|
Due to the current situation of the Muslims, it is natural that the
Ummah is looking for a solution to its problems and dedicates its
resources in order to alleviate itself from the catastrophes that
are confronting it. In its efforts to solve its problems, it is also
natural that the Muslims would realise that Islam is the only
solution because it is deeply rooted in the minds of Muslims and
embodies our history, language, culture, and sentiments. As a result
of such a realisation, the Muslims would naturally work to bring
Islam back into existence.
Today, more Muslims are beginning to return to their Islamic roots,
and we are exerting a tremendous amount of energy and resources in
order to change its situation. In the attempts to create a revival,
those movements who are working to re-establish the Khilafah, have
faced questions and obstacles, such as whether the Khilafah State
existed, and was Islam ever implemented throughout its history?
The root behind this questioning
As a consequence of the cultural and political invasion of the West
on the Muslims - which heavily concentrated on destroying concepts
related to bringing Islam as a system - many ideas related to the
method of Islam became weak, or completely misunderstood.
There were some who were infatuated with the West, and smitten by
their ideals, who denied the Khilafah state existed. The West
ensured that the Muslims, by their own initiative, would refuse
central concepts such as the Islamic political system, to the degree
that when the Khilafah's death certificate was signed in 1924, a
scholar and Azhar graduate named Ali Abdul Raziq, plagiarised a
French book and immediately issued it claiming that Muhammad (saw)
never acted as ruler, imam, judge, or political leader, and that the
Khilafah was not a part of Islam at all. He also claimed that the
Muslims would convene and choose any political system to take care
of their worldly affairs, but emphasised that Islam is exclusively
for the individual and such a political system would not constitute
a part of Islam. After issuing the book, Al Azhar issued a fatwa
calling for the destruction of his certificate and claiming that he
had left the fold of Islam. In spite of Azhar's response, that book
was published immediately after the death of the Khilafah, leading
one to conclude that the publishing of such a book was precisely
timed to coincide with the destruction of Khilafah.
Today, Farish A Noor, a Malaysian political scientist and human
rights activist said in an article dubiously entitled, Restoration
of the Muslim Caliphate remains a Pipe-Dream, ''Those Muslims who
tried to revive the institution of the Caliphate.... were merely
holding on to a fantasy that was a comfortable panacea for the
painful realities of their daily lives.''
Another cause for the questioning of the ruling system of Islam is
sinister too. There are those who are clambering to keep the Kufr
systems, by passing fatawa which are contradictory to Islam, and
which deny the existence of the Khilafah state in history as the
Islamic political system, due to the fact that they wish to please
their masters from amongst the corrupted rulers.
Furthermore there are those who are defeated by pessimism who
constantly see darkness and despair, and are afraid to go out of
their houses. Moreover there are those who have simply misunderstood
the reality of history, and the events of the past, and state that
Islam had its period, for a very short period only.
The West exerted a tremendous effort to alienate the Muslims from
Islam, employing several tactics in order to achieve this aim. Among
their many manoeuvres, they succeeded, through the Orientalists, in
constructing a picture of the Islamic history as a grim era full of
oppression and tyranny. As a result, many Muslims use such a
scenario to counterattack any movement seeking to re-establish Islam
in the realm of life. In order to legitimise their arguments, they
present two particular points. They bring the example of the
Umayyads and Abbasids and claim that their rule was that of a
monarchy; and they cite stories of problems and incidents that
occurred in history, exaggerate them in scope, and use them to
justify their claim that Islam was not implemented. Examining the
validity of such claims requires a more thorough and exhaustive
study of the history.
The argument that the Khilafah lasted for 30 years
There are some who have misunderstood the divine texts, and claim
that the Khilafah lasted for 30 years. They base their
understanding, by taking in an isolated manner an honourable hadith,
which was narrated in the Musnad of Imam Ahmad, which states that
the Prophet (saw) said, ''The Khilafah in my
Ummah after me will be for thirty years. Then there will be Mulk
after that.'' Some people translate the word mulk
as Kingship.
To deal with this understanding we need to look to the hadith, and
what it is addressing, and we need to look to this honourable hadith
in context with other hadith. The 30 years that are mentioned is
related to the period of the Khulafah Rashidah. So if we look to the
period of the Khulafah Rashidah and look to the sum of the first
five Khulafah it comes to exactly thirty years: two years and three
months for Abu Bakr (ra), ten and a half years for Umar (ra), twelve
years for Uthman (ra), four years and nine months for Ali (ra), and
six months for al-Hasan (ra). The hadith then mentions that there
will be mulk afterwards. If we look to this word, ''mulk'', it
has many meanings. Just by glancing at the famous Arabic
dictionaries, like ''Al- Muhit'' of Fairuz Al-Abadi, it clearly
illustrates this. The word mulk amongst other things does
mean kingship, but also it means the one having charge over all the
people, and also the word ''hukm'' (rule), is synonymous with the word
sultan (authority), and mulk (dominion/rule).
Those who refer to this hadith claim the Umayyads and later
generations were monarchies because even the hadith mentions the
word Mulkan, which is derived from Malik, or ruler.
Such an argument is built upon a false interpretation because the
word Mulk as stated above means ''dominion/rule/authority'' and
the word Malik can either mean ''a ruler'' in any context or ''a
ruler within a monarchical system.'' Thus, rulership does not
immediately connote kingship or monarchy but can mean the rulership
in any system. Allah (swt) mentions in the Qur'an the word Mulk,
in the context of rule, amongst other ayat:
''By Allah's will they routed them; and
Dawud slew Goliath; and Allah gave him dominion [Mulk] and wisdom
and taught him whatever (else) He willed. And were it not for
Allah's repelling some men with others, the earth would certainly be
in a state of disorder; but Allah is Gracious to the creatures''
[ Al-Baqarah: 251].
Nobody can claim that Dawud (as) was a king because he would have to
declare himself sovereign, an impossible act for a Prophet. In this
context, Dawud (as) was given the authority to implement the
revelation he received from Allah (swt), in the same manner that the
Khalifah has the authority to rule only by Islam.
The hadith is saying an aspect of the Khilafah will change and
not the Khilafah itself. It is like saying 'and then Tariq became
angry' the transforming of Tariq to a state of anger does not mean Tariq has become Ali or
'Umar. He is still Tariq but an aspect of his state has changed which is that he
has become angry. Similarly when the hadith says 'thumma taseeru
mulkan' (and then it became a hereditary rule(mulk)) it does not mean it ceases to be a
Khilafah. In fact in one of the narrations of the above hadith it says:
'The Khilafah of the Prophethood will be thirty years and then it will become
a hereditary rule,' In other words what will cease is the Khilafah of the
Prophethood, i.e. the perfect Khilafah and not the Khilafah itself.
Also if we look to other hadith, they mention that there will be 12
Imams, which is a Shari'ah term to mean Khulafah, which can indicate
that there were 12 Khulafah in the first three generations. As
narrated by Jabir ibn Samurah (ra) that Muhammad (saw) said ''The
Islamic deen will continue until the Hour has been established, or
you have been ruled by twelve Khulafah, all of them being from the
Quraish'' [Sahih Muslim].
In another hadith, amongst many others, the Prophet (saw) has
indicated that their will be many Khulafah, It has been reported on
the authority of Abu Hazim that he said: ''I accompanied Abu
Hurairah for five years, and heard him informing about the Prophet
(saw), he 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 soon be Khulafa'a and they
will number many.' They asked; ‘What then do you order us?' He (saw)
said; ‘Fulfil the Bay'ah to them, one after the other and give them
their dues for Allah will verily account them about what he
entrusted them with' [Sahih Muslim].
Also the example of the Sahabah, Tabieen, and Tabi-Tabieen, and the
great Mujtahideen amongst them, is clear that they recognised
Khulafah after Hasan (ra) and gave bay'ah to them freely, such as
Khalifah Muawiya, Khalifah Abdullah ibn Zubayr (ra), and Khalifah
Umar ibn Abdul Aziz (ra), and even those much later on such Khalifah
Abdul Hamid II amongst many others.
The argument the Khilafah was a tyranny
To legitimise their claims that Islam was not implemented during its
history or that Islam cannot be implemented, some individuals refer
to incidents described in history books that portray life under
Islamic rule as a dismal existence in which oppression, misery, and
persecution were the norm. In reality, these books often follow the
footsteps of the Orientalists whose career was to attack and
undermine Islam from every angle. The contents of such books point
to isolated incidents that do not speak for the Ummah or the general
state of affairs, and cannot be used to develop a clear picture of
the society and the contemporary events that faced it. Many of these
sources, if not all of them, are plagued with distorted facts and
inflated statistics.
Moreover, such books contradict common sense. For instance, Khalifah
Haroon al-Rashid is often the target of malicious attacks by these
books that accuse him of a myriad of crimes - ranging from adultery
to alcoholism to theft - as well as portray him as a tyrannical
despot who sponsored mass executions and ruled the people with an
iron fist. Yet the same Khalifah Haroon - who spent alternating
years performing Hajj and waging Jihad, who built a water transport
system that the Saudi regime cannot build today with their wealth
and resources, and who saw the Islamic civilization rise to its
zenith under his reign - was also nicknamed ''Al-Rashid'' and called
the ''Sixth Guided Khalifah.'' Many other contradictions and
distortions are found in such books that aim only at undermining
Islam and presenting a distorted picture.
Yet, even tyranny is not a cause for the invalidation of the Islamic
ruling system, as the hadith mention; ''‘The best of your Imams are
those whom you love and they love you, and 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.' We asked; ‘O
Messenger of Allah! Shall we not then declare war on them?' He said;
‘No, as long as they establish Salah amongst you' '' [Muslim from Auf
bin Malik]. So the hadith is indicating that the rulers need to be
obeyed, as long as he implements the Shari'ah.
The Islamic Ummah must take the initiative and objectively
re-examine its history by scrutinising its sources. No longer can
the Muslims afford to dwell on the dark images and continue to
repeat the attacks of the Orientalists. Islamic history remains a
history full of glimmering achievements and a shining example of
civilization that portrayed humanity as a society of unparalleled
justice, mercy, and advancement, for thirteen centuries.
The period of the ransacking of the Khilafah in 1258-1261
There are some who claim that there was no Khalifah for a period of
three years, and the Muslims ignored the duty of the Khilafah
system. Again to understand the situation in this period, we need to
study what happened. The reality of the Khilafah was that it was
very weak centrally, in Baghdad, which was the capital, and a lot of
the Wilayat (provinces) became very strong; virtually autonomous. So
when the Mongols ransacked Baghdad, and killed the Khalifah, Mutasim
in 1258 it shook the entire state as mentioned by Jalaluddin As-Suyuti
in his book Tarikh al-Khulafah.
The region of Egypt, was controlled by the Walis (governors), who
had assumed the title of Sultan. They were the Mamluk's at the time,
who had just defeated the previous Walis, the Ayubi's. As As-Suyuti
mentions:
''In the 657 AH the world was without the Khalifah. The Tartars were
descending upon the Ummah. The Sultan of Egypt was a boy, Mansur Ali
bil Muizz (who was unable to do anything to help the Muslims)...There
upon Sultan Qotuz, assembled the nobles and the principal men of the
Ummah and there present was Shaykh Izzuddin bin Abdus Sallam who was
a celebrated orator, and he said, ' Since, the enemy has overrun the
Wilayah, it is incumbent upon the whole Ummah to oppose them, and it
is lawful to take from the people what they can afford of their
sustenance on the condition that the bait al mal be first
exhausted...''
Then Qotuz, removed al-Mansur as the Sultan, and Qotuz, was then
appointed as Sultan of the Wilayah. He then sent for Bayburs and met
at Ain Jalut, where the Tartars were defeated, and the Muslims were
victorious. In Rajab of 659 AH (May 1261) the Khalifah was
proclaimed and given the bay'ah. His name was Al Mustansir Billah
Ahmed, he had fled Baghdad in 1258, and when Bayburs became Sultan
he set out to visit him, with the Qadis and other officials of the
state. The first to give him Bay'ah was the Sultan Bayburs, then the
Qadi al Qudaa, Tajuddin Aa'zz, then the Shaykh Izzuddin Sallam, and
then the rest of the influential people.
The whole narration shows that the structure of the State was
intact, apart from the fact that the Khalifah had been killed and
that the Muslims did not have a Khaleefah for 3 years not because of
a negligence of a duty, far from it, and it would be wrong to
suggest so by the fact that the Muslims concerned for selecting a
Khalifah were under an overwhelming power preventing them from doing
so. This was the case of the Muslims after the murder of Uthman (ra)
where the Muslims remained for five days without a Khalifah before
pledging Ali (ra) as Khaleefah.
Even the Tartars, who ransacked Baghdad and directly occupied the
Islamic State, could not escape the influence of Islam. When the
Muslims finally expelled them, they accepted Islam, returned to give
the Bay'ah to the Khalifah, and carried the banner of Islam to
Russia and the Far East. No other incident in history witnesses that
a nation conquered a people, and the conquerors soon carried the
culture and ideas of the conquered! Only through the implementation
of Islam and the power of the Islamic Ideology could the Muslims
have profoundly influenced their invaders in spite of the
intellectual decline and fragmentation existing within the Ummah at
the time.
The Case Of The Bay'ah(vote)
Although the Khilafah remained with a single family during the time
of the Umayyads and Abbasids, their ruling was not considered a
monarchy for the following reasons.
The sovereignty was never given to the Head of State, and nor did
the Head of State ever claim himself to be sovereign, i.e. the
source of legislation, as is the case in the monarchical system.
Throughout Islamic history, the Muslims always referred to the Hukm
Shar'i as the source of their legislation and not to any particular
individual.
The office of the Khilafah was never conferred upon individuals
solely on the basis of inheritance. Although the Khilafah remained
within a single family for several generations at a time, such an
incident does not constitute inherited ruling because the Bay'ah was
always given. In a monarchy, the son of the King or the ruler, by
sole virtue of his family relationship, would immediately assume the
ruling position afterwards. During the Islamic history, no Khalifah
was ever appointed or designated to his post without the Bay'ah.
Those few who did try to assume the position of Khalifah without a
Bay'ah performed an illegitimate seizure of power and were quickly
removed.
The controversy over the Bay'ah hovers around the incident in which
Muawiya took the Bay'ah on his son, and such an incident is used to
justify the claims that monarchical rule followed the generation of
the Sahabah. Such a conclusion results from failing to distinguish
between misapplying the rules and abandoning them altogether.
Muawiya's case demonstrates a misapplication of the Shar'iah in
which the Bay'ah was taken in the wrong manner. Furthermore, Muawiya
based his understanding on Abu Bakr's (ra) actions when he nominated
Umar (ra) before the termination of his Khilafah. In the same
manner, Muawiya selected his son. Although Abu Bakr (ra) asked the
opinions of the Muslims as opposed to Muawiya, such an act does not
indicate that Muawiya abandoned the Shari'ah because the Bay'ah was
not abandoned.
In spite of the misapplication, the Bay'ah was given consistently
throughout the thirteen centuries of Islamic rule. The Shariah has
laid down 2 points related to the Bay'ah that need to exist for the
Bay'ah to be legitimate. Firstly the consent of all the Muslims
needs to be sought, and secondly it needs to be done without
coercion but by free will and consent. Generally the Bay'ah was
given by the Sheikh al Islam or the Ahlul Halli wal Aqd, the
notables of the Muslims who represented the Muslims as a whole,
throughout Islamic history, although there were notable exceptions,
who were accounted by the Ummah, and are seen in a negative light by
Muslims of all generations. Thus, the case against the Bay'ah has no
basis for claiming that Islam was not implemented.
Conclusion
Because the sovereignty belongs to Allah (swt), the Muslims should
always surrender to Allah's (swt) rulings as found in the Islamic
texts when discussing any issue, evaluating any idea or concept, or
initiating any agenda or action. Regardless of how many
justifications or excuses circulate amongst the Ummah, the fact
remains that Islam defined a unique political system, provided a
detailed and well-defined political structure, established the
political system as the practical mechanism to implement and carry
Islam, and obliged the Muslims to establish the political system.
The Orientalists have capitalised upon Islamic history to portray a
bleak picture of life under Islamic rule. Some people, even sincere
Muslims, have begun to amplify the Orientalist attacks that succeed
only in justifying the claims that Islam is not valid for modern
political life. Such claims are not excuses for the Muslims to claim
that Islam has no political system or that it doesn't work. On the
Day of Judgment, Allah (swt) will judge the Muslims for their deeds,
not their excuses.
The ruling by Islam constitutes an integral part of the belief in
Islam because Allah (swt) mentions in the Qur'an:
''They (the prophets) are those whom We gave
the Book, Al-Hukm (the ruling), and the Prophethood. But if they
disbelieve therein, then we have entrusted it to a people who are
not disbelievers'' [ Al-Anam: 89].
Nobody can claim that Muhammad (saw) was not given the ruling
because the Ayah clearly indicates that, as a Prophet, Muhammad
(saw) received the ruling along with the Book and the Prophethood.
To claim that Islam does not have a ruling system would denote a
denial of the Ayah in the Qur'an. Also, ''they'' in the Ayah is
addressed to the polytheists among the Quraysh, and the, ''people who
are not disbelievers'', refers to the Sahabah. In this Ayah, Allah (swt)
is stating that those who disbelieve in any of the three aspects,
whether it is the Book, the Prophethood, or the ruling, would be
similar to the disbelievers among the Quraish who fought and opposed
Muhammad (saw). Furthermore, the Sahabah, in order to fulfil the
criterion of, ''people who are not disbelievers'', would have to
believe in the ruling and work for its establishment. Based upon
this Ayah, Allah (swt) likens those who oppose the ruling or those
who oppose the work for Islam's establishment to the polytheists
among the Quraish. Thus, any attack against the political system of
Islam or those who work to establish it are against Islam itself.
Most importantly, the Muslims must understand that, in spite of what
history says, Islam is correct: Allah (swt) is still Allah (swt),
the Creator and Sustainer of the Universe; the Qur'an and the Sunnah
still remain as guidance for humanity and the system from Allah (swt).
Islam will always remain for anyone to accept or reject as he or she
desires, and no excuses - whether they come in the guise of, ''Islam
was not implemented, so what's the use?'' or any other justification
- will change Islam in any aspect. Nations, like people, experience
falls and shortcomings that add to the growth of the nation in the
same manner that an individual's failures build experience and
knowledge that act as stepping stones for future success.
Today, the Islamic Ummah has fourteen centuries of history as a
deposit in her ideological account that can be withdrawn and
utilised in the challenge to re-establish the Islamic State and
attain its rightful status. Allah (swt) mentions the Muslims' status
in the Qur'an:
''We have made you a just Ummah, that you be
witnesses over mankind and the Messenger be a witness over you''
[ Al-Baqarah: 143].
''You are the best Ummah ever raised up for
mankind; you enjoin the good, and forbid the evil, and you believe
in Allah'' [ Ale-Imran: 110].
The Muslims should aspire towards nothing less because Muhammad
(saw) indicated that the Khilafah will return based on the path of
Prophethood.
Ibn 'Asakir quoted Yunus Ibn Maysara Ibn Halbas as saying that
Rasoolallah (saw) had stated: ''This matter
(namely the Khilafah) will be after me in Madinah, then in Syria,
then in the Jazira, then in Iraq, then in Madina, then in Jerusalem.
If it is in Jerusalem, its home country is there, and if any people
expel it, it will not return there for ever'' [Ibn 'Asakir,
Tahdhib Tarikh Dimashq al-Kabir, Volume 1, p42 (Dar al-Masiyrah,
Beirut, 1979)].
Such Ayat and Ahadith should provide a source of confidence in Islam
to motivate the Muslims to strive for the supremacy of Allah's (swt)
deen. The Muslims have a responsibility to mankind to establish
Islam and carry Islam to the world.
|
