Post by Islamic Revival on Sept 20, 2005 3:27:48 GMT -5
Answer By Kamal Abu Zahra
kamal.zahra@1924.org
Q. The need for Khilafah has become well established and many Muslims now call for it. However, some people claim that the Khilafah only lasted for 30 years and that thereafter the Khilafah ceased to exist. Does this understanding have any Islamic basis?
And is it a valid justification for not establishing Khilafah today just because it only lasted 30 years?
A. There is no doubt that the Islamic State, which Muhammad al-Mustafa (as) established in Medina existed until it was destroyed at the hands of Kamal Ataturk on the 3rd of March 1924. The continuity of the Islamic ruling system, the Khilafah system, beyond the time of the Khulafah Rashideen is established by the historical reality and by the text. As for history we should bear in mind the structure of the ruling system so that we can asses historically whether if it existed or not. This structure is based on the following pillars: the Khaleefah, i.e., the head of State, the Khaleefah's delegated assistants (mo'aawin Tafweed), the Khaleefah's executing assistants (mo'aawen Tanfeez), the Ameer of Jihad, the Governors (Wulah), the Judges (qudah)), state departments, and the state assembly (Majlis al-Ummah).
If we analyze history we can see that all but one (the Shura) existed throughout the eras until its destruction in 1924. The absence or neglect of the Shura after the Khulafah Rashideen does not mean the ruling system changed because ruling is possible without Shura even though it is the right of the Muslims. As for the periods in history where no Khaleefah existed whether due to civil war or occupation by foreign armies, the Khilafah still continued to exist as the rest of the pillars were in place.
As regards the claim of hereditary rule, it is true that the bay'ah i.e. process of appointing a Khaleefah was aladministered but that did not affect the continuity of he Khilafah. This is because even though a Khaleefah might have taken the peoples' bay'ah for his son before his death, it was always renewed afterwards. This bay'ah was usually given either by the people of influence and representation (ahl al- Halli wal- 'aqd) or as we saw in the latter period by the Shaykh al-Islam.
The scholars accepted that the Khilafah continued after the Khulafah Rashideen, although some from the Salaf disliked using the title Khaleefah for latter rulers because of the following hadith reported by at-Tirmizi on the authority of Safeenah who said that the Messenger (saw) said: "The Khilafah in my Ummah after me will be for thirty years. Then there will be mulkan 'aduudan (hereditary rule) after that." [Similar narrations are also to be found in the Sunan of Abu Dawud (2/264) and Musnad of Ahmad (1/169)] According to the scholars, this hadith does not mean the Khilafah ceased to exist after thirty years because it contradicts other authentic texts. For example it has been narrated by Jabir b. Samurah (ra) that the Messenger (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 Quraysh' [Sahih Muslim]. This hadith indicates that the Ummah will have not four or five but twelve Khulafah, ndicating that the Khilafah could not have been restricted to only thirty years. Regarding this hadith Qadi 'Iyad said: '…it has been mentioned in the latter hadith 'The Khilafah after me will be for thirty years, then there will be a hereditary rule' this contradicts the hadith regarding the twelve Khulafah for in the thirty years there were only the Khulafah Rashideen and months in which the bay'ah was given to al- Hasan b. al-Ali. The answer to this is: What is meant by 'the Khilafah will be for thirty years' is the Khilafah of the Nubuwwah (Prophethood)…' [As quoted by an-Nawawi in his Sharh
Sahih Muslim, 1821] As for the reference to twelve Khulafah it does not mean it was restricted to that number as Qadi 'Iyad explains: 'Perhaps what is meant by twelve Khulafah in these hadith and their like is that they were the Khulafah during the strong period of the Khilafah, the power of Islam, when the affairs were in order and the people were united on those who undertook the post of Khilafah.' [Tarikh al-Khulafah of as- Sayuti, p.14]. Ibn Hajar said in Sharh of al- Bukhari: 'What Qadi 'Iyad said is the best of what has been said regarding the hadith. I think it's the strongest because it is supported by sayings of the Prophet through authentic lines of transmission: 'And people will gather round all of them…' [Fath al-Baari] and then Ibn Hajar gives a historical account of how people had gathered round and united under certain Khulafah after the Khulafah Rashideen; he mentions the likes of Umar ibn Abdul Aziz and he even mentions "Khulafah bani bbas" i.e. amongst the Abbasids.
Sayf ad-Deen al-Aamidi, the great Shafi'i scholar and Usuli, said in his book al-Imaamah min abkar al-afkar fi usul ad-din (p.306): "And his (saw) saying 'After me the Khilafah will be for thirty years and then it will turn into a mulkan aduudan (hereditary rule)' this hadith does not indicate that the Khilafah is restricted to the Khulafah Rashideen (they are Abu Bakr, 'Umar, 'Uthman and 'Ali [may Allah be pleased with them]) since their Khilafah lasted for thirty years as stated by the Prophet (saw). And nor does the hadith mean that there is no Khilafah after the Khulafah Rashideen. Rather what is meant is: The Khilafah after me in terms of the responsibilities of the Imamah and following my Sunnah without increase or neglect will be for thirty years, contrary to the period after this when most of the ruling will be of kings.
Despite this the continuity of the Khilafah is indicated by the following two things: Firstly, the Ijmaa' of the Ummah in every age on the obligation to follow an Imam of that time and upon the fact that the Imam and Khaleefah must be obeyed. Secondly, the Prophet (saw) said: 'then it will become (taseeru) mulkan (hereditary rule)'. The personal pronoun (dameer) in 'taseeru mulkan' refers to the Khilafah. Since the mentioned (verb) cannot refer to anything other than the Khilafah, as if it is saying 'and then the Khilafah becomes a mulk (hereditary rule)' The hadith judged that the Khilafah will becomes a mulk, the judgment on a thing requires that the thing itself exists."
As for the first point, Imam Aamidi explains that the Ummah is agreed, and this of course is due to text, that the Imam of that age must be followed and hence one cannot argue the hadith is restricting any Khilafah after it. And his second argument is linguistic, 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) 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. Imam at-Taftazani referring to the fact that the rulers after Imam Ali were considered kings says: 'This is a difficult problem, for the people of influence and representation (ahl halli wal 'aqd) of the Muslim people were agreed on the Khilafah of the abbasids and some of Banu Marwan, such as 'Umar b. 'Abd al-Aziz, for example. Perhaps the meaning here (referring to the above hadith that the Khilafah will be thirty years) is rather that the perfect Khilafah, in which there is no dross due to difference [of opinion] or inclination away from following [the right Khaleefah], will be for a period of thirty years, and then after it there might be or there might not be a Khilafah...If objection is made that since the period of the Khilafah was thirty years, then the time subsequent to the rightly guided Khulafah is devoid of the Imam and whole of the Muslim people are thus disobedient and when they die, they die as in the days of ignorance, we reply that it has already been pointed out that the perfect Khilafah is what is meant.' It is well known from the hadith that to die without a Khaleefah is to die the death of Jahiliyyah, so what about the Muslims after the thirty years? At-
Taftazani replies by saying the Muslims in those days were not sinful because the Khilafah did exist as the hadith only refers to the perfect Khilafah.
Imam Jalal al-Din al-Suyuti (b.911 AH) in his Tarikh al-Khulafah (History of the Caliphs) recounts the history of the Khulafah until his time with the death of Khaleefah Mutawakkil Abul 'Izz in 903 AH and the appointment of his son al-Mustamsik Billah. He says in his introduction to the Tarikh: 'This is a brief history in which I present the biography of the Khulafah, the Amirs
kamal.zahra@1924.org
Q. The need for Khilafah has become well established and many Muslims now call for it. However, some people claim that the Khilafah only lasted for 30 years and that thereafter the Khilafah ceased to exist. Does this understanding have any Islamic basis?
And is it a valid justification for not establishing Khilafah today just because it only lasted 30 years?
A. There is no doubt that the Islamic State, which Muhammad al-Mustafa (as) established in Medina existed until it was destroyed at the hands of Kamal Ataturk on the 3rd of March 1924. The continuity of the Islamic ruling system, the Khilafah system, beyond the time of the Khulafah Rashideen is established by the historical reality and by the text. As for history we should bear in mind the structure of the ruling system so that we can asses historically whether if it existed or not. This structure is based on the following pillars: the Khaleefah, i.e., the head of State, the Khaleefah's delegated assistants (mo'aawin Tafweed), the Khaleefah's executing assistants (mo'aawen Tanfeez), the Ameer of Jihad, the Governors (Wulah), the Judges (qudah)), state departments, and the state assembly (Majlis al-Ummah).
If we analyze history we can see that all but one (the Shura) existed throughout the eras until its destruction in 1924. The absence or neglect of the Shura after the Khulafah Rashideen does not mean the ruling system changed because ruling is possible without Shura even though it is the right of the Muslims. As for the periods in history where no Khaleefah existed whether due to civil war or occupation by foreign armies, the Khilafah still continued to exist as the rest of the pillars were in place.
As regards the claim of hereditary rule, it is true that the bay'ah i.e. process of appointing a Khaleefah was aladministered but that did not affect the continuity of he Khilafah. This is because even though a Khaleefah might have taken the peoples' bay'ah for his son before his death, it was always renewed afterwards. This bay'ah was usually given either by the people of influence and representation (ahl al- Halli wal- 'aqd) or as we saw in the latter period by the Shaykh al-Islam.
The scholars accepted that the Khilafah continued after the Khulafah Rashideen, although some from the Salaf disliked using the title Khaleefah for latter rulers because of the following hadith reported by at-Tirmizi on the authority of Safeenah who said that the Messenger (saw) said: "The Khilafah in my Ummah after me will be for thirty years. Then there will be mulkan 'aduudan (hereditary rule) after that." [Similar narrations are also to be found in the Sunan of Abu Dawud (2/264) and Musnad of Ahmad (1/169)] According to the scholars, this hadith does not mean the Khilafah ceased to exist after thirty years because it contradicts other authentic texts. For example it has been narrated by Jabir b. Samurah (ra) that the Messenger (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 Quraysh' [Sahih Muslim]. This hadith indicates that the Ummah will have not four or five but twelve Khulafah, ndicating that the Khilafah could not have been restricted to only thirty years. Regarding this hadith Qadi 'Iyad said: '…it has been mentioned in the latter hadith 'The Khilafah after me will be for thirty years, then there will be a hereditary rule' this contradicts the hadith regarding the twelve Khulafah for in the thirty years there were only the Khulafah Rashideen and months in which the bay'ah was given to al- Hasan b. al-Ali. The answer to this is: What is meant by 'the Khilafah will be for thirty years' is the Khilafah of the Nubuwwah (Prophethood)…' [As quoted by an-Nawawi in his Sharh
Sahih Muslim, 1821] As for the reference to twelve Khulafah it does not mean it was restricted to that number as Qadi 'Iyad explains: 'Perhaps what is meant by twelve Khulafah in these hadith and their like is that they were the Khulafah during the strong period of the Khilafah, the power of Islam, when the affairs were in order and the people were united on those who undertook the post of Khilafah.' [Tarikh al-Khulafah of as- Sayuti, p.14]. Ibn Hajar said in Sharh of al- Bukhari: 'What Qadi 'Iyad said is the best of what has been said regarding the hadith. I think it's the strongest because it is supported by sayings of the Prophet through authentic lines of transmission: 'And people will gather round all of them…' [Fath al-Baari] and then Ibn Hajar gives a historical account of how people had gathered round and united under certain Khulafah after the Khulafah Rashideen; he mentions the likes of Umar ibn Abdul Aziz and he even mentions "Khulafah bani bbas" i.e. amongst the Abbasids.
Sayf ad-Deen al-Aamidi, the great Shafi'i scholar and Usuli, said in his book al-Imaamah min abkar al-afkar fi usul ad-din (p.306): "And his (saw) saying 'After me the Khilafah will be for thirty years and then it will turn into a mulkan aduudan (hereditary rule)' this hadith does not indicate that the Khilafah is restricted to the Khulafah Rashideen (they are Abu Bakr, 'Umar, 'Uthman and 'Ali [may Allah be pleased with them]) since their Khilafah lasted for thirty years as stated by the Prophet (saw). And nor does the hadith mean that there is no Khilafah after the Khulafah Rashideen. Rather what is meant is: The Khilafah after me in terms of the responsibilities of the Imamah and following my Sunnah without increase or neglect will be for thirty years, contrary to the period after this when most of the ruling will be of kings.
Despite this the continuity of the Khilafah is indicated by the following two things: Firstly, the Ijmaa' of the Ummah in every age on the obligation to follow an Imam of that time and upon the fact that the Imam and Khaleefah must be obeyed. Secondly, the Prophet (saw) said: 'then it will become (taseeru) mulkan (hereditary rule)'. The personal pronoun (dameer) in 'taseeru mulkan' refers to the Khilafah. Since the mentioned (verb) cannot refer to anything other than the Khilafah, as if it is saying 'and then the Khilafah becomes a mulk (hereditary rule)' The hadith judged that the Khilafah will becomes a mulk, the judgment on a thing requires that the thing itself exists."
As for the first point, Imam Aamidi explains that the Ummah is agreed, and this of course is due to text, that the Imam of that age must be followed and hence one cannot argue the hadith is restricting any Khilafah after it. And his second argument is linguistic, 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) 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. Imam at-Taftazani referring to the fact that the rulers after Imam Ali were considered kings says: 'This is a difficult problem, for the people of influence and representation (ahl halli wal 'aqd) of the Muslim people were agreed on the Khilafah of the abbasids and some of Banu Marwan, such as 'Umar b. 'Abd al-Aziz, for example. Perhaps the meaning here (referring to the above hadith that the Khilafah will be thirty years) is rather that the perfect Khilafah, in which there is no dross due to difference [of opinion] or inclination away from following [the right Khaleefah], will be for a period of thirty years, and then after it there might be or there might not be a Khilafah...If objection is made that since the period of the Khilafah was thirty years, then the time subsequent to the rightly guided Khulafah is devoid of the Imam and whole of the Muslim people are thus disobedient and when they die, they die as in the days of ignorance, we reply that it has already been pointed out that the perfect Khilafah is what is meant.' It is well known from the hadith that to die without a Khaleefah is to die the death of Jahiliyyah, so what about the Muslims after the thirty years? At-
Taftazani replies by saying the Muslims in those days were not sinful because the Khilafah did exist as the hadith only refers to the perfect Khilafah.
Imam Jalal al-Din al-Suyuti (b.911 AH) in his Tarikh al-Khulafah (History of the Caliphs) recounts the history of the Khulafah until his time with the death of Khaleefah Mutawakkil Abul 'Izz in 903 AH and the appointment of his son al-Mustamsik Billah. He says in his introduction to the Tarikh: 'This is a brief history in which I present the biography of the Khulafah, the Amirs