Introduction

The foundations (‘usul أُصُول) of an Islamic State are ‘sovereignty is to the sharia’ (سيادة للشرع) and ‘authority is with the ummah’ (سلطان للأمة). We have already discussed sovereignty in an Islamic State, and now we will discuss the second ‘usul which is authority.

Sovereignty in an Islamic State

Imam Ghazali said, “religion and authority are twins” (الدين والسلطان توأمان ad-deen was-sultan tawaman).[1] This is because you cannot have one without the other, as Ibn Taymiyyah says, “The Ummah is the safeguard for the shar’a.”[2] Ibn Taymiyyah also mentions that “If authority and wealth were intended to make one come nearer to Allah, and were virtually dispensed in His cause, then that would lead to the establishment of deen and to prosperity in worldly affairs. If, on the other hand, authority was divorced from deen or deen was divorced from authority, then the whole affairs of the people would be spoiled.”[3]

While sovereignty and authority are twins, ultimately it’s the sharia (sovereignty) which underpins the nature and legal limits of authority within an Islamic state. Al-Mawardi says, “It is the Law however, which has delegated affairs to those who wield authority over them in matters of the deen- Allah, may He be exalted, has said: يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا أَطِيعُوا اللَّـهَ وَأَطِيعُوا الرَّسُولَ وَأُولِي الْأَمْرِ مِنكُمْ ‘O you who believe, obey Allah and obey the Messenger and those in authority among you’.[4] Thus, He has imposed on us obedience to those in authority, that is those who have the command over us.”[5]

Ka’b al-Ahbar (d.652CE) gives a nice analogy of the relationship between sovereignty (Islam), authority (ruler) and the safeguard of the authority which is the people.

مثل الإسلام والسلطان والناس: مثل الفسطاط والعمود والأوتاد. فالفسطاط الإسلام، والعمود السلطان، والأوتاد الناس. ولا يصلح بعضهم إلا ببعض

“Islam, the ruler, and the people are like a tent, a pole, and pegs. The tent is Islam, the pole is the ruler, and the pegs are the people. Each is useful only with the others.”[6]

What is authority?

Authority is defined as “the power or right to give orders, make decisions, and enforce obedience.”[7] In our discussion here, we are using authority in the context of government and ruling because “in sociology and political science, authority is the legitimate power of a person or group over other people.”[8]

There are different words for authority or the source of authority (masdar al-sultah مَصْدَر السُلْطَة)[9] in the Islamic texts, such as sultan (سُلْطان), jamā’ah (جَماعَة) and ulu’l-amr (أُو۟لِى ٱلْأَمْرِ).

Sultan

In its original usage by the Ancient Arabs (العَرَب العاربة), the word السَليط means oil, and السِلْطة means a long arrow (السَهْم الطَوِيل). “The central meaning is the ability to conquer from afar[10], like a long arrow that strikes from afar, and like oil that is used to light a lamp to overcome darkness, and enable one to see things.”[11] Therefore sultan conforms to the definition of authority being “the power or right to give orders, make decisions, and enforce obedience.”[12]

Sultan may refer specifically to the ruler, or to authority sultah (سُلْطَة) in general i.e. government. The term may also refer to the source of authority from which it gains its legitimacy to rule. As will be discussed later, this locus is the ummah, or more specifically her political representatives known in the classical texts as the Ahlul hali wal-aqd (أَهْل الحَلّ والعَقْد), which literally means ‘the people who loosen and bind’, i.e. those who have the authority to contract, remove and account the caliph.

We can see these three meanings in the hadith of the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ where he said,

مَنْ كَرِهَ مِنْ أَمِيرِهِ شَيْئًا فَلْيَصْبِرْ، فَإِنَّهُ مَنْ خَرَجَ مِنَ السُّلْطَانِ شِبْرًا مَاتَ مِيتَةً جَاهِلِيَّةً

“If anyone sees in his Ameer something that displeases him let him remain patient. For behold! He who separates himself from the sultan by even so much as a hand span and dies thereupon, he has died the death of jahiliyyah (days of ignorance).”[13]

The word sultan here is mutlaq (unrestricted) and can refer specifically to the ruler, or the government in general because the caliph (imam) is the state, and in origin all executive power is with him similar to the US President. This is based on the famous hadith of the Prophet ﷺ where he said,

فَالْإِمَامُ الَّذِي عَلَى النَّاسِ رَاعٍ وَهُوَ مَسْئُولٌ عَنْ رَعِيَّتِهِ

“The Imam[14] is a guardian, and he is responsible over his subjects.”[15]

Abdul-Qadeem Zallum (d.2003) comments on this hadith, “This means that all the matters related to the management of the subjects’ affairs is the responsibility of the caliph. He, however reserves the right to delegate anyone with whatever task he deems fit, in analogy with wakala (representation).”[16] These officials of the state (wakeels) are then part of the overall authority (sultan) of the state.

We also find the words Hukm (حكم) and Mulk (ملك) used in the Qur’an and hadith which refer to ruling and authority. Abdul-Qadeem Zallum says, “Ruling (al-hukm الحكم), reign (al-mulk الملك) and authority (al-sultan السلطان) have the same meaning which is the authority that executes the rules.”[17] In other words they are all synonyms for ruling and authority.

Sultan in this hadith may also refer to the source of authority (masdar al-sultah) which is the ummah and the Ahlul hali wal-aqd. This is the main focus of this article.

Jamā’ah

Jamā’ah (جَماعَة) is a general word that includes many types of groups.[18] “The central meaning is the coming together of many homogeneous things, by meeting, coalescence, or accumulation.”[19]

In a hadith whose wording and meaning is similar to the one above, the Prophet ﷺ said,

مَنْ خَرَجَ مِنَ الطَّاعَةِ وَفَارَقَ الْجَمَاعَةَ فَمَاتَ مَاتَ مِيتَةً جَاهِلِيَّة

“Whoever withdraws obedience (to the Ameer) and separates from the jama’ah and dies thereupon, he has died the death of Jahiliyyah.”[20]

The word jamā’ah in this context is a synonym to sultan, and means the ummah and the Ahlul hali wal-aqd i.e. the source of authority.

Hudhaifa bin Al-Yaman narrates that ‘The people used to ask the Messenger of Allah ﷺ about the good but I used to ask him about the evil lest I should be overtaken by them. So I said, “O Messenger of Allah! We were living in ignorance and in an (extremely) bad atmosphere, then Allah brought to us this good (i.e., Islam); will there be any evil after this good?” He said, “Yes.”

I said, “Will there be any good after that evil?” He replied, “Yes, but it will be tainted (not pure).” I asked, “What will be its taint?” He replied, “(There will be) some people who will guide others not according to my guidance. You will approve of some of their deeds and disapprove of some others.”

I asked, “Will there be any evil after that good?” He replied, “Yes, (there will be) some people calling at the gates of the (Hell) Fire, and whoever will respond to their call, will be thrown by them into the (Hell) Fire.”

I said, “O Messenger of Allah! Will you describe them to us?” He said, “They will be from our own people and will speak our language.”

I said, “What do you order me to do if such a state should take place in my life?” He said, “Stick to the jamā’ah and their Imam.”

I said, “If there is neither a jamā’ah nor an Imam?” He said, “Then turn away from all those sects even if you were to bite (eat) the roots of a tree till death overtakes you while you are in that state.”[21]

This hadith makes a clear distinction between the jamā’ah and the ruler (Imam), so jamā’ah is the source of authority meaning the ummah and the Ahlul hali wal-aqd.

In regards to the meaning of the word jamā’ah, Imam Al-Tabari states: “The correct interpretation is that Muslims are obligated to hold fast to the jamā’ah, the group that agrees on who should be appointed to rule, and then obeys him. Anybody who violates his bay’a (pledge of allegiance) has thereby left the jama‘ah.” He continues referencing the hadith of Hudhaifa bin Al-Yaman above: “It is related in the hadith that when the people do not have an imam, and thus split into parties, a Muslim, if he can, should not follow anyone into a schism. He should stay removed from all parties, for fear that he may fall into evil.”[22]

Ulu al-amr

The ulu’l-amr (أُو۟لِى ٱلْأَمْرِ) means those in authority, and is taken from the Holy Qur’an where Allah ta’ala says,

يَـٰٓأَيُّهَا ٱلَّذِينَ ءَامَنُوٓا۟ أَطِيعُوا۟ ٱللَّهَ وَأَطِيعُوا۟ ٱلرَّسُولَ وَأُو۟لِى ٱلْأَمْرِ مِنكُمْ

“O believers! Obey Allah and obey the Messenger and those in authority among you.”[23]

In answer to the question of who are the ulu’l-amr, Al-Shawkani (d. 1834) says,

وأُولِي الأمْرِ: هُمُ الأئِمَّةُ والسَّلاطِينُ والقُضاةُ وكُلُّ مَن كانَتْ لَهُ وِلايَةٌ شَرْعِيَّةٌ لا وِلايَةٌ طاغُوتِيَّةٌ،

“Those in authority: They are the Ameers and Sultans and Judges, and any who have a legitimate mandate (sharia wiliyah) not a tyrannical mandate (taghoot wiliyah).”[24] These officials of the state all derive their authority from the Imam and are wakeels (delegates) to him as mentioned previously.

Ibn Ashur says:

فَأُولُو الأمْرِ هُنا هم مَن عَدا الرَّسُولِ مِنَ الخَلِيفَةِ إلى والِي الحِسْبَةِ، ومِن قُوّادِ الجُيُوشِ ومِن فُقَهاءِ الصَّحابَةِ والمُجْتَهِدِينَ إلى أهْلِ العِلْمِ في الأزْمِنَةِ المُتَأخِّرَةِ، وأُولُو الأمْرِ هُمُ الَّذِينَ يُطْلَقُ عَلَيْهِمْ أيْضًا أهْلُ الحَلِّ والعَقْدِ.

“The people in authority (Ulu al-amr) here are those other than the Messenger, from the Caliph to the Hisbah[25], from the army commanders, from the jurists (fuquha) of the Companions and the mujtahids to the people of knowledge in later times. The Ulu al-amr are also those who are called the Ahlul hali wal-aqd.”[26]

Muhammad Abduh says,

بأولي الأمر جماعة أهل الحل والعقد من المسلمين، وهم الأمراء والحكام، والعلماء ورؤساء الجند وسائر الرؤساء والزعماء الذين يرجع إليهم الناس في الحاجات والمصالح العامة، فهؤلاء إذا اتفقوا على أمر، أو حكم وجب أن يطاعوا فيه بشرط أن يكونوا منا، وألا يخالفوا أمر الله ولا سنة رسوله ـ صلى الله عليه وسلم ـ التي عرفت بالتواتر، وأن يكونوا مختارين في بحثهم في الأمر، واتفاقهم عليه، وأن يكون ما يتفقون عليه من المصالح العامة، وهو ما لأولي الأمر سلطة فيه ووقوف عليه، وأما العبادات وما كان من قبيل الاعتقاد الديني فلا يتعلق به أمر أهل الحل والعقد، بل هو مما يؤخذ عن الله ورسوله فقط ليس لأحد رأي فيه إلا ما يكون في فهمه

“what is meant by those in authority is the group of Ahlul hali wal-aqd from among the Muslims, and they are the Ameers and rulers (hukkam), and the scholars and leaders of the army and all the leaders and chiefs to whom the people refer in needs and public interests. So if they agree on a matter or a ruling, it is obligatory to obey them in it on the condition that they are from us, and that they do not contradict the command of Allah or the Sunnah of His Messenger ﷺ which is known by continuous transmission (tawatur), and that they are free in their research into the matter and their agreement on it, and that what they agree on is from the public interests, which is what those in authority have authority and control over.

As for acts of worship (‘ibadat) and what is of the type of religious belief (‘aqeeda), the matter of the Ahlul hali wal-aqd is not related to it. Rather it is something that is taken from Allah and His Messenger only, and no one has an opinion on it except what is in his understanding.”[27]

We see again that the three meanings of authority are present here, the ruler, the government and the ummah and her political representatives. Rashid Rida defines the ulu al-amr as the ummah. He says this verse “commands obedience to those who hold authority [ulu al-amr]—who constitute the main body of the ummah—not the one who holds authority. That is because he is one of them. He is obeyed only on the basis that the Muslims who pledge allegiance to him support and have confidence in him.”[28]

Importance of authority

The Muslim ummah throughout Islamic history, understood the importance of political authority in Islam. This authority manifested itself primarily in the institution of the khilafah (caliphate), which existed in one form or another for 1300 years, from the time of Abu Bakr as-Siddiq to the last Ottoman caliph Abdul-Mejid II. Rashid Rida (d.1934) who lived through the last tumultuous period of the caliphate, and who was active in attempting to preserve it and re-establish it said, “For Muslims, the greatest agitation concerns Islamic sovereignty, without which they believe Islam cannot exist. Concern for its existence flows in the blood of every Muslim’s veins. That is because no Muslim can envision his religion enduring without the existence of an Islamic state, one that is independent, strong, and self-sufficiently capable of implementing the rulings of the revealed law.”[29]

This understanding of the intrinsic link between Islam’s existence and a state is based on the hadith of the Prophet ﷺ:

كَانَتْ بَنُو إِسْرَائِيلَ تَسُوسُهُمُ الأَنْبِيَاءُ كُلَّمَا هَلَكَ نَبِيٌّ خَلَفَهُ نَبِيٌّ وَإِنَّهُ لاَ نَبِيَّ بَعْدِي وَسَتَكُونُ خُلَفَاءُ فَتَكْثُرُ ‏‏قَالُوا فَمَا تَأْمُرُنَا قَالَ فُوا بِبَيْعَةِ الأَوَّلِ فَالأَوَّلِ وَأَعْطُوهُمْ حَقَّهُمْ فَإِنَّ اللَّهَ سَائِلُهُمْ عَمَّا اسْتَرْعَاهُمْ

“The 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 soon be Khulafaa’ and they will number many.” They asked; “What then do you order us?” He said: “Fulfil the bay’ah to them, one after the other, and give them their dues for Allah will verily account them about what he entrusted them with.”[30]

It’s for this reason that when the Prophet ﷺ died, the sahaba despite their overwhelming grief, delayed his ﷺ burial, and instead focussed on appointing a caliph. This was agreed upon by the senior sahaba and represents an ijma (consensus) that within the Fard al-Kifiya (communal obligations) the appointment of a caliph takes priority. Sa‘d al-Taftazani (d.1390CE) mentions ijma as an evidence (daleel) for appointing an Imam. “He explains in his commentary that this means the consensus of the sahaba (إِجْمَاع الصَّحَابَة). He states: ﷺ وَهُوَ الْعُمْدَة، حَتَّى قدموه على دفن النَّبِي ‘This is the preeminent issue. They even prioritized it over the need to inter the Prophet ﷺ.’”[31]

Why was Prophet Muhammad’s ﷺ burial delayed?

Al-Bayhaqi and Ibn ‘Asakir narrated that Abu Hurayrah (ra) said: “By the One Whom there is no god but Him, if Abu Bakr had not been appointed caliph then Allah would not have been worshipped.” Then he said it a second time and then he said it a third time.

Someone said to him, “How so, Abu Hurayrah?” So he said, “The Messenger of Allah ﷺ directed Usamah ibn Zaid, along with seven hundred men, to Syria. When they arrived at Dhu Khushub the Prophet ﷺ died, the Arabs around Madinah reneged on their Islam and the companions of the Messenger of Allah ﷺ gathered around him [Abu Bakr] and said, “Bring these back. Do you direct these against the Byzantines while the Arabs around Madinah have reneged?” He [Abu Bakr] said, “By the One Whom there is no god but Him, even if dogs were dragging the wives of the Prophet ﷺ by their feet I would not return an army which the Messenger of Allah had sent out, nor undo a standard which he had tied!”

He sent Usamah, and every tribe he would pass by which was wishing to renege would say (to themselves), “If these (the people of Madinah) did not have power, the like of these (the army) would not have come out from among them, so let us leave them alone until they meet the Byzantines.” They met them, defeated them, killed them and returned safely, so that they (the tribes) remained firm in Islam.”[32]

Political authority has the biggest influence in shaping and controlling society. Uthman bin Affan (ra), the third caliph said,

إن الله يزع بالسلطان ما لا يزع بالقرآن

“Allah prevents by the authority (sultan) what He does not prevent by the Qur’an.”[33]

Imam Ghazali echoes this point when discussing the importance and obligation of the Imamate (caliphate). He says, “a sultan is necessary for achieving well-ordered worldly affairs, and well-ordered worldly affairs are necessary for achieving well-ordered religious affairs, and well-ordered religious affairs are necessary for achieving happiness in the hereafter, which is decidedly the purpose of all the prophets.”[34]

Ibn Khaldun describes the dangers to society when a tyrannical authority is in power. “Good rulership is equivalent to mildness. If the ruler uses force and is ready to mete out punishment and eager to expose the faults of people and to count their sins, (his subjects) become fearful and depressed and seek to protect themselves against him through lies, ruses, and deceit. This becomes a character trait of theirs. Their mind and character become corrupted. They often abandon (the ruler) on the battlefield and (fail to support his) defensive enterprises. The decay of (sincere) intentions causes the decay of (military) protection. The subjects often conspire to kill the ruler.”[35]

What is Society?

Society is defined as “a large group of people who live together in an organized way, making decisions about how to do things and sharing the work that needs to be done. All the people in a country, or in several similar countries, can be referred to as a society.”[36]

The concept of society (مُجْتَمَع) is intrinsically linked to the discussion of authority, because it’s the authority and government which plays the greatest role in shaping and controlling society. The Ottoman historian Tursun Beg (d.1499) said, “With the pen of scribes, the ruler turns the noble into a wretched, and the wretched into a noble…with the sword of executioners he takes lives. As such he manifests the attributes of the Necessary Existent as if he shares the sultanate with Him except that the ruler of the world is a mortal.”[37]

The source of authority (masdar al-sultah) is based on societal concepts which are in turn based on the Islamic ‘aqeeda which forms a distinct viewpoint of life, and which influences the type of authority that is established. This is why Ibn Al-Qayyum said, “Ponder upon the Hikmah (Wisdom) of Allah عز وجل where He has made people’s kings, leaders, and those of authority over them, of the same kind as their own deeds. It is as if the people’s deeds appeared in the forms of their kings and leaders.”[38]

Society consists of individuals who through their regular interaction with one another form permanent relationships which are based on concepts. These relationships must be managed by a political authority because as Wael Hallaq says, “No society can live without an ordering apparatus that, by necessity, requires some type of discipline.”[39]

As soon as a person steps outside their house and starts to interact with others in whatever form, then societal concepts and the law of the land kicks in to manage these relationships. When going to buy goods you need to use the currency of the country. Shops won’t accept currency which isn’t legal tender. When driving you have to follow the traffic laws. If you decide to drive on the opposite side of the road it will end in a crash and maybe loss of life.

The Prophet ﷺ described the reality of society and these relationships in a famous hadith known as Hadith al-Safina (Hadith of the Ship) where he ﷺ said,

مَثَلُ الْقَائِمِ عَلَى حُدُودِ اللَّهِ وَالْوَاقِعِ فِيهَا كَمَثَلِ قَوْمٍ اسْتَهَمُوا عَلَى سَفِينَةٍ، فَأَصَابَ بَعْضُهُمْ أَعْلاَهَا وَبَعْضُهُمْ أَسْفَلَهَا، فَكَانَ الَّذِينَ فِي أَسْفَلِهَا إِذَا اسْتَقَوْا مِنَ الْمَاءِ مَرُّوا عَلَى مَنْ فَوْقَهُمْ فَقَالُوا لَوْ أَنَّا خَرَقْنَا فِي نَصِيبِنَا خَرْقًا، وَلَمْ نُؤْذِ مَنْ فَوْقَنَا‏.‏ فَإِنْ يَتْرُكُوهُمْ وَمَا أَرَادُوا هَلَكُوا جَمِيعًا، وَإِنْ أَخَذُوا عَلَى أَيْدِيهِمْ نَجَوْا وَنَجَوْا جَمِيعًا

“The example of the person abiding by Allah’s order and restrictions in comparison to those who violate them is like the example of those persons who drew lots for their seats in a boat. Some of them got seats in the upper part, and the others in the lower. When the latter needed water, they had to go up to bring water (and that troubled the others), so they said, ‘Let us make a hole in our share of the ship (and get water) saving those who are above us from troubling them.’ So, if the people in the upper part left the others do what they had suggested, all the people of the ship would be destroyed, but if they prevented them, both parties would be safe.”[40]

These relationships must be managed by an authority which prevents anyone overstepping the limits and threatening society. In the case of the hadith above, the authority (ship’s captain) is the one who would prevent the drilling of a hole in the bottom of the ship.

Ibn Khaldun elaborates on this point. “We have explained before that human beings cannot live and exist except through social organization and co-operation for the purpose of obtaining their food and other necessities of life. When they have organized, necessity requires that they deal with each other and satisfy their needs. Each one will stretch out his hand for whatever he needs and (try simply to) take it, since injustice and aggressiveness are in the animal nature. The others, in turn, will try to prevent him from taking it, motivated by wrathfulness and spite and the strong human reaction when one’s own property is menaced. This causes dissension, which leads to hostilities, and hostilities lead to trouble and bloodshed and loss of life, which lead to the destruction of the species. Now, (the human species) is one of the things the Creator has especially (enjoined us) to preserve.

People, thus, cannot persist in a state of anarchy and without a ruler who keeps them apart. Therefore, they need a person to restrain them. He is their ruler. As is required by human nature, he must be a forceful ruler, one who exercises authority.”[41]

Allah ta’ala says,

وَلَوِ ٱتَّبَعَ ٱلْحَقُّ أَهْوَآءَهُمْ لَفَسَدَتِ ٱلسَّمَـٰوَٰتُ وَٱلْأَرْضُ وَمَن فِيهِنَّ ۚ بَلْ أَتَيْنَـٰهُم بِذِكْرِهِمْ فَهُمْ عَن ذِكْرِهِم مُّعْرِضُونَ

“If the truth were to follow their whims and desires, the heavens and the earth and everyone in them would have been brought to ruin. No indeed! We have given them their Reminder, but they have turned away from it.”[42]

Ummah is the source of authority

Taqiuddin an-Nabhani (d.1977) says, “Authority (sultah) means looking after people’s interests. People’s viewpoint towards actions and things as being interests or not differs according to the difference in their viewpoint about life.

Hence, according to this viewpoint, their viewpoint about the interests is formed, and according to its change their viewpoint about the interests changes.

Therefore, if people were in agreement in their viewpoint about the interests, in a country such as Iraq[44] for instance, the authority would lie in the Ummah; and if there were no foreign power, stronger than her, intellectually and militarily, dominating her, she would in such a country establish someone to run her affairs, i.e. she would establish the authority that manages her interests, or she would keep silent about those who appointed themselves to manage her interests.”[45]

Tocqueville (d.1859) writing in the mid-19^th century on democracy in America makes a similar observation. “The inhabitant of the United States attaches himself to the goods of this world as if he were assured of not dying, and he rushes so precipitately to grasp those that pass within his reach that one would say he fears at each instant he will cease to live before he has enjoyed them. He grasps them all but without clutching them, and he soon allows them to escape from his hands so as to run after new enjoyments… Death finally comes, and it stops him before he has grown weary of this useless pursuit of a complete felicity that always flees from him.”[46] He continues, “that their principal affair is to secure by themselves a government that permits them to acquire the goods they desire and that does not prevent them from enjoying in peace those they have acquired.”[47]

Rousseau (d.1778) again made a similar point[48] on the relationship between society and authority. “The first and most important deduction from the principles we have so far laid down is that the general will alone can direct the State according to the object for which it was instituted, i.e., the common good: for if the clashing of particular interests made the establishment of societies necessary, the agreement of these very interests made it possible. The common element in these different interests is what forms the social tie; and, were there no point of agreement between them all, no society could exist. It is solely on the basis of this common interest that every society should be governed.”[49]

These points make it clear that authority in origin is with the ummah, i.e. they are the source of authority (masdar al-sultah).

Authority of the Caliph

As discussed, the source of authority in origin is with the Muslim ummah. This can be articulated another way by the phrase ‘authority is with the ummah’ (سلطان للأمة), which is a foundational principle of the Islamic ruling system. Abdul-Qadeem Zallum says, “The principle[50] that the ‘authority is with the ummah’ is taken from the sharia rule that states that the appointment of the caliph is the right of the Ummah, and that the caliph can only take up his post and exercise his authority by taking a bay’ah.”[51]

Bay’ah

The bay’ah (البيعة) or pledge of allegiance, is a ruling contract which governs the relationship between Muslims and the Islamic state. For those Muslims living under the authority of the state, the bay’ah is their citizenship contract with its ruler – the caliph.

The bay’ah is the method of appointing the caliph and legitimising his rule. It must be given with the consent of the ummah, who are free to choose whomever they wish to rule them, within the boundaries of the sharia rules. If the bay’ah and its conditions are absent, then the caliph has no authority to rule and will be considered a usurper. From the time of Abu Bakr to the last caliph Abdul-Majed II, the bay’ah was always present and legally convened, albeit misapplied for much of Islamic history.

Legitimate authority

The famous sociologist Max Weber (d.1920) defines authority as “the probability that a specific command will be obeyed.”[52] He then goes on to discuss three types of legitimate authority.[53]

1- Traditional Authority – power that is rooted in traditional, or long-standing, beliefs and practices of a society. It exists and is assigned to particular individuals because of that society’s customs and traditions. Hereditary rule would fall under this category.

2- Rational-Legal Authority – derives from law and is based on a belief in the legitimacy of a society’s laws and rules and in the right of leaders to act under these rules to make decisions and set policy. This form of authority is a hallmark of modern democracies. It is also the type of authority we find in an Islamic State. Although unlike in a democracy, the laws and rules in an Islamic State are derived from the sharia, since the sharia and not human beings is sovereign.

3- Charismatic Authority – stems from an individual’s extraordinary personal qualities and from that individual’s hold over followers because of these qualities. Many times this type of authority is combined with either traditional or rational-legal authority. The Rightly Guided Caliphs of the past were exemplary personalities and could be described as Philosopher-Kings in Platonic speak, but their legitimacy was always from the Muslim ummah who consented to their rule through the contract of bay’ah. Hence they had a rational-legal authority combined with a charismatic authority.

The bay’ah falls under the category of rational-legal authority since it is a ruling contract. For this contract to be valid the ummah must give their consent, which means they must be consulted (shura) either directly or through their political representatives the Ahlul hali wal-aqd. Ibn Khaldun says, “Therefore, it is necessary to have reference to ordained political norms, which are accepted by the mass and to whose laws it submits. The Persians and other nations had such norms. The dynasty that does not have a policy based on such (norms) cannot fully succeed in establishing the supremacy of its rule.”[54]

Shura (consultation)

One of the principles of the Islamic ruling system, and a mark of a rightly guided caliphate is shura (شُورَىٰ).

In Arabic “The pivotal meaning [of shura] is to extract what something contains of goodness or suitable, strong effect. Like honey in the waqba[55] or the hive, it is extracted from it, and like camels containing fat and the appearance of that fat on them, and like the well containing water to water the crops so they grow, and like feeding the fire with fuel so its flame rises and appears. This rise and appearance is from the door of exit.”[56]

Umar bin Al-Khattab informed the senior sahaba in a khutbah (sermon) during his caliphate:

فَمَنْ بَايَعَ رَجُلاً عَلَى غَيْرِ مَشُورَةٍ مِنَ الْمُسْلِمِينَ فَلاَ يُتَابَعُ هُوَ وَلاَ الَّذِي بَايَعَهُ تَغِرَّةً أَنْ يُقْتَلاَ‏‏

“So, if any person gives the bay’ah to somebody without consulting (shura) the other Muslims, then the one he has selected should not be granted allegiance, lest both of them should be killed[57].”[58]

Muhammad Haykal comments on this hadith, “The sahaba listened to this speech and none spoke out against what was said. Consequently, it represented and Ijmaa’ (consensus) upon what was mentioned in terms of the obligation to take the opinion of the Muslims in respect to whom is chosen to be a Khalifah over them.”[59]

Shura as a ruling principle existed throughout the Islamic caliphate but was confined to the ruling class, wazirs, tribal leaders and ‘ulema who made up the Ahlul hali wal-aqd. With regards to the bay’ah, the predominant opinion adopted by the ‘ulema gave the caliph the authority to designate his successor, and the ummah’s political representatives (Ahlul hali wal-aqd) consented to this. Therefore, the bay’ah was legal convened from a contractual viewpoint although we can say it was misapplied since the correct opinion is bay’ah must be through shura as Umar ibn Al-Khattab mentioned. This is the way of all the Rightly Guided Caliphs and those caliphs who followed in their footsteps like Umar ibn Abdul-Aziz.

Bay’ah transfers authority from the ummah to the caliph

Muhammad Haykal elaborates on this principle ‘authority is with the ummah’ and its relationship with the bay’ah. “The sultah (authority) in Islam belongs to the Ummah and she passes it to the ruler in accordance to a contract (‘aqd) between her and him upon the basis that he rules her by the Kitab of Allah and the Sunnah of His Messenger ﷺ.

This what the Sharia texts guide to, in the case where it made the sultah in respect to the contract of the rule, similar to the commodity in the contract of sale, and it is the subject upon which the contract is made. Just as the seller owns a commodity and then gives it up based upon a contract called the ‘Aqd ul-Bai’ (contract of sale), similarly the Ummah owns the sultah and then gives it up to the ruler based upon a contract called the ‘Aqd ul-Bay’ah (contract of the pledge i.e. contraction of the authority). Just as the thing that the purchaser must provide in return of what he receives in terms of a commodity is mentioned within the contract of sale, which is the price, similarly, the matter that the ruler must provide in return for taking the authority is mentioned within the bay’ah contract, and that is the ruling by the Kitab of Allah and the Sunnah of His Messenger ﷺ.”[60]

Al-Shawkani (d.1834) says, “The one whom the Muslims have not given the bay’ah to, has no wilayah (legal governing authority) belonging to him and he does not have the right to carry out what the Imam carries out, as a whole or in part. This is because the sabab (cause) of the wilayah is the bay’ah.”[61]

Hashim Kamali says, “The representative capacity of the head of state is a corollary of the bay’ah, which he receives from the electorate and which pledges him to the trust (amanah) of government and the enforcement of Shari’ah. Muslim jurists have concurred in the view that the ruler derives his authority and power from the ummah which is also entitled to depose him when his condition changes and he fails to administer the affairs of religion and the temporal affairs of Muslims.”[62]

The Ummah’s Political Representatives

The sharia texts related to the bay’ah are ‘aam (general) in their address by use of the relative pronoun مَنْ which translates as whoever.[63] They therefore include the entire Muslim ummah, which is why we say the source of authority in origin is with the ummah. This is seen in numerous ahadith on the bay’ah:

مَنْ كَرِهَ مِنْ أَمِيرِهِ “Whoever sees in his Ameer…”[64]

مَنْ خَرَجَ مِنَ الطَّاعَةِ “Whoever withdraws obedience (to the Ameer)…”[65]

مَنْ بَايَعَ إِمَامًا “Whoever gave bay’ah to an Imam…”[66]

مَنْ مَاتَ وَلَيْسَ فِي عُنُقِهِ بَيْعَةٌ “Whoever dies while having no bay’ah on his neck…”[67]

When it comes to exercising that authority however, a problem arises because the bay’ah is a contract of one-to-millions i.e. between the caliph and the Muslim ummah. This is different to other Islamic contracts which are one-to-one such as buying, selling and marriage. This poses a challenge on how you get the consent of millions of people which is a condition in Islamic contracts.

Historically it was not possible for every Muslim to participate in the election of the Imam, which is why in the rightly guided caliphate of the sahaba, the senior representatives of the people would contract the bay’ah to the caliph. The rest of the Muslims would accept their opinion and rush to pledge their bay’ah to the newly appointed caliph. This was done either directly in the Prophet’s Mosque in Madinah, which was the capital of the state, or indirectly through the governors in the other provinces.[68] The classical scholars called this contracting group the Ahlul hali wal-aqd which literally means the ‘people who loosen and bind’.

Ahmad ibn Hanbal says, “The imamah is not effective except with its conditions […], so if testimony was given to that by the Ahlul hali wal-aqd of the scholars of Islam and their trustworthy people, or the imam took that position for himself and then the Muslims were content with that, it is also effective.”[69]

Al-Mawardi says, “Imamate comes into being in two ways: the first of these is by the election of the Ahlul hali wal-aqd, and the second is by the delegation of the previous Imam.”[70]

This is why Sa‘d al-Taftazani said, “By ummah, he means those who loose and bind (Ahlul hali wal-aqd), namely, those who on the basis of their prestige and rank represent the community. Their leadership is over others, or over all individuals within the community.”[71]

Therefore, in modern times, the ummah elects the Ahlul hali wal-aqd to be their representatives in the Majlis al-Nuwwab (House of Representatives)[72]. This House institutionalises the principles of shura and accountability, and will act as an electoral college for the election of the caliph. Dr. Abdul-Karim Zaidan (d.2014) mentions:

أما علاقة أهل العقد والحل بالأمَّة: فهي علاقة النائب والوكيل، فهم يباشرون انتخاب رئيس الدولة ـ الخليفة ـ نيابةً عن الأمة ومن ثَمَّ يعتبر انتخابهم ملزمًا للأمة.

“As for the relationship of the Ahlul hali wal-aqd with the ummah: it is the relationship of the representative (na’ib) and the agent (wakeel). They initiate the election of the head of state – the Caliph – on behalf of the ummah, and therefore their election is considered binding on the ummah.”[73]

Hasan al-Banna (d.1946) concludes a marriage between the ‘people of the authority’ (ahl al-al wa al-aqd) and the representatives of the ummah in the parliament when he writes: “The modern parliamentary system establishes the protocol for arriving at the people of authority (ahl al-al wa al-aqd) through what the constitutional fuqaha put in place of systems of elections and their various means,” with the result that, “this system ought not be declined so long as it leads to the choice of the people of authority (ahl al-al wa al-aqd).”[74]

Who are the Ahlul hali wal-aqd?

The sharia has not defined who the Ahlul hali wal-aqd or people’s representatives are, “it did not appoint them by name or by their persons”[75], as mentioned by Hasan al-Banna. This definition falls under manat ul-hukm (reality the rule is applied to) and will vary throughout the ages.

Hasan al-Banna describes the Ahlul hali wal-aqd as “being composed of three groups:

1) the mujtahidun of the fuqaha whose assertions can be depended upon in fatwas and matters of implementation of the rulings (al-ahkam);

2) the people of experience (ahl al-khibrah) in general matters;

3) whoever has a position as a leader or chief among people…all of these may be correctly subsumed under the rubric of ‘the people of authority’ (ahl al-al wa al-‘aqd).”[76]

Sa‘d al-Taftazani mentions something similar that “they are scholars [ulama], heads of the ummah, and people of distinction.” Imam Nawawi adds in Al-Minhaj: “they are those who are readily able to meet.” His commentator Ramli explicates that this is so since “they determine matters, and other people follow their decisions.”[77]

Are the Ahlul hali wal-aqd elected or appointed to the Majlis?

The reason for the existence of the Ahlul hali wal-aqd is to represent the ummah’s opinions in order for a valid bay’ah to be contracted to the Imam. Dr. Abdul-Karim Zaidan describes this relationship as “the relationship of the representative (na’ib) and the agent (wakeel).”[78]

Prior to the establishment of the Islamic State in Madinah, at the Second Bay’ah of Al-Aqaba, the Messenger of Allah ﷺ did not know all the representatives of the 75 attendees from Al-Aws and Al-Khazraj, so he ﷺ said to them,

أَخْرِجُوا إلَيَّ مِنْكُمْ اثْنَيْ عَشَرَ نَقِيبًا، لِيَكُونُوا عَلَى قَوْمِهِمْ بِمَا فِيهِمْ

“Choose from among you twelve leaders (naqibs) who will be responsible for themselves and their people.”

فَأَخْرَجُوا مِنْهُمْ اثْنَيْ عَشَرَ نَقِيبًا، تِسْعَةً مِنْ الْخَزْرَجِ، وَثَلَاثَةً مِنْ الْأَوْسِ

“So they brought out from among them twelve leaders, nine from the Khazraj[79], and three from the Aws.”[80]

Once the state had been established, the Prophet ﷺ came to know who the natural representatives of the Ansar were, and so He ﷺ singled them out for consultation as he knew they represented the opinion of their respective clans. This continued throughout the Rightly Guided Caliphate.

In modern times it is not possible for the leader to know who the representatives are except for a select few such as leaders of groups, ‘ulema and influential businessmen. Therefore, the ummah will elect the Ahlul hali wal-aqd to be members of the Majlis. This is similar to what we see in western countries with elections every 2-4 years, and constituencies drawn up based on population size.

The caliph also reserves the right to appoint certain individuals to the Majlis if there is a shortage of qualified mujtahideen or those with particular expertise in fields such as economy and finance, which are necessary for scrutinising proposed laws sent to the Majlis for debate.

The Ahlul hali wal-aqd in the time of Harun al-Rashid

Conditions of the Ahlul hali wal-aqd

Although the primary reason for the Ahlul hali wal-aqd is to contract the caliph, there are other functions they serve such as accounting the caliph and his government, and acting as a ‘legislature-lite’ for laws and policies which fall under the scope of administrative law, which is the bulk of law in modern societies. For this reason, the scholars have placed some extra conditions on the Ahlul hali wal-aqd so that those chosen are competent enough to choose the best person for caliph, and play a role in the shura and accounting process after his election.

It should be noted however, that all that is required in sharia is that the person standing for election is mukallaf (legal responsible i.e. mature and sane), a citizen, and a representative of the people. This is due to the generality of the address “whoever” مَنْ in the ahadith related to the bay’ah as discussed earlier.[81] The representatives can be men, women, Muslims or non-Muslims, although in the context of the bay’ah and the electoral college function of the Majlis, the non-Muslim members can voice their opinion but are not involved in the election. This is because non-Muslim citizens (dhimmi) have a different citizenship contract with the state called dhimma which is discussed elsewhere.

Al-Mawardi places three conditions on the Ahlul hali wal-aqd:

“There are three conditions regarding those eligible to make the choice:

1. That they be just and fulfil all the conditions implied in this quality

2. That they possess a knowledge by which they may comprehend who has a right to the Imamate and that they fulfil all the conditions implied by this knowledge

3. That they possess the insight and wisdom which will lead them to choose the person who is most fitting for the Imamate and who is the most upright and knowledgeable with respect to the management of the offices of administration.”[82]

Imam Al-Rafi’i (d.1226CE) adds that at least one of the Ahlul hali wal-aqd must be a mujtahid. He says, “The basic principle is the stipulation that one of them must be a qualified for ijtihad: a mujtahid.”[83] This is important in modern societies which require new laws and systems of a multitude unheard of previously. This means the caliph will need to appoint mujtahideen to the Majlis if not enough are elected by the ummah.

In addition to some Majlis members being mujtahid, there is a need for those in the Majlis to be knowledgeable in politics and governmental affairs. This is a natural quality for those running for office and shouldn’t require any specific appointments to the Majlis in this regard.

Rashid Rida elaborates on this point, “learning as a stipulated qualification evolves over time. The knowledge that would entitle someone to the imamate in this era differs from the knowledge that was required in previous eras. Certain scholars have said that one of the reasons why the Companions’ preference was to select Abu Bakr as caliph, may God be pleased with him, was that he was the one among them with the greatest knowledge of the Arabs’ lineages, circumstances, and strengths. For this reason, he did not fear what ‘Umar feared when it came to fighting apostates.

Now, the imam and those who make up the body of counselors – Ahlul hali wal-aqd who are the substance of his imamate and the pillars of his government—are required to be versed in the laws of war and peace, major treaties, and conditions in the nations and states neighboring and having political and commercial relationships with Islamic lands: their politics and power, what may be feared and hoped from them, and what is needed to avoid harming them and procure benefit from them.”[84]

Ibn Hajar (d.1449) says something similar when discussing the bay’ah to Uthman bin Affan. “What is apparent from ‘Umar’s conduct regarding his emirs, whom he appointed in the lands, is that he did not only consider the question of who was superior in religion. Rather, he also considered knowledge of politics, along with avoidance of what the revealed law prohibits. Hence, he installed, namely appointed as emir, Mu‘awiyah, Mughirah bin Shu‘bah, and ‘Amr bin al-‘As, although there were others who were superior in the matters of religion and learning, such as Abu al-Darda’ in Syria and Ibn Mas‘ud in Kufah.”[85]

This is the sunnah of the Prophet ﷺ where the tribal leaders and some governors, remained in positions of authority and responsibility after their conversion to Islam, because they already had a personality capable of looking after people’s affairs. Muhammad As-Sallabi says, “Kisra’s[86] viceroy to Yemen was Bādhān ibn Sāsān. During the Prophet’s lifetime, Bādhān embraced Islam, and the Prophet ﷺ recognizing good leadership qualities in Bādhān allowed him to remain governor of Yemen. It was always the case that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ appointed people based on their qualities and on the job performance that could be expected of them. The Prophet ﷺ knew that Bādhān was an experienced leader and that he was well-acquainted with the people of Yemen and with their needs; thus he, and not a person of high-ranking from Makkah or Al-Madeenah, was best suited for the job; hence the Prophet’s decision to allow Bādhān to stay on as governor.”[87]

The ways of appointing a caliph

Dr. Wahbah Az-Zuhaili (d.2015) mentions four ways of appointing a caliph. He says, “The Fuqaha’ of Islam have mentioned four ways in respect to the manner of appointing the highest ruler for the state and these are:

An-Nass (the text)[88]
Al-Bay’ah
Wilayat ul-‘Ahd (designated successor)
Coercion (Al-Qahr) and force (Al-Ghalabah).

We will see that the correct Islamic method, in accordance with the principle of Shura and the principle of collective obligations, is one method, which is the bay’ah of the Ahlul hali wal-aqd, and the inclusion of the ummah’s approval of his (caliph) choice. As for anything other than that, its basis is weak due to arbitrary interpretation of texts, or reliance on weak texts and personal whims, or approval of an existing reality that Muslims did not find wisdom or interest in revolting against, or eliminating its existence to stop the bloodshed and prevent chaos, and taking into account external circumstances, or fear of the ferocity of the one holding power that came to him through illegitimate means such as inheritance and the like.”[89]

Shaykh Khudari Bak (d.1927) in a similar manner lists the same ways of appointing an Imam as Wahbah Az-Zuhaili, with the exception of the textual method adopted by the shia. In regards to the bay’ah, he splits this in to two parts – specific and general shura.

“These three ways of choosing the imam (general shura, specific shura of a group chosen by the previous imam, or succession to the post) are the three ways which were practised in the first era of Islam.

There is a fourth way which the scholars after the first era instituted for the establishment of the imamate, and that is by way of dominance. This happens when the Muslims have no imam, there are differences among them, and they cannot agree on a particular person. In such a situation, it is lawful for a person who knows that he has the capacity to lead the Muslim community because of his knowledge or the influence of his tribe, to demand this post of caliph. He would hence oblige the people to obey him, whether they responded willingly or by force. Once the situation subsides and his claim is accepted, his caliphate will be established and obedience to him will become obligatory.”[90]

As the source of authority, only bay’ah through shura gives true consent and free choice to the ummah. In the other three ways i.e. text, designated succession and the dominant ruler, the ummah and her representatives may give consent and accept the status quo but this should not be the norm. Rashid Ridda says, “Nor should people allow power to become like a ball that tyrants can kick back and forth between themselves, and receive from each other. Those living in nations who have been wronged allowed that to happen, assenting to that because they were ignorant of the power that was latent within themselves. They did not realize that the power wielded by their monarchs and emirs was actually their own.”[91]

Bay’ah through shura

Bay’ah through shura marks the difference between a rightly guided caliphate and mulk (monarchy).

تَكُونُ الْخِلَافَةُ ثَلَاثِينَ سَنَةً ثُمَّ تَصِيرُ مُلْكًا

“The Khilafah will be for thirty years. Then it will become mulk.”[92]

Israr Ahmed (d.2010) says “Since we cannot recreate as such the Islamic Order as it functioned during the age of the Rightly Guided Caliphate, we must adopt the following principle: we should take the principles and ideals from the model of the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ and the Rightly Guided Caliphs (RAA), and then incorporate these principles and ideals in the political institutions that have been developed in the contemporary civilized world as a result of the process of social evolution.”[93]

Al-Mawdudi (d.1979) lists seven characteristics of a Rightly Guided Caliphate[94]:

1. Electoral Khilāfah

2. Shūrāwi governance

3. Bayt al-māl (treasury) a matter of trust

4. The Responsible governance

5. Supremacy of the Sharī‘ah

6. A government free from ethnicities and prejudices

7. Nourishing freedom as a value

Two parts to the bay’ah

The bay’ah can be split into two parts:

1- Bay’ah of Contract (بيعة الانعقاد)

2- Bay’ah of Obedience (بيعة الطاعة)

The bay’ah of contract is the actual contracting ceremony where the caliph is appointed by the Ahlul hali wal-aqd. This is referred to by some as the private bay’ah (bay’at al-khassa) but in reality this is a public event. The saqeefa bay’ah to Abu Bakr was in public and witnessed by many of the Ansar who were there. It was not undertaken inside Sa’d’s house but outside on his saqeefa in full view of his Sa’ida clan and the rest of the Muslims. Once this process is concluded, the caliph is the new ruler, and he must fulfil the conditions of his contract which is primarily ruling by Islam. The Muslims must also fulfil their side of the contract which is obedience.

The bay’ah of obedience, also referred to as the public bay’ah (bay’at al-‘amma) is not another bay’ah. It is simply the Muslims publicly confirming their side of the existing bay’ah contract, which is obedience. In fact, the bay’ah of obedience can be given multiple times, and the caliph can demand it from the Muslims if he so wishes. This is similar to what some westerners do when they renew their marriage vows. They are still contractually married, but renew their vows with each other to reconfirm and celebrate their relationship.

We can clearly see these two parts in the bay’ah of the Rightly Guided Caliphs and during the Umayyad, Abbasid and Ottoman dynasties. Eric Hanne comments on the bay’ah to the Abbasid Caliph Al-Qadir: “Going beyond the concerns of regional and household politics, however, the events surrounding al-Qadir’s rise to the Caliphate also shed light on the procedural issues surrounding the installation of new caliphs. Al-Qadir was required to participate in two bay’ah ceremonies, the first the bay’at al-khassa (private bay’ah), generally limited to the household and members of the new caliphal administration and court, and the second one, the bay’at al-‘amma (public bay’ah), a general audience in which the people were allowed to give their oath of allegiance to the new caliph. The final phase of the procedure with regard to Baha’ al-Dawla and al-Qadir included an officially witnessed ceremony wherein both leaders swore mutual oaths of fealty to one another.”[95]

Since bay’ah through shura was enacted primarily by the Rightly Guided Caliphs let us look at the process they followed so we can derive some principles for re-enacting this in modern times.

Abu Bakr’s Bay’ah

When the Sahabah knew for certain that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ had died, the Ansar gathered in the saqeefah (portico or courtyard)of Banu Saa’idah and the Muhajireen gathered elsewhere with Abu Bakr. Both groups had the same purpose which was to choose the next caliph from among themselves. Before they arrived at a decision however the Muhajireen remembered their brothers from the Ansar, and they said to one another, “Let us go to our brothers from the Ansar, for they have the right to help us arrive at a decision regarding this matter.”[96]

Umar ibn Al-Khattab said: “Remember that whoever gives the bay’ah to anybody among you without consulting the other Muslims, neither that person, nor the person to whom the pledge of allegiance was given, are to be supported, lest they both should be killed. And no doubt after the death of the Prophet ﷺ we were informed that the Ansar disagreed with us and gathered in the saqeefah of Banu Saa’idah. `Ali and Zubair and whoever was with them, opposed us, while the Muhajireen gathered with Abu Bakr.”[97]

Although Ali ibn Abi Talib and Zubair al-Awwam didn’t participate in contracting Abu Bakr as caliph they both gave the Bay’ah of Obedience and never voiced any opposition to the action of the Muhajireen and Ansar in delaying the burial of the Prophet ﷺ in favour of choosing the next caliph.

Ali and al-Zubayr said: “The only thing that disappointed us was that we were not consulted, but we believe that Abu Bakr is the most qualified of the people for it (caliphate) after the Messenger of Allah ﷺ.”[98]

Umar continues: I said to Abu Bakr, ‘Let’s go to these Ansari brothers of ours.’ So we set out seeking them, and when we approached them, two pious men of theirs met us and informed us of the final decision of the Ansar, and said, ‘O group of Muhajireen! Where are you going?’ We replied, ‘We are going to these Ansari brothers of ours.’ They said to us, ‘You shouldn’t go near them. Carry out whatever we have already decided.’ I said, ‘By Allah, we will go to them.’

So we proceeded until we reached them at the saqeefah of Banu Saa’idah. Behold! There was a man sitting amongst them and wrapped in something. I asked, ‘Who is that man?’ They said, ‘He is Sa`d bin ‘Ubada.’ I asked, ‘What is wrong with him?’ They said, ‘He is sick.’

After we sat for a while, the Ansar’s speaker said, ‘None has the right to be worshipped but Allah,’ and praising Allah as He deserved, he added, ‘To proceed, we are Allah’s Ansar (helpers) and the majority of the Muslim army, while you, the emigrants, are a small group and some people among you came with the intention of preventing us from practicing this matter (of caliphate) and depriving us of it.’

When the speaker had finished, I intended to speak as I had prepared a speech which I liked and which I wanted to deliver in the presence of Abu Bakr, and I used to avoid provoking him. So, when I wanted to speak, Abu Bakr said, ‘Wait a while.’ I disliked to make him angry. So Abu Bakr himself gave a speech, and he was wiser and more patient than I. By Allah, he never missed a sentence that I liked in my own prepared speech, but he said the like of it or better than it spontaneously.

After a pause he said, ‘O Ansar! You deserve all (the qualities that you have attributed to yourselves, but this question (of Caliphate) is only for the Quraish as they are the best of the Arabs as regards descent and home, and I am pleased to suggest that you choose either of these two men, so take the oath of allegiance to either of them as you wish. And then Abu Bakr held my hand and Abu Ubada bin `Abdullah’s hand who was sitting amongst us. I hated nothing of what he had said except that proposal, for by Allah, I would rather have my neck chopped off as expiator for a sin than become the ruler of a nation, one of whose members is Abu Bakr, unless at the time of my death my own-self suggests something I don’t feel at present.’

And then one of the Ansar said, ‘I am the pillar on which the camel with a skin disease (eczema) rubs itself to satisfy the itching (i.e., I am a noble), and I am as a high class palm tree! O Quraish. There should be one ruler from us and one from you.’

Then there was a hue and cry among the gathering and their voices rose so that I was afraid there might be great disagreement, so I said, ‘O Abu Bakr! Hold your hand out.’ He held his hand out and I pledged allegiance to him, and then all the emigrants gave the Pledge of allegiance and so did the Ansar afterwards. And so we became victorious over Sa`d bin Ubada (whom Al-Ansar wanted to make a ruler). One of the Ansar said, ‘You have killed Sa`d bin Ubada.’ I replied, ‘Allah has killed Sa’d bin Ubada.’

`Umar added, “By Allah, apart from the great tragedy that had happened to us (i.e. the death of the Prophet), there was no greater problem than the allegiance pledged to Abu Bakr because we were afraid that if we left the people, they might give the Pledge of allegiance after us to one of their men, in which case we would have given them our consent for something against our real wish, or would have opposed them and caused great trouble. So if any person gives the pledge of allegiance to somebody (to become a caliph) without consulting the other Muslims, then the one he has selected should not be granted allegiance, lest both of them should be killed.”[99]

Abu Bakr’s bay’ah on Monday afternoon was the Bay’ah of Contract given by a small group from the Ahlul hali wal-aqd who represented the views of the wider Muslim Ummah. When Sa’eed ibn Zaid was asked, “When was Abu Bakr confirmed by the people?” he said, “The day on which the Messenger of Allah ﷺ died; they disliked for even a part of a day to pass by without them being united as a group (with a leader to rule over them).”[100]

The Muslims of Madinah fell in to two main categories. The Muhajireen who emigrated from Makkah with the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ, and the Ansar who consisted of two tribes called Al-Aws and Al-Khazraj. The Ahlul hali wal-aqd who contracted the bay’ah to Abu Bakr consisted of tribal leaders, wazirs and those strongest in the ideology of Islam.

Key figures[101] at the saqeefa:

Name	Position within the state
Sa’d ibn Ubadah	leader of the Ansar
Al-Bashir ibn Sa’d	leader of Al- Khazraj
Usaid ibn Hudayr	leader of Al- Aws
Abu Bakr As-Siddiq	Wazir, 10 promised jannah
Umar ibn Al-Khattab	Wazir, 10 promised jannah
Abu Ubaydah ibn al-Jarrah	Army commander, 10 promised jannah
Hubab ibn al-Mundhir	Army commander

The next day on the Tuesday, the Muslims of Madinah gathered in the Masjid and Abu Bakr’s appointment was announced. They then came one by one giving him the Bay’ah of Obedience by shaking his hand. Messengers were dispatched to the various provinces, and the Muslims living there gave bay’ah via their governors.[102]

Anas bin Malik Narrated: That he heard Umar’s second speech he delivered when he sat on the minbar (pulpit) on the day following the death of the Prophet ﷺ. Umar recited the Tashahhud while Abu Bakr was silent. Umar said, “I wish that Allah’s Messenger ﷺ had outlived all of us, i.e., had been the last (to die). But if Muhammad is dead, Allah nevertheless has kept the light amongst you from which you can receive the same guidance as Allah guided Muhammad with that. And Abu Bakr is the companion of Allah’s Messenger ﷺ He is the second of the two in the cave. He is the most entitled person among the Muslims to manage your affairs. Therefore get up and swear allegiance to him.” Some people had already taken the bay’ah to him in the saqeefah of Banu Saa’idah but the bay’ah taken by the public was taken at the minbar. I heard Umar saying to Abu Bakr on that day. “Please ascend the minbar,” and kept on urging him till he ascended the minbar whereupon, all the people swore allegiance to him.[103]

The inhabitants of Medina pledged their allegiance to Abu Bakr directly in the Masjid and placed their hands on his hand. Meanwhile the inhabitants of Makkah and At-Taaif made their pledges to Abu Bakr’s governors (wulah).[104]

The election of the first caliph in Islam – Abu Bakr As-Siddiq clearly illustrates the two parts of the bay’ah. Abdul-Qadeem Zalloom says, “Thus the first bay’ah of the saqeefah was the Bay’ah of Contract, while the Bay’ah of the Masjid, on the next day, was that of obedience.”[105]

This bay’ah by the Muslim masses on the Tuesday would have taken some time to complete. Once it was finished then the burial preparations and funeral prayer for the Prophet ﷺ were organised. Ibn Ishaq (d.768CE) says, “When Abu Bakr had received the bay’ah, the people began preparing on the Tuesday for the burial of the Messenger of Allah.”[106]

Sa‘d al-Taftazani (d.1390CE) mentions ijma as an evidence (daleel) for appointing an Imam. “He explains in his commentary that this means the consensus of the sahaba (إِجْمَاع الصَّحَابَة). He states: ﷺ وَهُوَ الْعُمْدَة، حَتَّى قدموه على دفن النَّبِي ‘This is the preeminent issue. They even prioritized it over the need to inter the Prophet ﷺ.’”[107]

Al-Haythami (d.1405CE) said the same, “It is known that the Sahabah consented (‘ijma) that selecting the Imam after the end of the era of Prophethood was an obligation (Wajib). Indeed they made it more important than the other obligations whilst they were busy with it over the burial of the Prophet.”[108]

Abu Bakr’s bay’ah shows us the principle of political representation and the electoral college in action. In modern times we can transpose the saqeefa to an elected Majlis Al-Nuwaab (House of Representatives) who will elect the new caliph on behalf of the people. This is one option available to the ummah depending on the situation within the state at the time.

Another option is for a general election to be held where the entire ummah who are citizens of the state can directly participate through voting. This is similar to what occurred during the bay’ah to Uthman bin Affan, the third Rightly Guided Caliph of Islam, where the inhabitants of the Islamic State’s capital in Madinah directly participated in the bay’ah contract by voicing their preference for the main candidates Ali ibn Abi Talib and Uthman bin Affan.

Uthman bin Affan’s Bay’ah

After Umar ibn Al-Khattab was stabbed and his death was imminent, the Ahlul hali wal-aqd (senior sahaba) came and asked him to nominate a successor as Abu Bakr had done for him. Umar couldn’t come to a decision so he appointed a council of six candidates who were all from the 10 promised jannah to meet after his death and appoint a caliph.

Umar summoned Ali ibn Abi Talib, Uthman bin Affan, Sa’d ibn Abi Waqqas, Abdul-Rahman ibn Awf, and al-Zubayr ibn Al-Awwam. Umar said to them, “I have looked into the matter and consider you to be the chiefs and leaders of the people. This matter will remain among you alone.”[109]

By appointing an electoral council of six[110], Umar restricted the potential candidates for the post of caliph to these six alone. Shaykh Khudari Bak (d.1927) refers to this way as specific shura of a group chosen by the previous imam.

Umar’s authority to nominate these candidates was not from himself, but from the ummah’s political representatives – the Ahlul hali wal-aqd since they were the source of authority and not the caliph. In modern times it will be the Majlis members who will select the candidates not the caliph.

Rashid Rida says, “The majority of the sahaba affirmed ‘Umar’s action. Thus, it was the object of consensus (‘ijma) and was settled. The principle underlying pledging allegiance is that it follows consultation (shura) with the majority of the Muslims and the choice of the Ahlul hali wal-aqd. The bay’ah of others is not to be taken into consideration except when it follows theirs. ‘Umar’s action, may God be pleased with him, contradicted this definitive principle.[111] Thus, it was a precipitate move that resulted from exceptional circumstances. It does not reflect a principle of the shari‘ah which should also be implemented in other cases.”[112]

Someone suggested to Umar that he appoint his son Abdullah ibn Umar who was one of the prominent scholars of Madinah who used to give fatawa (legal decisions) for people, and an expert on governmental affairs. Umar responded harshly to this suggestion, “Allah curse you! You were not saying this for Allah’s sake!”[113]

Umar was known as the door against fitnah (tribulations)[114] and wanted to prevent the concept of hereditary rule appearing in the state. Although, due to Ibn Umar’s skills he said to the council, “Abdullah ibn Umar will be there as an adviser, but he shall have nothing to do with the matter [of the actual appointment].”[115]

The electoral council were also part of the Ahlul hali wal-aqd, and although their contracting of the bay’ah to Uthman would be sufficient, Abdul-Rahman ibn Awf withdrew his candidacy and went around the capital Madinah seeking shura from the different clans of Quraysh and the Ansar, on who they wanted as the next caliph. He found their opinions were in favour of Ali and Uthman, but that the people also wanted a continuation of Abu Bakr and Umar’s actions in ruling rather than any stark changes.

After Umar passed away, the council met and they all agreed for Abdur-Rahman ibn ‘Awf to be the arbitrator and make the final judgement. Abdur-Rahman ibn ‘Awf took his role incredibly seriously and not only consulted those in the council, but also widened the consultation to the inhabitants of the capital Madinah. Al-Miswar bin Makhrama said, “Abdur-Rahman called on me after a portion of the night had passed and knocked on my door till I got up, and he said to me, ‘I see you have been sleeping! By Allah, during the last three nights I have not slept enough.’”[116]

Abdul-Rahman said, “Now then, O Ali. I have looked at the people’s tendencies and noticed that they do not consider anybody equal to Uthman, so you should not incur blame (by disagreeing).” Then Abdul-Rahman said (to Uthman), “I gave the bay’ah to you on condition that you will follow the sunnah of Allah and His Messenger, and the two caliphs [Abu Bakr and Umar] after him.” So Abdul-Rahman gave the bay’ah to him, and so did the people including the Muhajireen, the Ansar, the chiefs of the army and all the Muslims.[117]

There a number of other principles we can take from the electoral council process such as the time limit of the bay’ah and the appointment of a interim leader who runs the state until a caliph is appointed. The main point we can take for our discussion on authority is the addition of extra conditions to the bay’ah contract, which in modern times translates in to binding the caliph to a constitution. The extra condition added to Uthman’s bay’ah was following the sunnah (usul) of the two previous caliphs Abu Bakr and Umar. Abdur-Rahman said (to Uthman),

أُبَايِعُكَ عَلَى سُنَّةِ اللَّهِ وَرَسُولِهِ وَالْخَلِيفَتَيْنِ مِنْ بَعْدِهِ

“I gave the bay’ah to you on (condition) that you will follow the sunnah of Allah, and His Messenger, and the two caliphs after him (i.e. Abu Bakr and Umar).”

So Abdur-Rahman gave the bay’ah to him, and so did the people including the Muhajireen and the Ansar and the leaders of the armies and all the Muslims.[118]

The Ahlul hali wal-aqd were all senior sahaba and all consented to the extra bay’ah condition “to follow the sunnah of Abu Bakr and Umar.” This represents an ijma which is a shar’a daleel (legal evidence).

Following the sunnah of Abu Bakr and Umar does not mean following their individual opinions. We know that Abu Bakr and Umar both differed in their opinions and administrative styles. Uthman also differed with Abu Bakr and Umar in some of their opinions and policies. Therefore, the bay’ah condition of following the sunnah of Abu Bakr and Umar does not mean following their individual opinions, but rather means following their usul ul-fiqh (foundational legal principles). In legal terminology this means Uthman was a mujtahid madhab performing ijtihad within the madhab of Abu Bakr and Umar.

Binding a caliph to a constitution is within the ummah’s authority to insist upon. A constitutional caliphate is clearly in the benefit of the Muslims, and will unite them preventing much of the fitna (discord) and disunity of the past. Binding the caliph to a constitution with a condition on the bay’ah is therefore essential in the modern era. Through a constitution we can force the creation of a caliphate based on prophethood as was prophesised by the Messenger ﷺ, ثم تكون خلافة على منهاج النبوة “then there will be Khilafah upon the Prophetic method.”[119]

Uthman bin Affan’s bay’a: Binding the Caliph to a constitution

Bay’ah through Designated Succession (istikhlaf)

This method of the Imam nominating his successor continued throughout the Caliphate’s 1300 history. Unfortunately, those caliphs who came after the Rightly Guided Caliphs starting with Mu’awiya, on the whole turned the nomination from one based on shura and meritocracy, to nominating family members. This was prophesised by the Messenger of Allah ﷺ who said,

تكون الخلافة ثلاثين سنة ثم تصير ملكا

“The Khilafah will be for thirty years. Then it will become mulk (monarchy).”[120]

Ibn Kathir says,“The first monarchy began with the rule of Mu‘awiyah, making him the first king (malik) in Islam and the best of them all.”[121]

The ummah’s political representatives – Ahlul hali wal-aqd consented to this, and the ‘ulema accepted this status quo, even going as far as permitting this method of contracting the bay’ah by giving the caliph authority to designate his successor and the successor after that.

Al-Mawardi says, “Imamate comes into being in two ways: the first of these is by the election of the Ahlul hali wal-aqd, and the second is by the delegation of the previous Imam.”[122]

Ibn Khaldun also justified this situation of the caliphs designating their successors, even if they designated their own sons. “After Mu‘âwiyah, caliphs who were used to choosing the truth and to acting in accordance with it, acted similarly. Such caliphs included the Umayyads ‘Abd-al-Malik and Sulaymân and the ‘Abbâsids as-Saffâḥ, al-Manṣûr, al-Mahdî, and ar-Rashîd, and others like them whose probity, and whose care and concern for the Muslims are well known. They cannot be blamed because they gave preference to their own sons and brothers, in that respect departing from the Sunnah of the first four caliphs. Their situation was different from that of the (four) caliphs who lived in a time when royal authority (mulk) as such did not yet exist, and the restraining influence was religious. Thus, everybody had his restraining influence in himself. Consequently, they appointed the person who was acceptable to Islam, and preferred him over all others. They trusted every aspirant to have his own restraining influence.”[123]

The Beginning of Hereditary Rule in the Caliphate

Al-Hasan al-Baṣri said: “Two men put disorder into people’s affair. First, ʿAmr ibn al-ʿAs when he advised Mu’awiya to raise the copies of the Qurʾan and they were lifted up. He said, “Where are the reciters (al-qurraʾ)?” Then the Khawarij asserted that judgement only belongs to Allah. This assertion of Allah’s judgement will continue until the Day of Rising.

Second, al-Mughira ibn Shuʿba, when he was Mu’awiya’s governor over Kufa and Mu’awiya wrote to him, “When you read my letter, come to me, dismissed from your office.” But he delayed and when he finally came to him, Mu’awiya asked, “What took you so long?” Al-Mughira replied, “An affair that I had to settle.” He said, “And what was that?” He said, “The bay’a for Yazid’s succession after you.” He said, “And did you complete it?” He replied, “Yes.” Then Mu’awiya said, “Return to your post.” When al-Mughira departed, his companions asked him how it went and he replied, “I have placed Mu’awiya’s foot in a stirrup of error, in which it will remain until the Day of Rising.”

Al-Hasan al-Basri added: Therefore, they have taken bay’ah for their sons and were it not for that, it would have been a matter of consultation (shura) until the Day of Rising.”[124]

One the main justifications for this ijtihad of giving the caliph the right to appoint his successor, is the bay’ah to Umar ibn Al-Khattab on the recommendation of Abu Bakr. If we study this bay’ah process we can see clearly that it was a bay’ah based on shura, in line with the rest of the Rightly Guided Caliphs and in no way a justification for hereditary rule.

Umar ibn Al-Khattab’s bay’ah

When Abu Bakr became seriously ill and felt his death was fast approaching, he summoned the Ahlul hali wal-aqd who were the senior sahaba and said to them, “Verily, as you can clearly see I have been afflicted with a severe illness, and I feel certain that, because of the severity of my condition, I will soon die. Therefore, Allah has released you from the pledge that you have made to me, and my covenant with you (i.e., my covenant as your caliph) has also come to an end. Allah has returned your affair to you (i.e., your ability to choose a leader among yourselves), so appoint over yourselves whomsoever you wish. Indeed, if you choose your new leader while I am still alive, you will be less likely to differ among yourselves after I am gone.”[125] The sahaba were unable to reach a decision so they authorised Abu Bakr to decide who his successor should be. They said, “O Caliph of the Messenger Allah, your opinion is our opinion (i.e., appoint your successor for us).” He said, “Then give me some time, so that I can see what is best in the view of Allah and what is best for His religion and His slaves.”[126]

He consulted Abdul-Rahman ibn Awf and Uthman bin Affan[127] who were from the 10 promised Jannah, and other prominent sahaba before announcing his recommendation that Umar ibn Al-Khattab should be the next caliph.

Abu Bakr summoned Uthman to him in private and said to him, “Write,

‘In the name of Allah, the Merciful, the Most Merciful. This is the ‘ahd[128] which Abu Bakr bin Abi Quhafah has enjoined on the Muslims. Now then…’”

At this point, he fainted, losing consciousness. Uthman wrote,

‘Now then, I have appointed Umar bin al-Khattab as my successor over you. I have not neglected the best among you.’

Then Abu Bakr awoke and said, “Read it to me.” When he read it to him, Abu Bakr said, “Allahu Akbar” and then went on, “I see that you were afraid that the people would quarrel if I died suddenly in my coma.” Uthman said, “Yes.” Abu Bakr said, “May Allah reward you kindly for the sake of Islam and its people!” Abu Bakr confirmed the text from this place.[129]

The wider ummah accepted this decision and after the death of Abu Bakr, the inhabitants of the capital in Madinah gave the Bay’ah of Contract and the Bay’ah of Obedience to Umar in the Prophet’s ﷺ Mosque as was customary at the time.

Nomination based on shura turned to hereditary rule

Although Mu’awiya tried to justify his actions by what Abu Bakr did in nominating Umar, this is invalid because as discussed earlier Abu Bakr took shura from the ummah and chose someone based on meritocracy not familial ties. The people said to Abu Bakr, “O Caliph of the Messenger Allah, your opinion is our opinion (i.e., appoint your successor for us).” He said, “Then give me some time, so that I can see what is best in the view of Allah and what is best for His religion and His slaves.”[130]

Mu’awiya had initially tried to take bay’ah for Yazid via his governor in Madinah Marwan ibn Al-Hakam. He wrote to Marwan to take the bay’ah and Marwan addressed the people: “The Ameer of the Believers has decided to appoint his son, Yazid, as his successor over you, according to the sunnah of Abu Bakr and ʿUmar.” Abd ar-Rahman ibn Abi Bakr stood up and said, “Rather, according to the sunnah of Khusraw and Caesar! Abu Bakr and ʿUmar did not appoint their sons to it, nor anyone from their families.”[131]

Later when Mu’awiya came in person to Madinah to take the bay’a, Abu Bakr’s other son Muhammad ibn Abi Bakr said to him, “You want us to entrust you to Allah in the affair of your son, but, by Allah, we will not do that. By Allah, return this affair as a matter of shura among the Muslims or we will bring it against you all over again.”[132]

Nomination (wilayatul ‘ahd) is not bay’ah

It should be noted that bay’ah is a contract between the Muslims and the Caliph. Bay’ah cannot be given to a successor while the previous Caliph is still in office, as Mu’awiya did. Abdullah ibn Al-Zubayr said to Mu’awiya, “Allegiance to both of you can never be combined.”[133] Making Yazid the crown prince was not a valid bay’ah but simply a contract of nomination (wilayatul ‘ahd). After Mu’awiya’s death the Muslim representatives were free to dispose of this nomination and choose someone else if they so wished. This is similar to Abu Bakr’s nomination of Umar. The bay’ah was only given to Umar ibn Al-Khattab after Abu Bakr had passed away.

Ibn Taymiyyah elaborates on this point. “Similarly, ‘Umar became the Imam when they gave him the bay’ah and obeyed him. Had it been destined that they would not have implemented the ‘Ahd (delegation) of Abu Bakr in respect to ‘Umar, then he would not have become the Imam, whether that was permissible or not.

That is because the allowed and prohibited relate to the actions whilst the ruling and authority represent an expression of the occurring power or capability. Had it been destined that Abu Bakr gave the bay’ah to ‘Umar alongside a group whilst the remainder of the Sahabah refrained from giving him the bay’ah, then he would not have become an Imam by that. He only became an Imam by the bay’ah (pledge) of the majority of the people and for that reason the holding back of Sa’d (i.e. Sa’d ibn ‘Ubaadah from the Ansar) did not harm that because it does not impair or diminish what is intended in terms of the Wilaayah (authority, ruling and leadership).

As for ‘Umar having rushed to give him the bay’ah then there must be a precedent in respect to every bay’ah. As for his delegation (or nomination) to ‘Umar then that was completed through the Muslims giving the bay’ah to him after the death of Abu Bakr after which he became an Imam.”[134]

Attempts to transfer the bay’ah back to shura

During the Umayyad period there were two caliphs who attempted to transfer the bay’ah back to one of shura instead of hereditary rule. They are Mu’awiya ibn Yazid ibn Mu’awiya and Umar ibn Abdul-Aziz.

Bay’ah in Islamic History – The Umayyad Khilafah

Mu’awiya ibn Yazid (reign 64H/683CE)

Mu’awiya ibn Yazid was made wali al-ahd (heir apparent) by his father Yazid ibn Mu’awiya. Like his father he received the bay’ah from the Ahlul hali wal-aqd in Ash-Sham but the Ahlul hali wal-aqd in Hijaz gave bay’ah to Abdullah ibn Al-Zubayr.

Mu’awiya ibn Yazid was a pious and honest man but he was only in power for forty days before passing away. He is noted as one of the Umayyads who tried to remove hereditary rule and bring back shura for the bay’ah. He assembled the people together and said: “O people! Indeed, I have been entrusted with your affairs while I am weak and unable. I would therefore like for you to concede leadership to a man of strength in the same manner that as-Siddiq i.e. Abu Bakr) endowed ‘Umar. If you will, then appoint a committee for consultation comprised of six persons from amongst you as ‘Umar bin al-Khattab did; for just one of you cannot be right concerning it. And so, I have bequeathed your affairs to yourselves, therefore you should appoint the one that is most fitting to undertake leadership over you.”

He then stepped down and entered his house, and did not come out until he had died. It is believed that he was either poisoned or stabbed.[135] Another martyr in trying to correct the bay’ah and reverse hereditary rule.

Mu’awiya ibn Yazid marks the end of what historians call the Sufyanid authority i.e. rulers from Banu Umayyah who are from Abu Sufyan’s lineage, and the start of the Marwanids, i.e. rulers from Marwan ibn al-Hakam’s line.

Umar bin Abdul-Aziz (r.99-101H / 717-720CE)

Umar bin Abdul-Aziz did manage to revive the process of shura which is one of the reasons why he is counted among the rightly guided Caliphs, and also known as a mujaddid (reviver). “Having now officially assumed the seat of the Caliphate, Umar ascended the Minbar (pulpit) in what would be his first encounter with the Ummah. He said: “O people! I have been burdened with the responsibilities of the Caliphate against my own will and without your consent. I thereby remove the bay’ah to me that is on your necks so that you are at liberty to elect anyone whom you like.” But the audience cried out with one voice that he was the fittest person for the high office and said: “We have chosen you, O Amir al-Mu’mineen, and we are pleased that you have blessed and honoured our good affair.” At this juncture, Umar sensed that he was not going to be able to evade bearing the responsibility of the Caliphate, and so he decided to go on with determining his method and approach in dealing with the politics of the Muslim Ummah…”[136]

After Umar bin Abdul-Aziz’s death, the Umayyads continued with the wiliyatul-Ahd (succession contract) and so Yazeed ibn Abdul-Malik (Yazeed II) became the caliph according to the contract laid down by his brother Sulayman ibn Abdul-Malik.

Bay’ah through Domination

The last way of appointing a caliph by the ummah is where a usurper or dominant sultan takes power by force. Since the ummah in origin has not consented to this dominant sultan then he cannot be a caliph and the bay’ah would be considered batil as one of its pillars (rukn) is missing. The bay’ah is a contract and must conform to the rules of contracts in Islam which is free choice and consent of both parties.

If the ummah and her representatives decide to accept the legitimacy of this ruler, then the bay’ah will become legally convened. Ibn Hajar says, “The jurists have unanimously agreed that it is obligatory to obey the dominant sultan and jihad with him, and that obedience to him is better than revolting against him because of that of shedding blood and pacifying the masses.”[137]

Such a situation has been permitted by the ‘ulema but it is an emergency situation and should not be the norm. If this occurred in a future Islamic state due to the removal of a corrupt caliph in a coup d’etat for instance, then elections need to be held as soon as is feasibly possible because the ummah is the source of authority not the dominant sultan.

Shaykh Khudari Bak says, “There is a fourth way [of bay’ah] which the scholars after the first era instituted for the establishment of the imamate, and that is by way of dominance. This happens when the Muslims have no imam, there are differences among them, and they cannot agree on a particular person. In such a situation, it is lawful for a person who knows that he has the capacity to lead the Muslim community because of his knowledge or the influence of his tribe, to demand this post of caliph. He would hence oblige the people to obey him, whether they responded willingly or by force. Once the situation subsides and his claim is accepted, his caliphate will be established and obedience to him will become obligatory.”[138]

Dr. Wahbah Az-Zuhaili says “Subjugation (Al-Qahr) is an exceptional circumstance which does not conform to the origin which dictates that the authority be established by choice. Approving or accepting it, is based upon giving consideration to a situation that has befallen due to the necessity (Daroorah) and to prevent the shedding of blood …”[139]

Muhammad Haykal says, “Likewise, in respect to the method of gaining mastery (At-Taghallub), the Mutaghallib (one who takes over the rule by force) does not become the caliph by the mere taking control over the authority. Rather, he would only become the caliph at a time when the people accept him (by choice) and give the bay’ah to him. If they refuse to give him the bay’ah (pledge) he would remain a ruler who has usurped the authority.

That is just like when a person usurps a commodity from another and then if that other accepts and sells it to him (the usurper) the ownership of the property would be transferred to him. However, if the owner remains adamant about not selling the commodity to the usurper, then the one refusing remains the rightful Shar’i (legal) owner of the commodity. The usurper would remain as such irrespective of how much time passes over his usurpation.”[140]

Yazid ibn Mu’awiya and Abdul-Malik ibn Marwan gain power through force

Two examples of the use of force to take the bay’ah during the Umayyad Caliphate, are the rule of Yazid ibn Mu’awiya (r.60-64H/680-683CE) and Abdul-Malik ibn Marwan (r.73-86H/692-705CE).

There is ikhtilaaf (difference of opinion) among the ulema on Yazid’s legitimacy. Many scholars accept he was a legitimate caliph such as Al-Dhahabi, but that he was sinful and blameworthy for the oppression and persecution he committed against the sahaba, and the murder of al-Hussain and his family. Others such as Ibn Al-Jawzi reject his legitimacy and call him a usurper, because he never had a legally convened bay’ah that was given through free choice and consent by the majority of the Ahlul hali wal-aqd (political representatives of the ummah). The strongest opinion seems to be that of Ibn Al-Jawzi that Yazid was not a legitimate caliph.

Was Yazid a Legitimate Caliph?

It was mentioned in the Tafseer of Al-Alusi: “Ibn al-Jawzi (May Allah’s mercy be upon him) stated in his book: ‘As-Sirr ul-Masun’: “From the general beliefs that is prevalent amongst those attributed to the Sunnah is that they say: That Yazid was in the right and that Al-Hussain (ra) was wrong to rebel against him. Had they examined the Seerahs they would have become aware of how the bay’ah was contracted to him and that the people were compelled with it! And that he did every ugly (or abominable) act. If we would have evaluated the Sihhah (correctness and validity) of the bay’ah contract, then there appeared from it all that would oblige the annulment of the contract. Nobody inclines to that view except every ignorant person, blind in the Madhhab who believes that by adopting that opinion he is being harsh against the Rawaafid (i.e. Shi’ah).”[141]

With regards to Abdul-Malik, Suyuti summarises his bay’ah. “He received the bay’ah according to his father’s contract during the Caliphate of Ibn Al-Zubayr, but his Caliphate was not valid and he remained as the usurper (mutaghallib) of Egypt and Syria. He then seized Iraq and its provinces before Ibn Al-Zubayr was killed in 73H/692CE. From that day, his Caliphate became valid and his authority firmly established.”[142]

This then explains the difference between the bay’ah to Yazid ibn Mu’awiya and Abdul-Malik ibn Marwan who were both usurpers. The bay’ah to Yazid was never legally convened because the Ahlul hali wal-aqd never gave bay’ah through free choice and consent. Whereas with Abdul-Malik, the Ahlul hali wal-aqd in Hijaz and Iraq, finally agreed to give bay’ah once Abdullah ibn Al-Zubayr had been killed by Abdul-Malik’s infamous commander, Hajjaj bin Yusuf. Among those who gave bay’ah to Abdul-Malik after Ibn Al-Zubayr’s death were Abdullah ibn Umar and his family in Madinah.

Bukhari narrates from Abdullah bin Dinar: “I witnessed Ibn Umar when the people gathered around Abdul Malik. Ibn Umar wrote: ‘I gave the bay’ah that I will listen to and obey Allah’s Slave, Abdul-Malik, Ameer of the believers according to Allah’s Laws and the Traditions of His Messenger as much as I can; and my sons too, give the same pledge.’”[143]

There are numerous examples in Islamic history of rulers taking power and then the ummah consenting to their rule, legitimising the bay’ah. This occurred not just in the Umayyad period but also in the Abbasid and Ottoman Caliphates.

What enabled this abnormal situation to become the norm?

Rashid Rida answers this question. “You know now that what enabled—and enables—tyrants to rule is nothing but the partisan support of their own kin. Tyrants are motivated purely by a desire for power. Their aim in fighting is not to glorify Allah’s word, nor is it to establish the scales of truth and justice for all people. This community has had its affairs corrupted and its power stripped by nothing other than:

• people assuming that obedience to unjust and violent rulers is an absolute obligation under the shari‘ah

• people assuming that the rule of tyranny is lawful under the shari‘ah

• people assuming that the rule of a tyrant has the same legal validity as the rule of a rightful imam, an imam whose rule rests on a pledge of allegiance given by those in authority and those who loose and bind who elected him

• every unjust tyrant restricting authority and power and might to his own family by asserting that the right to appoint his son, or someone else among his kin, is his entitlement under the shari‘ah, and a principle to be observed in and of itself

• the failure to see how Mu‘awiyah’s designation of his son Yazid as his successor differed from Abu Bakr As-Siddiq’s designation of ‘Umar bin al-Khattab. Yazid was a dissolute wrongdoer, and Mu‘awiyah’s designation of him was rejected by the Muslims. ‘Umar, the just imam, was a man of great virtue. Abu Bakr consulted with the people who loose and bind, persuading them and receiving their consent before designating him.”[144]

How to maintain authority with the ummah?

The societal concept of the source of authority (masdar al-sultah) being with the ummah, requires continuous education and culturing (تربية tarbiya) to keep it alive. Rashid Ridda says, “Nor should people allow power to become like a ball that tyrants can kick back and forth between themselves, and receive from each other. Those living in nations who have been wronged allowed that to happen, assenting to that because they were ignorant of the power that was latent within themselves. They did not realize that the power wielded by their monarchs and emirs was actually their own.”[145]

In an Islamic society, these concepts which underpin the societal relationships must be based on the Islamic ‘aqeeda (belief), which creates a distinct viewpoint of life. This viewpoint then creates an opinion on which interests are deemed important and necessary, leading the people to establish an authority to fulfil these interests. In the words of Ibn al-Qayyim, “Ponder upon the Hikmah (Wisdom) of Allah عز وجل where He has made people’s kings, leaders, and those of authority over them, of the same kind as their own deeds. It is as if the people’s deeds appeared in the forms of their kings and leaders. If the people are upright, then their kings and rulers will be upright, and if they turn away (from uprightness), then their leaders will turn against them. And if they oppress and tyrannize, then their kings and rulers will tyrannize and oppress.”[146]

There are five areas of society which are responsible for maintaining the concepts which underpin the societal relationships at the core of which are sovereignty is with the sharia, and authority is with the ummah. These areas are individual citizens, groups, educational establishments, media and state institutions which provides a safeguard for society as Ibn Taymiyyah says, “The Ummah is the safeguard for the shar’a.”[147]

Individuals

Preserving the ummah as the source of authority in society, and ensuring the government and its policies are in line with the sharia, starts first and foremost with the individuals of the ummah changing themselves, and their societal concepts, which should lead eventually to a natural change in the political authority of the state. Allah ta’ala says,

إِنَّ ٱللَّهَ لَا يُغَيِّرُ مَا بِقَوْمٍ حَتَّىٰ يُغَيِّرُوا۟ مَا بِأَنفُسِهِمْ

“Indeed, Allāh will not change the condition of a people until they change what is in themselves.”[148]

If the people change in the direction of obedience to Allah and His sharia, then this is a good change full of blessings. If however, they change in the direction of disobedience and abandoning the sharia, then this entails the displeasure of Allah, and may even lead to punishment and affliction descending upon the society. This links to the last part of the verse,

وَإِذَآ أَرَادَ ٱللَّهُ بِقَوْمٍۢ سُوٓءًۭا فَلَا مَرَدَّ لَهُۥ ۚ وَمَا لَهُم مِّن دُونِهِۦ مِن وَالٍ

“And when Allah desires evil for a people, there is no averting it. They have no protector apart from Him.”[149]

This is further illustrated by the Messenger of Allah where he ﷺ said,

إِنَّ النَّاسَ إِذَا رَأَوْا الظَّالِمَ فَلَمْ يَأْخُذُوا عَلَى يَدَيْهِ أَوْشَكَ أَنْ يَعُمَّهُمُ اللَّهُ بِعِقَابٍ مِنْهُ

“Verily, if people see an oppressor and they do not seize his hand, Allah will soon send His punishment upon all of them.”[150]

“As mentioned previously in the discussion on society, Taqiuddin an-Nabhani says, “if people were in agreement in their viewpoint about the interests, in a country such as Iraq[151] for instance, the authority would lie in the Ummah; and if there were no foreign power, stronger than her, intellectually and militarily, dominating her, she would in such a country establish someone to run her affairs, i.e. she would establish the authority that manages her interests, or she would keep silent about those who appointed themselves to manage her interests.”[152]

All people can play a part to the best of their individual abilities. In a hadeeth[153] the Prophet ﷺ said,

كُلُّ رَجُلٍ مِنَ الْمُسْلِمِينَ عَلَى ثَغْرَةٍ مِنْ ثُغَرِ الْإِسْلَامِ، اللَّهَ اللَّهَ لَا يُؤْتَى الْإِسْلَامُ مِنْ قِبَلِكَ

“Every Muslim man is on a frontier of Islam. By Allah, by Allah, let Islam not be attacked from your side.”[154]

Allah ta’ala says,

فَٱتَّقُوا۟ ٱللَّهَ مَا ٱسْتَطَعْتُمْ وَٱسْمَعُوا۟ وَأَطِيعُوا۟ وَأَنفِقُوا۟ خَيْرًۭا لِّأَنفُسِكُمْ ۗ وَمَن يُوقَ شُحَّ نَفْسِهِۦ فَأُو۟لَـٰٓئِكَ هُمُ ٱلْمُفْلِحُونَ

“So be mindful of Allah to the best of your ability”[155]

Groups

If structured correctly, then groups of whatever form can have a positive effect on the society and contribute towards change. The general permission to form any type of group is taken from the Qur’an where Allah (ta’ala) says,

وَتَعَاوَنُوا۟ عَلَى ٱلْبِرِّ وَٱلتَّقْوَىٰ

“Cooperate with one another in goodness and righteousness”[156]

Whatever path someone embarks upon they will almost certainly end up forming some type of group no matter how small, because an individual has limited time and resources. This is why individual YouTubers may start out on their own but over time require financial assistance for equipment, software, editing, and other production costs which they receive through Patreon sponsorship.

The objective of the group will determine the type of structure required. An educational group will have one shape and a political party another shape. These are all permitted administrative structures within the sharia.

If the groups are focussed on the betterment of society with healthy competition among them, and reject partisanship and ‘cult-like’ tendencies, then they can make great change. This is what we saw with the sahaba who under the leadership of the Prophet ﷺ literally changed the world.

What cannot be allowed in an Islamic society is the creation of ‘cult-like’ entities which create fitna and oppression, and ultimately end up destroying people’s lives. These are the type of groups as Margaret Singer says that “create fortified boundaries, confining their membership in various ways and attacking those who would leave as defectors, deserters, or traitors; they recruit new members with ruthless energy and raise enormous sums of money; and they tend to view the outside world with increasing hostility and distrust as the organization ossifies.”[157]

Case Study: Role of Sufism in Islamicising Türkiye

The transformation of Türkiye under Erdogan and the AKP away from extreme secular values has been dramatic and something I have personally witnessed. During the 90s Muslims were leaving Türkiye as it was too un-Islamic. People with beards and hijabs were singled out for harrassment. Contrast this to nowadays where many from the west are moving to Istanbul which has a sizeable ex-pat community from western nations.

In May 1999, Merve Kavakci, a newly elected woman MP for the pro-Islamic Virtue Party appeared in parliament wearing a headscarf. She faced a strong reaction from secular MPs and the Prime Minister at the time. She was booed, shouted at and prevented from taking her oath of office. Fast forward 20 years and she became the Turkish ambassador to Malaysia![157.5]

This change in Türkiye didn’t happen overnight but was the result of decades of tarbiya. Soner Cagaptay describes one of the influencers of this change – the Sufi sheikh Mehmet Zahid Kotku.

“The Islamists who followed Erbakan into politics—including Erdogan, who would later name his first-born son, Necmettin Bilal, after his political idol—gained their distinct world view in part from membership of an immersive spiritual community. More than a few of the MSP’s (National Salvation Party) top politicians were members of the Iskenderpasa mosque in Istanbul’s conservative Fatih district, led by the Sufi sheikh Mehmet Zahid Kotku. It was here that these men developed and refined their alternative vision for state and society in Turkey. Their community’s roots ran deep. Shunned by the Kemalist state, the Sufi community evolved to meet the new circumstances of the republic. After the Sufi lodges were shuttered, the sheikhs met with their communities informally, in mosque gardens or in private homes. Many took positions as state-appointed imams at mosques, quietly carrying on their Sufi role as well. Kotku, the imam of the Iskenderpasa mosque, came from just such a tradition. During Kotku’s tenure, which began in 1952, the Iskenderpasa lodge was coming into its own as a place of fellowship for Imam Hatip-educated and other conservative professionals and businessmen, many of whom felt alienated in Istanbul’s secular, European-influenced public life. In spite of his secular upbringing, Erbakan, for instance, was a deeply devout man with reservations about the West and secularism, and his attitude reflected that of a typical Islamic community member.

Sufi communities are traditionally founded upon the deep ties (rabita) that bind followers to a sheikh, whose authority is passed down through a line of teachers that ostensibly reaches all the way back to the Prophet Muhammad. The sheikh leads his community in interactive conversations to instruct them on matters of ethics and morality. Kotku’s followers marveled at the incisiveness of the leader’s conversation. Even outsiders praised Kotku for the cogent, unadorned style of his teachings, which were interwoven with practical messages. Kotku himself never expressed a desire to become overtly involved in politics. It is said that in the years leading up to his death in 1980, he admitted his regret at the extent to which his community had become embroiled in the political contests of the day. But Kotku’s message was undeniably political: his teachings offered a depiction of a just society that implied clear prescriptions for political action. In these teachings, Islam provided a model for the organization of the country’s economy. From Islamic principles, Kotku suggested, it is possible to derive answers on how to govern, even on fairly technical, economic matters. Community members would come to Kotku for practical political advice as well: Turkish politician Korkut Ozal claims that his brother Turgut Ozal, who would later become the country’s prime minister and president, first tried to enter the legislature on the Islamist MSP ticket in 1977 because Kotku advised him to do so. As a young man Erdogan also attended the Iskenderpasa mosque, as did later AKP leaders such as Abdulkadir Aksu and Besir Atalay.”[158]

Educational Establishments

Traditional institutions such as schools, colleges and universities can be very effective in nurturing the next generation towards change. This can only occur if these centres of learning contain practical curriculums and employ effective teaching methods. Mohammad As-Sallabi says,

“The sahaba did not treat Islamic knowledge as if it were a series of facts that are pertinent exclusively to the sphere of the mind, but have nothing to do with the heart or with actions. As a result of acquiring knowledge about Allah, His Names, His attributes, and His actions, the Prophet’s Companions loved Allah; worshipped Him; longed not only to meet Him, but also to enjoy looking at His Noble Countenance; glorified Him; feared Him; strove hard to avoid doing those things that would bring upon them His wrath and punishment; hoped for reward from Him – for Paradise and His Good Pleasure; and cherished good thoughts about Him. Hence they embodied the positive effects of having knowledge of and faith in Allah: love, fear, and hope.”[159]

Institutions which do not conform to this method of culturing will produce people with lots of information but no understanding. Allah ta’ala gives a beautiful analogy of knowledge which does not benefit the person:

مَثَلُ ٱلَّذِينَ حُمِّلُوا۟ ٱلتَّوْرَىٰةَ ثُمَّ لَمْ يَحْمِلُوهَا كَمَثَلِ ٱلْحِمَارِ يَحْمِلُ أَسْفَارًۢا

“The example of those who were entrusted with ˹observing˺ the Torah but failed to do so, is that of a donkey carrying books.”[160]

Meaning, they can carry the physical burden of the books, but do not understand a word of them.

The most famous institution of change in Islamic history is Dar al-Arqam founded in the early years of the daw’ah in Makkah. Mohammad As-Sallabi describes the impact of this establishment.

“The house of Al-Arqam ibn Abi Arqam was the greatest institution of higher learning that mankind has ever known; how can this not be so, when its teacher was the Messenger of Allah ﷺ the teacher of all of mankind. Upon graduation, the students of that school served humanity by helping to free people from the shackles of servitude to all created beings and by doing their part to bring people out from the darkness of disbelief and into the light of iman (faith).

The graduates of the house of Al-Arqam became great men in their own right, for even after the Prophet’s ﷺ death, they continued, with an inexhaustible supply of energy, to spread the message of Truth to all of mankind. So great were the graduates of that school that no one from the centuries that followed them equalled a single one of the likes of Abu Bakr As-Siddeeq, ‘Umar ibn Al-Khattaab, ‘Uthmaan ibn ‘Affaan, ‘Alee ibn Abee Taalib, Sa’d ibn Abee Waqqaas, and so on.

In less than one half of a century, the singularly superior men that the Prophet ﷺ educated were blessed with many great victories as they carried the message of Tawheed (Islamic Monotheism) all over the world. In the early years of his Prophethood, the Messenger of Allah ﷺ wisely chose and trained the key people that would be needed to lead the Muslim nation through its glorious first century of being. It is with that end in mind – the spread of Islam all over Arabia and to many parts of the world – that we can truly appreciate the early days of education and training in the house of Al-Arqam.”[161]

When looking back to Islamic history we find that behind all the great figures are great teachers. The famous Seljuk wazir Nizam ul-Mulk (d.1092) established the Nizamiye (النظامیة) universities in the 11^th century. Imam Al-Juwayni was head of one of these Nizamiye and Imam Al-Ghazali was a professor at the Baghdad Nizamiye. Although it took decades, these institutions worked in the background educating a huge number of scholars who then went out in to society as tutors and Imams of mosques, creating an environment which enabled the likes of Salahudin Ayyubi to emerge, and finally defeat the crusaders who had occupied the holy land of Palestine for nearly 100 years.

Media

The media has always played a pivotal role in accounting governments and shaping public opinion. Its form may have evolved over the ages but its impact is still feared by the ruling classes.

When the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ began his mission in Makkah it was this ruling class that immediately clamped down on him and the early Muslims to prevent the spread of the message.

The government of the Caliphate does not have a monopoly on the media. Any citizen of the Islamic State is allowed to set up media whether newspapers, magazines, radio or television. Permission is not required to establish this type of media, although a licensing mechanism will be in place and a code of conduct that must be adhered to.

All states have limits to the general remit of the press and they must operate within the law. The Islamic State is no different in this regard except the underlying values of the society impose different limits on what is acceptable and unacceptable speech. Sensitive information related to national security cannot be published. Slander, libel, incitement, racism, insulting religious beliefs and the propagation of depraved and misguided cultures are not allowed by sharia.

The media within the Caliphate has full rights to account the Caliph and his government, investigate any government oppression (mazlama), or other issues that pose a danger or are in the interests of the society at large. The media can investigate and publish this without fear of any arrest or persecution.

The work of the media within the Caliphate falls under the general obligation of enjoining the good (ma’ruf) and forbidding the evil (munkar) which is a collective duty on society as a whole.

Media in the Caliphate

Right of the ummah to watch over the rulers

Muhammad As-Sallabi explains the right of the ummah to account the rulers.

“The Ummah has the right to keep watch on its rulers and set them straight. Allah ta’ala says:

وَلْتَكُن مِّنكُمْ أُمَّةٌۭ يَدْعُونَ إِلَى ٱلْخَيْرِ وَيَأْمُرُونَ بِٱلْمَعْرُوفِ وَيَنْهَوْنَ عَنِ ٱلْمُنكَرِ ۚ وَأُو۟لَـٰٓئِكَ هُمُ ٱلْمُفْلِحُونَ

“Let there be a group among you who call ˹others˺ to goodness, encourage what is good, and forbid what is evil—it is they who will be successful.”[162]

The first thing that Amir al-Mu’mineen Ali said after he was appointed [as caliph] was: “No one has any right to this matter (the position of leader) except the one you appoint, and I cannot decide any matter without your approval.”

This is similar to what Abu Bakr said when he was appointed: “If I do well, then help me, and if I do wrong, then set me straight.”

Umar said something like it: “The dearest of people to me is the one who points out my mistakes to me.” Umar also said: “I am afraid that I may do wrong and no one will stop me for fear of me.”

Uthman said something with the same meaning: “If you find in the Book of Allah that you should put my leg in chains, then put my leg in chains.”

This is how the caliphs acted in the era of the Rightly Guided Caliphs. They submitted to the right of the Ummah to watch over the rulers, and no one objected, which indicates that there was agreement (ijma) on this.”[163]

State Institutions

The two main state institutions where the ummah and her representatives practically enact their authority is the Majlis al-Nuwwab (House of Representatives) and the Dar al-’Adl (House of Justice). They are loosely equivalent to a lower and upper house in a bicameral democratic system. The Majlis (lower house) is elected by the people, whereas the Dar al-’Adl (upper house) will be appointed consisting of ‘ulema who will scrutinise government legislation and policies, and deal with disputes between the Majlis and the caliph.

The Majlis institutionalises the principle of shura and the Dar al-’Adl institutionalises the principle of addressing Mazalim (government oppression). It is these two bodies which play a key role in the bay’ah and ensuring the caliph fulfils the bay’ah contract throughout his rule. The groups, educational training of scholars and the media all revolve around these two bodies.

Muhammad al-Ghazali says, “Al-Shura is a great Islamic principle! But, the means of realizing shura and setting up its apparatus has not been specified for us. It would appear that this is intended for differences in environment and level of civilization; rather we notice that one ummah of a high civilization changed the means of shura in it a number of times depending upon its experiences and the relative benefits.” [164]

Conclusion

Noah Feldman asks an important question. “All this brings us to the question of whether, in power, Islamists could in fact bring about the rule of law. As the case of Iran shows, a government organized in the name of Islam can be as constitutionally corrupt as a secular autocracy and so may find itself equally unpopular with its citizens. If the Islamists cannot deliver political justice, they will find themselves discredited like their predecessors. Yet if the Islamists can deliver on their promise of justice, it seems more than possible that a return to some form of shari‘a governance could spread throughout the Arab and Muslim worlds.

Whether this will happen depends ultimately upon the Islamists’ ability to develop new institutions that would find their own original and distinctive way of giving real life to the ideals of Islamic law. This could be an Islamically oriented legislature, infused with the spirit of a democratized shari‘a; or it could be a court exercising Islamic judicial review to shape and influence laws passed in its shadow. In either case, however, such an institution on its own would not be enough to deliver the rule of law. Under the influence of the legislative branch, the judicial branch, or even both, the executive branch would have to develop a commitment to obeying legal and constitutional judgments.”[165]

Without constant vigilance and watching over the society in the areas discussed above, then any constitution or government no matter how Islamic it is on paper, will never be practically implemented upon the people.

Rashid Rida highlights this point, “failing to act and rule in accordance with the shari‘ah in some matters leads to failing to do so in other matters. Or, it creates a situation in which it becomes impossible to adhere to the shari‘ah, as what was originally a source of pure benefit has become a cause of corruption. That then affects the community’s thinking, morality, and customs, until it is transformed through great changes in its core values and distinctive characteristics. Evil and good, falsehood and truth: each emboldens and supports those of its kind. The Islamic community forsook what would have protected it from declining and falling in that manner, and built the steps to progress for it. It forsook what would have enabled it to derive ordinances from the shari‘ah’s rules that befit its condition in every era, and attain a state of perfection.”[166]

Notes

[1] Al-Ghazali’s Moderation in Belief: Al-Iqtiṣād fi al-I‘tiqād, translated by A M Yaqub, University of Chicago Press, Chicago and London, 2013, p.229

[2] ‘Ad-Dawlah Wa Nizhaam Al-Hisbah in the view Ibn Taymiyyah, Muhammad Al-Mubaarak: 38

[3] Ibn Taymiyyah, ‘The Political Shariyah on Reforming the Ruler and The Ruled,’ Translation of as-Siyasah ash-Shari’ah fi Islah ar-Ra’i war-Ra’iyah, Dar ul Fiqh, UK, p.256

[4] Holy Qur’an, Surah An-Nisa, ayah 59

[5] Abu l-Hasan al-Mawardi, The Laws of Islamic Governance, translation of Al-Ahkam as-Sultaniyah, Ta Ha Publishers, p.10

[6] Ibn ‘Abd Rabbih, ‘The Unique Necklace,’ translation of Al-‘Iqd al-Farid, Volume I, ‘The Center for Muslim Contribution to Civilization,’ Garnet Publishing, 2006, p.6; Arabic original: https://shamela.ws/book/23789/12

[7] Oxford English Dictionary, https://www.oed.com/search/dictionary/?scope=Entries&q=authority

[8] Bealey, Frank (1999). The Blackwell Dictionary of Political Science: A User’s Guide to Its Terms. Wiley. pp. 22–23. ISBN 0-631-20694-9.

[9] Hashim Kamali, ‘Citizenship and Accountability of Government: An Islamic Perspective,’ The Islamic Texts Society, 2011, p.197

[10] Muhammad Hassan Hassan Jabal, ‘The etymological dictionary of the words of the Holy Qur’an,’ https://tafsir.app/ishtiqaqi/%D8%B3%D9%84%D8%B7

[11] Ibid

[12] Oxford English Dictionary, https://www.oed.com/search/dictionary/?scope=Entries&q=authority

[13] Sahih al-Bukhari 7053, https://sunnah.com/bukhari:7053

[14] Imam here means the khaleefah i.e. the great Imam الْإِمَامُ الْأَعْظَمُ. Ibn Hajar, Fath al Bari, https://shamela.ws/book/1673/7543#p1

[15] Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī 7138, Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim 1829

[16] Abdul-Qadeem Zallum, ‘The Ruling System in Islam,’ translation of Nizam ul-Hukm fil Islam, Khilafah Publications, Fifth Edition, p.111

[17] Abdul-Qadeem Zallum, Op.cit., p.12

[18] Abu Hilal al- Askari, “A Thesaurus of Assumed Synonyms in Arabic”, a translation of al-Furūq fī l-lugha. Adaptation By Prof Dr Mohammad Akram Chaudhary, p.408; Original Arabic: https://shamela.ws/book/10414/256

[19] Muhammad Hassan Hassan Jabal, Op.cit., https://tafsir.app/ishtiqaqi/%D8%AC%D9%85%D8%B9

[20] Sahih Muslim 1848, https://sunnah.com/muslim:1848a

[21] Sahih al-Bukhari 7084, https://sunnah.com/bukhari:7084

[22] Ibn Hajar, Fath Al-Bari, https://shamela.ws/book/1673/7468#p1

[23] Holy Qur’an, Surah An-Nisaa, ayah 59

[24] Muḥammad al-Shawkānī , ‘Fath ul-Qadeer,’ https://tafsir.app/fath-alqadeer/4/59

[25] Inspector of any rights which affect the community at large, e.g. market inspector, trading standards, environmental health etc.

[26] Ibn Ashur, https://tafsir.app/ibn-aashoor/4/59

[27] Rashid Rida, Tafsir al-Manar, https://shamela.ws/book/12304/1640

[28] Muhammad Rashid Rida, ‘The Caliphate or Supreme Imamate,’ Translated by Simon A Wood, Yale University Press, 2024, p.60; Original Arabic: https://shamela.ws/book/9682

[29] Muhammad Rashid Rida, Op.cit., p.182

[30] Sahih Muslim 1842a, https://sunnah.com/muslim:1842a ; sahih Bukhari 3455, https://sunnah.com/bukhari:3455

[31] Muhammad Rashid Rida, Op.cit., p.57; https://shamela.ws/book/9682/12

[32] Jalal ad-Din as-Suyuti, ‘The history of the Khalifahs who took the right way’, translation of Tareekh ul-Khulufaa, Ta Ha Publishers, p.60

[33] Fatawa of Sheikh Bin Baz

[34] Al-Ghazali’s Moderation in Belief: Al-Iqtiṣād fi al-I‘tiqād, translated by A M Yaqub, University of Chicago Press, Chicago and London, 2013, p.229

[35] Ibn Khaldun, Op.cit., p.249

[36] https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/society

[37] Hüseyin Yılmaz, ‘Caliphate Redefined: The Mystical Turn in Ottoman Political Thought,’ Princeton University Press, 2018, p.184; Tursun Beg, Tarih- i Ebu’l- Feth, 15

[38] Ibn al-Qayyim, Miftaah Daarus-Sa`aadah (1/177-178), https://shamela.ws/book/6840/252#p1 Translation courtesy of Fahad Barmem. https://ilm4all.blogspot.com/2012/01/people-will-recieve-leaders-which-they.html

[39] Wael B. Hallaq, ‘The Impossible State: Islam, Politics, and Modernity’s Moral Predicament,’ Columbia University Press, p.98

[40] Sahih al-Bukhari 2493, https://sunnah.com/bukhari:2493

[41] Ibn Khaldun, Op.cit., p.247

[42] Holy Qur’an, Surah Al-Muminun, ayah 71

[43] Federalist no. 51

[44] This is Iraq 1961 and not Iraq in 2024.

[45] From the writings of Taqiuddin an-Nabhani 1961

[46] Alexis De Tocqueville, ‘Democracy in America,’ The University of Chicago Press, 2002, p.506; first published in 1835.

[47] Ibid, p.511

[48] In Rousseau’s model the people are sovereign and therefore the government is there to fulfil their interests, whereas in an Islamic state the sharia is sovereign so the government fulfils the peoples interests within the limits of the sharia. If the people wanted alcohol legalised for Muslims [dhimmi are permitted to drink] then no Islamic government could ever undertake this no matter the demand since the sharia is the ultimate law in the state. This has already been discussed in the article Sovereignty in an Islamic State.

[49] Jean Jacques Rousseau, ‘The Social Contract,’ Translated by G. D. H. Cole, public domain, Book II, p.18

[50] Scholars have used different istilahi (technical) terms for the foundations of ruling. The word used here is qa’ida which is a synonym to usul in his context.

[51] Abdul-Qadeem Zallum, Op.cit., p.45

[52] Max Weber, ‘Three Types of Legitimate Rule,’ Translated by Hans Gerth

[53] The University of North Carolina Press, ‘Sociology: Understanding and Changing the Social World,’ 2019, Chapter 14.1

[54] Ibn Khaldun, Op.cit., p.251

[55] Al-Waqba is a small cave at the top of the mountain where bees put honey, which is the most delicious and expensive type of honey. He said: Abu Dhuayb Al-Hudhali He headed to a dome in the top of a mountain, below the setting sun, with an elegant harvest.

[56] Muhammad Hassan Hassan Jabal, Op.cit., https://tafsir.app/ishtiqaqi/%D8%B4%D9%88%D8%B1

[57] Ibn Hajar comments on this: “In respect to his statement: “lest both of them should be killed” it means: A warning to beware of being killed. The meaning of the term used here is تغرة (Taghirratan) which is derived from أغررته تغريرا ‘That the one does that has deceived himself and his companion and exposed them both to being killed.’” [Fat’h ul-Bari’ 12/144]

[58] Saheeh Al-Bukhari 6830, https://sunnah.com/bukhari:6830

[59] Muhammad Khayr Haykal, ‘Al-Jihad wa’l Qital fi as-Siyasa ash-Shar’iyya,’ vol.1, The Eighth Study, Qitaal Mughtasib As-Sultah (Fighting the usurper of the authority)

[60] Ibid

[61] Al-Shawkani, As-Sail Al-Jarraar: 4/507

[62] Hashim Kamali, Op.cit., p.196

[63] A relative pronoun (الاسم الموصول) in Arabic grammar is a pronoun that begins a relative clause and relates it to the main sentence where it is contained. There are terms like “who,” “whose,” “which,” and so on do the same role in the English language. https://kalimah-center.com/arabic-relative-pronouns-and-relative-clauses/

[64] Sahih al-Bukhari 7053, https://sunnah.com/bukhari:7053

[65] Sahih Muslim 1848, https://sunnah.com/muslim:1848a

[66] Sahih Muslim 1844a, https://sunnah.com/muslim:1844a

[67] Sahih Muslim 1851a, https://sunnah.com/muslim:1851a

[68] Dr Ali Muhammad As-Sallabi, ‘The Biography of Abu Bakr As-Siddeeq’, Dar us-Salam Publishers, p.250

[69] Ahmad, al-ʿAqīdah bi-Riwāyah al-Khallāl, 1/124

[70] Abu l-Hasan al-Mawardi, Op.cit., p.12

[71] Muhammad Rashid Rida, Op.cit., p.63

[72] The Majlis al-Nuwwab is not a legislature like we find in the western liberal democracies. It does a legislative function but within a strict framework limiting voting to administrative laws only. Sharia laws will be subject to ijtihad and undertaken by the ‘ulema (scholars) in the Majlis only.

[73] Dr. Abdul-Karim Zaidan, Principles of calling to Allāh (Uṣūl ad-Da’wah أصول الدعوة) https://www.islamweb.net/ar/fatwa/204622/%D8%B4%D8%B1%D9%88%D8%B7-%D8%A7%D8%AE%D8%AA%D9%8A%D8%A7%D8%B1-%D8%A3%D9%87%D9%84-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AD%D9%84-%D9%88%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B9%D9%82%D8%AF-%D9%88%D9%85%D9%86-%D9%8A%D8%AE%D8%AA%D8%A7%D8%B1%D9%87%D9%85

[74] Abdelilah Belkeziz, ‘The State in Contemporary Islamic Thought,’ I.B.Tauris Publishers, 2009, p.133

[75] Ibid

[76] Ibid

[77] Muhammad Rashid Rida, Op.cit., p.57

[78] Dr. Abdul-Karim Zaidan, Op.cit.

[79] There were three times more members of the Khazraj than the Aws at the bay’ah, hence three times more Khazraj representatives

[80] Ibn Hisham, https://shamela.ws/book/23833/466

[81] Muhammad Hussein Abdullah, ‘Al-Waadih Fee Usool ul-Fiqh,’ 1995, First Translated English Edition 2016, p.480

[82] Abu l-Hasan al-Mawardi, Op.cit., p.11

[83] Muhammad Rashid Rida, Op.cit., p.64

[84] Ibid

[85] Ibn Hajar, Fath al-Bari, Volume 13 (Al-Maktabah al-Salafiyyah), 198–99.

[86] Persian Emperor

[87] Dr Ali Muhammad As-Sallabi, ‘The Noble Life of the Prophet ﷺ,’ p.1625

[88] This is the shia position

[89] Dr. Wahbah Az-Zuhaili, al-Fiqh al-Islami wa Adilataha, 6/673, https://shamela.ws/book/384/5968

[90] Shaykh Muhammad Al-Khudari Bak Al-Bajuri, The History of the Four Caliphs, Itmam al-Wafa fi Sirat al-Khulafa’, Turath Publishing, p.27

[91] Muhammad Rashid Rida, Op.cit., p.91

[92] Hadith reference: Ibn Taymiyyah, Majmu’ Al-Fatawa, https://shamela.ws/book/7289/16461

The hidden pronoun (dameer mustatir) in the verb تصير is a هي and it refers back to the word Khilafah. This doesn’t mean the Khilafah will end after thirty years, rather it means the Khilafah will continue but with the characteristics of mulk. Sayf ad-Deen al-Amidi (d.1233CE) says,

أنه قال: «ثم تصير ملكا» والضمير فى قوله: تصير ملكا، إنما هو عائد إلى الخلافة؛ إذ لا مذكور يمكن عود الضمير إليه غير الخلافة، وتقدير الكلام، ثم تصير الخلافة ملكا، حكم عليها بأنها تصير ملكا، والحكم على الشيء، يستدعى وجود ذلك الشيء
He ﷺ said, «ثم تصير ملكا» “Then it becomes a kingdom.” The [hidden] pronoun in his phrase, تصير ملكا “It becomes a kingdom,” refers to the caliphate, as there is no mentioned entity to which the pronoun can refer other than the caliphate. The interpretation of the statement, ثم تصير الخلافة ملكا “Then the caliphate becomes a kingdom,” is a hukm that it will become a kingdom, and a ruling on something requires the existence of that thing. [Sayf ad-Deen al-Amidi, ‘al-Imaamah min abkar al-afkar fi usul ad-din,’ Shamela edition, p.1151]

[93] Dr. Israr Ahmad, ‘Khilafah In Pakistan: What, Why & How?’ Lahore Markazi Anjuman Khuddam-Ul-Qur’an, 2006, Second Edition, p.24 https://tanzeem.org/wp-content/uploads/files/pdf/english-books/Khilafah_in_Pakistan.pdf

[94] Sayyid Abu’l A‘la Mawdūdī, ‘Islam’s Political Order-The Model, Deviations And Muslim Response,’ Translated by Tarik Jan Edited by Anis Ahmad, IPS Press 2018, p.81

[95] Eric J. Hanne, ‘Putting the Caliph in His Place: Power, Authority, and the Late Abbasid Caliphate,’ 2007, Fairleigh Dickinson University Press, p.64

[96] Asrul-Khilaafah Ar-Raashidah, by Al-Umaree p.40

[97] Sahih al-Bukhari, Hadith 6830. http://www.sunnah.com/bukhari/86/57

[98] al-Bidayah wan-Nihayah, 6/341. Its chain is hasan. Khilafat Abi Bakr, p.67

[99] Sahih al-Bukhari, Hadith 6830. http://www.sunnah.com/bukhari/86/57

[100] Abaatel Yajibu An-Tamuhhu Minat-Taareekh, by Ibraaheem Shu’oot (p.101)

[101] Abu Ja`far Muhammad b. Jarir al-Tabari, ‘The History of Al-Tabari’, translation of Ta’rikh al-rusul wa’l-muluk, State University of New York Press, Volume X, p.1

[102] Dr Ali Muhammad As-Sallabi, ‘The Biography of Abu Bakr As-Siddeeq’, Dar us-Salam Publishers, p.250

[103] Sahih al-Bukhari, Hadith 7219. http://www.sunnah.com/bukhari/93/79

[104] Dr Ali Muhammad As-Sallaabee, ‘The Biography of Abu Bakr As-Siddeeq,’ p.250

[105] Abdul-Qadeem Zallum, ‘The Ruling System in Islam,’Op.cit., p.86

[106] Ibn Kathir, As-Sira al-Nabawiyya, 5/371

[107] Muhammad Rashid Rida, Op.cit., p.57; https://shamela.ws/book/9682/12

[108] Al-Haythami, ‘Sawaa’iq ul-haraqah, p.17

[109] al-Tabari, Op.cit., Volume XIV, p.145

[110] Umar included Talha ibn Ubayd Allah but since he was travelling he didn’t participate

[111] The individual opinion and ijtihad of a sahabi (may Allah be pleased with all) is not a binding sharia daleel. Only their consensus (‘ijma) is a binding daleel.

[112] Muhammad Rashid Rida, Op.cit., p.60; Original Arabic: https://shamela.ws/book/9682

[113] al-Tabari, Op.cit., Volume XIV, p.144

[114] Sahih Bukhari 7096 https://sunnah.com/bukhari:7096

[115] Tabari, Op.cit., Volume XIV, p.146

[116] Sahih al-Bukhari 7207, https://sunnah.com/bukhari:7207

[117] Sahih Bukhari 7207, https://sunnah.com/bukhari:7207

[118] Sahih al-Bukhari 7207, https://sunnah.com/bukhari:7207

[119] Musnad Ahmed bin Hanbal (Hadith # 18430), As-Saheeha al-Albani (Hadith # 5). It has been declared Hasan by Sh’uaib Arnaoot, and al-Albani classified it as Sahih. The text quoted is the one from Musnad Ahmed.

[120] https://www.islamweb.net/ar/library/index.php?page=bookcontents&flag=1&ID=6074&bk_no=22 The hidden pronoun (dameer mustatir) in the verb تصير is a هي and it refers back to the word Khilafah. This doesn’t mean the Khilafah will end after thirty years, rather it means the Khilafah will continue but with the characteristics of mulk. Sayf ad-Deen al-Amidi (1156-1233CE) says, “He ﷺ said: ثم تصير ملكا ‘then it will become a mulkan’. The personal pronoun (dameer) in تصير ملكا ‘taseeru mulkan’ refers to the Khilafah. Since the mentioned (verb) cannot refer to anything other than the Khilafah, it’s as if it is saying ‘and then the Khilafah becomes a mulk’. It judged that the Khilafah will become a mulk, where the judgment on a thing requires that the thing itself still exists.” [Sayf ad-Deen al-Amidi, ‘al-Imaamah min abkar al-afkar fi usul ad-din,’ p.306; Kamal Abu-Zahra, ‘The Centrality of the Khilafah in Islam,’ p.48]

[121] Ibn Kathir, ‘The Khilafah of Banu Umayyah,’ translation of Bidiyah wan-Nihiya, Darussalam, p.21

[122] al-Mawardi, Op.cit., p.12

[123] Ibn Khaldun, Op.cit., p.270

[124] Jalal ad-Din as-Suyuti, ‘History of the Umayyad Caliphs,’ translated by T.S.Andersson, Ta Ha Publishers, p.24

[125] Sallaabee, ‘The Biography of Abu Bakr As-Siddeeq’, Op.cit., p.723

[126] Ibid, p.724

[127] Tabari, Op.cit., Volume XI, p.145

[128] This is not a bay’ah contract but a wiliyatul-‘ahd which is not binding a simply a recommendation of nomination. The ummah are free to ignore it or accept it.

[129] al-Tabari, Op.cit., Vol. XI, p.147

[130] Sallaabee, ‘The Biography of Abu Bakr As-Siddeeq’, Op.cit., p.724

[131] Jalal ad-Din as-Suyuti, ‘History of the Umayyad Caliphs,’ Op.cit., p.24

[132] Ibid

[133] Ibid

[134] ‘Al-Muntaqaa Min Minhaaj Al-I’tidaal’, Adh-Dhabiy and ‘Ikhtisaar Minhaaj As-Sunnah, Ibn Taymiyyah: p57 from (‘Ad-Dawlah Wa Nizhaam ul-Hisbah in the view of Ibn Taymiyyah’, by Muhammad Al-Mubaarak: 37)

[135] Ibn Kathir, ‘The Khilafah of Banu Umayyah,’ translation of Bidiyah wan-Nihiya, Darussalam, p.205

[136] Dr. Ali Muhammad As-Sallabi, ‘Umar bin Abd al-Aziz,’ Darussalam, p.107

[137] Ibn Hajar, Fath Al-Bari (13/7)

[138] Shaykh Muhammad Al-Khudari Bak Al-Bajuri, The History of the Four Caliphs, Itmam al-Wafa fi Sirat al-Khulafa’, Turath Publishing, p.27

[139] Al-Fiqh ul-Islaamiy Wa Adillatuhu: 6/682

[140] Muhammad Khayr Haykal, Op.cit., Eighth Study

[141] Tafseer Aloosi (Ruh Al-Maani), 26/73

[142] Jalal ad-Din as-Suyuti, ‘History of the Umayyad Khaleefahs,’ Op.cit., p.45

[143] Sahih al-Bukhari 7203, https://sunnah.com/bukhari:7203

[144] Muhammad Rashid Rida, Op.cit., p.98

[145] Muhammad Rashid Rida, Op.cit., p.91

[146] Ibn al-Qayyim, Miftaah Daarus-Sa`aadah (1/177-178), https://shamela.ws/book/6840/252#p1 Translation courtesy of Fahad Barmem. https://ilm4all.blogspot.com/2012/01/people-will-recieve-leaders-which-they.html

[147] ‘Ad-Dawlah Wa Nizhaam Al-Hisbah in the view Ibn Taymiyyah, Muhammad Al-Mubaarak: 38

[148] Holy Qur’an, Surah Al-Ra’d, ayah 11

[149] Ibid

[150] Sunan al-Tirmidhī 2168, https://sunnah.com/tirmidhi/33

[151] This is Iraq 1961 and not Iraq in 2024.

[152] From the writings of Taqiuddin an-Nabhani 1961

[153] There is ikhtilaaf (difference of opinion) on the strength of the isnad (chain) in this hadith.

The isnad is: Muhammad ibn Idris –> Ahmad ibn Abi al-Hawari –> Marwan ibn Muhammad –> Yazid ibn al-Samt –> al-Wadhin ibn Ata –> Yazid ibn Marthad

The last in the chain is Yazid ibn Marthad who met and transmitted from three sahaba – Ubadah bin As-Samit, Shiddad bin Aws, and Wathilah bin Al-Asqa’. He is therefore a Tabi’ and considered a trustworthy narrator.

The actual sahabi who narrated this from the Prophet ﷺ is missing, making the hadith mursal. The opinion held by Imam Malik and all Maliki jurists and others is that the mursal of a trustworthy person is valid, although in this hadith Al-Albani doesn’t accept this.

The dispute is over al-Wadhin ibn Ata. Al-Albani is of the opinion that al-Wadhin ibn Ata is weak and so the hadith is da’if. Other scholars including Sheikh Bin Baz (d.1999) who quotes this hadith, are of the opinion that al-Wadhin ibn Ata is trustworthy.

Therefore, the hadith for these scholars is hasan, which is the opinion I have adopted and Allah knows best.

The meaning is also in conformity with another famous hadith in Bukhari and Muslim,وَكُلُّكُمْ مَسْئُولٌ عَنْ رَعِيَّتِهِ “Each of you is a guardian and responsible for his charges.”

[154] The Sunnah of Al-Marwazi 1/13-28, https://shamela.ws/book/13032/19

[155] Holy Qur’an, Surah Taghabun ayah 16

[156] Holy Qur’an, Surah al-Ma’ida, ayah 2

[157] Margaret Thaler Singer, ‘Cults in Our Midst: The Continuing Fight Against Their Hidden Menace’ p.48

[157.5] https://www.trtworld.com/turkey/turkeys-first-hijabi-lawmaker-is-the-new-ambassador-to-malaysia-410105

[158] Soner Cagaptay, ‘The New Sultan: Erdogan and the Crisis of Modern Turkey,’ Published in 2017 by I.B.Tauris & Co. Ltd, p.46

[159] Dr Ali Muhammad As-Sallabi, ‘The Noble Life of the Prophet ﷺ,’ p.171

[160] Holy Qur’an, Surah Al-Jumu’ah, ayah 5

[161] Dr Ali Muhammad As-Sallabi, ‘The Noble Life of the Prophet ﷺ,’ p.172

[162] Holy Qur’an, Surah Al-‘Imran, ayah 104

[163] Dr M. Sallabi, ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib,’ International Islamic Publishing House, Volume 1, p.390

[164] Al-Ghazali, Muhammad, al-Sunnah al-Nabawiyah bayn Ahl al-Fiqh wa Ahl al-Hadith (Beirut: Dar al-Shuruq, 1989), p.135; quoted in Abdelilah Belkeziz, ‘The State in Contemporary Islamic Thought,’ I.B.Tauris Publishers, 2009, p.176

[165] Noah Feldman, ‘The Fall and Rise of the Islamic State,’ Princeton University Press, 2008, p. 147

[166] Muhammad Rashid Rida, Op.cit., p.165