Capability to rule vs lineage

Al-Qurṭubī says, “An Imam merits his authority on the basis of knowledge, piety and strength, not on the basis of lineage. Lineage has no real say in the matter since knowledge and virtue supersede it as Allah makes clear by informing us that He chose Ṭālūt over them on account of his knowledge and strength even though their lineage was more noble.”[1]

It should be noted here, that when al-Qurṭubī refers to lineage, he means within the tribe of Quraish, because he and the majority of scholars in Islamic history stipulated that the Khaleefah must be from Quraish, and made this a contractual condition (shart) of the bay’ah contract, though not a pillar (rukn).[2] The Abbasids came to power claiming their lineage was superior to that of the Umayyads even though they were both from Quraish.[3] Their revolution rallied the Muslims of Iraq and Khorasan, and in particular the Shi’ah, against the Umayyads on the basis that the Imam should be from the family of the Prophet ﷺ i.e. Banu Hashim as opposed to the Umayyads who were from Banu Umayyah. Al-Qurṭubī refutes this stance saying, “nor must he (the Imam) come from the Banū Hāshim or any other clan of Quraysh. There is consensus on the validity of the leadership of Abū Bakr, ‘Umar and ‘Uthmān, and they were not from the Banū Hāshim.”[4]

A question then arises as to whether it’s better to have a non-Quraishi Khaleefah, if he is more capable than a Quraishi one who is less capable?

In answer to this, each time period is different and has its own unique circumstances. In one particular time, lineage may be the most important consideration for the Khaleefah or governor as Dr As-Sallabi mentioned previously, when the Prophet ﷺ would sometimes appoint an influential member of the tribe as its governor. This also occurred in the heated debate with the Ansar at the saqeefah, during the election of Abu Bakr as-Siddiq as the first Khaleefah of Islam. When Hubab bin Al-Mundhir from the Ansar said, “there must be an ameer from us and an ameer from you.” Abu Bakr said,

لاَ، وَلَكِنَّا الأُمَرَاءُ وَأَنْتُمُ الْوُزَرَاءُ هُمْ أَوْسَطُ الْعَرَبِ دَارًا، وَأَعْرَبُهُمْ أَحْسَابًا

“No, we will be the ameers and you will be the wazirs, for they (i.e. Quraish) are the best family amongst the Arabs and of best origin.”[5]

This is because the Arab tribes would only give leadership to someone from Quraysh. If someone from other than Quraysh became the Khaleefah then this may have led to fragmentation of the state. The Messenger of Allah ﷺ said,

النَّاسُ تَبَعٌ لِقُرَيْشٍ فِي هَذَا الشَّأْنِ مُسْلِمُهُمْ لِمُسْلِمِهِمْ وَكَافِرُهُمْ لِكَافِرِهِمْ

“People are subservient to Quraysh in this matter: the Muslims among them [being subservient] to the Muslims among them, and the disbelievers among them [being subservient] to the disbelievers among them.”[6]

To illustrate this superiority of Quraysh among the Arab tribes, in the period 72-74H in which the Umayyad Khaleefah Abdul-Malik ibn Marwan was in power, conflict and fitna broke out in Khurasan between the Arab tribes – Muqa’is and Butan vs Tamim, Awf and Abna – under its governor Bukayr bin Wishah who was from Banu Tamim. The Arab tribes in Khurasan wrote to the Khaleefah Abdul-Malik saying that Khurasan 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, “Khurasan 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 Umayyah bin Abdallah from Banu Umayyah i.e. Quraysh as their governor.[7]

Since the mid-10^th century, executive power in the Khilafah was held by the Turkic Sultans who ran provinces of the state as Sultanates giving nominal allegiance to the Abbasid Qurayshi Khaleefah in Baghdad. After the Mongol invasion and killing of the Abbasid Khaleefah in 1258, the Abbasid Khulufa’a transferred to Cairo, Egypt, holding authority within the Mamluk Sultanate. The Mamluks were freed Turkic slaves and as Sultans were the real holders of power within the state. This was mirrored in Anatolia with the rise of another Turkic tribe – the Ottomans who in 1517 managed to defeat the Mamluks and combined the two offices of Khaleefah and sultan under the first Ottoman Khaleefah Salim I. This is why there was a shift in Islamic political thought in the later part of the Abbasid Khilafah by some ulema (al-Juwaynī, Ibn Khaldun and Ibn Jamāʾah) who lessened the importance of the Khaleefah being from Quraysh, and prioritised other attributes of the Khaleefah such as al-kifāyah.

“The caliph’s ability to actually do so, termed kifāyah, is all that remains after al-Juwaynī’s process of intellectual distillation as the most essential qualifying attribute for an imam.”[8] Ibn Jamāʾah said that “the seizure of power itself gave authority,”[9] and ibn Khaldun writing in the late 14^th century said, “The group feeling (asabiyah) of the Fâṭimids and the Ṭâlibids, indeed, that of all the Quraysh, has everywhere disappeared. There are other nations whose group feeling has gained the upper hand over that of the Quraysh.”[10]

Mona Hasan says, “The overall purpose of establishing a leader for the Muslim community, al-Juwaynī argues, is not affected by the question of genealogy, whereas to insist upon a leader of Qurashī blood may in fact be detrimental. Preference, al-Juwaynī explains, should be assigned at all times to a scholarly, capable, and pious candidate for caliph over one who is merely Qurashī. Should a candidate who possesses these former three traits in addition to being of Qurashī descent suddenly emerge, however, those extenuating circumstances would constitute grounds for the deposition of the non-Qurashī already in office. Yet were it somehow unfeasible or undesirable to adopt that course of action, the partially qualified leader’s position could be legally confirmed.”[11]

This is what led Mustafa Sabri, the last Sheikh ul-Islam of the Ottoman Khilafah to declare, “If Mustafa Kemal had wanted, Mustafa Sabri pointed out, he could have had himself recognized as caliph, following this tradition, and Muslims around the world would have happily acquiesced. He was after all widely hailed as the hero of Islam and the restorer of its glory, and Muslims no longer felt compelled to limit a caliph’s lineage to Quraysh alone as they had with the Abbasid caliphs in Baghdad and Cairo. That Mustafa Kemal did not choose this path was proof of his clique’s aversion to the state’s religious character: Mustafa Kemal and his collaborators took what they wanted, political power, and tossed aside what they despised, the Islamic caliphate.”[12]

Mufti Taqi Usmani nicely concludes this discussion saying, “all of this is when one who is qualified for caliphate from Quraysh is present. As for when one who combines the qualities required is not found, then there is no dispute in the permissibility of contracting the caliphate for a non-Qurayshi, and I would think it is the same when the people have forsaken their lineages and it is not certain [whether] a man is from Quraysh or not. Furthermore, these conditions are only considered when the caliphate is contracted by the Ahl al-Hall wa ‘l-‘Aqd. However, when a Muslim man becomes dominant and becomes imam by his dominance, then he assumes the rules of imamate even if these conditions are absent in him, and his regulations are executed and his appointments are sound, and following his judgement is permissible, as was clarified by the fuqaha (jurists). See for example Sharh al-Ashbah wa l-Nazair by al-Hamawi (2:267).”[13]

It should be pointed out that the condition of Quraish is based on textual evidences i.e. hadith, such as the Messenger of Allah ﷺ saying,

لاَ يَزَالُ الأَمْرُ فِي قُرَيْشٍ مَا بَقِيَ مِنْهُمُ اثْنَانِ

“This matter (al-Amr) will remain with the Quraish, even if only two of them remained.”[14]

This means the shara’ has given consideration to this condition and made it husn (good). Therefore, even though the superiority of Quraysh has all but disappeared nowadays, this does not represent a sharia ‘illa (legal reason) for the existence or not of the Quraish condition. Rather this is a hikmah (wisdom) which doesn’t affect the validity of the text. The Quraish condition therefore remains, albeit a mandub (recommended) condition and not a contractual condition. Taqiuddin an-Nabhani says, “these ahadith indicate that it is a recommendation and not an obligation, thus it is a condition of preference not a contracting condition.”[15]

Notes

[1] Tafsīr al-Qurṭubī, translated by Aisha Bewley, Vol.2, p.602

[2] “Is it compulsory for a caliph to be from Quraysh?” by Mehfooz_Husein and “Is it a condition for the Imam to be from Quraysh?” by Mufti Muhammad Taqi Usmani

[3] al-Tabari, ‘The History of Al-Tabari’, translation of Ta’rikh al-rusul wa’l-muluk, State University of New York Press, Vol. XXVII, pp.96-97

[4] Tafsīr al-Qurṭubī, translated by Aisha Bewley, Vol.1, p.157

[5] Sahih al-Bukhari 3667, https://sunnah.com/bukhari:3667

[6] Sahih Muslim 1818a, https://sunnah.com/muslim:1818a

[7] al-Tabari, Op.cit., Vol. XXII, p.9

[8] Mona Hassan, ‘Longing for the Lost Caliphate,’ Princeton University Press, 2016, p.105

[9] Ibid, p.109

[10] Ibn Khaldun, ‘The Muqaddimah – An Introduction to History,’ Translated by Franz Rosenthal, Princeton Classics, p.394

[11] Mona Hassan, Op.cit., p.104