This is the third part of a reflection on a discussion I heard between two Muslim academics about Islamic Politics and the Khilāfah. The first video is the discussion. The second video iss a critique of the same conversation.
Fiqh versus Eschatology. Effort versus Divine Decree.
One matter in the discussion that seemed a bit of a red herring was the focus of eschatology, citing the ḥadīth narrated by Imam Aḥmad about prophethood, Khilāfah on the way of prophethood, dynastic rule, oppressive rule and then Khilāfah on the way of prophethood.
Regardless of whether this noble ḥadīth was informing Muslims about situations in times after the life of the Prophet ﷺ, this does not answer the matter of whether or not a farḍ needs to be worked towards.
The implication of this discussion of Khilāfah as a fruit of general correct belief and good deeds is that no specific efforts should be made to establish this obligation. The counter to this is that all obligations require effort upon which we are accounted - and that the positive results always come from Allah.
It is bizarre that there is virtually no other matter of obligation which people are not expected to work towards according to their ability. Yet on this matter, people are encouraged by some to do nothing specific towards fulfilling the obligation.
Prioritisation
The interview mentioned that some of those who prioritise the issue of Khilāfah cite many reasons for that. It was said they seem ‘fixated’ on it.
I would repeat something similar to a point I made in one of the previous parts - that I have always found it problematic when some Muslims undermine aspects of Islam - whether it is people emphasising niqab, beards, straightening rows in prayer etc that others view as priorities for the Ummah. Even if I do not think these matters are a priority or obligatory, if I recognise that there is something in Islam that approves or encourages these things, they do not deserve to be undermined when I am promoting that which I think is a priority.
In respect of response from the interviewee - that he did not mind people addressing the issue, but said many had a problem with a ‘fixation’ on this issue - I would say that the opinion that prioritisation is of the highest order is a strong Shari’ah opinion. Hence, to address this in a strong way is not a fixation, but enjoining a mārūf!
The opinions that this matter is amongst the highest of priorities is born out by many classical scholars, even it is low on the list of priorities of some of today’s academics:
A leading Hanafi-Maturidi authority Abū Ḥafṣ al-Nasafī (d. 537/1142) wrote that: “Muslims must have an imam to enforce their rulings, establish ḥudūd, and defend borders … .”
Al-Nasafī also explained:
“The Muslims must have an Imam, who carries out the implementation of their ahkam, the maintaining of their hudud, the guarding of their frontiers, the equipping of their armies, the receiving of their alms [zakat], the subjugation of those who rebel, thieves and highway robbers, the establishment of jumu’a and the two ‘Eids, the settlement of disputes which take place amongst people, the receiving of evidence based on legal rights, the facilitation of the marriage of the young men and women who have no guardians, and the distribution of the booty.”
Commenting on this ,the theologian al-Taftāzānī (d. 792/1390) wrote:
“There is consensus that installing an imam is an obligation. The disagreement is on whether the obligation is upon God or upon creation, by revelational evidence or rational. And [our] school holds that it is an obligation upon the creation through revelation, as the Prophet ﷺ said, “Whoever dies without knowing the imam of his time dies in pre-Islamic ignorance,”which is why the Ummah made the installing of an imam their utmost concern, even before his burial (i.e., of the Prophet), and so it should be after the death of every imam, as many obligations of the Sharīʿa depend on him.
Imam Taftāzānī went further specifying the importance of the Muslims having one leader. In his day, at one end of the lands of Islam, Syria, and Egypt, were under the Mamluks - whilst at the other (Persia and Transoxiana) was ravaged by Tamerlane (Tīmūr Lang), Taftāzānī explained why there must be only one imam for all regions:
“If it is said: why is it not sufficient to appoint a ruler in every region, or why is it obligatory to appoint one who has the general authority (al-riyāsa al-ʿāmma)?” we say: because that would lead to conflict and animosity, which would lead to the corruption of the affairs of religion as well as this world, as we witness in our own times.”
Ibn Khaldun (d. 808/1406) summed up the consensus saying:
“Appointing a leader is obligatory. Its mandatory nature is known through revealed law by the consensus of the Companions and the generation of the Followers. It is so because the Companions of the Prophet (Allah’s peace and blessings be upon him) hastened, upon his death, to pledge allegiance and submit consideration of their affairs to Abu Bakr (May Allah be pleased with him). And it was thus in every age thereafter, and the matter was established as consensus indicating the obligation of appointing a leader.”
Al-Hafidh Zayn al Deen Ibn Rajab al Hanbali (may Allah have mercy on him) said: The Prophet ﷺ instructs us that if there is a congregation of 3 people, that one of them should be appointed as an amir. By extension, if the Prophet ﷺ instructed leadership for a congregation of 3 people, then the same principal applies for the entire congregation of the Muslim Ummah. This rule is arrived at by a concept in Usool ul Fiqh known as ‘Mafhoom al Muwafaqah’, which denotes the case where an amr (order) or nahy (prohibition) in texts is extended to include broader actions [in his Jami’ al Uloom Wal Hikm, pg. 440]
Imam Ahmed (rh) was asked, “What is the meaning of the hadith ‘Whosoever dies and he does not have an Imam he dies the death of jahiliyyah?”
He responded: Do you know what an Imam is? An Imam is the one around whom all the Muslims unite. This is its meaning [Masaa’il, volume 2, page 185 of Muhammad bin Ishaq]
(These references were kindly sourced and translated by a dear brother, and are not my effort).
This article is to be published on 1st Muharram 1426 - the anniversary of the martyrdom of Sayiduna ‘Umar ibn Khattāb, may Allah be pleased with him.
It was related by Ibn Shabbah in ‘Tārīkh Al-Madīnah’, and by Tabari in his ‘Tārīkhh’, and by Ibn Sa’d in his ‘At-Tabaqāt Al-Kubrā’ that on his deathbed, after he had been stabbed, ‘Umar (RA) established a shura council to elect the next Khalīfah after him. He (RA) said to Suhaib ar-Rūmi (RA) put together ‘Ali, ‘Uthman, Az-Zubair, Sa’d, Abdur Rahman Bin ‘Auf and Talhah - may Allah be pleased with them all - and set a strict time limit of three days and two nights, following the example of the interval between the death of the Messenger of Allah and the appointment of Abū Bakr (RA) as Khalīfah. The strictness of the issue was such that anyone of those six who challenged unifying behind one candidate should be liable to a capital punishment, effectively for causing sedition. None of the companions disagreed with this, and for this reason it was taken as an Ijmā of the Sahabāh - a Shari’ daleel which is an indication of Sunnah.
I doubt that serious people would describe these scholars as having a ‘fixation’ on the issue, when they clearly establish Shari’ proofs for the high priority.
In the next and final article addressing my reflections, I will address Sunnah governance, what kind of Caliphate; authoritarianism; and centralisation; and the nation state problem; Sunnah governance versus nation states.