Khilafah existed until 1924

[Nabila Dar]

Assalam o alaikum

MashAllah you run a very useful forum here.

I saw link to this forum on Orkut community. I hardly use the internet but I wanted to share a research essay on Khilafah, I couldnt post on orkut so I thought I could post here.

I hope you find it useful.

Nabila Dar

[Nabila Dar]

Topic:

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 ?

[Nabila Dar]

There is no doubt that the Islamic State, which Muhammad al-Mustafa
(as) established in Madinah 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 Khulafa Rashidun 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 still existed. As regards the claim of
hereditary rule, it is true that the bay'ah i.e. process of
appointing a Khaleefah, was mal-administered but that did not affect
the continuity of the Khilafah. This is because even though a
Khaleefah might have taken the people's 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.

[nabila]

The scholars accepted that the Khilafah continued after the Khulafah
Rashidun, although some from the Salaf disliked using the title
Khaleefah for later 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 Khulafaa, all
of them being from the Quraish' [Sahih Muslim]. This hadith indicates
that the Ummah will have not four or five but twelve Khaleefah,
indicating 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 Khaleefah for in the thirty years
there were only the Khulafaa Rashidun 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 Khulafaa it does not
mean it was restricted to that number as Qadi `Iyad
explains: `Perhaps what is meant by twelve Khaleefahs in these
hadiths 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
Khulafaa Rashidun; he mentions the likes of Umar ibn Abdul Aziz and
he even mentions "khulafa bani Abbas" i.e. amongst the Abbasids.

[simply Nabila]

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 adoodan (hereditary rule)' this
hadith does not indicate that the Khilafah is restricted to the
Khulafaa 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 Khulafaa Rashideen. Rather what
is meant is: The Khilafah after me in terms of the responsibilities
of the Imaamah 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:

The first: The Ijmaa' of the Ummah in every age on the obligation to
follow an Imam of that time and upon the fact that the Imaam and
Khaleefah must be obeyed.

Second: He (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)' It judged that the
Khilafah will becomes a mulk, the judgment on a thing requires that
the thing itself exists.' In the first point Imaam Aamidi explains
that the Ummah is agreed, and this of course is due to text, that the
Imaam 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 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.

[simply Nabila]

Imaam 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 `Uamr 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 Khalifahs is devoid of the Imaam 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 history of the Khulafaa until his
time with the death of Khalifah 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 Khulafaa, the Amirs of the Believers who
looked after the affairs of the Ummah from the time of Abu Bakr as-
Siddeeq – may Allah be pleased with him! – until this our time…' and
that was 900 years after the Hijrah!

[nabila]

The notable scholars throughout the ages had a relationship with the
Khulafaa, whether they accounted them, such as Abu Hanifah and al-
Mansur, or they worked for them such as Qadi Abu Yusuf who was the
Qadi al-Qudah (chief judge) under Harun ar-Rashid or they
participated in the bay'ah of a Khaleefah such as `Izz b. Abd as-
Salam, who gave bay'ah to Mustansir Billah after the defeat of the
Tatars. Towards the end of the Ottoman Khilafah when the big powers
were conspiring against it, Sheikh ul Hind Maulana Mahmood Hassan
(who was the then head of Darul Uloom Deoband and direct student of
Maulana Qasim Nanautavi, the founding father of the Darul `Uloom) in
the 1920's, mentioned in a fatwa regarding saving the Ottoman
Khilafah from enemies of Islam. The respected Mawlana said: `The
enemies of Islam have left no stone unturned to strike against and
harm the honor and prestige of Islam. Iraq, Palestine and Syria that
were won over by the Prophet's companions and his followers, after
numerous sacrifices, have once again become targets of greed of the
enemy of Islam. The honor of Khilafat is in tatters. Khalifa-tul-
Muslimin, who used to unite the entire community on this planet; who
is the vice-regent of Allah on this earth; used to implement the
universal law of Islam; who used to protect the rights and interests
of Muslims and used to preserve and ensure the glory of the words of
the Creator of this universe be preserved and implemented, has been
surrounded by enemies and made redundant.' [From the Fatwa of Sheikh
ul Hind Maulana Mahmood Hassan, 16th Safar 1339 AH, October 29 1920
CE, page 78 of English translation of 'The Prisoners of Malta' by
Maulana Syed Mohammad Mian, published by Jamiat Ulama-I-Hind] Also
Maulana Mohammad Ali Johar, a founder of the Khilafat movement said
about the Khilafah: `The ruler of Turkey was the Khalifah or
successor of the Prophet and Amir -ul- Mu'mineen or chief of the
believers and the Khilafah is as essentially our religious concern as
the Quran or the Sunnah of the Prophet.' [Johar, Mohammed Ali, My
Life a Fragment pg.41] Also Maulana Abul Kalam Azad wrote a book in
1920 called `The Issue of Khilafat', where he stated: `Without the
Khilafah the existence of Islam is not possible, the Muslims of India
with all their effort and power need to work for this.' In that book
he listed all of the Khulafah from the time of Abu Bakr until the
time when he wrote his book. Thus we can see the `Ulama were
concerned to insure the continuation of the Khilafah until the very
end. It is a strange turn of events that people who claim to follow
the above scholars in their Fiqh contradict their own mazhab when it
comes to this point. If we were to seek the reason for this we will
not find it in their knowledge of Fiqh, for they know the position of
their Imams, but it arises from a mentality which has surrendered to
reality and allowed it to supercede the Fiqh when it should be the
other way round.

The continuity of the obligation of Khilafah after the Khulafaa
Rashideen is a pillar of Ahl as-Sunnah and hence at-Taftazaani (who
incidentally was a Shafi'i scholar) in his commentary (sharh) of the
Aqeedah of Imam an-Nasafi (who was a Hanafi) said: `The position of
agreement is that it is obligatory to appoint an Imam. The difference
of opinion is on the question whether the appointment must be by
Allah or by His creatures, and whether the basis [for appointment] is
text or reason. The correct position is that the creatures must
appoint a Khaleefah because of the statement of the Prophet
(saw): `Whosoever dies without knowing the Imam of his time, dies the
death of Jahiliyyah.'

[nabila]

At-Taftazani also says: `The Muslims must have an Imaam, who will
carry out the administration of their decisions, the maintaining of
their restrictive ordinances, the guarding of their frontiers, the
equipping of their armies, the receiving of their alms, the
subjugation of those who get the upper hand and robbers and
highwaymen, the performance of worship on Fridays and the Festivals,
the settlement of disputes which take place amongst creatures, the
receiving of evidence based on legal rights, the giving in marriage
of young men and maidens who have no guardians, and the division of
the booty and things like these which individuals of the people are
not entrusted.' [Sharh `Aqidat an-Nasafiyyah, p.147] What Imaam at-
Taftazani says is considered the last word on what Ahl as-Sunnah
agreed and the above quote on the obligation of appointing a
Khaleefah is clear regardless of ones historical interpretation.


[e-mail]