- Transition of power in a monarchy
- Is it permitted to appoint a Wali Al-’Ahd (designated successor)?
- Is it permitted to use the title Wali Al-’Ahd?
- Why did the sahaba oppose the designation of Yazid?
- Did Abu Bakr make Umar the Wali Al-’Ahd?
- Choosing a Wali Al-’Ahd based on shura is permitted
- Transition of power in a future caliphate
- Notes
Continuing our series on the bay’ah, one of the core issues which needs to be addressed is how to facilitate a smooth transition of power from one caliph to the next. Every ruling system faces this problem and if handled incorrectly may lead to instability and even civil war. This is something we witnessed throughout Islamic history when the caliphate transformed from a rightly guided caliphate into mulk (monarchy) not in the sense of the caliph being sovereign like an absolute monarch or king, but in the characteristics of a monarchy like hereditary rule and abuse of power. This was prophesised by the Messenger of Allah ﷺ who said,
تَكُونُ الْخِلَافَةُ ثَلَاثِينَ سَنَةً ثُمَّ تَصِيرُ مُلْكًا
“The caliphate will be for thirty years. Then it will become mulk (monarchy).”[1]
Hereditary rule was introduced by Mu’awiya who made his son Yazid the Wali Al-’Ahd (heir apparent or designated successor) before he died. This was meant to facilitate a smooth transition of power and prevent another civil war as Ibn Khaldun says, “Mu‘âwiyah himself preferred his son Yazîd to any other successor, because he was concerned with the (public) interest of preserving unity and harmony among the people, since the men who possessed executive authority, that is, the Umayyads, agreed at that time upon Yazîd.”[2] In fact it had the opposite effect, and sparked another civil war because this was a deviation from the principles of shura, free choice and consent which underpins the bay’ah. The Messenger of Allah ﷺ said,
قَدْ تَرَكْتُكُمْ عَلَى الْبَيْضَاءِ لَيْلُهَا كَنَهَارِهَا لاَ يَزِيغُ عَنْهَا بَعْدِي إِلاَّ هَالِكٌ مَنْ يَعِشْ مِنْكُمْ فَسَيَرَى اخْتِلاَفًا كَثِيرًا فَعَلَيْكُمْ بِمَا عَرَفْتُمْ مِنْ سُنَّتِي وَسُنَّةِ الْخُلَفَاءِ الرَّاشِدِينَ الْمَهْدِيِّينَ
“I have left you upon a clear path, its clarity is the same by night or day. No one deviates from it after me but that he will be ruined. Whoever among you lives will see much disagreement. So adhere to what you have recognized of my Sunnah and the Sunnah of the Rightly-Guided Caliphs, and cling stubbornly to it.”[3]
Transition of power in a monarchy
What is a Wali Al-’Ahd (Designated successor)?
A monarchy is the oldest type of ruling system and pre-dates Islam. The Roman and Persian empires and their proxy Arab kingdoms – the Ghassanids and Lakhmids – which existed at the time of Islam were all monarchies. Transition of power in a monarchy is by appointing a heir apparent or designated successor which in Arabic is called a Wali Al-’Ahd (وَلِيّ العَهْد) who will succeed the monarch when they die or abdicate. This transition can be seen in how Bilqis, the Queen of Shebah came to power.
“Bilqis, the Queen of Sheba, killed her tyrannical husband, the King of Himyar Amr Dhi Al-Adh’ar and hid his body under some rugs in the palace. She then gathered the kings of Himyar and the sons of the kings at her palace in Ghamdan and came out to them and said, “The king married me on the condition that I would renounce my kingdom to him during his lifetime, and you know that he would not have children. When he knew that I would submit to his right, surrender to his will, and obey his command, he delegated (فَوَّضَ fawada) the rule to me after him and saw that I was worthy of it and ordered me to take a pledge (عَهْد ‘ahd) from you regarding that.” They said, “We will hear and obey the king in whatever he wishes.” So she took an ‘ahd from them that she would have the kingdom after Amr. When she was certain of them, she said to them, “Do you listen to the king?” So she led them into the assembly. They said to her, “Where is the king?” She said, “Here he is.” So she uncovered him and they saw that he was dead. They said to her, “Who did this?” She said, “I am your heir apparent (وَلِيّ العَهْد Wali Al-‘Ahd) to the kingdom after his death, and this one is dead, and my ‘ahd to you is binding.” They said to her, “You are more deserving of the kingdom since you have relieved us of this tyrannical filth.” So they made Bilqis bint al-Hudad ibn Shurahbil their Queen.”[4]
Choosing the Wali Al-’Ahd
The process of choosing who will succeed the monarch differs between the various flavours of monarchy.
The order of succession in Britain is now based on absolute primogeniture, meaning the eldest child of the monarch inherits the throne, regardless of gender. Prince William is the crown prince as the eldest child of his father King Charles, who was the crown prince for his mother Queen Elizabeth before ascending to the throne.
In Jordan the decision on the heir apparent is with the King. Two weeks before his death, on 24th January 1999, King Hussein removed Prince Hassan as the crown prince and appointed his eldest son Prince Abdullah who is now king. This decision took place 10 days after King Hussein rushed to London to meet the UK Prime Minister Tony Blair.
Saudi Arabia has an Allegience Council (هيئة البيعة Hay’at al-Bay‘ah) which is meant to choose the crown prince but in reality will simply rubber stamp the King’s decision. King Salman appointed his nephew Muhammad bin Nayef on ascending to the throne in 2015, and then two years later removed him and appointed his son Muhammad bin Salman as the crown prince.
In the caliphate, it was up to the caliph to choose his successor in a process known as Istikhlāf (succession). In fact, the scholars permitted the reigning caliph to not only choose the next caliph but also the caliphs after him in a binding ‘ahd (covenant). This process was introduced by the Umayyad ‘caliph’ Marwan ibn Al-Hakam (r.684-685CE).[5] This was permitted by the ‘ulema of the time and continued throughout the Umayyad and Abbasid periods.
Al-Mawardi (d.1058CE) says, “It is permitted for the Khaleefah to designate succession to two persons or more and to lay down an order of succession amongst them by saying, ‘The Khaleefah after me is such and such a person, and if he dies then the Khaleefah after his death will be such and such, and if he dies then the Khaleefah after him will be such and such a person.’ Thus the Khilafah will be transferred to the three persons in the order he has designated.”[6]
Training the Wali Al-’Ahd
The candidates for heir apparent will be groomed for ruling from a young age, going to the best schools, serving in the armed forces, and in the case of an absolute monarchy slowly taking on responsibilities of government and ruling. In the caliphate of the past this meant serving as a governor, Amir of Hajj and an army commander before becoming the official Wali Al-’Ahd which was usually at a special ceremony so the entire public could witness this.
Andrew Marsham describes this process in detail. “Lists of leaders of the ḥajj and annual campaigns (formalised as al-ṣāʾifa under the Marwanids) form two of the earliest strands in Islamic historiography. They reveal that these poles of the religio-political calendar were kept in the control of the ruling dynasty throughout the Umayyad (and early Abbasid) period: they were assigned to the caliph himself, a relative by blood or marriage, or to the walī al-ʿahd; leadership of the ḥajj was closely associated with leadership of the umma, and appears to have been a prerequisite for the nomination of the walī al-ʿahd; at this gathering he could be acclaimed by the descendants of the Anṣār and Muhājirūn, the Meccans and the provincial Muslims.
As we have seen, Muʿāwiya sent his son Yazīd on campaign against the Romans, and led the ḥajj with him. He also honoured his key supporters, and his son’s potential rivals, Saʿīd b. al-Āṣ, Marwān b. al-Ḥakam and ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿĀmir, with ‘public authority and high office’ (manābir . . . maʿālī al-ʿumūr): governorship of Medina and the leadership of the ḥajj in the case of Saʿīd and Marwān, eastern commands in the case of ʿAbd Allāh.
Under ʿAbd al-Malik, ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz b. Marwān was governor of the wealthy province of Miṣr.
Al-Walīd b. ʿAbd al-Malik led campaigns against the Romans in 77/696, 78/697, 79/698 and 80/699, and led the ḥajj in 78/698.
Sulaymān b. ʿAbd al-Malik led the ḥajj in 81/701.
In his father’s caliphate, ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz b. al-Walīd led a campaign against the Romans in 91/710 and led the ḥajj in 93/712 and perhaps in 94/713.
ʿUmar b. ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz led the ḥajj as governor of Medina in 87/706 and 92/711, which perhaps indicates his continuing claim on the succession. (He is also said to have led it in 98/717, a few months before the death of Sulaymān, whom he succeeded as caliph. However, this may be a retrospective modification of the record after ʿUmar’s unconventional succession; if so, it serves to illustrate the importance of the ḥajj to legitimating the succession.)
Ayyūb and Dāwūd, Sulaymān’s sons, were both given military commands.
Hishām b. ʿAbd al-Malik promoted his sons Muʿāwiya and Sulaymān as military commanders.
Sulaymān b. Hishām led the ḥajj in 113/732 and perhaps also in 120/738, and Maslama led it in 119/737. (Al-Walīd b. Yazīd, their rival as ʿUmar II’s second designated heir, is said to have led the ḥajj in 116/735.)
Even al-Ḥakam and ʿUthmān, children when they became walī al-ʿahds in 743, were said to have been given the governorships of Damascus and Ḥimṣ, respectively.”[7]
Transition of Power
Upon the death of the monarch, the heir apparent usually takes power as a formality marking a smooth transition of power. Muhammad bin Salman, the current crown prince of Saudi Arabia, is the de facto King due to the incapacity of his father. On the death of his father, MBS’s accession to the throne should be a formality, although rival factions within the Saud family who represent various foreign interests are always in the background to potentially scupper the transition.
Looking back to world history, many times this transition was far from smooth because of rival claims to the throne. This can clearly be seen in the caliphates, emirates and sultanates which all adopted hereditary rule. Although there were periods of stability in the Umayyad, Abbasid, Seljuk, Mamluk and Ottoman periods, civil wars broke out many times due to disputes over the succession.
Eric Hanne describes this reality. “A case in point were the difficulties inherent in the Buyid, Saljuq, and Abbasid household politics. The familial-confederacy system, although irrevocably linked to the cousin-clan tradition from which both dynasties arose, was an inherently volatile form of rule. Baha’ al-Dawla rose to power only after he had earned the position through a protracted struggle with his relatives. To secure his rule he had to maintain this effort, a process that involved recognizing the status of such older relatives as Fakhr al-Dawla, and simultaneously bolster his own position in the region partly through the deposition of al-Ta’I’ and the installation of al-Qadir in Baghdad. Upon Baha’ al Dawla’s death, however, his lands, and those of the other Buyids in the region, experienced a prolonged series of conflicts among the various Buyid sons, brothers, and uncles.
The Saljuq system, although initially more successful than that of the Buyids, fell victim to the same centrifugal tendencies. 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.”[8]
Is it permitted to appoint a Wali Al-’Ahd (designated successor)?
The majority of the classical scholars permitted Istikhlāf (succession) where the current caliph appoints the next caliph through an ‘ahd. Ibn Khaldun went as far to say that there is ‘ijma (consensus) on this point.
Ovamir Anjum mentions, “In the early phase of the caliphate discourse, there existed significant disagreement about whether testamentary designation is an independent means of appointing an imam. The Muʿtazila consider it invalid altogether. The Maliki Baqillani, the Hanbali Abu Ya’la, and others consider it valid only if followed by bay’a by the electors, thus effectively reducing its value to mere nomination.”[9] He continues: “Even going beyond Baqillani, Abu Ya’la does not consider appointment by designation sufficient in itself until the ahl al-halli wa’l-‘aqd (lit., the untiers and tiers) approve it. The untiers and tiers are considered by Abu Ya’la to be the representatives of the people. Mawardi is the first one to consider their agreement immaterial.”[10]
Muawiya ibn Abi Sufyan (d.680CE)
Mu’awiya who instigated hereditary rule, wrote to his governor in Madinah Marwan ibn Al-Hakam to take the bay’ah for Yazid. Marwan addressed the people: “The Amir of the Believers has decided to appoint his son, Yazid, as his successor over you, according to the sunna of Abu Bakr and ʿUmar.”[11]
Al-Mawardi (d.1058CE)
Al-Mawardi says:
والإمامة تنعقد من وجهين:
أحدهما: باختيار أهلِ العَقْدِ والحَلِّ
وَالثَّانِي: بِعَهْدِ الْإِمَامِ مِنْ قَبْلُ
“Imamate comes into being in two ways: the first of these is by the election of the Ahlul hali wal-aqd, and the second is by the delegation of the previous Imam.”[12]
Ibn Khaldun (d.1406CE)
Ibn Khaldun says, “The appointment of a successor is recognized as part of the religious law through the consensus of the (Muslim) ummah, (which says) that it is permissible and binding when it occurs. Thus, Abû Bakr appointed ‘Umar as his successor in the presence of the men around Muḥammad. They considered (this appointment) permissible and considered themselves obliged by it to render obedience to ‘Umar. Likewise, ‘Umar appointed six persons to be members of (an electoral) council.
No suspicion of the imam is justified in this connection, even if he appoints his father or his son his successor. He is trusted to look after the affairs of the Muslims as long as he lives. He is all the more responsible for not tolerating while he is (alive the possibility that there might arise evil) developments after his death. This is against those who say that he is suspect with regard to (the appointment of) his son or father, and also against those who consider him suspect with regard to the (appointment of) his son only, not his father. In fact, he could hardly be suspected in this respect in any way. Especially if there exists some reason for (the appointment of a successor), such as a desire to promote the (public) interest or fear that some harm might arise (if no successor were appointed), suspicion of the imam is out of the question.”[13]
Rashid Rida (d.1936)
Rashid Rida is particularly harsh against hereditary rule and the actions of Mu’awiya saying “Mu‘awiyah opened the door to tyranny for the powerful, and they went rushing to it!”[14] He continues, “Had the Muslims heeded what the revealed law sets down for the caliphate, and which was established during the era of the rightly guided caliphs, they would have been spared those episodes of discord and corruption. In that case Islam would have spread throughout all lands. Indeed, while in Constantinople a German scholar said to a nobleman from the Hijaz: “We should erect golden statues of Mu‘awiyah in our capitals. That is because if had he not deviated from the path that the revealed law set down for caliphal authority, the path that the rightly guided caliphs followed, the Arabs would have seized all of our lands, and fashioned them into an Islamic-Arab domain.”[15]
Abdul-Qadeem Zallum (d.2003)
Abdul-Qadeem Zallum is another contemporary scholar who is very critical of Istikhlāf, labelling the appointment of a Wali Al-’Ahd as a munkar (evil).
Abdul-Qadeem Zallum says, “The system of appointing a Wali Al-‘Ahd for ruling is considered to be a Munkar in the Islamic ruling system and it contradicts Islam completely. This is because the authority belongs to the Ummah and not to the caliph. If the caliph represents the Ummah in authority, which remains always hers, how could he give this authority to someone else? What Abu Bakr did for ‘Umar was not to appoint him as a Wali Al-‘Ahd, but merely a selection by the Ummah during the lifetime of the caliph, and then the bay’ah took place after his death.”[16]
Since Abu Bakr’s ‘ahd of selecting Umar ibn Al-Khattab as the next caliph, is used as the primary daleel (evidence) for Istikhlāf, we need to study what actually happened in this incident so we can derive a clear and precise sharia rule on what is and is not permitted with regards to designating a successor.
Is it permitted to use the title Wali Al-’Ahd?
As mentioned in the story of Bilqis, the use of the phrase Wali Al-’Ahd (وَلِيّ العَهْد) predates Islam. Although its traditional usage was related to monarchies and hereditary rule it is still a technical term (اِصْطِلاح istilah) and not a sharia term. There is a well-established sharia maxim (qa’ida) related to this which is:
لا مُشَاحَّة في الاصطلاح بعد الاتفاق على المعنى
There is no dispute over terminology after agreement on the meaning.[17]
It seems that the use of the phrase Wali Al-’Ahd came into widespread usage under the Abbasids. During the Umayyad period they simply used ‘ahd (covenant). Although the historians of the Abbasid period such as Al-Tabari used Wali Al-’Ahd in relation to Yazid, this is only their chapter title, and there is no statement of an individual at the time using this phrase. Al-Tabari titles this period in history as:
ذكر خبر البيعه ليزيد بولاية العهد
“Mention of the news of the bay’ah to Yazid as the Wali Al-’Ahd”[18]
Al-Juwaini (d.1085 CE) says, “Umar was his [Abu Bakr’s] Wali Al-’Ahd.”[35]
Mu’awiya used the term bay’ah instead of ‘ahd and this was objected to by the sahaba because bay’ah is a well-known sharia term in the hadith meaning a ruling contract between the Muslims and the caliph. Abdullah ibn Al-Zubayr said to Mu’awiya in relation to this, “Allegiance to both of you can never be combined.”[19] In other words, there cannot be two bay’ahs as this would mean the existence of two caliphs at the same time which is not permitted.
Therefore, using the term Wali Al-’Ahd is permitted and as we will come to, the appointment of a Wali Al-’Ahd is also permitted as long as it’s based on shura which in modern times means a general election.
Mufti Taqi Usmani says, “Istikhlāf (succession) means that a person who has been appointed as a legal ruler nominates his successor during his lifetime. The latter can also be called a Walī al-‘ahd, which is usually translated as ‘crown prince’ or ‘heir apparent’. The term Walī al-‘ahd is most often used in relation to monarchic rule, but its meaning can be extended to cover that of Istikhlāf, too.”[20]
Why did the sahaba oppose the designation of Yazid?
It should be noted that the sahaba’s opposition to Mu’awiya’s designation of his son Yazid as the next caliph, was not due to the actual right of him to nominate a successor (Istikhlāf). They opposed Mu’awiya’s decision because it was not based on shura among the sahaba who were the natural representatives (Ahl hali wal ‘aqd) of the people. Also it was not based on meritocracy but familial ties which is the hallmark of a monarchy and an antithesis to the caliphate system of justice.
Mu’awiya had initially tried to take bay’ah for Yazid via his governor in Madinah Marwan ibn Al-Hakam. He wrote to Marwan to take the bay’ah and Marwan addressed the people: “The Amir of the Believers has decided to appoint his son, Yazid, as his successor over you, according to the sunna of Abu Bakr and ʿUmar.” Abd ar-Rahman ibn Abi Bakr stood up and said, “Rather, according to the sunna of Khosrow and Caesar! Abu Bakr and ʿUmar did not appoint their sons to it, nor anyone from their families.”[21]
Later when Mu’awiya came in person to Madinah to take the bay’ah, Abu Bakr’s other son Muhammad ibn Abi Bakr said to him, “You want us to entrust you to Allah in the affair of your son, but, by Allah, we will not do that. By Allah, return this affair as a matter of shura among the Muslims or we will bring it against you all over again.”[22]
From these statements it is clear that the core issue on why the sahaba opposed Yazid was due to him taking the bay’ah based on familial ties rather than shura and meritocracy. If Mu’awiya had chosen based on merit then he would have chosen al-Hussain or Abdullah ibn Al-Zubayr or another sahabi, as the sahaba are of a distinguished rank unmatched by anyone as Allah ta’ala says,
وَٱلسَّـٰبِقُونَ ٱلْأَوَّلُونَ مِنَ ٱلْمُهَـٰجِرِينَ وَٱلْأَنصَارِ وَٱلَّذِينَ ٱتَّبَعُوهُم بِإِحْسَـٰنٍۢ رَّضِىَ ٱللَّهُ عَنْهُمْ وَرَضُوا۟ عَنْهُ
As for the foremost—the first of the Muhajirin and the Ansar—and those who follow them in goodness, Allah is pleased with them and they are pleased with Him.[23]
Did Abu Bakr make Umar the Wali Al-’Ahd?
Abu Bakr made Umar the Wali Al-’Ahd (in reality but not a formal title) through a written document (‘ahd). This ‘ahd was not like what happened with Mu’awiya’s ‘ahd for Yazid, or the actions of any of the Umayyad and Abbasid caliphs. Abu Bakr’s nomination of Umar as the next caliph was based on shura. The sahaba by their own volition requested that Abu Bakr make the decision for them. It was well-established that the Prophet’s ﷺ wazir and right hand man, the companion of the Messenger in the cave, and the most senior of the sahaba is more qualified in this regard than them. Abu Bakr would never deviate from the sunnah and select someone who was not capable of performing the role of caliph.
Although Abu Bakr only instigated the process of searching for a new caliph when he became ill during the last two weeks of his life, there is no time limit for when this process can begin. In fact an ‘ahd can be drawn up as soon as a new caliph is elected to office.
“The first time Abu Bakr’s illness began was when he bathed on Monday, 7th Jumada al-Akhira, and it was a cold day. He had a fever for fifteen days and did not go out to pray [in congregation]. He used to order Umar ibn al-Khattab to lead the people in prayer, and people would come in to visit him, and he would become more ill every day while he was staying in his house.”[24]
When Abu Bakr became ill and his condition became clear to him, he gathered the people to him and said, “What you see has happened to me, and I do not think that I am here except for my fate [death]. Allah has released your oaths of bay’ah to me and has loosened my bond (‘aqd) from you and has returned your affair to you, so appoint over you whomever you like, for if you appoint over you during my lifetime it will be more likely that you will not differ after me.”
So they spoke about that and left him, but it did not work out for them [i.e. they couldn’t agree], so they returned to him and said, “An opinion, O Caliph of the Messenger of Allah ﷺ [i.e. we want your opinion].” He said, “Perhaps you will differ.” They said, “No.” He said, “Then you must make a covenant (‘ahd) with Allah to be pleased.” They said, “Yes.” He said, “Then give me time to consider Allah, His deen, and His servants.”[25]
Abu Bakr consulted Abdul-Rahman ibn Awf and Uthman bin Affan[26] who were from the ten promised Jannah in this life, and other prominent sahaba before announcing his recommendation that Umar ibn Al-Khattab should be the next caliph. The wider ummah in the capital Medina accepted this decision and after the death of Abu Bakr, the inhabitants of Medina gave their bay’ah to Umar in the Prophet’s Mosque as was customary at the time.
Abu Bakr summoned Uthman [his secretary] to him in private and said to him, “Write, ‘In the name of Allah, the Merciful, the Most Merciful. This is the ‘ahd which Abu Bakr bin Abi Quhafah has enjoined on the Muslims. Now then…’” At this point, he fainted, losing consciousness. Uthman wrote, ‘Now then, I have appointed Umar bin al-Khattab as my successor over you. I have not neglected the best among you.’ Then Abu Bakr awoke and said, “Read it to me.” When he read it to him, Abu Bakr said, “Allahu Akbar” and then went on, “I see that you were afraid that the people would quarrel if I died suddenly in my coma.” Uthman said, “Yes.” Abu Bakr said, “May Allah reward you kindly for the sake of Islam and its people!” Abu Bakr confirmed the text from this place.[27]
It’s important to note that being the Wali Al-’Ahd is not a guarantee of being given the bay’ah once the previous caliph dies or leaves office. In theory the sahaba could have pledged allegiance to someone else after Abu Bakr’s death as the ‘ahd written by Abu Bakr was a nomination and recommendation for the position not the actual bay’ah. The bay’ah contract only came into play once Abu Bakr had died and Umar was pledged to in the Masjid. This is because the ummah is always the source of authority (masdar al-sultah مَصْدَر السُلْطَة) in an Islamic state.[28]
Ibn Taymiyyah explains that the authority is not contracted to its possessor unless it is by the agreement of the majority of the people whilst the rejection of the minority does not harm the matter. He explained that the Khilafah of ‘Umar Ibn Al-Khattaab (ra) was not completed by the ‘Ahd (delegation or assignment) of the Khilafah to him by Abu Bakr (ra) but rather it was enacted by the Bai’ah of the people to him.[29] Ibn Taymiyyah states:
“Umar became the Imam when they gave him the bay’ah and obeyed him. Had it been destined that they would not have implemented the ‘Ahd of Abu Bakr in respect to ‘Umar, then he would not have become the Imam, whether that was permissible or not. That is because the allowed and prohibited relate to the actions whilst the ruling and authority represent an expression of the occurring power or capability. Had it been destined that Abu Bakr gave the bay’ah to ‘Umar alongside a group whilst the remainder of the Sahabah refrained from giving him the bay’ah, then he would not have become an Imam by that. He only became an Imam by the bay’ah of the majority of the people and for that reason the holding back of Sa’d (i.e. Sa’d ibn ‘Ubaadah from the Ansaar) did not harm that because it does not impair or diminish what is intended in terms of the Wilaayah (authority, ruling and leadership). As for ‘Umar having rushed to give him the bay’ah then there must be a precedent in respect to every bay’ah. As for his delegation (or nomination) to ‘Umar then that was completed through the Muslims giving the bay’ah to him after the death of Abu Bakr after which he became an Imam.”[30]
Choosing a Wali Al-’Ahd based on shura is permitted
It’s clear that Abu Bakr made Umar his successor by writing an ‘ahd, which we can refer to as a Wiliyatul-’Ahd. Although some contemporary scholars have referred to the designation of a Wali Al-’Ahd as a munkar, it’s more precise to say that the munkar is appointing a Wali Al-’Ahd based on familial ties instead of shura and meritocracy. The issue of Istikhlāf in of itself isn’t the problem. It’s the resulting injustice which occurs from not following the sunnah in this issue.
Therefore instituting the Wiliyatul-’Ahd based on shura is permitted in the sharia and this is the stance of the sahaba and all the ‘ulema.
Judge Hussein bin Mohammed Al Mahdi says, “The ummah is entrusted with choosing who will rule them, whether through bay’ah, election, or referendum. As for the position of Wali Al’Ahd, it is based on what the Rightly-Guided Caliph Abu Bakr al-Siddiq (ra) did during his covenant with Umar (ra), and it is nothing more than a nomination and recommendation.
Ibn Taymiyyah said in his book, Minhaj as-Sunnah: “Likewise, Umar, when Abu Bakr entrusted him with the position, only became an Imam when they pledged allegiance to him and obeyed him. If it were possible that they would carry out Abu Bakr’s ‘ahd and not pledge allegiance to him, he would not have become an Imam.”
Ibn Taymiyyah then repeats this meaning in another place, saying: “As for Umar, Abu Bakr entrusted him with the position, and the Muslims pledged allegiance to him after Abu Bakr’s death, so he became an Imam when he gained the power and authority through their bay’ah.”
Therefore, the position of Wali Al’Ahd, as defined by sharia, does not in any way contradict the ummah’s right to choose. Whoever is nominated for the position of Wali Al’Ahd requires the explicit bay’ah from the ummah to become Caliph. Therefore, it is the Shura Council that decides the matter, either by bay’ah, direct election via voting and referendum, or entrusting this major task to those who represent the nation in the House of Representatives. The matter is all based on Shura.”[31]
The Umayyad Caliph Umar bin Abdul-Aziz (r.717-720CE) came to office by the ‘ahd of the previous caliph Sulayman ibn Abdul-Malik. Sulayman’s nomination of his nephew Umar was kept a secret because of opposition from the other sons of Abdul-Malik ibn Marwan who thought they were more entitled to the position. Umar was visibly distressed by being appointed.[32]
“Having now officially assumed the seat of the caliphate, Umar ascended the Minbar (pulpit) in what would be his first encounter with the Ummah. He said: “O people! I have been burdened with the responsibilities of the caliphate against my own will and without your consent. I thereby remove the bay’ah to me that is on your necks so that you are at liberty to elect anyone whom you like.” But the audience cried out with one voice that he was the fittest person for the high office and said: “We have chosen you, O Amir al-Mu’mineen, and we are pleased that you have blessed and honoured our good affair.” At this juncture, Umar sensed that he was not going to be able to evade bearing the responsibility of the caliphate, and so he decided to go on with determining his method and approach in dealing with the politics of the Muslim Ummah.”[33]
Umar bin abdul-aziz initially resigned because the Wali Al-’ahd imposed upon him was not based on shura. Once the people’s representatives (ahl hali wal ‘aqd) agreed for him to be the caliph he then took office once again with a bay’ah based on shura. It is for this reason that the scholars and historians unanimously agree that Umar bin Abd al-Aziz was the first Mujaddid (Reviver; Renewer) in Islam based on the hadith:
إِنَّ اللَّهَ يَبْعَثُ لِهَذِهِ الأُمَّةِ عَلَى رَأْسِ كُلِّ مِائَةِ سَنَةٍ مَنْ يُجَدِّدُ لَهَا دِينَهَا
“At the turn of every century, Allah will send a person to rectify the religious affairs of this Ummah.”[34]
Transition of power in a future caliphate
In order to facilitate a smooth transition of power to the next caliph there has to be free and fair elections (shura) so the caliph has a mandate to rule via a legitimate bay’ah. There has been much focus on Umar ibn Al-Khattab’s council of six and the three day time limit he imposed for choosing a new caliph, but in modern times this short time limit may be far from realistic and practical. Conducting a general election is simply not possible within three days which means it falls to the Majlis Al-Nuwwab (House of Representatives) to elect the caliph. The Majlis is an elected house which institutionalises the classical concept of the Ahl hali wal-aqd (those who loosen and bind) who are an electoral body that chooses the caliph.
An alternative solution is to look at Abu Bakr’s designating of Umar as the next caliph through his ‘ahd (covenant). While the process of searching for a new caliph only occurred during the last two weeks of Abu Bakr’s life, there is no time limit here for when it can begin. In fact an ‘ahd can be implemented as soon as a new caliph is elected to office.
In modern times the choosing of the Wali Al-’Ahd will be through elections. This needs to be a general election and not an election by Majlis members only. This ensures that every mature Muslim male and female is able to exercise their choice of who the caliph will be, by voting for the Wali Al-’Ahd who should become the caliph as a formality when the need arises. This will facilitate a smooth transition of power from one caliph to the next.
Electoral process
Elections are simply a style (أُسْلُوب) or administrative process and the method of undertaking them can be copied from any state or government. One possible scenario is below.
Elections need to be instituted for four institutions of state:
1- Governor
2 – Wali Al-’Ahd
3 – Majlis Al-Wiliyah
4 – Majlis Al-Nuwwab
Each post above is for a time term of six years with elections every two years. The cycle then repeats at year 6.
| Electoral Year | Position |
| 0 | Governor and Wali Al-’Ahd |
| 2 | Majlis Al-Nuwwab member |
| 4 | Majlis Al-Wiliyah member |
Training the new Wali Al-’Ahd
For someone to even be considered a viable candidate for the post of Wali Al-’Ahd they would have served in multiple positions within the state already such as a Majlis member, armed forces officer, governor or minister. Once elected to the position of ‘Caliph in-waiting’ then the current caliph should appoint the Wali Al’Ahd as his deputy caliph (na’ib) which would match the classical position of Wazir Al-Tafweedh codified by Al-Mawardi. He would have general supervision like a Prime Minister or Grand Vizier as opposed to a specific portfolio. This means he can supervise all aspects of the state, assisting the current caliph and learning the art of government and politics at a strategic level.
This is how the caliphs of the past were trained and is how they gained ruling experience (Al-Kifiya) which is a contractual condition of the bay’ah contract.
Notes
[1] Hadith reference: Ibn Taymiyyah, Majmu’ Al-Fatawa, https://shamela.ws/book/7289/16461
The hidden pronoun (dameer mustatir) in the verb تصير is a هي and it refers back to the word Khilafah. This doesn’t mean the Khilafah will end after thirty years, rather it means the Khilafah will continue but with the characteristics of mulk. Sayf ad-Deen al-Amidi (d.1233CE) says,
أنه قال: «ثم تصير ملكا» والضمير فى قوله: تصير ملكا، إنما هو عائد إلى الخلافة؛ إذ لا مذكور يمكن عود الضمير إليه غير الخلافة، وتقدير الكلام، ثم تصير الخلافة ملكا، حكم عليها بأنها تصير ملكا، والحكم على الشيء، يستدعى وجود ذلك الشيء
He ﷺ said, «ثم تصير ملكا» “Then it becomes a kingdom.” The [hidden] pronoun in his phrase, تصير ملكا “It becomes a kingdom,” refers to the caliphate, as there is no mentioned entity to which the pronoun can refer other than the caliphate. The interpretation of the statement, ثم تصير الخلافة ملكا “Then the caliphate becomes a kingdom,” is a hukm that it will become a kingdom, and a ruling on something requires the existence of that thing. [Sayf ad-Deen al-Amidi, ‘al-Imaamah min abkar al-afkar fi usul ad-din,’ Shamela edition, p.1151]
[2] Ibn Khaldun, ‘The Muqaddimah – An Introduction to History,’ Translated by Franz Rosenthal, Princeton Classics, p.270
[3] Sunan Ibn Majah 43, https://sunnah.com/ibnmajah:43
[4] Ibn Hisham (d.833CE), ‘The Book of Crowns on the Kings of Himyar,’ https://shamela.ws/book/37473/151
[5] Al-Suyuti says, “The soundest view is that of adh-Dhahabī, who said that Marwān is not regarded as one of the Amirs of the Believers, but as a rebel (bāghin) against Ibn az-Zubayr, and that his appointment of his son was not valid. ʿAbd al-Malik’s Khilafah only became valid when Ibn az-Zubayr was killed.”[Jalal ad-Din as-Suyuti, ‘History of the Umayyad Khaleefahs,’ translated by T.S.Andersson, Ta Ha Publishers, p.42]
[6] Abu l-Hasan al-Mawardi, The Laws of Islamic Governance, translation of Al-Ahkam as-Sultaniyah, Ta Ha Publishers, p.23
[7] Andrew Marsham, ‘Rituals of Islamic Monarchy Accession and succession in the first Muslim empire,’ Edinburgh University Press, p.124
[8] Eric J. Hanne, ‘Putting the Caliph in His Place: Power, Authority, and the Late Abbasid Caliphate,’ 2007, Fairleigh Dickinson University Press, p.205
[9] Ovamir Anjum, ‘Politics, Law, and Community in Islamic Thought – The Taymiyyan Moment,’ Cambridge University Press, 2012, pp.114
[10] Ovamir Anjum, ‘Politics, Law, and Community in Islamic Thought – The Taymiyyan Moment,’ Cambridge University Press, 2012, pp.119
[11] Jalal ad-Din as-Suyuti, ‘History of the Umayyad Khaleefahs,’ Op.cit., p.24
[12] Abu l-Hasan al-Mawardi, The Laws of Islamic Governance, translation of Al-Ahkam as-Sultaniyah, Ta Ha Publishers, p.12; https://shamela.ws/book/22881/14#p1
[13] Ibn Khaldun, Op.cit., p.269
[14] Muhammad Rashid Rida, ‘The Caliphate or Supreme Imamate,’ first published 1922-1923, translation of Al-Khilafa aw al-Imama al-‘Uzma, translated by Simon A Wood, Yale University Press, 2024, p.248; https://shamela.ws/book/9682
[15] Ibid, p.114
[16] Abdul-Qadeem Zallum, ‘The Ruling System in Islam,’ translation of Nizam ul-Hukm fil Islam, Khilafah Publications, Fifth Edition, p.96
[18] Al-Tabari, https://shamela.ws/book/9783/2761
[19] Jalal ad-Din as-Suyuti, ‘History of the Umayyad Khaleefahs,’ Op.cit., p.24
[20] Mufti Taqi Usmani, ‘Islam & Politics,’ Turath Publishing
[21] Jalal ad-Din as-Suyuti, ‘History of the Umayyad Khaleefahs,’ Op.cit., p.24
[22] Ibid
[23] Holy Qur’an, Surah At-Tawbah, verse 100
[24] Al-Tabari, ‘The History of Al-Tabari’, translation of Ta’rikh al-rusul wa’l-muluk, State University of New York Press, Vol. 11, p.131 https://shamela.ws/book/9783/1692
[25] Ibn Asakir, ‘History of Damascus,’ https://shamela.ws/book/71/20391
[26] Al-Tabari, Op.cit., Vol. 11, p.145
[27] Al-Tabari, Op.cit., Vol. 11, p.147; https://shamela.ws/book/9783/1702
[28] Hashim Kamali, ‘Citizenship and Accountability of Government: An Islamic Perspective,’ The Islamic Texts Society, 2011, p.197
[29] Muhammad Khayr Haykal, ‘Al-Jihad wa’l Qital fi as-Siyasa ash-Shar’iyya,’ vol.1, The Tenth Study
[30] ‘Al-Muntaqaa Min Minhaaj Al-I’tidaal’, Adh-Dhabiy and ‘Ikhtisaar Minhaaj As-Sunnah, Ibn Taymiyyah: p.57 from (‘Ad-Dawlah Wa Nizhaam ul-Hisbah in the view of Ibn Taymiyyah’, by Muhammad Al-Mubaarak: 37)
[31] 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/26217/96#p1
[32] Al-Tabari, Op.cit., Vol. 24, p.70
[33] Dr. Ali Muhammad As-Sallabi, ‘Umar bin Abd al-Aziz,’ Darussalam, p.107
[34] Sunan Abi Dawud 4291, https://sunnah.com/abudawud:4291
[35] Al-Juwaini, Ghiyāth al-Umam, https://shamela.ws/book/8323/52#p1
Islamic Civilization 