Question

I read your explanation that Khilafah means only a political authority and does not mean a singular political authority. I have some doubts with regards to this and more questions on Khilafah.

1. Immediately after the death of the Prophet (pbuh), there was some dispute concerning who should be the Khalifah for the Muslims. Ansars were suggesting a separate ruler for them. But Abubacker (ra) and Omar (ra) interfered the scene and Abubacker (ra) said that there can be only one Khalifah for the Muslims and also said that the Khulafah should be from the Quraishi tribe. Also we know that only Caliphate was there for the Mulims from the early Muslim history till 1924.

   My questions are, if Khilafah only means a political authority of a state or certain Muslim population, why is that the companions of the Prophet (pbuh) and those who later followed them were extremely mindful that there can be only one ruler for the entire Muslim population?

2. In the following narratives of the Prophet (pbuh), the Prophet has used the term “Khilafah” in the sense of having a single political authority for the entire Muslims.

• • It has been narrated on the authority of Jabir b. Samura who said: I joined the company of the Holy Prophet (may peace be upon him) with my father and I heard him say: This Caliphate will not end until there have been twelve Caliphs among them. The narrator said: Then he (the Holy Prophet) said something that I could not follow. I said to my father: What did he say? He said: He has said: All of them will be from the Quraish. (Muslim)

  • Muslim reported on the authority of Abu Hazim, who said: I accompanied Abu Hurairah for five years and heard him talking of the Prophet’s saying: 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 be Khulafa’a and they will number many. They asked: What then do you order us? He said: Fulfill the bay’ah to them one after the other and give them their due. Surely Allah will ask them about what He entrusted them with.

3. So the Muslims are clearly living in countries which do not rule by what God had revealed and against the entire concept of Islamic Unity which Prophet (pbuh) envisioned. The Muslims cannot be just satisfied with doing their personal ibadaahs and should realize how badly they are living against the Islamic teachings. This clearly makes us to think that we should strive for a singular political authority (Khilafah) for the entire Muslim population so that we live and rule by Qur’an and in Unity. Does this not necessitate that working for Khilafah is obligatory on us?

4. In your earlier response. you wrote that Democratic way of ruling is not against the Islam. You quoted the verse, “and whose affairs are a matter of counsel (Quran 42:38)” as an evidence to this.

Looking at the context of the verse, the above verse actually states one of the quality of the true believers. I understand that the verse actually says that a decision will be based on the consultation among the Muslim for all the things which are not expressly mentioned (or prohibited) in Shari`ah. But for all those directives which are expressly mentioned in the Shari`ah, a true believer will never accept the decision of the majority of the Muslims (which apparently is a Democracy) since Qur’an asks the Prophet (pbuh), Muslims not to follow the majority (Qur’an 6:116). So how do you say that Democracy is not against the Islamic concept of ruling?

Regards

Answer

As I have clarified in my earlier responses, “Khalifah” implies ‘ruler’. Every ‘unit’ of rule, by its very nature, requires one ruler. Plurality of rulers implies the breaking of the unit of rule. Thus, as long as Muslims were a single unit of rule – i.e. a single political state – they could only have one Khalifah – or one ruler. A deviation from this principle would clearly have meant the breaking of the ‘unit’ of Muslim rule or, in other words, the breaking of the Muslim political state.

Take the example of the East and the West Pakistan. As long as the East and the West Pakistan were a single Muslim state, they were required to be under a single rule. However, a separation of the East from the West Pakistan – however, painful it may be for a Muslim – no longer requires the two to be ruled by a single ruler. Now, each of the two separated entities, to be considered as separate single states must be ruled by their respective one ruler, but, as a whole, do no longer required to be ruled by one person.

Plurality of “Khalifah” – i.e., rulers – in the same geo-political state would either imply disunity and breaking of that political state or would be indicative of anarchy in that political state. This is precisely the reason why the Prophet (pbuh) and his companions were so conscious of the fact that there could only be a single Muslim ruler – while there was only a single Muslim state.

Thus, the contention that all Muslims of the world must have a single ruler – Khalifah – is, in fact, like proposing that there should only be one political state of Muslims; there should not be a plurality of Muslim political states. This may be considered as a very attractive idea by some and we may even try to achieve it, yet, it is obvious that carrying out this idea is not a requirement of the Shari`ah.

Keeping the foregoing explanation in perspective, let us now take a look at your observations:

You write:

My questions are, if Khilafah only means a political authority of a state or certain Muslim population, why is that the companions of the Prophet (pbuh) and those who later followed them were extremely mindful that there can be only one ruler for the entire Muslim population?

The reason because the companions of the Prophet (pbuh) were extremely mindful of the point that there can only be one ruler for the entire Muslim population is that during their times, the entire Muslim population was living as a single geo-political state.

You write:

In the following narratives of the Prophet (pbuh), the Prophet has used the term “Khilafah” in the sense of having a single political authority for the entire Muslims.

First of all, it is not very clear to me on what basis have you derived that the Prophet (pbuh) has used the word “Khalifah” or “Khulafaa” as a single political authority for the entire Muslim population. Nevertheless, I do agree with you that that is really the case, as the word “Khalifah” – ruler – by its very nature, calls for singularity. These narratives of the Prophet (pbuh) clearly relate to the time when the entire Muslim population was living as a single geo-political state and, therefore, naturally called for a single ruler or “Khalifah” for that one state. Plurality of Muslim rules under the prevalent circumstances would clearly have meant complete anarchy in the single Muslim state.

You write:

So the Muslims are clearly living in countries which do not rule by what God had revealed and against the entire concept of Islamic Unity which Prophet (pbuh) envisioned. The Muslims cannot be just satisfied with doing their personal ibadaahs and should realize how badly they are living against the Islamic teachings. This clearly makes us to think that we should strive for a singular political authority (Khilafah) for the entire Muslim population so that we live and rule by Qur’an and in Unity. Does this not necessitate that working for Khilafah is obligatory on us?

My dear brother, Islam has clearly prohibited the promotion of discord and disunity among Muslims and has strongly condemned all acts of political disharmony, anarchy and breaking the singular entity of the Muslim state. Nevertheless, this does not automatically imply that if Muslims are living as multi-state entities, they are religiously obliged to unite as a single state organized under one rule. I am not aware of any directive of the Shari`ah, which obliges the common Muslim to strive for the formation of a single Muslim state, during the times that Muslims are living as separate geo-political entities. In the absence of such a directive, I do not have the authority to consider something as ‘obligatory’ in the Shari`ah.

Regarding my opinion on democratic rule in Muslim states, you write:

Looking at the context of the verse, the above verse actually states one of the quality of the true believers. I understand that the verse actually says that a decision will be based on the consultation among the Muslim for all the things which are not expressly mentioned (or prohibited) in Shari`ah. But for all those directives which are expressly mentioned in the Shari`ah, a true believer will never accept the decision of the majority of the Muslims (which apparently is a Democracy) since Qur’an asks the Prophet (pbuh), Muslims not to follow the majority (Qur’an 6:116). So how do you say that Democracy is not against the Islamic concept of ruling?

The directive entailed in the verse, in my opinion, relates to all collective matters. As you have correctly pointed out that the collective matters of the Muslims fall in two categories: Firstly, those matters which are ‘clearly’ mentioned in the Qur’an; and secondly, those matters, about which the Qur’an has not given any specific ruling. It is also clear from your paragraph that you agree to the point that in the latter case, decisions regarding the collective matters should be based upon consultation and, thus, upon the principle of majority. Nevertheless, you consider it inappropriate – or prohibited (?) – for Muslims to follow the opinion of the majority in the former case.

In my opinion, as I have stated earlier, the directive entailed in the verse relates to ALL collective matters of the Muslims. The only difference in the two kinds of situations is that – provided the collectivity in question is truly Muslim – in the former case, the scope of the opinion of the majority would be restricted to the interpretation, application and implementation of a directive of the Qur’an. On the other hand, in the latter case the Muslim legislators would try to formulate laws, which according to the opinion of their majority, are in keeping with the spirit of any related directives of the Shari`ah or are beneficial for its citizens.

In neither of the two stated situations does Islam allow ignoring the opinion of the majority.

As for Al-An`aam 6: 116, it does not relate to political and collective matters, but is, in fact, related to one’s beliefs. According to the Qur’an, one’s beliefs should not be based upon the ‘opinions of the majority’. On the contrary, one should base his beliefs on his understanding, appreciation and realization of the ‘truth’. No political or collective authority has the right to enforce its beliefs upon the individuals. However, in contrast to one’s beliefs, the only justifiable mode of forming rules relating to the collectivity is to base these rules on the majority opinion of the collectivity.

I hope this helps.

Moiz Amjad

UIUK
May 31, 2002