Presenting the Khilafah State

[Islamic Revival]

A political state is defined broadly as a geographic political entity possessing sovereignty. It is therefore not subject to any higher political authority. The nature of the state is fundamentally characterised by the theoretical principles upon which it is built. A state may be based on socialist principle, thus making it socialist or capitalist principles thus making it capitalist. With regards to most Western states this fundamental thought is secularism i.e. the detachment of god (religion) from life's affairs. The laws regulating society are based on the views and opinions of the people of the state. Democracy is the system adopted by such states to make such laws.

The basis of a state, and therefore its characterisation depends largely on; the source of its authority and the belief in the key thoughts. In origin, the source of authority resides in the society collectively, since the government is merely the reflection of the society’s belief in certain thoughts and desire to be governed by rules and policies derived from these thoughts. If either of these two factors (authority and belief in the foundational thought) is usurped from the society, then the state functions in contradiction to the thoughts and emotions of the society. The state’s continuity would remain only due to suppression and oppressive policies. Authority is wrenched from the society by powerful actors both within the state e.g. the army, certain tribes/families; and external to the state i.e. colonial powers that aim to organise and characterise the society by their own personalised material aims with thoughts, values and a system that would secure this. In this situation, the society adopts a political identity, systems, culture and thoughts that are alien to its own foundational thoughts and it is only the ‘iron-fist’ of the government and its supporters (internal and external) that suppress the natural expression of authority and thoughts of the society. A cursory glance over the Islamic lands and the usurpation of the authority of the society is evident, even where ‘free elections’ are being introduced or where dictatorships were removed. One should not forget the elections both in Algeria and Turkey, won by parties with an Islamic agenda – the former in which the election victory in 1992 by the Islamic Salvation Front was railroaded by army (with support from France) on the grounds that ‘to defend democracy, sometimes you need to be undemocratic’ and the latter by Refah (in 1995) which the Turkish army pressurised out to defend the secular foundation of the State.

It should be clear that whilst the western world is able to hold national elections to change respective governments – it is not conceivable that such change would incorporate the change in the very fundamental thought of their state i.e. secularism. The fanatical secular elite would never tolerate this. Likewise, it is inconceivable that elections in the Islamic world under the guise of ‘freedom and democracy’ would allow the society to vote in Islam as constitution, State and system – since the very secular capitalist fanatics that protect the ‘west’ also happen to control the political direction of the ‘east’.

While it is not difficult to identify the thoughts, values, structures and systems of the western modelled state – since people either live within its political borders or are exposed to it – this is not the case for Islam.

Source: KCom Journal

[maruf]

Presenting the Khilafah State Part II
uploaded 04 Sep 2005

The Islamic State is a ruler (khaleefah) elected from the people with the sole responsibility to implement the Islamic law. The State is a political and an executive body entrusted with the duty of implementing and executing the laws of Islam, and of conveying the Islamic message to the world. The State is the body that Islam has specified to implement its systems and general laws in life and society.

The Islamic State is the soul of the existence of Islam in temporal life. Without it, Islam would completely recede from being an ideology and a system of life. It would be confined to being merely a series of spiritual rites and moral values.

The Islamic Aqeedah (belief) is the sole foundational thought upon which the State is established. Therefore, this Islamic Aqeedah is the sole source for all derivative thoughts and the sole basis to determine the structure, shape and policies of the State. This is neither strange, extreme nor a restrictive way of looking at the basis for the Islamic State. Rather this is consistent with the reality of every State.

Since the Islamic Aqeedah is the foundation of the State it is prohibited to detach the State from it, by any means. When the Rasool-Allah (Sallallahu alaihi wassalam) established the authority of Islam in Madinah-al-Munoawara and took power, he (Sallallahu alaihi wassalam) based the ruling on the Islamic Aqeedah from the very first day. The verses of legislation had not been revealed yet, so Rasool-Allah (Sallallahu alaihi wassalam) made the shahada,

“There is no God but Allah and Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah” as the basis of the State and of the relationships amongst people.

It follows that it is forbidden for the Islamic State to have any thought, concept, rule or criterion not emanating from the Islamic Aqeedah. This is from a textual perspective. From an ideological perspective the Islamic Aqeedah is a comprehensive thought from which emanates detailed thoughts governing the life of mankind, irrespective of time and place. Therefore it does not depend nor require foreign thoughts for its existence, continuity or to define and characterize the political nature and functioning of the Islamic State.

Therefore democracy should not be adopted as the basis of ruling in the Islamic State. The notion of ruling by the opinions and prejudices of men is not derived from the Aqeedah. In addition it contravenes Islamic concepts that are derived related to basis, sovereignty, accountability, political thoughts and structures. Likewise, nationalism and patriotism hold no value whatsoever. These are not derived from the Islamic Aqeedah and form the lowest possible types of human interaction and organisation. The ruling system of Islam does not contain the ministerial departments, which operate in some democratic models of government. The Islamic State also does not contain any imperial or monarchical concepts. It is also not allowed to call to account the State on other than the basis of the Islamic Aqeedah, whether by individuals or parties.

The fact that the Islamic Aqeedah is the basis of the State and this necessitates that the State’s constitution and rules are derived from the Qur’an and the Sunnah of the Rasool-Allah (Sallallahu alaihi wassalam).

[Islamic Revival]

The Islamic ruling system is distinct from all other existing ruling systems, as it is founded and defined upon a unique comprehensive thought. That is the Islamic Aqeedah. It therefore has an inimitable constitution. In certain peripheral details there may be some common aspects with other governmental structures. However at its heart it is unique as its building blocks are specific to the creed of Islam.The Khilafah is not monarchical.

Islam rejects the hereditary leadership, where the offspring have a birthright to the position and status of the sovereign. The Khilafah should not resemble it in principle or in practice. The ruling is held by whomever the ummah gives her pledge (of allegiance) to, willingly and selectively.

Although family or tribal continuity at the helm defines a monarchy, there are variations in the forms of kingdoms. Some kings enjoy exclusive privileges; being placed above the law, and personally answerable to no one. In constitutional monarchies the king is merely a symbolic and ceremonial figure that represents the nation. This is commonly found in Europe. In contrast some kings own wealth and land as well as govern. In these cases monarchs often become the source of the rules and run the country based on his personal whims and wishes. Saudi Arabia, Morocco and Jordan are prime paradigms of this form of oppression and despotism.

The Islamic system however does not assign to the Khaleefah (ruler) any special privileges or rights. He is treated the same as any citizen of the ummah. He is not the symbol of the ummah where he owns and does not rule nor is he a symbol who rules and runs the affairs of the people and country as he pleases. He is a representative of the ummah in ruling and power, where the ummah selects him and gives him the pledge of allegiance willingly to implement Islam. He is restricted in all his actions, judgements and looking after the affairs of the ummah and her interests by the divine rules.

The Khilafah is not republican

The republican system is based on democracy, where sovereignty is given to the people. Thus, the people have the right of ruling and legislation. They reserve the right to lay down a constitution and enact laws and to abolish, alter or modify both the constitution and the law. This bares no resemblance to the Islamic system, which is based solely on the Islamic Aqeedah and the Islamic legislation. Sovereignty is to the legislation of Allah and not to the ummah. So the ummah has no right to legislate nor does the Khaleefah. The sole legislator is Allah, and the Khaleefah has the right only to adopt rulings for the constitution that is derived from the Book of Allah and the Sunnah Rasool-Allah (Sallallahu alaihi wassalam).

In the Presidential form of the Republican system, the president holds the mandatory powers of the head of state. He does not have in his cabinet a prime minister, but secretaries of state, as in the United States. In the parliamentary form, the president has a prime minister, and the mandatory ruling powers are in the hands of the ministerial cabinet not the president of the republic, as in Germany. In the Khilafah system there are no ministers, nor a council of ministers working with the Khaleefah, as is the case in the democratic system, where ministers have special portfolios and mandatory powers of their own. Instead the Khaleefah has delegates (mu’awinoon) whom he appoints to assist him in assuming the functions of the Khilafah and discharging its duties. They are delegated and executive assistants. The Khaleefah heads them in his capacity as the head of state and not a prime minister, nor as a head of an executive body. The Khaleefah has no council of ministers working with him, since he has all the mandatory powers and the assistants merely help him in executing his mandatory powers.

Though both the republican and the Khilafah system share the concept that the ruler is both appointed and accountable to the people and their representatives, in the republican system the people and their representatives have the right to remove the ruler since sovereignty belongs to the people. However, In the Khilafah, though ummah has the right to appoint him, for Islam gave the authority and power to the Muslims (both men and women), to select and give the pledge to whomever meets the conditions for becoming a ruler, they have no right to remove him. He can only be removed if he violates the Islamic law in a way that his removal becomes obligatory and the Court of Unjust Acts alone is the one that decides this.

In the republican system, whether it is presidential or parliamentary, the term of the presidency is fixed and cannot be exceeded. In contrast, the Khilafah system does not determine the Khaleefah’s term of office. This is rather determined by his implementation of Islamic law. So long as the Khaleefah is implementing the rules of Islam, that are derived from the Book of Allah, and the Sunnah of Rasool-Allah (Sallallahu alaihi wassalam), he remains a Khaleefah, regardless of how long his Khilafah term lasts. If the Khaleefah violated the Islamic law, and deviated from implementing the rules of Islam, his term in office would be terminated even if it were one month or one day; and he must in this instance be removed immediately.

The Khilafah is not imperial

The imperial system of government completely contradicts Islam. The regions ruled by Islam - although composed of various races and linked to one central place – were never ruled by an imperial system. The reality of the Imperial system, like that perfected by Britain during its life as an empire, does not treat races equally in the various regions of the empire, rather gives privileges, in the ruling, finance and economy to the centre i.e. motherland. The modern version of this attitude, championed by the US is termed neo-colonialism.

The Islamic way of ruling is to establish equality between the subjects in all the regions of the State. Islam grants non-Muslims who hold citizenship, the full rights, accountabilities and duties that Muslims have. The Khilafah does not make the regions under its rule into colonies, areas of exploitation, nor a source of wealth funnelled back into the central region for its own benefit, no matter how far apart they were, and no matter how different their races were. It considers every single region as an indivisible part of the State and its citizens enjoy the same rights as those in the central region. It also makes the ruling authority, its system and its legislation the same in all the regions.

The Khilafah is not federal

The shape of the ruling system in Islam is not a federal one, where its regions separate by autonomy possess sovereignty over national law, but unite in the general ruling. Rather, the Khilafah is a system of unity. The finance of all the regions will be the same, as will their budget. Funds are spent equally on the affairs of the subjects, regardless of the province. If for instance, the revenues of one province were double its needs; the funds spent will be in accordance with the needs of the province and not in accordance with its revenues. If another province’s revenues fell short of its needs, this would not be taken into consideration, and funds will be spent to satisfy its needs from the general budget whether it raised enough revenues or not.
Furthermore, the Islamic system is centralised in its ruling (though decentralised in administration), where the authority is at the centre, and where the authority and power engulfs every single part of the State, no matter how small or large it is. Independence of any part of it is not allowed. The central authority i.e. Khaleefah, is the body that appoints the army commanders, the governors and finance and economy officials. He appoints judges in all the regions and everyone whose duties is to rule. He is the one who deals with ruling throughout

The Khilafah is not theocratic

The theocratic model is unlike the Islamic system in both generality and detail, as the ruler is a spiritual leader appointed from and by the clergy alone. He is considered as the representative of God on earth. Assuming such a title and position makes the ruler immune from any form of accountability or questioning of his decrees and there is no right to remove him from office under any circumstances. This description of the theocratic model fundamentally contradicts the Islamic ruling system where the ruler is a political leader appointed by the ummah as a whole.
The Khaleefah is not the representative of God but rather a representative of the ummah in ruling and power, where the ummah selects him and gives him the pledge of allegiance. He is restricted in all his actions, judgements and looking after the affairs of the ummah and their interests by the divine rules. Therefore the Khaleefah is accountable and accounting the ruler is a duty upon the Muslims. And where Khaleefah contradicts and/or violates the contractual conditions of ruling, his removal becomes obligatory.
In addition the notion of a theocratic state, in its philosophy still pertains to the division and separation between the spiritual and temporal – in essence secularism. Therefore theocratic governments today are characterised with a distinct and separate spiritual and political leadership, like in Iran. This contradicts the philosophy of Islam where there is no separation between the spiritual and temporal or the political. This further illustrates the contradiction between the theocratic model and the Islamic ruling system.


Source: KCom Journal

[Islamic Revival]

Presenting the Khilafah State - Part IV

The Islamic Ruling System is built upon four principles:

1) Sovereignty is for the Legislator, Allah (swt).
2) Authority belongs to the Ummah.
3) Appointment of one Khaleefah (ruler) is an obligation upon all the Muslims.
4) Adoption of the divine rules is the exclusive right of the Khaleefah.

1. Sovereignty for the Legislator

The term ‘sovereignty’ refers to the one who controls his own will. In contrast to this, the one whose will is controlled and exercised by another would be a slave. The use of the term ‘sovereignty’ in both these contexts is applied to individuals. This term could also accurately be extrapolated to refer to a group of people. If the will of the Ummah, i.e. the will of the majority from the Muslims, was controlled by the Ummah directly or through individuals that the Ummah willingly grants the right of controlling that will, the Ummah would be considered sovereign over itself. The opposite situation would be one in which others control the Ummah's will, against her wishes, hence she would be considered enslaved.

Thus in idealised democratic systems sovereignty is attributed to the people. That is, people exercise their own will and affairs by electing representatives who control their will. However in Islam sovereignty belongs to the Legislator (Shaari’) and not to the Ummah. The will of the individual or the majority is not controlled by themselves but by the commands and prohibitions of Allah (swt). Similarly, the Ummah is not controlled by the Ummah's own free will. The Ummah is not permitted to act as it pleases. Rather it is subjected to the commands and prohibitions of Allah (swt).
Allah (swt) says:


ÝóáÇó æóÑóÈøößó áÇó íõÄúãöäõæäó ÍóÊøóìó íõÍóßøöãõæßó ÝöíãóÇ ÔóÌóÑó Èóíúäóåõãú Ëõãøó áÇó íóÌöÏõæÇú Ýöí ÃóäÝõÓöåöãú ÍóÑóÌðÇ ãøöãøóÇ ÞóÖóíúÊó æóíõÓóáøöãõæÇú ÊóÓúáöíãðÇ

“And by thy Lord they will not believe until they make you judge between them.”
(TMQ Al-Nisa: 65)


Åöäö ÇáúÍõßúãõ ÅöáÇøó áöáøåö
“The Ruling is for none but Allah.” (TMQ Yusuf:40)


íóÇ ÃóíøõåóÇ ÇáøóÐöíäó ÂãóäõæÇú ÃóØöíÚõæÇú Çááøåó æóÃóØöíÚõæÇú ÇáÑøóÓõæáó æóÃõæúáöí ÇáÃóãúÑö ãöäßõãú ÝóÅöä ÊóäóÇÒóÚúÊõãú Ýöí
ÔóíúÁò ÝóÑõÏøõæåõ Åöáóì Çááøåö æóÇáÑøóÓõæáö
“O you who believe, Obey Allah, Obey His Messenger and those in authority from amongst you and if you differ then refer it to Allah and His Messenger if you believe in Allah and the Last Day.” (TMQ Al-Nisa: 59)


"Referring it to Allah and the Messenger", means referring the matter to laws codified in the Islamic sources. Therefore, that which governs and conducts the will of the Ummah and the individual is, in fact the Islamic legislation. So sovereignty, and thus legislative authority, belongs to the Shaari, which both individuals and the Ummah submit to. Therefore the Ummah does not give the pledge of allegiance (bay’ah) to the ruler (Khaleefah) as if he were hired by the Ummah to execute what it wishes. This would seemly be the case in the democratic system. He is rather given the pledge predicated upon Islam and the implementation thereof. This less than subtle difference between the two types of agreements (i.e. between the ruler and the ruled over) is that they agree to implement of Islamic rules and not what the people wish or may want to implement instead of the Islamic rules.

2. Authority belongs to the Ummah

The principle that the authority belongs to the Ummah is taken from the shari’ah rule that the appointment of the Khaleefah is the right of the Ummah and that the Khaleefah can only take up his post and exercise his authority by taking the pledge through choice and consent.

The evidence for this has been clearly demonstrated in many narrations (ahadith). Muslim narrated from ‘Ubadah Ibn us-Samit, who said:
“We gave to the Messenger of Allah to hear and to obey in ease and hardship.”

Jarir Ibn ‘Abdullah said:

“I gave Bay’ah to the Messenger of Allah to listen and obey and give advice to every Muslim”.

Thus, the pledge is given by the Muslims to the Khaleefah and not by the Khaleefah to the Muslims. They are the ones who give him the pledge, i.e. they appoint him as a ruler over them. The rightly guided rulers (Khulafaa’ Rashidoon) took their pledge from the Ummah; they only became rulers once the Ummah gave the pledge to them.

As for the evidence that the Khaleefah only takes his authority by this pledge, this is clear in the narrations concerning the obedience and the narrations regarding the unity of the Khilafah:

Naf ’i said ‘Abdullah Ibn ‘Umar told me: I heard the Messenger of Allah say:

“Whoever takes off his hand from obedience, he will meet Allah on the Resurrection Day without having any proof to show for himself; and whoever dies while having no pledge on his neck he dies the death of the days of ignorance (Jahiliyyah).”

Ibn ‘Abbas reported that the Messenger of Allah said:
“If anyone sees in his Ameer 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, he has died the death of Jahiliyyah.”

Abu Hurayrah reported that the Messenger of Allah 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 Khulafaa’ and they will number many. They asked: What then do you order us? He said: Fulfil your pledge to them one after the other, and give them their dues, for verily Allah will ask them about what He entrusted them with.”

These narrations demonstrate that the obedience to the ruler becomes obligatory only because he takes the authority by the pledge of allegiance from the Ummah. This proves that the authority belongs to the Ummah. It was clear that the Messenger of Allah himself took the pledge from the people, though it was established that he was the Prophet and final Messenger. So this pledge was connected to authority and ruling and not Prophethood. He (saw) took this pledge from men and women, but not from children. The fact that it is the Muslims who appoint the Khaleefah by giving him the pledge and that the Khaleefah only assumes power by this pledge, clearly indicates that the authority belongs to the Ummah.

3. Appointment of one ruler (Khaleefah) is obligatory on all Muslims

This principle is confirmed the narration by Muslim narrated from Naf ’i that he said: ‘Abdullah Ibnu ‘Umar said to me: I heard the Messenger of Allah say:
“Allah on the Resurrection Day without having any proof to show for himself; and who dies while there was no pledge of allegiance on his neck, he dies a death of the days of Jahiliyyah (ignorance).”

In this Hadith, the Rasool-Allah (saw) made it compulsory on every Muslim to have a pledge of allegiance, i.e. pledge to a Khaleefah on his neck, but he (saw) did not make it compulsory for every Muslim to give the pledge. The matter is the presence of the pledge on every Muslim’s neck, i.e. the existence of a Khaleefah who is entitled to the pledge on the neck of every Muslim by his existence. The existence of the Khaleefah is the matter which initiates the pledge on every Muslim’s neck. As for the unity of the Khilafah and the prohibition of having more than one Khaleefah, this is due to what Muslim narrated from Abu Sa’id Al-Khudri from the Messenger of Allah that he said:
“When an oath of has been taken for two Khulafaa’, kill the latter of them”. This clearly proves that it is forbidden for the Muslims to have more than one Khaleefah.

4. Adoption of the Laws is the exclusive right of the ruler (Khaleefah)

The Khaleefah is the sole body with mandatory powers to adopt laws and legislation. This has been proved by the general consensus of the companions (Ijmaa’ as-Sahabah). Following this consensus, the following Shari’ah principles have been derived: “The opinion of the Imam settles the difference”; “The opinion of the Imam is binding”; “The Sultan (Imam) reserves the right to adopt new laws for as many new matters that arise”.

This will be explained further in a later section on the mandatory powers of the Khaleefah.

Source: KCom Journal

[Islamic Revival]

Structure of the Islamic State

The Islamic State is built upon eight pillars. The evidences for these are taken from the actions of the Rasool-Allah (Sallallahu alaihi wassalam). The structure and shape of the state set up in Madina al-Manoawara, by Rasool-Allah (Sallallahu alaihi wassalam), is to be considered significant as a source of law. The state of Madina was not merely a well run working model of an efficient political entity of immense historical importance. It was a paradigm and example template for which we take our whole understanding of the general outline of the state as well as many of the fine details of how a modern state should be structured.

1) The Khaleefah

Rasool-Allah (Sallallahu alaihi wassalam) was the head of state and he ordered Muslims to establish a head of state when he (Sallallahu alaihi wassalam) ordered them to establish a Khaleefah or an Imam. The Khaleefah represents the Ummah in the ruling and authority and in the implementation of the divine laws.

2) Delegated Assistants

Rasool-Allah (Sallallahu alaihi wassalam) chose Abu Bakr (ra) and ‘Umar (ra) as his two assistants, thus proving that the notion of assistance in ruling is well founded in the source model of Islam should be implemented. Al-Hakim and Al-Tirmidhi narrated from Abu Sa’id Al Khudri that Rasool-Allah (Sallallahu alaihi wassalam) said:
“My two ministers from the heavens are Jibra’eel and Mika’el and from the people of the earth are Abu Bakr and ‘Umar.”

The meaning of the term “my two ministers” here is my two assistants. Linguistically this is what the word Wazir (minister) means. After Abu Bakr became the Khaleefah, he appointed ‘Umar ibn al-Khattab to assistant him. The extent of his assistance was evident to the point that some of the Sahabah said to Abu Bakr; “we cannot tell whether the Khaleefah is yourself or ‘Umar.”

Al-Mawardi, in his book Al Ahkam Al-Sultaniyya called this post ‘Wizarat-ut-Tafweed, and described it as follows; “As for the delegated Wizarah, it means that the Imam appoints a Wazir, for whom he delegates the running of the affairs according to his own opinion and executing them according to his own Ijtihad.”

This is the reality of the delegated assistant. He is an assistant to the Khaleefah in all the Khilafah functions. He has a mandate to perform any task related to the Khilafah, whether the Khaleefah delegated that particular task to him or not, for he has been given a general entrustment. However, he should report back to the Khaleefah for every task he performs, for he is an assistant and not a Khaleefah.

3) The Executing Assistants

The Khaleefah appoints such an assistant to facilitate the execution, follow up and performance of his orders. He is the intermediary between the Khaleefah and the state’s various departments, the subjects and the foreign office on the other side. He conveys messages, on the one hand, from the Khaleefah and on the other hand to him. As a result, he is an assistant in executing orders and not a ruler over people. Neither is he entrusted with them. His work is therefore administrative and not ruling, and his department is a tool used to execute what the Khaleefah issues to the domestic and foreign offices.

4) The Ameer of Jihad

Administratively the army is under the Ameer of Jihad’s authority. It was effectively under the control of the Rasool-Allah (Sallallahu alaihi wassalam) and it was he who was the effective commander of the army. He Rasool-Allah (Sallallahu alaihi wassalam) used to deal with its administration and run its affairs. Rasool-Allah (Sallallahu alaihi wassalam) used to prepare the army and supervise its training and weaponry. He (Sallallahu alaihi wassalam) ran all its affairs, the way he ran the foreign and domestic affairs. He (Sallallahu alaihi wassalam) sent people to Jurash in Yemen to learn how to manufacture weapons. Likewise, Rasool-Allah (Sallallahu alaihi wassalam) would appoint commanders to lead certain expeditions. On one occasion Rasool-Allah (Sallallahu alaihi wassalam) appointed ‘Abdullah Ibnu Jahsh at the head of an exploratory mission to Quraysh. On another occasion Rasool-Allah (Sallallahu alaihi wassalam) appointed Abu Salma Ibnu ‘Abdil Asad as the commander of a regiment of 150 men, and gave him its banner.

The Khulafaa’ who came after Rasool-Allah (Sallallahu alaihi wassalam) followed the same policy. However, at the time of ‘Umar Ibnul Khattab, he set up a war cabinet (Diwan ul-Jund) and he appointed a head to that cabinet which is the function of the Ameer of Jihad.

5) The Governors (Wulah)

Rasool-Allah (Sallallahu alaihi wassalam) appointed governors over the provinces (Wilayaat). For instance he (Sallallahu alaihi wassalam) appointed Attab Ibnu Usayd as Wali over Makkah after its conquest. After Bazan Ibnu Sasan had embraced Islam Rasool-Allah (Sallallahu alaihi wassalam) appointed him Wali (governor) of Yemen.

Though Rasool-Allah (Sallallahu alaihi wassalam) appointed a separate official in charge of finance Rasool-Allah (Sallallahu alaihi wassalam) did not make it an independent structure. Rather it was an integral part of the structure of the government. Some of the governors were appointed with general mandatory powers that included both ruling and finance, whilst some were appointed in ruling powers only, and he appointed a special Wali over finance. The Wali (governor) who held the position of general governorship was known as the Wali of Salah and Kharaj. This clearly demonstrates that the financial department was not a separate structure, but part of the duties of the Imarah i.e. the Wilayah.

6) The Judiciary

Rasool-Allah (Sallallahu alaihi wassalam) was in direct charge of the judiciary. He (Sallallahu alaihi wassalam) appointed the judges in order to settle the disputes between the people. So he (saw) appointed ‘Ali Ibnu Abi Talib as judge over Yemen, and charged Muadh Ibn Jabal and Abu Mousa with Judiciary and Imarah over Yemen. Al-Tabarani reported through trustworthy narrators from Masrooq, he said:

“The people of Judiciary at the time of the Messenger of Allah were six: ‘Umar, ‘Ali, ‘Abdullah Ibn Ma’sood, Ubay ibn, K’ab, Zayd ibn Thabit and Abu Mousa Al-Ash’ari.”

There are three types of judges: One is the Qadhi, and he is in charge of settling the disputes between people over transactions and penal codes. The second is the Muhtasib, who is in charge of settling any breach of law that may harm the right of the community. The third is the judge of Mazaalim, who is in charge of settling disputes between the people and the State.

7) The Administrative Departments

Rasool-Allah (Sallallahu alaihi wassalam) appointed secretaries to oversee the various government departments; these were as directors of departments. He (Sallallahu alaihi wassalam) appointed Mu’ayqib Ibnu Abi Fatima as director (under secretary) of booty and Huzayfah Ibnul Yaman was appointed as a director in charge of assessing the harvest of Hijaz. Also Rasool-Allah (Sallallahu alaihi wassalam) looked after the affairs of the people and he appointed secretaries as heads of the departments. ‘Ali ibn Abu Talib was the secretary of agreements and peace treaties. Mu’ayqeeb ibn Abu Fatimah was in charge of the Rasool-Allah's (Sallallahu alaihi wassalam) official seal and he was the secretary for booty. Huzayfah ibn al-Yaman used to assess the fruits of the Hijaz, and Zubair ibn al-’Awaam recorded the funds of the sadaqah, al-Mughira ibn Shu’abah recorded the debts and transactions, and Shurahbeel ibn Hasanah used to write the letters to the leaders of other states. Rasool-Allah (Sallallahu alaihi wassalam) appointed a secretary for each of the interests, however numerous these were.

8) The Council of the Ummah

The function of the Council of the Ummah is one of consultation (Shura) as well as holding the ruler accountable. Rasool-Allah (Sallallahu alaihi wassalam) did not establish a permanent council in his (Sallallahu alaihi wassalam) lifetime. However Rasool-Allah (Sallallahu alaihi wassalam) did consult the Muslims whenever Rasool-Allah (Sallallahu alaihi wassalam) deemed it fit, thus establishing to concept of consultation within the working system. Rasool-Allah (Sallallahu alaihi wassalam) gathered the Muslims and consulted them on the day of ‘Uhud’ and on the day of ‘Hadithul-ifk’ (slander of Ayesha) and on several other occasions. Though Rasool-Allah (Sallallahu alaihi wassalam) gathered the Muslims for consultation, Rasool-Allah (Sallallahu alaihi wassalam) would summon some of his companions on a regular basis and consult them. They were regarded as the chiefs of the people. They were Hamza, Abu Bakr, Ja’afar, ‘Umar, ‘Ali, Ibnu Mas’ud, Salman, ‘Ammar, Huzayfah, Abu Dharr, Al-Muqdad and Bilal. They were considered as his Shura Council, for he consulted them on a regular basis.

The above eight tenets describe key aspects of how Rasool-Allah (Sallallahu alaihi wassalam) established the structure of the Islamic State and he completed it in his (Sallallahu alaihi wassalam) lifetime. Rasool-Allah (Sallallahu alaihi wassalam) was the leader of the state and had assistants, governors, judges, army, directors of departments, and a majlis that he (Sallallahu alaihi wassalam) refered to for Shura. This framework in its structure and functions has been mentioned in the Shari’ah texts. Rasool-Allah (Sallallahu alaihi wassalam) performed the actions of the leader of the state from the moment he (Sallallahu alaihi wassalam) arrived in Madinah until his death, and Abu Bakr and ‘Umar were his assistants. The Sahabah consented after Rasool-Allah (Sallallahu alaihi wassalam) on the issue of establishing a leader for the state to succeed Rasool-Allah (Sallallahu alaihi wassalam).

Source: Kcom Journal