Post by Islamic Revival on Oct 5, 2004 3:45:38 GMT -5
Khilafah is fard - Evidence from the Ijma of the Sahabah
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). In regard with the Ijma'a of the Sahabah they all agreed upon the necessity to establish a successor or Khaleefah to the Prophet 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. 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 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. The extent of the inevitable obligation to establish the Khaleefah and the extent of awareness about this obligation among the Sahabah, is clearly reflected in the actions which they performed at the time.
As for the Ijma’ of the companions, they (may Allah be pleased with them) agreed upon the necessity of establishing a successor, (Khaleefah) to the Messenger of Allah (saw) after his death. They all agreed to appoint a successor to Abu Bakr, and upon his death to appoint a successor to ‘Umar and upon ‘Uthman’s death to appoint Ali as a successor to him. The general consensus of Sahabah on the appointment of a Khaleefah manifested itself emphatically upon the death of the Messenger of Allah (saw) and engaged themselves in appointing a successor to him. It is known that the burial of the dead is obligatory, and that it is sinful for those in charge of preparing the burial to engage themselves in anything else until they complete the burial. Despite this, some of the Sahabah engaged themselves in appointing a Khaleefah, even though they were obliged to engage themselves in preparing the burial of the Messenger of Allah (saw) . The other Sahabah kept silent about this and participated in the delaying of the burial for two nights, despite having the ability to condemn the delay and being able to bury the Messenger of Allah (saw). This action of the Sahabah is therefore an evidence of consensus to support the fact that the appointment of a Khaleefah is more of an obligation than the burial of the dead and it could not have been legitimate unless the appointment of a Khaleefah were more of an obligation than the burial of the dead.
Furthermore, all the Sahabah consented throughout their lives upon the obligation of appointing a Khaleefah. Although at times they differed about the choice of the Khaleefah, they never disagreed about the fact that a Khaleefah must be appointed, and this was the case in the wake of Allah’s Messenger’s death, and of each of the Khulafa ‘Rashideen’ (The first four Khaleefahs). Accordingly, the general consensus of the Sahabah is both a strong and clear evidence that the appointment of a Khaleefah is obligatory.
The Burial of the Prophet
The Ijma'a of the Sahabah to establish a Khaleefah and give him the bay’ah to head the State manifested itself emphatically when they delayed the burial of the Messenger of Allah whilst engaged in appointing a successor to him as a head of the State, 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. This is according to that which has been narrated in the two Sahihs about the events in the hall of Banu Sa’idah and also in the wake of the death of each subsequent Khaleefah. The Sahabah were obliged to engage themselves in preparing the burial of the Prophet, but 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 three days and two nights despite their ability to deny the delay and their ability to bury the Prophet. It was reported that the Prophet died on Monday, Abu Bakr was chosen as a Khalifah on Tuesday and the burial of the Prophet (saaws) took place on Wednesday night (Imam Malik reported that the burial took place on Tuesday night but not before choosing Abu Bakr as Khalifah.) It is known that after Abu Bakr was chosen as Khalifah, he delivered a speech after which they started washing the Prophet (saaws) on Tuesday evening. After washing him, there was a debate as to where he should be buried and they agreed that he should be buried in the place of his death –Abu Bakr was the one who settled the dispute.) So this was an Ijma'a of the Sahabah to engage themselves in appointing a Khaleefah their top priority in the wake of the departure of the Messenger of Allah rather than to bury the dead Prophet. This could not be legitimate unless the appointment of a Khaleefah is more obligatory than the burial of the dead.
Other things that were abandoned until the Khaleef was selected
Following the death of the prophet, there were several grave disputes in Medina that deserved the attention of the sahabah. Apart from the need to bury the prophet, there were disputes regarding the inheritance of the Prophet, fighting against those who rebelled against the state and those who rejected Islam, even fighting against those who refused to pay Zakat to the state, the emergence of false prophets in Arabia, and the sending of Osama's army outside Arabia.. Yet despite all of these issues, the sahabah all agreed to first spend 3 days in appointing a khaleef who then proceeded to address all of these things, rather than some of them going to bury the prophet and taking care of these individual issues. They did not wait for all of these individual things to be fixed first. This agenda illustrated that without Khilafah, there would be no Islam at all.
The succession of Umar bin al Khattab
It is also reflected clearly in the action of ‘Umar ibn al-Khattab - in the wake of his stabbing whilst the agony of death neared. After ruling for about ten years, 'Umar was wounded by a Zoroastrian slave, Firuz. When ‘Umar became certain that his death was imminent as a result of the stab wound, he entrusted the people of shura (consultation) to select the new khaleefah. He said, "Verily the Apostle of Allah died and he was pleased with these six people from the Quraysh", and refering to 'Ali, 'Uthman, Talhah ibn ‘Ubaydullah, az-Zubayr ibn al-’Awwam, Sa'd ibn Abi Waqas and 'Abdu r-Rahman ibn 'Awf, he said "I have decided to make it (the selection of caliph) a matter of consultation among them, so that they may select one from among themselves." He gave them three days to choose a new Khaleefah.
‘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. 'Umar called Abu Talhah al-Ansari and told him that after his ('Umar's) burial, he was to collect fifty swordsmen from the ansar, and gather the six above-mentioned candidates in a house to select one from among themselves as the caliph. If five agreed and accepted one man, while one man rejected, then hit his head with a sword. If four consented and agreed on one man, and two disagreed, then kill the disagreers with the sword. If three agreed on one man and three disagreed then let Abdullah bin Umar arbitrate. The group which Abdullah bin Umar judged for, let them select their man. If they did not accept the judgement of Abdullah bin Umar, then be with the group in which is Abdul Rahman ibn Awf, and kill the rest if they declined to accept what the people agreed upon.
In Islam, ordering the killing of a Muslim is a serious matter. However, Umar ordered the killing of the one who sat in opposition despite the fact that the six were all people of Shura and senior Sahabah. That one of these Sahabah could have been killed, should they have been unable to reach an agreement concerning the election of a Khaleefah, serves as a clear evidence that the appointment of a Khaleefah is compulsory. Furhter, there is no report of any of the sahabah challenging Umar’s order or disagreeing with it, thus it becomes ijma of the sahabah – they knew that he was correct in ordering the killing of these senior Muslims.
The general consensus of the Sahabah concerning the obligation of appointing a Khaleefah has been transmitted by way of khabar mutawatir (continuous report), the Sahabah agreed that it was the most important of all obligations. This is considered to be a conclusive evidence. It has also been confirmed by means of tawatur that the Ummah should at no time remain without a Khaleefah. It is obligatory on the whole Ummah to appoint a Khaleefah, i.e. to establish him in office to govern her affairs. The command is addressed to the entire Ummah; this took effect from the moment of his departure and will continue to the Day of Judgment.
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). In regard with the Ijma'a of the Sahabah they all agreed upon the necessity to establish a successor or Khaleefah to the Prophet 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. 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 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. The extent of the inevitable obligation to establish the Khaleefah and the extent of awareness about this obligation among the Sahabah, is clearly reflected in the actions which they performed at the time.
As for the Ijma’ of the companions, they (may Allah be pleased with them) agreed upon the necessity of establishing a successor, (Khaleefah) to the Messenger of Allah (saw) after his death. They all agreed to appoint a successor to Abu Bakr, and upon his death to appoint a successor to ‘Umar and upon ‘Uthman’s death to appoint Ali as a successor to him. The general consensus of Sahabah on the appointment of a Khaleefah manifested itself emphatically upon the death of the Messenger of Allah (saw) and engaged themselves in appointing a successor to him. It is known that the burial of the dead is obligatory, and that it is sinful for those in charge of preparing the burial to engage themselves in anything else until they complete the burial. Despite this, some of the Sahabah engaged themselves in appointing a Khaleefah, even though they were obliged to engage themselves in preparing the burial of the Messenger of Allah (saw) . The other Sahabah kept silent about this and participated in the delaying of the burial for two nights, despite having the ability to condemn the delay and being able to bury the Messenger of Allah (saw). This action of the Sahabah is therefore an evidence of consensus to support the fact that the appointment of a Khaleefah is more of an obligation than the burial of the dead and it could not have been legitimate unless the appointment of a Khaleefah were more of an obligation than the burial of the dead.
Furthermore, all the Sahabah consented throughout their lives upon the obligation of appointing a Khaleefah. Although at times they differed about the choice of the Khaleefah, they never disagreed about the fact that a Khaleefah must be appointed, and this was the case in the wake of Allah’s Messenger’s death, and of each of the Khulafa ‘Rashideen’ (The first four Khaleefahs). Accordingly, the general consensus of the Sahabah is both a strong and clear evidence that the appointment of a Khaleefah is obligatory.
The Burial of the Prophet
The Ijma'a of the Sahabah to establish a Khaleefah and give him the bay’ah to head the State manifested itself emphatically when they delayed the burial of the Messenger of Allah whilst engaged in appointing a successor to him as a head of the State, 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. This is according to that which has been narrated in the two Sahihs about the events in the hall of Banu Sa’idah and also in the wake of the death of each subsequent Khaleefah. The Sahabah were obliged to engage themselves in preparing the burial of the Prophet, but 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 three days and two nights despite their ability to deny the delay and their ability to bury the Prophet. It was reported that the Prophet died on Monday, Abu Bakr was chosen as a Khalifah on Tuesday and the burial of the Prophet (saaws) took place on Wednesday night (Imam Malik reported that the burial took place on Tuesday night but not before choosing Abu Bakr as Khalifah.) It is known that after Abu Bakr was chosen as Khalifah, he delivered a speech after which they started washing the Prophet (saaws) on Tuesday evening. After washing him, there was a debate as to where he should be buried and they agreed that he should be buried in the place of his death –Abu Bakr was the one who settled the dispute.) So this was an Ijma'a of the Sahabah to engage themselves in appointing a Khaleefah their top priority in the wake of the departure of the Messenger of Allah rather than to bury the dead Prophet. This could not be legitimate unless the appointment of a Khaleefah is more obligatory than the burial of the dead.
Other things that were abandoned until the Khaleef was selected
Following the death of the prophet, there were several grave disputes in Medina that deserved the attention of the sahabah. Apart from the need to bury the prophet, there were disputes regarding the inheritance of the Prophet, fighting against those who rebelled against the state and those who rejected Islam, even fighting against those who refused to pay Zakat to the state, the emergence of false prophets in Arabia, and the sending of Osama's army outside Arabia.. Yet despite all of these issues, the sahabah all agreed to first spend 3 days in appointing a khaleef who then proceeded to address all of these things, rather than some of them going to bury the prophet and taking care of these individual issues. They did not wait for all of these individual things to be fixed first. This agenda illustrated that without Khilafah, there would be no Islam at all.
The succession of Umar bin al Khattab
It is also reflected clearly in the action of ‘Umar ibn al-Khattab - in the wake of his stabbing whilst the agony of death neared. After ruling for about ten years, 'Umar was wounded by a Zoroastrian slave, Firuz. When ‘Umar became certain that his death was imminent as a result of the stab wound, he entrusted the people of shura (consultation) to select the new khaleefah. He said, "Verily the Apostle of Allah died and he was pleased with these six people from the Quraysh", and refering to 'Ali, 'Uthman, Talhah ibn ‘Ubaydullah, az-Zubayr ibn al-’Awwam, Sa'd ibn Abi Waqas and 'Abdu r-Rahman ibn 'Awf, he said "I have decided to make it (the selection of caliph) a matter of consultation among them, so that they may select one from among themselves." He gave them three days to choose a new Khaleefah.
‘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. 'Umar called Abu Talhah al-Ansari and told him that after his ('Umar's) burial, he was to collect fifty swordsmen from the ansar, and gather the six above-mentioned candidates in a house to select one from among themselves as the caliph. If five agreed and accepted one man, while one man rejected, then hit his head with a sword. If four consented and agreed on one man, and two disagreed, then kill the disagreers with the sword. If three agreed on one man and three disagreed then let Abdullah bin Umar arbitrate. The group which Abdullah bin Umar judged for, let them select their man. If they did not accept the judgement of Abdullah bin Umar, then be with the group in which is Abdul Rahman ibn Awf, and kill the rest if they declined to accept what the people agreed upon.
In Islam, ordering the killing of a Muslim is a serious matter. However, Umar ordered the killing of the one who sat in opposition despite the fact that the six were all people of Shura and senior Sahabah. That one of these Sahabah could have been killed, should they have been unable to reach an agreement concerning the election of a Khaleefah, serves as a clear evidence that the appointment of a Khaleefah is compulsory. Furhter, there is no report of any of the sahabah challenging Umar’s order or disagreeing with it, thus it becomes ijma of the sahabah – they knew that he was correct in ordering the killing of these senior Muslims.
The general consensus of the Sahabah concerning the obligation of appointing a Khaleefah has been transmitted by way of khabar mutawatir (continuous report), the Sahabah agreed that it was the most important of all obligations. This is considered to be a conclusive evidence. It has also been confirmed by means of tawatur that the Ummah should at no time remain without a Khaleefah. It is obligatory on the whole Ummah to appoint a Khaleefah, i.e. to establish him in office to govern her affairs. The command is addressed to the entire Ummah; this took effect from the moment of his departure and will continue to the Day of Judgment.