Every state is divided up into administrative divisions in order to organise and manage the local affairs of its citizens. The names and sizes of these divisions will vary between different countries, and an Islamic State or caliphate can use any of these administrative divisions from any system which suits its requirements at the time. The underlying principle here is to keep the caliphate united upon the Islamic ‘aqeeda (creed), even if administratively and politically it consists of separate states and entities.

The top-level division in a caliphate is the province or state known as a Wiliyah (ولاية) or Emirate (إِمَارَةِ). The head of this province is called a Wali or an Amir. In the latter half of the Abbasid Caliphate, when the provinces became powerful semi-independent ‘empires’ then Sultanate (سَلْطَنَة) was used as in the case of the Seljuks, Mamluks and Ottomans.

For the citizens of an Islamic State, their first point of contact with the leadership of the state is the governor of their province or emirate, and their local mayors in the towns and cities. The governor and mayors are managing people’s day to day affairs on a local and regional level. If the governor is oppressive then this affects people’s daily lives more than any other government official including the Caliph. The Messenger of Allah ﷺ said,

مَا مِنْ أَمِيرٍ يَلِي أَمْرَ الْمُسْلِمِينَ ثُمَّ لاَ يَجْهَدُ لَهُمْ وَيَنْصَحُ إِلاَّ لَمْ يَدْخُلْ مَعَهُمُ الْجَنَّةَ

“An Amir who, having obtained control over the affairs of the Muslims, does not strive for their betterment, and does not serve them sincerely shall not enter jannah with them.”[1]

The Objective of State and Authority in Islam

State and authority in Islam is not an end in itself, but a means to an end which is to establish justice so that people can freely worship Allah, fulfil His obligations and refrain from His prohibitions. Allah ta’ala says,

لَقَدْ أَرْسَلْنَا رُسُلَنَا بِٱلْبَيِّنَـٰتِ وَأَنزَلْنَا مَعَهُمُ ٱلْكِتَـٰبَ وَٱلْمِيزَانَ لِيَقُومَ ٱلنَّاسُ بِٱلْقِسْطِ

“We sent Our messengers with clear signs, the Scripture and the Balance, so that people could uphold justice.”[2]

Ibn Ashur (d.1973) explains the meaning of balance (مِيزان) here as “conveying the command to be just (العَدْل) among people. The balance (مِيزان) is a metaphor for justice among people in distributing their rights, as one of the requirements of the balance is the presence of two parties whose equivalence is to be ascertained. Allah ta’ala says, وإذا حَكَمْتُمْ بَيْنَ النّاسِ أنْ تَحْكُمُوا بِالعَدْلِ ‘And when you judge between people, judge with justice.’ [An-Nisa’: 58]”[3]

Aisha Bewley says, “In fiqh, the principal function of government is to enable the individual Muslim to practise the deen and fulfill his obligations to Allah – which, of course, also entails certain societal obligations. This is, at the bottom line, the sole purpose of the state for which purpose alone it is established by Allah, for which purpose alone those in authority possess any authority over others.”[4]

Al-Mawardi (d.1058CE) lists comprehensive justice (عَدْلٌ شَامِلٌ) as one of his six principles of reforming society. He says, “comprehensive justice, results in social harmony and obedience (to the ruler) and makes possible the building of the nation, economic prosperity, population increase and the safety of the ruler. This is why al-Hurmuzan[5] said to Umar when he saw him sleeping with very modest clothes without guards: ‘You practiced justice, earned safety now take a nap (without guards).’

There is nothing that destroys a nation faster, and is more corrupting for the minds of people than injustice because it knows no limits. Every measure sets a pattern of corruption that increases until corruption engulfs everything.”[6]

The question which needs to be addressed in relation to the dividing up and ruling of Dar Al-Islam (lands of Islam), is how unified does a caliphate actually need to be in practice in order to achieve this aim of justice? Many models of unification existed throughout Islamic history from highly centralised unitary models of governance to highly decentralised confederations. In all cases the Islamic civilisation flourished, from the early conquests of the Rightly Guided Caliphs, to the later conquests of the Ottomans who opened Constantinople and Eastern Europe to Islam, but who were not caliphs at the time.

Unity

The concept of Islamic Unity (الوَحْدَة الإِسْلامِيَّة) is heard throughout the Muslim ummah nowadays. This is because of the feeling of helplessness and despair in the face of overwhelming economic and political problems plaguing Muslim countries, while the world superpowers pick them off one by one, eating from them as one would eat from a dish of food. The Gaza Genocide is the most recent of these issues but it is not the first and won’t be the last. The ‘civilised’ west, with all their talk of the rule of law, human rights and the Geneva convention have perpetrated according to Dr Gideon Polya a “Post-9/11 Muslim Holocaust & Muslim Genocide” where 30 million Muslims[7] have been killed in avoidable deaths due to western, or western backed military intervention.

The Prophet ﷺ foretold of this reality.

«يُوشِكُ الأُمَمُ أَنْ تَدَاعَى عَلَيْكُمْ كَمَا تَدَاعَى الأَكَلَةُ إِلَى قَصْعَتِهَا»‏.‏ فَقَالَ قَائِلٌ وَمِنْ قِلَّةٍ نَحْنُ يَوْمَئِذٍ قَالَ ‏«بَلْ أَنْتُمْ يَوْمَئِذٍ كَثِيرٌ وَلَكِنَّكُمْ غُثَاءٌ كَغُثَاءِ السَّيْلِ وَلَيَنْزِعَنَّ اللَّهُ مِنْ صُدُورِ عَدُوِّكُمُ الْمَهَابَةَ مِنْكُمْ وَلَيَقْذِفَنَّ اللَّهُ فِي قُلُوبِكُمُ الْوَهَنَ»‏.‏ فَقَالَ قَائِلٌ يَا رَسُولَ اللَّهِ وَمَا الْوَهَنُ قَالَ ‏«حُبُّ الدُّنْيَا وَكَرَاهِيَةُ الْمَوْتِ»

“The nations will soon summon one another to attack you as people when eating invite others to share their dish.” Someone asked: “Will that be because of our small numbers at that time?” He said: “No, you will be numerous at that time, but you will be scum and rubbish like that carried down by a torrent, and Allah will take fear of you from the breasts of your enemy and cast Al-Wahn[8] into your hearts.” Someone asked: “Oh Messenger of Allah, what is Al-Wahn?” He said: “Love of the world and dislike of death.”[9]

In simple terms, it’s the weakness in the adherence to the Islamic ‘aqeeda and the systems which emanate from it that is the cause of these problems. Disunity and disputes, and the abandonment of Islam are the causes of defeat and fitan (tribulations) in Islam. Allah ta’ala says,

وَأَطِيعُوا۟ ٱللَّهَ وَرَسُولَهُۥ وَلَا تَنَـٰزَعُوا۟ فَتَفْشَلُوا۟ وَتَذْهَبَ رِيحُكُمْ ۖ وَٱصْبِرُوٓا۟ ۚ إِنَّ ٱللَّهَ مَعَ ٱلصَّـٰبِرِينَ

“Obey Allah and His Messenger and do not dispute with one another, or you would be discouraged and weakened. Persevere! Surely Allah is with those who persevere.”[10]

There is no doubt that Islamic unity is a fundamental pillar of an Islamic society. Muhammad Abu Zahrah (d.1974) says, “Islamic unity is a firm truth based on the Qur’anic texts and the hadiths of the Prophet. Islam does not recognize division (الفُرْقَة) based on colour, race, language, or culture.”[11]

Allah ta’ala says,

وَٱعْتَصِمُوا۟ بِحَبْلِ ٱللَّهِ جَمِيعًۭا وَلَا تَفَرَّقُوا۟

And hold firmly together to the rope of Allah and do not be divided. [12]

Rope (حَبْل) here means covenant (الْعَهْدِ), Qur’an and community (الجَماعَة).[13]

Unity brings strength and power and a way to defend against the enemies. The Poet Al-Tughra’i (d.1121CE) famously said,

كونوا جميعاً يا بني إذا أعترى … خطب ولا تتفرقوا أحـادًا
تأبى العصي إذا اجتمعن تكسراَ… وإذا افترقن تكسرت آحادًا

“Be together my sons when trouble strikes, and do not separate as individuals. Sticks refuse to break when they come together, but when they separate, they break individually”[14]

The unchecked hegemony of America post the collapse of the Soviet Union, spurred the global south to establish BRICS as a push back against this hegemony. Many Muslim countries are part of BRICS and others are lining up to join. Military alliances and greater cooperation between Muslim countries are also taking place albeit at a slow pace.

An important question to answer for our time is in which areas do Muslim countries need to be united in order to remain a strong bloc against those enemies who want to steal their lands and resources, and in which areas can they remain divided?

In other words, can we implement a devolved union of states who maintain a high degree of autonomy while at the same time working for some overall common goals such as the defense of Muslim lands and Islamic interests, or are we obliged to maintain a centralised unitary model where an ‘all-powerful’ caliph keeps tight control over all elements of the state?

Dar Al-Islam

Dar ul-Islam is defined as the land which is governed by the laws of Islam, and whose security (amaan أَمان) and protection (man’ah مَنْعَة) are maintained by Muslims, even if the majority of its inhabitants are non-Muslims, as we saw during the Ottoman rule of Eastern Europe. This means internally the government must be implementing Islam, and have full control of its territories i.e. not occupied by foreign forces. Externally, the state should have unrestricted power – within its capability and the international situation – to pursue foreign policy objectives in line with Islam, such as the protection of Muslims and the promotion of Islamic interests.

Muhammad Said Al-Bouti says,

تلتقي كلمة أئمة المذاهب الأربعة على ان البلدة تصبح دار إسلام إذا دخلت في منعة المسلمين وسيادتهم، بحيث يقدرون على إظهار إسلامهم، والامتناع من أعدائهم. فإذا تحققت فيها هذه الصفة بسبب الفتح عنوة أو صلحا أو نحو ذلك. اصبحت دار إسلام، وسرت عليها أحكامها من وجوب الدفاع عنها والقتال دونها، والهجرة إليها، ثم إن هذه الهوية لا تنفك عنها، وإن استولى الأعداء بعد ذلك عليها، فيجيء على المسلمين بذل كل ما يملكونه من جهد للذود عنها وطرد الاعداء منها. وإقامة أحكام الله فيها

“The opinion of the Imams of the four schools of thought agree that a land (dar) becomes a land of Islam (dar al-Islam) if it enters under the protection (man’ah) and sovereignty (siyadah) of the Muslims, such that they are able to show their Islam and resist their enemies. If this characteristic is achieved in it due to conquest by force or peace or something similar, it becomes dar al-Islam, and its rulings apply to it, such as the obligation to defend it, fight for it, and migrate to it.

This identity cannot be separated from it, even if the enemies take control of it after that, so it is up to the Muslims to exert all the effort they possess to defend it and expel the enemies from it, and establish the rulings of Allah in it.”[15]

Dar Al-Islam is a general term which may apply to a caliphate, but also to a semi-independent or even totally independent emirate or sultanate.

How is a caliphate divided up?

A caliphate is essentially a group of emirates, states or provinces which are bound together by the bay’ah ruling contract with its ruler – the caliph. The Caliphate from its initial establishment after the death of the Prophet ﷺ under its first caliph Abu Bakr Al-Siddiq, had always been an ‘empire’ encompassing vast areas of land, and in later periods spanning multiple continents.

In Islamic history the caliphate was broadly divided up into four levels of governance:

Level	Name	Head
1^st Level	Province (ولاية Wiliyah) Emirate (إِمَارَةِ) Sultanate (سَلْطَنَة)	Wali Amir Sultan
2^nd Level	District (عمالة I’mala)	‘Amil Hakim Amir
3^rd Level	City (بَلَد Balad) Fortified town (قصبة Qasabah)	Amir Hakim Ra’is
4^th Level	Neighbourhood (حَيّ Hayy)[16] Tribe/Clan (قَبِيلَة Qabilah)[17]	Muqaddam Sheikh Naqib

Administering such a huge state relied heavily on the local governors of the various provinces being loyal, competent and just in their positions. The logistical challenges of ancient communications meant it could take weeks or even months for the governors of Egypt, North Africa, and Khorasan to receive a letter from the caliph. The governor would therefore need to have a great deal of autonomy and authority to manage their province.

Organising these provinces or emirates in to one unified state was no easy task. Initially the Islamic state was a fairly centralised unitary model during the time of the Prophet ﷺ, Abu Bakr and Umar, but then began to unravel in the time of Uthman and Ali leading eventually to the Umayyad dynasty taking over the caliphate, and marking the start of the monarchical (mulk) nature of Islamic rule for the rest of the state’s 1300-year reign.

Ibn Khaldun (d.1406CE) discusses that the Rightly Guided Caliphs “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.

After them, from Mu‘âwiyah on, the group feeling (asabiyah) (of the Arabs) approached its final goal, royal authority (mulk). The restraining influence of religion had weakened. The restraining influence of government and group was needed. If, under those circumstances, someone not acceptable to the group had been appointed as successor, such an appointment would have been rejected by it. The (chances of the appointee) would have been quickly demolished, and the community would have been split and torn by dissension.”[18]

How unified a caliphate actually needs to be in practice is a balancing act which requires statesmen who are highly skilled in siyasa sharia such as the Rightly Guided Caliphs. Even then, Uthman and Ali both faced rebellion through no fault of their own, because they governed over human beings who by their nature will sin and oppress others. If they were ‘angels’ then there would be no need for an authority in the first place. The Prophet ﷺ said,

كُلُّ ابْنِ آدَمَ خَطَّاءٌ وَخَيْرُ الْخَطَّائِينَ التَّوَّابُونَ

“All of the children of Adam are sinners, and the best sinners are those who repent.”[19]

Uthman bin Affan said,

إن الله يزع بالسلطان ما لا يزع بالقرآن

“Allah prevents by the authority (sultan) what He does not prevent by the Qur’an.”[20]

What we find in practice is that it is the bond of Islam and the implementation of justice which creates unity, and not a highly centralised authoritarian state. This is especially true when those in power are themselves not implementing justice and abusing their positions, even if they carry Islamic titles like Caliph, Imam, Sultan, Wali or Emir.

Ibn Taymiyyah (d.1328CE) said,

إنَّ اللَّهَ يُقِيمُ الدَّوْلَةَ الْعَادِلَةَ وَإِنْ كَانَتْ كَافِرَةً وَلَا يُقِيمُ الظَّالِمَةَ وَإِنْ كَانَتْ مُسْلِمَةً ويقال الدُّنْيَا تَدُومُ مَعَ الْعَدْلِ وَالْكُفْرِ وَلَا تَدُومُ مَعَ الظُّلْمِ وَالْإِسْلَامِ
“It is said that Allah allows the just state to remain even if it is led by unbelievers, but Allah will not allow the oppressive state to remain even if it is led by Muslims. And it is said that the world will endure with justice and unbelief, but it will not endure with oppression and Islam.”[21]

Al-Hajjaj ibn Yusuf (r.694–714CE) was appointed by the Umayyad Caliph Abdul-Malik ibn Al-Marwan (r. 692-705CE) as the governor of Iraq combining both Kufa and Basra. While he was governor, Abdul-Malik’s son, Al-Walid ibn Abdul-Malik (r.705-715CE) appointed Umar ibn Abdul-Aziz as the governor of Medina (r.706-711CE). The Umayyad caliphate at this stage had full territorial integrity and sovereignty over all of its domains, with the central government in Damascus retaining tight control over all the provinces. Such a situation however did not bring unity to the state due to the injustices being committed by some of the governors most notably Al-Hajjaj.

Al-Hajjaj was notorious for his harsh and oppressive rule against the people of Iraq. Ibn Kathir mentions that a man, supposedly by the name of ‘As from the Banu Yashkur tribe, approached Hajjaj and said: “I have been afflicted with a hernia and because of that Bishr bin Marwan (previous governor) excused me and commissioned that I should be granted my maintenance from the Bait ul-Mal.” Upon hearing the man’s claim, al-Hajjaj refused to accommodate it and instead sentenced him to death, and so he was killed. Due to this incident, the people of al-Basrah grew so scared of him that they left the city.[22] The people of Iraq started fleeing to the provinces of Makkah and Madinah under Umar bin Abdul-Aziz’s authority because they knew he was a righteous and just ruler. This angered Hajjaj who wrote to Al-Walid asking for Umar to be expelled from his post as governor. Hajjaj wrote, “It has become apparent that the people of Iraq and Thaqaf are fleeing from Iraq and seeking refuge in al-Madinah and Makkah.”[23] Al-Walid accepted Hajjaj’s advice and dismissed Umar from his post as governor of Medina.

If we fast forward to Al-Andalus, which from 929CE became the Cordoba Caliphate, what we find is unity between the Muslim populations in Spain and those in the lands ruled by the Abbasids, even though ‘legally’ according to the majority on paper they would have been seen as a rebellious entity. It was the Cordoba Caliphate that produced some of the greatest Islamic scholars in history such as, Ibn ‘Abd Rabbih (d.940CE), Ibn Hazm (d.1064CE), Al-Qurtubi (d.1273CE) and Ibn Al-Arabi (d.1240CE).

In the Eastern lands the famous Vizier of the Seljuk Sultanate – Nizam al-Mulk (d.1092CE) established a group of higher education institutions called the Nizamiyyah. These again produced many great scholars and among the professors of these institutions were Imam al-Juwayni (d.1085CE) and Al-Ghazali (d.1111CE). The Seljuk’s never claimed the caliphate for themselves and gave a nominal bay’ah to the Abbasid Caliphs in Baghdad. They were politically disunited from the caliphate as a semi-independent province which in Al-Mawardi’s model falls under the Amir Al-Istila’ (Amir of Conquest) and Wazir Al-Tafweedh (Delegated Assistant).

The difference between Ikhtilaf (الِاخْتِلاف) and Iftiraq (الاِفْتِراق)

An Islamic society is not a one-party communist totalitarian society where differences and individuality are expunged. Human beings differ in their colours, languages, tastes, interests and intellectual capacity. In themselves these differences are not a problem unless they are used to cause dissent and division. Allah ta’ala clearly says in the Qur’an:

يَـٰٓأَيُّهَا ٱلنَّاسُ إِنَّا خَلَقْنَـٰكُم مِّن ذَكَرٍۢ وَأُنثَىٰ وَجَعَلْنَـٰكُمْ شُعُوبًۭا وَقَبَآئِلَ لِتَعَارَفُوٓا۟ ۚ إِنَّ أَكْرَمَكُمْ عِندَ ٱللَّهِ أَتْقَىٰكُمْ ۚ إِنَّ ٱللَّهَ عَلِيمٌ خَبِيرٌۭ

O humanity! Indeed, We created you from a male and a female, and made you into peoples (شُعُوب) and tribes (قَبائِل) so that you may ˹get to˺ know one another. Surely the most noble of you in the sight of Allah is the most righteous among you. Allah is truly All-Knowing, All-Aware.[24]

We need to distinguish between two Arabic words in relation to Islamic unity. They are Ikhtilaf (difference) and Iftiraq (division) which are both found in the Qur’an and Sunnah.

Allah ta’ala says,

وَلَا تَكُونُوا۟ كَٱلَّذِينَ تَفَرَّقُوا۟ وَٱخْتَلَفُوا۟ مِنۢ بَعْدِ مَا جَآءَهُمُ ٱلْبَيِّنَـٰتُ ۚ وَأُو۟لَـٰٓئِكَ لَهُمْ عَذَابٌ عَظِيمٌۭ

“And do not be like those who split (تَفَرَّقُوا) ˹into sects˺ and differed (اِخْتَلَفُوا) after clear proofs had come to them. It is they who will suffer a tremendous punishment.”[25]

Ibn Ashur (d.1973) comments on this splitting and division (الاِفْتِراق):

وفِيهِ إشارَةٌ إلى أنَّ الِاخْتِلافَ المَذْمُومَ والَّذِي يُؤَدِّي إلى الِافْتِراقِ، وهو الِاخْتِلافُ في أُصُولِ الدِّيانَةِ الَّذِي يُفْضِي إلى تَكْفِيرِ بَعْضِ الأُمَّةِ بَعْضًا، أوْ تَفْسِيقِهِ، دُونَ الِاخْتِلافِ في الفُرُوعِ المَبْنِيَّةِ عَلى اخْتِلافِ مَصالِحِ الأُمَّةِ في الأقْطارِ والأعْصارِ، وهو المُعَبِّرُ عَنْهُ بِالِاجْتِهادِ. ونَحْنُ إذا تَقَصَّيْنا تارِيخَ المَذاهِبِ الإسْلامِيَّةِ لا نَجِدُ افْتِراقًا نَشَأ بَيْنَ المُسْلِمِينَ إلّا عَنِ اخْتِلافٍ في العَقائِدِ والأُصُولِ، دُونَ الِاخْتِلافِ في الِاجْتِهادِ في فُرُوعِ الشَّرِيعَةِ.

“The reprehensible differences (الِاخْتِلاف) that leads to division (الاِفْتِراق) is the differences in the fundamentals of religion (usul ad-deen) that leads to some members of the ummah declaring others disbelievers (kafir) or transgressors (fasiq), unlike the differences in the branches (furu’) based on the differences in the interests of the ummah in different countries and eras, which is expressed by ijtihad. If we examine the history of Islamic Schools of Thought (madhāhib), we will not find any division that arose among Muslims except due to differences in ‘aqeeda and usul. We only find differences in ijtihad in the branches of Sharia.”[26]

The Prophet ﷺ said,

افْتَرَقَتِ الْيَهُودُ عَلَى إِحْدَى وَسَبْعِينَ فِرْقَةً فَوَاحِدَةٌ فِي الْجَنَّةِ وَسَبْعُونَ فِي النَّارِ وَافْتَرَقَتِ النَّصَارَى عَلَى ثِنْتَيْنِ وَسَبْعِينَ فِرْقَةً فَإِحْدَى وَسَبْعُونَ فِي النَّارِ وَوَاحِدَةٌ فِي الْجَنَّةِ وَالَّذِي نَفْسُ مُحَمَّدٍ بِيَدِهِ لَتَفْتَرِقَنَّ أُمَّتِي عَلَى ثَلاَثٍ وَسَبْعِينَ فِرْقَةً فَوَاحِدَةٌ فِي الْجَنَّةِ وَثِنْتَانِ وَسَبْعُونَ فِي النَّارِ ‏”‏ ‏.‏ قِيلَ يَا رَسُولَ اللَّهِ مَنْ هُمْ قَالَ ‏”‏ الْجَمَاعَةُ

“The Jews split (اِفْتَرَقَت) into seventy-one sects, one of which will be in Paradise and seventy in Hell. The Christians split into seventy-two sects, seventy-one of which will be in Hell and one in Paradise. I swear by the One Whose Hand is the soul of Muhammad, my nation will split into seventy-three sects, one of which will be in Paradise and seventy-two in Hell.” It was said: “O Messenger of Allah, who are they?” He said: “The main body of the ummah (الْجَمَاعَةُ).”[27]

The concept of division (الاِفْتِراق) in the Qur’an often has a negative connotation, referring to divisions, sects, or discord that leads to people straying from the straight path. While the root of the word can also mean “to separate” or “to divide” in a neutral sense (as in the word furqan, meaning criterion or distinction), when used in contexts of human society and religion, it usually implies a fragmentation that is discouraged by Allah.

Ibn ‘Abbas said: “The Aws and the Khazraj had a feud in the pre-Islamic period. One day, they mentioned to each other what had happened in that period and this led them to brandish their swords at each other. Upon being informed of what was happening, the Messenger of Allah ﷺ went to them and these verses were revealed:

وَكَيْفَ تَكْفُرُونَ وَأَنتُمْ تُتْلَىٰ عَلَيْكُمْ ءَايَـٰتُ ٱللَّهِ وَفِيكُمْ رَسُولُهُۥ ۗ وَمَن يَعْتَصِم بِٱللَّهِ فَقَدْ هُدِىَ إِلَىٰ صِرَٰطٍۢ مُّسْتَقِيمٍۢ

يَـٰٓأَيُّهَا ٱلَّذِينَ ءَامَنُوا۟ ٱتَّقُوا۟ ٱللَّهَ حَقَّ تُقَاتِهِۦ وَلَا تَمُوتُنَّ إِلَّا وَأَنتُم مُّسْلِمُونَ

وَٱعْتَصِمُوا۟ بِحَبْلِ ٱللَّهِ جَمِيعًۭا وَلَا تَفَرَّقُوا۟ ۚ وَٱذْكُرُوا۟ نِعْمَتَ ٱللَّهِ عَلَيْكُمْ إِذْ كُنتُمْ أَعْدَآءًۭ فَأَلَّفَ بَيْنَ قُلُوبِكُمْ فَأَصْبَحْتُم بِنِعْمَتِهِۦٓ إِخْوَٰنًۭا وَكُنتُمْ عَلَىٰ شَفَا حُفْرَةٍۢ مِّنَ ٱلنَّارِ فَأَنقَذَكُم مِّنْهَا ۗ كَذَٰلِكَ يُبَيِّنُ ٱللَّهُ لَكُمْ ءَايَـٰتِهِۦ لَعَلَّكُمْ تَهْتَدُونَ

How can you disbelieve when Allah’s revelations are recited to you and His Messenger is in your midst? Whoever holds firmly to Allah is surely guided to the Straight Path.

O believers! Be mindful of Allah in the way He deserves, and do not die except in ˹a state of full˺ submission ˹to Him˺.

And hold firmly together to the rope of Allah and do not be divided. Remember Allah’s favour upon you when you were enemies, then He united your hearts, so you—by His grace—became brothers. And you were at the brink of a fiery pit and He saved you from it. This is how Allah makes His revelations clear to you, so that you may be ˹rightly˺ guided.[28] [29]

While Allah severely condemns this division which nearly led to fighting, they were not reprimanded for remaining in their respective tribes and clans. In fact the Aws and the Khazraj would compete with each other in the good deeds based on the command: فَٱسْتَبِقُوا۟ ٱلْخَيْرَٰتِ “So compete with one another in doing good.”[30]

Ibn Ishaq narrates, “Among the things that Allah did for His Messenger ﷺ was that these two tribes of the Ansar, the Aws and the Khazraj, would compete with the Messenger of Allah ﷺ like two stallions competing. The Aws would not do anything that would please the Messenger of Allah ﷺ except that the Khazraj would say: ‘By Allah, you will not lose any advantage over us by doing this in the eyes of the Messenger of Allah ﷺ and in Islam.’ He said: So they would not stop until they had done something similar. Whenever the Khazraj did something, the Aws would say the same.”[31]

Differences (الِاخْتِلاف) is a general term and in Islamic fiqh has a positive connotation meaning the legitimate differences of opinion that emerge among the ‘ulema when extracting Islamic rules through ijtihad as Ibn Ashur mentioned above.

Therefore, different provinces and states are all fine, but division, fitna, separation and civil war are all unacceptable red-lines in the sharia. The Ummah must remain unified upon the Islamic ‘aqeeda and the agreed upon principles emanating from it. Al-Mawardi lists 10 duties and responsibilities on the caliph the first of which is:

حِفْظُ الدِّينِ عَلَى أُصُولِهِ الْمُسْتَقِرَّةِ، وَمَا أَجْمَعَ عَلَيْهِ سَلَفُ الْأُمَّةِ

“Preserving the deen on its established principles (‘usul) and what the predecessors (salaf) of the ummah have consented upon (‘ijma).”[32]

Five Historical Models of the Caliphate

For most of Islamic history the Caliphate was a decentralised confederation, with executive power held by the various Islamic emirates and sultanates who recognised the caliph through a nominal bay’ah.

Al-Radhi (r.934-940CE) was the last independent Abbasid caliph after the rise of the Buwahids (Buyids) in 934CE, and the establishment of their emirate over Iraq, and central and southern Iran. This reduced the caliph’s executive power to the Dar ul-Khilafah which was a section of Baghdad that housed the Caliphal palace. Al-Khatib (d. 463H,1071CE) mentions that Al-Radhi was “the last of the Caliphs who undertook the sole direction of the army and the finances.”[33] After Al-Radhi, his brother Al-Muttaqi (r.940-944CE) became the caliph and Al-Suyuti says about him that “He had nothing of authority but the name.”[34]

Dr. Ovamir Anjum says, “This third model (940-1517CE) has been called classical Islamic constitutionalism.[35] It is important because, with the exception of the first couple of centuries, it is what the caliphate has actually looked like throughout most of Islamic history.”[36]

Time period	Dates	Length	Features
Rightly Guided Caliphate	11-41H 632-661	30 years	Religious and political authorities were not systematically distinguished
Umayyads, Abbasids until Al-Radi	41-239H 661-940	288 years	The caliphate became a primarily political office, and religious authority gradually came to be shared between the caliph and the scholars (ʿulamāʾ). The caliph’s powers had never been absolute in practice, but the ʿulamāʾ began to theorize such limits and functions starting in the fourth/tenth century.
Abbasids – Al‐Radi onwards	329-923H 940-1517	600 years	The caliph was primarily a symbolic and spiritual authority; the actual rulers of various provinces were often local governors or invading military commanders who, lacking inherent legitimacy, paid homage to the caliph. These societies were largely self-governed by the Law of Islam as administered by local rulers and scholars. The kings or sultans served as ‘butlers’ or, more grandiosely, as the executive branch, who were important for defense and upkeep of the Law but nevertheless disposable. This third model has been called “classical Islamic constitutionalism”. With the exception of the first couple of centuries, it is what the caliphate has actually looked like throughout most of Islamic history.
Ottomans	923-1326H 1517-1908	403 years	The Ottoman sultans (who took on the title “caliph” after defeating the Mamluks in Cairo), upheld the Shariʿa Law that was expounded and administered by the scholars as muftis and judges. The caliph-sultan’s powers, therefore, were limited. We have cases of sultans who were deposed because of the verdict of the chief qadi (judge).
20^th Century Ottomans (Young Turks)	1326-1342H 1908-1924	16 years	Western style constitutional caliphate

The Travels of Ibn Battuta

The famous Morrocco traveller, explorer and scholar – Ibn Battuta (d.1369) chronicled his travels from 1325-1354 at a time when the Abbasid Caliphs in Cairo (1261-1517) were mere figureheads and the entire Muslim world was split into separate sultanates and emirates. Despite this political fragmentation, Ibn Battuta had no problem travelling throughout the lands of Islam from his home under the Marinid Dynasty in Morrocco, to the Emirate of Granada in Spain, across the Mamluk Sultanate which housed the Abbasid Caliphs in Cairo and on to the Delhi Sultanate in India and the Sultanate of the Maldives. On his return journey to Morrocco he stopped off in the Mali Sultanate in sub-Saharan Africa.

In all the places he visited he was welcomed and honoured as a Muslim scholar despite not being a ‘citizen’ of that particular emirate. In fact, Ibn Battuta was appointed to various posts on his travels including a Qadi, Chief Qadi, teacher, ambassador and government advisor. This shows that as long as the underlying principle upon which the emirates and sultanates are based is the Islamic ‘aqeeda, then even in the irregular situation of self-appointed Amirs and different states there will still be a level of unity and cooperation which achieves justice and great achievements for the deen.

Timeline of Ibn Battuta’s Positions

1325–1332 (North Africa, Middle East, Mecca)

Role: Pilgrim & Student
Traveled for Hajj and studied Islamic law in Mecca and other learning centers (Cairo, Damascus).
Gained reputation as a scholar.

1333–1340 (Delhi, India)

Role: Qāḍī (Judge)
Appointed by Sultan Muhammad bin Tughluq as a judge in Delhi.
Held position for several years, enjoyed court life but also faced political intrigue.

1340–1344 (Maldives & Sri Lanka)

Role: Chief Judge of the Maldives
Enforced Islamic law in the Maldives, though he often clashed with local customs.
Married several local women (as was common for visitors of status).
In Sri Lanka, acted as a respected religious guest, visiting Adam’s Peak.

1345–1346 (China mission attempt)

Role: Ambassador/Diplomat
Appointed by Sultan of Delhi to lead a mission to the Mongol Yuan Dynasty in China.
The mission was delayed, and he traveled by sea through Southeast Asia before reaching China.
In China, he visited ports and was received as an honored foreign dignitary.

1349–1353 (Return to Morocco & West Africa)

Role: Scholar & Adviser
Back in Morocco, shared knowledge of Islamic law and his experiences.
Later traveled to the Mali Empire (Timbuktu, Gao, Mali), where he served as an adviser and legal authority to Mansa Suleyman.

1354 (Final Years in Morocco)

Role: Author (via dictation)
At the request of the Marinid Sultan of Morocco, Ibn Battuta dictated his memoirs to the scholar Ibn Juzayy in Fez.
This became the famous “al-Riḥla” (The Journey), documenting ~30 years of travel.

Job Timeline Summary

1325–1332	Pilgrim, Student, Scholar.
1333–1340	Judge in Delhi.
1340–1344	Chief Judge in Maldives, Religious Guest in Sri Lanka.
1345–1346	Diplomat/Ambassador (China mission).
1349–1353	Scholar, Adviser in Mali.
1354	Author of Rihla

Three models of state unity in Islam

Broadly speaking there are three models of state unity permitted by the ‘ulema (scholars), which were implemented at various points in Islamic history as Dr. Ovamir Anjum mentions.

Unitary State	A unitary state is a system of government where a central government holds supreme authority and is the sole sovereign power, with administrative divisions holding devolved powers from the central authority. In this model the bay’ah contract is a citizenship contract. An example is the UK and the Rightly Guided Caliphate of the sahaba.
Confederation	A union of independent states that come together for common purposes (like defense or trade), but retain their individual sovereignty. In this model the states give bay’ah to the caliph in return for recognising their territorial sovereignty. An example is the European Union, and the Abbasid Caliphate from the mid-10^th century and its relationship with the Buyids and later Seljuks.
Commonwealth	A looser union of independent states that cooperate together on common purposes (like defense or trade). There is no bay’ah to a central authority in this model. An example is the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), and the relationship between the 12^th century Fatimid ‘Caliphate’ and the Seljuks when confronting the Crusaders.

In relation to the bay’ah and devolution these three models can be summarised as:

Model	Bay’ah	Governors	Devolved Powers
Unitary State	Bay’ah to caliph	Appointed or elected	General or limited
Confederation	Bay’ah to caliph	Elected	General
Commonwealth	Bay’ah to leader of their state	Independent	General

Confederation

The unitary state with devolution is the normative model of Islamic governance which existed from the time of the Prophet ﷺ to the latter half of the Abbasid Caliphate in the mid-10^th century CE. After this time the caliphate fragmented and semi-independent emirates and sultanates became the norm. These Amirs and Sultans acknowledged the Abbasid caliph in Baghdad, and gave bay’ah to him in return for the caliph conferring titles and legitimacy on them. Al-Mawardi (d.1058CE) who lived in this period is the one who legitimised the model of a Confederation with his Amir Al-Istila’ (Amir of Seizure or Conquest) and Wazir Al-Tafweedh (Delegated Assistant).

Al-Mawardi legalised the idea of the Amir Al-Istila’ in his model in an attempt to preserve the unity of the caliphate, albeit in name only, and more importantly to preserve the deen which is the objective of an Islamic State in the first place.

Al-Mawardi says, “As for the emirate of seizure or conquest (إمَارَةُ الِاسْتِيلَاءِ Amir Al-Istila’), contracted in compelling circumstances, this occurs when an amir takes possession of a country by force and the caliph entrusts him with this emirate and grants him authority to order and direct it: thus the amir, while acting despotically in his ordering and directing of the emirate by virtue of his conquest, is nevertheless accorded legal sanction by the caliph’s religious duty to transform an irregular situation into a correct one, that is a forbidden one to one which is legally permitted. Even though such practice departs, in its laws and conditions, from what is customary regarding normal appointments, it nevertheless protects the laws of the sharia and upholds the rulings of the deen which may not be allowed to degenerate into disorder or be weakened by corruption. Thus this is permitted in cases of conquest and compelling circumstances, but not in the case of a fitting candidate freely chosen for the appointment – because of the difference which exists between the possibility (to act freely) and incapacity.”[37]

Commonwealth

Rival ‘caliphates’ also emerged in Egypt under the Fatimids and the Cordoba Caliphate in Spain. Although they were political rivals with the Abbasids, and in the case of the Fatimids theological rivals, there was still cooperation and interaction between them especially regarding the hajj, and in the 12^th century between the Fatimids and Seljuks against the crusaders. In fact, Salahudin Ayyubi, a Seljuk, was the Vizier of the Fatimid Caliphate from 1169-1171CE before formally abolishing it, and rejoining its lands with the Abbasid caliphate after the death of its last ‘caliph’ Al-Adid (d.1171CE).

Hugh Kennedy explains the context surrounding the establishment of the Cordoba Caliphate under its first ‘caliph’ Abd al-Rahman III. He says, “During ‘Abd al-Rahman’s reign [912 to 929CE] the ‘Abbasid caliphate slid into chaos and the caliphs themselves lost all effective power. Cordoba was very well informed about events in the east and everyone would have been aware of the complete debacle of ‘Abbasid power, which made a mockery of their claims to lead the entire Muslim world.

Events nearer home also had their effect. In 909 the Fatimids, who claimed descent from the Umayyads’ arch-rival, ‘All b. Abi Talib, cousin and son-in-law to the Prophet, had captured Qayrawan, the then capital of Tunisia, and proclaimed themselves caliphs. This suggested that there could indeed be two caliphs at the same time, though the Fatimids, unlike the Umayyads of Spain, did have universal pretensions. If their old enemies could claim the title, should not the Umayyads do so too? The matter was made pressing by the growing influence of the Fatimids in the Maghreb: if the Umayyads were to counter this expansion, they too would have to boast an equal title.”[38]

This irregular situation of multiple imams was addressed by al-Juwaynī (d.1085CE) who permitted it if there was a large distance between the different domains of the Imams. In al-Juwaynī’s time this would be a reference to the Cordoba Caliphate in Spain and the Abbasid Caliphate in the Middle East who had no physical borders between them.

Al-Juwaynī (d.1085CE) says, “If it is possible to appoint a single Imam who implements the plan of Islam and whose vision encompasses all of creation, regardless of their status, in the East and West of the Earth, then his appointment is necessary. In this case, it is not permissible to appoint two Imams. This is agreed upon, and there is no disagreement about it.”[39] He continues, “If what we have mentioned is agreed upon, then some have come to the conclusion that it is permissible to appoint an imam in a country where the imam’s influence does not reach.”[40]

While the classical scholars dealt with the issue of confederation and commonwealth in terms of necessity, and preventing greater disunity and civil war, a contemporary scholar Mohammad Al-Massari has derived the permissibility of these two models directly from the hadith of the Prophet ﷺ. In his book Al-Hijrah he extracts the permissibility from the famous hadith narrated by Buraida which specifies the methodology of expanding the Islamic State.

The Messenger of Allah ﷺ said, “Fight in the name of Allah in the cause of Allah. Fight those who disbelieve in Allah. Fight, but do not commit treason, do not mutilate, and do not kill a child. And when you meet your enemy from among the polytheists, call them to three courses of action. If they respond, accept them and refrain from attacking them.

1- Invite them to (accept) Islam; if they respond to you, accept it from them and desist from fighting against them. Then invite them to migrate from their lands to the land of the Muhajireen and inform them that, if they do so, they shall have all the privileges and obligations of the Muhajireen. [UNITARY SYSTEM]

If they refuse to migrate, tell them that they will have the status of Bedouin (أَعْراب) Muslims and will be subjected to the Commands of Allah like other Muslims, but they will not get any share from the spoils of war or Fai’ except when they actually fight with the Muslims (against the disbelievers). [CONFEDERATION OR COMMONWEALTH]

2- If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the Jizya. If they agree to pay, accept it from them and hold off your hands. [AUTONOMOUS COMMUNITIES WITHIN A UNITARY SYSTEM]

3- If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah’s help and fight them.”[41]

Al-Massari comments on this hadith:

“If they accept, they are then called to carry the subject or citizen status of Dar ul-Muhajirin (The land of the emigrants) (i.e., the Caliphate state), which represents the best and finest outcome. However, it is not obligatory as they can remain as an independent state or entity, possessing an independent citizenship, where their Dar (land) is Dar Al-Islam, and the rulings of Allah ta’ala which apply upon all believers apply upon them.

They have their own private financial obligations, private Bait ul-Maal (treasury) and public properties located on their territory in terms of the categories of publicly owned properties like oil, gas and valuable minerals etc. They have no right to the Bait ul-Maal (treasury) of the Dar ul-Muhajirin, nor to what is located within that land in terms of public properties like water, oil, gas and valuable minerals etc. That is unless they participate in the fighting or what is similar to that, in which case they would have a share in the Fai’ (booty/spoils of war), or share in something related to the categories of publicly owned properties whether that is in terms of possession or extraction, in which case they would have a share in accordance with what is fair and customary. By greater reason, this applies, word for word, to their relations with every independent land from among the other Muslim Arab (Bedouin) lands.”[42]

He continues, “The changing (or transforming) to Dar ul-Muhajirin” which is exactly the same as joining to become part of the Caliphate state, although being better and recommended, is only a Shar’i right of theirs and not Shar’i Wajib (obligation) upon them. They practise that by their own choice and will and it is not a binding contract which they are not permitted to rescind. This precisely reflects “the right of self-determination”.[43]

In his explanation of Bedouins (Aa’raab) he says, “The “Aa’raab of the Muslims” during the time of the Prophet ﷺ were from the nomadic Bedouin Arabs, the people of the rural land, and none besides them. As for the urban areas of consideration, then besides Al-Madinah they included Makkah and Khaibar. None resided within it (i.e. Makkah) apart from a small number of weak Muslims from those who had legitimate excuses allowing them to remain residing there, or those who were strong and open with their Deen and were not weak or persecuted, such as ‘Umair bin Wahb and Nu’aim bin Abdullah bin An-Nahham, or who had a special permission to remain like Al-‘Abbas bin Al-Muttalib, or someone who was just passing through, the details of which we have explained in other places. The remainder of the inhabitants were disbelievers and were at war against Allah and His Messenger ﷺ until its conquest.

For that reason, Ash-Shaari’ Al-Hakim (The All-Wise Legislator) transferred the wordings: “Aa’raab”, “At-Ta’arrub, and other words derived from the linguistic origin which is synonymous to a great degree to the wordings: “Al-Badw”, “Al-Badaawah” and At-Tabaddiy” which contain some negative overtones indicating harshness, severity, callousness and sternness, to the Shar’i meaning of: “Not carrying the subject status (Taabi’iyah) of Dar ul-Muhajirin.”[44] “Al-Aa’raabiyah” in accordance with the ‘Urf (custom) of the Shaari Al-Hakim (The All-wise Legislator), Glorified be He, the Most High, means: “Not carrying the Taabi’iyah (subject status) of the mother, the subject status of Dar ul-Muhajirin”, and that it does not mean other than this. It has absolutely no relationship to “Al-Badaawah” (Bedouin life), in the case where “Al-Badaawah” reflects a permissible style of living, concerning which there is no problem. Indeed, it could be better for some and preferable for their health and mental and emotional disposition, and All praise belongs to Allah.”[45]

These three models give great flexibility in modern times to create political unity and cooperation between Muslim countries, especially when the normative position of a unitary state is not possible except on a regional level. At a global level the models of confederation and commonwealth are entirely possible to implement in the current age.

The Unitary State

The unitary state is the normative model of Islamic governance. It was first established by the Prophet ﷺ in Medina and its sharia legitimacy is clearly shown in the sunnah of state building. The Rightly Guided Caliphs followed the same model as did the Umayyads and Abbasids until the mid-10^th century CE.

Devolution

Devolution is the transfer or delegation of power to a lower level, especially by central government to a local or regional administration. This is different to a federal state where power is shared between states and the central (federal) government. In such a model, provinces have a constitutional right to disobey the central government, and execute their own policies and laws in certain (non-federal) areas. Therefore, in origin the caliphate is a unitary state with devolution and not a federal state even though the differences between the two are small. In the case of America’s federal model, it’s almost identical administratively to how a future caliphate would look i.e. a United States of Islam (USI).

The Islamic State has a unitary executive, where in origin all executive ruling power is with the caliph. This power is transferred to the caliph from the ummah who are the source of authority (مَصْدَر السُلْطَة masdar al-sultah)[46] via the bay’ah contract. Muhammad Haykal says, “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.”[47]

This executive power is not unconditional because it is restricted by the legislative branch of the state which is the shari’a. Allah (Most High) says,

فَٱحْكُم بَيْنَهُم بِمَآ أَنزَلَ ٱللَّهُ

“So judge/rule between them by what Allah has revealed”[48]

The Prophet ﷺ informed us that those who are charged with this responsibility of ruling are the caliphs. He ﷺ said,

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 caliphs 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.”[49]

The Prophet ﷺ described the caliph (imam) as having general powers of responsibility in ruling:

فَالْإِمَامُ الَّذِي عَلَى النَّاسِ رَاعٍ وَهُوَ مَسْئُولٌ عَنْ رَعِيَّتِهِ

“The Imam[50] is a guardian, and he is responsible over his subjects.”[51]

The wording here is mutlaq (unrestricted) so encompasses all types of responsibility over the citizens (رعية). 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 representation (وَكالَة wakala).”[52]

The officials of the state derive their authority from the caliph and are representatives (وُكَلاء wukala’) of him in ruling. Hashim Kamali says, “The head of state, being the wakīl or representative of the community by virtue of a contract of agency/representation thus becomes the repository of all political power. He is authorised, in turn, to delegate his powers to other government office holders, ministers, governors and judges etc. These are, then, entrusted with delegated authority (wilāyat), which they exercise on behalf of the head of state each in their respective capacities.”[53]

Al-Mawardi categorises these representatives into four types:

الْقِسْمُ الْأَوَّلُ: مَنْ تَكُونُ وِلَايَتُهُ عَامَّةً فِي الْأَعْمَالِ الْعَامَّةِ وَهُمْ الْوُزَرَاءُ؛ لِأَنَّهُمْ يُسْتَنَابُونَ فِي جَمِيعِ الْأُمُورِ مِنْ غَيْرِ تَخْصِيصٍ.

(i) those who had general powers over the wilayat (government functions) generally, namely wazirs, who were appointed over all affairs without any special assignment;

وَالْقِسْمُ الثَّانِي: مَنْ تَكُونُ وِلَايَتُهُ عَامَّةً فِي أَعْمَالٍ خَاصَّةٍ، وَهُمْ أُمَرَاءُ الْأَقَالِيمِ وَالْبُلْدَانِ؛ لِأَنَّ النَّظَرَ فِيمَا خُصُّوا بِهِ مِنَ الْأَعْمَالِ عَامٌّ فِي جَمِيعِ الْأُمُورِ.

(ii) those who had general powers in specific wilayat (government functions), namely the amirs of provinces (الأَقالِيم) and districts (البُلْدان), who had the right of supervision of all affairs in the particular area with which they were charged;

وَالْقِسْمُ الثَّالِثُ: مَنْ تَكُونُ وِلَايَتُهُ خَاصَّةً فِي الْأَعْمَالِ الْعَامَّةِ، وَهُمْ كَقَاضِي الْقُضَاةِ وَنَقِيبِ الْجُيُوشِ وَحَامِي الثُّغُورِ وَمُسْتَوْفِي الْخَرَاجِ وَجَابِي الصَّدَقَاتِ؛ لِأَنَّ كُلَّ وَاحِدٍ مِنْهُمْ مَقْصُورٌ عَلَى نَظَرٍ خَاصٍّ فِي جَمِيعِ الْأَعْمَالِ.

(iii) those who had specific powers in the wilayat (government functions) generally, such as the qādī al-qudāt [chief judge], the commander in chief (naqīb al-jaysh), the warden of the frontiers (hāmī al-thughūr), the collector of kharāj, and the collector of sadaqāt; and

وَالْقِسْمُ الرَّابِعُ: مَنْ تَكُونُ وِلَايَتُهُ خَاصَّةً فِي الْأَعْمَالِ الْخَاصَّةِ، وَهُمْ كَقَاضِي بَلَدٍ أَوْ إقْلِيمٍ أَوْ مُسْتَوْفِي خَرَاجِهِ أَوْ جَابِي صَدَقَاتِهِ أَوْ حَامِي ثَغْرِهِ أَوْ نَقِيبِ جُنْدٍ؛ لِأَنَّ كُلَّ وَاحِدٍ مِنْهُمْ خَاصُّ النَّظَرِ مَخْصُوصُ الْعَمَلِ، وَلِكُلِّ وَاحِدٍ مِنْ هَؤُلَاءِ الْوُلَاةِ شُرُوطٌ تَنْعَقِدُ بِهَا وِلَايَتُهُ، وَيَصِحُّ مَعَهَا نَظَرُهُ، وَنَحْنُ نَذْكُرُهَا فِي أَبْوَابِهَا وَمَوَاضِعِهَا بِمَشِيئَةِ اللَّهِ وَتَوْفِيقِهِ

(iv) those who had al-wilāyāt al-khāssa (specific government functions) in specific districts, such as the qādī of a town (بَلَد) or district (إِقْلِيم), the collector of kharāj or sadaqāt of a district, the warden of a specific frontier district or the naqīb of a local military force.”[54]

These four types of officials cover all executive and judicial appointments by the caliph. This provides the flexibility to create as many institutions as are necessary to run the state at any particular period in time.

An important point to note is that the bay’ah contract is to the caliph and not his wakeels. Therefore Al-Mawardi stipulates that the Imam should not over-delegate his authority. He says, “He [Imam] must personally take over the surveillance of affairs and the scrutiny of circumstances such that he may execute the policy of the Ummah and defend the nation without over-reliance on delegation of authority (Al-Tafwid) – by means of which he might devote himself to pleasure-seeking or worship – for even the trustworthy may deceive and counsellors behave dishonestly.”[55]

For the purposes of this discussion, we will be focussing on the second category of appointments namely the amirs of provinces and districts i.e. the governors and mayors.

Devolution can also be seen in the actions of the Prophet ﷺ in his role as a ruler-prophet in Medina. No ruler, not even a prophet can rule a state by himself, so he ﷺ delegated out certain functions to various officials including army commanders, naqibs, governors, judges, tax collectors and scribes as listed above by Al-Mawardi in order to aid in the running of the state.

Administrative Divisions of the Prophet’s ﷺ State in Medina

The sunnah consists of the speech, actions and consent of the Prophet ﷺ. It is a fundamental source of Islamic Law (sharia) from which we guide our actions.[56] The sunnah is not just restricted to ‘ibadat (worships) but covers all aspects of life, state and society. Allah ta’ala says,

وَمَآ ءَاتَىٰكُمُ ٱلرَّسُولُ فَخُذُوهُ وَمَا نَهَىٰكُمْ عَنْهُ فَٱنتَهُوا۟

“Whatever the Messenger gives you, take it. And whatever he forbids you from, leave it.”[57]

The relative pronoun (مَا) is ‘aam (general) and means “whatever” so we do not restrict the sunnah to one sphere of life only. Today siyasa sharia (Islamic politics) is a neglected sunnah and an area which requires greater scrutiny and study to guide us through the maze of modern political life.

In regards to the Islamic ruling system, the speech and actions of the Prophet ﷺ in Medina related to government are a divine evidence (شَرْع دَلِيل shara’ daleel) for us to follow.

The 12 Naqibs

When the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ first established the state in Medina, the existing tribal structure was used to administer the state. The Aws and Khazraj tribes whom Islam united together as the Ansar (helpers), were sub-divided into various clans who managed their own administrative affairs as devolved ‘mini-provinces’.

The chiefs (naqibs) of these clans were not appointed by the Prophet ﷺ, but rather ‘elected’ by the tribes themselves on his ﷺ orders. Ka’b ibn Malik narrates that the Prophet ﷺ said,

أَخْرِجُوا إلَيَّ مِنْكُمْ اثْنَيْ عَشَرَ نَقِيبًا، لِيَكُونُوا عَلَى قَوْمِهِمْ بِمَا فِيهِمْ. فَأَخْرَجُوا مِنْهُمْ اثْنَيْ عَشَرَ نَقِيبًا، تِسْعَةً مِنْ الْخَزْرَجِ، وَثَلَاثَةً مِنْ الْأَوْسِ.

أَسَمَاءُ النُّقَبَاءِ الِاثْنَيْ عَشَرَ وَتَمَامُ خَبَرِ الْعَقَبَةِ

“Bring out to me from among you twelve chiefs (naqibs), so that they may be in charge of their people and whatever is in them.” So they brought out from among them twelve chiefs, nine from the Khazraj, and three from the Aws.[58]

He ﷺ said to the Naqibs:

أنتم على قومكم بما فيهم كفلاء ككفالة الحواريين لعيسى بن مريم، وأنا كفيل على قومي

“You are responsible for your people and what is in them, just as the disciples were responsible for Jesus, son of Mary. I am responsible for my people.”[59]

“The Naqib means: عريفُ القوم يتعرف أخبارهم وينقب “the leader (‘arif) of the people who learns their news and investigates.”[60]

Al-Asamm (d. 852 CE) says,

هُمُ المَنظُورُ إلَيْهِمْ والمُسْنَدُ إلَيْهِمْ أُمُورُ القَوْمِ وتَدْبِيرُ مَصالِحِهِمْ

“They (naqibs) are the ones who are looked to and entrusted with the affairs of the people and the management of their interests.”[61]

The 12 Naqibs[62]

No.	Name	Tribe	Service to Islam
1	Abu Umama As’ad bin Zurara	Khazraj	Died before Badr. One of the original six who became Muslim at hajj one year before.
2	Rafi’ bin Malik	Khazraj	One of the original six who became Muslim at hajj one year before.
3	Ubada ibn al-Samit	Khazraj	Commander at Badr. Teacher and Judge in Ash-Sham under Umar ibn Al-Khattab.
4	Sa’d bin al-Rabi’	Khazraj	Battle of Badr, martyred at Uhud
5	Abd Allah bin Rawaha	Khazraj	Battles of Badr, Uhud, Khandaq. Commander of the Battle of Mu’tah where he was martyred.
6	al-Bara’ bin Ma’rur	Khazraj	First to give 2^nd bay’ah of Aqaba. He died before the arrival of the Prophet ﷺ in Medina.
7	Abd Allah bin ‘Amr bin Haram	Khazraj	Battle of Badr, martyred at Uhud
8	Sa’d ibn Ubadah	Khazraj	Candidate for post of Caliph at the Saqifah of his clan after Prophet’s ﷺ death.
9	al-Mundhir bin ‘Amr	Khazraj	Battles of Badr, Uhud. Commander at Bi’r Ma’una where he was martyred.
10	Usaid bin Hudair	Aws	Commander of Aws at Uhud, Hunayn and Tabuk. Part of bay’ah contract to Abu Bakr at the Saqifah.
11	Sa’d ibn Khaithamah	Aws	Martyred at Badr
12	Rifa’ah ibn ‘Abd al-Mundhir ibn Zunayr	Aws	Battle of Badr

Sahifat al-Medina

Early in the formation of the state, the Prophet ﷺ drew up a charter called the Sahifat al-Medina, which was similar to a modern-day constitution. This document defined the relationships and responsibilities of the various tribes in Medina who made up the Islamic society. Muhammad Al-Massari says, “We also observe, through a mere reading of the Sahifa, that it represents, in its sum, constitutional texts which regulate the relationship between the different groups of a society which has been formed upon a tribal basis, where tribes represent important units and each tribe is equivalent to a state.”[63]

The Sahifa treaty “mentioned 40 subtribes or clans by name, and stated that each tribe will carry the responsibilities of its members; they will oversee their own blood-money disputes, prisoners of war, and the poor and needy.”[64] In other words the Prophet ﷺ devolved some ruling powers to these clans a process known in modern times as devolution.

An example of one of these clauses is Banu Sa‘ida, a sub-tribe of Khazraj headed by Sa’d ibn Ubadah, where the famous bay’ah to Abu Bakr was conducted after the Prophet’s ﷺ death. The Sahifa stated:

“Banu Sa‘ida shall be responsible for their own ward (مَعاقِلهم), and shall pay their blood-money in mutual collaboration and every group shall secure the release of its own prisoners by paying their ransom from themselves, so that the dealings between the believers be in accordance with the principles of goodness and justice.”[65]

It is clear from the Sahifa and the command of the Prophet ﷺ: أَخْرِجُوا إلَيَّ مِنْكُمْ اثْنَيْ عَشَرَ نَقِيبًا، لِيَكُونُوا عَلَى قَوْمِهِمْ بِمَا فِيهِمْ “Bring out to me from among you twelve chiefs (naqibs), so that they may be in charge of their people and whatever is in them,” that these naqibs had full powers over their clans as indicated by the relative pronoun (مَا) which is ‘aam (general) and means “whatever”. This is an evidence (شَرْع دَلِيل shara’ daleel) for elected governors as we will discuss in due course.

Since these naqibs were only amirs of a clan (district in modern speak), their powers would exclude anything to do with policies related to the common security and well-being of the state such as taxation and military expeditions. The sub-tribes would assist in these common issues such as participation in the battles as the Sahifa constitution of Medina outlined, but they would have no autonomy to pursue their own agendas separate to that of the Prophet ﷺ. No military expedition ever took place without the direct command and consent of the Prophet ﷺ who was the commander-in-chief, except that of Abu Basir who was outside the authority and jurisdiction of the Prophet’s ﷺ state at the time. The Sahifa states:

وَإِنَّهُمْ يَنْصُرُونَ بَعْضُهُمْ بَعْضًا عَلَى مَنْ دَهَمَ يَثْرِبَ

“And they (the signatories) support one another against whoever attacks Yathrib [Medina].”[66]

Al-Aws and Al-Khazraj (Ansar)

Prior to Islam, Sa’d ibn Mu’adh and Usaid bin Hudair were the chiefs (sayyid) of Banu Abd Al-Ashhal, a sub-tribe of Al-Aws.[67] Although Usaid bin Hudair was the ‘elected’ Naqib of Banu Abd Al-Ashhal, Sa’d ibn Mu’adh was the overall leader of Al-Aws. Sa’d ibn Ubadah, the Naqib of Banu Sa‘ida was the overall leader of Al-Khazraj[68], and both Sa’ds would represent the opinions of the Ansar as a whole. After the Prophet ﷺ passed away the Ansar’s candidate for the caliphate was Sa’d ibn Ubadah, and the bay’ah took place at his Saqifa (portico) because Sa’d ibn Mu’adh had passed away after the Battle of Khandaq in 5 Hijri.

At the Battle of Badr, Sa’d ibn Mu’adh carried the flag (liwaa’) of Al-Aws and since Sa’d ibn Ubadah was back in Medina protecting the city, Sa’d ibn Mu’adh represented the opinion of the entire Ansar, both Al-Aws and Al-Khazraj. Before the battle the Prophet ﷺ said to the sahaba, “Advise me, people!” When the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said that, Sa’d ibn Mu’adh said to him: “By Allah, it seems that you mean us [Ansar], O Messenger of Allah?” He ﷺ said: “Yes.”[69]

After the expedition of al-Muraysī’ in 627CE (5 AH), the munafiqun (hypocrites) concocted a malicious slander (ifk) against ‘Aisha (ra), the mother of the believers, and beloved wife of the Prophet ﷺ. The head of the munafiqun was Abd Allah ibn Ubayy ibn Salul, who was one of the prominent members of Al-Khazraj. The Prophet ﷺ gathered the Muslims in the Masjid and delivered a sermon exposing Abd Allah ibn Ubayy’s lies. Sa’d ibn Mu’adh of Al-Aws, stood up and said if he was from his tribe i.e. Al-Aws then he would execute him. However, if he was from another tribe (state) in this case Al-Khazraj, then he would need permission to do that since he had no authority over Al-Khazraj. This is an indication of the administrative setup and devolved powers of the various tribes of Medina.

‘Aisha narrates that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ addressed the sahaba in the Masjid saying, “O group of Muslims, who will excuse me from a man who has harmed my family? I have been informed about him. By Allah, I have never known anything about my family except good. They have mentioned a man about whom I have never known anything except good, and he never enters upon my family except with me.” She said, then Sa’d ibn Muadh, the brother of Banu Abd al-Ashhal, said: “O Messenger of Allah, I excuse you. If he is from Al-Aws, I will strike his neck, and if he is from our brothers from Al-Khazraj, you order us and we will do what you order.”[70]

Jewish Tribes

The tribes of Medina were not just Muslim. There were a number of Jewish tribes, and they also managed their own affairs except in matters of common security and disputes with the Muslims. “The treaty clarified that the Jewish nation is responsible for all its internal affairs, such as internal disputes, blood-money, and the poor and needy, as aforementioned. However, if there are disputes between the two nations (i.e., the Jews and Muslims), it will be deferred to the judgement of the Prophet ﷺ. The Jews therefore enjoyed semi-independent statehood within the Islamic state.”[71]

The Prophet ﷺ did not appoint separate Amirs over the Jewish tribes, or establish mosques within them, or force Muslims to move and live among them. This clearly shows that there was no agenda to dilute or pressure these communities to ‘Islamicise’ in a religious and cultural sense. Only in relation to the common security and overarching interests of the state, were they obliged to obey the Prophet ﷺ, something they renegaded on time after time jeopardising the security of Medina and leading to their eventual expulsion from Hejaz. The Sahifa states:

وَإِنَّ الْيَهُودَ يُنْفِقُونَ مَعَ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ مَا دَامُوا مُحَارَبِينَ

“And the Jews spend with the believers as long as they are at war.”[72]

This independence of the dhimmi (non-Muslim citizens) in their religious and communal matters continued throughout the caliphate’s history, and old churches and synagogues can still be seen to this day in the Christian and Jewish quarters of many Muslim countries.

This use of the tribal structure to administer the state on a local level continued throughout the lifetime of the Prophet ﷺ.

The First Major Province

After the Treaty of Hudaibiyah (628CE/6Hijri), the state dramatically expanded, and the city-state model transformed into an ‘empire’ model where vast regions of Arabia became part of the Islamic State. The first of these new territories was Yemen under Bādhān ibn Sāsān the former Persian governor. Yemen was the first major province (wiliyah) of the state with Bādhān its first appointed governor (wali). The Wali or Amir as he was more commonly known, would be the top-level official in the province with the tribal chiefs operating at a local level beneath him. The Amir would never interfere in the local affairs of the tribes or appoint their heads. It was left to the members of the tribe to ‘elect’ or consent to whomever they wished to be their tribal chief.

Devolved Powers of the Provinces

Al-Mawardi says, “If the caliph appoints an amir over a district (إِقْلِيم iqleem) or a town (بَلَد balad), his emirate may be one of two kinds, either general (عامَّة ‘amma) or particular (خاصَّة khassa).”[73]

A general emirate is one where the governor has full devolved powers over all aspects of his province including the army[74], finance, judiciary, education and so on. This type of governor is known as a والِي عامّ Wali ‘Amm. This is a decentralised model and in Al-Mawardi’s structure where he assigns devolved powers to the military, is more akin to a confederation than a unitary state. In the general emirates of the Prophet ﷺ and the Rightly Guided Caliphs, the provinces never had powers over the army independent of the commander-in-chief i.e. the head of state.

A governor can also be appointed with limited devolved powers over his province while the central caliphate government controls the rest. Historically, separate judges, finance officials, police chiefs and teachers were appointed over some of the provinces at the discretion of the caliph. This type of governor is known as a والِي خاصّ Wali Khass. This is a more centralised model in line with the traditional notion of a unitary state.

Both of these types of governor were appointed by the Prophet ﷺ and the Rightly Guided Caliphs after them.

Fully Devolved Powers (Wali ‘Amm)

Al-Mawardi says, “As for emirate which has been specifically and freely assigned, it comprises a clearly defined task and a clearly determined jurisdiction: the caliph delegates the emirate of a country or province to the person appointed for this task and accords the right of governance over all its people together with jurisdiction over the customary acts of his office: he thus assumes a general responsibility for a particular territory and for specific and clearly defined tasks, and his corresponding jurisdiction covers seven matters:

1- The ordering of the armies, assigning them to various territories and apportioning their provisions, unless the caliph has fixed the amount of provision in which case the amir has only to ensure its payment to them.

2- Application of the law and the appointment of judges (الْقُضَاةِ) and magistrates (الْحُكَّامِ).

3- Collection of the kharaj and zakah taxes, appointment of collectors, and distribution of what is collected to those entitled to it.

4- Protection of the deen, defence of what is inviolable and the guarding of the deen from modification and deviation.

5- Establishment of the hadd-punishments both with respect to Allah’s rights and those of people.

6- Imamate of the Juma’h gatherings and prayer assembly, he himself acting as Imam or his substitute.

7- Facilitating the passage of hajjis from his territory or those of other territories such that he affords them protection.

8- If this province is a border territory adjacent to the enemy, an eighth matter becomes obligatory, that is jihad against the neighbouring enemy, and distribution of the booty amongst the fighters after a fifth has been taken for those entitled to it.

The conditions considered in this emirate are the same as those applicable in the ministry of delegation (Wizarah Al-Tafwid) as the only difference between the two is that there is specific authority (الولاية) in the former but a general one in the latter, there being no difference in the conditions applicable to specific or general authorities.”[75]

Partially devolved powers (Wali Khass)

In origin, the caliph can devolve any of his executive powers to the governors. Al-Mawardi says, “The Specific Emirate refers to that in which the amir is restricted to organisation of the army, establishment of public order, defence of the territory and protection of what is inviolable; it is not, however, up to him to undertake responsibility for the judiciary and the rulings of jurisprudence, or for the kharaj and zakah.”[76]

The Categorisation of the Provinces by the Historians

The historians such as Al-Tabari (d.923CE) and Al-Kindi (d.961CE) referred to a governor with full powers over his province (Wali ‘Amm) as a Wali Al-Salah wa Al-Kharaj (Governor of prayer and tax) where salah (prayer) is a metaphor (كِنايَة kiniya) for the deen (religion) i.e. implementation of Islam[77] and kharaj (tax) is a metaphor for control of the treasury (Bait ul-Mal) and the funds of the state.

Al-Kindi in the introduction to his book Kitab Al-Wulah wa Kitab Al-Qudah (The Book of Governors and the Book of Judges) says, “This is a book naming the governors (وُلاة Wulah) of Egypt, and those who were in charge of prayer (والِي الصَلاَة Wali Al-Salah), and those who were in charge of war and the police (ولِيَ الحرب والشُّرطة Wali Al-Harb wa Al-Shurta)[78] since it was conquered until our time, and those for whom prayer and tax were combined (والِي الصَلاَة والخَراج Wali Al-Salah wa Al-Kharaj) in the name of Allah and with His help, and may Allah’s prayers be upon Muhammad and his family.”[79]

Al-Tabari narrates that in the year 66H/685CE Abdullah ibn Al-Zubayr appointed Abdullah ibn Muti’ as his governor over Kufah in Iraq. He appointed him as an Amir with general jurisdiction over his province: وأقام ابن مطيع على الكوفة على الصلاة والخراج “Ibn Mut’i’ was appointed governor of Kufa to oversee the salah and the kharaj.”[80]

It was known by convention from the time of the Prophet ﷺ that leading the salah implied more than simply praying. Allah (Most High) says,

قَالُوا۟ يَـٰشُعَيْبُ أَصَلَوٰتُكَ تَأْمُرُكَ أَن نَّتْرُكَ مَا يَعْبُدُ ءَابَآؤُنَآ أَوْ أَن نَّفْعَلَ فِىٓ أَمْوَٰلِنَا مَا نَشَـٰٓؤُا۟ ۖ إِنَّكَ لَأَنتَ ٱلْحَلِيمُ ٱلرَّشِيدُ

They said, ‘Shuayb, does your prayer (salah) tell you that we should abandon what our forefathers worshipped and refrain from doing whatever we please with our own property? Indeed you are a tolerant and sensible man.’[81]

Al-Razi (d.925CE) comments on this verse and mentions one of the opinions of the ‘ulema is that salah is a metaphor (كِنايَة kiniya) for the deen.

المُرادُ مِنهُ الدِّينُ والإيمانُ؛ لِأنَّ الصَّلاةَ أظْهَرُ شِعارِ الدِّينِ، فَجَعَلُوا ذِكْرَ الصَّلاةِ كِنايَةً عَنِ الدِّينِ

“What is meant by it [salah] is deen and iman, because prayer is the most obvious symbol of the deen, so they made the mention of prayer a metaphor for the deen.”[82]

This is based on the hadith of the Prophet ﷺ where he said, الصلاة عمود الدين “Prayer is the pillar of the deen.”[83] In another narration, أْسُ الأَمْرِ الإِسْلاَمُ وَعَمُودُهُ الصَّلاَةُ وَذِرْوَةُ سَنَامِهِ الْجِهَادُ “The head of the matter is Islam, and its pillar is the prayer, and its peak is Jihad.”[84]

Abdullah ibn Mas’ud narrates that, when the Messenger of Allah ﷺ died, the people of the Ansar said, “Let there be two rulers: one that will be chosen from among us (the Ansar), and one that will be chosen from among you (i.e., from among the Muhajirun).” Umar went to them and said, “O people of the Ansar, don’t you know that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ ordered Abu Bakr to lead the people in prayer. So which one of you would be pleased with himself if he were to be placed ahead of Abu Bakr (in ranking or status)?” The people of the Ansar responded, “We seek refuge from being placed ahead of Abu Bakr.”[85] Umar used Abu Bakr’s imamate of salah as an argument in favour of him becoming the Imam of the Islamic State i.e. the caliph.

Islamic Society is Devolved

An important point to note is that the Islamic state is not a communist state where the regime is in control over all aspects of social, political and economic life. The governing authority in Islam certainly plays a major role in society, but it does not intrude into the individual and family affairs of people unless people are facing abuse and harm in these spheres and need protection. In essence an Islamic society is already devolved in terms of its responsibilities. The family plays a pivotal role in looking after its members both young and old, not just in terms of financial support but also with regards the children, educating them and bringing them up to be functioning members of the society.

Communities and neighbourhoods are simply a collection of families and so will manage their affairs in a similar manner. The Islamic charitable endowment known as Waqf where an individual or institution permanently donates assets, such as land or money, for religious, charitable, or social purposes to benefit the community, meant that many local projects such as new mosques, schools, hospitals, guilds, homes, wells, orchards etc were developed and supported separate to the state. This tradition continues to this day and is known as Sadaqa Jariya, a charity that continues to give reward even after one’s death.

In western countries the benefits bill in terms of social care, pensions and other social security handouts is huge. In the UK it accounts for around 25% of the total government spend which in 2022-2023 equated to £300 billion.[86] The Islamic policy in origin is for the families to manage this. Instead of taxing working age adults in order to pay the money back to them in the form of pensions when they are old or out of work, this financial burden will be on the family. Since they pay less tax, then they have greater disposal income to support this. No doubt such a system requires a very different kind of society to the individualistic liberal societies of the west.

Areas of Devolution

When examining the devolved powers to the governors we find three main areas in which the governors generally had no control, although there were exceptions as we will come to. These areas are the army, finance (taxation) and judiciary. Limiting the powers of the governor in any of these fields would mean that the power is not devolved and hence is centralised under the central caliphal government via a separate army commander, ‘Amil (tax collector) and Qadi (judge). In modern times this is via separate government departments headed by a minister or secretary.

The central caliphal government in principle can centralise or devolve any of its executive powers as it deems fit for the time, and is not limited to just the army, finance and judiciary. Education was always the preserve of the ‘ulema and their respective madhhabs (schools of thought) where scholars graduated through a system of ijaza (authorisation).[87]

The Abbasids did establish hospitals but generally local doctors and healers would administer health care to the tribes and community. The caliphs would have their own personal physicians and in many cases these weren’t Muslim. Moses Hamon, for example, who after fleeing Spain with his father, became the physician for the Ottoman Caliph – Suleiman the Magnificent.

Recently, the thinktank ‘Labour Together’ produced a report outlining a policy of devolving powers over education, health and some aspects of criminal justice to local mayors which was endorsed by the UK government’s local government secretary Steve Reed.[88]

In terms of collective ibadat (worship) Al-Mawardi says, “Some say that leading the prayers on Fridays and the Eid days is the responsibility of the judiciary rather than that of the amir, and this is the most convincing opinion for the followers of ash-Shafi’i, although it has also been said that the amirs are more entitled to it, and this is the most convincing view for the Hanafis.”[89] The ‘ulema who made up the judiciary generally had this responsibility through the entire Islamic State. They were effectively an independent institution who managed their own affairs and madrassas unless appointed as official judges or professors by the state.

The Army

Al-Mawardi says, “If the territorial authority of this type of amir (Wali Khass) lies adjacent to a border he may not initiate a jihad except with the Caliph’s permission, although he must wage war on them and repulse them if they initiate the attack, without the Caliph’s permission, as this forms part of his duty to protect and defend what is inviolable.”[90]

In a unitary state, the armed forces are all unified under the caliph who is the Commander-in-Chief. He has the sole power to declare war and despatch the military. Philip Hitti (d.1978) says, “The army was the ummah, the whole nation, in action. Its amir or commander in chief was the caliph in al-Madinah, who delegated the authority to his lieutenants or generals.”[91]

Muhammad Haykal says, “For the management and disposal to belong to the Imam represents the ‘Asl (original position) in relation to the Qitaal (fighting) of the enemies, when he exists, and it is obligatory to obey him in accordance to the speech of Allah ta’ala:

يَـٰٓأَيُّهَا ٱلَّذِينَ ءَامَنُوٓا۟ أَطِيعُوا۟ ٱللَّهَ وَأَطِيعُوا۟ ٱلرَّسُولَ وَأُو۟لِى ٱلْأَمْرِ مِنكُمْ

“O believers! Obey Allah and obey the Messenger and those in authority among you.”[92]

…Based upon this understanding, the one entitled to dispose of the affairs of Al-Qitaal is only the Imam and consequently obedience to the Imam is obligatory in respect to the matters related to managing the matter or affairs of Al-Qitaal.”[93]

Case Study: The First Crusade

At the time of the First Crusade (1096–1099CE), the Caliphate was a confederation and the Abbasid Caliph Al-Mustazhir (r.1094-1118CE) had no army. It was the Seljuk Sultanate which had the military power. After the death of Sultan Malik-Shah I in 1092CE, the Seljuk Sultanate fragmented, leading to internal conflicts and a breakdown of centralized authority, which created a power vacuum in Ash-Sham. This internal instability allowed local governors, known as Atabegs, to become independent rulers of their respective territories. The most prominent atabeg dynasty in Syria was the Zengid dynasty, founded by Imad ed-Din Zengi in 1127CE, who consolidated power in northern Syria and Iraq and eventually captured the crusader County of Edessa in 1144CE.

Imad ed-Din’s son Nur ad-Din Zengi, was atabeg of Aleppo and it was through him and one of his famous generals Salahudin Ayyubi which managed to turn the tide against the crusaders.

Clearly infighting among the Seljuks, especially on a district (atabeg) level allowed for the crusaders to make local alliances and occupy the holy lands for nearly a century. Eric Hanne mentions, “After the relatively “cohesive” reigns of Tughril Bek, Alp Arslan, and Malikshah, the central Islamic lands experienced almost a century of constant warfare among the rival claimants to the Saljuq sultanate.”[94]

Carole Hillenbrand says, “At the time of the First Crusade the first focus for any call to jihad was the Sunni caliph in Baghdad; it was certainly he who was expected to be involved in a jihad and it was he who had the legitimate right to promote jihad against the Franks. This is the clear implication of the various delegations that made their way to Baghdad in the wake of the First Crusade, as we have already noted in Chapter 1. Although the Seljuq sultans restricted the caliphs’ movements, preferring them to be mere figureheads and not to meddle in the politics of the time, the Syrian religious leaders who went to Baghdad to summon support against the Franks seem to have believed that the caliphs were their principal recourse. Despite these expectations, there were no independent military undertakings sponsored by the caliphs, although the sources make it clear that some of the caliphs, such as al-Mustarshid and al-Rashid, did take the field with their own armies.”[95]

Having said this, if a strong regional state emerges like the Ottomans and Seljuks then as we saw with the crusades they should have the ability to mount a successful campaign to repel the aggressors even if this isn’t ordered by the central caliphal government.

The Islamic civilisation flourished and many of the greatest victories of Islam took place when the caliphate was fragmented politically, but where each of the states was ruled by Islam which is the key overriding objective that must be maintained at all costs.

Finance

State revenues and expenditure were always centralised even if the governor had full devolved powers over the collection and distribution of funds, because he was expected to send the tax revenues to the central caliphal government. From the time of Mu’awiya, a central Diwan Al-Kharaj (ministry of taxation) was established headed by a secretary (sahib). Ibn Khaldun describes this institution:

“The ministry of taxation is an office that is necessary to the royal authority (mulk). It is concerned with tax operations. It guards the rights of the dynasty in the matters of income and expenditure. It takes a census of the names of all soldiers, fixes their salaries, and pays out their allowances at the proper times. In this connection recourse is had to rules set up by the chiefs of (tax) operations and the stewards of the dynasty. They are all written down in a book which gives all the details concerning income and expenditure. It is based upon a good deal of accounting, which is mastered only by those who have considerable skill in (tax) operations. The book is called the diwân. At the same time, (the word dîwân) designates the place where the officials concerned with these matters have their offices.

One person is in charge of this office. He supervises all the operations of this kind. Each branch has its own supervisor. In some dynasties supervision of the army, of military fiefs, of keeping count of allowances, and of other (such) things, is constituted as separate offices.”[96]

The main taxes which existed from the time of the Prophet ﷺ and Rightly Guided Caliphs were: Zakah, Ghaneemah (war booty), Fai’ (spoils of war), Jizya (head tax on non-Muslim men), Kharaj (land tax), ‘Ushr (zakah land tax) and Maks (customs duty).

We can see from the Prophet’s ﷺ state in Medina that he appointed separate tax collectors (‘ummal) to collect the funds from the various provinces and tribes.

After his conversion to Islam, Al-Ḥārith ibn Abī Ḍirār, who was the leader of Banu al-Muṣṭaliq, collected the zakat from the Muslim members of his tribe and waited for the Prophet ﷺ to send an ‘amil to collect them. The Messenger of Allah ﷺ sent al-Walid ibn Uqbah to Al-Harith to collect the Zakah, but after Al-Walid had travelled some distance, he became disoriented, and returned back to the Messenger of Allah ﷺ and lied saying: “O Messenger of Allah, Al-Harith has prevented me from paying Zakat and wants to kill me!” This led to the Messenger of Allah ﷺ sending a delegation to bring Al-Ḥārith to him to explain himself. The Messenger of Allah ﷺ said: “You withheld the zakat and wanted to kill my messenger?” Al-Ḥārith said: “No, by the One Who sent you. In truth, I did not see him, nor did he come to me. I did not come until the messenger of the Messenger of Allah ﷺ detained me. I feared that it was the wrath of Allah, the Almighty, and His Messenger.”[97] This led to the verse in Surah Al-Hujurat being revealed:

يَـٰٓأَيُّهَا ٱلَّذِينَ ءَامَنُوٓا۟ إِن جَآءَكُمْ فَاسِقٌۢ بِنَبَإٍۢ فَتَبَيَّنُوٓا۟ أَن تُصِيبُوا۟ قَوْمًۢا بِجَهَـٰلَةٍۢ فَتُصْبِحُوا۟ عَلَىٰ مَا فَعَلْتُمْ نَـٰدِمِينَ

O believers, if an evildoer brings you any news, verify ˹it˺ so you do not harm people unknowingly, becoming regretful for what you have done.[98]

When Abu Bakr became the caliph, he faced widespread rebellion from various provinces and tribes over their refusal to pay zakah to the central government. Abu Bakr then prepared to fight them until they came back to the jama’ah (authority) of the Muslims. This is known as the Ridda Wars. Abu Bakr famously said in justifying his policy of fighting the breakaway provinces:

فَقَالَ وَاللَّهِ لأُقَاتِلَنَّ مَنْ فَرَّقَ بَيْنَ الصَّلاَةِ وَالزَّكَاةِ، فَإِنَّ الزَّكَاةَ حَقُّ الْمَالِ، وَاللَّهِ لَوْ مَنَعُونِي عَنَاقًا كَانُوا يُؤَدُّونَهَا إِلَى رَسُولِ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم لَقَاتَلْتُهُمْ عَلَى مَنْعِهَا‏

“By Allah, I will fight whoever differentiates between prayer and zakat, for zakat is a right due from wealth. By Allah, if they withhold from me a young camel which they used to give to the Messenger of Allah ﷺ I will fight them for withholding it.”[99]

This shows that Zakah is collected and distributed by the state through its official tax collectors in the province, in the same way as the other taxes.[100]

Zakah is a special type of tax, which is restricted in its distribution to eight categories only and cannot be used for the general finances of the state. As the state expanded the ‘ulema generally favoured local distribution of the zakah revenues rather than sending them centrally like the other taxes. This was especially true since much of the zakah would be in the form of crops and livestock which could not be transported across vast differences. Sheikh Haitham comments on this: “The four main schools of thought have given preference to distributing Zakat within the vicinity of where it is collected. The basis for this is the well-known instruction of the Prophet ﷺ to his companion Mu’āth b. Jabal (Allāh be pleased with him), when he sent him to Yemen. He said to him that once they establish the prayer, inform them that Allāh has commanded that there is an amount of charity to be taken from their wealthy people and given to their poor people.[101] The scholars took from the phrase “to their poor” that it should be given to the people who live in the vicinity of the wealth. They defined this to be those who live within a distance beyond which a person travelling is considered technically a Musāfir (traveler whose prayers are shortened).

However, proximity is just one consideration. All scholars agreed that if the need in an area far away is greater, it is better to give it where the need is more dire. This is a profound example of how jurists consider multiple dimensions when issuing rulings on such matters.”[102]

With regards to the other taxes, it is narrated that Abu Hurayrah said: “We were with the Messenger of Allah in the year of Khaibar, and we did not get any spoils of war (ghaneema) except for wealth, goods and clothes. Then a man from Banu Ad-Dubaib, who was called Rifa’ah bin Zaid, gave the Messenger of Allah a black slave who was called Mid’am. The Messenger of Allah set out for Wadi Al-Qura. When we were in Wadi Al-Qura, while Mid’am was unloading the luggage of the Messenger of Allah, an arrow came and killed him. The people said: “Congratulations! You will go to Paradise,” but the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said: “No, by the One in Whose hand is my soul! The cloak that he took from the spoils of war on the Day of Khaibar is burning him with fire.” When the people heard that, a man brought one or two shoelaces to the Messenger of Allah and the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said: “One or two shoelaces of fire.””[103]

Ghaneema (money, weaponry, goods, provisions, etc. from the place of war) is a revenue of the Islamic State. Stealing from the state funds like the rulers do today entails a severe punishment. Mid’am ordinarily would have been a shaheed (martyr) which is why the sahaba congratulated him, but instead he was punished in the grave for stealing from the state funds. This created an atmosphere where another Muslim came forward giving up two shoelaces voluntarily once he heard of the punishment.

Therefore, a person cannot take it upon themselves to appropriate state funds and distribute them without authorisation from the Amir.

Judiciary

As the Islamic State of the Prophet ﷺ expanded, new officials of state were appointed to manage the ever-growing tasks especially in the new provinces. Once Yemen had joined the state under Bādhān ibn Sāsān, the Prophet ﷺ appointed separate judges to the province notably Ali ibn Abi Talib and Mua’th ibn Jabal. The judiciary was therefore a centralised institution in the time of the Prophet ﷺ, a situation which continued throughout the time of the Rightly Guided Caliphs and beyond although sometimes this was devolved to the governor if he was qualified. Al-Sallabi says, “Among these [governors] were some whom ‘Umar [ibn a-Khattab] kept as judges as well as appointing them as governors, as he did with Mu‘awiyah, and some from whom he took away the role of judge and limited them to their role as governor, as he did with al-Mugheerah and Abu Moosa al-Ash‘ari.”[104]

This appointment of judges by the central government does not mean judicial independence was absent from the state. Sovereignty in an Islamic State is to the sharia, so judges would settle disputes according to the law, and not through political pressure from either the caliph or any other Amir.

Noah Feldman describes this situation, “It [the law] was analyzed, discussed, applied, discovered, and (an outsider would say) made by the members of a distinct social-political grouping known as the scholars, or in Arabic ‘ulama. From this scholarly class came not only theologians and other intellectuals but the appointed judges who decided concrete cases and independent jurists who opined as to the meaning of the law. Through their near monopoly on legal affairs in a state where God’s law was accepted as paramount, the scholars-especially those of them who focused on law-built themselves into a powerful and effective check on the ruler.”[105]

During the caliphate of Mu’awiya, Usaid bin Zubair[106] Al-Ansari, was the governor (‘Amil) of Al-Yamamah, and Marwan wrote to him saying that Mu’awiyah had written to him, saying that any man who had something stolen from him had more right to it wherever he found it. Then Marwan wrote saying that to me (Usaid).

I wrote to Marwan saying that the Prophet had ruled that if the one who bought it from the one who stole it is not guilty of anything (and did not realize that it was stolen goods), then the owner has the choice: If he wishes, he may buy it from the one who bought it from the thief, or if he wishes he may go after the thief. Abu Bakr, ‘Umar and ‘Uthman also passed judgment along these lines.

Marwan sent my letter to Mu’awiyah, and Mu’awiyah wrote to Marwan (saying): “Neither you nor Usaid are in a position to tell me what to do, rather I am the one who tells you what to do because I am superior in rank to you, so do what I tell you.” Marwan sent the letter of Mu’awiyah to me, and I said: “I will not judge according to Mu’awiyah’s opinion as long as I am the governor.”[107]

The most famous example of judicial independence is that of Shurayh (d.78 AH/697 CE), the chief justice of Kufa who was first appointed by Umar ibn Al-Khattab. Shurayh was kept in his position until he died. He was the judge under the reign of Uthman, Ali, Hasan, Mu’awiya, Yazid, Al-Mukhtar, Abdullah ibn Al-Zubayr and Abdul-Malik ibn Al-Marwan. Across the political spectrum and under multiple caliphs they kept him in his position because it was an established precedent that the ‘ulema should maintain their independence as Feldman mentions.

Qadi Shurayh famously ruled against Ali ibn Abi Talib when he was caliph in the case of the Jewish man who stole Ali’s armour. The Jew said, “The Amir al-Mu’minin brought me before his Qadi, and his Qadi gave judgement against him. I witness that this is the truth, and I witness that there is no god but Allah and I witness that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, and that the armour is your armour.”[108]

Devolution in the Prophet’s ﷺ State

The devolving of the ruler’s executive powers to the provinces while keeping others with the central government, has its origins in the first Islamic State of the Prophet ﷺ.

We already mentioned the Sahifa and the ‘election’ of 12 Naqibs who managed the subtribes of the Ansar as mini-provinces. The Sahifa “mentioned 40 subtribes or clans by name, and stated that each tribe will carry the responsibilities of its members; they will oversee their own blood-money disputes, prisoners of war, and the poor and needy.”[109] This is one evidence.

As the state expanded most notably to Yemen, after the former Persian governor Bādhān ibn Sāsān embraced Islam, he ﷺ appointed separate judges and new governors of the districts. Ali ibn Abi Talib was appointed as Qadi (judge) for Yemen. It was narrated that ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib said:

عَنْ عَلِيٍّ، رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُ قَالَ بَعَثَنِي رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ إِلَى الْيَمَنِ فَقُلْتُ إِنَّكَ تَبْعَثُنِي إِلَى قَوْمٍ وَهُمْ أَسَنُّ مِنِّي لِأَقْضِيَ بَيْنَهُمْ فَقَالَ اذْهَبْ فَإِنَّ اللَّهَ سَيَهْدِي قَلْبَكَ وَيُثَبِّتُ لِسَانَكَ

“The Messenger of Allah ﷺ sent me to Yemen. I said: ‘You are sending me to people who are older than me for me to judge between them.’ He said: ‘Go, for Allah will guide your heart and make your tongue steadfast.’”[110]

After the death of Yemen’s central governor Bādhān ibn Sāsān, the Prophet ﷺ split Yemen in to two provinces and appointed a sahabi over each. It seems that this was to teach the sahaba the skills of ruling because one large province would be too much for an inexperienced ruler to govern. Abu Burda narrates,

عَنْ أَبِي بُرْدَةَ، قَالَ بَعَثَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم أَبَا مُوسَى وَمُعَاذَ بْنَ جَبَلٍ إِلَى الْيَمَنِ، قَالَ وَبَعَثَ كُلَّ وَاحِدٍ مِنْهُمَا عَلَى مِخْلاَفٍ قَالَ وَالْيَمَنُ مِخْلاَفَانِ

“The Messenger of Allah ﷺ sent Abu Musa and Mu’adh bin Jabal to Yemen. He sent each of them to administer a province (مِخْلاَفٍ) as Yemen consisted of two provinces.”[111]

Farwah ibn Musaik, was a former senior figure in the powerful Kinda tribe in Yemen. After accepting Islam, the Prophet ﷺ appointed him as a governor (‘amil) of three Yemeni tribes (districts) – Murad, Zubayd, and Madhhij, but appointed a separate official – Khalid ibn Sa’id – in charge of taxation[112]. Ibn Hisham narrates,

وَاسْتَعْمَلَهُ النَّبِيُّ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ عَلَى مُرَادَ وَزُبَيْدٍ وَمَذْحِجٍ كُلِّهَا، وَبَعَثَ مَعَهُ خَالِدَ بْنَ سَعِيدِ بْنِ الْعَاصِ عَلَى الصَّدَقَةِ

“The Prophet ﷺ appointed him [Farwah ibn Musaik] over Murad, Zubayd, and Madhhij, and sent Khalid ibn Sa’id ibn al-‘As with him to collect the saqadah.”[113]

In the 9^th year of the Hijra known as the “Year of Delegations” (عَامُ الوُفُود – ʻĀm al-Wufūd), the Prophet ﷺ sent a letter to the Christians of Najrān who were part of the tribe Banū al-Ḥārith ibn Kaʿb in Yemen inviting them to Islam, and if they refuse then to pay the jizya tax and live as a semi-autonomous community within the Islamic State but subject to the law of the land in mu’amilat (transactions) and common security.

In the letter sent from the Prophet ﷺ to the Christians of Najrān detailing the conditions of the dhimmah treaty, he wrote:

“This is the document of security (dhimmah) from Muhammad the Prophet of Allah to the people of Najrān, for their persons, their religion, their land, their property, and their community, those who are present among them and those who are absent, and their bishops and monks, and all that they possess, small or great.

They shall not be forced from their religion, nor their rights diminished, nor their priests removed from their offices. No oppression shall befall them.

They are obliged to pay what has been agreed upon as tribute (jizyah): two thousand garments every year — one thousand in the month of Rajab, one thousand in the month of Ṣafar — along with thirty coats of armor, thirty horses, thirty camels, and thirty weapons, to be delivered when war breaks out in Yemen.

In return, they are under the protection of Allah and His Prophet Muhammad. No bishop or monk shall be removed, nor shall they be compelled to abandon their faith, nor shall their rights be altered.

No usurer shall be allowed among them, and no interest (ribā) shall be taken in dealings with them.”[114]

This treatystates that they are subject to the law of the land with regard to the absolute prohibition of interest (riba) and their military affairs are managed by the Prophet ﷺ as commander-in-chief who will protect them. When war breaks out, they will contribute to the war effort (common security) by armour, horses, camels and weapons. Also they will not allow a foreign army to enter their province as this would affect the common security of the state.[115]

This is similar to how the Prophet ﷺ dealt with the Jewish tribes within and outside Medina when he first established the state as detailed in the Sahifa.

Although the majority of Najrān’s residents remained Christian, a sizeable portion converted to Islam. The Prophet ﷺ therefore appointed Amr ibn Hazm al-Ansari as the governor of Najrān to manage the religious affairs of the Muslims there. “After the delegation of the Banū al-Ḥārith ibn Kaʿb returned, the Messenger of Allah sent Amr ibn Hazm al-Ansari and later someone from the Band al-Najjar[116] to instruct them in religion, to teach them the sunnah and the requirements of Islam, and to collect alms from them.”[117]

The Prophet ﷺ gave him a written document (ṣaḥīfah) outlining instructions on religious duties, legal rulings, zakat, inheritance, blood money (diyah), and other matters. This document is often called “Ṣaḥīfat Amr ibn Hazm” and is considered one of the earliest recorded legal documents in Islamic history. In terms of devolved powers Amr ibn Hazm would be considered a Wali ‘Amm having control of taxation, judiciary and education, but not the military as this power was never devolved to the provinces.

These are clear evidences (daleel) from the sunnah for devolution.

Devolution in the Rightly Guided Caliphate

Umar ibn al-Khattab wrote to the citizens of Kufa in the year 21H / 642CE:

إني بعثت إليكم عمار بْن ياسر أميرا، وجعلت عبد اللَّه بْن مسعود معلما ووزيرا

“I have sent to you Ammar ibn Yasir as Amir, and I have appointed Abdullah ibn Mas’ud as a teacher (mu’allim) and wazir.”^{^[118]} He also informed them that he had appointed Hudhayfah bin al-Yaman in charge of (the lands] watered by the Tigris and beyond, whereas he had appointed Uthman bin Hunayf in charge of (the lands) watered by the Euphrates.”^[119]

Ammar ibn Yasir was also in charge of the police, and Abdullah ibn Mas’ud in charge of the treasury.[120] In terms of finance, tax collection and distribution of funds we can say this was a centralised department directly under Umar since Ammar did not have this devolved power.

During the Caliphate of Uthman bin Affan in the year 30H/650CE there was a dispute between the Sa’d ibn Abi Waqqas, the governor of Kufa and Abdullah ibn Mas’ud who was still in charge of the treasury since the time of Umar. Uthman removed Sa’d as the governor but kept Abdullah ibn Mas’ud in charge of the treasury. Uthman appointed Al-Walid bin Uqbah as the new governor of Kufa.[121]

Devolution in the Umayyad Caliphate

In the Umayyad period, many of the governors appointed their own officials in charge of the treasury and other departments rather than the caliph, since they were Amirs with general mandates (Wali ‘Amm). The Umayyad Caliph Yazid bin al-Walid (r.126H/744CE) appointed Abdullah ibn Umar ibn Abdul-Aziz[122] as governor of Iraq with a general mandate. He said to him, “The people of Iraq have shown themselves to be well disposed to your father. So go there. I have appointed you governor of Iraq.”[123]Abdulllah appointed Umar bin al-Ghadban in charge of his shurtah (police) and the kharaj (land tax) of the Sawad agriculture lands. He also entrusted him with the audit bureau (Al-Muhasabat).[124]

Devolution in the Abbasid Caliphate

During the Abbasid Caliphate some of the governors in Egypt were appointed with a specific mandate without control of the police, judiciary and treasury. The caliph would appoint a separate qadi for the judiciary, a saihib al-shurtah for the police, and a sahib al-kharaj for the treasury. The governor was mostly from the Abbasid family, and an outsider with no ties to the province. The other three positions of qadi, saihib al-shurtah and sahib al-kharaj were appointed from the local elites (wujuh) with grass roots support from the people. The wujuh also controlled the local army (jund) which the governor relied upon for support. Hugh Kennedy describes this situation. “Sometimes the governor himself was directly responsible for the financial administration of the province but from late Umayyad times, a separate sahib al-kharaj was appointed by the caliph, answerable directly to him. On occasion the sahib al-kharaj could be a more powerful figure in the province than the governor.”[125] He continues, “In many ways the saihib al-shurtah must often have been a more important figure in the life of the province than the governor to whom he was theoretically subordinate. In contrast to the governors, the police chiefs were usually men who had roots in the province and had strong family connexions there.”[126]

This limiting of the governor’s devolved powers effectively made him weak and a lame-duck. “The key to the governors’ weakness was that they were dependent on troops raised locally and commanded by leaders of the local community, the local elites (wujuh).”[127]

Centralisation vs Decentralisation

The sharia permits both types of governors to be appointed – one with general powers i.e. decentralised and one with restricted powers. Determining which type to appoint is a balancing act dependent on the reality of the time, and falls under the general remit of Islamic politics (siyasa sharia). There are pros and cons for both, and it all depends on the size and location of any country which decides to transform itself into a caliphate. As general rule, within the current nation-state borders of this future state, a centralised, unitary model of governance would be implemented with limited devolved powers to the provinces. In other words, the appointment or election of a Wali Khass.

In the countries which decide to join a union with this country under the general banner of a caliphate, then a more decentralised, devolved or even federal model would be more appropriate. In other words, the appointment or election of a Wali ‘Amm and even leaving the current rulers in place if the people agreed to that. Muhammad Haikal says, “it is a duty upon the rest of the Islamic regions, once the validity of the Bay’ah of contract of the caliph has been realised, to present the Bay’ah of obedience to him and to join the caliphate state as Wilayat (provinces) of it. As for the people in authority (i.e. the existing rulers) in those lands and regions, then they will remain in their positions as long as they fulfil what is required for them to be able to maintain them. That is like what the Messenger of Allah ﷺ used to do in respect to the people in authority in those regions which were joined to the Islamic state, in the case where the maslahah (benefit) dictated that.”[128]

In some cases, such as the relationship with Iran, an even looser confederation or commonwealth would be required since Iran would never formerly join any type of centralised caliphate.

Maintaining a Unitary State

Loyalty to the Caliph is through the Bay’ah

The bay’ah contract which is the citizenship contract between the Muslims and the caliph contains explicit words of loyalty and obedience to the head of state. Ubada ibn Al-Samit said:

بَايَعْنَا رَسُولَ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم عَلَى السَّمْعِ وَالطَّاعَةِ فِي الْمَنْشَطِ وَالْمَكْرَهِ‏.‏ ‏‏وَأَنْ لاَ نُنَازِعَ الأَمْرَ أَهْلَهُ، وَأَنْ نَقُومَ ـ أَوْ نَقُولَ ـ بِالْحَقِّ حَيْثُمَا كُنَّا لاَ نَخَافُ فِي اللَّهِ لَوْمَةَ لاَئِمٍ ‏‏‏

“We gave the bayah to Allah’s Messenger that we would listen and obey him both at the time when we were active and at the time when we were tired, and that we would not fight against the ruler or disobey him, and would stand firm for the truth or say the truth wherever we might be, and in the Way of Allah we would not be afraid of the blame of the blamers.”[129]

Every citizen, including all the governors are bound first and foremost by the bay’ah. When the Islamic ideology is strong within the ummah and its governing bodies, then this should be the basis of the societal bond (asabiyah) among the people and its rulers which holds the state together. The rulers in the provinces would then be appointed based on meritocracy i.e. strength of the Islamic ideology and competency in the role. In addition, the appointment of the governor must be based on shura (consultation) with the people he is ruling over, because a governor cannot rule over people who do not accept his rule. In modern times this would be through an election ratified by the caliph.

Rightly Guided Caliphate

Umar ibn Al-Khattab was known for being a very ‘hands-on’ caliph who was extremely strict with his governors, and was able to maintain a fairly centralised administration with no major rebellions across the vast lands of his caliphate. This is why Umar is known as the بَابًا مُغْلَقًا‏ “closed door” against fitna (discord).[130]

In his first speech as caliph he said,

إن الله ابتلاكم بي وابتلاني بكم وأبقاني فيكم بعد صاحبي. فو الله لا يحضرني شيء من أمركم فيليه أحد دوني ولا يتغيب عني فآلو فيه عن الجزء والأمانة. ولئن أحسنوا لأحسنن إليهم ولئن أساءوا لأنكلن بهم

“Allah is testing you with me and testing me with you after my two companions. By Allah, I will not delegate to anyone else any of your affairs that I can deal with directly, and if there is anything that I cannot deal with directly, I will try to delegate it to people who are able to deal with it and are trustworthy. By Allah, if they (governors) do well, I will reward them, and if they do badly, I will punish them.”[131]

Umar was able to keep a tight control over the regions of the state because his governors were mostly senior sahaba, supported by the sahaba and the tabi’un (next best generation) living in the province. Near the end of Uthman bin Affan’s rule, the senior sahaba had either passed away or left Medina. This made the capital vulnerable to nefarious anti-government activities which eventually culminated in Uthman’s assassination and martyrdom, something prophesised by the Messenger ﷺ. Abdulwahab El-Affendi describes this situation, “The system began to unravel during the latter part of Uthman’s reign, partly through no fault of his own. The fast expansion of the Medina city-state into an empire created many new difficulties, as the administration of the expanded state became too complicated for the city-state model of management as it evolved up to that time.”[132]

This fitna continued throughout Ali ibn Abi Talib’s rule where he fought a civil war with Mu’awiya, the governor of Ash-Sham. A man asked Ali bin Abi Talib (ra) why people obeyed Abu Bakr and Umar during their rule, yet in his and Uthman’s rule people started to disobey and rebel. Ali replied to him,

لأن رعية أبي بكر وعمر كانوا مثلي ومثل عثمان، ورعيتي أنا اليوم مثلك وشبهك

“Because the subjects of Abu Bakr and Umar were like me and Uthman, and my subjects today are like you and similar to you!”[133]

Al-Hasan ibn Ali (r.661CE) was the fifth and last Rightly Guided Caliph after the death of his father Ali ibn Abi Talib. The state’s authority was fragmented due to the ongoing civil war with Mu’awiya. In addition, the Islamic conquests had been halted since the later period of Uthman’s caliphate due to the fitna and rebellion. Although Al-Hasan had full executive and military authority to continue fighting Mu’awiya, he instead relinquished his right for the greater good and abdicated in favour of Mu’awiya who then received the bay’ah and became the caliph. Al-Hasan said, “I have been thinking of going to Medina to settle there and yielding (the caliphate) to Mu’awiya. The turmoil has gone on for too long, blood has been shed, ties of kinship have been severed, the roads have become unsafe, and the borders have been neglected.”[134]

This action of Al-Hasan was prophesised and praised by the Messenger ﷺ. Once the Prophet ﷺ brought out Al-Hasan and took him up to the minbar (pulpit) along with him and said,

ابْنِي هَذَا سَيِّدٌ، وَلَعَلَّ اللَّهَ أَنْ يُصْلِحَ بِهِ بَيْنَ فِئَتَيْنِ مِنَ الْمُسْلِمِينَ

“This son of mine is a Saiyid (i.e. chief) and I hope that Allah will help him bring about reconciliation between two Muslim groups.”[135]

Umayyads

After the Rightly Guided Caliphate and the transformation of the caliphate into hereditary rule and monarchy (mulk), loyalty of the provinces was primarily maintained through the family bond (asabiyah) of the ruling dynasty. The main provincial governors were from the ruling family and hence had a natural loyalty to the caliph through the family asabiyah bond. Islam was still the basis of this bond, and it was unthinkable that any of the governors would not implement the rules of Islam. However, some of the governors did abuse their positions and took advantage of their position within the ruling family of the Umayyads. This eventually culminated in widespread opposition to their rule and the rise of another ruling dynasty – the Abbasids – who obliterated Umayyad rule and assumed the caliphate for themselves in 750CE. The Abbasids then continued in a similar manner to the Umayyads with governors appointed from Banu Abbas.

Tocqueville (d.1859) describes this type of loyalty bond. “Hereditary monarchies have a great advantage: as the particular interest of a family is continually bound in a strict manner to the interest of the state, not a single moment ever passes in which the latter is left abandoned to itself. I do not know if affairs are better directed in these monarchies than elsewhere; but at least there is always someone who, well or ill according to his capacity, is occupied with them.”[136]

Since the monarchy and aristocracy own the state, then they have a vested interest in its continuance because they are benefiting materially from their hold on power. Traditionally in the UK, all senior officers in the military, security services, civil service and government were from the aristocracy, who were groomed for ruling from birth, going to the best schools and universities – Eton, Oxbridge and Sandhurst. Even though their ties to the aristocracy have lessened, the British ‘establishment’ to this day is still recruited primarily from these institutions.

Abd al-Aziz ibn Marwan (d.705CE), the father of Umar ibn Abdul-Aziz, was the Wali Al-‘Ahd (designated successor) for his brother the caliph Abdul-Malik ibn Marwan (d.705CE) according to the covenant (‘ahd) of their father Marwan ibn Al-Hakam (d.685CE). Abd al-Aziz was the governor of Egypt with full powers over the province for 20 years from 685–705CE. Abdul-Aziz was a very pious man, and being the ‘crown prince’ and next in-line to the caliphate meant there was no incentive for him to rebel as one day he would be the ruler (if he had outlived Abdul-Malik). He was therefore a loyal governor over one of the most important provinces of the Caliphate.

Ibn Khaldun describes this transformation from caliphate to mulk (kingship): “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.

Abbasids

After the Abbasids took power, the caliphate was never a fully unified state again. Al-Andalus became semi-independent under the Umayyad Abdul-Rahman I who managed to escape the Abbasid purge of all Umayyad elements in the state. In the beginning, Al-Andalus never declared itself a separate caliphate and hence implicitly acknowledged the Abbasid caliphate in Baghdad. The scholars of Al-Andalus travelled freely to and from the domains of the Abbasids without fear of any persecution or discrimination. In 929CE when the central Abbasid caliphal regime was in utter disarray, with a weak almost non-functional government, Al-Andalus became the Cordoba Caliphate under Abdul-Rahman III.

Other remote provinces of the state were also effectively semi-independent such as in Ifriqiya (eastern Algeria, Tunisia and the Tripoli region) under the Aghlabid dynasty (r.800-899CE) whose Amir was first appointed by Harun Al-Rashid (r. 786-809CE) to bring peace to the region which had been devastated by years of civil war.

From the 10^th century, the Abbasid Caliphate completely fragmented and the caliph in Baghdad simply accepted the rise of semi-independent emirates and sultanates whom he conferred titles upon, in return for the Amirs and Sultans bay’ah which kept him in power.

The Buyids (r. 934-1062CE) in modern-day Iraq and Iran, the Ghaznavids (r.977–1186CE) in modern-day Afghanistan, Eastern Iran and Pakistan, and then later the Seljuks (r. 1037–1194CE) who succeeded the Buyids and expanded into Ash-Sham and later Anatolia. All of these governors or Amirs are what Al-Mawardi refers to as an Amir Al-Istila’ (Amir of Seizure or Conquest) and Wazir Al-Tafweedh (Delegated Assistant).

Shura on Government Appointments

Shura is a key principle of the Islamic Ruling System and underpins all the institutions of the state. In order for the governors and mayors of the provinces and cities to be focussed on their citizens’ affairs and not their own personal interests, they need to be elected by the people they are ruling over. Ibn Atiyyah (d.1147CE) said that:

الشورى من قواعد الشريعة وعزائم الأحكام، ومن لا يستشير أهل العلم والدين، فعزله واجب. هذا ما لا خلاف فيه، وقد مدح الله المؤمنين بقوله: وَأَمْرُهُمْ شُورَى بَيْنَهُمْ

“Shura is one of the principles of Sharia and the firmest of rulings, and whoever does not consult the people of knowledge and religion must be removed. This is something that is not disputed, and Allah praised the believers by saying: وَأَمْرُهُمْ شُورَى بَيْنَهُمْ ‘And their affairs are conducted by mutual consultation.’[138]”[139]

Al-Zamakhshari (d.1143CE) explains the limits of shura in his explanation of the verse,وَشَاوِرْهُمْ فِي الْأَمْرِ “And consult them in the matter”[140]

يعنى في أمر الحرب ونحوه مما لم ينزل عليك فيه وحي لتستظهر برأيهم

“It means in matters of war and the like, in which no revelation has been sent down to you, so that you may rely on their opinion.”[141]

Judge Hussein bin Mohammed Al Mahdi says, “There is no doubt that Shura is comprehensive for public functions because it is among the matters that Allah Almighty has guided us to consult about, as He, the Most High, says: “And consult them in the matter.” And Allah has praised the believers who are adorned with Shura, as He, the Most High, says: “And those who have responded to their Lord and established prayer and whose affair is [determined by] consultation among themselves, and from what We have provided them, they spend.”

So, seeking the opinion of the nation about who will represent it in any of the public matters related to it with the aim of managing the affairs of the nation in the best way is one of the most important duties.”[142]

Judge Hussein bin Mohammed Al Mahdi says, “By public positions (الوَظائِف العامَّة), we mean those with public mandates (الوِلايات العامَّة), which we see as necessary: ministers, senior officers of the armed forces and security forces, brigade and battalion commanders, army commanders, governors, directors of security for governorates and states, heads of courts, whether primary or appellate, and supreme courts, and what corresponds to these positions in the modern state and what is below them of administrative and leadership positions in the contemporary state, including heads and members of the House of Representatives, the Shura Council, and the government, and what comes at the top of these positions, such as the position of Caliph, King, Head of State, or Imam.”[143]

Regarding the appointment of Amirs, the Prophet ﷺ and the Rightly Guided Caliphs established the principle of shura in selecting army commanders and governors.

Akram Al-Umari says, “The selection of governors was done after the Caliph consulted with the senior Companions, and also after the approval of the candidate for the governorship. Umar did not appoint any of his relatives, while Uthman and Ali saw no harm in appointing relatives. Umar often tested whomever he wanted to appoint, and studied his personality closely. He also did not appoint the people of the desert over the people of the city due to the difference in natures, customs and traditions. He appointed Salman al-Farsi (a former slave and non-Arab) as governor of Mada’in, perhaps to draw attention to the principle of equality in Islam.”[144]

After the people of Kufah complained about their governor Ammar ibn Yasir, Umar consulted the sahaba as to whom he should appoint as governor of Kufah, and said to them: “Who could tackle the problems of the people of Kufah for me, and their false accusations against their governors? If I appoint over them a man with good morals, they will regard him as weak, but if I appoint over thein one who is strong, they will force him to overstep the limit with them.”

Then he said: “O people, what do you say about a man who is weak but is a pious Muslim and another who is strong and tough but not so religiously committed? Which one is better suited to be a governor?”

Al-Mugheerah ibn Shu’bah spoke up and said, “O Amir al-Mu’mineen, the weak Muslim’s commitment to Islam counts in his favour but his weakness counts against you and the Muslims; the fact that the strong man is less pious counts against him but his strength counts in your favour and that of the Muslims. So do what you think is best.” ‘Umar said, “You have spoken the truth, O Mugheerah.”

Then he appointed him as governor of Kufah and said to him, “Try to be one whom the righteous trust and the evildoers fear.” Al-Mugheerah said, “I shall try my best O Amir al-Mu’mineen.”[145]

In origin, all executive power is with the caliph via the bay’ah contract. He can in principle appoint and dismiss all his deputies whether they are ministers, governors, commanders or judges. This appointment and dismissal should be based on shura even though it is mandub (recommended) and not obligatory (wajib). The caliph can then bind himself to this shura making it an obligation for him to execute. Abdul-Qadeem Zallum says, “While Shura over the Mubah matters is Mandub, it is allowed for a caliph to bind himself to some or all of these allowed matters. Once he has obliged himself to certain matters, he has to abide by it and is under obligation to carry out the consulted matter. This is derived from the fact that when the post of caliph was offered to ‘Uthman bin Affan, he accepted to proceed according to the way of Abu Bakr and ‘Umar in ruling, as it was proposed to him. This happened in the presence of the Sahabah without any objection from them.”[146]

Removal of Governors

It was an established principle from the time of the Prophet ﷺ that governors should be removed if the people of the province are unhappy with them. These need to be legitimate grievances however, because replacing governors at the drop of a hat creates instability in the province, and should only be performed as a last resort.

In the time of the Prophet ﷺ, Al-Ala’ ibn Al-Hadrami was the governor of Bahrain which was inhabited by the tribe of Abd Al-Qais. The Messenger of Allah ﷺ wrote to Al-Ala’ ibn Al-Hadrami (governor of Bahrain) to come to him with twenty men from Abd Al-Qais. So he came to him with twenty men, headed by Abdullah ibn Auf Al-Ashja. Al-Ala’ left Al-Mundhir ibn Sawa in charge of Bahrain. The delegation complained about Al-Ala’ ibn Al-Hadrami, so the Messenger of Allah ﷺ dismissed him and appointed Abaan ibn Sa’id ibn Al-As, saying to him: “Treat Abd al-Qais well and honor their leaders.”[147]

In the caliphate of Umar ibn Al-Khattab, Sa’d ibn Abi Waqqas who was one of the 10 promised Jannah in this life was appointed as the governor of Kufa after Al-Mugheerah ibn Shu’bah. Kufa as mentioned was a province whose inhabitants were known for making unjustified complaints against their governors. True to form some of the influentials in Kufa complained against Sa’d. Although these were unsubstantiated claims Umar still removed Sa’d in order to prevent further fitnah (discord) occurring. Umar said to Sa’d:

لولا الاحتياط لكان سبيلهم بينا ثم قال: من خليفتك يا سعد على الكوفه؟ قال: عبد الله ابن عبد اللَّه بن عتبان، فأقره واستعمله

“Were it not for the need for caution, the way to deal with them would be clear.” Then he said: “Who is your successor, Sa’d, in Kufa?” He said: “Abdullah ibn Abdullah ibn Utban.” So he confirmed him and appointed him.[148]

Al-Sallabi explains Umar’s words, “Were it not for the need for caution, the way to deal with them would be clear” means that they were ignorant wrongdoers, and it was obvious that Sa’d was innocent of what they attributed to him, but caution for the sake of the ummah necessitated warding off fitnah and nipping it in the bud, before it got any worse and led to trouble, division and maybe fighting. If the accused person was innocent of what was attributed to~ then nothing would harm him once he had been proven innocent of ·the accusations against him. They understood governorship as a burden, not an opportunity; it was a duty for which they hoped for reward from Allah. Being appointed in charge of any of the Muslims’ affairs is a kind of righteous deed for the one who fears Allah and seeks His pleasure and the Hereafter. If this deed becomes a source of fitnah, wisdom dictates that one should not continue in it, as was the case here. This is what Umar did when he relieved Sa’d of his post and appointed his deputy who was trusted by Sa’d. Umar kept Sa’d in Madeenah and approved of the man whom Sa’d nominated to succeed him in Kufah. Thus Sa’d became one of ‘Umar’s consultants in Madeenah.”[149]

Provincial Elections

The caliph in origin has the executive power to appoint and remove all government officials including the governors. This is derived from the actions of the Prophet ﷺ in Medina in his capacity as a ruler-prophet. As discussed above this should be conducted through shura which could be via his advisors (wazirs) or the caliph can seek shura from the people of the province giving them the power to make the decision. We can see both types of scenarios – appointment and election – in the time of the Prophet ﷺ, Rightly Guided Caliphs and the Umayyads.

Mapping shura of the province to modern times means the caliph will allow the people of a particular province or emirate to elect their governor and then ratify the result. He does however maintain the executive power not to ratify the result and order new elections if there were irregulates or election fraud. Such an action would be conducted via the Supreme Court (Mahkmat Al-Mazalim). This provides a counter-balance against potential corruption by the governors and mayors of a province who due to having a local powerbase are susceptible to abusing their position with the electorate in order to hold on to power.

Election of Amirs in the Prophet’s ﷺ State in Medina

The 12 Naqibs

As mentioned earlier the Aws and Khazraj tribes whom Islam united together as the Ansar (helpers), were sub-divided into various clans who managed their own administrative affairs as devolved ‘mini-provinces’.

The chiefs of these clans were not appointed by the Prophet ﷺ, but rather ‘elected’ by the tribes themselves on his ﷺ orders. Ka’b ibn Malik narrates that the Prophet ﷺ said,

أَسَمَاءُ النُّقَبَاءِ الِاثْنَيْ عَشَرَ وَتَمَامُ خَبَرِ الْعَقَبَةِ

“Bring out to me from among you twelve chiefs (naqibs), so that they may be in charge of their people and what is in them.” So they brought out from among them twelve chiefs, nine from the Khazraj, and three from the Aws.[150]

It is clear from the Sahifa and the command of the Prophet ﷺ: أَخْرِجُوا إلَيَّ مِنْكُمْ اثْنَيْ عَشَرَ نَقِيبًا، لِيَكُونُوا عَلَى قَوْمِهِمْ بِمَا فِيهِمْ “Bring out to me from among you twelve chiefs (naqibs), so that they may be in charge of their people and what is in them,” that these naqibs had full powers over their clans as indicated by the relative pronoun (مَا) which is ‘aam (general) and means “whatever”.

Since these naqibs were only amirs of a ‘neighbourhood’, their powers would exclude anything to do with policies related to the common security and well-being of the state such as taxation and military expeditions. The sub-tribes would assist in these common issues such as participation in the battles as the Sahifa constitution of Medina outlined, but they would have no autonomy to pursue their own agendas separate to that of the Prophet ﷺ.

Appointment of the Amirs at Mut’ah

In the Mut’ah military campaign, which was the first battle against the Byzantines and their Ghassanid proxy kingdom in Southern Ash-Sham, the Prophet ﷺ appointed Zaid ibn Haritha as the commander of the army. Due to the anticipated intensity of this battle against hardened Roman Centurions (Kentarches), he ﷺ also appointed the deputy commanders who would replace Zaid if he was martyred. He ﷺ said,

أمير الناس زيد بن حارثة. فإن قتل فجعفر بن أبي طالب. فإن قتل فعبد الله بن رواحة. فإن قتل فليرتض المسلمون بينهم رجلا فيجعلوه عليهم

“The Amir of the people is Zayd bin Haritha. If he is killed, then Ja’far ibn Abi Talib. If he is killed, then Abdullah ibn Rawahah. If he is killed, then let the Muslims choose (يَرْتَض yartad) a man from among themselves and make him their Amir.”[151]

People ‘elected’ Khalid ibn Al-Walid to be their Amir on the orders of the Commander in-Chief which was the Prophet ﷺ. In modern times, with professional armies and military ranks, there would be no need for ‘elections’ of the commander since the next in command by rank will take over if communication is lost with the overall commander of the expedition. In seventh century warfare and limited communication methods, this wasn’t possible hence the reason the Prophet ﷺ implemented this style.

Three or more people need an Amir

The Messenger of Allah ﷺ said:

وَلَا يَحِلُّ لِثَلَاثَةِ نَفَرٍ يَكُونُونَ بِأَرْضِ فَلَاةٍ إِلَّا أَمَّرُوا عَلَيْهِمْ أَحَدَهُمْ

“It is not permissible for three people to be in an open country (desert) without appointing one of them as their Amir.”[152]

The Messenger of Allah ﷺ said:

إِذَا خَرَجَ ثَلاَثَةٌ فِي سَفَرٍ فَلْيُؤَمِّرُوا أَحَدَهُمْ

“When three are on a journey, they should appoint one of them as their Amir.”[153]

Al-Ḥārith ibn Abī Ḍirār – Leader of Banu al-Muṣṭaliq

Al-Ḥārith ibn Abī Ḍirār, was the leader of Banu al-Muṣṭaliq. After the battle of al-Muraysī’ in 627CE (5 AH) against his tribe he was defeated and his daughter Juwayriyyah bint al-Ḥārith was taken as a captive. She married the Prophet ﷺ and her father Al-Ḥārith then accepted Islam and remained as the chief of Banu al-Muṣṭaliq, as a province under the central authority of the Prophet ﷺ in Medina.[154] In other words the Prophet ﷺ confirmed him in his position since he was already accepted by the tribe as their leader.

Malik ibn ‘Awf al-Nasri – Leader of Hawazin

The Battle of Hunain took place one month after the Conquest of Makkah against the tribes of Hawazin and Thaqif who inhabited the city of Ta’if and its surrounding areas.

Malik ibn ‘Awf, was one of the leaders of Hawazin and their commander at the Battle of Hunain. After he accepted Islam, the Messenger of Allah ﷺ appointed him (as an ‘amil) over those of his people who had converted to Islam, and those tribes were: Thumala, Salamah and Fahm.”[155] Again he was confirmed in his position as leader over his people.

Urwah ibn Masud – Appointed governor of Ta’if

Although much of the Hawazin tribe converted to Islam after Hunain, Banu Thaqif remained in the walled city of Ta’if. The Prophet ﷺ laid siege to the city but in the end he and the Muslims had no way to penetrate the walls and so ended the siege. The next year (9AH) in the year of delegations, Thaqif came to Medina voluntarily led by Abd Yalil ibn Amr, who was one of the three brothers in charge of Ta’if when the Prophet ﷺ came to the city to call them to Islam during the Makkan phase, and where he was publicly humiliated and stoned by the city’s youth.

Abd Yalil ibn Amr after much debate with the Prophet ﷺ eventually accepted Islam, but he was not reappointed as the governor of Ta’if due to his unsuitability for the role. Instead, it was another member of the delegation Urwah ibn Masud, who was an influential in the tribe and the delegation’s guard[156] who became the governor.[157] Urwah was eager to embrace Islam and learn the religion unlike the reluctance and argumentation of Abd Yalil ibn Amr. Therefore, although elected governors are permitted, the head of state still holds the executive power of dismissing them or not confirming their appointment if the population of the province face harm from them. The Prophet ﷺ said:

لاَ ضَرَرَ وَلاَ ضِرَارَ “There is no harm and reciprocating harm.”[158]

Election of Amirs in the Rightly Guided Caliphate

In the time of Abu Bakr and Umar the people trusted their opinion over their own, so there was no real requirement to consult the ordinary people of a province on who their governor should be. We can see this in the selection process for the next caliph where the Ahlul hali wal-aqd[159] (senior sahaba) 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.”[160]

Similarly, when Umar was stabbed and his death was imminent, the Ahlul hali wal-aqd 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.

Near the end of Uthman’s caliphate and the loss of many senior sahaba, discontent and organised rebellion began to emerge. A man asked Ali bin Abi Talib (ra) why people obeyed Abu Bakr and Umar during their rule, yet in his and Uthman’s rule people started to disobey and rebel. Ali replied to him,

لأن رعية أبي بكر وعمر كانوا مثلي ومثل عثمان، ورعيتي أنا اليوم مثلك وشبهك

“Because the subjects of Abu Bakr and Umar were like me and Uthman, and my subjects today are like you and similar to you!”[161]

Uthman had to adopt a new method with regards to appointing governors and take shura directly from the influentials in the province as opposed to shura with his close advisors (wazirs). This method of allowing the people’s representatives to appoint (elect) their amirs is established in the sunnah as mentioned above.

A point to note here is that although the senior sahaba remained silent over Uthman’s action of allowing the people’s representatives to elect their amirs, this is not considered ‘ijma as-sahaba (consensus of the companions) because there is textual evidence in the sunnah permitting it. In addition, this policy falls under the general powers of the Imam to administer the state according to his own ijtihad based on the hadith:

فَالْإِمَامُ الَّذِي عَلَى النَّاسِ رَاعٍ وَهُوَ مَسْئُولٌ عَنْ رَعِيَّتِهِ

“The Imam[162] is a guardian, and he is responsible over his subjects.”[163]

Taqiuddin an-Nabhani (d.1977) explains that for an action to be considered ‘ijma as-sahaba “it should not be of the matters which the Imam has the right of disposal in them by his own opinion like the money in the treasury (Bayt al Maal), the disposal of it is made to be according to the opinion of the Imam, so his disposal in a matter like giving money by preferences not equally[164], then the silence of the sahaba on that is not considered a silent consensus (al-Ijma’ al-Sukuti); because although it appears to be injustice between people, but the reality is that it had been made the Imam’s right of disposal according to his opinion and Ijtihad, so their silence is not on an evil matter (Munkar), and the deed of the Khaleefah will be his own ijtihad not a consensus. Thus all that of which the opinion is made to be up to the Imam is not considered to be of the consensus, even if the sahaba kept silent on it.”[165]

Abu Musa Al-Ashari elected as governor of Kufa under Uthman

In the year 34H Sa’id ibn Al-As was the governor of Kufa in Iraq. The influentials of Kufa came to Medina and complained about their governor Sa’id and wanted Uthman to remove him. Initially Uthman refused because the complaint wasn’t valid and was initiated by Malik ibn al-Harith, who was known as al-Ashtar a man of fitna.[166]

The people of Kufa had a reputation for making unsubstantiated claims against their governors. ‘Umar ibn al-Khattab said of them: “I am very tired and no longer know what to do with the people of Kufah; they are not pleased with anyone and no one is pleased with them; they are not good to any governor and no governor could be good for them.”[167]

It was also narrated about Umar that he consulted about who to appoint over Kufa, as its affairs had exhausted him. If he appointed someone gentle over it, they would weaken him, and if he appointed someone harsh over it, they would complain about him. He said: “I wish I could find a strong, trustworthy Muslim whom I could appoint over them.”[168]

Despite this reputation of the people of Kufa Uthman agreed to their choice (election) of Abu Musa Ashari. After the people of Kufa expelled their governor Sa’id ibn Al-As, he made his way to Medina and met with Uthman. Uthman asked Sa’id, “What do they want? Have they withdrawn their hand from obedience?” (Sa’id) responded, “They proclaim that they want a change (of governors).” “Whom do they want?” asked (`Uthman). “Abu Musa (al-Ash’ari),” replied (Sa’id). (Uthman) said, “Then we have set Abu Musa over them. By Allah, we shall create no excuse for anyone, nor will we leave them any proof [against us). We shall endure patiently, as we have been commanded to do, until we attain what they desire.”[169]

Muhammad ibn Abi Bakr elected as governor of Egypt under Uthman

Abdullah Ibn Abi Sarh was the governor of Egypt. The influentials of Egypt came to Medina in the year 35H to complain about him and wanted him removed. “Seven hundred men left Egypt and dwelt in the mosque (of Madinah). They complained to the Companions at the times of the prayers about what Ibn Abi Sarh had done…Uthman said to them, “Choose from amongst yourselves a man whom I shall appoint over you in his (Ibn Abi Sarh’s) place.” The people indicated to him Muhammad ibn Abi Bakr. They said, “Appoint Muhammad ibn Abi Bakr over us.” He wrote his covenant (‘ahd) and appointed him.”[170]

Election of Amirs in the absence of an agreed upon caliph during the civil war

The caliph’s appointment of governors is through a contract of appointment (عَقْد تَقْلِيد ‘aqd taqleed) which does not end with the death or removal of the caliph. It continues, and the new caliph will decide whether to renew the contract and keep the governors in place or appoint new governors. Abu Bakr for example, kept the same governors as the Prophet ﷺ had appointed, but Umar when he became caliph changed the governors and appointed new ones.

During the volatile period after the death of Mu’awiya ibn Yazid, the people of Iraq and Khorasan actually elected new governors until a caliph had been chosen. This is based on the hadith, where the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said,

وَلَا يَحِلُّ لِثَلَاثَةِ نَفَرٍ يَكُونُونَ بِأَرْضِ فَلَاةٍ إِلَّا أَمَّرُوا عَلَيْهِمْ أَحَدَهُمْ

“It is not permissible for three people to be in an open country (desert) without appointing one of them as their Amir.”[171]

Summary of Elected Amirs

Province	Elected Amir
Damascus	al-Dahhak bin Qays al-Fihri
Basra	1. Ubaydallah ibn Ziyad 2. Abd al-Malik bin Abdallah bin Amir 3. Abdallah bin al-Harith bin Abd al-Muttalib
Kufa	1. Umar ibn Sa’d ibn Abi Waqqas 2. Amir bin Masud
Khorasan	Salm ibn Ziyad

Damascus

Al-Dahhak bin Qays al-Fihri was a former governor of Kufa under Mu’awiya,[172] and his Chief of Police (Sahib Ash-Shurta) in Damascus.[173] Ash-Sham at the time of Mu’awiya ibn Yazid’s death was split in to five provinces[174]:

Province	Governor	Tribal grouping
Damascus	al-Dahhak bin Qays al-Fihri[175]	Quraish
Qinnasrin	Zufar bin al-Harith al-Kilabi[176]	Qays
Hims	al-Nu’man bin Bashir al-Ansari[177]	Sahabi/Ansar
Palestine	Natil bin Qays[178]	Qays
Jordan	Hassan ibn Malik ibn Babdal al-Kalbi[179]	Yamani

Tabari mentions, “The people had given bay’ah to al-Dahhak bin Qays al-Fihri on the understanding that he should lead them in prayer and manage their affairs until the question of authority over the community of Muhammad had been settled.”[180]

This echoes what occurred in all the other regions of the state except Hijaz where Abdullah ibn Al-Zubayr received the bay’ah from the Ahlul hali wal-aqd in Makkah and Madinah and was pronounced the caliph of the Muslims. Tabari mentions that after the death of Mu’awiya ibn Yazid, the Kufans, the Basrans, Hijaz, the Syrians and the people of Mesopotamia all accepted ibn Al-Zubayr, except for the people of Jordan.[181] The province of Jordan was under the leadership of Hassan ibn Malik who was a Yamani and he worked to secure Marwan ibn al-Hakam as the caliph. This split between the Qaysi supporting Abdullah ibn Al-Zubayr and the Yamani’s supporting Marwan sowed the seeds for future discord which the Umayyad Caliph’s had to try and manage.

Basra

Ubaydallah ibn Ziyad was the governor of Basra and Kufa under Yazid ibn Mu’awiya,[182] and was the one responsible for the killing of al-Hussain and his followers. Initially the people of Basra elected him as their governor, but then they regretted it after remembering what he did to al-Hussain. So they withdrew their allegiance to him.[183] Ubaydallah then made his way to Syria and was instrumental in getting Marwan ibn al-Hakam to take up the post of caliph instead of giving bay’ah to Abdullah ibn Al-Zubayr.

Tabari mentions, “The Basrans decided together to give authority to one of themselves to lead the prayer until an imam should be agreed upon. They appointed Abd al-Malik bin Abdallah bin Amir for a month and then they appointed Babbah, who was Abdallah bin al-Harith bin Abd al-Muttalib. He led them in prayer for two months until Umar ibn Ubaydullah bin Ma’mar came to them from Ibn Al-Zubayr.”[184] It was known by convention from the time of the Prophet ﷺ that leading the salah implied more than simply praying and was an indication of ruling powers.

Kufa

When Mu’awiya ibn Yazid died, Amr bin Hurayth was the ‘Amil (mayor) for Ubaydallah ibn Ziyad over Kufa. The people of Kufa then deposed him and gathered in the masjid saying, “Let us appoint somebody to authority until a caliph is agreed upon.”[185] Initially they chose Umar ibn Sa’d ibn Abi Waqqas who was the commander sent by Ubaydallah ibn Ziyad to fight al-Hussein, but the women of Hamdan (a tribe who supported al-Hussein) came weeping for al-Hussein, and the men of Hamdan came with their swords and encircled the minbar. After some debate they chose Amir bin Masud as their governor and wrote to ibn Al-Zubayr who confirmed his appointment.[186]

Khorasan

Ubaydallah ibn Ziyad’s brother Salm ibn Ziyad, was appointed as governor over Khorasan and Sijistan by Yazid ibn Mu’awiya. Following Yazid and his son Mu’awiya’s death the army of Khorasan gave allegiance to Salm ibn Ziyad that he would remain in power until a caliph was agreed upon.[187] As happened in Basra, the people of Khorasan deposed Salm ibn Ziyad which then led to instability and fitna in the region as rival leaders such as Abdullah ibn Khazim al-Sulami rose up and fought to take power. Ibn Khazim eventually become the governor, but in 72AH he was forcibly removed by Abdul-Maik ibn Marwan.[188]

The Caliph may overturn the election result

In Kufa, the caliph Abdullah ibn Al-Zubayr confirmed the appointment of Amir bin Masud, but in Basra ibn Al-Zubayr appointed his own man Umar ibn Ubaydullah bin Ma’mar. This is the caliph’s prerogative where generally he can accept the choice of the people but maintains the power to overrule this if the benefit of Islam and Muslims demands it.

An example of where this might be required is if there is a heavily factionalised society with rival tribal groupings as occurred in Khorasan under the Umayyad Caliph Abdul-Malik ibn Marwan.

There was conflict and discord between the tribes (Muqa’is and Butan vs Tamim, Awf and Abna) in Khorasan in 72AH-74AH under its governor Bukayr bin Wishah who was from Banu Tamim. The Arab tribes in Khorasan wrote to Abdul-Malik saying that Khorasan would only recover from its disarray under the direction of a man of Quraysh, one who would be the object of neither their envy nor their partisanship.

Abd al-Malik said, “Khorasan is the frontier of the East. It has had its troubles under the governance of this Tamimi, and the troops have broken into factions. Fearing that they will return to the factionalism of the past, and that the region and its people will then be destroyed, they have asked me to appoint as governor over them a man of Quraysh, whom they would heed and obey.” He then appointed one of the Umayyads Umayyah bin Abdallah as the governor.[189]

How would a Unitary State emerge today?

Assessing the maslaha (benefit) and mafsadah (harm) within the sphere of siyasa sharia is not an exact science. Every time and place needs to be assessed by highly skilled statesmen like the Prophet ﷺ, Rightly Guided Caliphs and those who follow in their footsteps, who can navigate these tumultuous waters. There are many options open to a Muslim ruler who is sincere in their attempts to implement Islam.

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.”[190]

Muhammad Haykal outlines a possible scenario for unification of the Muslim world once a caliphate has been established. He says, “When this Khilafah state is established via the bay’ah of the Muslims of a particular region from the Islamic regions to a Khalifah, upon the basis that he is the Imaam of all of the Muslims in the world who has been given the bay’ah to establish the ruling of Islaam in all internal relationships, to make Islaam the pivot upon which the foreign relations are regulated and to carry it as a message to the world, then in this situation, the bay’ah would have become binding upon the neck of every Muslim and even if that Muslim had not actually given the bay’ah in person. That is because the Imaam had been brought into existence and the bay’ah of contraction had been completed in a Saheeh (valid and correct) manner to him. It is then not allowed for any Muslim to not consider him as an Imaam and he (the Khalifah) has the right of obedience due to him. This is in accordance to the Hadeeth of the Messenger ﷺ:

وَمَنْ مَاتَ وَلَيْسَ فِي عُنُقِهِ بَيْعَةٌ مَاتَ مِيتَةً جَاهِلِيَّةً

“Whoever dies while having no bay’ah on his neck he dies the death of Jahiliyah.”[191]

Therefore, it is a duty upon all of the rest of the Islamic regions, once the validity of the bay’ah of contraction of the Khalifah has been realised, to present the bay’ah of obedience to him and to join the Khilafah state as Wilaayaat (provinces) of it. As for the people in authority (i.e. the rulers) in those lands and regions, then they will remain in their positions as long as they fulfil what is required for them to be able to maintain them. That is like what the Messenger of Allah ﷺ used to do in respect to the people in authority in those regions which were joined to the Islamic state, in the case where the Maslahah dictated that.”[192]

Another possibility is the emergence of independent emirates who agree to join together in a unified bloc, appointing one of the Emirs as the caliph. This occurred in America when thirteen former British colonies located along the East Coast of North America declared independence from Britain in 1776 and established the United States of America, appointing George Washington the former general as their first President.

If the ruling elites in the Muslim world make Islam the centre of their lives, then it’s not beyond the scope of the imagination for these elites and influentials to make great sacrifices in pursuit of the greater good, in this case the unification of the Muslim lands into a powerful bloc – A United States of Islam.

In 19^th century Japan the ruling families sacrificed their lands in pursuit of a unified empire. If non-Muslims can make such an undertaking, then no doubt Muslims can do the same, especially since Allah has purchased from the believers their lives and wealth in return for Jannah. Allah ta’ala says,

إِنَّ ٱللَّهَ ٱشْتَرَىٰ مِنَ ٱلْمُؤْمِنِينَ أَنفُسَهُمْ وَأَمْوَٰلَهُم بِأَنَّ لَهُمُ ٱلْجَنَّةَ

“Allah has indeed purchased from the believers their lives and wealth in exchange for Paradise.”[200]

“[In 1866] Thirteen years after Commodore Matthew Perry steamed into Tokyo Bay (1853), a nationalist rebellion overthrew the conservative Tokugawa Shogunate, installed the Emperor Meiji in power, and implemented a program of sweeping national reform.[193]

In an act no less stunning than the revolution itself, nearly all of the former ruling families voluntarily surrendered their power to the emperor, declaring, “We therefore reverently offer up all our feudal possessions so that a uniform rule may prevail throughout the Empire. Thus, the country will be able to rank equally with the other nations of the world.”[194] [195]

Conclusion

Unity must be balanced and too much may turn the Caliphate into an authoritarian totalitarian state which is the antithesis of justice. Allowing difference not division within the lands of Islam will create a healthy, vibrant environment of cooperation and competition.

Allah (Most High) says,

وَتَعَاوَنُوا۟ عَلَى ٱلْبِرِّ وَٱلتَّقْوَىٰ

“Cooperate with one another in goodness and righteousness”[196]

فَٱسْتَبِقُوا۟ ٱلْخَيْرَٰتِ

“So compete with one another in doing good.”[197]

Ibn Taymiyyah says, “All of the children of Adam cannot achieve their interests in this world or the hereafter except through gathering (الاجتماع Al-Ijtima’), cooperation (التَعاوُن Al-Ta’awun), and mutual support (التناصر Al-Tanasir).”[198]

The underlying principle is to keep the caliphate united upon the Islamic ‘aqeeda (creed), even if administratively and politically it consists of separate states and entities.

Maimun bin Siyah narrated that he asked Anas bin Malik, “O Abu Hamza! What makes the life and property of a person sacred?” He replied, “Whoever says, ‘None has the right to be worshipped but Allah’, faces our Qibla, prays our prayers, and eats our slaughtered animal, then he is a Muslim, and has got the same rights and obligations as other Muslims have.”[199]

Notes

[1] Sahih Muslim 142g, https://sunnah.com/muslim:142g

[2] Holy Qur’an, Surah Al-Hadid, ayah 25

[3] https://tafsir.app/ibn-aashoor/57/25

[4] Aisha Abdurrahman Bewley, ‘Democratic Tyranny and the Islamic Paradigm,’ Diwan Press, 1st edition, 2018, Kindle Edition, p.89

[5] Persian general who was captured as a prisoner of war after the battle of Qadisiyyah and taken to Madinah

[6] Al-Mawardi, Adab al-Dunya wa al-Din, https://shamela.ws/book/765/118#p1 translation based on the book ‘Living Wisely – Teachings of Mawardi on Ethics and Human Wellbeing. An Abridged Translation of Mawardi’s Adab al-Dunya wa al-Din,’ by Dr. Ahmed Bangura, Turath Publishing, 2024, p.115

[7] This book was written before the latest Gaza genocide

[8] Al-Wahn (الْوَهَنَ) literally means weakness, but in this context means conceptual weakness in the Aqeeda i.e. loving the dunya and disliking death. In the Qur’an وَهَنَ (wahana) and its grammatical derivatives are mainly used in relation to war and fighting (jihad).

[9] Abu Dawud 4297, http://www.sunnah.com/abudawud/39/7

[10] Holy Qur’an, Surah Al-Anfal, ayah 46

[11] Muhammad Abu Zahrah, Al-Wahdah Al-Islamiyah

[12] Holy Qur’an, Surah Al-i-Iman, ayah 103

[13] Al-Qurtubi, https://tafsir.app/qurtubi/3/103

[14] https://www.aldiwan.net/poem52447.html

[15] Muhammad Said Al-Bouti, كتاب هكذا فلندع إلى الإسلام ‘This is how we call to Islam book,’ https://shamela.ws/book/1751/21

[16] The smallest division of the state was the neighbourhood or city quarter (حَيّ Hayy). In the Ottoman Empire or devlet, a neighbourhood consisted of forty houses based on a hadith which some have deemed weak (da’if):

حق الجار أربعون داراً هكذا وهكذا وهكذا يميناً وشمالاً وقدام وخلف

“The rights of neighbours extend to forty homes. He then indicated to the right, left, back and front.” [Majma’ Al-Zawaaid, vol 8, pg 168, Qudsi / Musnad Abi Ya’la Al-Mawsili, vol 5, pg 368, Muassasah Uluum Al-Quran]

[17] “O humanity! Indeed, We created you from a male and a female, and made you into peoples (شُعُوباً) and tribes (قَبائِل) so that you may ˹get to˺ know one another.” [Surah Al-Hujurat, 13]

[18] Ibn Khaldun, ‘The Muqaddimah – An Introduction to History,’ Translated by Franz Rosenthal, Princeton Classics, p.270

[19] Sunan al-Tirmidhī 2499. Qawi (strong) according to Ibn Hajar

[20] Fatawa of Sheikh Bin Baz

[21] Ibn Taymiyyah, al-Amr bil Ma’rūf wan-nahi ‘an al-munkar 1/29

[22] Ibn Kathir, ‘The Caliphate of Banu Umayyah,’ Darussalam, p.345

[23] Dr. Ali Muhammad As-Sallabi, ‘Umar bin Abd al-Aziz,’ Darussalam, p.85

[24] Holy Qur’an, Surah Al-Hujurat, ayah 13

[25] Holy Qur’an, Surah Al-i-Iman, ayah 105

[26] https://tafsir.app/ibn-aashoor/3/104

[27] Sunan Ibn Majah 3992, https://sunnah.com/ibnmajah:3992

[28] Holy Qur’an, Surah Ali-‘Imran, ayaat 101-103

[29] Asbāb al-Nuzūl By: Alī ibn Ahmad al-Wāhidī translated by Mokrane Guezzou, 2008 Royal Aal al-Bayt Institute for Islamic Thought, p.39

[30] Holy Qur’an, Surah al-Baqara, ayah 148

[31] Ibn Hisham, https://shamela.ws/book/23833/1010

[32] Al-Mawardi, Al-Ahkam as-Sultaniyah, https://shamela.ws/book/22881/35

[33] Jalal ad-Din as-Suyuti, ‘History of the Caliphs,’ a translation of Tarikh al-Khulufa’ by Major H. S. Jarrett, 1881, p.411

[34] Ibid, p.413

[35] Noah Feldman, ‘The Fall and Rise of the Islamic State,’ Princeton University Press, 2008, p.28

[36] https://yaqeeninstitute.org/read/paper/who-wants-the-caliphate

[37] Abu l-Hasan al-Mawardi, The Laws of Islamic Governance, translation of Al-Ahkam as-Sultaniyah, Ta Ha Publishers, p.53; https://shamela.ws/book/22881/61#p1

[38] Hugh Kennedy, ‘Muslim Spain and Portugal: A Political History of Al-Andalus,’ Routledge, 2014, p.90

[39] al-Juwaynī, Ghiyath al-Umam, https://shamela.ws/book/8323/169

[40] al-Juwaynī, Ghiyath al-Umam, https://shamela.ws/book/8323/172#p1

[41] Sahih Muslim 1731a, b, https://sunnah.com/muslim:1731a

[42] Muhammad Al-Massari, Al-Hijra, Chapter: Migration, Islamic citizenship (and the right to self-determination), p.47

[43] Ibid

[44] Ibid, p.52

[45] Ibid, p.66

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

[47] 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)

[48] Holy Qur’an, Surah Al-Ma’ida, ayah 48

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

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

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

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

[53] Hashim Kamali, ‘Separation of powers: An Islamic perspective,’ IAIS Malaysia, p.473; https://icrjournal.org/index.php/icr/article/view/370/348

[54] Ann K. S. Lambton, ‘State and Government in Medieval Islam,’ Oxford University Press, 1981, p.95; Arabic original: https://shamela.ws/book/22881/44

[55] Abu l-Hasan al-Mawardi, The Laws of Islamic Governance, translation of Al-Ahkam as-Sultaniyah, Ta Ha Publishers, p.28, https://shamela.ws/book/22881/35

[56] Muhammad Hussein Abdullah, ‘Al-Waadih Fee Usool ul-Fiqh,’ 1995, First Translated English Edition 2016, p.94

[57] Holy Qur’an, Surah Al-Hashr, ayah 7

[58] Ibn Hisham, narrated by Ka’b ibn Malik, https://shamela.ws/book/23833/466

[59] Ibn Kathir, Al-Bidaya wa l-Nihaya, https://shamela.ws/book/23708/855

[60] Muhammad Hassan Hassan Jabal, ‘The etymological dictionary of the words of the Holy Qur’an,’ https://tafsir.app/ishtiqaqi/%D9%86%D9%82%D8%A8

[61] https://tafsir.app/alrazi/5/12

[62] Ibn Hisham, narrated by Ka’b ibn Malik, https://shamela.ws/book/23833/466

[63] Dr Muhammad Al-Massari, ‘The Prophetic Constitution of Madinah,’ Hizb Al-Tajdeed, p.163

[64] Yasir Qadhi, ‘The Sirah of the Prophet ﷺ,’ The Islamic Foundation, 2023, Treaty of Medina

[65] Ibn Hisham, https://shamela.ws/book/23833/525#p1

[66] Ibn Hisham, https://shamela.ws/book/23833/527

[67] Ibn Hisham, https://shamela.ws/book/23833/459#p1

[68] Sahih al-Bukhari 4141, https://sunnah.com/bukhari:4141

[69] Ibn Hisham, https://shamela.ws/book/23833/638

[70] Sahih al-Bukhari 4141, https://sunnah.com/bukhari:4141

[71] Yasir Qadhi, ‘The Sirah of the Prophet ﷺ,’ The Islamic Foundation, 2023, Treaty of Medina

[72] Ibn Hisham, https://shamela.ws/book/23833/527

[73] Al-Mawardi, Op.cit., p.48; https://shamela.ws/book/22881/57

[74] The army was always under the authority of the caliph as commander-in-chief in the unitary state. In the confederation model (post mid-10^th century CE) then the Amirs and Sultans were the commander-in-chiefs of their respective emirates and sultanates.

[75] Ibid

[76] Al-Mawardi, Op.cit., p.51

[77] Without control of the funds and military

[78] Al-Mawardi refers to this post as an Amir ul-Jihad

[79] Muhammad ibn Yusuf al-Kindi, Kitab Al-Wulah wa Kitab Al-Qudah (The Book of Governors and the Book of Judges), https://shamela.ws/book/12831/1

[80] 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, Vol. 20, p.186 https://shamela.ws/book/9783/3090

[81] Holy Qur’an, Surah Hud, ayah 87

[82] Al-Razi, https://tafsir.app/alrazi/11/87

[83] There is ikhtilaf (difference of opinion) on the isnad (chain) here but its meaning matches other ahadith. A full explanation of all the chains can be read here: https://alsunniah.com/book/22157/1#page=32

[84] Jami’ at-Tirmidhi 2616, https://sunnah.com/tirmidhi:2616

[85] Al-Hakim, Al-Mustadrak, 3/67

[86] https://ifs.org.uk/taxlab/taxlab-key-questions/what-does-government-spend-money

[87] The ijaza (إجازة) system in Islam is a traditional method of granting authorization to transmit religious knowledge—particularly the Qur’an, Hadith, and other Islamic sciences.

[88] https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2025/sep/22/ministers-could-give-mayors-control-of-schools-and-hospitals-in-devolution-shake-up

[89] Al-Mawardi, Op.cit., p.52

[90] Al-Mawardi, Op.cit., p.52

[91] Philip K. Hitti, ‘History of the Arabs,’ London, 10th edition, 1970, p.173

[92] Holy Qur’an, Surah Al-Nisaa’, ayah 59

[93] Muhammad Khayr Haykal, ‘Al-Jihad wa’l Qital fi as-Siyasa ash-Shar’iyya,’ vol.1, Chapter: The Tenth Study: Qitaal Al-Ghaarah (fighting by raids or attacks) for the purpose of seizing the property of the enemy

[94] Eric J. Hanne, ‘Putting the Caliph in His Place: Power, Authority, and the Late Abbasid Caliphate,’ 2007, Fairleigh Dickinson University Press, p.205

[95] Carole Hillenbrand, ‘The Crusades: Islamic Perspectives,’ Chapter: The Evolution of the Phenomenon of Jihad in Crusader Times, Edinburgh University Press, 1999

[96] Ibn Khaldun, ‘The Muqaddimah – An Introduction to History,’ Translated by Franz Rosenthal, Princeton Classics, p.311

[97] Musnad Ahmed 18,459, https://shamela.ws/book/25794/14978

[98] Holy Qur’an, Surah Al-Hujurat, ayah 6

[99] Sahih al-Bukhari 1399, 1400, https://sunnah.com/bukhari:1399

[100] The ‘ulema differed on whether one should still pay zakat to the state if it was corrupt. Ibn Taymiyyah said: “As for what the rulers (wulah) of Muslims take from the tithe (‘ushr), zakat on livestock, trade, and other things, this is waived from its owner if the imam is just and spends it on its legitimate expenditures, according to the consensus of scholars. If he is an oppressor and does not spend it in its legitimate ways, then the person who gave it should not pay the zakat to him, but rather he should spend it himself on those who are entitled to it. If he is forced to pay it to the oppressor, such that if he did not pay it to him, he would be harmed, then it is sufficient for him in this case according to most scholars.” [Ibn Taymiyyah, Majmūʿ al-Fatāwā, https://shamela.ws/book/7289/12529 ]

[101] Sunan Ibn Majah 1783, https://sunnah.com/ibnmajah:1783

[102] Sheikh Haitham Al-Hadad, https://www.islam21c.com/islamic-law/sh-haitham-on-zakat-local-vs-abroad/

[103] Sunan an-Nasa’i 3827, https://sunnah.com/nasai:3827

[104] Al-Sallabi, ‘Umar ibn al-Khattab, his life and times,’ vol.1, p.496

[105] Noah Feldman, ‘The Fall and Rise of the Islamic State,’ Princeton University Press, 2008, p.6

[106] The hadith mentions the name as Usaid ibn Hudair but this is a mistake as Al-Albani points out in his book As-Silsilah As-Sahihah https://shamela.ws/book/9442/1108#p1

[107] Sunan an-Nasa’i 4680, https://sunnah.com/nasai:4680

[108] Jalal ad-Din as-Suyuti, ‘History of the Khalifahs who took the right way,’ translation of ‘Tarikh al-Khulafa,’ Ta Ha Publishers, p.139

[109] Yasir Qadhi, ‘The Sirah of the Prophet ﷺ,’ The Islamic Foundation, 2023, Treaty of Medina

[110] Musnad Ahmad 1342, https://sunnah.com/ahmad:1342

[111] Sahih al-Bukhari 4341, 4342, https://sunnah.com/bukhari:4341

[112] In Yemen, the state only levied taxes on trading goods and agricultural produce. These are known as ‘ushr which is zakat, and falls under the general heading of saqadah.

[113] Ibn Hisham, https://shamela.ws/book/23833/1320

[114] Ibn Hishām, al-Sīrah al-Nabawiyyah, vol. 1, p. 575–577 (ed. Suhayl Zakkār).

[115] This part of the treaty is mentioned in other sources such as Abu Ubayd, Kitab Al-Amwal, https://shamela.ws/book/12999/465

[116] Amr ibn Hazm was also from Banu Al-Najjar

[117] Al-Tabari, Op.cit., Vol.14, p.85

^[118] Al-Tabari, Op.cit., Vol.14, p.6 https://shamela.ws/book/9783/2030

^[119] Ibid

[120] Al-Tabari, Op.cit., Vol.14, p.16

[121] Al-Tabari, Op.cit., Vol.15, p.45

[122] The son of the famous caliph Umar ibn Abdul-Aziz

[123] al-Tabari, Op.cit., Vol. 26, p.219

[124] al-Tabari, Op.cit., Vol. 26, p.220

[125] Hugh Kennedy, ‘Central Government and Provincial Élites in the Early ‘Abbāsid caliphate,’

http://www.jstor.org/stable/616294 p.33

[126] Ibid, p.35

[127] Ibid

[128] Muhammad Khair Haikal, ‘Al-Jihaad Wal-Qitaal Fee As-Siyaasah Ash-Shar’iyah, Volume 1, Dar ul Thaqafah, 2019, p.612

[129] Sahih al-Bukhari 7199, 7200, https://sunnah.com/bukhari/93/60

[130] Sahih al-Bukhari 525 https://sunnah.com/bukhari:525

[131] Ibn Sa’d, At-Tabaqat, 3/275; https://shamela.ws/book/1686/886#p1

[132] Abdulwahab El-Affendi, ‘Who needs an Islamic State?’ second edition, p.163

[133] al-Turtushi (d.1126CE), Sirāj al-Mulūk, https://shamela.ws/book/1585/114

[134] Ibn Sa’d, at-Tabaqat al-Kubra at Tabaqat al-Khamisah min as-Sahabah, 1:331

[135] Sahih al-Bukhari 3629, https://sunnah.com/bukhari/61/133

[136] Alexis De Tocqueville, ‘Democracy in America,’ The University of Chicago Press, 2002, p.172; first published in 1835.

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

[138] Holy Qur’an, Surah Al-Shura, ayah 38

[139] Judge Hussein bin Mohammed Al Mahdi – Member of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Yemen, The book of Shura in Islamic Law, 2009, https://shamela.ws/book/26217/25

[140] Al-Zamakhshari (d.1143), Al-Kashaf, https://tafsir.app/kashaf/3/159

[141] Holy Qur’an, Surah Ali-‘Imran, ayah 159

[142] Judge Hussein bin Mohammed Al Mahdi – Member of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Yemen, The book of Shura in Islamic Law, 2009, https://shamela.ws/book/26217/91

[143] Judge Hussein bin Mohammed Al Mahdi – Member of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Yemen, The book of Shura in Islamic Law, 2009, https://shamela.ws/book/26217/92#p1

[144] Akram Al-Umari, ‘The Era of the Rightly-Guided Caliphate: An Attempt to Criticize the Historical Narrative According to the Methodology of the Modernists,’ https://shamela.ws/book/11439/115#p1

[145] Dr Ali Muhammad As-Sallabi, ‘Umar ibn al-Khattab, his life and times,’ International Islamic Publishing House, volume 2, p.53

[146] Abdul-Qadeem Zallum, ‘The Ruling System in Islam,’ translation of Nizam ul-Hukm fil Islam, Khilafah Publications, Fifth Edition, p.243

[147] Ibn Sa’d, Al-Tabaqat https://shamela.ws/book/1686/1412#p1

[148] Tabari, https://shamela.ws/book/9783/2013#p1

[149] Al-Sallabi, ‘Umar ibn al-Khattab, his life and times,’ vol.2, p.89

[150] Ibn Hisham, narrated by Ka’b ibn Malik, https://shamela.ws/book/23833/466

[151] Ibn Sa’d, Tabaqat, https://shamela.ws/book/1686/486#p1

[152] Musnad Ahmed 6647, https://shamela.ws/book/25794/5118

[153] Sunan Abi Dawud 2608, https://sunnah.com/abudawud:2608

[154] Musnad Ahmed, https://shamela.ws/book/25794/14978

[155] Ibn Hisham, https://shamela.ws/book/23833/1228

[156] Dr Ali Muhammad As-Sallabi, ‘The Noble Life of the Prophet ﷺ,’ p.1898

[157] Ibid, p.1903

[158] Al-Muwatta, https://sunnah.com/urn/514340

[159] The source of authority in an Islamic State from which the caliph gains his legitimacy to rule 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.

[160] Dr. Ali Muhammad As-Sallabi, ‘The Biography of Abu Bakr As Siddeeq’, Darussalam Publishers, 2007, p.724

[161] al-Turtushi (d.1126CE), Sirāj al-Mulūk, https://shamela.ws/book/1585/114

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

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

[164] Abu Bakr and Umar differed over distributing the funds. Abu Bakr distributed them equally among people whereas when Umar was caliph he adopted a different approach and distributed them according to the person’s rank and contribution to Islam. Both of these policies is permitted and there is no ‘ijma here as its established from the sunnah that the Imam has this power. See Dr Ali Muhammad as-Sallabi, ‘Umar ibn Al-Khattab: His life & times,’ Vol.1, International Islamic Publishing House, p.477

[165] Taqiuddin an-Nabhani, ‘The Islamic Personality,’ translation of Ash-Shaksiyya Al-Islamiyya, Vol.3, p.533

[166] Dr Ali Muhammad As-Sallabi,’The Biography of Uthman bin Affan,’ Darussalam, p.406

[167] al-Ma’rifah wa’l-Tareekh by al-Fasawi, 2/754 quoted in Dr Ali Muhammad As-Sallabi,’The Biography of Uthman bin Affan,’ Darussalam, p.406

[168] Judge Hussein bin Mohammed Al Mahdi – Member of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Yemen, The book of Shura in Islamic Law, 2009, https://shamela.ws/book/26217/98#p1

[169] al-Tabari, Op.cit., Vol. 15, p.135

[170] Jalal ad-Din as-Suyuti, ‘The History of the Khalifahs who took the right way,’ 3rd Revised edition, a translation of the chapters on al-Khulafa’ ar-Rashidun from Tarikh al-Khulafa’, Translated by Abdassamad Clarke, Ta-Ha Publishers Ltd, p.169; https://shamela.ws/book/11997/129#p1

[171] Musnad Ahmed 6647, https://shamela.ws/book/25794/5118

[172] al-Tabari, Op.cit., Vol. 18, p.182

[173] al-Tabari, Op.cit., Vol. 18, p.209

[174] al-Tabari, Op.cit., Vol. 20, p.49

[175] al-Tabari, Op.cit., Vol. 20, p.50

[176] al-Tabari, Op.cit., Vol. 20, p.49

[177] Ibid

[178] al-Tabari, Op.cit., Vol. 20, p.50

[179] Ibid

[180] al-Tabari, Op.cit., Vol. 20, p.48

[181] al-Tabari, Op.cit., Vol. 20, p.47

[182] al-Tabari, Op.cit., Vol.19, p.1

[183] al-Tabari, Op.cit., Vol. 20, p.7

[184] al-Tabari, Op.cit., Vol. 20, p.43

[185] al-Tabari, Op.cit., Vol. 20, p.39

[186] Ibid

[187] al-Tabari, Op.cit., Vol. 20, p.69

[188] al-Tabari, Op.cit., Vol. 21, p.210

[189] al-Tabari, Op.cit., Vol. 22, p.9

[190] 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

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

[192] Muhammad Khair Haikal, ‘Al-Jihaad Wal-Qitaal Fee As-Siyaasah Ash-Shar’iyah, Volume One, Dar ul Thaqafah, 2019, p.612

[193] The Meiji Restoration was a political and social revolution in Japan from 1866 to 1869 that ended the power of the Tokugawa shogun and returned the Emperor to a central position in Japanese politics and culture.

[194] Edward Behr, Hirohito: Behind the Myth (New York: Vantage Books, 1989), p.6

[195] Douglas Macgregor, ‘Margin of Victory: Five Battles that Changed the Face of Modern War,’ Naval Institute Press, 2016, p.41

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

[197] Holy Qur’an, Surah al-Baqara, ayah 148

[198] Ibn Taymiyyah, Al-Hisba fil-Islam, https://shamela.ws/book/7263/3#p1

[199] Sahih al-Bukhari 393, https://sunnah.com/bukhari:393

[200] Holy Qur’an, Surah Al-Tawbah, ayah 111

The Objective of State and Authority in Islam

Unity

Dar Al-Islam

How is a caliphate divided up?

The difference between Ikhtilaf (الِاخْتِلاف) and Iftiraq (الاِفْتِراق)

Five Historical Models of the Caliphate

The Travels of Ibn Battuta

Timeline of Ibn Battuta’s Positions

Three models of state unity in Islam

Confederation

Commonwealth

The Unitary State

Devolution

Administrative Divisions of the Prophet’s ﷺ State in Medina

The 12 Naqibs

Sahifat al-Medina

Al-Aws and Al-Khazraj (Ansar)

Jewish Tribes

The First Major Province

Devolved Powers of the Provinces

Fully Devolved Powers (Wali ‘Amm)

Partially devolved powers (Wali Khass)

The Categorisation of the Provinces by the Historians

Islamic Society is Devolved

Areas of Devolution

The Army

Case Study: The First Crusade

Finance

Judiciary

Devolution in the Prophet’s ﷺ State

Devolution in the Rightly Guided Caliphate

Devolution in the Umayyad Caliphate

Devolution in the Abbasid Caliphate

Centralisation vs Decentralisation

Maintaining a Unitary State

Loyalty to the Caliph is through the Bay’ah

Rightly Guided Caliphate

Umayyads

Abbasids

Shura on Government Appointments

Removal of Governors

Provincial Elections

Election of Amirs in the Prophet’s ﷺ State in Medina

The 12 Naqibs

Appointment of the Amirs at Mut’ah

Three or more people need an Amir

Al-Ḥārith ibn Abī Ḍirār – Leader of Banu al-Muṣṭaliq

Malik ibn ‘Awf al-Nasri – Leader of Hawazin

Urwah ibn Masud – Appointed governor of Ta’if

Election of Amirs in the Rightly Guided Caliphate

Abu Musa Al-Ashari elected as governor of Kufa under Uthman

Muhammad ibn Abi Bakr elected as governor of Egypt under Uthman

Election of Amirs in the absence of an agreed upon caliph during the civil war

Summary of Elected Amirs

Damascus

Basra

Kufa

Khorasan

The Caliph may overturn the election result

How would a Unitary State emerge today?

Conclusion

Notes

Share this:

Related

1 Comment