up until the time of Ayub.
The flag of the Khaleefah was green with the Shahadah on it although Bani Abbas had a black flag. (NB. Attaturk was the first to put a crescent on the flag after a suggestion made by a Jew which has led to Orientalists accusing Muslims of worshipping the moon.)
The uniform of the Khaleefah was properly established at the time of Bani Umayyah.
Yazid bin Abdil Malik bin Marwan used to give garments to the subjects who visited him. His store of garments was carried on 600 rolls of fabric and he ordered 10,000 shirts to be made annually as gifts.
From Imam Al-Tharariba it is narrated that when Mansur died he had 95,000,000,000 silver Dirhams to give to the people stored in the State department.
Imam Al-Souri narrates that Haroun Al-Rashid had 100,000,000 golden Dinar at the time of his death. He left behind wealth the like of which has not been seen since. The value of the jewellery, furniture and camels etc. came to 100,025,000 Dinar over and above the building assets.
Ibrahim Ibn Nur, a top Muslim historian, narrates that the Khaleefah Mu’tad left in the finance department at the time of his death:
100,000,000 Golden Dinar
20,000,000 Dinar worth of jewellery
20,000,000 Dinar worth of Kuswa i.e. cloth
3,000 Dinar Amana
65,000 Clothes for the administrative staff
1,000 Abaya for the ladies
1,000,000,800 pieces of jewellery
18,000 tubes for letter each worth 2 golden Dinar
18,000 Armenian carpets each 10-foot by 10 foot
It is narrated that Al-Ma’mun allocated 2,000,000 Dinar in one day consisting of 500,000 Dinar for his brother Mu’tasim for his appointment in Morocco, 500,000 Dinar for Abbas as a fighter, 300,000 Dinar for Abdullah Bin Tahir to fight in Northern Iraq and 700,000 Dinar to the leaders of the army. It took Al-Rukhji, the chancellor 6 months to distribute this.
Al-Mu’tasim left cash in the palace of the Khilafah of 8,025,000 golden Dinar plus 18,000 horses all equipped with carts. Al Muktadir left 68,000,000,000 golden Dinar when he passed away.
When Al-Ma’mun got married to the daughter of Al-Hasan Bin Sahil, 26,000 balah chefs fed the people for 40 days. Carpets made of gold string covered the palace floor and a huge pot carried by 20 men was filled with jewellery, silver, gold and diamonds and whenever women entered to the Khaleefah he let them fill their bags. Umm Jafer and her other daughters had the task of distributing the jewellery but the pot was left for 40 days and no one took from it. Women worked for over three months making a candle, which stayed alight for 40 days and weighed 110 kilos. The leaders of the army entered and 4000,000 Dinar were placed for them from which each collected money with their soldiers. One scholar Al-Imam al-Ba’buni said ” O Amir Al-Munineen, you gave Allahs wealth as if you feel no shortage and whatever you give in this life will be rewarded in the hereafter.” The general public had trays filled with gold and silver, some would get their servants to carry it. The Khaleefah freed 1,000 slaves (i.e. he said “whoever has a slave let him come to me and I will pay to free him”) and he ordered 1,000 carts to deliver the people home.
The vital issue for Muslims today is none other than to re-establish the Khilafah in order to implement the Divine Law. There can be no strength and unity for the Muslims without political unity which can only be realised through the Khilafah, the Authority whose basis is Islam. Unity is Fard (an obligation) upon Muslims just like any other obligation because Allah (swt) says: ‘And hold fast all of you together to the rope of Allah (i.e. this Quran) and be not divided among yourselves’ [EMQ 3:103]. However, unity in Islam is required not only in our belief but also geographically and politically.
Within the framework of Islam, there are some Ahkam (rules) which can be fulfilled individually, examples of these are Salat, Hajj, Fasting etc… yet there are some that need the state and cannot survive without the state for example, the collection and distribution of Zakat, the spreading of Islam via the foreign policy of the Islamic state, cutting the hand of the thief, establishment of Salat within the society, collecting land tax, permanently looking after the orphan and the needy etc… Because the latter are Fard like the former and the neglect of any Fard entails sin, it would be correct to say that all Muslims are in a state of sin because of the absence of the Khilafah and the only way to relieve oneself of this sin at this present time is to work with those sincere Muslims who are working to bring back the Khilafah, and exhaust effort, so that with the help of Allah (swt), one day the might of the Khilafah on the way of the Messenger Muhammad (saw) will return.
The Khilafah system is the Islamic Ruling system in all aspects, a system that will govern and look after the affairs of the Muslims and non-Muslims, based on the Quran and Sunnah, it will not recognise Race, Colour, Nationality etc. It will view each individual as a creation of Allah (swt); hence it will give the rights due to each human being as ordained by Allah (swt).
This Deen (way of life) was sent for mankind, to remove the obstacles of Shirk (The association of others with the Creator) and open the way for man to come to know Allah (swt). It is through the implementation of this Deen that the justice of Islam will manifest itself, and it is only when we Muslims start to refer to the Quran as a reference point for all of life’s affairs will we realise that this Quran actually has a solution for all our problems, furthermore, if we don’t refer to the Quran, then we should not be surprised to see the Kufffar of the world from East to West abusing and humiliating us, raping and torturing us, taking control of our Muslim land and usurping it’s resources, we shouldn’t be surprised as the Messenger (saw) said, ‘ There will come a time when all the nations will be over you, surrounding you as animals surround the meat’, O prophet, is this because we will be small in number? They asked. ‘No, you will be many, but you will be like the spray or foam on water. Allah will take your courage and place it in the heart of your enemy, and take from your enemy their cowardliness and put it in your heart, and you will love this Dunyah and hate death’.
The Kuffar today are dominating our world with their thoughts and ideals, they constantly propagate their way of life to others (such as pornography, disrespect of elders, the abuse of women through illustrating them as no more than a tool that serves the purpose of others etc) through the media and general advertising mediums. Through their schools and colleges they subject our children to their lies and corruption, never would the Khilafah allow this to be the case, and never would it allow for individuals to neglect their duties.
Today, the forbidding of the Munkar (evil) by our imams and their enjoining of Ma’rouf (good) to the people is restricted to the mosques on a Friday, this is not enough as there are some individuals who listen, but don’t act, and there are those who don’t listen and there are also those that don’t hear.
In 1924, when the Khilafah was destroyed at the hands of Mustafa Kamal aided by the British, the divine law ceased to exist in reality and found it’s place only in the minds of the scholars and the shelves of Islamic Universities. Because of this, great evil spread and people became totally misguided and confused, their systems corrupt and their lives in turmoil. Corrupt leaders took charge of our divided land more often than not placed there by the Kuffar who orchestrated the coup’s that bought them into power, and these corrupt leaders do nothing less than actively implement the law of kufr upon the people, Allah (swt), in whom we profess our faith tells us explicitly in the Quran,
“Those who do not rule by whatever Allah has revealed, they are the Kafiroon (disbelievers)” [TMQ 5:47]
The only time that this ‘ruling by what Allah has revealed’ was fulfilled in the past, and will be fulfilled again in the future is through the Khilafah. We need to work as Muslims to appoint a Khalifah, give him the Bay’a (pledge) to implement Islam and expand the borders of the Islamic State worldwide.
Without a doubt, the reality we find ourselves in today is a direct consequence of abandoning the Deen and it’s teachings, and the sooner we realise this, the sooner, if we fear Allah (swt) we will act, as faith is meaningless if it doesn’t move towards action and the messenger Muhammad (saw) said about those who choose to stand up in the face of Kufr and call for Allah’s deen, “There has been no prophet that Allah raised up among his people before me, but had among his people messengers and companions who received his example and followed his bidding; then verily, after them, came a generation who said what they did not, and who did what they were bidden not (to do). Whosoever then strives against them with his hand is a Mu’min, and whosoever strives against them with his tongue is a Mu’min and whosoever strives against them with his heart is a Mu’min, but beyond that there is no faith of even (the wieght) of a mustard seed“. Let us be amongst those whom the beloved of Allah (swt) is calling believers, because if the messenger refers to you as a believer then there should be no doubt that you are a believer in the eyes of Allah (swt).
We should not adopt a defeatist attitude toward this colossal task; it is Allah (swt) who will give the victory, hence all we as Muslims have to do is to apply the effort. We have to make a clear sincere intention in our hearts to undertake this work as worship, and our work has to be based on the example of the Messenger Muhammad (saw). To follow the Messenger’s example in every walk of life is a must on all believers, this could be for individual duties such as fasting or collective duties like the re-establishment of the Khilafah. Allah (swt) says, “Verily in the messenger of Allah is the finest example” [EMQ 33:21]. The Messenger Muhammad (saw) also said: “Any action that is not from our teachings, is rejected” so we must make sure that any task that we as Muslims do follows the example of the Messenger (saw), conversely any work carried out to re-establish the Khilafah that is not based on the example of the Messenger (saw) will be rejected by Allah (swt).
Finally, the methodology to re-establish the khilafah requires the Muslim to confront the Munkar wherever it is, it necessitates that the evil of our societies be exposed as well as the illegitimate ruling authority so that the people, Muslims and non-Muslims alike can see the problems. Only when the problems are realised to their full extent will the alternative be sought and that alternative is no less than Islam. Those who carry the da’wah must target their efforts in society as well as individually, the corrupt ideas and emotions that are predominant at present within the minds of the masses have to be replaced with Islamic thoughts and emotions, and when this is achieved, then we shall see that the masses will cry out for Islam, Islam will be the topic of every household and the victory Insha-Allah will not be far away.
The ruling system in Islam is based on four principles.
The first principle
The supremacy is to the Shari’ah and not to the Ummah. The individual and the Ummah’s actions and initiations are subject to Allah’s commands and prohibitions.1.Evidence from the Quran: Allah (swt) has indicated: “Allah bestows His sovereignty on whom He will Allah is All-Embracing, All-Knowing” [2:247]
This clearly indicates that the absolute supremacy is exclusively to the Shari’ah of Allah (swt).“The rule is to none but Allah” [6:57]
This clearly proves that the rule, judgement and supremacy are all to Allah (SWT)
“If anyone rules by other than what Allah has revealed, they are kafireen (unbelievers)” [5:47]
“O you who believe! Obey Allah, and obey the messenger and those from you who are in authority; and if you have a dispute concerning any matter, refer it to Allah and the messenger if your (in truth) believers in Allah and the Last Day. That is better and more seemly in the end.” [4:59]
Referring it to Allah and the Messenger means to the Shari’ah.
2. Evidence from the Sunnah:
Hadith The Messenger of Allah (saw) said: “No one among you becomes a believer until his mentality and feelings (emotions) are in harmony with what I have brought”.
The actions of Allah’s Messenger (saw) since the day he was sent, to his death clearly demonstrate that the supremacy is to the Shari’ah of Allah (swt).
3. Evidence from the General Consensus of the Sahaba:
The actions of the “Khulafaa’ Rashideen” (the first four Khulafaa) have indicated that the supremacy is to the Shari’ah and not the people, the sahaba did not object to this and consented, their general consensus is proof that the supremacy is indeed to the Shari’ah and none else.
Therefore, the supremacy is to the Shari’ah; for the Khaleefah is not given the pledge by the Ummah merely to be a hired man, executing what the Ummah decides as is the case in the democratic system he is given the pledge of allegiance by the Ummah to execute the rules of the Holy Qur’an and the Sunnah of the Messenger (SAW), i.e. to execute the Shari’ah Laws and not what people want; and if the people deviated and disobeyed Shariah he should fight them until they repented (returned).
The Second Principle
The Authority is to the Ummah
Evidence of this principle can be looked at from two sides:
Firstly: The Shari’ah has given the right of appointing the Khaleefah to the Ummah; in other words, it is the Ummah who chooses the Khaleefah and gives him the pledge of allegiance. If we looked at the way the Khulafaa’ were appointed after the death of Allah’s Messenger (SAW), we would realise
That the Ummah selected them to be Khulafaa and rulers. This was accomplished by the pledge of allegiance given to them by the Muslims. This is backed by many Ahadith from which we list the following:
Ubada lbnul Samit reported: “We pledged ourselves in complete obedience to the Messenger of Allah in wealth and woe…”
Jarir Ibnu Abdullah reported: “I pledge myself in complete obedience to the Messenger of Allah”.
Secondly: The Shari’ah allows the Khaleefah to take the authority from the Ummah once she gives him the pledge of allegiance, then the Ummah is obliged to obey him for he is a Khaleefah with a pledge (bay’ah). So the authority is handed over to the Khaleefah by the Ummah by giving him a pledge of allegiance, and to obey him. This indicates that the authority is to the Ummah.
Evidence about the Khaleefah taking the authority by a pledge came from the following: Abdullah Ibnu Amru Ibnul A’as reported that he heard the Messenger of Allah (SAW) saying: “Who so pledge allegiance to an Imam giving him the clasp of his hand and the fruit of his heart shall obey him as long as he can, and if another comes to dispute With him, strike the neck of that man.”
Nafi’a reported that Abdullah Ibnu Omar told him that he heard Allah’s Messenger (SAW) saying: “Who so takes his hand from allegiance to Allah will meet him on the Day of Resurrection without any evidence supporting him, and who so dies while there was no allegiance on his neck dies a death of the days of ignorance”.
Many other Ahadith indicate that the authority is to the Ummah, for she chooses a man among her, gives him the authority and gives him the pledge of allegiance according to the Book of Allah and the Sunnah of His Messenger (SAW). Shari’ah commands the Ummah to stand up to the Khaleefah or ruler who shows a flagrant act of disbelief, to kill him and reclaim her authority from him.
It is worth mentioning here that even the Messenger of Allah (SAW) took the pledge of allegiance from the Muslims after he (SAW) became leader and had established the Islamic stare. It was a pledge of rule and authority, not a pledge of prophecy. He took the pledge from men and women alike but not from a youngster who had not reached the age of maturity.
The Third Principle
Appointing One Khaleefah is an 0bligation on all Muslims. The Shari’ah has made it an obligation on every Muslim to have a pledge of allegiance (bayah) for a Khalifah; the obligation is to fulfil the pledge. Every Muslim should have a pledge on his neck, this can only be achieved if a Khaleefah is appointed. The evidences of this principle is derived from the Sunnah and the general consensus of the sahaba (Ijma’a of the sahaba).
Many Ahadith confirm that Muslims are forbidden from having more than one state, and from having more than one ruler (Amir) in the whole world. From these Ahadith the three following:
a. Al Imam Muslim reported on the authority of Abu Said AI Khudri that the Messenger of Allah (SAW) said: “When the oath of allegiance has been given for two Khalifs, kill the latter of them.”
b. Al Imam Muslim reported on the authority of Abdullah Ibnu Amru Ibnul-Ass that the Messenger of Allah (SAW) said: “Who so pledges allegiance to an Imam, giving him the clasp of his hand and the fruit of his heart should obey him as long as he can, if another comes to dispute him, you must strike the neck of that man”
c. Al Imam Bukhari, Al Imam Ibnu Maja, AI Imam Ahmed and Al Imam Muslim reported on the authority of Abu Hazim who said: “I accompanied Abu Hurayrah for five years and heard him talking about the Prophet (SAW) saying: “the prophets ruled over the children of Israel. Whenever a prophet died, another prophet succeeded him, but there will be no prophet after me; there will be Khulafaa and they will number many” They asked: What then do you command us? He (SAW) said: “Fulfil allegiance to them one after the other, give them their dues for verily Allah will make them accountable for what He entrusted them with”.
These three Sahih Ahadith dearly indicate that Muslims are forbidden from having more than one Khaleefah, or more than one State.
In addition to these three Hadith, other Hadith confirm that the Muslims are obliged to have an Amir, i.e. one Amir (ruler) no more, even if they were only three people in isolation or on a journey. Imam Ahmed reported on the authority of Abdullah Ibnu Amru that the Messenger of Allah (SAW) said: “It is forbidden for three persons to be together in a secluded place without appointing one of them as their Amir”. (Sahih)
The phrase one of them implies that there should be no more than one Amir. This carries the same weight in term of evidence. The evidence cannot be cancelled out unless there is a clear indication so: and there is no such text. So they should appoint one Amir and no more.
Furthermore, if the Shari’ah verdict compels the appointment of an Amir on three people, this proves that the obligation on the Ummah worldwide is of greater magnitude.
2. The General Consensus of the Sahaba
In the books of AIFasilfil Milal by Ibnu Hazim, Tarikh of AITabari, AIA’kd AIFarid of AIWaqidi, AISira of Ibnu Kathir, AISunan AIKubra of Bayhaqi and Siratu Ibn Hisham, that Al Habbab, Ibnu Munthir said: when the Sahaba met in the wake of the death of the Messenger of Allah (SAW) at the saqifa (hall) of Bani Sa’ida: One Amir from us and one Amir from you (meaning one from the Ansar and one from the Muhajireen). Upon this Abu Bakr replied: “It is forbidden for Muslims to have two Amirs he got up and addressed the Muslims. And it has been reported in the Sirah of Ibnu Ishaq that Abu Bakr said on the day of Saqifa: “It is forbidden for Muslims to have two Amirs for this would cause differences in their affairs and concepts, their unity would be divided and disputes would break out amongst them. The Sunnah would then be abandoned, the bida’a (innovations) would spread and the Fitna would grow, and that is in no one’s interest”.
Therefore Abu Bakr delivered the Shari’ah verdict on the unity of the Khilafah, stressing that it is forbidden for the Muslim Ummah to have more than one Amir. The sahaba heard him and approved and consented, no one disputed the verdict, but submitted to it and accepted it as a law (indication of evidence from the Sunnah). The Ansar then conceded their claim to Khilafah, and Al-Habbab Ibnu Munthir was the first to give his pledge of allegiance to Abu Baler (RA). The general consensus of the sahaba then took effect on the day of AISaqifa, that it is an obligation for all Muslims to have one ruler only. This opinion has been adopted by all the distinguished scholars and we mention from them:
1. Imam Ali (RA) in his book Nahjul-Balagha (part 1 page 91): “People must have an Amir, either just, or a tyrant, where the believer works under his Imara, (rule) and under which the unbeliever would also benefit, until his rule ended by the end of his life (ajal), the booty (fay’i) would be gathered, the enemy would be fought, the routes would be made safe, the strong one will return what he took from the weak till the tyrant would be contained, and would not bother anyone.
2. AI-Imam Al-Mawardi in his book Al-Ahkam AI- Sultaniyah (page 9) says: “It is forbidden for the Ummah to have two Imams at the same time.
3. AI-Imam AI-Nawawi in his book Mughni Al-Muhtaj, (volume 4, page 132) says: “It is forbidden to give an oath to two Imams or more, even in different parts of the world and even if they were far apart.
4. AI-lmam Al-Qalqashandi in his book Subhul AI-Asha, (volume 9, page 277) says: “It is forbidden to appoint two Imams at the same time.
5. AI-Imam Ibnu Hazm in his book AI-Muhalla, (volume 9, page 360) says: “It is permitted to have only one Imam in the whole of the world”.
6. AI-Imam Al-Sha’arani in his book AI-Mizan, (volume 2, page 157) says: “It is forbidden for Muslims to have in the whole world and at the same time two Imams whether in agreement or discord.”
7. AI-lmam Al-Qadhi Abdul Jabbar in his book AI Mughni fl Abwab AI-Tawheed, (volume 20, page 243) says: “It is forbidden to give the oath to more than one”.
8. AI-Imam AI-Joziri in his book AI fiqh alal Mathahib AI-Arba’a (the fiqh of the four schools of thought), (volume 5, page 416) says: “The Imams (scholars of the four schools of thought) may Allah have mercy on them agree that the Imama is an obligation, and that the Muslims most appoint an Imam who would implement the deen’s rites, and give the oppressed justice against the oppressors. It is forbidden for Muslims to have two Imams in the world whether in agreement or in discord”.
The Shi’ite schools of thought and others have expressed the same opinion about this, whoever wishes to explore this in detail can refer to the book of AI-Fasl FilMilal, volume 4. page 62, the book of Matalib UlilAmr, the book of Maqalat AI-Islamya, volume 2, page 134, or the Book of AI Moghni Fi Abuab AI-Tawhid, volume 20, pages 58145.
The Fourth Principle
The Khaleefah Has the Exclusive Power to Adopt The Divine laws He Alone Enacts the Constitution and Various Laws.
This principle is derived from the Qur’an, the Sunnah and the general consensus of the Sahabah; it can be extracted from three different angles:
1. Obedience to the head of the State is an obligation on Muslims.
2. Looking after the affairs of the Muslims is an obligation on the head of State.
3. The head of state is the sole decision maker after consultation.
The first point: Obeying the head of state is an obligation on Muslims.
This has been clearly confirmed in many Qur’anic verses and Ahadith, to the point where the Shari’ah considered the obedience to the ruler a part of the obedience to Allah (SWT) and His Messenger (SAW), therefore, obeying the ruler entails a reward and disobedience entails punishment. Here follows evidence from the Qur’an:
“O you who believe! Obey Allah, and obey the Messenger and those of you who are in authority” [4:59]
Evidence from the Sunnah:
Bukhari, Muslim, Abu Dawood, Al-Nissai and Ibnu Maja reported on the authority of Abu Hurayra’s authority that he heard the Messenger of Allah (SAW) say: “Whoever obeyed me he obeyed Allah; whoever disobeyed me, he disobeyed Allah, whoever obeyed the Amir, he obeyed me, and whoever disobeyed him disobeyed me”. (Hadith Sahib)
AI-lmam Bukhari, AI-lmam Abu Dawood, AI-lmam Ibnu Maja and Al-Imam Ahmad Ibnu Hanbal reported on the authority of Abdullah Ibnu Omar that the messenger of Allah (SAW) said: “The Muslim should hear and obey in whatever he liked or disliked as long as he is not ordered to commit a sin. If he were ordered to commit a sin, he should neither hear or obey”. (Sahih)
Bukhari, Muslim and Ahmed Ibnu Hanbal reported on Ubada Ibnul Samit’s authority that he said: “We pledged ourselves to the Messenger of Allah in complete obedience, in wealth and woe, in ease and hardship and evil circumstances, that we would not dispute with the people in authority, unless a flagrant disbelief (kufr buah), for which we have clear evidence from the Shari’ah is witnessed”. (Sahih)
This Qur’anic verse and Ahadith from the Sunnah, indicate clearly that obedience to the head of state is an obligation; whether his title were the Khaleefah, the Imam, the Amir of the believers, or the person in authority. He must be obeyed for he is the one in authority over the Muslim Community (Ummah).
If the Shari’ah obliges Muslims to obey the people in authority with the Khaleefah as their supreme ruler, his obedience would then be in matters he commands according to Shari’ah. He is not to be obeyed in matters that are sinful, nor in the changing of the divine laws at all.
The second point: Looking after Muslim’s affairs is the duty of the head of state.
The head of state is the guardian of the Ummah, and the trustee of her affairs. He is by Shari’ah law entrusted with protecting and looking after the Muslim’s interests. That is why the Ummah gives him the authority, to rule by what Allah (SWT) has revealed, so he works towards enforcing Islam in society and within the state as well as conveying the Islamic Message to the world.
In the wake of Allah’s Messenger’s death, Muslims rushed to appoint a Khaleefah to take over the leadership of the Muslims, once the Messenger of Allah left the matter in the hands of the Ummah to run her affairs by herself. The leadership of the Messenger of Allah (SAW) was comprehensive, it comprised matters of deen, politics, administration and war and it is only natural for the new post to inherit all those mandatory powers.
Therefore, the Khilafah is leadership, authority and rule over all the Muslims affairs and interests. When a person is elected and given the pledge of allegiance to become a Khaleefah, the Shari’ah commands him to look after the affairs of the Muslims and the interests of the Ummah according to the principle that states: “That which is necessary to accomplish a duty is itself a duty (Wajib)”.
Evidence from the Sunnah: AI-lmam Bukhari, AI-lmam Muslim, AI-lmam Abu Dawood and AI-Imam Tirmidhi reported on the authority of Abdullah Ibnu Omar that the Messenger of Allah (SAW) said: “Each one of you is a guardian and you are all responsible about your guardianship, the Imam is a guardian of the people and he is responsible for his guardianship of the people. The man is a guardian of his family and he is responsible for them, the women is a guardian of her husbands home and children, she is responsible for them, the servant is a guardian about his masters property, he is responsible for it. Therefore, you are all guardians and each is responsible for his guardianship”.
3rd Principle: The Head of State is the sole decision maker after consultation.
The head of state has the exclusive mandatory power to take a decision and execute it according to the evidence that he judges that it outweighs the others. The head of state, i.e. the Khaleefah, can actually consult in all matters, for Allah (SWT) indicates:
“So pardon them and ask forgiveness for them and consult with them upon the conduct of affairs. And when you are resolved, then put your trust in Allah. Lo! Allah loves those who put their trust (in Him)” [AI-Imam: 159]
The kuffar have been successful in working to divorce Islam from our lives, or at least to infect our mentality with concepts Islam rejects. Concepts like the “Nation State”, or “Sovereignty belongs to the People (democracy)” or “Khilafah is dictatorship” have all been pushed by the West and its agents in our lands. It is time for the Ummah to again take Islam seriously, return to the sound evidences as revealed to our beloved Prophet (SAW), and clearly presented by the classical scholars of our strongest periods. Unity behind one Amir (Khaleefah) is compulsory and must be at the head of all our agendas, and by returning once again to the clear texts, and the best guidance, we will InSh’allah return to a lasting unity and solve the problems of the Ummah by the grace of Allah (SWT) and under the flag of the Khilafah.
1. The Khilafah
The Khilafah is a common leadership for all the Muslims in the world. Its role is to establish the laws of the Islamic Shari’ah and to carry the da’wa of Islam to the world. The Khilafah is also known as the Imamah, both terms have the same meaning. Several sound ahadith mention them with the same meaning, neither of the two terms has ever differed in meaning in any Shari’ah text i.e. the Qur’an or the Sunnah of the Prophet (saw), these being the only Shari’ah sources. It is not compulsory to hold to the term of Khilafah or Imamah, but rather it is compulsory to hold to the meaning of the term.
The establishment of a Khaleefah is an obligation upon all Muslims in the world. Performing this duty, like any of the duties prescribed by Allah (swt) upon the Muslims, is an urgent obligation in which there can be no choice or complacency. Negligence in performing this duty is one of the greatest sins, for which Allah (swt) punishes severely.
The evidence that the appointment of a Khaleefah is obligatory upon all Muslims is in the Sunnah and the Ijma’a (consensus) of the Sahabah. As for the Sunnah, Nafi’a reported saying: ” ‘Umar said to me that he heard the Prophet (saw) saying: Whoso takes off his hand from allegiance to Allah (swt) will meet Him (swt) on the Day of Resurrection without having any proof for him, and whoso dies whilst there was no bay’ah (allegiance or a pledge) on his neck (to a Khaleefah), he dies a death of jahilliyah.” So the Prophet (saw) made it compulsory upon every Muslim to have a bay’ah on his neck, and described whoever dies without a bay’ah on his neck that he dies a death of jahilliyah. The bay’ah cannot be for anyone except the Khaleefah, and the Prophet (saw) made it obligatory upon every Muslim to have on his neck a bay’ah to a Khaleefah. Yet he did not make it an obligation upon every Muslim to give bay’ah to a Khaleefah. The duty is the existence of a bay’ah on the neck of every eligible Muslim, i.e. the existence of a Khaleefah who accordingly deserves a bay’ah upon the neck of every Muslim. So it is the presence of the Khaleefah which places a bay’ah on the neck of every Muslim, whether the Muslim gave a bay’ah to him in person or not.
Therefore, this hadith of the Prophet (saw) is an evidence that the appointment of the Khaleefah is an obligation and not a proof that giving the bay’ah is obligatory. This is so because the Prophet (saw) rebuked the Muslim who has not a bay’ah on his neck until he dies, not the one who did not give bay’ah. Hisham ibn ‘Urwa reported on the authority of Abu Saleh on the authority of Abu Hurairah that the Prophet (saw) said: “Leaders will take charge of you after me, where the pious (one) will lead you with his piety and the impious (one) with his impiety, so listen to them and obey them in everything which conforms with the truth. If they act rightly it is for your credit, and if they acted wrongly it is counted for you and against them.” Muslim narrated on the authority of al-A’araj, on the authority of Abu Hurairah, that the Prophet (saw) said: “Behold, the Imam is but a shield from behind whom the people fight and by whom they protect themselves.” Muslim reported on the authority of Abu Hazim, who said: “I accompanied Abu Hurairah for five years and heard him talking of the Prophet’s saying: The Prophets ruled over the children of Israel, whenever a Prophet died another Prophet succeeded him, but there will be no Prophet after me. There will be Khulafa’a and they will number many. They asked: What then do you order us? He said: Fulfil the bay’ah to them one after the other and give them their due. Surely Allah will ask them about what He entrusted them with.” Ibn ‘Abbas narrated that the Prophet (saw) said: “If anyone sees in his amir something that displeases him let him remain patient, for behold, he who separates himself from the sultan (authority of Islam) by even so much as a hand span and dies thereupon, has died a death of the days of jahilliyah”.
In these ahadith, the Prophet (saw) informs us that leaders will run the affairs of Muslims, and the ahadith include the description of the Khaleefah as a shield, i.e. a protection. So the description of the Imam as a shield is informative of the benefits of the presence of the Imam, thus it is a command for action, because if the information conveyed by Allah (swt) and the Prophet (saw) contained rebuke then it is a command of prohibition, and if it contained praise then it is a command for action. If the ordered action is necessary to implement a hukm shari’i (divine law), or by its negligence a hukm shari’i will be neglected, then this command is decisive. In these ahadith there is information also that those who run the affairs of Muslims are Khulafa’a, which indicates an order to appoint them. They also include a prohibition for Muslims to separate from the authority, which indicates the obligation upon Muslims to appoint an authority for themselves, i.e. ruling. Moreover, the Prophet (saw) ordered the Muslims to obey the Khaleefah and to fight those who dispute his authority as Khaleefah, which indicates an order to appoint a Khaleefah and to protect his Khilafah by fighting against whosoever disputes with him. Muslim reported that the Prophet (saw) said: “He who pledged allegiance to an Imam giving him the clasp of his hand and the fruit of his heart shall obey him as long as he can, and if another comes to dispute with him you have to strike the neck of that man.” So the command to obey the Imam is an order to establish him, and the command to fight those who dispute with him is an evidence that this command is decisive in maintaining the presence of one Khaleefah.
In regard with the Ijma’a of the Sahabah they all agreed upon the necessity to establish a successor or Khaleefah to the Prophet (saw) after his death, and they all agreed to appoint a successor to Abu Bakr, then to ‘Umar, then to ‘Uthman, after the death of each one of them. The Ijma’a of the Sahabah to establish a Khaleefah manifested itself emphatically when they delayed the burial of the Prophet (saw) after his death whilst engaged in appointing a successor to him, despite the fact that the burial of the dead person is fard, and that it is haram upon those who are supposed to prepare for his burial to engage themselves in anything else until they complete the burial. The Sahabah were obliged to engage themselves in preparing the burial of the Prophet (saw), instead some of them engaged themselves in appointing a Khaleefah rather than carrying out the burial, and some others kept silent on this engagement and participated in delaying the burial for two nights despite their ability to deny the delay and their ability to bury the Prophet (saw). So this was an Ijma’a to engage themselves in appointing a Khaleefah rather than to bury the dead. This could not be legitimate unless the appointment of a Khaleefah is more obligatory than the burial of the dead. Also, all the Sahabah agreed throughout their lives upon the obligation of appointing a Khaleefah. Although they disagreed upon the person to elect as a Khaleefah, they never disagreed upon the appointment of a Khaleefah, neither when the Prophet (saw) died, nor when any of the Khulafa’a ar-Rashidun died. Therefore the Ijma’a of the Sahabah is a clear and strong evidence that the appointment of a Khaleefah is obligatory.
However, the establishment of Islam and the implementation of the Shari’ah rules in all walks of life is compulsory on Muslims through definitely proven evidences. This duty cannot be achieved unless there is a ruler who has an authority. The divine principle states ‘what is necessary to accomplish a wajib (duty) is itself a wajib’. So the establishment of a Khaleefah is also compulsory according to this divine principle.
Moreover, Allah (swt) has ordered the Prophet (saw) to rule between Muslims by that which He (swt) revealed to him, and the order of Allah (swt) to him was in a decisive manner. Allah (swt) addressed the Prophet (saw) saying:
“And rule between them by that which Allah revealed to you, and do not follow their vain desires away from the truth which came to you”. [TMQ 5:48]
And He (swt) said:
“And rule between them by that which Allah revealed to you and do not follow their whims, and beware (be on the alert) that they may deviate you away from even some part of what Allah revealed to you”. [TMQ 5:49]
The speech of Allah (swt) to the Prophet (saw) is a speech to his Ummah unless there is an evidence which limits the speech to him. In this case there is no such evidence, so the aforementioned verses order all Muslims to establish the rule. The establishment of the Khaleefah does not mean other than the establishment of the rule and the authority. On the other hand, Allah (swt) made it obligatory upon Muslims to obey those in authority, i.e. the ruler, which indicates that the existence of the ruler is obligatory upon Muslims. Allah (swt) said:
“O you who believe obey Allah and obey the Messenger and those in authority amongst you”. [TMQ 4:59]
Allah (swt) does not order obedience to those who do not exist. This indicates that the existence of the ruler is obligatory. When Allah (swt) orders obedience to those in authority it is an order to establish them. The implementation of the Shari’ah depends upon the existence of the ruler, thus, the establishment of the ruler becomes obligatory as its absence will result in the sin of neglecting the Shari’ah.
Therefore, it is clear from these evidences that the establishment of the rule and the authority amongst Muslims is fard, and it is also clear that the appointment of a Khaleefah who takes the charge of the rule and the authority is compulsory upon Muslims in order to implement the Shari’ah laws; and not for the sake of rule and authority only. Reflect upon what the Prophet (saw) said: “The best of your Imams (leaders) are those whom you love and they love you, who pray for you and you pray for them; and the worst of your Imams are those whom you hate and they hate you and you curse them and they curse you.” The Messenger of Allah (saw) was asked: “Would we not declare war on them (face them with the swords)?” He said: “No, as long as they establish salat (meaning Islam) among you.” This hadith is clear in informing about the good and bad leaders, and clear in prohibiting the challenge of their authority as long as they establish the prayer, which in this context indicates upholding of Islam, and establishing its rule.
So the obligation upon Muslims to appoint the Khaleefah who establishes the laws of Islam and conveys its call is a matter which has no doubt with regard to its certainty in the sound texts of Shari’ah. Moreover, it is an obligatory duty due to the fact that Allah (swt) made it fard upon Muslims to establish the authority of Islam and to protect the honour of Muslims. However, this duty is a collective one, so if some people of the Ummah accomplished it, the fard is fulfilled and thus responsibility drops from the rest of the Ummah. And if part of the Ummah was unable to achieve the fard, though they carried out the actions which establish it, then the responsibility remains upon all the Muslims, and the fard remains upon every Muslim as long as Muslims are without a Khaleefah.
To refrain from establishing a Khaleefah for the Muslims is a great sin because it is abstaining from carrying out a very important fard of Islam, upon which the implementation of the divine laws depends, even upon which the presence of Islam in the battlefield of life depends as well. So Muslims as a whole commit a great sin by refraining from establishing a Khaleefah for all Muslims. And if they agreed to remain without a Khaleefah the sin would befall all Muslims in the entire world. If some of the Muslims embarked on working to establish a Khaleefah and the others did not, the sin will drop from the shoulders of those who started to work to establish the Khaleefah, while the fard remains on them until the Khaleefah is appointed. This is so because the involvement in establishing the fard removes the sin for the delay of its fulfilment in its time, and for its non-fulfilment despite one’s engagement in the work for establishing it, and despite his hatred of that which prevents him from accomplishing it.
As for those who were not engaged in the work for establishing the fard, the sin will remain on them as soon as the three days period has passed, from the departure of the Khaleefah until the appointment of a new Khaleefah, because Allah (swt) has entrusted them with a fard, which they did not carry out nor engage themselves in the work which is required for its completion. Therefore, they are sinful and deserve the punishment and shame from Allah (swt) in this life and the hereafter. They are sinful due to their refrain from establishing the Khaleefah or from the actions which (according to Shari’ah) establish the Khaleefah. It is clear and obvious that a Muslim deserves the punishment of Allah (swt) when he ignores any of the duties enjoined upon him, particularly the duty by which the other duties are implemented and the Shari’ah rules are established and the matter of Islam is brought aloft and the word of Allah (swt) is exalted in the Muslim and the rest of the world.
In regard with some of the ahadith over isolation from the people, and that confining oneself to adhere to the matters of personal worship, these ahadith do not serve as an evidence that permits abstaining from establishing a Khaleefah nor removes the sin due to this abstaining. When somebody studies these ahadith thoroughly he finds them related to the adherence to the deen rather than permitting the abandonment of establishing a Khaleefah for Muslims. For example, al-Bukhari narrated about Bisr ibn Obaydellah al-Hadhrami that he heard Abu Idrees al-Khoolani say that he heard Huthaifah ibn al-Yaman saying: “The people used to ask the Prophet of Allah (saw) about the good and I used to ask him about the bad in fear that it might catch me. So I said: O Prophet of Allah! We were in times of jahilliyah and mischief then Allah brought us this good, so is there any mischief after this good? He (saw) said: Yes. I said: Will there be any good after that mischief? He said: Yes, and it has smoke. I said: What is its smoke? He said: (Some) people guide without any guidance, you recognise some (from them) and deny some. I said: Will there be a mischief after that good? He said: Yes, (some) people who invite at the doors of hell, whoever accepted their invitation they throw him in it (hell). I said: O Prophet of Allah, describe them to us. He said: They are of our own skin (of our people) and talk our language. I said: What do you order me to do if that (matter) caught me? He said: Adhere to the jama’ah of Muslims and their Imam. I said: What if the Muslims have no jama’ah nor an Imam? He said: Then you abandon all those groups, even if you have to grab with your teeth the trunk of a tree till death comes to you as such.” This hadith is clear in its expression that the Prophet (saw) orders Muslims to adhere to the jama’ah of Muslims and to adhere to their Imam, and to leave those who invite people to the doors of hell. When the questioner asked him that in case the Muslims have no Imam and no jama’ah what he has to do in regard with those who call at the doors of hell, the Prophet (saw) ordered him to abandon these groups, not to disassociate himself from the Muslims nor to abstain from the action for establishing an Imam. So his order is clear, disassociate yourself from all those groups, and he emphasised the dissociation of those groups even to the extent that his isolation from them would make him clench to the trunk of a tree until death comes to him. It means adhere to your deen by staying away from the misleading callers who are at the doors of hell. In this hadith there is no excuse or permission (for anybody) to abandon the work for establishing a Khaleefah, it is, rather, confined to the command of adhering to the deen and abandoning the callers at the doors of hell, and the sin will remain on him if he does not work to establish a Khaleefah. So he is ordered to abandon the misleading groups in order to save his deen from the callers of the misguidance, even if he had to clench to the trunk of a tree, but not to distance himself from the Muslim community and abandon the work for establishing the laws of the deen and establishing an Imam for Muslims.
Another example is what al-Bukhari narrated about Abu Said al-Khudri, who said: “The Messenger of Allah (saw) said: The best wealth of the Muslim is imminent to be sheep with which he follows the summits of mountains and the rain falls to save his deen from the affliction.” This does not mean that one should isolate oneself from the Muslim community and abandon practising the divine laws and establishing a Khaleefah for Muslims when there is no Khilafah on earth. This hadith rather explains what is the best wealth of the Muslim at the times of temptation, it does not encourage anyone to distance himself from the Muslims and isolate the people.
Accordingly, no Muslim on the face of this earth has an excuse to abandon the duty of establishing the deen which Allah (swt) has ordered, that is, the establishment of a Khaleefah for Muslims, when there is no Khilafah on the earth, and no one to implement the hudood (limits) of Allah (swt) to protect the sanctities of Allah (swt), and no one to implement the laws of the deen and unify the Muslim community under the banner of La ilaha illa Allah, Muhammad ur-Rasul Allah. There is no permission in Islam to abandon the work for this duty until it is indeed completed.
2. The Time Limit Given for Muslims to Establish a Khaleefah
The time limit given for Muslims to establish a Khaleefah is two nights. So no Muslim is allowed to stay for more than two nights without having a bay’ah on his neck. Making the upper limit as two nights is due to the fact that appointment of a Khaleefah is fard from the moment the previous Khaleefah dies or is deposed. But it is allowed to delay the appointment while engaging in it for two nights. If the delay exceeded two nights and the Muslims did not establish a Khaleefah, the matter is examined. If the Muslims were busy in establishing a Khaleefah but could not complete it within two nights due to overwhelming matters they cannot resist, then the sin will drop from them because they are engaged in establishing the duty and they are forced to delay it by compelling power. The Prophet (saw) said: “The sin due to mistake, forgetfulness and compulsion is removed from my Ummah.” But if they were not engaged in performing the duty, then they would all be sinful until the Khaleefah is established and at that time the fard will drop from them. But the sin they committed in neglecting the establishment of a Khaleefah does not drop from them, it rather remains on them, and Allah (swt) will bring them to account for it the same way He (swt) brings any Muslim to account for any disobedience he commits when he neglects to perform a duty.
In regard with the evidence concerning the two nights time limit given to Muslims to perform the duty of establishing a Khaleefah, it is Ijma’a of the Sahabah The Sahabah started to meet in the courtyard of Bani Sa’ida, to discuss the appointment of a successor to the Messenger of Allah (saw) as soon as the news of the death of the Prophet (saw) reached them. They kept discussing in the courtyard, and on the second day they gathered the people in the mosque in order that they might give the bay’ah. This took two nights and three days. Also, when ‘Umar became certain that his death was imminent as a result of the stab wound, he entrusted the people of shura (consultation) and gave them three days to choose a new Khaleefah. He recommended that if after the three days an agreement was not be reached about a Khaleefah then the dissenter should be killed after the aforementioned three days. ‘Umar also empowered fifty Muslims to carry out this action, i.e. to kill the dissenter despite the fact they were of the shura people and of the eminent Sahabah. This order was given in front of the Sahabah, and no one was reported to deny or disagree with it, so it becomes Ijma’a of the Sahabah that Muslims are not permitted to stay without a Khaleefah for more than two nights and three days, and the Ijma’a of the Sahabah is a legitimate daleel shari’i (evidence) like the Qur’an and Sunnah of the Messenger of Allah (saw).
3. The Khilafah Contract
Khilafah is a contract of consent and selection, because it is a pledge to obey those in authority. So the consent of the person who is given the bay’ah to hold the Khilafah and the consent of those who give the bay’ah are essential. Therefore, if somebody rejected to be a Khaleefah and declined it, he must not be compelled to accept it, but another person is selected instead. Also, it is not allowed to take the bay’ah from the people by force, because, in this case, the pledge contract cannot be considered legal due to its contradiction with using force, since Khilafah is a contract of consent and selection devoid of any compulsion, like any other contract. However, if the pledge contract is accomplished by those whose bay’ah is reliable then the bay’ah would be legal, and the elected person would become the person in authority who must be obeyed. Bay’ah given to him later on becomes bay’ah of obedience rather than a bay’ah of Khilafah contract. In this case he is allowed to force the rest of the people to give him the bay’ah because it is a bay’ah of obedience which is wajib. It is not correct to say that it is illegal to use compulsion, because the bay’ah in this case is not a contract bay’ah on Khilafah. Accordingly, the bay’ah initially is a contract which is not legal except by consent and choice. But after the contract bay’ah is given to the Khaleefah, then bay’ah becomes an obedience to his order, and compulsion comes from the fact that it is allowed to implement the order of Allah (swt). Since Khilafah is a contract, then there must be a contractor for the contract to be considered legal, like in the judiciary where the person cannot be a judge unless he is appointed in this office by somebody else, and in the imarah nobody can be an amir (leader) unless there is a person who appoints him in this office. And in the Khilafah, no person can be a Khaleefah unless he is appointed in this post as a Khilafah.
Thereupon, it is clear that nobody becomes a Khaleefah unless the Muslims appoint him in this post, and he cannot have the authority of Khilafah unless he is contracted to it. And this contract can only be implemented by two parties – the first is the one who asked for the Khilafah and the second is the Muslims who accepted him as their Khaleefah. Therefore, the bay’ah of Muslims is essential to fulfill the Khilafah contract. Accordingly, if someone usurped power by force he will not become a Khaleefah even if he declared himself a Khaleefah for Muslims, because the contract of Khilafah has not been convened to him by the Muslims. And if he took the bay’ah from the Muslims by force, he is not considered a Khaleefah by such bay’ah, because the bay’ah by force is illegal. And Khilafah cannot be convened with it, since it is a contract of consent and selection which cannot be accomplished by force, but convened by a bay’ah of consent and choice. However, if this usurper managed to convince the people that it is in their interest to give him the bay’ah, and that the implementation of the Shari’ah laws requires from the people to give him the bay’ah and were convinced of that and accepted it, and they gave him the bay’ah by consent and choice, then he becomes a Khaleefah the moment he was given the bay’ah by consent and choice, though he initially held the power by force. So it is a condition that the bay’ah must occur by consent and choice whether the person who obtained the bay’ah was the ruler or not.
As for the people by whose bay’ah the Khilafah is established this can be derived by examining what happened in the bay’ah of the Khulafa’a ar-Rashidun and what the Sahabah agreed upon. In the bay’ah of Abu Bakr it was sufficient from ahle al-hal wal ‘aqd (the people of influence) among Muslims in Medina alone; the opinion of Muslims in Mecca and the rest of the Arabian Peninsula was not sought, they were not even asked. It was the same case in the bay’ah of ‘Umar. As for the bay’ah of ‘Uthman, ‘Abdul Rahman ibn ‘Auf took the opinion of Muslims in Medina and did not confine it to the people of influence as Abu Bakr did when he nominated ‘Umar. At the time of ‘Ali it was sufficed with the bay’ah of the majority of the people of Medina and Kufa, and he was singled with bay’ah. His bay’ah was considered legal even by those who disagreed with him and fought against him, as they did not make bay’ah with any other person than him, and did not object to his bay’ah, they rather demanded revenge for the blood of ‘Uthman, so their case was considered as rebels who avenged a matter from the Khaleefah and he had to explain it for them and fight them, but they did not form another Khilafah.
All this happened, i.e. giving the bay’ah to the Khaleefah from the people of the capital only without the rest of the regions, in front of the Sahabah, and none of them disagreed or denied that action of limiting the bay’ah to the majority of the people of Medina, though they disagreed on the person selected as Khaleefah and denied some of his actions, yet they did not deny that the bay’ah was made to him only by the majority of the people of Medina. So this was Ijma’a of the Sahabah that the Khilafah is established by those who represent the opinions of the Muslims in the matter of ruling. This is so because the people of influence and the majority of the residents of Medina represented the opinion of the majority of the Ummah in the matter of ruling in the whole territories of the Islamic State at that time.
Accordingly, the Khilafah is convened if the bay’ah is made by the majority of those who represent the Islamic Ummah, who are under the authority of the Khaleefah that is being replaced by another, as was the case at the time of Khulafa’a ar-Rashidun. Their bay’ah would then be a bay’ah of contract to the Khilafah. As for the bay’ah of the other people, it becomes a bay’ah of obedience after the Khilafah was convened to the Khaleefah, that is a bay’ah of submission to the Khaleefah, not a bay’ah of contract to establish the Khilafah.
This would be the case if there were a Khaleefah who died or was deposed and it is required to establish a Khaleefah in his place. But if there is no Khaleefah at all, and it became obligatory upon Muslims to appoint for themselves a Khaleefah to implement the Shari’ah laws and convey the Islamic call to the world, as is the case since the removal of the Islamic Khilafah in Istanbul in 1343 After Hijrah (1924 Christian Era) until the present day, then every country in the Islamic world is eligible to elect a Khaleefah and thereby establish a Khilafah. So if one country of the Islamic world appointed a Khaleefah, and the Khilafah was established for him, it becomes obligatory upon Muslims to make a pledge of obedience to him, i.e. a bay’ah of submission, after the Khilafah was convened to him by the bay’ah of the people in his country, whether this country was big like Egypt, Turkey and Indonesia or small like Albania, Cameroon and Lebanon, on condition that the country fulfils four criteria:
- The authority in that country must be self determined, depending on Muslims only, not on any disbeliever state or disbeliever influence.
- The security of Muslims in that country must be through the security of Islam and not the security of Kufr, i.e. the protection of the country internally and externally must be in the name of Islam from the Muslims power in its capacity as a purely Islamic power.
- The country must commence immediate implementation of Islam completely, comprehensively and radically and also engage in delivering the Islamic call.
- The elected Khaleefah should fulfill the conditions of Khilafah contract, even if he is lacking the preferable conditions, because what matters is the contract conditions.
Therefore, if that country has fulfilled these four conditions, then the Khilafah has been established by the bay’ah of that country alone and it was convened with it alone as well, even if this country does not represent the majority of the influential people who represent the Islamic Ummah. This is so because establishing the Khilafah is a collective duty, and whoever performs this duty in the correct manner would accomplish the prescribed duty. And because the condition concerning the majority of the influential people applies if there was a Khilafah and there was a need to appoint another Khaleefah in place of the dead or deposed one. But if there was not a Khilafah at all and the establishment of one is necessary, then by its establishment in accordance with Shari’ah, the Khilafah will be convened legally by any Khaleefah who satisfies the conditions of the contract regardless of the number of the people who elected him, as the matter would be then a question of fulfilling a duty neglected by the Muslims for more than three days. Their negligence to this duty is a termination of their right to choose whom they want for a Khaleefah.
So if there arise some people who perform this duty, it suffices for the Khilafah to be established by them, and once the Khilafah is established in that country and contracted to a Khaleefah it becomes a duty upon all Muslims to rally under its banner and to give bay’ah to the Khaleefah, otherwise they would be sinful before Allah (swt). The elected Khaleefah must invite them to give him bay’ah and if they refused they would be considered as rebels whom the Khaleefah must fight until they submit to his authority. If another Khaleefah in the same or a different country is elected after the first Khaleefah who had the Khilafah convened to him legally by satisfying the four aforementioned conditions, then the Muslims must fight the second Khaleefah until he makes bay’ah to the first one. The evidence on this matter is what ‘Abdullah ibn ‘Amr ibn al-‘As narrated, that he heard the Prophet (saw) saying: “He who has pledged allegiance to an Imam giving him the clasp of his hand and the fruit of his heart shall obey him if he can, if another person comes to dispute (his authority) strike the neck of the latter.” And also because the Khaleefah of Muslims is the one who unites the Muslims under the banner of Islam. So if the Khaleefah is found the Muslim community would be found and it becomes obligatory upon Muslims to join this community and haram upon them to dissociate themselves from it. Ibn ‘Abbas reported that the Prophet (saw) said: “If anyone sees in his amir something that displeases him let him remain patient because he who separates himself from the jama’ah even so much as a hand span and dies as that, he dies the death of jahilliyah.” Muslim reported about Ibn ‘Abbas that the Prophet (saw) said: “If anyone hates something from his amir let him remain patient because he who separates himself from the sultan (authority) even so much as a hand span and dies as that, he dies the death of jahilliyah.” The indication from these two hadiths is to adhere to the Muslim community and to the authority of Islam.
Non-Muslims have no right in the bay’ah, and it is not obligatory upon them because it is a bay’ah on Islam and on the Book of Allah and the Sunnah of the Messenger of Allah and it requires belief in Islam, the Book and the Sunnah. Non-Muslims are not allowed to be involved in ruling nor to elect the ruler because they have no authority over Muslims and have no place in the bay’ah.
4. The Bay’ah
Bay’ah is an obligation upon all Muslims, and it is a right for every Muslim, man or woman. The evidence for it being an obligation is in many ahadith of the Prophet (saw), in which he said: “Whosoever dies without having a bay’ah upon his neck he dies a death of jahilliyah.” As for being a right for Muslims, the bay’ah itself indicates that, because the bay’ah is offered by the Muslims to the Khaleefah, and not by the Khaleefah to the Muslims. The bay’ah of the Muslims to the Prophet (saw) was confirmed in the ahadith. Al-Bukhari reported that ‘Ubada ibn as-Samit said: “We made a bay’ah to the Prophet (saw) to hear and to obey in whatever pleases and displeases us, and we should not dispute the authority of those who have been entrusted with it, and stand for the truth wherever we are fearing not the blame of any blamer for the sake of Allah.” Al-Bukhari reported on the authority of Ayub on the authority of Hafsa on the authority of Umm ‘Atiya, who said: “We gave a bay’ah to the Prophet (saw) and then he read to us that we should not associate anything to Allah and to refrain from weeping, upon which a woman amongst us withdrew her hand and said: A woman pleased me and I want to reward (repay) her. He said nothing, so she went and then returned.” Abu Hurairah reported that the Prophet (saw) said: “Three persons to whom Allah will not talk on the Resurrection Day, nor purify them, and they will have severe punishment are: A person who has an excess of water on the road and prevents the wayfarer of it; and a person who gives bay’ah to an Imam for his worldly affairs only, so if the Imam gave him that which he wants he fulfilled (the bay’ah) to him, otherwise he would not; and a person trading a commodity to another in the late afternoon and he swore by Allah that he was offered so and so for it, although he was not, and the person believed him and bought it.” ‘Abdullah ibn ‘Umar said: “When we gave a bay’ah to the Prophet (saw) to hear and obey, he used to say to us: In what you could.” Jareer ibn ‘Abdullah said: “I gave a bay’ah to the Prophet (saw) to hear and obey and he instructed me: In what you could and to advise every Muslim.” Junada ibn Abu Umayyah said: “We entered the house of ‘Ubada ibn as-Samit whilst he was ill and we said: May Allah make you a good person, talk to us of a hadith you heard from the Prophet (saw) and with which Allah benefits you. He said: The Prophet (saw) invited us and we gave him our bay’ah; and of which he pledged us with is to hear and obey in what pleases and displeases us, in our ease and hardship and in our selfishness, and not to dispute the authority of those who are entrusted with, saying unless you see clear (open) disbelief upon which you have a proof from Allah.”
So the bay’ah for the Khaleefah is in the hands of the Muslims, and it is their right; it is they who give bay’ah, and it is their bay’ah which makes the Khilafah established for a Khaleefah. The bay’ah can be by shaking hand or by writing, with no difference between man and woman. A woman has the right to shake hands with the Khaleefah when she gives the bay’ah as men do. In regard with what ‘Urwa reported on the authority of ‘A’isha, she said: “The Prophet (saw) used to take the bay’ah from women by saying this verse. ‘Not to associate anything with Allah’.” She said: “The hand of the Prophet (saw) never touched the hand of a woman unless he possessed her.” In this narration ‘A’isha talked about her knowledge of the matter. So according to her knowledge the hand of the Prophet (saw) did not touch the hand of any other woman. But there are other ahadith which indicate the hand shaking. The hadith reported by Umm ‘Atiya in which she says “a woman among us withdrew her hand” indicates that she was extending her hand forward for the bay’ah, but when the Prophet (saw) ordered them to refrain from weeping, the woman pulled her hand back from the bay’ah. The understanding of “a woman among us withdrew her hand” is that other women did not pull their hands back, which indicates that they gave their bay’ah by hand. This is a sound hadith reported by al-Bukhari and it is a text about handshaking both in word and in meaning (conception). So the bay’ah can be given by handshaking and by writing. ‘Abdullah ibn Dinar said: “I witnessed ibn ‘Umar where the people gathered around ‘Abdul Melik ibn Marwan. Ibn ‘Umar wrote: I agree to listen and obey to the slave of Allah ‘Abdul Melik the servant of Allah and the Amir al-Mo’mineen according to the word of Allah and the Sunnah of His Prophet to the extent that I can.” Moreover, the bay’ah is proper to be by any possible mean.
However, the bay’ah has to be given by the mature person, so it is improper to be given by the young. Abu Akeel Zahra ibn Ma’bed reported on the authority of his grandfather ‘Abdullah ibn Hisham who witnessed the Prophet (saw), that his mother Zaynab, the daughter of Hameed, took him to the Prophet (saw) and said: “O Prophet of Allah, take a pledge from him” The Prophet (saw) said: “He is young”, and wiped his head and made a du’a for him.
As for the words of the bay’ah they are not restricted to specific terms. But firstly they must include the action undertaken by the Khaleefah according to the Book of Allah and the Sunnah of His Prophet. Secondly they must also include a declaration of obedience in hardship and ease and obedience in that which pleases and displeases on the part of the person who gives the bay’ah to the Khaleefah. Or if the Khilafah is contracted to the Khaleefah by the bay’ah of other Muslims, then the bay’ah has become a trust on the neck of the one who gives the bay’ah and he is not allowed to retract it since it is a right in regard with the Khilafah contract till he gave it, and once he gave it he must abide by it. If he wanted to retreat from it he would not be allowed to do so. Al-Bukhari narrated about Jaber ibn ‘Abdullah that a bedouin gave the Prophet (saw) his pledge on Islam, and an illness struck him so he said to the Prophet (saw): “Let me withdraw my bay’ah” but the Prophet refused, and the man went out. The Prophet (saw) then said: “The town (Medina) is like the bellow which repels its impurities and purify its goodness.” Nafi’a reported saying: ” ‘Umar said to me that he heard the Prophet (saw) saying: He who withdraws his hand from the obedience of Allah, he will meet Allah on the resurrection day without having a proof for himself.” To break the bay’ah of the Khaleefah is withdrawing of one’s hand from the obedience of Allah. This is the case if his bay’ah to the Khaleefah is bay’ah of contract or it is a bay’ah of obedience to a Khaleefah whom the Muslims accepted and gave their bay’ah to. But if he gave his bay’ah in the beginning to a Khaleefah and it was not completed because the Muslims as a whole did not accept him as Khaleefah, then he has the right to withdraw from that bay’ah. So the prohibition mentioned in the hadith is focused on the withdrawal of a bay’ah to a Khaleefah, not to a man who did not have the Khilafah convened to him.
5. The Conditions of the Khaleefah
The Khaleefah must fulfill six conditions to be eligible for the Khilafah and to have the bay’ah contracted to him for the Khilafah. These six conditions validate the contract, if one was missing, the Khilafah could not be convened. The conditions are:
1. He must be a Muslim. The Khilafah can’t be contracted to a kafir (disbeliever) at all, nor does he have the right of obedience to him, because Allah (swt) says:
“Allah will never allow for the disbelievers an (a way) authority upon (over) the believers.” [TMQ 4:141]
Ruling is the strongest instrument in the hand of the ruler over the ruled people. The expression with ‘Lun’ (never) means perpetuation is a linkage of the decisive prohibition for the disbeliever to take the charge of ruling at all, whether it was the Khilafah or anything less than that.
2. He must be male. So the Khaleefah is not permitted to be a female, i.e. he must be a man, and it is invalid for the Khaleefah to be a woman. The proof of this is in what is reported by Abu Bakrah, who said: “Allah benefited me with a word I heard from the Prophet (saw) in the days of al-Jamal (camel) when I was about to join the people of al-Jamal and fight with them. When the news arrived that the people of Persia appointed the daughter of Kisra as a queen over them, the Prophet (saw) said: Any people appointed a woman to run their affairs will not succeed.” So the information of the Prophet (saw) about the negation of success of those who appoint a woman to look after their affairs is a prohibition to appoint her, since this is a form of demand; and because this information included rebuke to those who appoint a woman by negating success to them, it is a linkage that the demand is a decisive prohibition. So the prohibition, here, to appoint a woman came with a linkage which indicates that the demand to leave is a decisive demand; thus the appointment of a woman is haram. The prohibition of her ruling applies to the Khilafah and any other ruling posts less than it, because the subject of the hadith is the appointment of the daughter of Kisra as a queen, so it is general in the subject of ruling which the hadith talked about. It is not specific to the incident of appointing the daughter of Kisra alone, and it is not also general in every function, so it does not include any function other than the ruling in anyway whatsoever.
3. He must be mature. The Khaleefah is not allowed to be a youth. ‘Ali ibn Abu Talib narrated that the Prophet (saw) said: “The pen was raised from the sleeping person until he awakes and the youth until he reaches puberty, and the mentally disabled until he recovers sanity.” So whosoever has the pen lifted from him is not in a position to conduct his affairs and legally he is not charged; so it is invalid for him to be a Khaleefah or in any ruling position less than that, because he does not have the right to conduct even his own affairs. Another proof for the illegality of the Khaleefah to be a youth is that the Prophet (saw) refused to receive a bay’ah from a youth. He refused the bay’ah of ‘Abdullah ibn Hisham, and explained that it was due to his young age, saying “he is a youth.” So if the bay’ah is not accepted from the youth and he is not allowed to give a bay’ah for another person as a Khaleefah, then it is obvious that he is not allowed to be a Khaleefah.
4. He must be sane. It is incorrect to appoint an insane as a Khaleefah, for the Prophet (saw) said: “The pen is raised from three…” and he mentioned amongst them “the insane until he regains his sanity.” And we have already established that he who has the pen lifted from him is not accountable, because the commands of Allah (swt) and the legality of the conduct are based upon the state of mind. The Khaleefah carries out the acts of ruling and implements the divine commandments, so it is invalid for him to be insane.
5. He must be just. Thus it is invalid for him to be a fasiq (evildoer). Being just is an imperative condition for contracting and continuation of the Khilafah, because Allah (swt) made it a condition for the witness to be just. Allah (swt) said:
“Let two among you be just witnesses.” [TMQ 65:2]
So if the condition of justness applies to a witness, it obviously applies even more as a condition for appointing of a Khaleefah.
6. He must be free. The slave is possessed by his master, so he does not have the authority to conduct his own affairs. By extension of this principle, we can conclude that he does not have authority to conduct the affairs of others and therefore he is in no position to rule over the people.
These are the conditions of contracting a man to the post of the Khaleefah, and any additional conditions of contract maybe conditions of preference if they are produced from sound texts, or if they came under a hukm proved by a sound text. This is so because in order that a condition be a condition of contract, its daleel should include a decisive demand that becomes a linkage for its binding. So if the evidence does not include a decisive demand, then the condition is one of preference and not of contracting. No evidence including a decisive demand was reported other than these six conditions, so they alone are the conditions of contract. Other conditions included in sound evidences are conditions of preference only. Therefore, it is not a condition of contract to the Khilafah that the Khaleefah must be mujtahid, because there was no sound text on the matter and because the duty of the Khaleefah is to govern, and he does not necessarily need to make ijtihad since he can enquire about the hukm, follow a mujtahid and adopt laws according to the opinion of that mutjahid. It is therefore not necessary for him to be a mujtahid, although it is preferable; but if he was not a mutjahid, the Khilafah would still be contracted to him. Also it is not a contracting condition to the Khilafah that the Khaleefah must be brave, or of the people of good vision to manage the affairs of the community and to conduct its interests. This is so because no sound hadith was reported on this issue and it does not come under a hukm shari’i which makes it a contracting condition; nevertheless it is preferable that the Khaleefah be brave and of deep insight and vision.
It is not also a contracting condition to the Khilafah that the Khaleefah must be of Quraish; what was actually reported on the authority of Mu’awiya was that he said: “I heard the Prophet (saw) saying: This matter is in Quraish. Anyone who disputes with them whilst they establish the deen, Allah will drag him in hell-fire on his face.” And what was narrated about Ibn ‘Umar that he said: “The Prophet (saw) said: This matter will remain in Quraish as long as there are two of them existing.” These ahadith and others which were soundly referred to the Prophet (saw) about making the Khilafah to Quraish came in an informative form, and not a single one of them came in the command form. The informative form, although it indicates a demand, is not considered a decisive command unless it was associated with a linkage which indicates the confirmation; and these informative forms were not associated by any linkage which indicates the confirmation in any sound narration. So these ahadith indicate that it is a recommendation and not an obligation, thus it is a condition of preference, not a condition of contracting. In regard with his saying in the hadith “anyone who disputes them Allah will drag him in the hell-fire on his face”, this is another reason for prohibiting their enmity and not a confirmation to his saying “this matter is in the Quraish” as the hadith states that the matter is in the Quraish, and that their enmity is prohibited. Also, the word “Quraish” is a name and not an adjective and in the terminology of usul (bases of fiqh) it is called a title; and the meaning of the name i.e. the meaning of the title is not acted on at all, because the name, i.e. the title, has no perception. Therefore the statement about Quraish does not mean that it cannot be in other than Quraish.
So the saying of the Prophet (saw) “this matter is in Quraish” and “this matter will remain in Quraish” does not mean that it is illegal for the Khaleefah to be from other than Quraish, nor that the leadership remain in Quraish. Rather it means that it is in them and correct to be in other than them. Thus the statement about them does not prevent the Khaleefah to be from other than them. Accordingly, this is a condition of preference and not a condition of contract.
Also the Prophet (saw) had appointed ‘Abdullah ibn Ruwaha, Zaid ibn Haritha, and Usama ibn Zaid as amirs, all of them were not from Quraish. Thus the Prophet gave imarah (leadership) for people other than Quraish. The word “this matter” means the authority i.e. the rule and it is not restricted in the Khilafah alone. We can conclude therefore that since the Prophet (saw) appointed other than Quraish in the ruling then this is an evidence that ruling is not restricted to them and not prevented from people other than them. So these ahadith stated some of the people who are eligible for the Khilafah to indicate their preference, not to restrict the Khilafah to them and to prevent its contracting to people other than them.
Also, it is not a condition that the Khaleefah must be Hashemite or Alawite (from the family of ‘Ali) because it was confirmed that the Prophet (saw) has given the ruling to people other than Bani Hashim, and Bani ‘Ali, and when he left for Tabuk he appointed Muhammad ibn Maslama as ruler over Medina, and he was not a Hashemite or Alawite. He also appointed Mu’ath ibn Jabal and ‘Amr ibn al-‘As as rulers for Yemen, and they were not Hashemites or Alawites. It was also proved by decisive evidence that the Muslims made the bay’ah of Khilafah to Abu Bakr, ‘Umar and ‘Uthman, and that ‘Ali had made bay’ah to each one of them although they were not of Bani Hashim. And all the Sahabah agreed on their bay’ah, and it was not narrated that anyone denied their bay’ah although they were not Hashemites nor Alawites. So this was an Ijma’a from the Sahabah, including ‘Ali and Ibn ‘Abbas and the rest of the Hashemites, that it is allowed for the Khaleefah to be non-Hashemite or non-Alawite. In regard with the ahadith talking about the superiority of ‘Ali and the household of the Prophet (saw), they indicate their preference, not considering it a condition for the Khilafah contract that the Khaleefah must be from them.
From this it becomes clear that there is no evidence for any condition to contract the Khilafah other than the six conditions mentioned above. The others, assuming the correctness of all the texts which made mention of them or that they came under rules deduced from sound texts, are conditions of preference and not conditions of contracting. What is legally required to become a Khaleefah is the fulfillment of the conditions of contracting the Khilafah. Other than that, Muslims are informed about the candidates for the Khilafah so as to decide the best of them. But any person chosen by them will have the Khilafah contracted to him as long as the conditions of contract alone were fulfilled by him even if he does not possess other than them.
6. Quest for Khilafah
Seeking the Khilafah and debate for it is allowed to all Muslims, and it is not makruh. No text was reported to prohibit the competition for it. It was established that Muslims contended for it in the courtyard of Bani Sa’ida while the Prophet (saw) was shrouded on his bed, not buried yet. It was also established that the six persons of the shura, who were from the eminent Sahabah, contended for the Khilafah in front of all the companions and they were not denied this, and they agreed with them on this debate. This Ijma’a of the Sahabah indicates that the debate for Khilafah is permissible, and it is allowed to ask for it, and to seek it and to debate against each other by opinion and proof for the sake of attaining it. In regard with the prohibition of asking for imarah (leadership) mentioned in the ahadith, this is a prohibition for incompetent persons who are not fit for it, like Abu Tharr. But those who are fit for the imarah are allowed to ask for it. ‘Amr ibn al-‘As asked for it and the Prophet (saw) appointed him as a wali. So the reported ahadith are specific for those who are not qualified for it, whether it was an imarah or Khilafah. But those who are fit for it, the Prophet (saw) did not prohibit them asking for it, and he gave the imarah for those who asked for it. So since the Prophet (saw) gave the imarah to those who asked for it, and also prohibited asking for the imarah, then the prohibition is taken to mean those who are not up to the task and therefore the prohibition is not absolute.
7. The Unity of the Khilafah
It is not allowed to have more than one Khaleefah in the world because ‘Abdullah ibn ‘Amr ibn al-‘As narrated that he heard the Prophet (saw) say: “Whoever takes a pledge to an Imam giving him his hand shake and the fruit of his heart has to obey him if he can. If another comes to dispute him strike the neck of the other.” Also Abu Said al-Khudri narrated that the Prophet (saw) said: “If a pledge is taken to two Khaleefahs, kill the latter one.” And ‘Arafaja said that he heard the Prophet (saw) say: “If someone comes to you when you are united over one man and wants to break your strength and divide your unity, kill him.” Abu Hazim also narrated that he accompanied Abu Hurairah for five years and heard him narrate about the Prophet (saw) saying: “The Prophets ruled over the children of Israel, whenever a prophet died another prophet succeeded him, but there will be no prophet after me. There will be Khulafa’a and they will number many. They asked: What then do you order us?. He said: Fulfill the bay’ah to them one after the other and give them their due. Surely Allah will ask them about what He entrusted them with.”
If Khilafah was established for two Khaleefahs in two countries at the same time, it would not be valid for either of them, because Muslims are not allowed to have two Khaleefahs. It is not correct to say that the bay’ah is valid to the one that had it first because the matter is to establish a Khaleefah, not to make a race for it, and also because it is the right of all Muslims, not the right for the Khaleefah, so the matter must go back again to the Muslims to establish one Khaleefah in case of establishing two Khaleefahs. It is incorrect to suggest a ballot between them because Khilafah is a contract, and the ballot is not included in the contract. And it is incorrect to refer to the saying of the Prophet (saw) “fulfill the bay’ah one by one” because this is the case if a pledge is given to Khaleefahs when there exists a Khaleefah, so the pledge is not valid except for the first one whose pledge was contracted, and whoever comes afterwards could not have the pledge contracted to him. The case under discussion is that if the Khilafah is established for two Khaleefahs when the majority of the influential people elected two Khaleefahs at the same time, and the pledge of each of them was contracted legally. So the two contracts are cancelled and the matter must be returned to the Muslims; if they established the pledge for one of them then it is contracted as new, not as a confirmation to his previous case, and if they established it to other than them, then it becomes a contract. Thus the matter is a right to all Muslims not to persons who enter in a race for it. And if two Khaleefahs were established, and the majority of the influential people in the affairs of ruling and Khilafah sided with one of them and it was they who elected him, while the minority was with the other, then the pledge would be for the one who the majority of the influential people in the matters of ruling elected, whether he was elected first, second or third, because he is considered the legal Khaleefah when the majority of the influential people elected him. The others must make a pledge to him for the sake of unity of the Khilafah, otherwise Muslims will fight him because the Khilafah is contracted by the pledge of the majority of the Muslims. He thus becomes a Khaleefah who must be obeyed by all Muslims and it becomes haram to elect another person.
However, the reality of the ruling is that the majority of the influential people, in whose hands lie the affairs of ruling, are usually found in the capital, because that is where the highest affairs of ruling are conducted. So if the residents of a province or provinces elected another Khaleefah and the pledge of the one that is in the capital came first, then the Khilafah is for him because the pledge given by the people of the capital is a linkage which indicates that the majority of the influential people are on his side, and the pledge in this case is for the first. But in the case that the Khaleefah in the provinces was elected first, the preference is given to the one who has the majority of influential people on his side, because the precedence of the people of the provinces in giving the pledge weakens the linkage that the majority of the influential people are present in the capital. In any case, it is not allowed to retain more than one Khaleefah, even if this leads to fighting against the one who did not have the Khilafah contracted to him.
8. Appointment of Successor
The Khilafah is not contracted by appointing a successor or heir, because it is a contract between the Muslims and the Khaleefah. The pledge by the Muslims and the acceptance from the person whom they elect is a condition in the contract of the Khilafah. The appointment of a successor or heir does not suit to include this condition, so the Khilafah is not established with it. Accordingly, the appointment of the next Khaleefah, by the existing Khaleefah, is not included in the Khilafah contract because he does not have the right to contract it, and because the Khilafah is a right of the Muslims, not the Khaleefah, and they contract it to whom they wish. So the appointment of the next Khaleefah or recommending him by the existing Khaleefah is not correct, because he gives something which he does not possess. Giving something which is not possessed by the giver is illegal. So the existing Khaleefah cannot appoint another Khaleefah to succeed him, whether he was his son or relative or a person remote to him, and the Khilafah is not contracted to him at all, because its contract was not carried out by those who have it, thus it is an illegal, uncommissioned contract.
In regard with what was narrated that Abu Bakr appointed ‘Umar, and ‘Umar appointed the six persons from the Sahabah, and that the Sahabah have agreed on that and they did not challenge this action and thus it was an Ijma’a from them; this does not indicate that the appointment of a successor is legal. This is because Abu Bakr did not appoint a Khaleefah, rather, he consulted the Muslims about who might be Khaleefah for them. So he nominated ‘Ali and ‘Umar. Then the Muslims through three months during the life of Abu Bakr, chose ‘Umar by their majority. Then after the death of Abu Bakr, the people came and gave their pledge to ‘Umar, and hence the Khilafah was contracted to ‘Umar. But before the pledge ‘Umar was not a Khaleefah and the Khilafah was not established to him, neither by the nomination of Abu Bakr, nor by the selection of him by the Muslims. It was rather contracted when they gave him their pledge and he accepted it. As for the appointment of the six people by ‘Umar, it was a nomination to them by him upon the request of the Muslims. Then ‘Abdul Rahman ibn ‘Auf consulted the Muslims about whom they wanted from the six people. The majority wanted ‘Ali if he adhered to the practices of Abu Bakr and ‘Umar, otherwise they wanted ‘Uthman. When ‘Ali rejected to adhere to the practices of Abu Bakr and ‘Umar, ‘Abdul Rahman ibn ‘Auf gave the pledge to ‘Uthman and the people gave their pledge. So the Khilafah was contracted to ‘Uthman by the pledge given to him by the people, not by the nomination of ‘Umar or the selection of the people. Had not the people given him their pledge, the Khilafah would not have been contracted to him. Therefore, there must be a pledge by the Muslims to the Khaleefah, and it is not allowed to occur by appointing a successor or a heir, because the bay’ah is a contract of ruling, and the Shari’ah law of contract applies to it.
9. The Way to Appoint a Khaleefah
When the Shari’ah made it obligatory upon the Ummah to appoint a Khaleefah, it defined also the method by which the Khaleefah is appointed. This method is proven by the Qur’an, the Sunnah and the Ijma’a of the Sahabah, which is the bay’ah. So the appointment of the Khaleefah is carried out by the bay’ah to him. Proof that this method is the bay’ah, is confirmed from the bay’ah of the Muslims to the Prophet (saw) and from the order of the Prophet (saw) for us to give bay’ah to the Imam. The bay’ah of the Muslims to the Prophet (saw) was not on his Prophethood, rather it was on ruling, since it was a bay’ah over action and not a bay’ah on belief. So the Prophet (saw) was given the bay’ah in his capacity as a ruler and not as a Prophet and a Messenger. Because the acknowledgement of the Prophethood and the Message is a matter of belief and not a bay’ah, so the bay’ah could only have been for him in his capacity as the head of the State. The bay’ah was mentioned in the Qur’an and the ahadith. Allah (swt) said:
“O Prophet, if the believing women come to give you a bay’ah that they will not associate anything as partners to Allah, not to steal, not to commit adultery, not to kill their children, not to produce any lie that they have devised between their hands and feet, nor disobey you in what is right then accept their bay’ah” [TMQ 60:12]
Allah (swt) also said:
“Lo! Those who give bay’ah to you (Muhammad) they give bay’ah only to Allah. The hand of Allah is above their hands” [TMQ 48:10]
Al-Bukhari reported about ‘Ubada ibn as-Samit, who said: “We pledged ourselves to the Messenger of Allah to listen and obey in whatever pleases and displeases us, and that we should not dispute the authority of those who had been entrusted with it, and to stand for or say the truth wherever we are, fearing no blame of anybody for the sake of Allah.” Al-Bukhari reported about ‘Abdullah ibn Hisham, who witnessed the Prophet (saw), that his mother Zaynab, daughter of Hameed, took him to the Messenger of Allah (saw) and said: “O Messenger of Allah, take his pledge.” The Prophet (saw) said: “He is young” and rubbed (wiped) his head and said du’a for him. Al-Bakhra narrated about Abu Hurairah, who said that the Messenger of Allah (saw) said: “Three persons to whom Allah will not talk on the Resurrection Day, nor purify them, and they have severe punishment are: A person who has an excess of water on the road and prevents the wayfarer of it; and a person who gives bay’ah to an Imam for his worldly affairs only, so if the Imam gave him that which he wants he fulfilled (the bay’ah) to him, otherwise he would not; and a person trading a commodity to another in the late afternoon and he swore by Allah that he was offered so and so for it, although he was not, and the person believed him and bought it.” From these three ahadith it is obvious that the bay’ah is the method of appointing the Khaleefah. The hadith narrated by ‘Ubada states that he gave bay’ah to the Prophet to listen and obey and this is a bay’ah to a ruler. The hadith about ‘Abdullah ibn Hisham states that the Prophet (saw) rejected his bay’ah because he was not mature which indicates that it is a bay’ah on ruling. From the hadith reported by Abu Hurairah it is evident that it is a bay’ah to the Imam. The word ‘Imam’ in the hadith is undefined i.e. any Imam (of the time). There are other ahadith which refer to the bay’ah and the Imam.
It is reported in Muslim that the Prophet (saw) said: “Whoever gave bay’ah to an Imam giving him his handshake(clasp)…”. And in Muslim, Abu Said al-Khudri said that the Prophet (saw) said: “If a bay’ah is given to two Khaleefahs kill the latter of them.” And Muslim narrated that Abu Hazim said: “I accompanied Abu Hurairah for five years and heard him narrate that the Prophet (saw) said: The Prophets ruled over the children of Israel, whenever a prophet died another prophet succeeded him, but there will be no prophet after me. There will be Khulafa’a and they will number many. They asked: What then do you order us?. He said: Fulfill the bay’ah to them one after the other and give them their due. Surely Allah will ask them about what He entrusted them with.”
So the texts from the Book and the Sunnah are clear that the method of appointing the Khaleefah is the bay’ah. All the Sahabah understood this and followed it. So Abu Bakr was given a special bay’ah in the courtyard of Bani Sa’ida, and a public bay’ah in the mosque, then who did not give him the bay’ah in the mosque gave it later on, like ‘Ali ibn Abu Talib. ‘Umar was given a bay’ah from the Muslims. ‘Uthman also was given bay’ah from the Muslims. ‘Ali was given a bay’ah from the Muslims as well. So the bay’ah is the only method to appoint a Khaleefah for the Muslims.
With regard to the practical details to conduct the bay’ah, they are evident in the appointment of the four Khulafa’a who came directly after the death of the Prophet (saw), who are Abu Bakr, ‘Umar, ‘Uthman and ‘Ali. And all of the Sahabah accepted this and confirmed it. If it was against the Shari’ah, they would definitely have denied it because it is related to the most important thing upon which the well-being of Muslims and maintaining the Islamic rule depend. Whoever follows what happened in the appointment of these Khulafa’a will find that some Muslims had debated in the courtyard of Bani Sa’ida; the nominees were Sa’d, Abu ‘Ubayda, ‘Umar and Abu Bakr only, and as a result of the debate Abu Bakr was given the bay’ah. On the next day Muslims were called to the mosque and they gave him their bay’ah. As a result of this bay’ah, Abu Bakr became a Khaleefah for the Muslims. When Abu Bakr felt that his illness was fatal he called upon the Muslims to consult them about who would become the next Khaleefah. The opinion in these consultations focused on ‘Ali and ‘Umar only. He continued in these consultations for three months. When he completed them and knew the majority of the Muslims opinion he announced to them that ‘Umar would be the Khaleefah after him. Immediately after his death Muslims came to the mosque and gave the bay’ah of Khilafah to ‘Umar so he became Khaleefah by this bay’ah from the Muslims and not by the consultations nor by the announcement by Abu Bakr of the results. When ‘Umar was stabbed, the Muslims asked him to appoint a successor for him but he refused. They insisted, so he mentioned six of the Sahabah. Then after his death, the nominees appointed one of them as a representative who was ‘Abdul Rahman ibn ‘Auf. He referred to the opinion of the Muslims and consulted them. Then he declared the bay’ah to ‘Uthman. The Muslims stood up and gave their pledge to ‘Uthman, and thereby he became a Khaleefah by the pledge of the Muslims and not by the announcement of ‘Abdul Rahman. Later on ‘Uthman was killed and the majority of Muslims in Medina and Kufa gave their bay’ah to ‘Ali ibn Abu Talib, so he too became a Khaleefah by the bay’ah of Muslims.
From this it appears that the practical details to conduct the pledge of Khilafah is the debate among Muslims about who is suitable for the Khilafah. Once the opinion settles upon a list of people, their names will be publicised to the Muslims. For the one they choose from amongst them, they are asked to give him their pledge, and the rest of the nominees are also asked to give him their bay’ah as well. So in the courtyard of Bani Sa’ida the debate was about Sa’d, Abu ‘Ubayda, ‘Umar and Abu Bakr, then Abu Bakr was given the bay’ah which was equivalent to their selection. But this selection was not binding for Muslims until his bay’ah was given by the Muslim populace. Abu Bakr discussed with the Muslims about ‘Ali and ‘Umar then he declared the name of ‘Umar, who was then given the bay’ah. ‘Umar suggested the Khaleefah to be from among the six people. After referring to the Muslims ‘Abdul Rahman ibn ‘Auf declared the name of ‘Uthman who was then given the bay’ah. And ‘Ali was given the bay’ah immediately, as the situation was one of riot, and it was known that no nominee was equivalent to him in the opinion of Muslims when ‘Uthman was killed. Thus the matter of bay’ah proceeds after debate to establish suitable candidates, then one of them is elected as a Khaleefah, then the bay’ah is taken for him from the people. Although this matter was evident in the consultations made for Abu Bakr, it is very clear in the case of the bay’ah given to ‘Uthman. Al-Bukhari narrated on the authority of al-Zuhari that Hameed ibn ‘Abdul Rahman had informed him that al-Meswar ibn Mahrama told him that the group appointed by ‘Umar had met and consulted. ” ‘Abdul Rahman ibn ‘Auf had said to them: I am not the one who competes with you for this matter but if you wish I could choose for you one from among you. So they assigned this to ‘Abdul Rahman. When they charged ‘Abdul Rahman with this matter, people turned to him to the extent that I did not see any one who followed this group or stepped behind them. The people turned to ‘Abdul Rahman consulting him in those nights until the night of which we woke up in the morning and gave our pledge to ‘Uthman.” Al-Meswar said: ” ‘Abdul Rahman knocked at my door, after part of the night had passed, until I woke up. He said: I see you sleeping, by Allah, my eyes did not find much sleep tonight. Set forth and call al-Zubair and Sa’d. I invited them to him. He consulted with them. Then he called me and said: Call ‘Ali for me, so I called him. He carried on a whispered conversation with him until the night faded away. Then ‘Ali left him with some expectations, and ‘Abdul Rahman was afraid about something from ‘Ali. Then he said call ‘Uthman for me, so I called him. He carried on whispered conversation with him until they departed as the muazin called for fajr prayer. After he lead the people in the fajr prayer, and the group of six persons met near the minbar (pulpit), he sent for all the Muhajirs and Ansar who were present (in Medina) and sent for the leaders of the army who delivered the pilgrimage that year with ‘Umar. When they met, ‘Abdul Rahman recited the shahadateen and said: O ‘Ali! I viewed the matter of the people and did not see them equalling anyone to ‘Uthman, so do not let anything disturb yourself. And he said (to ‘Uthman): I give you the bay’ah upon the way of Allah, His Messenger and the two Khulafa’a who came after him. So ‘Abdul Rahman, the Muhajirs, the Ansar, the leaders of the army and rest of the Muslims gave him the bay’ah.”
So the nominees for the Khilafah were limited to the group named by ‘Umar after the Muslims had asked him to do so. ‘Abdul Rahman ibn ‘Auf, after he withdrew himself from the nomination to the Khilafah, took the opinion of the Muslims about who would be the Khaleefah. He then announced the name of the person who the Muslims wanted after consulting with them. After he announced the name of the person who the people wanted, the bay’ah was given to him and he became Khaleefah by this bay’ah. Therefore the hukm shari’i concerning the appointment of the Khaleefah is to limit the nominees for the Khilafah by those who represent the opinion of the majority of Muslims. Then their names are displayed to the Muslims and they are asked to select one of the nominees to be Khaleefah for all. Then it is determined whom the majority of the Muslims have chosen, and the bay’ah from all Muslims is taken for him, whether each person had specifically chosen him or not. This is the method because of the Ijma’a of the Sahabah about ‘Umar limiting the nominees for the Khilafah to six specific persons, and the consensus of the Sahabah that ‘Abdul Rahman takes the opinion of all the Muslims about who will be Khaleefah for them, and consensus to give the bay’ah to the one who ‘Abdul Rahman announced as the person elected by Muslims as a Khaleefah is clear when he said: “I viewed the matter of the people and did not see them compare anyone with ‘Uthman.” All of these points clarify the hukm shari’i concerning the appointment of the Khaleefah.
Two issues remain to be examined, one of them is who are the Muslims who appoint the Khaleefah? Are they the influential people or a certain specific number of Muslims? Or do all of the Muslims appoint the Khaleefah? The second issue concerns the actions occurring this century in elections, such as secret ballots, polling boxes and counting votes. Are these matters consistent with Islam, and does Islam allow them or not?
As for the first issue, Allah (swt), has given the authority to the Ummah and made the appointment of the Khaleefah a right and duty for all Muslims; and He did not make it a right of one particular group excluding another, nor for a jama’ah leaving another jama’ah aside, since the bay’ah is a duty upon all the Muslims. The Prophet (saw) said: “Whoever dies without having a pledge upon his neck would die the death of jahilliyah”, and this is general command for every Muslim. Therefore, the influential people do not possess the exclusive right to appoint the Khaleefah and cannot ignore the rest of the Muslims. Nor do specific persons have the exclusive right. Rather, this right is for all the Muslims with no exception, it even includes the fajirs (wicked people) and munafiqeen (hypocrites), providing they are mature Muslims because the Shari’ah text came in a general form in this instance and nothing came to limit it (make it specific to certain people) except the refusal of the pledge from the young who have not yet reached the age of puberty. So the text has to be taken generally.
However, it is not a condition that all Muslims practice this right. Whilst it is a duty, because the bay’ah is fard, it is fard kifayah (collective duty) and not fard ain (individual duty). Thus, if some of the Muslims fulfill it, the duty drops from the rest of the Muslims. But all Muslims must be enabled to practice their right in electing the Khaleefah, regardless of whether they use their right or not. In other words, every Muslim must be able to participate in selecting the Khaleefah. So the issue is to enable the Muslims to carry out the duty of establishing the Khaleefah which Allah (swt) prescribed upon them, in such a way that the sin of not fulfilling this duty is removed from their shoulders. The issue is not the actual participation of all the Muslims in conducting this duty. This is because the duty which Allah (swt) prescribed is to establish the Khaleefah for Muslims by their consent, and it is not a requirement for all Muslims to perform it. Two matters result from this issue. One of them is that the consent of all Muslims in establishment of the Khaleefah is achieved, or secondly, the consent of all the Muslims about the appointment is not achieved, however, in both cases, the Muslims are able to participate in the appointment.
With regard to the first matter no condition is set concerning a specific number required to appoint the Khaleefah, rather any number of Muslims can give their bay’ah to the Khaleefah and in this bay’ah the consent of rest of the Muslims is attained by their silence, or by proceeding to obey him, or by anything which implies their consent, then the appointed Khaleefah becomes a Khaleefah for all the Muslims, and he will be legally the Khaleefah even if only three people appointed him, because collectivity is achieved by carrying out the appointment of the Khaleefah. The consent is achieved by their silence and through obedience or anything similar, on condition that this is accomplished by absolute choice and enabling the expression of opinions fully. However, if the consent of all the Muslims was not achieved, then the appointment of the Khaleefah would not be accomplished unless it was performed by a group that represents the consent of the majority of the Muslims, regardless of the number in this group. From here some jurists concluded that the appointment of the Khaleefah is established by the pledge given to him by the people of influence, because they consider the influential people as the group which achieves the consent of the Muslims through the pledge they give to any man who fulfils the contractual conditions of the Khilafah. Therefore, it is not the pledge of the influential people which establishes the Khaleefah, nor is their pledge a condition for the legality of the appointment of the Khaleefah, rather the pledge of the influential people is an evidence indicating that the consent of the Muslims to the pledge has been achieved, because the influential people are considered as representative of the Muslims. And every evidence which indicates that the consent of the Muslims with the pledge to a Khaleefah is fulfilled completes the appointment of the Khaleefah, and the appointment of the Khaleefah by this pledge would be legal.
Accordingly the divine rule is to establish the Khaleefah by any gathering whose appointment of the Khaleefah achieves the consent of the Muslims by any indication that proves this consent, whether this indication is the pledge of the majority of the influential people, the majority of the representative Muslims, the silent acceptance of the Muslims regarding the group that gave the pledge, their hurry to show obedience as a result of the pledge or by any similar means, as long as they were provided with the full facility to freely express their opinions. It is not a divine rule that this gathering must be of only the influential people nor that they are four or four hundred or more, or that they must be the residents of the capital or the regions. Rather the divine law is that their pledge fulfils the consent of the majority of Muslims by any indication together with enabling them to freely express their opinion fully.
What is meant by all Muslims is those Muslims who live in lands controlled by the Islamic State, i.e. those who are subjects of the former Khaleefah, if the Khilafah exists, or those by whom the Islamic State would be established and the Khilafah contracted, in case the Islamic State was not established. As for the other Muslims, their pledge and consent are not an essential condition, because they are believers disassociated from the Islamic authority or they live in dar al-kufr (land of kufr) and they can not join dar al-Islam, so they have no right in the contracting pledge, but they must give the pledge of obedience because legally those who rebel from the Islamic authority are treated as rebels. And those who live in dar al-kufr, the establishment of the Islamic authority is not achieved by them unless they establish it in reality or they enter into its domain. Therefore, the Muslims who have the right in the pledge of contracting and their consent is considered a condition to ensure the legal appointment of the Khaleefah are those Muslims by whom the authority of Islam is established in reality. It is not true to say that this is a rational study, or to say it has no divine evidence. The reason for this is that it is a study about the subject upon which the divine law applies and not on the law itself, therefore it does not need a divine law but rather must explain its reality. For example, the eating of dead meat is prohibited in the divine law. Verification of what is the dead meat is the subject of the law, it is a subject which is related to the law. So appointing the Khaleefah by Muslims is the divine law, and that this appointment should be by consent and selection is also the divine law. It is these provisions which need the divine evidence. But who are the Muslims by whom the appointment is completed? And what is the matter by which the consent and selection are fulfilled? These are referred to as the manatt (subject) of the law, i.e. the subject upon which the law came to treat. The application of the divine law upon the subject is the achievement of the law. Therefore, it is needed to study the manatt which the divine law came to treat by explaining its reality.
It is incorrect to say that the manatt of the law is the illah (reason) of the law so it would necessarily need a divine evidence. It is incorrect to say that, because the subject of the law is different than the reason of the law. And there is a great difference between illah and manatt (the reason and the subject). Illah is the incentive for the law, i.e. the thing which indicates the intention (aim) of the law giver (Allah) for this law, and this must have a divine evidence which indicates such, so as to understand the aim of the law giver (Allah). Whereas the manatt of the law is the subject for which the law came i.e. the question upon which the law applies, and not its evidence nor its illah. What is meant by its being the subject with which the law is commissioned or entrusted, is that it is the subject with which the law suspends or hangs, i.e. the law was brought to solve it. It does not mean that the law was legalised because of it so as to be called the illah of the law. So the manatt of the law is that which is other than the traditional aspect of the divine law. Its verification is different from the verification of the illah. The verification of the illah is referred to as the comprehension of the text which came justified with the argument, and this is an understanding to the tradition and it is not the manatt. But the manatt is other than the traditions, it is meant to be the reality upon which the divine law is to be applied.
For example, alcohol is haram, the divine law is the prohibition of alcohol. The investigation that a certain drink is alcohol or not, so as to judge it as haram or not is a investigation of the manatt. So it is necessary to study whether the drink is alcohol or not in order to state that it is haram. The investigation of the reality of the alcohol is a verification of the manatt. And if you said that the water allowed to use for wudu is the mutlaq (absolute, unrestricted) water then the divine law is that the mutlaq water is the one which is allowed for wudu. So the investigation that the water is unrestricted or restricted in order to judge upon it as allowed for wudu, is a verification of the manatt. Therefore, it is necessary to study the water to determine if it is free or restricted. This study of the reality of the water is the verification of the manatt. And if you said the person who made hadath (discharged something from back or front) has to make wudu for the prayer, then the verification that the person is mohdath or not mohdath is a verification of the manatt, and so on. Shatebi said in the book Al-Muafaqat: “These subjects and the like which we necessitated to define the manatt must take the evidence about it according to the reality of every incident.” And he further states: “Ijtihad could be connected with the verification of the manatt, and thus it does not require the knowledge of the aims of the law giver (Allah), nor does it require the knowledge of the Arabic language, because the aim of this ijtihad is knowing the subject as it is. So it requires the knowledge of what this subject can’t be recognised without. Therefore the mujtahid has to be knowledgeable and mujtahid from this aspect in order to apply the divine law according to the specific requirement.”
The investigation of the illah is referred to the understanding of the text which came justified (provided with reasoning). And this is an understanding of the traditions, and it is not the manatt, rather the manatt is other than the tradition. And it is meant to be the reality upon which the divine law applies. As an example we observe that alcohol is haram, however, the verification of whether a liquid is alcohol or not is the verification of the manatt. And if you said the mutlaq water is that with which wudu can be performed, then the verification that the water is free or not free is the verification of the manatt. And if you said that the mohdath has to make wudu, then the verification that the person is mohdath or not is the verification of the manatt. Thus the verification of the manatt is the investigation of the thing that is the subject of the law. Accordingly, it is not a condition that the one who verifies the manatt be a mujtahid or a Muslim, but it is enough that he/she be knowledgeable of the matter. So the study of who are the Muslims and whose pledge is evidence of the acceptance or consent for the Khaleefah, is a study about the verification of the manatt.
This is in regard to the first question. As for the second issue, regarding what occurs nowadays in conducting elections by secret ballot, using polling boxes, the count of votes and the like, all these are styles to perform the selection by consent. Therefore, they do not enter under the divine law, nor in the question of manatt of the divine law which is the subject that the divine law came to treat, because this matter is not concerned with direct Muslim deeds or the subject upon which the divine law applies; rather they are the means of the human action to which the divine law came, i.e. the action which the speech of the law-giver (Allah) is related with, which in this instance, is the establishment of the Khaleefah by consent, provided that there is a complete facilitation to enable the expression of opinion for this question. Therefore, these styles and means are not part of what the divine laws are sought for. And they are treated as matters which the general text has permitted, and there is no special evidence to forbid them, so they are mubah. So Muslims have the right to select these or other styles. Any style which leads to enabling the Muslims to carry out the fard of appointing the Khaleefah by consent and selection, Muslims are allowed to use, unless there is a divine evidence which prohibits it.
It is incorrect to say that this style is a human act and should not be conducted except according to the divine law, with an evidence to indicate its rule. It is incorrect to say so, because the human action which must be conducted according to the divine law and which must have an evidence that indicates its law, is only the action which is considered as an origin, or it is a branch of an origin action whose evidence is special, not general. An example for this is the prayer, whose evidence is only related to establishing it, and it does not include every action included in the prayer. Therefore there must be an evidence upon every action in it. But the action which is a branch for an action that a general evidence applies to its origin, then the general evidence applies on all its branches. The prohibition of an action (which is a branch) requires an evidence to prohibit it, and get it out of the rule of its origin and thus give it a new rule, and so are all the styles. In the question of elections, the original action is the appointment of the Khaleefah by consent and selection. But the actions which branch out from that such as polling, using the polling boxes and counting of the votes and the like, they all enter under the rule of the origin, and do not require another evidence. To exclude any of them from the rule of the origin, i.e. to prohibit it, is a matter which requires an evidence. This is the case for all the styles which are human actions. Concerning the means which are tools like the box in which the voting papers are put, these take the rule of things and not the rule for actions, upon which applies the principle “Originally things are permitted unless there exists an evidence of prohibition.”
The difference between method and style is that method is an action which is considered by itself as an origin, or a branch to an action that does not have a general evidence for its origin, rather, its evidence is special. The style is an action which is a branch to an action upon which there is no general evidence. Thence, the method must depend upon a divine evidence because it is a divine rule, therefore it must be adhered to, observed, and closely followed. And Muslims have no choice concerning it unless its rule is ibaha (permissible). This is different from the style which does not depend on a divine evidence, rather it is included in the rule of its origin. Therefore, it is not obligatory to follow a particular style even if the Prophet (saw) did so. Rather a Muslim is allowed to use any style as long as it leads to the performance of the action, and thus it becomes a branch to the action. Therefore, it is said that the style is defined by the kind of action.
10. Deposition of the Khaleefah
A Khaleefah is deposed immediately if his personal situation has changed in a way that necessitates his removal; alternatively the Khaleefah must be deposed in certain situations where he is not allowed legally to continue as a Khaleefah. The difference between the two situations is that in the first case which removes him from the position of Khaleefah, allegiance to him is not obligatory the moment the incident has occurred. But in the second case in which he necessarily has to be deposed, obedience to him remains obligatory until his deposition is completed. There are three matters which effectively change his situation and would remove him from the position of Khaleefah according to the first criteria above:
Firstly: If he left Islam and insisted on apostasy.
Secondly: If he became totally insane and did not regain his sanity.
Thirdly: If he became captive in the hands of an overpowering enemy, and can’t escape from them, and his rescue from captivity is impossible.
In these three cases he is removed as Khaleefah and is deposed at once, even if no decision was announced to depose him, so his obedience is not obligatory, and his orders are not executed by those who have evidence of the presence of any one of the above cases. But it must be proved that any of these cases did occur to him, and this proof should be in front of the mathalim court, which decides to remove the Khaleefah and judges on his deposition so that the Muslims can appoint another Khaleefah.
What changes his situation in a way that does not immediately remove him from the Khilafah, but he cannot remain as a Khaleefah, are five matters:
Firstly: His justice was challenged, by becoming openly fasiq.
Secondly: He changed to a female or became bisexual.
Thirdly: He became insane, but not entirely, so he regains his sanity sometimes and madness at other times. In this case no guardian or deputy can be appointed for him, because the contract of the Khilafh falls to him personally, and it is not allowed, in this case, for another person to act as deputy to him.
Fourthly: Incompetence to accomplish the duties of the Khilafah for any reason, whether a loss of a part of his body, or an incurable disease that prevents him from performing the deeds. The crucial point is that due to his incompetence to perform the deeds as a Khaleefah, the affairs of the deen and the interests of the Muslims are neglected. This is munkar that must be removed, and it cannot be removed except by disposing the Khaleefah inorder to facilitate establishing a Khaleefah other than him. So deposing him in this case becomes a wajib.
Fifthly: Overpowering that renders him incompetent to run the affairs of Muslims by his opinion according to Shari’ah. If an overpowering force subjected him to the extent that he became unable to run the affairs of the Muslims by his own opinion according to the rules of Shari’ah, then he becomes legally incompetent to carry out the duties of the Khilafah, so he must be deposed. This matter could be conceived in two cases.
In the first case, one or more members of his court overpowered or controlled him, so they proceed independently in implementing the matters and compel him to act by their opinion, such that he becomes unable to disagree with them, and is compelled to proceed according to their opinion. In this case, it is examined; if it is likely to save himself of their influence within a short period of time then he is given this short period to remove them and rid himself of them. If he did that then the objection disappears and the incompetence is removed. Otherwise he must be deposed.
The second case, he becomes in a situation of captivity by falling under the control of an enemy and under his influence, who directs him as he likes and deprives him of his will in running the affairs of Muslims. In this case, it is examined; if it is possible to dissociate himself from falling under their control within a short period of time, then he is given this short period. If it was possible to separate himself of them, and he managed to salvage himself of the enemy’s control, then the objection disappears and the incompetence is removed. Otherwise he must be deposed.
In these five cases the Khaleefah must be deposed once anyone of them occurs. But their occurrence needs a proof which should be decided in front of the court of mathalim. So it judges the cancellation of the Khilafah contract and deposes the Khaleefah, inorder that Muslims contract the Khilafah for another person within three days.
11. The Khilafah System is a Distinguished System
This subject of Khilafah is a political study. It is a discussion about the highest post of ruling, and of course, a study of its thoughts. It would be a great error for the non-Muslim reader to assess the truthfulness of the thoughts presented in this book against anything other than the reality. Similarly, Muslims should only judge in accordance with the Book of Allah (swt) and the Sunnah of the Prophet (saw). This is the case because the correctness of the thought is not judged by another thought unless it is a branch of that throught. Rather, it is judged according to its agreement with reality, or its agreement with its origin which is proven to agree with reality. Therefore, we warn the reader of the necessity to read these thoughts with accuracy and awareness of the reality which they express. So while the ruling crisis in the Islamic world is apparent, and the crisis in ruling in many other parts of the world is noticeable, it is worth understanding the ruling thoughts so as to realise through contemplating that he arrived at the solution of the ruling crises in the world and the best solution for the ruling of human beings and caring for their affairs. To find the sound solution for ruling the people, thought must be directed in a way to limit the criterion for assessment to the agreement with reality or the agreement of the divine rules to them.
It is wrong to make democracy as a standard for the correctness of the thoughts, or to be influenced by its concepts. Since democracy has spread in the world to the extent that its name prevailed over all popularised nations as an ideal; the oriental countries began adopting it after the Western countries adopted it, despite the difference in its meaning. Muslims as a whole have been affected by it with no difference between those who believe that the Khilafah is established by Muslims or those who believe that Allah (swt) and His Prophet (saw) have assigned the Khaleefah. Both parties reconcile their opinions to the people in the name of democracy or in the name of some of its thoughts. Therefore, we repeat the warning not to take, while studying these thoughts, any other thoughts as a criterion, particularly the thoughts of democracy. For example, some of those who study ruling, have noticed some forms of the governments in the countries familiar to them, and read about other forms of government historically. And by logical assumptions they write about the forms of governments and say: if the government was entrusted by all the people or the majority of them, then this form of government is called ‘democracy’. And if the government was restricted to the hands of a few people, then this form of ruling is called ‘autocracy’. But if the ruling was delegated to one ruler from whom all others take their authorities, then this form of ruling is called ‘royalty’ or ‘monarchy’. They mean by ruling both authority and legislation. Upon these bases all the various ruling forms were rebuilt. From this, the types of states and unions among states stemmed. It derived from this also the types of government, elections, the right of voting, and the like.
These thoughts are different from the Islamic thoughts of ruling both wholly and in detail. The difference between them is great, because the ruling system in Islam is the Khilafah system. It is a model completely distinguished from any other ruling style. The Shari’ah that is applied in founding the ruling, in caring for the citizens affairs, and in the external affairs is from Allah (swt). It is not from the people, nor from a few people or from any individual. Every person who embraces Islam has the right to understand this Shari’ah the way that his knowledge of the Arabic language and the Shari’ah texts achieves. And he has the absolute right, within the limits of the Arabic language and the Shari’ah texts, to understand what his mind brings him to and his opinion becomes a Shari’ah verdict on him and upon anyone who accepts his understanding of the Shari’ah verdict and adopts it. He has the right to govern the people according to it if he was a ruler or a judge. But if the Khaleefah, who is the head of the Islamic state, adopted any Islamic opinion, then the opinion that the Khaleefah adopts alone becomes the law, and it becomes a duty upon all the citizens to live according to the adopted opinion, although this does not mean they have to leave their opinions. Rather, they must legally work within the law, i.e. the opinion which the Khaleefah has adopted, and to submit to it alone. But they are not prevented from educating the people with their opinions and inviting to Islam according to them. People are left free to think in Islam according to the basis upon which Islam is established, that is the Islamic ‘aqeeda (creed). So they have the right to think regarding legislation and other matters provided that everything emanates from the ‘aqeeda.
This is in regard to the legislative and intellectual aspect. But with regard to ruling, it differs from legislation. It means the sultan (authority) and not the ruling system, because the ruling system is of the legislation, it is from the divine rules. And the authority has been assigned by the Shari’ah to the whole of the Muslims, i.e. the Ummah, to everybody of the Ummah, male or female. So every Muslim has the right in the authority, and has the right to practice this right whenever it is required. By this right in the authority which the Ummah possesses, she establishes upon her one man to implement the Shari’ah of Allah, and gives him the pledge upon the Book and the Sunnah by a pledge of consent and selection from him and from her. The resulting contract of Khilafah between him and her, is not a hiring contract. Because it is a contract to implement the Shari’ah, not a contract to serve and benefit her, although the implementation of the Shari’ah is for her service and interest since it is a mercy for her and mankind. But it should be noticed that in the action, upon which the Khilafah contract is concluded, that what matters is the implementation of the Shari’ah and not the benefit of the Ummah. If her immediate benefit disagreed with the Shari’ah then the Shari’ah alone has to be implemented. Therefore, if she demanded to leave a divine rule, the Khaleefah obliges her to do it. And if she left the Shari’ah he is obliged to fight her till she returns to it, as he was established only to implement the Shari’ah. The Ummah has also no right to depose the Khaleefah as she desires, rather she has the right to depose him in certain cases, and he is deposed by himself and removed from the Khilafah in particular cases. He can be fought against in one case only, that is if he were to apply anything other than Islam. So his matter is not within the hands of the Ummah though she herself has established him, rather this matter is in the hands of the Shari’ah.
But the authority, which is a right to the Ummah, does not end by appointing the Khaleefah but the authority remains with her, and its aspect in the case of the existence of the Khaleefah is by taking him to task on his actions in applying the Shari’ah and in caring for her affairs, by the styles she decides within the limits of the Shari’ah law. He must submit to her accounting, and to clarify for her the situation which she might complain of and question him about. Even if she raised the arms against him because of that, he is not allowed to fight her till he clarifies any suspicion she holds and what he considers to be the truth.
This is the ruling in Islam, and upon this basis the ruling system is built. It does not lead to any types of states, rather it is itself one form. It is a system of unity not a system of union. It makes it a duty to struggle to preserve the unity system and to demolish the union system. It does not have types of governments, in fact it has no governments. The state and the government are one body, which is the Khaleefah and his mu’awin (assistants). As to what branches from this system regarding the method of appointing the Khaleefah, the necessity to guarantee the consent and selection for every Muslim in electing the Khaleefah and giving a pledge to him, and facilitating for the Ummah on an individual basis, this consent and selection, all these matters came through divine rules specific to the subject of Khilafah and general in every contract, including the contract of Khilafah. Though Khilafah system may appear similar to the democratic system with regard to the freedom of elections, voting, and to voice some opinions, it is incorrect to consider the two systems as similar because in the democratic system, these matters result from the liberties, whilst in Islam they result from the conditions of the Khilafah contract and every contract, i.e. the consent and selection, which if not fulfilled in the Khilafah contract, the contract would be illegal, and the Khaleefah would not then be legal.
The difference between guaranteeing the freedom in elections and securing the consent and selection in the contract is that the freedom is the decision of the people. So if it was not achieved it would not affect the legality of the contract. But securing the consent and the selection is the rule of the contract not the law of the people. So if it was not achieved the contract would be illegal and not concluded. Similarly, all the thoughts of Islam differ from the thoughts of democracy. They are at the same time different from aristocracy, monarchy, and off course the concept of empire. So if the thoughts of Islam are studied, they have to be studied in their capacity as a ruling system distinguished from any other system, and with regard to their agreement with the reality of the ruling, but not any ruling, rather the reality of a particular ruling, that is the ruling with which man governs mankind practically, and according to the highest level of exalted values, or with regard to the divine evidences from which these ruling thoughts have been deduced.
Upon this basis we demand the reader to study this subject as a study of a ruling system that is completely distinguished from other systems; without adopting any criterion for the correctness of these thoughts except their agreement with the reality of the system which was the most exalted compared to any other ruling system mankind has been ruled with, or their agreement with the basis from which they emanated, which is the Book of Allah (swt) and the Sunnah of the Messenger of Allah (saw).
Allah (swt), the Supreme Lord and Sovereign over the universe sent the Messenger Muhammad (saw) to mankind as the final messenger in order to make Islam dominant all over the Earth (Izhar ul deen) providing man with a complete way of life(deen) to deal with every eventuality from his (saw’s) death until the day of judgement. The Messenger Muhammad (saw) left for us the Quran and his Sunnah as the only reference to deal with all our relationships whether with Allah (swt), with ourselves, with other humans or with animals or objects. Islam has a unique belief (Aqueedah) upon which are based all the divine rules whether dealing with the ritual, personal, economic, social, judicial or ruling systems or the foreign policy of the Islamic state. Allah (swt) has obliged us to submit to, to follow and to obey all his commands and to leave all his prohibitions saying that no matter how small or subtle the action he (swt) will account us for it on the day of judgement [99:7-8]. He (swt) obliged us to rule by His (swt’s) commands exclusively [5:45-49] and not to obey any man-made law [33:1]. The ruling system of Islam i.e. Al Khilafah has been absent from the lives of Muslims since the destruction of the Othmani Khilafah on 3rd March 1924. It is an obligation upon all Muslims to work to establish the Islamic authority wherever they may be. It is the vital issue affecting our Ummah today. We intend to set out below an introduction to the ruling system of Islam with its evidences (Inshallah).
1. Waqi ul Hukm – The reality of ruling: this involves the study of the following:
a) Al Hukm – The Supremacy
b) Al Qadha – The Judiciary
c) Al Raa’ie – The Ruler
d) Al Raa’iyyah – The Subjects
2. Qawaa’ied Nizaam Al Hukm – The basis of the ruling system: This involves the study of the following:
a) Al Haakimiyyah – The Legislator
b) Al Siyaada – The Sovereignty
c) Al Sultaan – The Authority
d) Al Wihda – The Unity
e) Al Qaraar – The Decision
f) Al Anzimah – The Ruling Systems
g) Al Mahaam – The Functions of the Ruling System
3. Haykel Nizam Al Hukm – The structure of the ruling system: This involves the study of the following:
a) Al Khilaafah
b) Al Khalifah
c) Al Mu’awenoon – Assistants
d) Al Wulaat – Governors
e) Al Qudhaat – Judges
f) Al Jiesh- Army
g) Al Dawaa’er ul Sultaniyyah – Government Departments
h) Majlis ul Ra’ieyyah – Citizens Council
i) Al Azaab ul Siyasiyyah – The Political Parties
j) Majlis Al Shura – Consultative Department
1. Waqi ul Hukm – The reality of ruling
a) Al Hukm – The Supremacy
b) Al Qadha – The Judiciary
In order to understand the reality of ruling we must distinguish between Al Haakim and
Al Qadhee, Al Hukm and Al Qadha and between Al Tahakum and Al Takadhee.
Al Haakim refers to the one who has power to legislate (Al Musharee) i.e. only Allah (swt) although it also means the one who implements legislation (Al Munafez)and can therefore refer, in addition, to the Messenger Muhammad (saw), Omar Bin Al Khattab (ra) or any present rulers or kings e.g. King Fahd. However the only one who has power to execute or to implement legislation is the Khalifah.
Al Qadhee can also mean Al Musharee. However it also refers to the extractor of a divine verdict (Al Mustanbit) or the one who informs us about a divine verdict (Al Mukhbir).
Al Hukm is the legislation (Al Tashree’) which is the right of Allah (swt) alone although it also means implementation of the legislation (Al Tanfeez) which is the sole right of the Khalifah.
Al Qadha can also mean Al Tashree’. However it also refers to the one who announces a divine verdict (Al Ikhbar).
Al Tahakum means to legislate for you (An Youshariah laka) which is the sole right of
Allah (swt) although it also refers to the one who implements legislation on your behalf and returns to you your right (An Youqarirah Al Haqu laka) this being the exclusive role of the Khalifah.
Al Taqadhee can also mean An Youshariah laka. However in addition it means to decide for you your right (An Younafidha wa Yarouda Al Haqu laka).
NB: Muslims living in Dar ul Kufr (the whole world today) should realise that they are therefore prohibited from going to court for Al Tahakum i.e. to have a judge implement legislastion on their behalf and return to them their right since this is the sole responsibility of the head of the Islamic state i.e. the Khalifah (who may delegate it to one of his judges). As far as attending a kufr court for
Al Taqadhee is concerned Muslims are limited to merely asking for their rights as individuals and even so they should be weary of any legislation by the judge, for example if I were seeking the return of my stolen car, if the judge decided “here is your car plus £3,000 compensation” the latter part of his judgement would be legislation and prohibted in Islam. The evidence to allow Muslims to seek protection of their rights as individuals is the consent of the Messenger Muhammad (saw) to the sahaba allowing them to seek their rights as individuals from the kufr courts of the Quraish.It therefore follows that it is defintely haram to be a judge in any country not implementing Islam. Advocates working in such courts should be vigilant of cases they carry from clients wanting to have the court legislate for them.
c) Al Raa’ie – means ruler, guardian, shepherd, leader, Imam, Amir, Khalifah, president or head of state i.e. the responsible.
d) Al Raa’iyyah – means Subjects, flock, subjects or citizens i.e. the area of responsibility.
NB: the above terms emanates from the verb Ra’aa
Ra’aa In the Arabic language means:
Ihtamma – concern
Zajara – discipline
Kaffa – depend
Hafaza – protect
Hakama – rule
Raqaba – observe
Tawalla – responsibility
Dabbara – organise
Adaara – manage
Ra’aa is the verb and the one who does it is termed raa’in. The Messenger Muhammad (saw) said that “Every Muslim is Raa’in “i.e. has responsibility to be concerned, disciplined etc. and each one of us is a statesman, caring, being concerned etc. accepting responsibility Tawalla be it as a mother or a father etc..
In the Arabic language the word Raa’in therefore means:
Al Muhtamm – concerned
Al Zaajer – disciplined
Al Kaafi – defender
Al Haafeez – protector
Al Haakem – ruler
Al Muraaqib – observer
Al Waali – responsible
Al Mudaber – organiser
Al Mudeer – manager
Responsibility Raa’iyyah can be divided into two, either:
i) Raa’iyyah Khassa : Specific responsibility
ii) Raa’iyyah Ammah : General responsibility
i) Raa’iyyah Khassa – Specific responsibility. The one who has this is termed Raa’in Khaas for example a head teacher, mother, father or an Amir of a Jammah. There are two ways in which the area of responsibility can be established, either through a pledge Al Bayah or an oath Al Qassam. The one with authority protects, observes, organises etc. whilst the others are protected, defended and so on (see above). The fuqaha say that Al Qassam can manifest itself in four ways:
Al Tawkeed – i.e. confirmation or affirmation
Al Aqd – i.e. a contract or agreement
Al Waa’id – i.e. a promise
Al Ilzaam – i.e. a commitment
NB: For example the members of Ikhwan ul Muslimeen give bayah whilst those of Hizb ut Tahrir have Al Tawqeed to their leader and party.
ii) Raa’iyyah Ammah – General responsibility. The one who has this is termed Raa’in A’am or the head of the Islamic state. The titles for the head of state are many and include the following:
Al Waali – i.e. the Guardian of the Muslims.
Al Maalik – i.e. the one having charge over all the people and people also use Al Mulk meaning monarchy (NB Al Milk means posession in Arabic). Hence Nizam ul Maliki is a kingdom.
Al Sultan – i.e. the one having authority. Al Sultana is synonymous with Mulk meaning to take posession and these two (Al Maalik and Al Sultan) are therefore not really appropriate as titles for the head of state since he is given authority by the Muslims.
Al Imam is also used for the head of state however it has sectarian implications, the Shia preferring Imam and the Sunnis Khalifah. Imama is also used for the twelve Imams of the Shia and the one leading the prayer hence it is not the most suitable title for the head of state. Moreover there is no Ijma al Sahaba for its use although Islamically it can mean Khalifah.
Al Khalifah was the first title given for the head of state after the death of the Messenger Muhammad (saw) (who only had two titles i.e. Nabi or Rasoul) It is narrated in Al Ahkam al Sultaniyyah by Abu Yalah at page 27 and in Muqadimah by Ibnu Khaldoun that “A man came to Abu Bakr Siddiq (ra) after his appointment and said “Ya Khalifat ul Allah” and he (ra) replied “I am not Khalifat ul Allah but Khalifah of Rasoul Allah” and no one disagreed i.e. there is Ijma al Sahaba on this title.
Al Ameer – In Al Ahkam al Sultaniyyah by Imam Mawardi at page 15 he said someone came to Omar Bin Al Khattab (ra) and said “Oh the Khalifah of the Khalifah of Rasoul Allah” and he (ra) said “This is too much, it will be too difficult in the future”. NB: This hadith is mawqouf and there is no Ijma Al Sahaba on it.
Imam Mawardi continues “…and Jabir narrated “A man stood in the mosque in front of all of the Sahaba and said “Ya Khalifat ul Allah” to which Omar (ra) said “Allah will divert you from his mercy for this saying” and the man said “may Allah make me your sacrifice” and he (ra) said “and he will humiliate you” the man continued “how should I address you?” Omar (ra) replied “you are the believers and I am your Ameer so call me this” (there is Ijma al Sahaba on this).
Omar Bin Al Aas said “I entered to Al Farooq and said “two men outside have asked for permission to meet Ameer ul Momineen, where did you get this title?” when they were leaving
Omar (ra) asked them about the title and adopted it for the people” (there is Ijma al Sahaba on this).
Al Ameer, Al Imam and Al Khalifah have been the most popular names for the head of state throughout its history in fact Al Ma’moun was called all three. Of all the titles we can see that Al Khalifah is the most appropriate since it is not used for other purposes and does not therefore imply any other meaning apart from the head of state.
2. Qawaa’ied Nizaam Al Hukm – The basis of the ruling system
a) Al Hakimiyyah Lillah – Supremacy is for Allah
b) Al Siyaadah Lil Shari – Sovereignty is for the Shariah
c) Al Sultan Lil Ummah – Authority is for the Muslims
d) Al Wihdah – The Unity concerning (i) Al-Khilafah The Islamic State and (ii) Al-Khalifah The Legitimate Ruler
e) Al Qaraar – The Decision
We will discuss the above in relation to how they are perceived by the following movements:
HT-Hizb Ut Tahrir
I.T.S.- Islamic Thinkers Society
J-The Jihadi movements
a) Al Hakimiyyah Lillah
S-Sheikh Abdul Hamid Mutawali in his book Mubadi Nizam Al Hukm Fil Islam said it is ” the unrestricted highest authority which has the power of legislation and commanding and accounting which belongs only to Allah(swt)” This is good but it is not a very accurate definition.
IM-Say that it is concerning Allah who is the Creator and the Accounter (but Sovereignty is for man).This can be attributed to Hasan Al Banna for example.
HT-Sheikh Taqi Uddin An Nabhani said that this is an Aqeedah matter and is not therefore part of the ruling system.
J-Have the same understanding as the Salafis.
HD-Have the same understanding as the Salafis.
I.T.S. -Have the same understanding as the Salafis.We cant leave this issue as part of our Aqeedah since it becomes necessary for us to discuss for whom the supremacy is in the ruling system.Hence we say sovereignty is for the Shariah but supremacy is for Allah because it is man who implements the Shariah. In other words Al Hakimiyyah is the root and one of its branches is Siyaadah which is to do with man i.e.it is for man to ensure sovereignty is given to the Shariah.
b) Al Siyaadah Lil Shari
S-Sovereignty is for the Rulers and the Scholars.
HD-Sovereignty is for the Imams.
I.T.S. & HT-Sovereignty is for the Shariah. Sheikh Taqi used Siyaadah instead of Riyasa (unlike for example Ibn Kaldoun and Imam Kalkashandi ) in order to distinguish between the reality and the administration of the ruling system.
IM-Sovereignty is for the People.They say that the Shariah puts the commandments and man legislates i.e. There is Hakimiyyah in Heaven and we(man) have it on Earth in the ‘Spirit of Islam’. Hence they classify Sudan as an Islamic State.Sayed Qutb would have rejected this for he said ” how can it be (an Islamic State) when everything around is jahiliyyah”
J-They ignores the issue of Sovereignty and only say ‘Supremacy is for Allah’ and whoever disagrees is a Kafir and will be killed! They do not distinguish here between belief and actions.
c) Al Sultan lil Ummah
IM-Authority is for the People.
I.T.S. & HT-Authority is for the Ummah.
Sheikh Taqi found that the classical scholars agreed that the Khalifah becomes Khalifah by allegience(bayah) and that he must be obeyed(Al Ta’ah)as long as he implements the Shariah and accounted(Al Muhasabah) if he deviates and that there will always be consultation(Shura).He found that the issue of Sultan was always connected with the Khalifah and Bayah.From this Sheikh Taqi adopted authority is for the Ummah.
HD-Authority is for the Imams(Ahl Al Bait) but there will be Wilayat Al Fakih in the absence of an Imam.
J-Authority is for the Amir of Jihad.
d) Al Wihdah
This is based on two principles:
First that there cannot be two Khalifas at any one time. The principle of Imara is that if there are three among you for a task then appoint an ameer. It is reported in Sahih Muslim upon the authority of Abu Sayed Al Qudri that the Messenger Muhammad (saw) said “If the bayah has been given to one person and another person comes kill that other person”.
No one differs with this principle. However someone once asked Ibnu Taymiyah about the situation if the Ummah were so spread out that one part did not know of an appointment in another part.
NB: This would not be possible today due to the advancement in communications.
Second that the Imam must be obeyed. It is reported in Bukhari, Muslim, Abu Daoud, Al Nisai and Ibnu Majah upon the authority of Abu Hurairah that the Messenger Muhammad (saw) said “Whoever obeyed me he obeyed Allah, whoever disobeyed me he disobeyed Allah, whoever obeyed the ameer he obeyed me and whoever disobeyed him he disobeyed me.”
I.T.S. & HT – agree on the above principles.
HD – believe in Imams.
S&J – also believe in having one ameer, leader or state.
IM – say that unity is impossible since the world is too large.
e) Al Qaraar
Only the Khalifah has the right to adopt divine laws i.e. Haq al Qaraar
The duties of the Khalifah
The Khalifah has five duties which he must fulfil for us to regard him as the Khalifah:
1) Hifz al Deen – Protection of the Deen. The Messenger Muhammad (saw) said “Whoever changes his deen kill him.”
2) Riyayat ul Sho’oun – Looking after the interests and managing the affairs of the people by Islam. Allah (swt) says “Rule between them by what Allah has revealed” [EMQ 5:49].
3) Rafi al Tanazu’ or Fasal al Takhasum – Removing disputes and establishing justice. Allah (swt) says “And if you rule between them rule with justice” [EMQ 4:58]
4) Hifz al Dowlah wa al Ummah – Protection of the state and the Ummah by Jihad. Allah (swt) says “Prepare yourselves to protect yourselves and the Ummah” [EMQ 8:60]
5) Hamel al Dawah Izhar ul Deen – To carry Islam to the whole world. Allah (swt) says “It is he who hath sent his Messenger with guidance and the deen of truth for it to be dominant over all other deens.” [EMQ 9:33].
In addition the Messenger Muhammad (saw) said ” Jihad will continue until the day of judgement” and it is narrated by Bukhari that the Messenger Muhammad (saw)said “I will fight them until the deen is dominant over the whole world”.
The Titles of the Islamic State – Al Qaab al Dowlah al Islamiyyah
The fuqaha differ on the Khilafah as to whether it is:
(i) Manssab Deeni – a theocratical power i.e. a religious post
(ii) Manssab Siyasi – a political power i.e. a worldly post
(iii) Manssab Deeni Wa Al Siyasi – this is a theocratical and political power
No scholar diagrees that the Khilafah is the manifestation of the Shariah but which one of the above is it? We differ with all three but we need to define the Khilafah so that we can recognise it when it is established.
Manssab Deeni- Deeni means by text i.e. no one can have a say concerning it, Allah will appoint him. Some people argue (i.e.the sh’ia) that the Khalifah is a divine appointment and if this is so we must just wait for the Mahdi and in the meantime we can have Imarah with this in mind (i.e.Wilayat al fakih). This is incorrect as there were 4 candidates for the position of Khalifah after the Messenger Muhammad(saw)’s death and they disagreed on who should be Khalifah. There is Ijma Al Sahabah on this issue and the Sahabah would never have disagreed on something if it were decided by Allah(swt).
Manssab Siyasi-Other people say that appointing a Khalifah is merely a matter of politics and the people will choose him and he will have sovereignty.This is clearly incorrect since it is known by necessity that sovereignty belongs to none but Allah(swt).
Manssab Deeni Wa Al Siyasi- Others say both together i.e the people will appoint an Imam. However, even this is incorrect since it is not Jami ‘ and Maani’ i.e. comprehensive and restrictive. In addition, the terminology is wrong.
The Khalifah has been defined by the classical scholars as “The highest and general leadership for the Ummah to implement Islam and to carry it to the world” e.g. by Imam Kalkashandi (7th C.H.) (see below for more details)
The titles of the Islamic state always emanate from the title of the head of state:
1 Al Khilafah
2 Al Imarah al A’mmah
3 Al Imam al Kubra al U’zzma
4 Al Sulttana al U’lya
5 Al Mamlakah al Zaahirah
6 Al Qiyaadat ul U’lya
7 Baidhat al Islam
8 Al Dawolah al A’aliyyah
9 Al Hukumat al Islamiyyah
10 Al Ri’asa al A’ammah
11 Al Wilaayat al A’ammah
1. Al Khilafah: The names and titles of the Islamic State are many, found in various books. We use Khilafah but others could be attributes of the state.
NB:The Khalifah linguistically is the one who comes after.
The Khilafah is an authoratative body. Khilafah is powerful because it means to takeover what was before.Hence there must have been an Islamic State previously thus destroying, through its use, the orientalist argument that the Khilafah never existed after the first four Khaleefs.
2. Al Imaara al A’ammah: This emantes from Amir but remember this Amirship is general and not specific (i.e.it is not Imaara Khassa e.g. the Imaara of the mother or that of the Amir of a group).
3. Al Imam al Kubrah al U’zzma: This is used by the Shi’a, they say for example, that Khomeni is Sugra for Salat and Kubrah for punishment.
4. Al Saltanna al U’llya: This means the highest authority, from the word Sultan (from Bani Umayah because someone from among them was called Sultan) and as this means the highest authority it implies a lower power below it.U’lya means over the earth.
NB. The titles manifest how Muslims used to see themselves.
5. Al Mamlakah al Zaahirah: Mamlakah comes from the word kingdom and Zaahirah means something which is forever expanding or growing.
6. Al Qiyaadat ul U’llya: This means the highest leadership.
7. Baidhat Al Islam: This means, linguistically, the root or egg of Islam. If you want to destroy something, you go to the root or basis. Hence Khilafah is the protection for the Muslims. It was used by Imam Mawardi, the late Sheikh Taqi Uddin An Nabhani and all the time during the Khalifah Rashidah but when the state was destroyed the Muslims stopped using it.
8. Al Dawolah Al A’aliyyah: The highest state. This was used during the Uthmani Khilafah.
9. Al Hukumat Ul-Islamiyyah: This means the Islamic Government. It was used in Arab countries.
10. Al Ri’asa Al A’ammah
Ra’ise is the President therefore Al Ri’asa al A’ammah means presidential power.
11. Al Wilayat Al A’ammah: This means responsibility for the welfare of everyone.
NB.Al Khilafah Rashidah emanates from the word Rashada which means ‘competent to make decisions’. Ar Rashadah means a firm rock. Rashida is the highest level of implementation and implies unchangeability.
The Definition of Sovereignty-Al Siyaadah
The definition of Al-Siyaadah is ‘the absolute highest authority which has the right to pass laws, to judge things and actions’
‘Things’ means it has authority to say this is halal or haram
‘Laws’ means it can say you must stop at traffic lights i.e. it can adopt legislation.
The Source of sovereignty- Mazdar al Siyaadah
There are four opinions prevalent among the Muslims nowadays:
(i) Sovereignty is for the people Al Siyaadah lil Sha’ib
Islamists who came later changed the terminology to Sovereignty for the Ummah Al Siyaadah lil Ummah e.g. Hassan al Banna
(ii) Sovereignty is for the State Al Siyaadah lil Dawlah
Islamisation-Sovereignty for the Khalifah Al Siyaadah lil Imaam eg used by some Hanafi’s
(iii) Sovereignty is for the people and the law Al Siyaadah lil shaib wa al qanoon
Islamisation-Sovereignty for the Shar’iah and the Ummah Al Siyaadah lil Shari wa al Ummah
(iv) Sovereignty is for the law Al Siyaadah lil qanoon
Islamisation-Sovereignty for the Shar’iah Al Siyaadah lil Shari’
(i) Sovereignty is for the people Al Siyaadah lil Sha’ib
This is how it is known among secular people. Sha’ib are people who live together – the bond is the food, clothes, land, language etc.Whereas Ummah is different because it means peoples bonded by the same belief. Sayed Qutb and Hasan Al Banna adopted this definition.
Some examples of its use:
The Egyptian Constitution – Article 2 “Sovereignty is for the people only” i.e. Al Siyadah lil Sha’ib Muttlaqah.
The Jordanian Constitution – Article 24 “The Ummah is the source of legislation and sovereignty”.
The Pakistani Constitution – Article 3 “Sovereignty is for the Muslims”.
The Kuwaiti Constitution – Article 6 “Sovereignty is for the Ummah and it is the source of legislation.”
The Moroccan Constitution – Article 2 “Sovereignty is for the Ummah”.
The Tunisian Constitution – Article 3 “The Tunisian people are the source of sovereignty”.
The Syrian Constitution – Article 2 “Sovereignty is for the people”.
The Iranian Constitution – Chapter 2 “Sovereignty is for the Imam”.
And from the scholars the ones who adopted this were:
Sheikh Ali Abdul Rasiq – he published “Islam and the Foundation of Ruling” and in it he said “There is nothing called the Islamic State. It was a tribal system in the Prophet’s time, he was a man of deen not dunya”.This book was published in Britain and is translated into French.
Sayed Sabiq – In his book “The pillar of power in Islam – Al Nasir al Quwa fil Islam”at page199 he said “Abraham Lincoln said: ‘the rule by the people for the people is a symbol of democracy which the whole world cries for’ and in Islam Al Shura (consultation) is the brain and seed of (i.e.the Lubb of) democracy and its root. The Muslims were the first people ever to say the people are the source of legislation…whatever Abraham Lincoln said is exactly what Islam says”.
Sheikh Al-Islam (i.e. he had authority to give Fatawa) Mustapha Sabri – (he was arrested in 1924 and went to Egypt).He was the last one in history i.e. in the last Khilafah. In his book “Mawoqif Al-A’qel Wa Al – Ilm Wa Al-A’aalam – The stance of mind, rationality, science and the world” (of 4 volumes), in the first volume he said:”I call upon the Ulemah of the world to become the messengers of Islamic democracy and to stand together preaching it to pursuade Muslims to settle all that has happened between them..”
Mustapha Al-Shakah (Ikhwani) – in his book “Islam without schools -Islam bil Mazahab”at page38 said: “…it is not exaggeration to say Islam is the father of all democracy”.
Dr. Hasan Al-Sirkawi (Ikhwani)- In his book “Democracy in Islam”at page 224 said “The first thing that correct democracy is based on and that fulfils Allah’s saying is “Their affairs are a matter of consultation among each other” i.e. Al Shura.
Muhammad Bakheet Al Mutt’iee in his book said “It is defamation for Islam and Muslims to find so called sheikhs like Ali Abdul-Rasiq claiming that Islam has no ruling system and praising Abraham Lincoln and his democracy which claims that he was the first one ever to initiate it – while Islam states clearly that the Ummah is the source of legislation”.
Muhammad Dia Al-Ra’iess in his book “The Political point of view in Islam” said “..Islamic Democracy is one of the most important pillars of Islamic Authority”.
ii) Al Siyadah lil Dowlah – Sovereignty for the state
The proponent of this view look to the matter purely from the angle of power i.e. is it in the hands of the people or the state? Since the state organises the affairs, it has power and therefore sovereignty. State sovereignty was originally a communist idea. Stalin and Lenin for example, said that sovereignty is for the communist ruling party. This idea was adopted in the west through the League of Nations which developed into the United Nations. The original forerunner of the United Nations is the Christian league Raabitat Al Usar Al Massahiyyah established in the 18th century which was set up by certain European countries in order to protect themselves from the Muslims and the expanding Othmani Khilafah. It was re-named in time (1911-1920) as the League of Nations Usbaat Ul Umam which became the United Nations Al Umam Al Mutahida after World War II (in the early 1940’s). Resolution No. 181 was the first one passed by the U.N. which resolved to divide Palestine into two creating thereby the state of Israel. Since then sovereignty for the state has existed i.e. for every country its own sovereignty, and every member of the U.N. must recognise the sovereignty of all other members including Israel.However during the Gulf War President Bush declared a New World Order Al Nizam Al Alamee Al Judeed i.e. for the U.S. to be in charge.
The scholars who first adopted sovereignty for the Imam took it form Ibnu Abideen who adopted it from Imam Shaybani’s Siyar. Sheikh Muhammed Abu Zarrha said the same in the 1960’s and the writer Abdul Hamid Mutawali expounded a similar view.
Ibnu Abideen based his view on the following evidence: It is narrated in Muslim upon the authority of Abdullah Ibnu Omar that the Messenger Muhammad (saw) said ” The command of the Imam must be fulfiled explicitly and implicitly (publicly and privately/secretly)” i.e. one must obey the Khalifah or he will become sinful. They also base it upon the Imam’s role to remove disputes between the people. The wahabis say from Surah Nisaa verse 59 that when Allah (swt) says “Obey Allah and Obey the Messenger and those Oo lil Amar…” Oo lil Amar refers to the scholars and the rulers generally including for example Sheikh Bin Baz and King Fahd i.e. all countries have sovereignty! In fact Saudi Arabia was only the second country to declare with the U.N. that soveriegnty was for the state, they said that the Imam can prevent what Allah makes permissible or allow it (i.e. in the area of permissibility) and can adopt if there is difference of opinion.
Among the movements who adopt sovereignty for the Imam are Ikhwan ul Muslimeen who quote Imam Hassan al Bana in support. The Ikhwan adopted the Imam as sovereign in the 1930’s after adopting the view of sovereignty for the state. Other proponents of the same view include Sheikh Muhammed Imara, Sheikh Ali Abdul Rasiq and Mustapha Al Aqd.
However these views are incorrect. Allah (swt) says “If you disagree in any matter refer it to the Quran and Sunnah” [EMQ 4:59] hence these are still the only ones which have sovereignty. And He (swt) continues “…if you are a believer in Allah and his Messenger” which is a decisive indication leaving no alternative to the sovereignty of the Quran and Sunnah. Allah (swt) also forbids us to have kafir in authority over us.
In the aforementioned ayah [Surah Nisaa verse 59] Allah (swt) says “…and those Oo lil Amar” as opposed to “…and obey the Ool lil Amar”. In other words the conjunction and waw is found between “Obey Allah” and “Obey the Messenger” but it is not found between these and the Oo lil Amar since the Oo lil Amar do not have sovereignty unlike Allah and his Messenger. In addition the same ayah continues after Oo lil Amar with the words Min kum meaning that they are elected. Hence if the bayah gives an Imam his authority the authority must lie with those who appoint him (note the distinction between sovereignty and authority).
iii) Al Siyaadah lil shaib wa al qanoon – Sovereignty for the people and the Law
After a while people began to ask “what exactly is the state? Is it laws, a constitution…what?” The state represents the law and order over a particular piece of land and therefore is not sovereign by itself but could be together with the people who lay down the law and order. Hence people said that sovereignty is for the people under a particular law and order. This suggestion was made in the 1940’s, 1950’s and in particular in the 1960’s. Countries were occupied by other countries and puppet rulers appeared. The people made their leaders heroes for example Attaturk, Nasser, Muhammed Ali Jinnah, Sukarto etc.. Since the 1960’s national committees Al Jamaiyyah al Wattaniyyah and general assemblies have arisen which meet and lay down constitutions Al Dostoor for example in Algeria, Sudan etc.. The idea of sovereignty for the constitution and the people had now developed from sovereignty for the state which in turn had developed from sovereignty for the people.
The national and general assemblies are called by different names in different countries. We have for example The Muslim League of Pakistan (From Muhammed Ali Jinnah) and the General Assembly of Sudan (whose constitution was laid down in 1955. In line with some other countries Saudia Arabia have adpoted sovereignty for the constitution as well. Among the scholars Sheikh Rashid Ghanusi who is leader of the Al Nahda movement, has adopted sovereignty for Muslims and the law and order.
Sovereignty does not belong to the constitution and the people since Abu Bakr Al Siddiq was chosen by the people. Hence he (ra) had no power rather it was given to him by the people. In addition his shura council (unlike our national assemblies today) never laid down any law and order.
NB: If we define what we mean by the Shariah and the Ummah we will discover that the shariah has sovereignty.
iv) Al Siyada lil Shari’ – Sovereignty is for the Shariah
The first one in recent times to state this is Sheikh Taqiuddine an-Nabhani who, in addition, codified it to relate to todays situation. Sheikh Zahid ul Rashidi of the Islamic World League and the Shariah Council of Pakistan is among the scholars who agree with this principle. The only groups who categorically state this fact were Al Muhajiroun and Hizb ut Tahrir.
3. Haykal Nizam al Hukm – The structure of the ruling system
1. Al Khilafah
The definition of Khilafah:
According to Imam Kalkashandi (died 7th CH) it is “The highest and general leadership for the Ummah to implement Islam and to carry it to the world”
Explanation of the definition:
“Highest and general” – means Wilayah Ammah as opposed to Wilayah Khassa e.g. the Ameership of a group.
“Leadership”- means the Khalifah must have power to rule.
“To implement”- means that there must be implementation of Islam i.e. if the Khalifah has no power there will be no Khilafah.
“Carry it to the world”- means that there must be implementation of Islam outside of the state i.e. externally as well.
NB: We can gather from this that there are three essential conditions for the Khilafah:
a) leadership in the hands of Muslims
b) implementation of Islam internally
c) implementation of Islam externally
Dar ul Islam and Dar ul Kufr
Al Ardh means earth in the Arabic language and Dar is land. There are many types of Dar in Islam either attributed to Dar ul Islam or Dar ul Kufr.
Dar ul Islam
When there exists an Islamic state there is Dar ul Islam and as a consequence there may also exist any of the following:
1) Dar ul Aman – This is the headquarters of the state i.e. its capital.
2) Dar ul A’hid – This will exist where the Islamic state has a treaty with another country.Treaties must have a time limit and Islamically must not exeed 10 years.If Muslims go from Dar ul Islam to Dar ul A’hid they must honour the treaty otherwise they will be betraying Allah and his Messenger.
3) Dar ul Dhimma – This exists where kuffar have a Muslim governor who implements Islam over them.
4) Dar ul Muwada’ah – This is the land where people have agreed to a ceasefire in order to decide whether they wish to embrace Islam or not. The Messenger Muhammad (saw) said “Call them to Islam and if they do not agree then ask them to pay Jizya.”
The opinion of Imam Shaafi is that if the Islamic State is strong the treaty should be no longer then 4 Months whilst if we are comparitively weak it can be extended for up to 10 years.
Salahuddin was going to give the kuffar occupying Palestine 4 months however he decided to give them 1 moon sighting and declared that he would destroy them after this if they did not leave.
Allah (swt) says in the Quran “If they incline towards a ceasefire incline you also”.
NB.When the Muslims abide by their treaties Allah (swt) will bless them. Treaties require two parties hence in the absence of Dar ul Islam there are no treaties for Muslims.
5) Dar ul Baghi – This situation may arise when people rebel against the state. This may be because they do not want to implement a part of Islam or because they want to take measures against the state e.g. to fight the Khalifah. The Islamic state may give such people time to reconsider. In the time of Abu Bakr Al Siddiq the Al-Murtadeen refused to pay zakat to the Khalifah and rather paid it to their own people resulting in the Khalifah fighting them and the loss of many lives.
6) Dar ul Tatarrus – This is land where the kuffar have entered and hijacked the area i.e. occupied it. They may have taken women and children hostages. The state would need to make a difficult decision as to whether to fight them or not.
7) Dar ul Sulh - This will arise where during battle between the Muslims and the kuffar there is agreement to a ceasefire for rest and refreshment. The war will probably be resumed later.
8) Dar ul Khulou – In the event of the death of the Khalifah the Islamic state may find itself in one of three situations: i) In peace time ii) during war, where the Muslims will have an opportunity to finish the war before they appoint another Khalifah or iii) if the Khalifah is assasinated in time of fitnah e.g. people may say that they killed the Khalifah because he declared kufr buwah whilst others disagree. Khulu means a vacuum in arabic.It was during a war that the Tartars killed a Khalifah.
9) Dar ul Jihad – This is a situation where the Khalifah is under the control of the kuffar fighting the Muslims. The Amir of Jihad will be in charge and the ahkam of Jihad will apply until after the war.
10) Dar ul Hiraba – is an area where Muslims are prohibited to be for security reasons. This may be because there are gangsters there. It is prohibited, for example, to pray in such areas.
Dar ul Kufr
Dar ul Harb (land of war) is an attribute of Dar ul Kufr and will not exist in the absence of Dar ul Islam. Upon the establishment of the Islamic state the whole world will potentially be Dar ul Harb outside of the state’s fronteirs since the foreign policy of the Islamic State is aimed at conquering the world.Dar ul Harb has its own ahkam according to the fuqaha.One cannot carry the Quran there, there is no need for one to pray the fard ul kifiyyah prayers, hudood is not implemented and rather then enjoining maoruf (good) and forbidding munkar (evil) the Muslims have one policy here which is to fight with the niyah of Jihad i.e. a shoot to kill policy. The word Dar always applies to ahkam i.e. the law and order.
In the absence of Dar ul Harb (due to the absence of Dar ul Islam) the whole world is Dar ul Kufr today. One may prefer to classify countries today as either
i) Dar ul Harb Hukman i.e. theoretically Dar ul Harb and
ii) Dar ul Harb Fi’lan i.e practically Dar ul Harb where there are kuffar occupying Muslim land and where the Muslims are required to fight to liberate their land e.g. In Palestine, Chechenya, Bosnia etc.. This land is also known as Dar ul Ghasab. Among the fuqaha Sayed Qutb used the description of theoretical and practical Dar ul Harb. Recently we have seen the use of, for example, Dar ul Fusuq (land of sin) and Dar ul Ridda (land of apostates) however such terminology is incorrect since sin and apostasy apply to individuals not to land.
We can classify the world today under four categories of Dar ul Kufr (i.e. in the absence of Dar ul Islam) :
1) Dar ul Kufr – Muslim countries where Muslims have authority e.g. Pakistan, Saudia Arabia and Malaysia.
2) Dar ul Kufr – Non-Muslim countries where the kuffar have authority e.g. The United States, Britain and France.
3) Dar ul Kufr – Muslim land where the kuffar inhabitants have taken authority e.g. India and Lebanon.
4) Dar ul Kufr – Which is Dar ul Ghasab either
i) Muslim countries occupied by the kuffar and under their authority e.g. Kashmir, Palestine and Northern Spain or
ii) Non-Muslim countries occupied by other kuffar and under their authority e.g. Ireland and Cuba.
NB. In Dar ul Ghasab where Muslim land has been occupied by the kuffar Muslims are prohibited from eating the enemy’s vegetables. Only the prayer and trade of the mujahid are accepted there.
To live, fight and eat whilst involved in Jihad is a form of worship otherwise to stay in such areas is prohibited. Those Muslims, for example, in Palestine need therefore to support the Jihad physically, verbally or financially. The kuffar there are called kafir Harbi Muqtasib and only one hukm applies to them i.e. that they be killed wherever the Muslims find them. However during Jihad the ahkam of Jihad apply i.e. Muslims are forbidden from killing women, children, the elderly or trees unless killed accidently and unavoidably because they are with the enemy. The military institutions and governments of any country occupying Muslim land are legitimate targets and if its liberation cannot be acheived without their destruction, their destruction will become obligatory.
The Conditions of the Head of State i.e. the Khalifah
The fuqaha laid down twelve conditions for the Khalifah. Six of them are agreed upon among the four classic schools of thought. The six conditions where there is no disagreement are:
1) Muslimann – Muslim
2) Zakarrann – Male
3) Balighann – Mature
4) Aqilann – Sane
5) Hurann – Free
6) Adlann – Trustworthty
Those conditions which are a matter of dispute are:
7)Shujaa’ann – Brave
8)Mujtahidann – Juristic Scholar
9)Khabirann – Experienced in Ruling
10)Qadirann – Capable (of sound senses)
11)Basirann – Experienced in fighting
12)Masoumann – Infallible
13) Quraishirann – From Quraish
1) Muslim: It is agreed upon by all Muslims that a kafir cannot be in charge over them. The main pillar of the Ruling System is that sovereignty is for Allah and the kuffar do not believe this. Allah (swt) says
“And never will Allah accept the believers to have kuffar in charge (or in authority) over them.” [EMQ 4:141]
NB. Sheikh Bin Baz of Suadia Arabia is quoted to have said that even to have a kaffir boss is prohibited. In light of this it is baffling how U.S. forces were allowed to come into Muslim land and were given authority during the Gulf War.
Accepting kaffir to have authority extends to remaining silent about their oppression in Non-Muslim countries by not addressing the munkar of society.
In addition Allah (swt) says “…fear Allah and do not obey the unbelievers and the hypocrites…” [EMQ 33:1]
It is narrated by Tirmizi upon the authority of Abu Sayed al Kudri that the Messenger Muhammad (saw) said “Do not obey the kaffir”.
The prohibition of obeying kuffar in authority is a matter known by necessity in Islam i.e. the Sahaba, Tabi’een and Tabi’ Tabi’een have no difference of opinion concerning this issue and the classical scholars Imams Hanafi, Shafi, Hanbali and Imam Malik agree as do their students.
2) Male : It is narrated by Bukhari, Tirmizi, Nisai and Imam Ahmed upon the authority of Abu Bakra that when news came from Persia that after the kings death, his daughter had become Queen the Messenger Muhammad (saw) said “Those who accept women in charge over them will never (lann Yufuhun Qawmun) be safe from punishment”.
The hadith used the word “never” (lann) therefore no one can sat that it is allowed to have a female ruler today. Ibn Hazim said: “All people of Qibla (i.e. Makkah) agree that it is not allowed for a woman to be Imam”.
This hadith means that such people will not be successful in the hereafter. However some contemporary so called scholars propose that since circumstances are different today to have women in charge is permitted. This type of mentality is a defeated one and people such as Rashid Ghanushi contradict the divine text and the classical scholars on this issue.
NB. The above hadith does not exclude women from having authority over men in certain areas. She could for example if she has money equivalent to the Nisab of Zakat or more, invest her money and work outside of the home and may even be an employer of men as well.
Umm Shifa Al Ma’zumiyyah was Qadi Hizbah of the market.
3) Mature: It is narrated by Bukhari, Muslim, Abu Daoud, Nisai, Tirmizi, Ibnu Majah and Imam Malik upon the authoriy of Imam Ali that the Messenger Muhammad (saw) said “Three people are not accountable, the child until he reaches maturity, the one unconcious until he awakes and the insane until he becomes sane.”
Since the Khalifah needs to be accounted he must be mature. The child does not have complete competence in Islam.
It is narrated in Bukhari that Abdullah Ibnu Hisham said “My mother took me to Rasool Allah (saw) in order to give him bayah. He (saw) wiped my head and said “He is a child” and made du’a for me”.
Hence if a child cannot give bayah how can he become Khalifah.
Finally one cannot ask others to do something which is not obliged upon oneself.
4) Sane : It is narrated by Bukhari, Muslim, Abu Daoud, Nisai, Tirmizi, Ibnu Majah and Imam Malik upon the authoriy of Imam Ali that the Messenger Muhammad (saw) said “Three people are not accountable, the child until he reaches maturity, the one unconcious until he awakes and the insane until he becomes sane.”
Again, the one without sanity is not responsible whereas the Khalifah must be accountable for his actions hence it is a condition that the Khalifah must be sane.
Sanity is assessed by a judge in Islam who looks at i) the individual’s memory of what he has just said ii) the individual’s familiarity with those around him e.g. his family iii) actions which are different to the norm.
5) Free – not slave: The slave is prohibited form being a Khalifah. It is narrated by Ahmad and Tabarani that the Messenger Muhammad (saw) said in relation to the governorship of Yemen “Elect your Ameer from those who are free among you”. And it is narrated in Abu Daoud that the Messenger Muhammad (saw) said “Do not put in charge those who are under the charge of a master”.
The hadith of the Messenger Muhammad (saw) “Obey the Khalifah even if he is a servant of Abissiniyya” refers to obeying the Khalifah who is a servant of Allah even though he may be,for example, black, it does not mean to obey a slave.
6) Trustworthy: It is narrated in Muslim upon the authority of Abu Hurairah that the Messenger Muhammad (saw) said “The best one you appoint over you is the trustworthy.” And it is narrated by Abu Daoud that the Messenger Muhammad (saw) said “Seven people will be covered by Allah’s mercy…. among them are the trustworthy…”
In addition Allah (swt) says “…Let people who are trustworthy be the witnessses…” [EMQ 65:2]
If witnesses for a court must be trustworthy, by greater analogy (Qiyas a’la) so must the Khalifah.
The one who is trustworthy for the fuqaha is he who fulfils all his obligations and leaves all that which is prohibited. His neck is free from killing or beating people and he does not steal from the people nor is he murabi (i.e. one who deals with riba). In other words he is not faajir or fasiq (committing haram known by necessity continually).
NB. If a trustworthy person is given bayah and he then becomes bad we do not fight him until we see kufr buwah in the law and order.
THE ABSENCE OF ANY OF THE ABOVE WILL INVALIDATE THE AUTHORITY OF THE KHALIFAH. THE ABOVE SIX CONDITIONS ARE CLASSIFIED AS SHART IN’IQAAD I.E. OBLIGATORY CONDITIONS WHEREAS THE CONDITIONS BELOW ARE SUBJECT TO DISPUTE AND DIFFERENCE OF OPINION AMONG THE FUQAHA.
7) Brave : That the Khalifah must be brave is a condition agreed upon by Imams Kalkashandi, Aiji, Marwardi, Jiljani and Nawawi (all Shafi scholars). Imam Abu Hanifah said that it is wajib through Istihsan, he said “I will push the brave though less trustworthy rather than the coward with Taqwa.” since bravery would reflect well upon the Ummah.
The strongest opinion is that bravery is Shart Afdhaliyyah i.e. a preferable condition.
8) Mujtahid: Imam Shatabi (died 790H, Maliki) said in Kitab al I’tisaan in volume 2, page 126: “The scholars agree that Imam al kubra cannot be for anyone accept the one who has the ability of ijtihad”
However, Ibnu Kaldoon and Imams Bagdadi, Aiji, Jiljani, Marwardi, Nawawi, Ahmadi, Ghazali, Ibnu Taymiyyah and Qadi Abdul Jabar agree that to be mujtahid is shart afdhaliyyah (it is considered preferable among the Shafi’s and even among the Hanafi’s).
Imam Malik stated that Imam Ali was more Knowledgeable than Abu Bakr but he accepted that Abu Bakr was the first Khalifah.
The Messenger Muhammad (saw) is narrated to have said “The one who leads is the most knowledgeable” i.e. the faqih. However the Qari is more suitable to lead the prayer.
The strongest opinion is that for the Khalifah to be a mujtahid is preferable.
9) Experienced in Ruling: Imams Marwardi, Aiji, Nawawi, Jiljani and Ahmadi said that this is a preferable condition shart afdhaliyyah but they did not give evidence in support.
When the Messenger Muhammad (saw) sent Muslims to Bahrain and Yemen he requested that they give responsibility to those who have knowledge about the people of Bahrain and Yemen. However this is not evidence concerning ruling and the strongest opinion is that experience in ruling is a permissible condition.
10) Capable: There are two types of capability i) Physical Salem Al Hawas, this is agreed upon by all schools of thought and ii) Experienced in managing Salem Al Imams, this is a matter of dipute amongst the schools of thought.
Ibnu Kaldoun, Marwardi and Nawawi said that it is a binding condition shart in’iqaad upon the Khalifah. i.e. If he loses two of either sight, hearing or speech, he will lose his capability.
The Messenger Muhammad (saw) is narrated to have said “Allah likes the strong Muslim more than the weak Muslim”.
Allah (swt) says “Didn’t I create eyes to see, ears to hear and tongues to speak” and He (swt) described those who don’t do this like animals. And He (swt) says of those who are called for Jihad “There is no responsibility upon the blind” [EMQ Surah Al Baqara].
The above evidences are rational, however the Messenger Muhammad (saw) said that “Whoever sees munkar let him change it with his hand” and he made a condition that the judge should not be blind. For greater reason (Qiyas a’la) the Khalifah should not be blind either. However there is a dispute as to whether this condition is binding or preferable. Since the Khalifah is a shield behind which the Muslims protect themselves he must be strong and we therefore suggest that if he loses two of eiher sight, hearing or speech he cannot be Khalifah i.e.capability is a binding condition.
11) Experienced in fighting
12) Infallible: This is a condition adopted by the Shia. They suggest that Allah (swt) is kind (latif) and he will save the Ummah through infallible people after the Messenger Muhammad (saw). However latif has many meanings in Arabic. Moreover Abu Bakr was not infallible and his appointment as Khalifah is a matter of consensus among the sahaba.
13) Quraishi: It is reported by Bukhari, Muslim and Abu Daoud that the Messenger Muhammad (saw) said that “The A’ima is from Quraish” and “The matter of ruling is in Quraish even if among them there are only two”
The majority of Ahl al Sunnah and all the Shia and some Muatazillah agree that the Khalifah must be from Quraish. Some Muatazillah, the Khawarij, Ibnu Kaldoun, Marwardi and some modern day scholars say that it is a preferable condition.
The strongest opinion is that it is preferable for the following reasons:
i) There is no text with a decisive request rather the text is informative Ikhbar.
ii) The ahadith which say “…in Quraish…” continue “…as long as he establishes justice…” which is the more important part of the text”
iii) In the time of Omar bin Al Khattab (ra) he said “I would have nominated one of the six Muaaz bin Jabal to be Khalifah if I had time”. Muaaz bin Jabal was from the Ansar i.e. not Quraishi, and no one disagreed with Omar’s saying i.e. there is Ijma al Sahaba (consensus of the companions) on this issue.
iv) The fuqaha agree that no concept can be derived from a title, for example the name Kalim means generous although the individual might be miserly. Similarly a principle cannot be derived from the title Quraish.
v) Quraish is not an action one does which can be assessed.
vi) No one has ever traced the Quraishi lineage to know who is and who is not Quraishi.
The Islamic ruling system is a unique system of unity ordained by Allah (swt). It is not a federal, democratic, republican, monarchic or dictatorial system at all. It has no similarity to any man-made ideology.
The Islamic state considers people under its authority as citizens, whether they are Muslims or non-Muslims. All have their rights guaranteed by Islam. There is no concept of ‘ethnic minority’ as people are not discriminated against at all for their colour, race or religion.
Al-Qurafi and Ibn Hazm (prominent scholars of Islam) reported that: “It would be our duty to protect the people of dhimma (non-Muslim citizens) if aggressors attacked our land, and we should die protecting them if necessary. Any neglect of such a duty would be a breach of the rights of the dhimma.”
The standing army of the ‘Uthmani Khilafah was at one stage 60 million strong. The mentality of the Muslim soldier (mujahid) makes him undefeatable. If he is killed in battle he achieves martyrdom, and if he wins, his army is victorious. This is why in the battle of Mu’tah, 3000 Muslims were prepared to face 200,000 better equipped Roman soldiers. The battle cry of the Muslims was, ‘Oh Allah! I am coming to you!’
When the Crusaders attacked Al-Sham (Syria), they were fought by the army of the Islamic State, where 80% of the country’s Christians were fighting alongside their fellow Muslim citizens.
Islam imposes discipline upon soldiers even in times of war. The purpose of Jihad is not to kill people or to force them to change their belief. Nor does it aim to humiliate, to exploit, to plunder resources or to punish the enemy. Rather it is a means of removing the physical barriers which prevent the people from having access to the call of Islam. This includes exploitative and corrupt leaders as well as the privileged few who have vested interests, and their supporters.
There are no borders within the Islamic State. All people regardless of race or colour are united under the banner of one leader.
The Khilafah is not an empire, like the old British or French colonialists who stole the wealth of other nations and returned it to their capitals. In all the places that were occupied by non-Muslims, the inhabitants curse their occupiers, while in areas that were opened to Islam, the people still long for its return, and are prepared even to die to achieve it.
The job of managing the affairs of the Ummah is restricted to the Khaleefah (head of state). No group, individual or organisation can involve themselves in this issue.
Non-Muslims cannot be mistreated. Nor can their places of worship (e.g. Churches, Synagogues etc.) be attacked or destroyed. This is why we see areas in the Muslim world with Churches and temples that have lasted for centuries under Islamic rule, such as those seen in Egypt, Iraq, the Balkans etc.
No groups, organisations or opposition parties based on non-Islamic principles can exist or be propagated in the Islamic State. However, those based on Islam need no permission to exist, and can be many in number.
The centre for decision making, strategy and consultation is the capital city of the Khilafah. Throughout the history of Islam there have been five main capitals :
Muhammad (saw) – Madinah
‘Ali (ra) – Kufah
Ummayads – Damascus
Abbasids – Baghdad
‘Uthmanis – Istanbul
The leadership of the Khilafah changed from place to place and was held by Muslims of different racial origins throughout Islamic history. This bears testimony to the fact that the Khilafah is not an imperialistic entity, which steals wealth from other nations to return it to its capital. Its purpose is to convey the deen (way of life) of Allah (swt) to all mankind.
Governing and ruling in an Islamic state is centralised, whereas administration is decentralised. The state is made up of a number of provinces (wilayaat) headed by governors (walis).The main officials of the state are appointed by the Khaleefah. Every decision must emanate from the head of state. This negates any corruption or confusion within the ruling system. The Khaleefah is ultimately responsible.
The method of appointing a Khaleefah is through the process of bay’ah (contract between the people and ruler), where the people are to obey the ruler as long as he implements Islam. The bay’ah may be contracted after either :
– a general vote of the Muslims, or
– by appointment from the representatives of the Ummah and influential people.
Abu Hurayrah (ra) narrated that the Messenger of Allah (saw) said, “Behold, the Imam is but a shield from behind which the people fight and by which they protect themselves.” (Muslim)
Khaleefah ‘Umar ibn ‘Abdul Aziz was once found by his wife weeping after his prayers; asked if anything had happened to cause him grief, he replied: “O Fatimah, I have been made the ruler over the Muslims and the strangers and I was thinking of the poor that are starving, and the sick that are destitute, and the naked that are in distress, and the oppressed that are stricken, and the stranger that is in prison, and the venerable elder, and he that has a large family and small means, and those of them in the countries of the earth and the distant provinces, and I felt that my Lord would ask me to account for them on the day of resurrection, and I feared that no defence would avail me and I wept.”
The Ummah elects representatives from among itself to stand on the Majlis al-Ummah (Council of the Ummah), which observes the Khaleefah in his implementation of Islam, and advises him on the affairs of the Ummah.
There is no country existing in the world today that implements the system of government ordered by Islam. Rather, all the Muslim countries in the world are ruled by laws of kufr (non-Islam) even though the majority of their population are Muslims.
Relationship to the Khaleefah
Do you think it is the teacher who is to blame if funding in schools is not sufficient to give your child a decent education? Do you think it is the fault of the ambulance service if they don’t get to your house quickly in an emergency? Do you feel that the thousands of people who are homeless and hungry on the streets choose to live the way they do? If the answer to these questions is no, who do you think is to blame? In the West, you are living in a society which governs your affairs by so-called ‘Parliamentary Democracy’ where laws are made up by members of parliament. Every few years you have the opportunity to select who will represent your interests in the parliament. These people belong to one of several political parties, and the party with the most candidates assumes leadership of the country. It is these people who decide how to tax your wages, select who is eligible for housing or not, and who are responsible for issues like those mentioned before.
However, this system is fraught with fundamental problems, all of which add difficulty to you functioning in it. Thus whether you are a Muslim or not, the way your affairs are governed is almost entirely independent of your concerns. Effectively, you have no choice in what laws you are subject to, and have little means of doing anything about them when they are enacted.
Some of these problems are :
•The laws are subject to the whims and fancies of a handful of fallible human beings. Human beings are limited in knowledge, prone to error and subject to prejudice. Any system of government devised by them will reflect these problems. After all, if your next-door neighbour started telling you what you can and cannot do, would you listen to him? Even worse, what if he was racist or sexist?
•Once a government is elected, there is no way you can remove it before its term has finished, regardless of how many mistakes it makes or how corrupted it becomes.
•The individual MPs often act according to their own personal interests. Many leading MPs have been caught with their ‘fingers in the till’, or have admitted to adulterous affairs and other sexual malpractices. If their own wives can’t trust them, can you?
Bearing this in mind, do you have confidence that your affairs are being administered well? If you feel dissatisfied do you think that any complaints you have will be acknowledged? Probably not!
The Islamic Ruling System is Different
In Islam you will not be subject to man-made laws. The Ruling System of the Islamic State is based upon four pillars:
•Sovereignty is for Allah alone. Allah says, “The rule is to none but Allah.” [TMQ 6:57] This means the laws governing over you are free from the fanciful desires of people who are no better than you.
•Authority is for the Ummah. ‘Abdullah ibn ‘Amr ibn al-‘A’as narrated that the Messenger of Allah (saw) said, “Whosoever pledges allegiance to an Imam giving him the clasp of his hand and the fruit of his heart shall obey him as long as he can, and if another comes to dispute with him, strike the neck of that man.” (Muslim). Thus, the rulers are actually accountable to you, as opposed to themselves.
•Appointing one Khaleefah is an obligation upon all. Abu Said al-Khudri narrated that the Messenger of Allah (saw) said, “When the oath of allegiance has been given for two Khulafa’a kill the latter of them.” (Muslim) In Islam, all the Muslims throughout the world are united behind one leader. And because he implements only Allah’s law, the people are not constantly bickering amongst themselves over what he will rule by.
•The Khaleefah alone has the exclusive power to adopt the divine laws – he alone enacts the constitution and various laws.
Allah (swt) says, “O you who believe, obey Allah, and obey the Messenger and those of you who are in authority.” [TMQ 4:59] Muslims carry out the orders of the Khaleefah without reservation or dispute, as long as they fall within the bounds of Islam as verified by the Majlis al-Ummah, which is the Ummah’s representative.
From this, you can see that only the law of the Creator will be applied. The job of the Khaleefah and his assistants is merely to extract from the Islamic sources the hukm (Divine Rule) for any situation which may arise and to apply it. The issue here then becomes not who rules, but what he rules by.
Thus, you as a Muslim and as a citizen of the Islamic State are the one who appoints who is to be in authority over you. You make sure that the laws governing over you are only those that the Creator has defined for you. It is only under this law that your rights will be secured, and you won’t be subject to the whims and desires of ignorant human beings.
Similarly, it is your responsibility as a Muslim to make sure that there actually exists a Khaleefah who will undertake this role. If one does not exist, as is the situation today, then you and the whole Muslim Ummah are sinful, unless you work hard to establish it.
‘Abdullah ibn ‘Umar narrated that the Messenger of Allah (saw) said, “Whoso takes off his hand from allegiance to Allah will meet Him on the resurrection day without having any proof for him, and whoso dies without a pledge of allegiance on his neck dies a death of the days of jahiliyyah (ignorance).”
Appointing the Leader
When the Khaleefah of the Muslims retires, dies or is displaced for any reason, there is no concept of automatic succession or ‘Royal Family.’ Rather, leadership in Islam is a contract between the Muslims and the Khaleefah. His authority depends entirely on his acceptance by the Ummah, which is represented by their giving him the bay’ah (pledge of allegiance). You are involved in appointing the new Khaleefah. These are the steps taken : Any candidates who wish to take the post make an application to the Majlis al-Ummah (Council of the Ummah). You may propose any candidate yourself, if you know someone suitable for the post. The members of the Majlis will consider all the applicants, and evaluate whether they meet the conditions required by Islam for the Khaleefah. The Khaleefah must be :
3. Free (i.e. not a slave)
7. Able to rule
Islam also recommends other conditions, such as that he should be a mujtahid (scholar), experienced in politics, brave, pious etc.
You will hear about the candidates once the Majlis has assessed them all and publicly announced who they are, along with a resume of their respective achievements or abilities.
After this, you will go to the nearest polling station, one of which will be available in every locality. Here you will cast a vote for the candidate you prefer. The state will order counting of the votes as quickly as possible so that the new Khaleefah may be appointed within 3 days – the maximum time that Islam allows for the Ummah to be without an Amir.
The candidate who has received the largest proportion of the vote will be the winner, regardless of whether he had more than half of the citizens of the state or not. Thus, if you had chosen someone who had the vote of 20% of the Ummah, he will win as long as no other candidates superseded this figure. Once the successor to the leadership of the Khilafah has thus been nominated by the Muslims, the members of the Majlis al-Ummah, along with the other candidates and those who hold key positions, such as the army officials and governors, will publicly give their bay’ah. This stage is the bay’ah of in’iqad (pledge of selection), which is given by the ahl al halli wal ‘aqd (people of influence and authority).
You will be well informed about this selection from the media and other channels of government communication, such as the juma’ khutbah.
Remember : Sovereignty lies with Allah (swt) alone, but the authority is held by the Muslim Ummah. Thus, the Ummah must give their consent to the new Khaleefah for his rule to be valid. Accordingly he will present himself to the Ummah and invite them to give their bay’ah. This second pledge is the bay’ah of ta’aa (obedience). Obedience to the Khaleefah is a duty upon all Muslims, and you become sinful if you neglect it.
You may give this pledge in person to the new Khaleefah, but as this is often impractical, you can represent your bay’ah by other means such as telegram or fax. It is recommended for you to do this, but the principle of ‘silence is consent’, means that if you took no action after hearing of the invitation for your bay’ah, you would not be sinful and would be regarded as having given it and accepted the Khaleefah.
Once you have given this pledge, you have entered a contract to obey the Khaleefah for as long as he implements Allah’s Law, whether you are in public or in the privacy of your home. Abu Hurayrah narrated that the Messenger of Allah (saw) said, “Whoever obeyed me he obeyed Allah; whoever disobeyed me he disobeyed Allah; whoever obeyed the Amir, he obeyed me, and whoever disobeyed him he disobeyed me.” (Bukhari and Muslim)
In Britain for example, it is well known that as soon as the new Prime Minister is elected, he and his party throw all of the promises they made to you in the bin, and proceed with the personal agenda they never told you about before. Now that you have appointed the Khaleefah, how can you make sure that he does not renege on his promise to obey Allah’s Law?
Would I be able to speak to the Khaleefah? In Britain once the appointment of the new leader is complete, your input to the running of the country’s affairs is effectively finished for the next five years. In the Islamic Ruling System, your opinion is not only valued by the leadership, but in some circumstances you may be obliged to voice it. Imagine you as a citizen of the Islamic State had a complaint. What can you do?
It may happen that the Khaleefah neglects his duty. Instead of Allah’s law, he rules as he pleases according to his own whims and fancies – i.e. becoming a dictator . He could for example allow the state to ally with organisations based on taghut (disbelief) like the UN, or permit trading by riba (interest) in the banks. Or he may become corrupted himself by being a thief or an adulterer. These kind of things often happen in the West, but we find ourselves in no position to do anything about it.
As a citizen of the Islamic State, whether male or female, Muslim or non-Muslim, you can approach the Khaleefah. This may be done for any reason, be it to encourage him to fear Allah, or to ask him for your rights. However, your reasons can be broadly divided into two categories:
•Advice : You might inform the Khaleefah of any news or information that may be of the public interest, such as the necessity of a school or hospital in your community.
•Accounting : If you feel that the Khaleefah is neglecting his duties in any way, it is your duty to account him for it and advise him to correct his wrong actions. This may be in cases where he has failed to implement any Islamic law, like neglecting the duty of Jihad, or if he has implemented laws which contradict Islam, such as allowing the sale of alcohol. You may also voice your concerns if he is unjust in his dealings with the people such as not providing the basic necessities.
How Can You Approach the Khaleefah ?
In the first instance, you would write a letter to the Khaleefah. This would be read by one of his assistants (hajib) involved in administration, and would be dealt with by him, or brought to the attention of the Khaleefah himself if necessary. You could go to your local representative of the Majlis al-Ummah, particularly if it was regarding a local issue. You and every citizen of the Islamic State have access to a member of the Majlis. He would take your complaint and represent it at the next meeting of the council for consideration by the other members. If they decided the matter was grave enough to be taken further, they would advise the Khaleefah.
If the matter is of a more pressing nature, you could arrange to meet one of the Khaleefah’s delegated assistants. He has similar authority to the Khaleefah, although he is finally accountable to him, so he may be able to deal with your problem himself. Otherwise, he is in constant communication with the Khaleefah and could represent your views to him.
If you are not satisfied with any of these, you have the right to meet the Khaleefah in person. At the court of the Khaleefah you would be received by his hajib (secretary), who could either pass on your message or arrange for you to meet the Khaleefah if you required.
Taking the Khaleefah to Court
If the Khaleefah fails to consider your problem as a valid argument and resolve any mistakes he has made, or you feel you have not been dealt with fairly, it is your right to take the matter to the Mahkamat al-Madhaalim (court of unjust acts). This court is concerned with disputes between the people and those in authority. The Qadi Madhaalim will study your complaint. If he finds that the Khaleefah has lost his sense of accountability to Allah (swt), is ignoring the Shari’ah (Divine Law), and is ruling by his own desires – he has the authority to order the Khaleefah to conform to Islam. Should the Khaleefah refuse, then he may be subject to dismissal from office by the Qadi Madhaalim and replaced by someone who is just. If your problem is legitimate, it will be solved immediately, not after 5 years!
Thus we can see that the Ruling System of the Islamic State gives you full license to account and advise the leader so far as his conformity to Allah’s laws are concerned. It is forbidden for the Khaleefah to become a dictator – ruling by his own whims and desires, and it is your job to make sure he does not become one. In the history of Islam, it is only when the Muslims themselves neglected the duty of accounting those in authority that the state of affairs in the Muslim world declined. This is one of the elements which ensures that Allah’s deen is preserved in its implementation, and demonstrates that final authority lies with the Muslim Ummah.
The Islamic Ruling System
As Muslims, it is part of our belief that Islam is a complete way of life which provides systems to govern each and every aspect of a human beings life, be they Muslims or non-Muslims. Unfortunately nowadays, due to the infiltration of certain corrupt ideas, Muslims have started to question the fact of whether Islam has provided a ruling system, not only applicable to the Muslims but to the whole of mankind.
The Islamic Ruling System is binding upon the entire Muslim Ummah. Meaning that it is an obligation to follow it. This is substantiated by the evidences provided in the description of the Islamic Ruling System.
Principles Of Ruling In Islam
It is of the utmost importance that all in the Ummah understand clearly the principles of ruling and its evidences in the same way in which we work to understand fully all other obligations (furood). However, a few guidelines need to be established before studying the principles of ruling in Islam. For instance, the absence of any single principle will make the system a non-Islamic system. Thus, all the principles have to exist in order for it to be considered an Islamic Ruling System, e.g. if the authority does not belong to the Ummah and the leader forces himself on the people, then the state can no longer be considered an Islamic state. Simply put, there must be proper conditions laid down that qualify a state to become an Islamic State, otherwise any state could claim illegitimately to be so, as is currently the case with countries such as Saudi Arabia, Iran, Sudan etc.
The First Principle: Sovereignty belongs to the Shari’ah.
An individual does not run the affairs of the nation (Ummah) or those of another individual as he pleases; nor can the Ummah run her affairs as she pleases. The individual and the Ummah’s actions and initiations are subject to Allah’s (swt) commands and prohibitions. Thus, sovereignty belongs to the Shari’ah, i.e. the Qur’an and the Sunnah of the Messenger (saw), and not to the Ummah. In other words, no human being has the right to legislate in Islam. Consequently, no law-making body exists in the Islamic ruling system. Evidence of this is abundant from the Qur’an, the Sunnah and Ijma’ of the Sahabah (Consensus of the companions of the Messenger).
•Evidence from the Qur’an: Allah (swt) has said, “The rule is to none but Allah.” [TMQ 6:57] “If anyone rules by other than what Allah has revealed they are kafiroon (unbelievers).” [TMQ 5:44] This clearly proves that the rule, judgement and supremacy are all to Allah (swt) alone.
•Evidence from the Sunnah: The Messenger of Allah (saw) said, “No one among you becomes a believer until his feelings (emotions) are in harmony with what I have brought.” The actions of Allah’s Messenger (saw) since the day he was sent, to his death, clearly demonstrate that supremacy is to the Shari’ah of Allah (swt).
•Evidence from Ijma’ of the Sahabah: The actions of the Khulafa’a Rashidoon (the first four Khulafa’a) have indicated that supremacy is to the Shari’ah and not the people. The Sahabah did not object to this and consented. Their consensus is proof that supremacy is indeed to the Shari’ah and nothing else.
Therefore the supremacy is to the Shari’ah; for the Khaleefah is not given the pledge by the Ummah merely to be a hired man executing just what the Ummah decides – as is the case in the democratic system – he is given the pledge or allegiance by the Ummah to execute the rules of the Qurian and the Sunnah of the Messenger (saw), i.e. to execute the Shari’ah Laws and not just what people want; and if the people deviate and disobey the Shari’ah he should fight them until they repent (return).
The Second Principle: The Authority belongs to the Ummah.
Evidence of this principle can be looked at from two sides:
Firstly: The Shari’ah has given the right of appointing the Khaleefah to the Ummah; in other words it is the Ummah who chooses the Khaleefah and gives him the pledge of allegiance. This is accomplished by the pledge of allegiance given to him by the Muslims. This is backed by many ahadith from which we list the following: Ubada ibn al-Samit reported, “We pledged ourselves in complete obedience to the Messenger of Allah in wealth and woe…” Jarir ibn ‘Abdullah reported, “I pledge myself in complete obedience to the Messenger of Allah.” Abu Hurayrah (ra) reported, “The Messenger of Allah (saw) said: There are three types of people who Allah will not talk to on the Day of Reckoning, nor will he forgive them; they will be severely punished: A man who has water to spare and does not give it to the traveller, a man who gives his pledge to an Imam but not for his deen – he will only obey him if he gives him what he wants, otherwise he will not obey, and a man who strikes a deal with another man after ‘Asr, swearing by Allah that he was given so much for the goods but this is not so.”
Secondly: The Shari’ah allows the Khaleefah to take the authority from the Ummah once she gives him the pledge of allegiance then the Ummah is obliged to obey him for he is a Khaleefah with a pledge (bay’ah). So the authority is handed over to the Khaleefah by the Ummah by giving him a pledge of allegiance (bay’ah) to obey him. This indicates that the authority is to the Ummah.
Evidence about the Khaleefah taking the authority by a pledge can be deduced from the following: ‘Abdullah ibn ‘Amr ibn al-‘A’as reported that he heard the Messenger of Allah (saw) saying,“Whosoever pledges allegiance to an Imam giving him the clasp of his hand and the fruit of his heart shall obey him as long as he can, and if another comes to dispute with him strike the neck of that man.” (Muslim)
Nafi’a reported that ‘Abdullah ibn ‘Umar told him that he heard Allah’s Messenger (saw) saying,“Whosoever takes his hand from allegiance to Allah will meet him on the Day of Resurrection without any evidence supporting him and whosoever dies while there was no allegiance on his neck dies a death of the days of ignorance.” (Muslim)
Many other ahadith indicate that the authority is with the Ummah for she chooses a man from among herself, gives him the authority and gives him the pledge of allegiance according to the Book of Allah and the Sunnah of His Messenger (saw).
The Third Principle Appointing One Khaleefah is an Obligation
The Shari’ah has made it an obligation on every Muslim to have a bay’ah for a Khaleefah; the obligation is to fulfil the pledge. Every Muslim should have a bay’ah on his/her neck. This can only be achieved if a Khaleefah is appointed. The evidence for this principle is derived from the Sunnah and Ijma’ of the Sahabah.
1. The Sunnah :
Many ahadith confirm that Muslims are forbidden from having more than one state and from having more than one ruler (Amir) in the whole world. The following are two ahadith related to this issue:
a. Imam Muslim reported on the authority of Abu Said al-Khudri that the Messenger of Allah (saw) said, “When the bay’ah has been given for two Khaleefahs kill the latter of them.”(Muslim)
b. Imam Muslim reported on the authority of ‘Abdullah ibn Amr ibn al-‘A’as that the Messenger of Allah (saw) said, “Whosoever pledges allegiance to an Imam giving him the clasp of his hand and the fruit of his heart should obey him as long as he can and if another comes to dispute him you must strike the neck of that man.” (Muslim)
2. The Ijma’ of the Sahabah
In the book of Al-Fasil-fi-al Milal by Ibn Hazim, the Tarikh of al-Tabari, Al-‘Aqd al-Fareed of Al-Waqidi, Al-Seerah of Ibn Kathir, Al-Sunan al-Kubra’a of Bayhaqi and Al-Seerah of Ibn Hisham it is reported that Al-Habbab ibn al-Mundhir said when the Sahabah met in the wake of the death of the Messenger of Allah (saw) at the saqifa (hall) of bani Sa’ida, “One Amir from us and one Amir from you (meaning one from the Ansar and one from the Muhajireen).” Upon this Abu Bakr replied, “It is forbidden for Muslims to have two Amirs (rulers)…”
The Sahabah heard him, approved and consented; no one disputed the verdict, but submitted to it and accepted it as law (an indication of evidence from the Sunnah). The Ansar then conceded their claim to the Khilafah and al-Habbab ibn al-Mundhir was the first to give his pledge of allegiance to Abu Bakr (ra). The Ijma’ of the Sahabah then took effect on the day of al-saqifa that it is an obligation for all Muslims to have only one ruler.
The Fourth Principle
The Khaleefah Has the Exclusive Power to Adopt The Divine Laws – He Alone Enacts The Constitution and Various Laws
This principle, derived from the Qur’an, the Sunnah and Ijma’ of the Sahabah, can be extracted from two different angles:
a. Obedience to the head of the Islamic State is an obligation on Muslims.
b. Managing the affairs of the Muslims is an obligation on the head of State.
The first point: Obeying the head of the Islamic State is an obligation on Muslims.
This has been clearly confirmed in many Qur’anic verses and ahadith to the point where the Shari’ah considered obedience to the ruler as part of obedience to Allah (swt) and His Messenger (saw). Therefore obeying the ruler entails a reward and disobedience entails punishment.
The following is an evidence from the Qur’an: “O you who believe! Obey Allah, and obey the Messenger and those of you who are in authority.”
The Fourth Principle
The Khaleefah Has the Exclusive Power to Adopt The Divine Laws – He Alone Enacts The Constitution and Various Laws
This principle, derived from the Qur’an, the Sunnah and Ijma’ of the Sahabah, can be extracted from two different angles:
a. Obedience to the head of the Islamic State is an obligation on Muslims.
b. Managing the affairs of the Muslims is an obligation on the head of State.
The first point: Obeying the head of the Islamic State is an obligation on Muslims.
This has been clearly confirmed in many Qur’anic verses and ahadith to the point where the Shari’ah considered obedience to the ruler as part of obedience to Allah (swt) and His Messenger (saw). Therefore obeying the ruler entails a reward and disobedience entails punishment.
The following is an evidence from the Qur’an: “O you who believe! Obey Allah, and obey the Messenger and those of you who are in authority.” [TMQ 4:59]
Evidence from the Sunnah:
Bukhari, Muslim, Abu Daud, al-Nisa’i and Ibn Majah reported on the authority of Abu Hurayrah (ra) that he heard the Messenger of Allah (saw) say, “Whoever obeyed me he obeyed Allah; whoever disobeyed me he disobeyed Allah, whoever obeyed the Amir he obeyed me and whoever disobeyed him disobeyed me.”
Bukhari, Abu Daud, Ibn Majah and Ahmad ibn Hanbal reported on the authority of ‘Abdullah ibn ‘Umar that the Messenger of Allah (saw) said, “The Muslim should hear and obey in whatever he liked or disliked as long as he is not ordered to commit a sin. If he were ordered to commit a sin he should neither hear or obey.”
Bukhari, Muslim and Ahmad ibn Hanbal reported on Ubada ibn al-Samit’s authority that he said,“We pledged ourselves to the Messenger of Allah in complete obedience in wealth and woe, in ease and hardship and evil circumstances that we would not dispute with the people in authority unless a flagrant disbelief (kufr bu’ah) for which we have clear evidence from the Shari’ah is witnessed.”
These Qur’anic verses and ahadith from the Sunnah indicate clearly that obedience to the head of state is an obligation, whether his title were the Khaleefah, the Imam, the Amir of the believers or the person in authority. He must be obeyed for he is the one in authority over the Muslim Ummah.
If the Shari’ah obliges Muslims to obey the people in authority with the Khaleefah as their supreme ruler his obedience would then be in matters he commands according to the Shari’ah. He is not to be obeyed in matters that are sinful nor in the event of his changing of the divine laws in any way.
The second point: Looking after Muslim’s affairs is the duty of the head of the State
The head of the State is the guardian of the Ummah and the trustee of her affairs. He is, by Shari’ah, entrusted with protecting and looking after the Ummah’s interests. That is why the Ummah gives him the authority to rule by what Allah (swt) has revealed so he works towards enforcing Islam in society and within the state as well as conveying the Islamic Message to the world.
Evidence from the Sunnah:
Bukhari, Muslim, Abu Daud and Tirmidhi reported on the authority of ‘Abdullah ibn ‘Umar that the Messenger of Allah (saw) said, “Each one of you is a guardian and you are all responsible about your guardianship, the Imam is a guardian of the people and he is responsible for his guardianship of the people.”
The Structure Of the Ruling System of Islam
In Islam, the ruling system (and its other systems for that matter) is not designed by man, but rather by the Creator of all things, Allah (swt). Therefore, as Muslims we must abide by this ruling system. The ruling system Islam has given is one of unity. This is because the divine evidence has brought nothing else and forbidden us to adopt anything else. This ruling system of unity puts the power of ruling in one man’s hands, i.e., the Khaleefah. No other person is allowed to share power with the Khaleefah. It is narrated by ‘Abdullah ibn Amr ibn ‘A’as, “Whoever gives allegiance to an Imam giving him the clasp of his hand and the fruit of his heart shall obey him as long as he can. If another comes to dispute with the Imam, strike the head of the other.” (Muslim and Bukhari).
Also, the Prophet (saw) said, “If two Khaleefahs are given the allegiance, kill the latter of them.” (Muslim and Bukhari)
This proves that Islam prohibits having two rulers for the Muslims. Therefore, it is haram to form nation states with different rulers upon the Muslim lands. Therefore, the Islamic ruling system is one of unity and not of a federate structure.
In Islam, the ruling system is based wholly and solely on the divine text, i.e. the Qur’an, Sunnah and Ijma’ of the Sahabah. The lives of the Sahabah should be an area of study, for a Muslim is obliged to take laws from the Ijma’ of the Sahabah.
Unlike all other forms of ruling systems, Islam does not allow man to legislate rules within this system by utilising his own mind. Legislation is left only to Allah (swt). Man only has to recognise, understand, and implement these laws. We, therefore, disregard anyone who suggests ideas, concepts, and theories alien to the Islamic ruling system such as Democracy, Islamic Socialism, Islamic Republic (as in Iran, Pakistan, Sudan, etc.), and so on. It is totally inappropriate, and may even be kufr, to say that Islam did not give us a definite, detailed, clear picture of what the ruling system of Islam is. This would lead one to be implicitly stating that Islam is incomplete. Also, those who claim that the Islamic form of ruling system is not applicable in today’s world are delving in the cauldron of kufr ideas. Islam is a deen applicable for all times and places!
Allah (swt) through the Qur’an, Sunnah and the Ijma’ has given us a clear picture of what the Islamic form of ruling system is.
Departments of Ruling
Simply put, the Islamic ruling system consists of the following departments:
Delegated Assistants (Mu’awin Tafweedh)
Executive Assistants (Mu’awin Tanfeedh)
Amir of Jihad
Administrative System (Jihaas Idaari)
Majlis al-Ummah (Council of the Ummah)
It should be noted that of these bodies, three are actual rulers. A ruler is one who maintains the responsibility of implementing Islam, within the state and has the authority of executing Islamic punishments upon those who have violated any Islamic law. The other bodies have no authority to enforce Islamic laws on the people without the permission of the rulers.
The three bodies of rulers are the Khaleefah, Delegated Assistants and Governors. As for the judges, they incorporate two positions of actual ruling which are the Chief of Judges (Qadi al-Quda) and the Judge of Madhaalim (complaints against the State); while the other bodies of people are responsible for carrying out the orders of these rulers. Of course, the head of state is the Khaleefah. This distinction places restrictions on where, when, and how the Delegated Assistants, Governors, Head of Judges and Judge of Madhaalim may execute their rule upon the people. As such, the rulers within the Islamic State must be Muslims, males, just, free, able, adult, and sane.
The Khaleefah – Head of State
The word Khaleefah linguistically means ‘successor’ in the Arabic language. But, the Shari’ah of Islam has given us another, more comprehensive definition of the word Khaleefah. The Prophet of Allah (saw) said, “…there will be no more prophets after me, only Khulafa’a.” (Bukhari) In this hadith the word Khulafa’a is not referring to successors, but to heads of the Islamic State. The word Khaleefah is, therefore, taken to mean ‘that man who rules over a people by Islam,’ acting as the head of the State. The same Shari’ah definition would apply if we used the word Imam, instead of Khaleefah, to indicate the head of State. And since in Islam, the bay’ah is given only to a head of the State, both the words Khaleefah and Imam are pertaining to the head of the State.
The Process of Bay’ah The method of installing the Khaleefah is through the process of bay’ah. The power to rule by Islam is given by the Ummah to the Khaleefah. Authority belongs to the Ummah and it deputises the Khaleefah to enact the Shari’ah. This is done through a contract between the Khaleefah and the Ummah. The Ummah must obey as long as the Khaleefah implements Islam on them. The process of bay’ah may occur after a general vote given by all the Muslims of the Islamic State or it may occur after a vote among the Leaders of the Ummah (ahl-al-halli-wal-‘aqd). Voting is merely a means to determine the choice of the Ummah, it does not substitute the bay’ah. Non-Muslims, children, and Muslims residing out of the State do not have the right to vote. If all the Muslims of the Islamic State are voting then the bay’ah of in’iqad (pledge of acceptance, by which he becomes Khaleefah) is given to the man elected. However, if the vote occurs through the representatives, then a bay’ah of in’iqad is first given by the representatives, after which a second bay’ah of obedience (ta’aa) is given by the Ummah, to the person elected. The silence of the Ummah over the elected Khaleefah can be considered as the bay’ah of obedience (ta’aa). It is through this bay’ah process that a person attains his position as Khaleefah. The candidates for the position of Khaleefah may, in addition to self nomination, e chosen by the Majlis al-Ummah. It is from these candidates that the Ummah chooses for itself a ruler.
Once the appointment is made, the Ummah then has no right to dismiss the Khaleefah, as long as he upholds the Shari’ah and fulfils the conditions to be a Khaleefah. Since the contract made between the Ummah and the Khaleefah is for the Khaleefah to rule upon them with Islam, the Ummah has no right to dissolve the contract, as long as he maintains his part of the contract. Therefore, a Khaleefah has no term of office. He remains the head of State, as long as he is able to uphold the contract or until he tenders his resignation.
On the other hand, a Khaleefah may be dismissed for the following Islamic reasons:
If he becomes an apostate (i.e. becomes a non-Muslim).
If he neglects the prayers and proposes for others to do the same.
If he becomes physically incompetent to handle the duties assigned to him in his contract, such as losing sight, hands, both legs, etc. However, losing one ear or his nose or his sexual organs does not impair his ability to perform his duties.
If he persists in debauchery and immoral behaviour (fisq), injustice in public behaviour, and negligence of the Islamic laws.
If he changes his sex, since women are not allowed to assume positions of ruling.
If he becomes a captive, under the kuffar, from where he can not enforce his rulings upon the citizens of the State and freely maintain the operation of the State in addition to the absence of any possibility for his return.
If another person dominates him in his opinions and the Khaleefah is unable to exert his own opinion in the process of running the State. Here, the case would be that a second person is running the State, while the Khaleefah becomes symbolic.
In each of these situations, the case is brought to the highest court of the Islamic State i.e., the Court of Madhaalim (complaints against the State). The court arbitrates, of course, according to the Qur’an and Sunnah. The decision made by the Court of Madhaalim is binding on both parties.
The Delegated and Executive Assistants to the Khaleefah
The delegated assistants (Mu’awin Tafweedh) are appointed by the Khaleefah to assist him in ruling the State. The evidence for this appointment is derived from the hadith of the Prophet (saw) in which he said, “My two ministers (wazirs) from the people are Abu Bakr and ‘Umar.” (Tirmidhi).
Islam, on the other hand, allows these ministers to go beyond a specific function. The ministers whom the Prophet (saw) appointed were not specialised or assigned restrictively to a specific function. We, therefore, prefer to use the word Mu’awin (assistant) instead of ministers, so as not to confuse it with the Western terminology of minister.
The delegated assistant is one whom the Khaleefah delegates to perform all functions in the way of general delegations. In the appointment of the Delegated assistant it is necessary for the Khaleefah to cite both the aspects of general ruling and being his assistant in the contract, because appointing him in only one aspect restricts his function as a Mu’awin.
Such was the case when Abu Bakr appointed ‘Umar as his assistant, and when ‘Umar took ‘Uthman and “Ali as his assistants, and when ‘Uthman took Marwan ibn al-Hakam and ‘Ali as his assistants. These delegated assistants are responsible to the Khaleefah and they inform the Khaleefah of the matters surrounding them.
The delegated assistants, therefore, have a general responsibility in ruling the state and must be appointed by the Khaleefah for this general responsibility. They are responsible to the Khaleefah for their actions and the Khaleefah must examine the delegated actions and disposals of these delegated assistants. We must remember that the contract for ruling is between the Ummah and the Khaleefah alone. It is the Khaleefah who is finally responsible for the proper implementation of Islam on the people.
The Khaleefah is allowed to engage himself in administrative matters. The Prophet (saw) did engage in administrative matters when he broke idols, organised the Jihad, and erased his title from the Treaty of Hudaybiyah. To facilitate matters, he may appoint executing assistants (Mu’awin Tanfeedh) to help him manage the administration of the state. Unlike delegated assistants, the executive assistants are only executors of the directives of the Khaleefah. They are not rulers. They may, also, be assigned to one specific area of work or administration.
Just as the authority of the Mu’awin Tanfeedh is limited so are the conditions for his appointment. The executive assistant carries out the orders and rules of the Khaleefah which are to be implemented, and then brings feedback to the Khaleefah, regarding the execution.
The Wali and the ‘Aamel of the Provinces Subdivisions of the wilayas or Provinces are called ‘amalat or districts. Supervision and responsibility for these ‘amalat is assigned to an ‘aamel or sub-governor.
Having previously discussed the position of Khaleefah, we will contemplate here on the role of wali and ‘aamel who implement Islam upon their residents. This general jurisdiction of the wali obliges us to consider him as a ruler. He, therefore, has the responsibilities which are assigned to the Khaleefah for the efficient operation of the state. However areas that might make him autonomous, such as finances of the state, the army, and the judiciary, as well as adopting laws other than those adopted by the Khaleefah, are not within his control since they might pose a threat to the unity of the state.
The wali may further subdivide his region into ‘amalat and appoint ‘aamels to them. These subdivisions and appointments each assist in the implementation of Islam and the resultant tranquillity of the state. The Prophet (saw) said, to his appointees, “Make it easy not difficult, make the people optimistic not pessimistic, do not make the people go away but make them come closer, and consult one another.”
This is an indication for us to administer the Islamic State in a manner which will cause the people to come closer to Islam. The appointment of the wali is carried out by the Khaleefah. The appointment is given by the Khaleefah on the provision that the wali rules within his jurisdiction by Islam and does not venture, at anytime, to usurp the power of the Khaleefah. The qualifications for both the wali and the ‘aamel are the same, since both have similar responsibilities. They are rulers and must therefore qualify for the conditions of rulers. They must be Muslim, male, mature, sane, ‘adl (just), free, and able to handle their responsibility. The wali and the ‘aamel have full command in their region of appointment. In their respective regions they are responsible for all the various departments of administration. However, they are ultimately responsible to the Khaleefah, who can oversee their decisions, and dismiss them if their conduct is incorrect. The Police of the Islamic State are at the disposal of the wali or ‘aamel, in their efforts to establish the Shari’ah upon the people.
The Amir of Jihad
The directorates of the Amir of Jihad consist of four departments. These are :
1. The External Affairs (Foreign Policy)
2. The Military
3. The Internal Security
The Amir of Jihad is the director and supervisor of all four departments. The Khaleefah may delegate this position to a suitably qualified Muslim, or he may take on the role himself.
1. The External affairs (Foreign Policy)
The Foreign Policy of the Islamic State The foreign policy of the Islamic State covers the external policies of the state and its relationship with other nations and countries. The foreign policy in Islam serves three objectives:
a. To protect the entity of the state and the Ummah.
b. To facilitate the da’wah to other people and nations.
c. To organise the relationship of the Islamic State with other states.
When one considers these aims it becomes clearly apparent that the foreign policy of the Islamic State is not merely an obligation (fard) upon the Muslims to implement, but with the existing bloodshed, rape and destruction of Muslims around the world, like Bosnia, Kashmir, Palestine etc., it is a necessity.
It is an utmost duty upon the Muslim Ummah to convey the message of Islam to humanity. On His arrival from Khaybar, the Messenger of Allah (saw), addressing his companions (ra), said, “Oh people, Allah has sent me as a mercy to all mankind; do not dispute with me like the disciples disputed with Isa (as) son of Maryam. The companions exclaimed : And how did the disciples dispute, O Prophet of Allah? He (saw) answered : He (Isa) called them to that which I called you; he who was sent to a near place was pleased and satisfied, but he who was sent to a far place became displeased and heavy footed.” And Allah (swt) says, “It is He who has sent the Messenger with the guidance and the deen of truth, that it may prevail over all other deens.” [TMQ 9:33]
The duty to spread Islam necessitates that the Muslims be in contact with what is happening all over the world. This contact requires an awareness of the many differing states, peoples and thoughts, because all of them are essential to the goal, i.e. the spreading of Islam.
Our goal as an Islamic Ummah is to spread Islam to all corners of the globe and this means we are compelled to work on an international level. In other words we must know the situation and major problems of the world, understand the motives and public opinion of the people, the various political actions and manoeuvres and above all, we must be aware of what is happening in the international arena. This political awareness is of primary importance to the major states and is what politicians all over the world mainly concern themselves with.
The people of the Islamic State should have political awareness as one of their characteristics. If it is their duty to spread the Islamic call (da’wah), then this awareness must be made commonplace. We cannot begin to organise our relationships with the other states unless we achieve this awareness.
Hence, conveying the Islamic call is the axis around which the Foreign Policy of the Islamic State revolves, and is the basis upon which relationships with other states are built.
The Relationship of the Islamic State with Other States
The relationship of the Islamic State with other states should be built upon four approaches:
•Firstly, the states of the Muslim world are to be considered as being part of one country. Hence, these countries are not considered in the sphere of foreign policy. Instead the procedure will be to unify them all into one state. For example, if the state was established in Egypt, then all the other Muslim countries would be considered – not as foreign states – but as part of the Muslim Ummah. We would not recognise them as separate states. Therefore, we would not establish our embassies in them or vice versa. Instead we should call the Muslims in those countries to their duty which is to unite themselves to the Islamic State.
•Those states with whom the Islamic State has economic, commercial, good neighbouring and/or cultural treaties; they are treated in accordance to the terms of the treaties. However, the economic and commercial relations with them must be confined to certain items that benefit the Ummah. It must not lead to the strengthening of those states on our account.
•Those states with whom we do not have treaties; the actual Imperialist states like America, France and Britain; and those states that have ambitions in the Islamic State, such as Russia. All these states are considered as potential enemies of war and invasion. All precautions should be taken with them.
•Finally, those states that are actual enemies of war, such as Israel. These states must be treated as in a state of war and this must be the basis of all transactions.
The Basis and the Method for the Foreign Policy The root of interaction between the Islamic State and the other states is the duty to propagate the call of Islam (da’wah). The method by which to achieve this is the declaration of Jihad. This was the method of Muhammad (saw) as soon as the Islamic State was established in Madinah. It must be stressed that the Muslims do not and did not start fighting with the enemy without first presenting them with the opportunity to accept and embrace Islam, thereby becoming part of the Islamic State. This is the first process of the three stage method of delivering the call of Islam through Jihad.
If this offer is turned down, they are asked to pay jizyah (head tax) and to be part of the State. They would be treated as dhimma, i.e. the State would be responsible for their security and protection. They would be ruled by the Islamic Shari’ah and their land would become Muslim land and part of the Islamic State.
If the enemy on the other hand refused both of these options, namely to reject the Islamic Belief and System or reject the System and the payment of jizyah, the Muslims would proceed to the third stage and declare war upon them. Allah (swt) says: “And fight them on until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah, altogether and everywhere.” [TMQ 8:39]
This third and final stage of Jihad has various implications that should expose many of the misconceptions held about Jihad
• a. Jihad, contrary to the slander propagated by the West, is not barbaric. In fact, when the Muslims declare war, as offensive Jihad, the purpose is to remove any obstacle in the way of implementing Allah’s (swt) deen, and the fighting is regulated by the rules of the Shari’ah. Therefore, in the third stage of Jihad after the first two options have failed, the Islamic army, when they enter and fight, are not allowed to kill women, children or the elderly. Nor will they fight civilians who are not supporting or participating in the fighting. Indeed, Islam defines a specific code of conduct for the Muslim army, that ensures justice even in the battle field. These rules include : no destruction of trees or buildings unnecessarily, no ‘civilian targets’, no mutilation of dead bodies, no raping of women, no torturing prisoners of war, etc. This lies in stark contrast with the practices of the kuffar in war, where every conceivable act of barbarity and transgression is perpetrated against the people.
• b. By principle, Jihad is offensive, i.e. the Muslims initiate it to spread the boundary and domain of Islam, and offensive Jihad is the responsibility of the state. The foreign policies of all the existing Muslim regimes, such as Sudan, Iran or Saudi Arabia are clearly in contradiction to this fundamental principle of Islam, for they recognise and accept the national borders and their integrity, as laid down by the ‘International Law.’
• c. Jihad linguistically means to exert oneself to the utmost. Therefore, the word ‘jihad’ can be used to describe the effort put into studying, working or looking after children etc., but the Shari’ah definition of Jihad is very specific and is defined by the classical scholars as, “To fight the disbelievers (kafir) to the utmost, to make the word of Allah (swt) the highest in all the lands (i.e. sovereign).” Therefore, Jihad is linked by the Islamic Shari’ah to the physical fighting.
• d. Since Jihad by principle is offensive and requires the state, that which is associated with it, i.e. defensive Jihad, is also integral to Islam. However, defensive Jihad, i.e. the repelling of kuffar who fight the Ummah or take her land, is not part of the foreign policy. Thus it is a duty that must be performed by the Ummah, whether they have a state or not.
2. The Military
The Army of the Islamic State
The issues of internal security, the ability to spread da’wah, and repel foreign attacks are taken care of by the army.
Allah (swt) has obligated us to spread Islam to the world and has specified the method as da’wah and Jihad, and that Jihad is fard. So every male Muslim who reaches the age of 15 is obliged to enlist in the army and undergo military training to prepare for Jihad. Allah (swt) says, “And fight them on until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah, altogether and everywhere.” [TMQ 8:39] The Prophet (saw) said, “And fight the people who associate (things) with Allah with your wealth, your hand and your tongue.”
The Structure of the Army
The army is divided into two sections. Firstly, there are the ‘regulars’, who are employed as soldiers of the State’s army and who are paid salaries from the State’s budget. Secondly, there are the ‘reservists’, who comprise all the Muslims that are capable of fighting, and are mobilised when the demand for soldiers requires it.
The Khaleefah is the leader of the army; he appoints the commander-in-chief, a general for each brigade and a commander for each division. The brigadiers and commanders appoint the remaining ranks of the army. Members of the general staff are appointed according to their military culture by the general chief of staff.
The army comprises of one army, which is located in specific camps. Some of these camps must be located in different provinces (wilayaat) and strategic locations, and some must remain permanently mobile fighting forces. The camps are organised in numerous groups, each one of which is given a number to accompany its name, such as the 1st Army, the 3rd Army, or it can be named after a province (wilayah) or district (‘imala).
The Function of the Army
One of the functions of the army, in Islam, is to fulfil the obligation of Jihad – the physical fighting (in the field of battle) against the kafiroon (rejecters), be it offensive or defensive, in order to make the Name (deen) of Allah (swt) dominant. Allah (swt) ordered Jihad in the ayah: “Make ready for them (the unbelievers) all you can of (armed) force and of horses tethered, that thereby you may strike fear into the hearts of the enemy of Allah and your enemy, and others beside them whom you know not. Allah knows them. Whatsoever you spend in the way of Allah it will be repaid for you in full, and will not be wronged.”[TMQ 8:60]
The Prophet (saw) showed the power of the state by marching the Muslim army inside Madinah before they went to Tabuk for war. This action frightened the enemy. As he (saw) said, “I have been given the victory by the terror thrown in the hearts of my enemies even from the distance of one month travelling.” These functions of the army are all related to maintaining the external security of the state.
The Islamic state’s foreign policy is to spread Islam throughout the world. The method employed by the state to deliver Islam is through da’wah and Jihad. Therefore, since the Ummah has given the authority to the Imam or Khaleefah to carry this Jihad, it is imperative that the leader of the army be the head of state. The Prophet (saw) established relationships with others on the basis of spreading Islam. He formalised the Treaty of Hudaybiyah in order to allow himself the opportunity to spread Islam throughout the Arabian peninsula. The Prophet (saw) was the head of state in Madinah and he (saw) directed the army to all the battles that took place, during his time. After that, the Khulafa’a Rashidoon also were always the ones to give the orders for where and when the army should fight. It becomes clear from these points that the head of state is the person responsible for the leadership of the army.
Giving the Army Islamic and Military Culture The army is usually the tool that opens up other countries to the da’wah of Islam. Thus, the army personnel have to be intellectually elevated. Meaning, that they have to be well educated about Islam and be able to convey the message to other people. Furthermore, the personnel have to be politically aware so that they remain focused and are not manipulated by the opponents.
Iman of the Army Personnel The army is an integral part of delivering the message of Islam to the world. Its people must, therefore, be highly educated in Islam, and with firm iman. The army must place emphasis on building people with these characteristics within its ranks. An army with strong iman will surely be able to defeat its opponents. We find this to be the case in the time of the Prophet (saw). Muslims were outnumbered in many of the early battles, but with the help of Allah (swt) still achieved victory. In the battle of Badr there was a 3 to 1 ratio. In Uhud, there was a 4 to 1 ratio. In the battle of Ahzab, there was a 4 to 1 ratio.
3. The Internal Security
The department of Internal Security oversees everything connected with security inside the Islamic State, utilising the military forces for this purpose. The internal security, as well as the external security, is preserved by the army. The functions of ‘police’ (al-shurta’) are under the control of the army. The Prophet (saw) appointed Qays ibn Sa’ad as the head of security. He was there to protect the Prophet (saw) when he was in Majlis. It is preferable for the internal security force to maintain the procedures of the regular army, so that it will remain organised, efficient, and co-ordinated as in a regular army. The internal security force has the function of surveillance, preserving law and order, and to execute the laws adopted by the state. The Prophet (saw) appointed ‘Abdullah ibn Mas’ud as the leader of surveillance (assas). Surveillance, by this part of the army, does not mean to invade the privacy of others. Rather, its usage is for general surveillance. Since maintaining the internal security is an action the state is responsible for, it has no right to levy payments on the citizens of the state for executing this function.
4. The Industry Preparation for the foreign policy will require a strongly equipped army. Therefore, the Islamic State will endeavour to obtain the latest technology in warfare, including nuclear capability, space programmes and computer technology, to be ready to fight the enemy in a like way as she is fought. The economy and industry in the Islamic State will be similarly geared towards sustaining the army and the effort of Jihad.
The department of industry directs all affairs connected with industry, including heavy industry, such as the production of motors engines and car bodies; metallurgical industries, electronics and light industries; and factories of private and public ownership connected with the military industry. All factories of whatever type should be established on the basis of the military policy.
It is under the guidance of the department of the Amir of Jihad that the Islamic State will implement its foreign policy and propagate the deen of Islam to the rest of mankind. By these means, and the help of Allah (swt), the state will be able to achieve the dominance of the word of Allah (swt) throughout the world.
The judicial system in Islam is solely based on the Shari’ah. We must be mindful of the fact that Justice can not be fully served until and unless Islam is applied in its totality. To do otherwise, would mean leaving parts of Allah’s commandments and accepting the rule of man as better able to cope with the issue at hand. This not only leads to the disruption of the society’s well-being but is also an acknowledgement that Allah (swt) is not truly the Sovereign. We find in the Qur’an, Allah (swt) says to the Prophet (saw): “But no by your Lord they can have no (real) faith until they make you judge in all disputes between them and in their souls find no resistance against your decisions but accept them with the fullest conviction.” [TMQ 4:65]
The details of the Islamic judicial system are discussed elsewhere, but it is useful to discuss here the relationship of the ruling system with the courts. The Judge of The Court for Unjust Acts (Qadi al-Madhaalim) This category of judges within the ruling system of Islam consists of judges who settle disputes arising among the people and the state. This judge has jurisdiction within a court called ‘Mahkamat al Madhaalimi (The Court for Unjust Acts) in the Islamic State. In essence, this judge of The Court for Unjust Acts is appointed to remove all unjust acts within the Islamic State, whether they are committed by the Khaleefah, Governors (walis), or any other official of the state. In cases of disputes between the people and the officials of the Islamic State, the judge of this court has the right to dismiss the official of the state once his negligence of the Shari’ah or injustice committed upon the people is established. As examples, this court may investigate all matters executed by the Islamic State involving discrimination upon citizens, improper application of the Shari’ah, improper interpretation of the Shari’ah or the Constitution of the Islamic State, negligence by the Khaleefah of the opinions given to him, forcing a tax unduly upon the citizens of the Islamic State, etc.
An interesting situation arises when a case is studied involving the Khaleefah’s negligence of the Shari’ah. The judge of The Court for Unjust Acts (Mahkamat al Madhaalim) will have to either pass a judgement in favour of the actions of the Khaleefah or against him. If it is in favour of the Khaleefah, then the Khaleefah’s mandate will remain, and will, in fact, render the case as being proper and not negligence. If, on the other hand, the judge decides against the Khaleefah, which entails negligence of the Shari’ah, the Khaleefah must abide by the judgement of the judge. If he fails to do so, the judge will be authorised to remove the Khaleefah from his position on the grounds of negligence of Shari’ah.
The Administrative System
The administrative system is that body of people which executes the Islamic State’s orders upon the citizens and manages the Islamic State’s affairs. Since the Islamic State must implement the Shari’ah upon all of its citizens, it becomes necessary to have an administrative system to accomplish this. Many rules in Islam compel the Islamic State to have an administrative body for their implementation. As such, the rule for collection of zakat, which necessitates the Islamic State to employ personnel for its proper implementation, is one example. Any style or tactic used would be permissible. But, the important point is that ‘the job gets done’. Therefore, it is incumbent upon the Islamic State to use the most efficient style to implement the rule of Islam, as long as they fall within the bounds of the Shari’ah.
We know that the Prophet (saw) managed the affairs of the Ummah, during his period in Madinah. He (saw) appointed many administrators to carry out various functions so that the Islamic State would run efficiently. As an example, he appointed ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib (ra) as a scribe for treaties which the Prophet (saw) concluded with other nations.
The Prophet (saw) gave the management of his Seal (the one he used to imprint his signature on official documents of the State) to Al-Harith ibn Auf al-Mazi. Ibn Abi Fatimah was designated to compile the statistics of the ghanima (spoils of war). Hudhayfa ibn al-Yaman was the writer for the numbers of cultivated fruits in the Hijaz area of the Arabian peninsula. ‘Abdullah ibn Arqam was appointed to calculate the number of people in the tribes and was further assigned the task of management of water in the Islamic State. In the twentieth year of the Hijrah, ‘Umar ibn al-Khattab, as the second Khaleefah, initiated the deewan as a list of names of soldiers and other essential facts. This method of keeping a deewan was borrowed from the Persians who had adopted this style for keeping records of their soldiers, battle gear, and other essential information. A similar technique was employed by ‘Umar (ra), since it was a permissible (mubah) means.
Regarding the appointments to these administrative departments, it is permitted to have any citizen of the Islamic State, male or female, Muslim or non-Muslim, as long as he or she is suitably competent to be a part of this administrative system. It would be important to have a suitable management structure to run the administrative system. We may recall here that the Khaleefah has an entourage of assistants which carry out administrative functions. As discussed previously, they are the Executive Assistants (Mu’awin Tafweedh). The difference between the general administrative body and the Executive Assistants is that the latter is a caretaker of the Khaleefah’s administrative tasks. The former is dealing with administration of the larger Islamic State. It was therefore proved that the Executive Assistants must be Muslims, whereas the general administrators may be Muslims or non-Muslims.
We now have a general idea of the functions of the administrative body of the Islamic State. Its task is to execute the ruler’s command in a competent and efficient manner. It aids the Islamic State in applying the laws of Allah (swt) upon this earth. Of course, one can only theorise on paper the advantages of an administrative system when there is no Islamic State.
Shura It is of utmost necessity to comprehend the concept of shura, as used in Islam, and what it actually means before indulging in a detailed discussion on Majlis al-Ummah. Allah (swt) states in the Qur’an: “Pardon them and ask forgiveness for them and consult with them upon the conduct of affairs, and when you have decided (upon a course of action), place your trust in Allah.” [TMQ 3:159] “And those who answer the call of their Lord and establish worship, and whose affairs are a matter of counsel.” [TMQ 42:38]
The last two ayat are directly related to the issue of consultation. Shura denotes engaging in mutual consultation or mutual discussions regarding a particular matter i.e. taking people’s opinion. Taking opinions occurs on the part of the Khaleefah or any Amir or responsible person be it a ruler or a leader. As for the declaration of the opinion to the person in charge, be it a ruler or a leader, it is just a naseeha (advice).
Before addressing the application of shura, as taken by the Messenger of Allah (saw) in relation to our affairs nowadays, we need to study the idea of taking an opinion, and remove any ambiguity existing in the minds of the Muslims. Realistically, an opinion can be taken regarding :
1. Matters of Shari’ah (legislative matters).
2. Matters of Intellect or Technicalities.
3. Opinions Which Directly Lead to Actions.
1. Matters of Shari’ah (legislative matters) :
As for matters of Shari’ah, there is no shura at all. In order to reach the Islamic opinion in any Shari’ah matter, proper ijtihad must be conducted, meaning no one’s opinion should be taken in matters related to wahi, i.e. haram and halal. This can be seen in the action of the Messenger (saw) in the treaty of Hudaybiyah. In that incident he (saw) did not consult the companions and refused to listen to their complaints regarding the terms of the treaty, saying, “…and I will not disobey His (swt) commands.”
2. Matters of Intellect or Technicalities:
For matters of intellect or technicalities only those with the knowledge of that specific field would be consulted. For example, in the Battle of Ahzab, the Prophet (saw) received news of a dangerous confederacy, consisting of 10,000 people, aiming to besiege Madinah. The Muslims in Madinah decided to fight against the invading enemy from inside their town, and they manned all the buildings surrounding Madinah. Howeer, there was one area left open, where Salman al-Faresi suggested that a trench be dug in that place, as the Persians used to do in similar situations. The Prophet (saw) accepted the advice, and he himself took part in digging that trench.
3. Opinions Which Directly Lead to Actions in the Mubah Issues :
Finally, opinions which directly lead to actions in the mubah (permissible) affairs of Islam where no expertise is required to arrive at a conclusion, and are apart from the commands of Qur’an and Sunnah, may have the Ummah’s input. This is the domain of the Majlis al-Ummah. In this case, the Ummah’s wishes would be sought so that the Ummah’s involvement remains active. Allah (swt) states in the Qur’an: “Pardon them and ask forgiveness for them and consult with them upon the conduct of affairs, and when you have decided (upon a course of action), place your trust in Allah.” [TMQ 3:159]
This final area, in which shura may be sought, is the area in which the Majlis al-Ummah plays an active role, i.e. in the mubah issues. At this point, when this opinion is sought, it becomes mashura. Thus, mashura means taking the opinion of the majority in Majlis al-Ummah concerning mubah matters, which becomes binding upon the ruling apparatus to implement. An example in which the Majlis al-Ummah would play a role could be choosing the place of where a school or hospital should be built in a community.
Majlis al-Ummah (Council of the Ummah)
The Majlis al-Ummah is part of the ruling structure of Islam. It deals with matters which are mubah and do not require an expert to arrive at the correct conclusion. These matters of the Majlis al-Ummah are termed as ‘mashura’. The majority’s opinion is the binding opinion, in this case, since there is no set right or wrong in the mubah matters. The Khaleefah is therefore obliged to uphold the opinions of the Majlis al-Ummah, as long as the opinions are in the legal area of opinion for the Majlis al-Ummah. This is substantiated by the hadith of the Prophet (saw) : “If both of you (referring to ‘Umar and Abu Bakr) agree on a mashura, I would not go against it..”
Structure and Functionality of Majlis al-Ummah The persons who represent the Muslims in voicing their opinions to the head of the state are called to the Majlis al-Ummah. It is allowed for the non-Muslims to be in certain sessions of the Majlis, for the purpose of presenting complaints about oppression by the hand of the ruling apparatus or to complain about any problems, which they encounter with regards to the implementation of Islam upon them.
These members of the Majlis al-Ummah are elected by the people, and there is no gender distinction in who can be a member. As long as the candidate carries the citizenship, is sane and is in his/her post-puberty years, then he or she qualifies.
Pertaining to the structure of the Majlis al-Ummah, there can be two main committees. One to oversee the central government and one for the provincial government. Within these main committees exist sub-committees which are assigned specific tasks based on the ability of the individuals.
Checks and Balances
The nature of Islam is to preserve justice and societal harmony, and to uproot and eliminate institutional oppression if and when it presents itself. Sovereignty belongs to Islam’s legislative sources, and the aim of Islam’s legislative sources is to secure and uphold the societal ideals, while satisfying the individual needs of each human being in the society. Islam granted the people the authority to implement the Shari’ah rules whereby these aims and objectives would be maintained. The people in turn appoint one person (The Khaleefah) to rule them by Islam, and permitted the people to use force to remove the Khaleefah, in case he clearly went against the Shari’ah.
One of the branches of the judicial system is called Mahkamat al Madhaalim (Court of Oppressive Acts). The primary role or function of this judicial branch is to settle disputes between the people and the Khaleefah. The order or finding of a judge in the judicial branch cannot be stayed, but rather it must be implemented, even if the order was to remove the Khaleefah himself, or anyone that he deputised. Failure to implement the order or finding of a judge in Mahkamat al Madhaalim, provides a license to the people to remove the Khaleefah, even by force.
One of the functions of the Majlis al-Ummah is to create a platform whereby the people can voice either their satisfaction or their dissatisfaction and complaints to the government. The Mahkamat al Madhaalim would be presented with the complaints from the Majlis al-Ummah or the individual in the state could take his complaint to Mahkamat al Madhaalim directly. Everyone is subject to Islam’s legislative sources and as such there is no elite class in the Islamic society, and anyone who is under the jurisdiction of the Islamic State, be they Muslim or non-Muslim, must have their rights protected. Therefore, Islam’s method of preserving justice and social harmony, and uprooting and eliminating oppression is realistic and practical. Another method of establishing ‘checks and balances’ on the government is the process of nominating the Khaleefah. The Khaleefah, as one option, may be elected from the choices presented by the Majlis al-Ummah. Thus, the Majlis al-Ummah makes sure that the individual elected to the pst of the Khaleefah is a practising Muslim who fulfils the requirements. Consequently, an individual looking to serve his own interests cannot become the Khaleefah.
Furthermore, another element that is an integral part of establishing a mechanism of checks and balances within the system is taqwa (fear of Allah). The ruler carries out every action based on the concept of being questioned by Allah (swt) on the Day of Judgement. Thus, the ruler would make sure that he fulfils his part of the contract as ruler of the Muslim Ummah so that he may face Allah (swt) without fearing His (swt) punishment, due to negligence or serving his own interests.
Thus, we can see that Islam provides a system of government which is just, because it implements only Allah’s (swt) laws rather than man-made laws. Only when Muslims understand the mechanisms of ruling which Islam provides will they have confidence in it, and realise the flaws and weaknesses of other systems. May Allah (swt) help us in our duty to establish it!
Ruling in Islam The situation of those in authority is of utmost importance for the people of any society. This is because every decision they make and every rule they implement has repercussions which affect the whole population. So, when those in authority have failings, the whole society becomes characterised by these failings. Today, the whole world is subject to man-made laws. Man who is limited in his knowledge, prone to errors and subject to prejudice and greed. As a result of this, the rules which govern the world reflect these aspects of man’s character – leading to oppression of the weak, injustice and corruption. People in one part of the world are allowed to starve, while in another, surplus produce is burnt or dumped in the sea. We are subject to taxes we do not want and cannot afford to pay. And we are told what we can and cannot do by a handful of politicians who are no better than and usually much worse than ourselves.
The Islamic ruling system is the only one which gives a way out from these problems. Instead of being subject to man-made laws, where one person is made to bow before another, our lives and society are governed by the law of Allah (swt) the Supreme. Here, it is the people who have authority to ensure that the ruler implements Allah’s law, solely and in its entirety, and that he never follows his own whims and desires, so becoming a dictator.
It is the job of the Ruling System of the state to make sure that all the administrative matters within its boundaries run smoothly and facilitate the easy living of the subjects, whether Muslim or not, within the Islamic framework.
As well, the state will be the effective means of delivering the call to Islam to all the nations of the world. It has a powerful army to facilitate this task, and also to defend its frontiers from the likes of the aggressors who currently plague the Muslim world; the problems in Bosnia, India and Israel will be no more than a painful, but distant memory. All the systems of Islam that are collected here are tied together to form a perfectly balanced and co-ordinated whole. Each is dependent for its functioning on the others, and none would be complete if considered on its own. You can see therefore how the Ruling System of Islam ties them all together to give a way of life that is unsurpassed in the history of humanity.
(Quotations from TIME Magazine:)
TIME, July 2, 1928, p. 17
Enough to set hairs a-standing on pious Mohammedans heads would be a proposal to cover the broad, flat floors of mosques with hateful, heathen pews. Pews would prevent squatting in the traditional attitude of prayer. Pews would obstruct reverent foreheads from bending down to touch the floor of the House of Allah. Pews would be an awful desecration -as awful as though heathen Christians should not don slippers before entering a mosque, and thus pollute the floor. However, since the present ruling class of Young Turks are not pious Mohammedans, it was natural, last week, that the Commission on Religious Reform, recently appointed by President Mustafa Kemal Pasha should recommend:
1) Pews to cover the floor of every mosque;
2) Abolition of the mosque slipper and prayer rug;
3) installation of organs, choirs. Observers of the Young Turks’ successful occidentalization of Turkey marveled, once more, at the docility of the Turkish masses, which have abandoned the fez, ceased to contract polygamous marriages, and now seem prepared to alter the fundamental rites of their religion – all this within ten years.
(TIME, January 9, 1933, p. 64) Squinting skyward last week, Turks looked for the new moon. When they should see it Ramadan would begin. Ramadan the mystic month in which the Koran was revealed to Prophet Mohammed. This year the first glint of the new moon had a special, dread significance. Turks had been ordered by their stern dictator, Mustafa Kemal Pasha who made them drop the veil and the fez
(TIME Feb. 15, 1926 et seq.), that beginning with Ramadan they must no longer call their god by his Arabic name, Allah. No godly man, Dictator Kemal considers that there is no reason why Turks should not call Allah by his Turkish name Tanri. There is no reason except centuries of tradition, no reason except that Turkish imams (priests) all know the Koran by heart in Arabic while few if any have memorized it in Turkish. Strict to the point of cruelty last week was Dictator Kemal’s decree that muezzins, calling the faithful to prayer from the top of Turkey’s minarets, must shout not the hallowed “Allah Akbar!” (Arabic for “God is Great!”) but the unfamiliar words “Tanri Uludur!” which mean the same thing in Turkish.
When imams threatened to suspend services in the mosques and hide the prayer rugs, the Government announced that it was holding 400 brand-new prayer rugs in reserve, threatened to produce “newly trained muezzins who know the Koran in Turkish and are ready to jump into the breach.”
Nearer & nearer crept the moon to crescent. Ramadan was almost upon Turkey when officials of the Department of Culture (which includes religion) screwed up their courage and told Dictator Kemal that he simply could not change the name of Turkey’s god – at least not last week. Already several muezzins had been thrown into jail for announcing that they would continue to shout “Allah Akbar!” The populace was getting ugly, obviously sympathized with the Allah-shouters.
Abruptly Dictator Kemal yielded “Let them pray as they please, temporarily” he growled. Beaming, his Minister rushed off to proclaim the ordered by their stern dictator, Mustafa Kemal Pasha who made them drop the veil and the fez (TIME, glad respite only a few hours before the new moon appeared. “On account of the general unpreparedness of muezzins
and imams,” they suavely declared, “prayers may be offered and the Koran recited in Arabic during the present month of Ramadan, but discourse by the imams must be in Turkish.” During Ramadan all Moslems are especially irritable because they eat nothing during the hours of daylight. After the fasting is over Turks will be more tractable, may accept from their Dictator a new name for their God.
(TIME, February 20, 1933, p. 18)
Word for God A hard father to his people, Mustafa Kemal told his Turks last December that they must forget God in the Arabic language (Allah), learn Him in Turkish (Tanri). Admitting the delicacy of renaming a 1300-year-old god, Kemal gave the muezzins a time allowance to learn the Koran in Turkish. Last week in pious Brusa, the “green city,” a muezzin halloed “Tanri Uludur” from one of the minarets whence Brusans had heard “Allah Akbar” since the 14th Century. Raging at Kemal Pasha’s god, they mobbed the muezzin, mobbed the police who came to save him. Quick to defend his new word for God, quicker to show new Turkey the fate of the old-fashioned, Kemal the Ghazi, “the Victorious One,” pounced on Brusa, had 60 of the faithful arrested, ousted the Mufti (ecclesiastical judge) of the Ouglubjami mosque and decreed that henceforth God was Tanri.
(Turkey, Emil Lengyel, 1941, pp. 140-141)
During the early days of Kemal’s career, many of his followers were under the impression that he was a champion of Islam and that they were fighting the Christians. “Ghazi, Destroyer of Christians” was the name they gave him. Had they been aware of his real intentions, they would have called him “Ghazi, Destroyer of Islam.”
(Grey Wolf, Mustafa Kemal, An Intimate Study of a Dictator, H.C. Armstrong, 1934)
He was drinking heavily. The drink stimulated him, gave him energy, but increased his irritability. Both in private and public he was sarcastic, brutal and abrupt. He flared up at the least criticism. He cut short all attempts to reason with him. He flew into a passion at the least opposition. He would neither confide in nor co-operate with anyone. When one politician gave him some harmless advice, he roughly told him to get out. When a venerable member of the Cabinet suggested that it was unseemly for Turkish ladies to dance in public, he threw a Koran at him and chased him out of his office with a stick.
p. 241: “For five hundred years these rules and theories of an Arab sheik,” he said, “and the interpretations of generations of lazy, good for-nothing priests have decided the civil and the criminal law of Turkey.” “They had decided the form of the constitution, the details of the lives of each Turk, his food, his hours of rising and sleeping, the shape of his clothes, the routine of the midwife who produced his children, what he learnt in his schools, his customs, his thoughts, even his most intimate habits.”
“Islam, this theology of an immoral Arab, is a dead thing.” Possibly it might have suited tribes of nomads in the desert. It was no good for a modern progressive State. “God’s revelation!” There was no God. That was one of the chains by which the priests and bad rulers bound the people down.
“A ruler who needs religion to help him rule is a weakling. No weakling should rule..”
And the priests! How he hated them. The lazy, unproductive priests who ate up the sustenance of the people. He would chase them out of their mosques and monasteries to work like men.
Religion! He would tear religion from Turkey as one might tear the throttling ivy away to save a young tree.
Further, it was public knowledge that he was irreligious, broke all the rules of decency, and scoffed at sacred things. He had chased the Sheik-ul-Islam, the High Priest of Islam, out of his office and thrown the Koran after him. He had forced the women in Angora to unveil. He had encouraged them to dance body close to body with accursed foreign men and Christians.
Turkey, Emil Lengyel, 1941, p. 134
Kemal cared nothing about Allah; he was interested in himself and in Turkey. He hated Allah and made him responsible for Turkey’s misfortune. It was Allah’s tyrannical rule that paralyzed the hands of the Turk. But he knew that Allah was real to the Turkish peasant, while nationalism meant nothing to him. He decided, therefore, to draft Allah into his service as the publicity director of his national cause. Through Allah’s aid his people must cease to be Mohammedans and become Turks. Then, after Allah had served Kemal’s purpose, he could discard him. “Was it not because of the Khilafah, Islam and the clerics that the Turkish peasants fought and lost their lives for five centuries? It is high time Turkey attended to her “interests”, ignored the Indians and the Arabs and saved herself from the burden of leading
the Islamic lands.” – Mustafa Kemal addressing the people in the National Assembly on 2nd March 1924.
Mustafa Kemal was the one who put forward to the Assembly a decree enjoining the abolishment of the Khilafah saying, “We must at all costs safeguard the endangered republic and make her rise upon solid scientific bases. The Khaleefah and the legacies of the Ottoman family must go, the dilapidated religious courts and their laws must be replaced by modern courts and laws, and the cleric’s schools must concede their place to official secular schools.”
We call upon every single Muslim, amidst this Kufr dominating the Islamic lands,to work towards establishing the Khilafah as a method to transform his own country into an Islamic household and unite it with the rest of the Islamic lands and to carry the Da’awah to the world in order to make Islam triumphant, while reiterating with truthful belief, enlightenment and awareness the saying of the Messenger of Allah : “By Allah, if they were to put the sun in my right hand and the moon in my left on condition that I relinquished this matter, until Allah has made it triumphant or I perish therein I would not relinquish it”.
“They want to extinguish Allah’s Light with their mouths, but Allah will not allow except that His Light should be perfected even though the disbelievers hate it. It is He who has sent His Messenger with guidance and the Deen of truth, to make it superior over all other ideologies even though the Mushrikoon (polytheists) hate it.”
[TMQ At Tauba 32-33]