1. The Objective of State and Authority in Islam
2. Unity
3. Dar Al-Islam
4. How is a caliphate divided up?
5. The difference between Ikhtilaf (الِاخْتِلاف) and Iftiraq (الاِفْتِراق)
6. Five Historical Models of the Caliphate
7. The Travels of Ibn Battuta
   1. Timeline of Ibn Battuta’s Positions
8. Three models of state unity in Islam
   1. Confederation
   2. Commonwealth
9. The Unitary State
   1. Devolution
   2. Administrative Divisions of the Prophet’s ﷺ State in Medina
      1. The 12 Naqibs
      2. Sahifat al-Medina
      3. Al-Aws and Al-Khazraj (Ansar)
      4. Jewish Tribes
      5. The First Major Province
   3. Devolved Powers of the Provinces
      1. Fully Devolved Powers (Wali ‘Amm)
      2. Partially devolved powers (Wali Khass)
      3. The Categorisation of the Provinces by the Historians
      4. Islamic Society is Devolved
      5. Areas of Devolution
         1. The Army
         2. Case Study: The First Crusade
         3. Finance
         4. Judiciary
      6. Devolution in the Prophet’s ﷺ State
      7. Devolution in the Rightly Guided Caliphate
      8. Devolution in the Umayyad Caliphate
      9. Devolution in the Abbasid Caliphate
      10. Centralisation vs Decentralisation
   4. Maintaining a Unitary State
      1. Loyalty to the Caliph is through the Bay’ah
      2. Rightly Guided Caliphate
      3. Umayyads
      4. Abbasids
   5. Shura on Government Appointments
   6. Removal of Governors
   7. Provincial Elections
   8. Election of Amirs in the Prophet’s ﷺ State in Medina
      1. The 12 Naqibs
      2. Appointment of the Amirs at Mut’ah
      3. Three or more people need an Amir
      4. Al-Ḥārith ibn Abī Ḍirār – Leader of Banu al-Muṣṭaliq
      5. Malik ibn ‘Awf al-Nasri – Leader of Hawazin
      6. Urwah ibn Masud – Appointed governor of Ta’if
   9. Election of Amirs in the Rightly Guided Caliphate
      1. Abu Musa Al-Ashari elected as governor of Kufa under Uthman
      2. Muhammad ibn Abi Bakr elected as governor of Egypt under Uthman
   10. Election of Amirs in the absence of an agreed upon caliph during the civil war
       1. Summary of Elected Amirs
       2. Damascus
       3. Basra
       4. Kufa
       5. Khorasan
       6. The Caliph may overturn the election result
10. How would a Unitary State emerge today?
11. Conclusion
12. Notes

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:

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]

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

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.

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

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]

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.

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.”[137]

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,

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 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

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]:

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

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.

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 Arabic word dīwān (دِيوان) refers to a sitting room, where scribes can sit and attend to their work; it can also mean a collection of notebooks, or a ledger, containing the names of those who are registered in the military or who receive grants from the government.”[1]

In modern times a dīwān is called a government department (دائِرَة da’ira).

Al-Mawardi says, “The dīwān is a place for maintaining what is related to the authorities of the Sultan in terms of public works, finance, and the armies and governors (Al-‘Ummal) who carry them out.”[2]

The original term dīwān is from Pahlavi (Middle Persian), because this administration of state bureaucracy was adopted from the Persian empire by Umar ibn Al-Khattab, the second caliph of Islam in the year 20H[3]. Abu Hurayra, who was the governor of al-Bahrain came to Umar with 500,000 dirhams in tax revenue. After Umar’s initial shock at the size of this amount he consulted the sahaba and he was advised to adopt the diwan of the Persians.[4]

Administration (إِدارَة idara) can be adopted from any system, because they are simply methods (الأَسالِيب Al-‘Asalib) and means (الوَسائِل Al-Wasa’il) to implement an original (‘asl) rule (hukm). They therefore derive their sharia daleel (divine evidence) from the original hukm, and do not need specific evidence to enact them. As an example, the Qur’an and Sunnah establishes the hukm that it is an obligation for the bay’a to a caliph to be based on free choice and consent (shura), but how the consent of millions of Muslims is achieved will fall under methods and means. A House of Representatives, electoral committee, voting, polling booths and voting machines are all permissible methods and means to achieve the hukm of shura.

The majority of laws in modern states relating to economy, military, agriculture, health care etc are administrative, and so an Islamic State can simply copy the most appropriate systems from the west or China or elsewhere, resulting in the rapid development of the country.

This is highlighted in the famous incident of the fertilising of the date palms. Musa bin Talha narrates that, “I and Allah’s Messenger ﷺ happened to pass by people near the date-palm trees. He (the Holy Prophet) said: ‘What are these people doing?’ They said: ‘They are grafting,’ i.e. they combine the male with the female (tree) and thus they yield more fruit. Thereupon Allah’s Messenger ﷺ said: ‘I do not find it to be of any use.’ The people were informed about it and they abandoned this practice. Allah’s Messenger ﷺ (was later) informed (that the yield had dwindled), whereupon he said: ‘If there is any use of it, then they should do it, for it was just a personal opinion of mine, and do not follow my personal opinion; but when I say to you anything on behalf of Allah, then do accept it, for I do not attribute lies to Allah, the Exalted and Glorious.’”[5]

Farming and agriculture are permissible in Islam and in fact Fard Al-Kifiya (collective obligation) for a state. The Messenger of Allah ﷺ said,

مَا مِنْ مُسْلِمٍ يَغْرِسُ غَرْسًا، أَوْ يَزْرَعُ زَرْعًا، فَيَأْكُلُ مِنْهُ طَيْرٌ أَوْ إِنْسَانٌ أَوْ بَهِيمَةٌ، إِلاَّ كَانَ لَهُ بِهِ صَدَقَةٌ

“There is none amongst the Muslims who plants a tree or sows seeds, and then a bird, or a person or an animal eats from it, but is regarded as a charitable gift for him.”[6]

The artificial fertilisation of date-palms is simply a branch (فَرْع far’) action of the original (‘asl) hukm.

Noah Feldman describes the administrative laws. “In the classical Sunni constitutional balance, the shari’a existed alongside a body of administrative regulations that governed many matters in the realms of taxation and criminal law. The Ottoman Empire had long featured thousands of such regulations, called kanun, a word whose derivation from the Latin canon testified to its origins outside the shari’a.”[7] He continues, “The administrative regulations that covered so much of life in the classical Islamic legal world were understood by one and all to derive from the authority of the ruler that was recognized by the shari’a. A regulation could never contradict or supersede the shari’a.”[8]

While Umar ibn Al-Khattab is credited with the formal establishment of the diwan, the Prophet ﷺ himself established the rule on state administration by appointing secretaries (Kuttab) with the responsibility for documenting official state business. Mustafa Al-Azami mentions three ledgers were used in the Islamic State of the Prophet ﷺ:

1- A record of letters dispatched and received by the government, which became known in later times as the Dīwān Al-Inshā’ (Chancery Bureau)[9]

2- A military file listing those who were registered in the military, which became known as the Dīwān Al-Jaysh.

3- An account of the treasury, bearing the relevant income and expenditure figures, which became known as the Dīwān Al-Kharaj.[10]

“Al-Qalqashandi (d.1418CE) argues that Dīwān Al-Inshā’ (Chancery Bureau) was initially put together by the Prophet himself, and is the first recording system to come into use in Islam, while the Dīwān Al-Jaysh (military archive) was founded by Umar during his caliphate.”[11]

The head of state can organise the executive departments and the executive office as he so wishes, in accordance with the principles of the Islamic ruling system. If we look at the Dīwān Al-Khatam (Office of the Official Seal) the Prophet ﷺ appointed Muayqib ibn Abi Fatimah Al-Dusi as the Sahib ul-Khatam (Secretary of the Official Seal) [12] who would stamp the official letters with the Prophet’s ﷺ silver ring engraved with: ‘Muḥammad, the Messenger of Allah.’[13]

No other sahabi, even Abu Bakr and Umar, his wazirs had this power despite them being beyond reproach. This is an additional lesson we can learn in terms of limiting the powers of the wazirs i.e. restricting them to specific portfolios, and separating the duties of the secretaries (kuttab).

Ibn Khaludun says, “Mu’awiyah was the first one who used a Dīwān Al-Khatam. The reason for that was that Mu’awiyah ordered one hundred thousand dirhams for Amr bin Al-Zubayr to relieve the latter of his debts. Mu’awiyah wrote about that to Ziyad bin Sumayyah while the latter was in charge of Iraq. Amr then opened the letter and changed the one hundred to two hundred. When Ziyad presented his invoice, Mu’awiyah disclaimed it, required Amr to return the money, and imprisoned him. His brother, Abdallah bin Al-Zubayr, paid it on his behalf. At that, Mu’awiyah established the Diwan Al-Khatam, and he tied up letters, which had not been tied (before).”[14]

The majority of Al-Mawardi’s twenty government functions (wilayat) in modern times would fall under the organisation of executive departments and offices.

Notes

[1] Ibn Manzur, Lisan al-Arab (d-w-n) https://shamela.ws/book/1687/6727#p1 quoted in Muhammad Mustafa Al-Azami, ‘The Scribes of the Prophet,’ Turath Publishing, 2003, p.24

[2] Al-Mawardi, https://shamela.ws/book/22881/293

[3] Muhammad Ibn Sa’d, Kitab at-Tabaqat al-Kabir, Volume III, ‘The Companions of Badr,’ translated by Aisha Bewley, Ta-Ha Publishers Ltd, 2013, p.229

[4] Muhammad Ibn Sa’d, Kitab at-Tabaqat al-Kabir, Volume III, ‘The Companions of Badr,’ translated by Aisha Bewley, Ta-Ha Publishers Ltd, 2013, p.232

[5] Sahih Muslim 2361, https://sunnah.com/muslim:2361

[6] Sahih al-Bukhari 2320, https://sunnah.com/bukhari:2320

[7] Noah Feldman, ‘The Fall and Rise of the Islamic State,’ p.61

[8] Noah Feldman, Op.cit., p.43

[9] This office covers the Umayyad Offices of Correspondence (diwan al-rasa’il) and official seal (diwan al-khatam)

[10] Muhammad Mustafa Al-Azami, ‘The Scribes of the Prophet,’ Turath Publishing, 2003, p.25

[11] Ibid

[12] Sunan an-Nasa’i 5205 https://sunnah.com/nasai/48/166

[13] Ibn Khaldun, ‘The Muqaddimah – An Introduction to History,’ Translated by Franz Rosenthal, Princeton Classics, p.339

[14] 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. 18, p.217

Al-Mawardi describes the Wazir Al-Tanfidh (The Executive Minister) in his model, “As for the wazirate of execution (tanfidh), its rule is weaker and its conditions are fewer as its authority is restricted to the judgement and direction of the Imam: the wazir is a mediator between him and his subjects, carrying out his commands, executing his instructions, enacting what he decides and announcing any governmental appointments or military preparations of the armies; he also informs him about anything of importance which happens and any new developments which come to his notice, so that he may act in accordance with the Imam’s command.

He is thus appointed for the execution of affairs but not to organise them -indeed he is not appointed for this purpose. If he shares in making judgements, the name ‘wazir’ is more fitting while if he does not, then the name ‘mediator’ (Al-Wasitah) or ‘ambassador’ (Al-Sifarah) is more applicable.”[1]

The Minister of Execution (Wazir Al-Tanfidh) in modern times may be part of the Executive Office or head up an Executive Department. Historically, there was no distinction between the Executive Office and Executive Departments. In fact, in America, the Executive Office of the President was only created in 1939 by President Roosevelt. The Diwans which we will come to shortly, mapped to both parts of the government. For example, the Hajib (doorkeeper) is equivalent to the White House Chief of Staff, and the Sahib Al-Kharaj is equivalent to the Treasury Secretary.

If a Wazir Al-Tanfidh is appointed as head of an executive department then he will have no executive power, and has to get sign off from the caliph before implementing any policies. This is similar to the US system where the heads of executive departments are called Secretaries, and in theory their executive policies must be signed off by the President before implementation. In practice this all depends on the President and whether he takes a backseat role like George W. Bush, or a more hands-on role like Trump.

Hassan al-Banna (d.1949) says, “The basis of this responsibility [of ruling] in the parliamentary system is that the person responsible is the ministry (wizara) and there is no responsibility for the head of state. This was done in the Egyptian constitution and the English constitution, as each of them specified the responsibility of the ministry, and exempted the head of state from all responsibility and considered him immune, to be protected and untouchable.

However, in a parliamentary system there is nothing wrong with the head of state assuming responsibility and considering the ministry subordinate to him in this, as stipulated in the US Constitution. It is amazing that Islamic jurisprudence books also refer to this situation, and this ministry is called the Executive Ministry (Wizara Al-Tanfidh)…There is no doubt that this is due to the breadth of the material of Islamic jurisprudence, its flexibility, and its suitability for all times and places.”[2]

Notes

[1] Abu l-Hasan al-Mawardi, Al-Ahkam as-Sultaniyah, Ta Ha Publishers, p.42

[2] From the letters of Imam Hassan al-Banna, https://www.ikhwanwiki.com/index.php?title=%D9%86%D8%B8%D8%A7%D9%85_%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AD%D9%83%D9%85….%D8%B1%D8%B3%D8%A7%D8%A6%D9%84_%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A8%D9%86%D8%A7

1. Terrorism is not Jihad
2. The Islamic Conquests
3. Importance of Correct Military Structuring
4. The Amir of Jihad
5. Civilian Control of the Military
6. The Emirate of Jihad encompasses more than just fighting
7. The Caliph is the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces
8. Will the Caliph lead the armies directly?
9. Preventing Coup d’états
   1. 1-     The bay’ah contract
   2. 2-     No obedience in sin
   3. 3-     Appointment and dismissal of the general staff
10. Administrative Structure of the Military
11. Flags of the Armed Forces
12. Notes

Every state must have an army to protect its interests at home and abroad, and the Islamic State is no different in this regard. Although the word jihad has become a controversial term nowadays due to the west and its media equating it with terrorism, no one can dispute that fighting to make Allah’s word the highest i.e. that the systems and laws in the land are based on sharia is a major part of the Islamic religion, and two billion of the world’s population would not be Muslim today if it wasn’t for these conquests that took place over the centuries. The Prophet ﷺ said,

 رَأْسُ الأَمْرِ الإِسْلاَمُ وَعَمُودُهُ الصَّلاَةُ وَذِرْوَةُ سَنَامِهِ الْجِهَادُ

“The head of the matter is Islam, and its pillar is the prayer, and its hump[1] is Jihad.”[2]

Allah (Most High) says,

ٱلَّذِينَ أُخْرِجُوا۟ مِن دِيَـٰرِهِم بِغَيْرِ حَقٍّ إِلَّآ أَن يَقُولُوا۟ رَبُّنَا ٱللَّهُ ۗ وَلَوْلَا دَفْعُ ٱللَّهِ ٱلنَّاسَ بَعْضَهُم بِبَعْضٍۢ لَّهُدِّمَتْ صَوَٰمِعُ وَبِيَعٌۭ وَصَلَوَٰتٌۭ وَمَسَـٰجِدُ يُذْكَرُ فِيهَا ٱسْمُ ٱللَّهِ كَثِيرًۭا ۗ وَلَيَنصُرَنَّ ٱللَّهُ مَن يَنصُرُهُۥٓ ۗ إِنَّ ٱللَّهَ لَقَوِىٌّ عَزِيزٌ

˹They are˺ those who have been expelled from their homes for no reason other than proclaiming: “Our Lord is Allah.” Had Allah not repelled ˹the aggression of˺ some people by means of others, destruction would have surely claimed monasteries, churches, synagogues, and mosques in which Allah’s Name is often mentioned. Allah will certainly help those who stand up for Him. Allah is truly All-Powerful, Almighty.[3]

In the first two centuries of Islamic history, the life of the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ – sīrah – was more commonly known as maghāzī (military expeditions). The earliest sīrah book we have is Kitab al-Maghāzī[4] by the Tabi’i scholar Musa ibn ‘Uqbah (d.758CE).

John Saunders says, “Once and once only, did the tide of nomadism flow vigorously out of Arabia. Bedouin raids on the towns and villages of Syria and Iraq had been going on since the dawn of history, and, occasionally an Arab tribe would set up a semi-civilized kingdom on the edge of the desert, as the Nabataeans did at Petra or the Palmyrenes at Tadmur, but conquests only occurred at the rise of Islam.”[5]

Fred Donner says, “In any case there can be no doubt that, from the very beginning, the Islamic state not only had a clearly identified sovereign (whatever he was called), but also seems to have had a clear concept of sovereignty which articulated the idea that the state should establish a properly righteous public order under the direction of the Believers, guided especially by the Qur’an, and that expansion of the state into new areas was a legitimate—indeed, an obligatory—endeavour. (However, it should be noted that this is not the same as demanding that everyone embrace the new faith.) Blankinship observes that the drive ‘to establish God’s rule in the earth’ through jihad, or active struggle, made the early Islamic state more ideological than any state that had existed before it, and has aptly called it the ‘jihad state’.”[6]

Terrorism is not Jihad

US President George W. Bush famously said after 9/11, “Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists.”[7] America and the other major world powers want free reign to plunder the resources of the earth, and will not hesitate in bombing, invading and massacring the inhabitants of resource-rich countries in order to achieve this. Anyone who dares to physically strive against their cruel campaigns is labelled a terrorist, unless the aims of these fighters happen to coincide with the interests of a particular world power. As the saying goes, “one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter.” U.S. President Ronald Reagan in reference to the Afghan Mujahideen fighting the Soviets said in 1983, “To watch the courageous Afghan freedom fighters battle modern arsenals with simple hand-held weapons is an inspiration to those who love freedom.”[8] Twenty years later and the Afghan freedom fighters became the first target of America’s global war on terror.

The Islamic Conquests

The takfiri groups have also contributed towards this maligning of jihad, by contradicting the clear commandments in the Qur’an and Sunnah related to what is permitted and not permitted in warfare. These strict rules of engagement especially with regards to non-combatants were enacted for over a millennium during the Islamic conquests. The Muslim armies did not commit genocides or wanton destruction of the peoples they conquered, because the objective of jihad is not to kill people or plunder their country’s resources. Jihad has a very clear objective which is to make Allah’s word the highest i.e. that justice is established by implementing the Islamic sharia in the lands it governs.

Montgomery Watt (d.2006) says, “Islamic ideology alone gave the Arabs that outward-looking attitude which enabled them to become sufficiently united to defeat the Byzantine and Persian empires. Many of them may have been concerned chiefly with booty for themselves. But men who were merely raiders out for booty could not have held together as the Arabs did.”[9]

While abuses, mistakes and collateral damage occurred during these battles, since these are human armies not armies of angels, on the whole “rule of law at the height of war” became a mantra of the Islamic conquests. If this had not been the case, then the conquered peoples would have rid themselves of the Muslim occupiers as soon as they were able to. In fact, the opposite occurred. Many of these ‘conquered’ peoples – especially outside the Middle East – embraced Islam and then spread Islam from their territories. The Muslim general Tariq bin Ziyad who conquered Spain in 711CE was not an Arab, he was a convert to Islam from a Berber tribe in what is now Algeria.

John Saunders compares the Arab and Mongol Conquests. He says, “In consequence the Mongols remained strangers in these lands, hated alien conquerors, an army of occupation, putting down no roots, and winning no loyalty.”[10] He then contrasts the Arab and Mongol conquests of Persia, “The contrast cannot be more strongly pointed than by considering the case of Persia, which was conquered both by the Arabs and the Mongols. The Arab conquest transformed the whole life and ethos of Iran, a clean break was made with the Sassanid and Zoroastrian past, the nation began its history afresh, its ancient language was submerged and when it later revived was choked with Arabic words which modern patriotism has scarcely managed wholly to expel. The Mongol conquest roared over Persia like a hurricane, yet when it had passed, the character of the nation had undergone little change. The Persians had accepted the Arab religion, but the Mongols accepted the Persian religion. Cultural continuity was maintained, despite enormous physical damage, and the Persian language was not only almost unaffected by Mongol but actually rose to be virtually the official language of the Mongol Empire.”[11]

Thomas Arnold, an orientalist and a Christian makes an observation of Islamic rule with regards its non-Muslim citizens (dhimmi): “But of any organised attempt to force the acceptance of Islam on the non-Muslim population, or of any systematic persecution intended to stamp out the Christian religion, we hear nothing.

Had the Caliphs chosen to adopt either course of action, they might have swept away Christianity as easily as Ferdinand and Isabella drove Islam out of Spain, or Louis XIV made Protestantism penal in France, or the Jews were kept out of England for 350 years.

The Eastern Churches in Asia were entirely cut off from communion with the rest of Christendom, throughout which no one would have been found to lift a finger on their behalf, as hereticalcommunions. So that the very survival of these churches to the present day is a strong proof of the generally tolerant attitude of the Muhammadan governments towards them.”[12]

Importance of Correct Military Structuring

Turning back to the discussion at hand, since the armed forces play such a major role in the Islamic state, their organisation and administration must be managed correctly. The military has its own culture and ethos, and is resistant to change. If not handled properly they can become a separate entity looking after the interests of themselves, rather than those of the state. In 1905, Field Marshal Sir Evelyn Wood told Richard Haldane, the Secretary of State for War, “If you organize the British army, you will ruin it.”[13]

If the military becomes independent this may lead to riots, civil wars and even coup d’états as were witnessed during the Abbasid Caliphate after the formation of a professional standing army of freed Turkish slaves (Ghilmans/Mamluks) by the caliph Al-Mu’tasim (r. 833-842). The rise of the Turkic army and their power struggles with the Abbasid Caliphs, led them to assassinate Al‐Mutawakkil (r. 847-861) and install his son Al-Muntasir (r. 861–862) as the caliph. The subsequent coup d’états, assassinations and civil strife in the new Abbasid capital of Samarra, are known as the Anarchy of Samarra (861-870) in which the removal and murder of five caliphs took place within just nine years.

Unfortunately, many of the militaries in Muslim countries today do not act in the interests of Islam and the state, because the top brass are simply bought off by the west. It’s no secret that the Pakistan military for example runs a huge number of commercial ventures and that its senior officers and generals have become extremely wealthy on the back of this.[14]

The Amir of Jihad

The title Amir ul-Jihad (أَمِير الجِهاد) which literally means the Leader of War, is a grammatical construction (إِضافَة Iḍāfah) mostly used to indicate possession. As a formal title it was not used in the time of the Prophet ﷺ or the Rightly Guided Caliphate. Only the title Amir was used without the appendage for the overall commanders of a battle. It was also used for the commanders of smaller expeditions (sariyya) since the word Amir is a general term for any leader of any function even if it’s over two people. 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.”[15]

The Prophet ﷺ would give the Amir of any expedition whether a small platoon (faṣīlah) or a large brigade (لِواء liwaʾ) a white flag called a liwaʾ which is the same word as a brigade. This flag is a special flag for the commander of an expedition (sariyya) or campaign, and by extension the commander in-chief of all the armed forces i.e. the caliph. Ryan Lynch says, “the Arabic term amīr is used to refer to a military commander regardless of his position in the chain of command.”[16]

The first liwaʾ to be raised in Islam was for Hamza ibn ‘Abd al-Muttalib in the month of Ramadan, seven months after the hijra of the Messenger of Allah ﷺ where he led an expedition of thirty men. The one who carried the liwaʾ was Abu Marthad Kinaz ibn al-Husayn al-Ghanawi.[17] Thirty men is the size of a modern-day platoon (فصيلة faṣīlah) headed by a Lieutenant (ملازم mulazim).

Abu Huraira narrates that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ sent out an expedition of ten men as spies, and their Amir was Asim bin Thabit al-Ansari.[18] Ten men is the size of a modern-day section (فرقة firqa) headed by a Corporal (عَرِيف ‘arif).

The Messenger of Allah ﷺ appointed Zaid ibn Haritha as the Amir of the Expedition to Mut’ah in charge of three thousand men and gave him a white liwaʾ.[19] Three thousand men is the size of a modern-day brigade (liwaʾ) headed by a one-star Brigadier-General (عَمِيد ‘amid).

The title Amir ul-Jihad which some modern structuralists have used within their models originates from Al-Mawardi’s wiliya – The Emirate of Jihad (الْإِمَارَةِ عَلَى الْجِهَادِ). Al-Mawardi describes this government function: “The Emirate of Jihad is particularly concerned with fighting the mushrikun and it is of two kinds:

1- That which is restricted to the affairs (siyasa) of the army and the management (tadbir) of war, in which case the conditions pertaining to special emirate (Amir Al-Khass) are applicable.

2- That in which all laws regarding the division of booty and the negotiation of the peace treaties are delegated to the amir, in which case the conditions pertaining to general amirate (Amir Al-‘Amm) are applicable. Of all the authorities of governance this is the most important with respect to its laws, and the most comprehensive with regard to its sections and departments.

This type of emirate, when special (khass), is subject to the same rulings as the general (‘amm)…”[20]

Al-Mawardi’s two types of Amir map to three modern day positions:

1. Commander in-chief
2. Chiefs of Staff
3. Defence Secretary

The administrative systems (‘idara) can be adopted from any system, and we are not obliged to use the same army ranks, titles and formations as those used in the time of the Prophet ﷺ or later. Each time period will have its particular challenges, and the armed forces need to be structured in such a way to meet these. When the military is slow to reform, it can lead to disaster on the battlefield, as many battles of the first and second world wars show us.

Al-Mawardi’s first type of Amir is akin to an Executive Minister, who is a liaison between the caliph and the rest of the armed forces. We call this Executive Minister a Defence Secretary or Minister of Defence in modern times. This type of Amir can also map to the Joint Chiefs of Staff who are tasked with managing the day-to-day affairs of the army.

The second type of Amir Al-Mawardi describes is equivalent to a governor, who is the commander in-chief of his province, and by extension the caliph who is the commander in-chief over the entire state.

Civilian Control of the Military

Former French PM Georges Clemenceau said, “War is too serious a matter to entrust to military men.”[21] This is because military thinking focuses on achieving specific, measurable goals using force, while political thinking considers broader goals and uses a variety of tools, including military force, to achieve them. Military thinking emphasizes rationality, analytical skills, and feasibility, while political thinking involves critical examination, analysis of political concepts, and consideration of public interaction and the political dimension within a community.

Samuel Huntington (d.2008) says, “A minister of war need not have a detailed knowledge of military affairs, and soldiers often make poor ministers. The military viewpoint will inevitably, of course, interact with the political objective, and policy must take into account the means at its disposal. Clausewitz voices the military warning to the statesman to note carefully the limits of his military strength in formulating goals and commitments. But in the end, policy must predominate. Policy may indeed ‘take a wrong direction, and prefer to promote ambitious ends, private interests or the vanity of rulers,’ but that does not concern the military man. He must assume that policy is ‘the representative of all the interests of the whole community’ and obey it as such. In formulating the first theoretical rationale for the military profession, Clausewitz also contributed the first theoretical justification for civilian control.”[22]

The wider political goals that serve the long-term interests of Islam and the Muslims must always take precedent over short-term military objectives. This means that executive power and authority must always lie with the caliph who has effective leadership over the military. This cannot be a ceremonial position but must be a civilian-military role which is known in modern times as a Commander in-Chief. This position maps to the position held by the Prophet ﷺ and the Rightly Guided Caliphs.

Hitti 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. In the early stages the general who conquered a certain territory would also act as leader in prayer and as judge.”[23]

We can see this distinction between military and political thinking in the steps Abu Bakr took immediately after his election, where he defied the advice of the sahaba and sent out the army of Usama to Northern Arabia, at a time when Medina was being threatened by rebel tribes.

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

He sent Usamah, and every tribe he would pass by which was wishing to renege would say (to themselves), “If these (the people of Madinah) did not have power, the like of these (the army) would not have come out from among them, so let us leave them alone until they meet the Byzantines.” They met them, defeated them, killed them and returned safely, so that they (the tribes) remained firm in Islam.”[24]

The policy of Abu Bakr here falls under the area of siyasa sharia (Islamic politics) which provides general principles and guidelines on how to execute Islamic rules. The fact that the majority of the sahaba disagreed with Abu Bakr shows it was not a definitive matter, as they would never collectively disobey the Prophet ﷺ in this way. They understood that the caliph has the authority to execute the rules of Islam, and now that the Prophet ﷺ had passed away it was Abu Bakr who now had this executive authority as the Commander-in-Chief. In fact, Abu Bakr and Umar were actually part of the Army of Usama, but Abu Bakr had to withdrew so he could run the state, and he needed Umar as his wazir in this great task. This shows that it was the prerogative power of the caliph to manage the army as he saw fit. There is no definitive correct answer when it comes to siyasa sharia and we see both sides of the sahaba were acting on an ijtihad and political opinion here. In hindsight one can say ‘I would have done it like this’ but in the heat of the moment you make the best decision you can. We should critically analyse some of the military and political decisions of the caliphs and generals throughout history, in order to learn from their successes and failures but keep in mind that in the heat of the moment they made the best decision they could. This is especially important when we discuss the rebellion against Uthman bin Affan and the civil war in the time of Ali ibn Abi Talib.

Lt. General Akram (d.1989) says, “The despatch of the Army of Usama was an act of faith displaying complete submission to the will of the departed Prophet, but as a manoeuvre of military and political strategy, it was anything but sound. This is also proven by the fact that all the Muslim leaders were opposed to the move-leaders who produced, in this and the following decades, some of the finest generals of history.”[25]

On his death bed Abu Bakr said, “Indeed, I do not grieve for anything from this world, except for three things which I did that I wish I had left aside, three that I left aside which I wish I had done, and three about which I wish I had asked Allah’s Messenger.”[26] He then describes some policies that he implemented that in hindsight he wished he had done differently. “I wish, on the day of Saqifat Bani Sa’idah, that I had thrown the matter upon the neck of one of the two men (meaning Umar and Abu Ubaydah) so that one of them would have become the Amir [of the Believers] and I would have been his wazir…

I also wish, when I sent Khalid b. al-Walid to fight the people of apostasy, that I had stayed at Dhu al- Qassah, so that if the Muslims had triumphed, they would have triumphed, but if they had been defeated, I would have been engaged or (provided) reinforcement.

Furthermore, I wish, when I sent Khalid b. al-Walid to Syria, that I had sent Umar b. al-Khattab to Iraq; thereby, I would have stretched forth both of my hands in Allah’s path. (He stretched forth both his hands.)”[27]

This level of scrutiny over one’s actions is the hallmark of a true sincere leader. Someone who is willing to admit their mistakes and rectify them if necessary. Umar ibn Al-Khattab famously said when he was caliph, “A woman is right and Umar is wrong.”[28] The level of accountability present in the Rightly Guided Caliphs is what sets them apart, and makes them an example to emulate for any leader today or in the future. The Prophet ﷺ said,

فَعَلَيْكُمْ بِسُنَّتِي وَسُنَّةِ الْخُلَفَاءِ الرَّاشِدِينَ الْمَهْدِيِّينَ عَضُّوا عَلَيْهَا بِالنَّوَاجِذِ

“I urge you to adhere to my sunnah and the sunnah of the Rightly-Guided Caliphs and cling stubbornly to it.”[29]

The Emirate of Jihad encompasses more than just fighting

Jihad links to the domestic and foreign policies of an Islamic State, and as such encompasses far more than just physical fighting. This is why Al-Mawardi said, “all laws regarding the division of booty and the negotiation of the peace treaties are delegated to the amir”. In other words, this Amir has powers related to the treasury and foreign policy, which is why in the time of the Rightly Guided Caliphs, this Amir was the military governor who had full powers as commander in-chief over the new lands he conquered. Abu Bakr appointed Khalid ibn Al-Walid as the commander of the second army[30] in the campaign to conquer Iraq. He then became the overall commander of all armies in Iraq[31], and the military governor of the newly conquered territories, until new civilian governors were appointed.

In a full-blown war, all aspects of the state and nation need to be mobilised for the war effort. We can see this in the first and second world wars in Britain, where factories were repurposed to make munitions, tanks and aircraft, and both men and women were conscripted in to the armed forces for service. War bonds were issued in WWI with a 5% interest rate, in order to raise money for the war, and ordinary citizens were encouraged to purchase these bonds out of their patriotic duty.

In order to achieve this mobilisation, there has to be someone in charge who has full powers over all aspects of the state and the armed forces. Winston Churchill, the wartime prime minister in WWII had this power, and additionally created a new title for himself called the “Minister of Defence” to reinforce his wartime powers. He said, “I, therefore, sought His Majesty’s permission to create and assume the style or title of Minister of Defence, because obviously the position of Prime Minister in war is inseparable from the general supervision of its conduct and the final responsibility for its result.”[32] He continues, “I may say, first of all, that there is nothing which I do or have done as Minister of Defence which I could not do as Prime Minister. As Prime Minister, I am able to deal easily and smoothly with the three Service Departments, without prejudice to the constitutional responsibilities of the Secretaries of State for War and Air and the First Lord of the Admiralty.”[33]

The Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Foreign Secretary in addition to the military chiefs of the three services (Army, Navy and Airforce), played major roles in the war cabinets of both world war governments. In 1942 Churchill replaced the Chancellor of the Exchequer’s position in the war cabinet with the Minister of Production and the Minister of Labour,[34] as these were essential functions to keep the war machine moving.

Although Churchill created the post of Minister of Defence, there was no Ministry of Defence (MOD) until after WWII. The three services of the armed forces namely the Admiralty, War Office and Air Ministry who controlled the Navy, Army and Airforce respectively, were separate departments until 1964 when they amalgamated into the MOD.[35]

The Caliph is the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces

In most Muslim countries today, the head of state is a mere figurehead in terms of their powers as the overall commander of the armed forces. They may hold titles such as Supreme Commander (القائِد الأَعْلَى) or even Commander-in-Chief (القائِد العامّ), but in reality they have no real effective power over the armed forces.

The Pakistan constitution states, “Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing provision, the Supreme Command of the Armed Forces shall vest in the President.”[36]

The Egyptian constitution states, “The President of the Republic is the Supreme Commander of the Armed Forces.”[37]

The Turkish constitution states, “The Office of Commander-in-Chief is inseparable from the spiritual existence of the Grand National Assembly of Turkey and is represented by the President of the Republic.”[38]

This is why within the Muslim world so many western backed Coup d’états have occurred over the past decades, especially in the three countries mentioned above.

Taqiuddin Al-Nabhani says, “The army (جَيْش jaysh) must have a commander-in-chief (القائِد العامّ Al-Qa’id Al-‘Amm), who is appointed by the Head of State (رئيس الدولة Ra’is Al-Dowlah) as a deputy to him. This is because the commander in chief is the head of the entire army and armed forces (القُوّات المُسَلَّحَة Al-Quwwat Al-Musallaha). Likewise, every division (فِرْقَة firqa) must have a commander (قائِد Qa’id), and every brigade (لِواء liwa’) a commander and every battalion (كتيبة katība) a commander. All of them are appointed by the head of state, whereas the remaining officers are appointed by the commander-in-chief.”[39]

Al-Nabhani doesn’t use the title Commander-in-Chief for the Head of State, but rather uses it for the head of the armed forces. Abdul-Qadeem Zallum referred to the same position with the title Amir ul-Jihad. In most countries today, the Chief of Staff is the title used for the effective head of the armed forces. Prior to 1972, the head of the Pakistan army had the title Commander-in-Chief. After this time it was renamed to the Chief of Army Staff (COAS).

As with the other posts within the Islamic ruling system, we need to focus on the concept and hukm (rule) as opposed to the technical (istilahiyya) term. Al-Nabhani mentions that the head of state appoints all the generals and is the effective head of the armed forces. This is the important point here regardless of what title is used to describe this position.

The closest model we have nowadays, in relation to effective control of the armed forces which was practised by the Prophet ﷺ and the Rightly Guided Caliphs, is that of America and the role of the President as the Commander-in-Chief. This is not a ceremonial position but rather a civilian-military role where the US President appoints all the generals, chiefs of staff and campaign commanders. In terms of the chain of command this can go through the Defence Secretary as a deputy command-in-chief, but the President can also issue orders directly to the commanders in the field.

The US President also has the power to lead the wars directly and formulate military planning and strategy as George Washington, James Madison and Abraham Lincoln did when they were in office. This is similar to what the Prophet ﷺ and some of the caliphs undertook when they directly led the battles, trained the military or devised battle plans and strategy. Although this is an exception to the rule, and even during the time of the Prophet ﷺ, once the sahaba had been trained in military leadership, they led most of the later battles of the Medinan period.

An important point to note nowadays is that the armed forces have undergone a dramatic transformation, and military expertise is a full-time dedicated role by professional officers. The caliph would have been an army commander before assuming office as the Rightly Guided Caliphs were, but once in office his focus is on political affairs and he needs to delegate out the actual command, training and military planning to the chiefs of staff. “‘I am not acquainted with the military profession,’ George Mason proclaimed at the Virginia convention and, except for Hamilton, Pinckney, and a few others, he spoke for all the Framers [of the US Constitution]. They knew neither military profession nor separate military skills. Military officership was the attribute of any man of affairs. Many members of the Federal Convention had held military rank during the Revolution; Washington was only the most obvious of the soldier-statesmen. They combined in their own persons military and political talents much as the samurai founders of modem Japan also combined them a hundred years later.”[40]

Will the Caliph lead the armies directly?

The Prophet Muhammad ﷺ in his role as a ruler-prophet and head of state in Medina led many of the battles himself since he was the Commander-in-Chief. A battle or expedition that he ﷺ led directly is referred to in the Islamic history books as a ghazwa. Those expeditions where he appointed a sahabi to command are referred to as a sariyya.

We can see from the data that the number of expeditions led directly by the Prophet ﷺ decreased over time as the sahaba took a more leading role after their training at the hands of the Messenger ﷺ.

The Prophet ﷺ appointed a total of 43 different sahaba as commanders so they all gained experience in this role. After his ﷺ death these commanders played a vital role in the Islamic conquests such as Khalid ibn Al-Walid, Amr ibn al-Aas and Abu Ubaidah ibn al-Jarrah.

Three of the Rightly Guided Caliphs were appointed as military commanders namely, Abu Bakr, Umar and Ali. This experience was important for their future roles as Commanders-in-chief of their respective armies.

We can see a practical example at the Battle of Badr of how the Messenger of Allah ﷺ managed the military training of the sahaba. He ﷺ asked them:

كَيْفَ تُقَاتِلُونَ الْقَوْمَ إِذَا لَقِيتُمُوهُمْ

“How will you fight the people [enemy] when you meet them?”

So Asim bin Thabit stood up and said:

 يَا رَسُولَ اللهِ إِذَا كَانَ الْقَوْمُ مِنَّا حَيْثُ يَنَالُهُمُ النَّبْلُ، كَانَتِ الْمُرَامَاةُ بِالنَّبْلِ، فَإِذَا اقْتَرَبُوا حَتَّى يَنَالَنَا وَإِيَّاهُمُ الْحِجَارَةُ، كَانَتِ الْمُرَاضَخَةُ بِالْحِجَارَةِ، فَأَخَذَ ثَلَاثَةَ أَحْجَارٍ فِي يَدَهِ وحَجَرَيْنِ فِي حِزْمَتِهِ، فَإِذَا اقْتَرَبُوا حَتَّى يَنَالَنَا وَإِيَّاهُمُ الرَّمَّاحُ، كَانَتِ الْمُدَاعَسَةُ بِالرِّمَاحِ، فَإِذَا انْقَضَتِ الرِّمَاحُ، كَانَتِ الْجِلَادُ بِالسُّيُوفِ

“O Messenger of Allah, when the people [enemy] are where the arrows will reach them, then the shooting will be with arrows. But when they come close until the stones reach us and them, then the fighting will be with stones. So he took three stones in his hand and two stones in his bundle. When they come close until the spears reach us and them, then the fighting will be with spears, and when the spears are destroyed, the fighting will be with swords.”

Then the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said,

بِهَذَا أُنْزِلَتِ الْحَرْبُ، مَنْ قَاتَلَ فلْيُقَاتِلْ قِتَالَ عَاصِمٍ

“With this war was revealed. Whoever fights, let him fight as Asim fights.”[41]

Being the Commander-in-Chief, doesn’t mean the caliph has to lead the armies directly, or even get involved in the day-to-day military training and planning activities, although he has the authority to do this. Once the Islamic state expanded to an ‘empire’ encompassing lands spanning multiple continents, it was not feasible or even wise for the caliph to perform this task.

It is related that ‘Aishah said, “My father went out with his sword unsheathed; he was mounted on his riding animal, and he was heading towards the valley of Dhil-Qissah ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib came, took hold of the reins of Abu Bakr’s riding animal, and said, “Where are you going, O Caliph of the Messenger of Allah?” The question was rhetorical, for ‘Ali knew very well that Abu Bakr planned to lead his army into battle. “I will say to you what the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said on the Day of Uhud,” ‘Ali went on. By this statement, ‘Ali was referring to what had happened on the Day of Uhud: When Abu Bakr wanted to engage in a duel-to-the-death with his son ‘Abdur-Rahman (who was still a disbeliever), the Prophet ordered him to draw back his sword and to return to his place. ‘Ali went on to say, “Draw back your sword and do not bring upon us the tragedy of your death. For by Allah, if we become bereaved of you, (the nation of) Islam will not have an organized system of rule (rather, due to the apostate problem, chaos will break out).” Abu Bakr acquiesced to ‘Ali’s demand and returned to Al-Medina.”[42]

Samuel Huntington describes the US situation: “The intention and the expectation of the Framers and of the people was that the President could, if he so desired, assume personal command in the field. Early presidents did not hesitate to do this. Washington personally commanded the militia called out to suppress the Whiskey Rebellion. James Madison took a direct hand in organizing the ineffectual defense of Washington in 1814. During the Mexican War, President Polk, although he did not command the army in the field, nonetheless personally formulated the military strategy of the war and participated in a wide range of exclusively military matters. The last instance of a President directly exercising military functions was Lincoln’s participation in the direction of the Union armies in the spring of 1862. The President personally determined the plan of operations, and, through his War Orders, directed the movement of troop units. It was not until Grant took over in Virginia that presidential participation in military affairs came to an end. No subsequent President essayed the direction of military operations, although Theodore Roosevelt in World War I argued conversely that his previous experience as Commander in Chief proved his competence to command a division in France.”[43]

Nowadays, due to the existence of professional standing armies, and the complexity of executive rule, the caliph will inevitably take a more back-seat role in terms of hands-on military, even though he would have been a military commander before coming to office. He does however need to keep a hands-on role in terms of the chain of command, and the appointment and dismissal of the generals and campaign commanders. This ensures the loyalty of the top brass to the caliph and not to the Chief of Staff, or any other body or individual minister.

Samuel Huntington describes the Commander-in-Chief role of the US President vis-à-vis the military command: “This unified hierarchy began to break up as the military function became professionalized. The President was no longer qualified to exercise military command, and even if he were qualified by previous training, he could not devote time to this function without abandoning his political responsibilities. The political functions of the Presidency became incompatible with the military functions of the Commander in Chief. Nor were the civilian politicians appointed Secretaries of War and the Navy competent to exercise military command. On the other hand, the emergence of the military profession produced officers whose experience had been exclusively military, who were quite different types from the politician secretaries, and who were technically qualified to command. The constitutional presumption that the President exercised command still remained, however, and complicated the relations among President, secretary, and military chief. [44]

Winston Churchill in WWII outlined his policy with regards to the supervision of the military. “It is my practice to leave the Chiefs of Staff alone to do their own work, subject to my general supervision, suggestion and guidance.” He continues, “Each of the three Chiefs of Staff has, it must be remembered, the professional executive control of the Service he represents.”[45]

This policy will be adopted by the head of an Islamic state who keeps just enough control to prevent the independence of the military, and ensure they work to achieve the interests of Islam alone, since the sharia is sovereign, and not any individual including the caliph himself.

Preventing Coup d’états

There are three ways the caliph as Commander-in-Chief keeps full effective control of the armed forces.

1. The bay’ah contract
2. No obedience in sin
3. Appointment and dismissal of the general staff

1-     The bay’ah contract

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

This oath and pledge 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.”[46]

Every citizen, including every soldier no matter his/her rank are bound first and foremost by the bay’ah.

2-     No obedience in sin

Following on from this, the implementation of any law relies on the consent of the people to obey the law. If the government doesn’t have the legitimacy to rule (authority) from the strongest faction in the society, then you will inevitably end up with a police state – something Islam forbids – and which will eventually crumble and disappear as we have witnessed during and after the Arab spring.

The authority in an Islamic state is derived from people’s belief in Islam and its culture. If the ideology of Islam is strong within people, then inevitably the authority will also be strong. What makes the Rightly Guided Caliphate such a strong era where the Roman and Persian empires who had ruled for centuries crumbled within just a few decades after Islam’s emergence, was not down to the caliph alone. Rather it was down to the strength of the wazirs, commanders, advisors and governors who were all senior sahaba, and the strongest generation in terms of Islamic thought and practice. The Prophet ﷺ said, خَيْرُ النَّاسِ قَرْنِي “The best people are those of my generation.”[47]

The military structure is built upon obedience to the officers in command, and without this the entire apparatus would fall apart. Having said this, there are limits to this obedience and any moves by senior officers to undermine the caliph and his government, and commit treason through an illegitimate coup d’etat must be disobeyed. The Prophet ﷺ said,

 ‏ لاَ طَاعَةَ فِي مَعْصِيَةٍ، إِنَّمَا الطَّاعَةُ فِي الْمَعْرُوفِ

“There is no obedience to anyone if it is disobedience to Allah. Verily, obedience is only in good conduct.”[48]

The Prophet ﷺ sent a sariyya (expedition) under the command of a man from the Ansar and ordered the soldiers to obey him. He (the commander) became angry and said “Didn’t the Prophet order you to obey me!” They replied, “Yes.” He said, “Collect fire-wood for me.” So they collected it. He said, “Make a fire.” When they made it, he said, “Enter it (the fire).” So they intended to do that and started holding each other and saying, “We run towards (i.e. take refuge with) the Prophet from the fire.” They kept on saying that till the fire was extinguished and the anger of the commander abated. When that news reached the Prophet ﷺ he said, “If they had entered it (the fire), they would not have come out of it till the Day of Resurrection. Obedience is [only] required when he enjoins what is good.”[49]

The soldiers on this sariyya obeyed the officer in command up until he ordered them with a clear-cut definitive sin i.e. suicide.

3-     Appointment and dismissal of the general staff

The caliph is the Commander-in-Chief and as such appoints all the generals of all the services – Army, Navy and Airforce, and the Chiefs of Staff who head each of their respective services.

The lower ranks (colonel and below) are approved by the promotion boards, overseen by the general staff. This is the same as the US system with one major difference. In the US system all appointments by the President to the general staff must be approved by the Senate Armed Forces Committee. In the Islamic State there is no such requirement in principle, but since shura is a fundamental principle of the Islamic system, then these appointments will be scrutinised by the upper house – Dar Al-‘Adl – which institutionalises part of the Mazalim (judicial redress) principle outlined by Al-Mawardi. This will be discussed later.

Every single Amir of an expedition no matter how large or small was appointed by the Prophet ﷺ. The Rightly Guided Caliphs followed this method by appointing the heads of the armies and even some of the deputies. The lower ranks would be appointed by the Amir of the expedition or campaign.

The Messenger of Allah ﷺ appointed Zaid ibn Haritha as the Amir of the Expedition to Mut’ah in charge of three thousand men and gave him a white liwaʾ.[50] Three thousand men is the size of a modern-day brigade (liwaʾ) headed by a one-star Brigadier-General (عَمِيد ‘amid). In this campaign he ﷺ didn’t just appoint Zaid but also appointed the deputy commanders who would take over if Zaid was killed. He ﷺ said, “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 a man from among themselves and make him their Amir.”[51]

Umar ibn al-Khattab, when he was caliph appointed Amr ibn Al-‘Aas as the Amir (commanding-general) of the Egyptian campaign. Umar wrote a letter to Amr:

“I am very surprised at how long it is taking to conquer Egypt, as you have been fighting for the last two years, unless it is because of some sins that you have committed, or you have started to love this world as your enemy does. Allah, may He be blessed and exalted, only grants victory to people who are sincere. I am sending to you four individuals, and I have told you that each one of them is equivalent to one thousand men as far as I know, unless something has changed them…”[52] These four individuals were well-experienced commanders, each in charge of a battalion (كتيبة katība) of 1000 men. These commanders were Al-Zubayr ibn al-‘Awwam, Al-Miqdad ibn al-Aswad, ‘Ubadah ibn as-Samit and Maslamah ibn Mukhallad.

In famous incident during the caliphate of Umar, he dismissed Khalid ibn al-Walid, the sword of Allah as the Amir of the army in Syria and appointed Abu Ubaydah ibn Al-Jarrah in his place. Even though Khalid was more qualified military than Abu Ubaydah, Umar’s decision was based on wider political thinking and the ramifications of keeping Khalid in place. This links back to the discussion on civilian control or political control of the military. Military decisions need to always be subservient to the wider political goals of the state. Umar was afraid that the people were too attached to Khalid and believed that victory was connected to Khalid’s blessing and military expertise, and that they would put their trust in that rather than Allah.[53]

In his letter explaining the dismissal of Khalid, Umar wrote, “I am not dismissing Khalid out of anger or betrayal, rather the people have become confused because of him, and I want them to know that Allah is the One who does what He wills.”[54]

The chain of command in an Islamic State is therefore from the caliph directly to the combatant commanders on the ground. Similar to America, the Chiefs of Staff are not in the chain of command, and are simply advisors to the caliph charged with preparing the armed forces to fight to the best of their ability.

These are three ways that the Islamic state protects itself against the encroachment of the military into politics and civilian affairs. If this model was in place, then Mohamed Morsi (d.2019) the former President of Egypt wouldn’t have been removed so easily by General Sisi who was his Minister of Defense and Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces.[55] In this position, Sisi had effective control over the military, with Morsi’s role as Supreme Commander being a mere ceremonial position.[56]

Administrative Structure of the Military

Al-Mawardi lists ten responsibilities[57] for the Amir of the army. These responsibilities in modern times fall under the remit of the defence department and the Chiefs of Staff who are tasked with creating a highly proficient and effective Islamic military, that is capable of assisting the caliph in protecting Islamic interests both at home and abroad.

The duties listed above cover a wide-range of areas including logistics, intelligence and educational programmes (tarbiya). These areas require the input and assistance of many other parts of the state such as the education department and treasury. This is why it’s important that the caliph is the effective head of the army, so as head of the executive branch he can order all his department heads to assist the military when and if required.

It’s important to reiterate that administration (إِدارَة idara) can be adopted from any system. Every time period has its own specific realities and problems, and so the military must be structured in such a way as to meet these challenges. If that means copying the military structure of America, Russia or China then so be it. The Islamic state must be a dynamic state ready to do whatever is necessary within the limits of the sharia, to achieve rapid development and progress in all spheres of life. This can only be achieved with a clear understanding of what the sharia allows, and does not allow, when it comes to imitation of the non-Islamic systems of governance.

Sheikh Ibn al-Uthaymin (d.2001) says, “If it is said, ‘Imitating the disbelievers,’ means that we should not use anything of their crafts. No one would say that. During the time of the Prophet ﷺ and after him, people used to wear clothing made by the disbelievers and use utensils made by them.

Imitating the disbelievers means imitating their clothing, their adornments, and their special customs. It does not mean that we should not ride what they ride, or that we should not wear what they wear. However, if they ride in a specific way that is unique to them, then we should not ride in this way. If they tailor their clothes to a specific way that is unique to them, then we should not tailor them in this way, even if we ride in a car like the one they ride in, and we tailor from the same type of fabric that they tailor from.”[58]

He also mentions, “Imitating the disbelievers means that a person adopts their attire in dress, speech, or the like, such that when someone sees him, he says: This is one of the disbelievers.” As for what Muslims and disbelievers share, this is not imitation. For example, now men wear trousers. We do not say this is imitation, because it has become a habit for everyone.”[59]

Brigadier-General Dr. Muhammad Damir Witr lists eight military administrations that were found in the time of the Prophet ﷺ.

He then says: “These administrations used to undertake their tasks according to the obligatory military requirements, and they did not have specific structures like we see today just as they were not (completely) separate from each other or from the field army in respect to its actions and elements. That is because it was possible for a fighter to also be charged with reconnaissance and with another task at the same time. All of these administrations were headed by a single head who assumed their administration and the supervision over them. He was the Commander-in-Chief (Qa’id Al-‘Amm).

Also, these administrations were not concentrated in a particular or specific location, but were rather included within the army and moved with it and were located or concentrated along with it. For that reason, the teeth of the army were stronger than its tail and its fighting elements were greater in number than its administrative elements”[60]

Muhammad Haykal comments on this, “From all of this, it becomes clear that the different organisational elements upon which the matters or affairs of the army and its conditions revolve, fall under the area or scope of the Mubaahaat (permissible matters). That is as long as they do not contravene the Ahkaam Ash-Shar’iyah, and that applies whether those matters are related to the centres where the army is established and its distribution upon the fronts and different regions, or related to its military formations, the clothing that it individuals wear or its organisation of military ranks, in addition to the many other organisational aspects related to the army…”[61]

Flags of the Armed Forces

Ibn Khaldun says, “Flags have been the insignia of war since the creation of the world. The nations have always displayed them on battlefields and during raids. This was also the case in the time of the Prophet and that of the caliphs who succeeded him.”[62]

If we look to the hadith then we find two types of flags used by the leader and commanders of the Islamic army. They are the liwaa’ (اللِواء) and the rayah (الرايَة) which are translated as flags or banners. The rayah is black and the liwaa’ is white.

أخرج الترمذي وابن ماجه عَنْ ابْنِ عَبَّاسٍ قَالَ: كَانَتْ رَايَةُ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ سَوْدَاءَ، وَلِوَاؤُهُ أَبْيَضَ

At-Tirmidhi and Ibn Majah have narrated on authority of Ibn Abbas who said: “The rayah of Prophet Mohammad ﷺ was black, and his liwaa’ was white.”[63]

Al-Sarakhsi says, “Black was preferred for rayahs because it is a sign for those fighting, and every group fights under their rayah, and if they scatter during the fighting they can return to their rayah, and black is clearer and more noticeable in daylight than other colors, especially in dust. That is why it was preferred.”[75]

Al-Sarakhsi continues, “From a sharia perspective, there is no objection to making the rayahs white, yellow, or red. However, white is chosen for the liwaa‘ because the Prophet (saw) said: “The most beloved garment to Allah Almighty is white, so let your living wear it and shroud your dead in it.” Each army should have only one liwaa‘, and they refer to it when they need to present their affairs to the sultan. Therefore, white is chosen to distinguish it from the black rayahs used by the commanders.”[76]

The liwaa’ is a special flag used as a sign for the commander of a particular mission or expedition (sariyya), and the leader of the armed forces as a whole (commander in-chief). In origin it is a plain white flag, but any Islamic emblem such as the shahada (declaration of faith)[64] can be added to it.

Al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar says that the liwaa’,

وهو العلم الذي في الحرب يعرف به موضع صاحب الجيش، وقد يحمله أمير الجيش، وقد يدفعه لمقدم العسكر

“it is the sign (‘alam) by which the position of the commander of the army is known in war. It may be carried by the Amir of the army, or he may give it to the leader of the army.”[65]

Al-Sarakhsi (d.1090CE) says, 

 ثم اللواء اسم لما يكون للسلطان، والراية اسم لما يكون لكل قائد تجتمع جماعة تحت رايته

“Then the liwaa‘ is the name given to what belongs to the sultan, and the rayah is the name given to what belongs to each commander (qa’id) under whose rayah a group gathers.”[74]

The first liwaa’ to be raised in Islam was for Hamza ibn ‘Abd al-Muttalib in the month of Ramadan, seven months after the hijra of the Messenger of Allah ﷺ where he led a sariyya of 30 men. The one who carried the liwaa’ was Abu Marthad Kinaz ibn al-Husayn al-Ghanawi.[66]

The rayah is a more general flag used by the entire armed forces including the various divisions, brigades and battalions. It is a plain black flag, but similar to the liwaa’, any Islamic emblem such as the shahada can be added to it. It is a sign of the sub-commanders in a battle.

The first time the rayah was used, was at the Ghazwa (campaign) of Khaybar in the seventh year of the hijra. The Muslim army marched against Banu Nadir who were located outside Medina at a town called Khaybar. The army camped outside their fortresses and the Messenger of Allah ﷺ preached to the people and distributed rayahs among them. There were no rayahs before the day of Khaybar, only liwaa’s. The rayah of the Prophet ﷺ was black from the cloak of Aisha, called Al-Uqab, and his liwaa’ was white, which he gave to Ali ibn Abi Talib. One rayah went to Al-Hubab ibn Al-Mundhir, and one rayah went to Sa’d ibn ‘Ubadah.[67]

Al-Hubab and Sa’d were therefore sub-commanders, with Ali being the Prophet’s ﷺ deputy.

Therefore, the liwaa’ and the rayah were assigned to the Amir and sub-commanders of the battles. In modern armed forces these commanders are actually known as “flag officers”. A flag officer is a commissioned officer in a nation’s armed forces senior enough to be entitled to fly a flag to mark the position from which that officer exercises command.[68]

Each brigade and battalion can also fly their own flag to distinguish their position on the battlefield.

إِنَّ النَّبِيَّ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ عَقَدَ رَايَاتِ الْأَنْصَارِ فَجَعَلَهُنَّ صُفَرًا

“The Prophet ﷺ knotted the flags (rayaat) of al-Ansar and made them yellow.”[69]

وَإِنَّ النَّبِيَّ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ عَقَدَ رَايَةَ بَنِي سُلَيْمٍ حَمْرَاءَ

 “… And the Prophet ﷺ knotted the flag (rayah) of Bani Suleim red”.[70]

Qutba bin Amer carried the rayah of Banu Salamah in the Conquest of Mecca.[71]

Salim, the mawla of Abu Hudhayfah, carried the rayah of the Muhajireen at the Battle of Yamama under the caliphate of Abu Bakr, and fought until he was martyred.[72]

Warfare has changed considerably in modern times and armies no longer have flag bearers during the height of battle. Flags are now relegated to patches and insignia on the uniform, with flags only flown to identify an area as being under the command of a particular force once the area is secured.

Muhammad [al-Shaybani] said: “Every group should adopt a slogan (شِعار) when they go out on military expeditions, so that if a man gets lost from his companions, he can call out their slogan. Likewise, the people of each rayah should have a known slogan, so that if a man gets lost from his rayah, he can call out his slogan and thus be able to return to them. This is not a religious obligation, so even if they do not do it, they are not sinning. However, it is better, more effective in warfare, and closer to conforming with what has been narrated in the traditions.”[77]

Reviving the Prophet’s ﷺ flags and banners is important though, because it helps in reinforcing the Islamic values of the soldiers, and reminding them that their mission is for Allah alone.

We can see an example of this during Egypt’s 1973 war to retake the Sinai Peninsula from Israel named Operation Badr after the Battle of Badr. On the 6^th October 1973 (10^th Ramadan), the Egyptian army launched a surprise attack against the Israeli forces occupying the east bank of the Suez Canal. This lightening attack destroyed the ‘invincible’ Bar-Lev Line, a chain of Israeli fortifications along the east bank of the canal. “A day or two after the crossing of the canal, the army information services had a leaflet printed which was distributed to all serving soldiers. This was couched in the most flowery language of piety: ‘In the name of Allah, the merciful, the compassionate: the Prophet is with us in the battle. O Soldiers of Allah . . . etc. etc.’ It went on to say that ‘one of the good men’ had had a dream in which he saw the Prophet Muhammad dressed in white, taking with him the Sheikh of el-Azhar, pointing his hand and saying ‘come with me to Sinai’. Some of the ‘good men’ were reported to have seen the Prophet walking among the soldiers with a benign smile on his face and a light all around him. So it went on, ending up: ‘O soldiers of Allah, it is clear that Allah is with you.’”[73]

Notes

[1] Abdul Mohsen Al-Abbad (b.1935) explains the meaning of hump (سَنام): “Jihad is called the pinnacle of the hump of Islam because in it is the elevation of Islam, its appearance and strength of the Muslims, and their superiority over the disbelievers and their victory over them.” [Explanation of Nawawi’s Forty Hadiths, https://shamela.ws/book/36944/723 ]

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

[3] Holy Qur’an, Surah Al-Hajj, ayah 40

[4] Musa ibn ‘Uqbah, ‘The Maghāzī of Sayyidunā Muhammad ﷺ,’ Imam Ghazali Publishing, 2004, https://imamghazali.co.uk/products/maghazi-ebook

[5] Fred M. Donner, ‘The Expansion of the Early Islamic State,’ 2008, Routledge, p.39; John J Saunders, ‘The Nomad as Empire Builder: A Comparison Of The Arab And Mongol Conquests’ 

[6] Fred Donner, ‘The Articulation of Early Islamic State Structures,’ Routledge, 2012, p.xviii

[7] George W. Bush, ‘Address to a Joint Session of Congress and the American People,’ 20 September 2001, https://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20010920-8.html

[8] U.S. President Ronald Reagan, ‘Message on the Observance of Afghanistan Day,’ March 21, 1983, https://web.archive.org/web/20101116103312/http://www.reagan.utexas.edu/archives/speeches/1983/32183e.htm

[9] W. Montgomery Watt, “Economic and Social Aspects of the Origin of Islam,” Islamic Quarterly, 1, 1954.

[10] Fred M. Donner, ‘The Expansion of the Early Islamic State,’ 2008, Routledge, p.51; John J Saunders, ‘The Nomad as Empire Builder: A Comparison Of The Arab And Mongol Conquests’ 

[11] Fred M. Donner, ‘The Expansion of the Early Islamic State,’ 2008, Routledge, p.60; John J Saunders, ‘The Nomad as Empire Builder: A Comparison Of The Arab And Mongol Conquests’ 

[12] Thomas W. Arnold, ‘The Preaching of Islam,’ Second Edition, Kitab Bhavan Publishers, New Delhi, p.72

[13] Stephen E. Koss, Lord Haldane, Scapegoat for Liberalism (New York: Columbia University Press, 1969), 47.

[14] https://www.dawn.com/news/1272211

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

[16] Ryan J. Lynch, ‘Arab Conquests and Early Islamic Historiography: The Futuh al-Buldan of al-Baladhuri,’ I.B. Tauris, 2020 p.147

[17] Ibn Sa’d, Tabaqat, https://shamela.ws/book/1686/392

[18] Sahih Al-Bukhari 3045, https://sunnah.com/bukhari:3045

[19] Ibn Sa’d, Tabaqat, https://shamela.ws/book/1686/487#p1

[20]  Al-Mawardi, Op.cit., p.57;  https://shamela.ws/book/22881/64

[21] Georges Clemenceau. Former Prime Minister of France, https://www.oxfordreference.com/display/10.1093/acref/9780191843730.001.0001/q-oro-ed5-00003062

[22] Samuel Huntington, ‘The soldier and the state: The theory and politics of civil-military relations,’ p.58

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

[24] Jalal ad-Din as-Suyuti, ‘The history of the Khalifahs who took the right way’, translation of Tareekh ul-Khulufaa, Ta Ha Publishers, p.60; https://shamela.ws/book/11997/63

[25] Lt. General Akram, ‘Khalid ibn Al-Walid: The Sword of Allah’, Chapter 11: The Gathering Storm

[26] al-Tabari, ‘The History of Al-Tabari’, translation of Ta’rikh al-rusul wa’l-muluk, State University of New York Press, Volume XI, p.149

[27] Ibid

[28] Muhammad As-Sallaabi, ‘Umar ibn Al-Khattab, his life and times,’ vol.1, p.215

[29] Sunan Ibn Majah 42, https://sunnah.com/ibnmajah:42

[30] Dr Ali Muhammad As-Sallabi, ‘The Biography of Abu Bakr As-Siddiq’, Dar us-Salam Publishers, p.555

[31] al-Tabari, Op.cit., Vol. XI, p.5

[32] Hansard, War Situation, Volume 378: debated on Tuesday 24 February 1942, https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/1942-02-24/debates/02dd8f21-e6ac-46fa-a5ee-bcf707b9bfee/WarSituation

[33] Ibid

[34] Ibid

[35] https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a799eb0e5274a684690ae08/history_of_mod.pdf

[36] https://www.pakistani.org/pakistan/constitution/part12.ch2.html

[37] https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Egypt_2019?lang=ar

[38] https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Turkey_2017

[39] Taqiuddin Al-Nabhani, Nizam ul-Hukm Fil-Islam, 1st Edition, 1951, p.54

[40] Samuel Huntington, ‘The soldier and the state: The theory and politics of civil-military relations,’ p.165

[41] Al-Tabarani, Al-Mu’jam al-Kabir 4513 https://shamela.ws/book/1733/5457

[42] Al-Bidaayah Wan-Nihaayah (2/319) quoted in Al-Sallabi’s Biography of Abu Bakr Siddiq, p.380

[43] Samuel Huntington, ‘The soldier and the state: The theory and politics of civil-military relations,’ p.185

[44] Ibid

[45] Hansard, War Situation, Volume 378: debated on Tuesday 24 February 1942, https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/1942-02-24/debates/02dd8f21-e6ac-46fa-a5ee-bcf707b9bfee/WarSituation

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

[47] Sahih al-Bukhari 6429, https://sunnah.com/bukhari:6429

[48] Muttafaqun Alayhi (agreed upon). Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī 7257 https://sunnah.com/bukhari:7257; Saḥīḥ Muslim 1840 https://sunnah.com/muslim:1840a

[49] Sahih al-Bukhari 4340, https://sunnah.com/bukhari:4340

[50] Ibn Sa’d, Tabaqat, https://shamela.ws/book/1686/487#p1

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

[52] Dr Ali Muhammad As-Sallabi, ‘Umar ibn al-Khattab, his life and times,’ International Islamic Publishing House, volume 2, p.321

[53] Dr Ali Muhammad As-Sallabi, ‘Umar ibn al-Khattab, his life and times,’ International Islamic Publishing House, volume 1, p.297

[54] Ibid

[55] In the Egyptian constitution Article 201 states, “The Minister of Defense is the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces, appointed from among its officers.” https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Egypt_2019?lang=ar

[56] In the Egyptian constitution Article 152 states: “The President of the Republic is the Supreme Commander of the Armed Forces. The President cannot declare war, or send the armed forces to combat outside state territory, except after consultation with the National Defense Council and the approval of the House of Representatives with a two-thirds majority of its members.” Ibid

[57] Abu l-Hasan al-Mawardi, Al-Ahkam as-Sultaniyah, Ta Ha Publishers, p.66  

[58] Majmoo’ Fatawa al-Shaykh Ibn Uthaymin (12/Question 177), https://islamqa.info/ar/answers/45200/%D8%AD%D9%83%D9%85-%D8%AA%D9%82%D9%84%D9%8A%D8%AF-%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%83%D9%81%D8%A7%D8%B1-%D9%88%D9%85%D8%B9%D9%86%D9%89-%D9%85%D8%A7-%D8%B1%D8%A7%D9%87-%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%85%D8%B3%D9%84%D9%85%D9%88%D9%86-%D8%AD%D8%B3%D9%86%D8%A7-%D9%81%D9%87%D9%88-%D8%B9%D9%86%D8%AF-%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%84%D9%87-%D8%AD%D8%B3%D9%86

[59] https://www.islamweb.net/ar/fatwa/387583/%D8%AA%D9%82%D9%84%D9%8A%D8%AF-%D8%BA%D9%8A%D8%B1-%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%85%D8%B3%D9%84%D9%85%D9%8A%D9%86-%D9%81%D9%8A-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B9%D8%A7%D8%AF%D8%A7%D8%AA-%D8%B1%D8%A4%D9%8A%D8%A9-%D8%B4%D8%B1%D8%B9%D9%8A%D8%A9

[60] Brigadier-General Dr. Muhammad Damir Witr, ‘Al-Idaarah Al-‘Askariyah Fee Hurub Ar-Rasool Muhammad ﷺ),’ ‘The military administration in respect to the wars of the Messenger Muhammad,’ 1986, pp.107-108

[61] Muhammad Khayr Haykal, ‘Al-Jihad wa’l Qital fi as-Siyasa ash-Shar’iyya,’ vol.4, The Eighth Study, Qitaal Mughtasib As-Sultah (The First Study: The different types of organisation that the army)

[62] Ibn Khaldun, ‘The Muqaddimah – An Introduction to History,’ Translated by Franz Rosenthal, Princeton Classics, p.334

[63] Sunan Ibn Majah 2818, https://sunnah.com/urn/1329260

[64] There is a weak hadith in at-Tabarani’s al-Awsat which says that the shahada was written on the liwaa’ and rayah. Hayyan bin Obeidillah told us that Abu Mijlaz Laheq bin Humeid narrated on authority of Ibn Abbas who said: “The rayah of the Messenger of Allah ﷺ was black and his liwaa’ white written on it: لَا إِلَهَ إِلَّا اللَّهُ مُحَمَّدٌ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ”. Ibn Hajar said, وَسَنَدُهُ وَاهٍ “Its chain of transmission is weak.” Some groups have a different opinion on this hadith and use it as evidence for writing the shahada on the liwaa’ and rayah.

The fact that there is no evidence in any hadith of anyone tasked with painting or embroidering letters on to the rayah and the liwaa’, would seem to indicate that both these flags were plain without any writing or symbols on them. This would conform to the simplicity of the first Islamic State where unnecessary time, money and effort was kept to a minimum.

There is also the manat (reality) of the availability of white ‘paint’ at that time which would adhere to the material. All we find repeated by the narrators over and over again in the hadith is the colour. We do not find any mention of symbols and writing except in the disputed isolated ‘hadith’ above.

The rayah has a very detailed description in the hadith, “it was a black square (مُرَبَّعَةً) made from namira (نَمِرَة)” and “The rayah of the Prophet ﷺ was black from the cloak of Aisha.” No mention is made of any writing or attempts at marking the rayah.

For this reason, it is my opinion that we are not obliged to use the shahada on the flags, and any Islamic symbolism is fine. In fact, using any flag or banner to represent the state is of the mubah (permissible) matters since the liwaa’ and rayah were never used in the time of the Prophet ﷺ or Rightly Guided Caliphs except by the army. The liwaa’ and rayah were never attached to the caliph’s house, or attached to Masjid Al-Nabawi. They were kept folded away until the time of an expedition when the liwaa’ would be given (tied) to the Amir.

Due to the likely desecration of the Caliphate’s flags by the enemies of Islam, then having the shahada on them is not advised in order to preserve the sanctity of the names of Allah and His Messenger ﷺ.

[65] Ibn Hajr, Fath al-Bari

[66] Ibn Sa’d, Tabaqat, https://shamela.ws/book/1686/392

[67] Ibn Sa’d, Tabaqat, https://shamela.ws/book/1686/470

[68] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_officer

[69] at-Tabarani in al-Kabeer on authority of Mazeeda al-Abdi’

[70] Narrated from Ibn Abi Asem in al-Aahad and al-Mathani on the authority of Kurz bin Sama

[71] Ibn Sa’d, Tabaqat, https://shamela.ws/book/1686/1112

[72] Ibn Sa’d, Tabaqat, https://shamela.ws/book/1686/743

[73] Mohamed Heikal, ‘The Road to Ramadan,’ William Collins Sons & Co. Ltd., London, 1975, p.236

[74] Al-Sarakhsi, Sharh Al-Siyar Al-Kabeer, https://shamela.ws/book/5434/71

[75] Al-Sarakhsi, Sharh Al-Siyar Al-Kabeer, https://shamela.ws/book/5434/72#p1

[76] Ibid

[77] Al-Sarakhsi, Sharh Al-Siyar Al-Kabeer, https://shamela.ws/book/5434/73#p1

1. The Meaning of Wazir
2. Evolution of government titles
3. Role of the Wazir
4. History of the Wazirate
   1. Wazirs in the time of the Prophet ﷺ
   2. Wazirs in the Rightly Guided Caliphate
      1. Abu Bakr’s Caliphate
         1. Abu Ubaidah and Umar
         2. Abu Bakr’s salary
         3. Overturning Abu Bakr’s executive order to grant land to Influentials from Banu Tamim
         4. Ali ibn Abi Talib
      2. Umar’s Caliphate
         1. Uthman bin Affan
         2. Ali ibn Abi Talib
         3. Head of Appeals Court
         4. Deputy Caliph
         5. Muhammad ibn Maslamah
      3. Uthman’s Caliphate
         1. Marwan ibn Al-Hakam
         2. Ali ibn Abi Talib
   3. Umayyad Wazirs
   4. Abbasid Wazirs
   5. Ottoman Wazirs
5. The Wazir’s Portfolio
6. Dangers of a Wazir with general jurisdiction
7. Al-Mawardi calls ‘A Wazir with Portfolio’ an Amir
8. Notes

The wazirate (ministry), or wizarah (وِزارَة) is a term that refers to the office of the wazir, a high-ranking government official who serves as the caliph’s deputy, chief minister and advisor who aids him in running the state. Al-Mawardi says, “The ministry of delegation (Wizarah Al-Tafwid) is where the Imam appoints a wazir to whom he delegates authority for the organisation of affairs in accordance with his judgement such that he effects them properly by his own efforts.”[1]

The wazirate evolved over the centuries, but it existed in one form or another from the first Islamic State headed by the Prophet ﷺ in Medina, until 1922 when the Ottoman Sultanate was officially abolished[2] and along with it the last Grand Vizier.

Willem Gerrit Dedel, Ambassador of the Dutch Republic to the Ottoman Caliphate 1765-1768 during the reign of Mustafa III (r.1757-1774) describes the scene when the Sultan’s no.2 man rode past. “We fetched our horses and waited until all the Sultan’s senior officials had ridden past on their fine horses. This was an extremely lovely spectacle. Grand Vizier Azem Ibrahim Pasha, in particular, was remarkable in all his grandness, accompanied by other dignitaries, no fewer than three rows deep. Wherever he looked, people bowed before him and showed deference to him as the second in command of the empire. He responded in a mild and dignified manner, with a slight inclination of the head.”[3]

In the Sokoto Caliphate[4] established in 1804 in West Africa, the wazir “attended the caliph’s council in the morning when he was in Sokoto and he also had a final say in the caliphal election. He travelled around the domains of the caliphate constantly and if a case was evident, he was empowered to make decisions on the spot. If the matter was a difficult one, it was referred back to Sokoto. It was his duty to let the caliph know of any injustices or problems in the land. He was also in charge of the public treasury.”[5]

The Meaning of Wazir

The linguistic meaning of wazir is helper or assistant, but its predominantly used with its technical (istilahiyya) meaning of a government assistant or minister. It was narrated that Al-Qasim bin Muhammad said: “I heard my paternal aunt say: ‘The Messenger of Allah ﷺ said:

مَنْ وَلِيَ مِنْكُمْ عَمَلاً فَأَرَادَ اللَّهُ بِهِ خَيْرًا جَعَلَ لَهُ وَزِيرًا صَالِحًا إِنْ نَسِيَ ذَكَّرَهُ وَإِنْ ذَكَرَ أَعَانَهُ

“Whoever among you is appointed to a position of authority – if Allah wills good for him – He will give him a righteous wazir who will remind him if he forgets and help him if he remembers.”[6]

Ibn Khaldun says, “The wazirate is the mother of governmental functions and royal ranks. The name itself simply means ‘help’.[7] Ibn Ashur discusses the grammatical construct of the term wazir:

والوَزِيرُ: فَعِيلٌ بِمَعْنى فاعِلٍ، مِن وازَرَ عَلى غَيْرِ قِياسٍ، مِثْلُ حَكِيمٍ مِن أحْكَمَ

Al-Wazeer: [on the pattern of] fa’eel with the meaning of the faa’il (active participle), one who supports without measure, like the wise one who is wiser.[8]

Al-Mawardi says, “The word “Al-Wizarah” الوِزارَة has three possible derivations:

1- the first, that it is derived from al-wizr الوِزْر, meaning heavy burden, as he takes up the heavy burdens of the malik (ruler or king);

2- the second, that it is derived from al-wazar الوَزَر, meaning refuge- occurring in Allah’s (Most High) words: كَلَّا لَا وَزَرَ “But no! There will be no refuge.”[9] as the malik takes refuge in his judgement and his aid;

3- the third, that it is derived from al-azr الأَزْر; meaning the back, as the malik gains strength in his minister just as the body is strengthened by the back. Whichever of these derivations one adopts, however, none of them would indicate an absolute authority over affairs [i.e. they are assistants not a malik].”[10]

Evolution of government titles

Wazir is a general term, which linguistically may apply to all government positions within the Islamic state. However, we don’t refer to each of these positions as wazirs, because each government institution has its own specific title. A member of the Executive Office is called a Katib (secretary) or Wazir Al-Tanfidh (Executive Minister). The head of an executive department is called a Sahib (secretary) or a Wazir Al-Tanfidh, unless they are assigned delegated executive powers in which case they are called a Wazir Al-Tafwid. The head of a province is called an Amir or Wali, and the head of the army a Qa’id (commander), Ra’is (Head) or Amir.

It’s important to note that these government titles are not sharia terms but are technical (istilahiyya) terms which have changed throughout Islamic history. Therefore, in order to understand the structure of the Islamic State, we need to focus on the function of the government post rather than a specific title. Ibn Khaldun says, “Very recently, the Turkish dynasty has made its appearance in Egypt. (The Turkish rulers) noticed that the wazirate had lost its identity, because the (amirs) had been too proud to accept it and had left it to men who were inclined to hold it in the service of the secluded (and powerless) caliph. The authority of the wazir had become secondary to that of the amir. (The wazirate) had become a subordinate, ineffectual office. Consequently, the persons who held high rank in the dynasty, (as, for example, the amirs), disdained to use the name of wazir. The person in charge of legal decisions and supervision of the army at the present time, they call ‘deputy’ (nâ’ib). They used the name wazir to designate (the person in charge of) tax collection.”[11]

During the contracting of the bay’a to Abu Bakr at the Saqifa (portico) of Banu Sa’ida, Abu Bakr said to the Ansar, نحن الأمراء وأنتم الوزراء “We are the Amirs and you are the Wazirs!”[12] So again wazir was used to refer to general assistance in governmental affairs.

Abu Bakr on his death bed said, “I wish that on the day of Saqifat Bani Sa’idah, that I had thrown the matter upon the neck of one of the two men (meaning Umar and Abu Ubaydah) so that one of them would have become the Amir [of the Believers] and I would have been his wazir.”[13]

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.”^[14]

Wazir was used here by Umar to mean an assistant to the governor Ammar bin Yasir in running the affairs of Kufa.

In the Year 34H (655CE), the caliph Uthman bin Affan was facing discontent and organised rebellion across his caliphate. This culminated in his assassination and martyrdom a year later at the hands of the rebels, something which was prophesised by the Messenger ﷺ. Uthman sent for his five most senior governors and advisors to seek their counsel on the deteriorating situation. They were:

1. Mu’awiyah ibn Abi Sufyan, governor of Ash-Sham
2. Abdullah ibn Sa’d, governor of Egypt
3. Said ibn Al-‘As, governor of Kufa
4. Amr ibn Al-‘As, former governor of Egypt
5. Abdullah ibn Amir, governor of Basra

When they had assembled at his residence in Medina, Uthman said to them,

إِنَّ لِكُلِّ امْرِئٍ وُزَرَاءَ وَنُصَحَاءَ، وَإِنَّكُمْ وُزَرَائِي وَنُصَحَائِي وَأَهْلُ ثِقَتِي، وَقَدْ صَنَعَ النَّاسُ مَا قَدْ رَأَيْتُمْ، وَطَلَبُوا إِلَيَّ أَنْ أَعْزِلَ عُمَّالِي، وَأَنْ أَرْجِعَ عَنْ جَمِيعِ مَا يَكْرَهُونَ إِلَى مَا يُحِبُّونَ، فَاجْتَهِدُوا رَأْيَكُمْ، وَأَشِيرُوا عَلَيَّ.

“Every man has ministers (wazirs) and counsellors (nasih). Now you are my wazirs, my counsellors, and my trusted men. The people have acted as you see, demanding that I depose my governors (‘ummal), and that I turn away from that which they hate toward that which they love. So decide what you think is right arid advise me.”[15]

We see that Uthman referred to his governors as wazirs.

Role of the Wazir

Abdul-Qadeem Zallum says, “The assistants are the wazirs whom the caliph appoints to assist him in discharging the burdens and responsibilities of the caliph. There are numerous burdens in the caliphate, especially when the state is growing and expanding, and these would be a heavy burden for the caliph alone. Hence, he needs people to help him in carrying this burden and discharging these responsibilities. The appointment of such assistants is one of the mubah (permissible) matters.”[16]

In theory, a caliph could govern without ministers, but in practice, it would be extremely challenging and likely unsustainable. Wazirs, play a crucial role in assisting the caliph in making decisions, implementing policies, and managing the affairs of the state. The wazir is also a deputy caliph similar to a vice-president and will step in if the caliph is incapacitated in some way. Ibn Khaldun says, “it should be known that, by himself, the ruler is weak, and carries a heavy burden. He must look for help from his fellow men. He needs their help for the necessities of life and for all his other requirements.”[17] This has been the case since ancient times when a king would appoint a right-hand man or chief minister to advise him and assist him in his rule. Allah (Most High) mentions Pharaoh’s wazir Haman in the Qur’an,

وَقَالَ فِرْعَوْنُ يَـٰٓأَيُّهَا ٱلْمَلَأُ مَا عَلِمْتُ لَكُم مِّنْ إِلَـٰهٍ غَيْرِى فَأَوْقِدْ لِى يَـٰهَـٰمَـٰنُ عَلَى ٱلطِّينِ فَٱجْعَل لِّى صَرْحًۭا لَّعَلِّىٓ أَطَّلِعُ إِلَىٰٓ إِلَـٰهِ مُوسَىٰ وَإِنِّى لَأَظُنُّهُۥ مِنَ ٱلْكَـٰذِبِينَ

Pharaoh said, ‘Council, I do not know of any other god for you apart from Me. Haman, kindle a fire for me over the clay and build me a lofty tower so that perhaps I may be able to climb up to Musa’s god! I consider him a blatant liar.’[18]

History of the Wazirate

The institution of wazirate evolved over the centuries. At the time of the Prophet ﷺ, several prominent sahabi held significant roles and responsibilities in his administration who can be viewed as wazirs, even though they might not have held this as a formal title. Throughout the period of the Rightly Guided caliphs and the Umayyads, the title of secretary (katib or sahib) was used to refer to those in the executive office of the caliph. Some of these secretaries (كُتّاب kuttab) can be considered as wazirs such as Marwan ibn Al-Hakam the secretary of Uthman, and the famous scholar Raja’ bin Haywah the secretary of Umar bin Abdul-Aziz.[19]

The term wazir became a formal government rank, from the time of the Abbasid caliph Al-Mansur[20] where the wazir initially was simply an advisor and secretary in charge of a number of diwans (government departments). Later he became a deputy (نائِب na’ib) and right-hand man of the caliph. Al-Mawardi refers to this post as a Delegated Assistant (وزير التفويض Wazir Al-Tafwid) “for whom the Imam delegates the running of the affairs according to his own opinion and executing them according to his own Ijtihad.”[21]

As the caliph’s executive authority began to wane and almost disappear during the 10^th and 11^th centuries, the wazir’s authority strengthened. Ibn Khaldun says, “At that time, the wazirate was divided into an ‘executive wazirate’ this happened when the ruler was in control of his affairs and the wazir executed his decisions — and a ‘delegated wazirate’ — which happened when the wazir controlled the ruler and the caliph delegated all the affairs of the caliphate, leaving them to his supervision and independent judgment.”[22]

Al-Mawardi’s notion of the Wazir Al-Tafwid is because of the reality he lived under, which was the Buyid Ameers and later Seljuk Sultans effectively running the caliphate, with the Abbasid caliph in Baghdad remaining a mere figurehead with limited powers. Lambton says, “By the end of the 3rd/9th century the wazirate had become an extremely important office. From the time of the accession of al-Muqtadir (295H/908CE) the wazir, according to Hilāl al-Sābi’, had assumed sole direction of the state (tafarrada bi’l-tadbir) and by the beginning of the 4th/10th century he controlled almost all aspects of the administration.”[23]

Ibn Khaldun describes in detail the history of wazirate and how it slowly evolved into the devolution of executive power to a sultan, with a nominal caliph during the 10^th century.

Wazirs in the time of the Prophet ﷺ

In the time of the Prophet ﷺ many of the sahaba would be considered as wazirs, although none held the role of Wazir Al-Tafwid with general jurisdiction like in Al-Mawardi’s model. The closest companion who would be considered as a No.2 to the Prophet ﷺ in terms of ruling would be Abu Bakr as-Siddiq. The Prophet ﷺ said,

مَا مِنْ نَبِيٍّ إِلاَّ لَهُ وَزِيرَانِ مِنْ أَهْلِ السَّمَاءِ وَوَزِيرَانِ مِنْ أَهْلِ الأَرْضِ فَأَمَّا وَزِيرَاىَ مِنْ أَهْلِ السَّمَاءِ فَجِبْرِيلُ وَمِيكَائِيلُ وَأَمَّا وَزِيرَاىَ مِنْ أَهْلِ الأَرْضِ فَأَبُو بَكْرٍ وَعُمَرُ

“There is no Prophet except that he has two wazirs among the inhabitants of the heavens, and two wazirs among the inhabitants of the earth. As for my two wazirs from the inhabitants of the heavens, then they are Jibril and Mika’il, and as for my two wazirs from the inhabitants of the earth, then they are Abu Bakr and Umar.”[24]

Jubair bin Mut’im narrated that a woman came to the Messenger of Allah ﷺ to speak to him about something. Then he ordered her with something, and she said: “What should I do O Messenger of Allah if I do not find you?” He said: “If you do not find me, then go to Abu Bakr.”[25]

Al-Hakim narrated on the authority of Ibn Al-Musayyab, who said: “Abu Bakr was in the position of a wazir to the Prophet ﷺ. He consulted him in all his affairs. He was his second in Islam, his second in the cave, his second in the hut on the day of Badr, and his second in the grave. The Messenger of Allah ﷺ did not prioritize anyone over him.”[26] 

Ibn Khaldun says, “The Prophet used to ask the men around him for advice and to consult them on both general and special (private) matters. In addition, he discussed other very special affairs with Abû Bakr. Certain Arabs familiar with the situation in the Persian, Byzantine, and Abyssinian dynasties, called Abû Bakr, therefore, Muḥammad’s ‘wazir’. The word wazîr was not known (originally) among the Muslims, because the simplicity of Islam had done away with royal ranks.”[27]

The word وَزِيرَيَّ (wazirayya) in the hadith “my two wazirs from the inhabitants of the earth, then they are Abu Bakr and Umar,” is Mutlaq (unrestricted). This means it includes assisting the Prophet ﷺ in anything, government or otherwise. With regards to ruling this covers delegated authority (tafwid), executive authority (tanfidh), administration, military command and leading the salah. Abu Bakr and Umar never held general jurisdiction like the wazir evolved in to in latter times, but were always appointed to particular roles or portfolios.

They were both appointed as army commanders of expeditions.[28]

Abu Bakr was appointed as the Minister of Hajj.

أَنَّ النَّبِيَّ صلى الله عليه وسلم حِينَ رَجَعَ مِنْ عُمْرَةِ الْجِعِرَّانَةِ بَعَثَ أَبَا بَكْرٍ عَلَى الْحَجِّ

“When the Prophet came back from the Umrah of Al-Jirranah, he sent Abu Bakr to lead the Hajj.”[29]

The Messenger of Allah ﷺ during his final illness said,مُرُوا أَبَا بَكْرٍ يُصَلِّي بِالنَّاسِ “Order Abu Bakr to lead the people in prayer.”[30]

Umar was appointed as an ‘Amil to collect zakat.

 بَعَثَ النَّبِيُّ صلى الله عليه وسلم عُمَرَ بْنَ الْخَطَّابِ عَلَى الصَّدَقَةِ

“The Prophet ﷺ sent Umar bin al-Khattab to collect sadaqa.”[31]

Wazirs in the Rightly Guided Caliphate

Abu Bakr’s Caliphate

Abu Ubaidah and Umar

Abu Bakr on his death bed said, “I wish that on the day of Saqifat Bani Sa’idah, that I had thrown the matter upon the neck of one of the two men (meaning Umar and Abu Ubaydah) so that one of them would have become the Amir [of the Believers] and I would have been his wazir.”[50]

Umar ibn Al-Khattab and Abu Ubaydah ibn Al-Jarrah who were both from the Ashratul-Mubashireen (10 promised Jannah), were the wazirs to Abu Bakr As-Siddiq when he was the caliph. Tabari narrates,

لَمَّا وُلِّيَ أَبُو بَكْرٍ، قَالَ لَهُ أَبُو عُبَيْدَةَ: أَنَا أُكْفِيكَ الْمَالَ– يَعْنِي الْجَزَاءَ- وَقَالَ عُمَرُ: أَنَا أُكْفِيكَ الْقَضَاءَ: فَمَكَثَ عُمَرُ سَنَةً لا يَأْتِيهِ رَجُلانِ

“When Abu Bakr was appointed, Abu Ubaidah said to him: ‘I will take care of finance (Al-Mal) for you (meaning the taxes), and Umar said: ‘I will take care of the judiciary (Al-Qadaa’) for you.’ So Umar remained for a year without two men coming to him.”[51]

Therefore, Abu Ubaidah had the portfolio of finance meaning he was the Treasury Secretary, although such a title didn’t exist at the time. Umar was the head of the judiciary which included the role of Qadi Al-Mazalim (Judge of Unjust Acts) who investigates acts of injustice related to the government. This is understood from Umar’s speech: أَنَا أُكْفِيكَ الْقَضَاءَ “I will take care of the judiciary (Al-Qadaa’) for you.” The word الْقَضَاءَ is Mutlaq (unrestricted) due to the Alif Lam and therefore includes the Mazalim role.

We can also see a practical example of Umar’s Mazalim role in the following incidents.

Abu Bakr’s salary

A short while after Abu Bakr as-Siddiq (ra) was appointed as Caliph, Umar ibn al-Khattab (ra) and Abu Ubaidah ibn al-Jarrah (ra) were walking in Medinah when they met Abu Bakr (ra) carrying garments on his shoulders and going to the marketplace to trade. Umar asked Abu Bakr, “What are you doing?” Abu Bakr replied, “I am going to trade.” Umar said: “After you became responsible for all the Muslims!?” Abu Bakr said, “But I have to feed my family.” So Umar said, “Let’s go and we will pay you an allowance.”[52]

Umar and Abu Ubaidah decided to pay Abu Bakr 250 dinars a year and a daily allowance of half a sheep in food.

Sometime later Umar was walking in Medinah when he came across a group of women. He asked them “What are you doing?” They replied, “We are waiting for the Caliph.” Abu Bakr did not turn up for office that day so Umar went searching for him and found him in the marketplace trading again.

Umar grabbed the hand of Abu Bakr and said, “What are you doing?” Abu Bakr replied, “The allowance you gave me is not enough.” Umar said, “Fine, we will increase it for you.” Abu Bakr said, “I want 300 dinars a year and a daily allowance of a whole sheep in food.” Umar said, “No. We are not going to give you that.” Imam Ali (ra) intervened and said, “Give it to him.” Umar said, “You think so?” Ali replied, “Yes.” So Umar said, “We agree.”

Abu Bakr then stood on the minbar in the masjid and called the sahaba. He said, “You have paid me 250 dinars a year and a daily allowance of half a sheep in food, and that wasn’t enough for me. So Umar and Ali have given me an increase to 300 dinars a year and a daily allowance of a whole sheep. Do you agree?” The sahaba replied, “We agree.”[53]

Only a qadi with judicial mazalim powers can impose a judgement on the caliph, because the judiciary in Islam is separate to the executive branch of the caliph and has both institutional and decisional independence.

Overturning Abu Bakr’s executive order to grant land to Influentials from Banu Tamim

‘Uyaynah ibn Hasan and al-Aqra’ ibn Habis were influentials from the tribe of Banu Tamim, a large and powerful tribe located in Najd (Eastern Saudi Arabia). It is upon them that the following verse in Surah Al-Hujjurat was revealed:

إِنَّ ٱلَّذِينَ يُنَادُونَكَ مِن وَرَآءِ ٱلْحُجُرَٰتِ أَكْثَرُهُمْ لَا يَعْقِلُونَ

“Indeed, most of those who call out to you ˹O Prophet˺ from outside ˹your˺ private quarters have no understanding ˹of manners˺.”[54]

Muhammad ibn Ishaq and others said: “This verse was revealed about some uncouth people from Banu Tamim. A delegation of the Banu Tamim went to see the Prophet ﷺ. They entered the mosque and called the Prophet ﷺ who was in his private apartment (hujra): ‘O Muhammad, come out to meet us, for our praise is nice while our censure is nasty.’ Their shouting annoyed the Prophet ﷺ and so he came out to see them. They said: ‘O Muhammad, we have come to brag to you.’ Allah ta’ala revealed about them: ‘Indeed, most of those who call out to you ˹O Prophet˺ from outside ˹your˺ private quarters have no understanding ˹of manners˺.’ Among these people were al-Aqra’ ibn Habis, ‘Uyaynah ibn Hasan, al-Zibriqan ibn Badr and Qays ibn ‘Asim”.[55]

‘Uyaynah ibn Hasan and al-Aqra’ ibn Habis came to Abu Bakr and said: “O Caliph of the Messenger of Allah ﷺ, there is some swampy land where no grass grows and it is of no use. Why don’t you give it to us to cultivate it, so that perhaps there will be some benefit in it after today?”

Abu Bakr said to those who were around him[56], “What do you think of what they said, if it is swampy land that is of no use?” They said, “We think that you should give it to them, so that perhaps there will be some benefit in it after today.”

So he gave it to them and wrote a document for them stating that it was theirs. He wanted ‘Umar to witness it, but he was not among the people, so they went to ‘Umar and asked him to bear witness.[57] They found him applying pitch to a camel of his and said, “Abu Bakr has asked you to bear witness to what is in this document. Shall we read it to you or will you read it?” He said, “I am as you see I am, if you wish you can read it and if you wish you can wait until I am finished and I will read it myself.” They said, “No, we will read it.”

So they read it and when Umar heard what was in the document, he took it from their hands, then he spat on it and wiped it (i.e., obliterated what was written). They complained about that and said something bad. He said, “The Messenger of Allah ﷺ used to be kind to you, when Islam was in a weak position at that time. Now Allah has made Islam strong, so go and work hard. May you never succeed if you graze your flocks in that land!”

They went to Abu Bakr and started to complain, saying, “By Allah, we do not know if you are the caliph or ‘Umar!” He said, “No, he could have been the caliph if he had wanted to be.” Then ‘Umar came, and he was angry. He stood over Ahu Bakr and said, “Tell me about this land that you gave to these two. Is it your own land or does it belong to all the Muslims?” He said, “No, it belongs to all the Muslims.” He said, “Then what made you give it to these two only and not to all the Muslims?” He said, “I consulted these people who were around me and that is what they advised me to do.” He said, “If you consulted those who were around you, did you consult all the other Muslims, and were they pleased with it?” Abu Bakr (ra) said, “I told you that you were more qualified for this role than I, but you insisted.”[58]

Again, only the Qadi Al-Mazalim can overturn a policy or executive order of the caliph. In this case the land was public property belonging to all the Muslims and so according to Umar all the Muslim representatives in Medina should have been consulted. In modern times this would be conducted through the Majlis Al-Nawwab (House of Representatives). Abu Bakr agreed that Umar was correct in his judgement and submitted to it.

Ali ibn Abi Talib

Ali and Uthman were secretaries for Abu Bakr.[72]

Ali in particular was a senior official who intervened on multiple occassions in government policy as we saw in the assigning of a salary to Abu Bakr. Ali (ra) intervened and said, “Give it to him.” Umar said, “You think so?” Ali replied, “Yes.” So Umar said, “We agree.”

It is related that ‘Aishah said, “My father went out with his sword unsheathed; he was mounted on his riding animal, and he was heading towards the valley of Dhil-Qissah ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib came, took hold of the reins of Abu Bakr’s riding animal, and said, “Where are you going, O Caliph of the Messenger of Allah?” The question was rhetorical, for ‘Ali knew very well that Abu Bakr planned to lead his army into battle. “I will say to you what the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said on the Day of Uhud,” ‘Ali went on. By this statement, ‘Ali was referring to what had happened on the Day of Uhud: When Abu Bakr wanted to engage in a duel-to-the-death with his son ‘Abdur-Rahman (who was still a disbeliever), the Prophet ordered him to draw back his sword and to return to his place. ‘Ali went on to say, “Draw back your sword and do not bring upon us the tragedy of your death. For by Allah, if we become bereaved of you, (the nation of) Islam will not have an organized system of rule (rather, due to the apostate problem, chaos will break out).” Abu Bakr acquiesced to ‘Ali’s demand and returned to Al-Medina.”[73]

Umar’s Caliphate

Uthman bin Affan

Uthman bin Affan and Ali ibn Abi Talib played a prominent role in Umar’s caliphate and can be considered as wazirs. Al-Sallabi says, “During the caliphate of Umar ibn al-Khattab, the status of ‘Uthman was that of an adviser, and you could say that his position was like that of Umar to Abu Bakr during Abu Bakr’s caliphate.”[59]

Ali ibn Abi Talib

With regards to Ali, Al-Sallabi says, “Ali was a prominent member of the shura committee of Umar’s state; indeed, he was the main consultant. Umar acknowledged Ali’s virtue, understanding of Islam and wisdom, and he had a good opinion of him. It is proven that he said concerning him: ‘The best of us in judiciary matters is Ali.’[60] Ibn al-Jawzi said: ‘Abu Bakr and Umar (ra) used to consult him, and Umar used to say[61]: “I seek refuge with Allah from a problem that Abu al-Hasan (‘Ali) cannot handle.”’[62]

Head of Appeals Court

Similar to Umar during Abu Bakr’s caliphate, Ali was a wazir and had the portfolio of judiciary as a qadi in Medina although Zayd ibn Thabit was the actual head of the judiciary. As a wazir this included the power of the Qadi Al-Mazalim. Al-Mawardi says, “If he is among those who have control over the generality of affairs, like wazirs and amirs, he does not need to have a specific appointment (taqleed) to this office, since the general nature of his authority (wiliyah) gives him jurisdiction in this.”[74]

Part of the functions of the Mazalim are to act as an appeals court for judgements which are not in conformity to the sharia both textually and in reality. “An insane woman who had committed zina was brought to ‘Umar. He consulted the people then he commanded that she be stoned. ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib passed by and said: ‘Take her back!’ Then he came to ‘Umar and said, ‘Do you not know that the Pen has been lifted…?’ and he quoted the hadith[63]. At the end of it Umar said, ‘Yes.’ ‘Ali said, ‘Then why should she be stoned? Let her go.’ And ‘Umar started to say takbeer.[64]

“A woman who had gotten married during her ‘iddah[65] was brought to Umar, so he separated her from the man she married, took her mahr (dowry) and put it in the public treasury and said: ‘I do not allow a mahr in a marriage that is invalid.’ He also said: ‘You two should never many again.’

News of that reached ‘Ali and he said: ‘If they were unaware of the ruling, she may keep the mahr because he was intimate with her, but they should be separated, and when her ‘iddah ends, he will be like any other suitor.’

Umar addressed the people and said: ‘Misjudgements are to be reviewed in accordance with the Sunnah, and Umar judged according to the view of ‘Ali.’”[66]

Deputy Caliph

Ali was the deputy caliph for Umar when he left Medinah.[67] During Umar’s travels to Ash-Sham which included receiving the keys to Jerusalem after its opening, Ali would have been in charge of the caliphate for many months. He would have needed executive powers to manage the entire state, receive and respond to letters and execute punishments while Umar was away.

Muhammad ibn Maslamah

Muhammad ibn Maslamah can also be considered as a wazir, since he was Umar’s Sahib Al-‘Ummal (Minister of governors)[68] who would monitor the governors and implement policies regarding them.

Sa’d ibn Abi Waqqas was the governor Kufa. “When Umar heard that Sa’d ibn Abi Waqqas (ra) had put a gate on his house, he sent Muhammad ibn Maslamah to him and told him to burn that gate. The reason for that gate was that the market was close to his house, and the loud voices in the market were disturbing Sa’d, so he put a gate to block the noise of the people in the market.

News of Sa’d’s house and its gate reached Umar, and he heard that people were calling it Sa’d’s palace. So he called Muhammad ibn Maslamah and sent him to Kufah. He said: “Go to the palace and burn its gate, then come back straight away.” So he went to Kufah, where he bought some firewood, took it to the palace and burned the gate.”[69]

Imam Ibn al-Mubarak narrated in al-Zuhd, in which he said: Sufyan ibn Uyaynah told us on the authority of Musa ibn Abi Isa, who said: Umar ibn al-Khattab came to the drinking place of Ibn Haritha and found Muhammad ibn Maslamah. Umar said: “How do you see me, Muhammad?” He said: “By Allah, I see you as I like, and as those who love good for you like. I see you strong in collecting wealth, chaste in it, just in distributing it, and if you deviate, we will treat you fairly as an arrow treats a wound.” Umar said: “Huh?” He said: “And if you deviate, we will treat you fairly as an arrow treats a wound.” He said: “Praise be to Allah who has placed me among a people who treat me fairly when I deviate.”[70]

Uthman’s Caliphate

Marwan ibn Al-Hakam

Marwan ibn Al-Hakam was the main Wazir (secretary) to Uthman and who had wide delegated powers. We will discuss this in due course.

Ali ibn Abi Talib

Ali was also a Wazir to Uthman with the portfolio of judiciary that he held from the time of Umar. It is also clear from the following incident that Ali held delegated executive power in some areas notably the hudud which Uthman conferred on him saying, “O ‘Ali, get up and whip him.”

It was narrated that Husayn ibn al-Mundhir said: “I was with Uthman ibn Affan when Al-Waleed was brought to him, and two men bore witness against him. One of them was Humran, who said that he had drunk wine, and the other testified that he vomited. Uthman said, ‘He would not have vomited unless he drank it.’ He said: ‘O ‘Ali, get up and whip him.’ ‘Ali said: ‘O Hasan, get up and whip him.’ Al-Hasan said: ‘Let those who are enjoying the position of leadership carry out the punishment.’ It was as if he (‘Ali) got upset with him and he said: ‘O Abdullah ibn Ja’far! Get up and whip him.’ So he whipped him, and ‘Ali counted until he had reached forty, then be said: ‘Stop.’ Then he said: ‘The Prophet ﷺ gave forty lashes, and Abu Bakr gave forty, and ‘Umar gave eighty. All are Sunnah, but this is dearer to me.’”[71]

Umayyad Wazirs

Ibn Khaldun says, “Afterwards, royal authority (mulk) flourished. The (official) councillor and assistant for tribal and group affairs made his appearance. For him, the name of wazir was used. Bookkeeping remained in the hands of clients, Jews, and Christians. For (official) documents, a special secretary was appointed, as a precaution against possible publication of the ruler’s secrets, something that would be disastrous to his role as political leader. This secretary was not as important as the wazir, because he was needed only for written matters, and not for matters that could be discussed orally. At that time, speech still preserved its old position and was uncorrupted. Therefore, the wazirate was the highest rank throughout the Umayyad dynasty. The wazir had general supervision of all matters delegated to him and in which he acted in a consultative capacity, as well as all other matters of a defensive or offensive nature. This also entailed the supervision of the ministry of the army, the assignment of military allowances at the beginning of each month, and other matters.[32]

Abbasid Wazirs

Then the ‘Abbâsid dynasty made its appearance. Royal authority flourished. The royal ranks were many and high ones. At that time, the position of wazir assumed an added importance. He became the delegate (of the caliph) as executive authority. His rank in the dynasty became conspicuous. Everyone looked toward the wazirate and submitted to it. Supervision of the bookkeeping office was entrusted to (the wazir), because his function required him to distribute the military allowances. Thus, he had to supervise the collection and distribution of (the money). Furthermore, supervision of ‘the pen’ and (official) correspondence was entrusted to him, in order to protect the ruler’s secrets and to preserve good style, since the language of the great mass had (by that time) become corrupt. A seal was made to be placed upon the documents of the ruler, in order to preserve them from becoming public. This was also entrusted to (the wazir).”[33]

“Thus, the name of wazir came to include the functions of both ‘the sword’ and ‘the pen’, in addition to all the other things for which the wazirate stood and in addition to its function of giving assistance (to the ruler). In the days of ar-Rashid, Ja‘far b. Yaḥya was actually called ‘sultan’, an indication of the general extent of his supervisory powers and control of the dynasty. The only governmental rank that he did not hold was the office of doorkeeper (hajib), and he did not hold it because he disdained to accept such an office.

Then the ‘Abbâsid dynasty entered the period when control over the caliphs was exercised (by others). That control was at times in the hands of the wazir. At other times, it was in the hands of the ruler. When the wazir gained control, it was necessary for him to be appointed the caliph’s delegate to comply fully with the religious laws.

At that time, the wazirate was divided into an ‘executive wazirate’ (tanfidh) this happened when the ruler was in control of his affairs and the wazir executed his decisions — and a ‘delegated wazirate’ (tafwid) — which happened when the wazir controlled the ruler and the caliph delegated all the affairs of the caliphate, leaving them to his supervision and independent judgment.

This has caused a difference of opinion as to whether two wazirs could be appointed at the same time to the ‘delegated wazirate’. (The ruler) continued to be controlled in this way until non-Arab rulers seized power and the identity of the caliphate was lost. The usurpers were not interested in adopting the caliphal titles, and they disdained to share the same title with the wazirs, because the wazirs were their servants.

Therefore, they used the names ‘amir’ and ‘sultan’. Those in control of the dynasty were called amîr al-umarâ’ or sultan, in addition to the ornamental titles which the caliph used to give them. They left the name wazir to those who held the office in the private retinue of the caliph. So remained the case down to the end of the ‘Abbâsid dynasty.”[34]

Ottoman Wazirs

The Wazir al-Tafwid during the Ottoman period was called the Grand Vizier. Under him were a number of Viziers who each had their areas of responsibilities. Colin Imber says, “There were, however, institutions which made the administrative and less crucial policy decisions. Of these, the most important was the Imperial Council [Dîvân-ı Hümâyûn], the divan, which, under the presidency of the grand vizier, acted on the sultan’s behalf and issued decrees in his name.”[35]

The Wazir’s Portfolio

Al-Mawardi stipulated that the wazir had to have general jurisdiction i.e. not be assigned to one particular role or portfolio (العَمَل). He mentions two conditions are required for the contract of wazirate to be valid.[36] These are:

1- General jurisdiction (عُمُومُ النَّظَرِ)

2- Deputyship (النِّيَابَةُ)

In modern times the closest comparable position to Al-Mawardi’s Wazir Al-Tafwid is a Prime Minister or Vice-President. A Prime Minister however is ‘first among equals’ (Primus inter pares) as part of a cabinet of ministers who collectively rule. This is not in-line with Islamic ruling which specifies singular leadership and a unitary executive. This is why Muhammad Asad says, “In view of all this, it would seem that a ‘presidential’ system of government, somewhat akin to that practiced in the United States, would correspond more closely to the requirements of an Islamic polity than a ‘parliamentary’ government in which the executive powers are shared by a cabinet jointly and severally responsible to the legislature.”[37]

In the parliamentary and republican systems, heads of executive departments are called ministers, and their departments ministries. This is the case across the Muslim world where wazirs have specific portfolios and not general jurisdiction unless they are a Prime Minister.

There is no problem in this because the word wazir is a technical term whose meaning has changed throughout Islamic history. What is important is the government position and function (wilayat) and not the title.

Moreover, the wazirs in the time of the Prophet ﷺ, Rightly Guided, Umayyad and Abbasid caliphates all were assigned specific portfolios until the rise of the Emirates and Sultanates in the 10^th century as Ibn Khaldun discussed previously. Harun Al-Rashid’s wazir Yahya bin Khalid for example, was assigned two functions – diwan al-kharaj[38] and diwan al-khatam[39].”[40]

Dangers of a Wazir with general jurisdiction

Restricting the powers and portfolios of wazirs is very important. Assigning a wazir with general jurisdiction may lead them to become more powerful than the caliph and even deposing the caliph. This was the situation with the Buyid Amirs and Seljuk Sultans, an irregular situation which Al-Mawardi was attempting to rectify using sharia realpolitik.

Al-Mawardi describes a series of situations which make the bay’a contract either fasid (defective) or batil (void). One of these is related to influence and control over the caliph by the Amirs and Sultans i.e. the ‘wazirs’. He says, “Control/restriction (الْحَجْرُ Al-Hajr) here describes the situation when someone from his assistants (mu’awinun) gains authority over him and rules autocratically over the execution (tanfidh) of affairs without appearing to commit any act of disobedience and without any manifest sign of opposition. This does not exclude him from Imamate and it does not impair the validity of his governance, but the actions of the person who has taken over his affairs should be investigated:

If they are in accordance with the judgements of the deen and according to the requirements of justice, he may be allowed to remain in order that the Imamate may continue to function and its rulings be executed, lest the affairs of the deen be interrupted and the Ummah is corrupted.

If however, his actions are outside the rule of the deen and the requirements of justice, he may not tolerate his actions and he must seek the help of another in order to overcome him and put an end to his dominance.”[41]

This is what ‘legalised’ the situation of the caliph and his bay’a vis-à-vis the Buyid Amirs and Seljuk Sultans.

This symbiotic relationship between the Sultans and Caliphs, where the Sultan’s gave bay’a to the caliph in exchange for being assigned delegated (tafwid) authority over their emirates and sultanates, continued until 1517 when Ottoman Sultan Selim I reunited the institutions of caliphate and sultanate once again.

Al-Musta’in (r.1406-1414CE), the Abbasid Caliph within the Mamluk Sultanate based in Cairo held the dual role of Sultan and Caliph. His wazir Sheikh Mahmudi held general jurisdiction over the caliphate, and with this great power he demanded that the caliph surrender the sultanate (executive power) to him and remain a spiritual caliph only, as was the case of all the Abbasid Caliphs since the mid-10^th century. Once Sheikh Mahmudi became the Sultan he gave himself the title Al-Muayyad and then deposed Al-Musta’in as the caliph. He then gave bay’a to Al-Musta’in’s brother Al-Mu’tadid II who became the ‘spiritual’ caliph from 1414-1441CE. [42]

A vivid example of the dangers of an ‘all-powerful’ wazir can be seen in the time of the third rightly guided caliph – Uthman bin Affan (r.644-656CE) whose secretary (katib)[43]was Marwan ibn Al-Hakam.

“Seven hundred men left Egypt and dwelt in the mosque (of Medina). They complained to the Sahaba at the times of the prayers about what Ibn Abi Sarh (Egyptian Governor) 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 [Uthman] wrote his covenant and appointed him.

A number of the Muhajirun and Ansar went with them to look into that (dispute) which was between the people of Egypt and Ibn Abi Sarh. Muhammad went and those with him. When they were about three days’ journey from Medina, they came upon a black slave on a camel beating the camel so much that it was as if he was pursuing or being pursued. The Sahaba of Muhammad ﷺ said to him, “What is your story? What is your business? It is as if you were fleeing or pursuing someone.” He said to them, “I am the slave of the Amir al-Mu’minin and he has directed me to the governor of Egypt.” A man said to him, “This (Muhammad ibn Abi Bakr) is the governor of Egypt.” He said, “It is not this one I want.” Muhammad ibn Abi Bakr was told of his affair and so he sent a man in search of him who took him and brought him to him. He said, “Slave, who are you?” He began to say, one time, “I am the slave of the Amir al-Mu’minin,” and another time, “I am the slave of Marwan,” until one man recognised that he was the slave of Uthman. Muhammad said to him, “To whom are you sent?” He said, “To the governor of Egypt.” He said, “With what?” He said, “With a message.” He said, “Do you have a letter with you?” He said, “No.” They searched him and didn’t find a letter with him. He had with him a jug which was dry, in which was something which moved about, so they moved it about to bring it out but it didn’t come out. They broke the jug and there was a letter in it from Uthman to Ibn Abi Sarh. Muhammad gathered those with them of the Muhajirun, the Ansar and others, then he opened the letter in their presence. There was in it, “When Muhammad, so-and-so, and so-and-so come to you, then find a way to kill them, and declare his letter to be false.”

‘When Ali saw that, he sent for Talhah, Al-Zubayr, Sa’d, ‘Ammar and a group of the Sahaba, all of whom were at Badr. Then he went in to Uthman, with him the letter, the slave and the camel. Ali said to him, “This slave is your slave?” He said, “Yes.” He said, “And the camel is your camel?” He said, “Yes.” He said, “Then you wrote this letter?” He said, “No,” and he swore an oath, “By Allah I did not write this letter, I did not order it, and I had no knowledge of it.” Ali said, “The seal (khatam) is your seal?” He said, “Yes.” He said, “How does your slave go out on your camel, with a letter upon which is your seal, and you know nothing about it?” He swore again, “By Allah, I did not write this letter, I didn’t order it, and I never directed this slave to go to Egypt.” As for the handwriting, they recognised that it was that of Marwan, and they came to doubt as to Uthman. They demanded that he should give them Marwan and he refused, while Marwan was with him in the house.”[44]

This event culminated in the assassination of Uthman, and set in motion years of civil war and disunity among the ummah.

Al-Mawardi calls ‘A Wazir with Portfolio’ an Amir

A department minister in Al-Mawardi’s framework is not called a Wazir Al-Tafwid because he doesn’t have general jurisdiction. He mentions that:

وَلَا يَجُوزُ أَنْ يُقَلِّدَ وَزِيرَيْ تَفْوِيضٍ عَلَى الِاجْتِمَاعِ؛ لِعُمُومِ وِلَايَتِهِمَا

“he [Imam] may not appoint two Wazir Al-Tafwid’s to work together because of the general nature of their powers of authority (wilāya).”[45] He then discusses the situation where a Wazir Al-Tafwid is appointed over a specific portfolio acknowledging that this is a valid contract, but in his model they would be called a Wali (Amir) and not a Wazir.

Al-Mawardi says that if two Wazir Al-Tafwids are appointed,“they should not share in the matter of supervision, and that each of them should be assigned a task that the other has no responsibility for. This can be done in one of two ways: 

1- Either each of them should be assigned a specific task in which the general supervision is the same as the specific task, such as assigning the ministry of Ash-Sham to one of them, and the ministry of the Maghreb (Morrocco) to the other.

2- Or each of them is assigned a position in which the general aspect of the work is the specific aspect, such as appointing one of them as a minister of war (harb) and the other as a minister of taxation (kharaj).

In both cases, the appointment is valid, but they are not Wazir Al-Tafwids, they are governors (wulah) of two different functions. This is because the Ministry of Delegation (wazaratul-tafwid) should be concerned with what is general, and thus these two wazirs should be able to execute all tasks and exercise full jurisdiction: in fact the appointment of each is restricted to each person’s particular task and neither can oppose the other’s jurisdiction or particular responsibility.”[46]

In Al-Mawardi’s model a Wazir with Portfolio would be called a Wali Khāss (والِي خاصّ), “مَنْ تَكُونُ وِلَايَتُهُ عَامَّةً فِي أَعْمَالٍ خَاصَّةٍ Those with general authority but only with regard to a particular wilāya.”[47]

Hashim Kamali says, “Walāya is of two types, namely general (walāya ʿāmma) such as that of ministers and governors, and specific (walāya khāssa), which is task-specific and consists mainly of implementation rather than exercise of political power and policy initiatives. One who discharges general walāya must have comprehensive knowledge of the subject matter that falls under his jurisdiction, but one who exercises specific walāya need not have that level of knowledge.”[48]

The term wilāya is generally used to refer to a province, but its meaning is wider than this and means any delegated authority. This is why Al-Mawardi uses this term for his twenty governing functions. In Al-Muhit dictionary, the verbal noun (المَصْدَر masdar) وِلايَة with a kasra is defined as the plan (الخُطَّةُ Al-Khutta), the leadership (الإِمارَةُ Al-Imara) and the authority (السُّلطانُ Al-Sultan).[49]

Therefore, an executive department or ministry nowadays is equivalent to a wilāya, and the department minister (wazir) equivalent to an Amir or Wali in Al-Mawardi’s terminology. This is the case if the minister is a Wazir Al-Tafwid i.e. has delegated authority and executive power over his ministry. If he doesn’t have delegated power then he would be known as a Minister of Execution (Wazir Al-Tanfidh), with the title Secretary (Sahib or Katib).

Notes

[1] Abu l-Hasan al-Mawardi, Al-Ahkam as-Sultaniyah, Ta Ha Publishers, p.37; https://shamela.ws/book/22881/45

[2] The caliphate was abolished two years later on 3^rd March 1924

[3] Marlies Hoenkamp-Mazgon, ‘Palais de Hollande in Istanbul. The Embassy and envoys of the Netherlands since 1612,’ Boom, 2002, p.72

[4] Since the Ottoman Caliphate was in existence and it’s prohibited to have more than one caliph, Sultanate is a more appropriate term for the reality of this state, even if the term Caliphate was used.

[5] Aisha Abdurrahman Bewley, ‘Democratic Tyranny and the Islamic Paradigm,’ Diwan Press, 1st edition, 2018, Kindle Edition, p.86

[6] Sunan an-Nasa’i 4204, https://sunnah.com/nasai:4204

[7] Ibn Khaldun, ‘The Muqaddimah – An Introduction to History,’ Translated by Franz Rosenthal, Princeton Classics, p.300

[8] https://tafsir.app/ibn-aashoor/20/29

[9] Surah Al-Qiyamah, ayah 11

[10] al-Mawardi, Op.cit., p.40

[11] Ibn Khaldun, Op.cit., p.305

[12] Ibn Sa’d, Tabaqat, https://shamela.ws/book/1686/595

[13] 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. 11, p.149

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

[15] al-Tabari, https://shamela.ws/book/9783/2222

[16] Abdul-Qadeem Zallum, ‘The Ruling System in Islam,’ translation of Nizam ul-Hukm fil Islam, Khilafah Publications, Fifth Edition, p.144

[17] Ibn Khaldun, Op.cit., p.298

[18] Holy Qur’an, Surah Al-Qasas, ayah 38

[19] Al-Tabari, Op.cit., Vol. 21, p.213

[20] S.D.Goitein, ‘The Origin of the Vizierate and its True Character,’ Published in ‘Islamic Culture: The Hyderabad Quarterly Review,’ Vol.16, 1942, p.380

[21] Abu l-Hasan al-Mawardi, Op.cit., p.37

[22] Ibn Khaldun, Op.cit., p.304

[23] Ann K. S. Lambton, ‘State and Government in Medieval Islam,’ Oxford University Press, 1981, p.95

[24] Al-Hakim, al-Mustadrak, vol.1, p.10, #3046; Jami’ at-Tirmidhi 3680, https://sunnah.com/tirmidhi:3680 ; There is difference of opinion over the strength of the isnad. Al-Hakim and Tirmidhi authenticated it as Hasan. https://www.islamweb.net/ar/library/index.php?page=bookcontents&ID=7139&bk_no=56&flag=1#:~:text=%D9%85%D8%A7%20%D9%85%D9%86%20%D9%86%D8%A8%D9%8A%20%D8%A5%D9%84%D8%A7%20%D9%88%D9%84%D9%87,%D8%B4%D8%A7%D9%88%D8%B1%20%D9%88%D8%B2%D9%8A%D8%B1%D9%87%20%D8%8C%20%D9%88%D9%85%D9%86%D9%87%20%D9%82%D9%88%D9%84%D9%87%20%D8%AA%D8%B9%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%89

[25] Jami’ at-Tirmidhi 3676, https://sunnah.com/tirmidhi:3676

[26] Al-Hakim, al-Mustadrak (3/63)

[27] Ibn Khaldun, Op.cit., p.302

[28] As-Sallaabee, ‘The Noble Life of the Prophet ﷺ,’ p.1831; al-Mubarakpuri, ‘The Sealed Necatar,’ p.174

[29] Sunan Al-Nasa’i 2993, https://sunnah.com/nasai:2993

[30] Sahih al-Bukhari 7303, https://sunnah.com/bukhari:7303

[31] Sunan Abi Dawud 1623, https://sunnah.com/abudawud:1623

[32] Ibn Khaldun, Op.cit., p.303

[33] Ibn Khaldun, Op.cit., p.303

[34] Ibn Khaldun, ‘The Muqaddimah – An Introduction to History,’ Translated by Franz Rosenthal, Princeton Classics, p.303

[35] Colin Imber, ‘The Ottoman Empire, 1300-1650: The Structure of Power,’ Palgrave Macmillan, 2002, p.154

[36] al-Mawardi, Op.cit., p.38 https://shamela.ws/book/22881/46#p1

[37] Muhammad Asad, Op.cit., p.61

[38] Treasury Department

[39] Office of the seal, which oversaw secure and confidential documents

[40] Al-Tabari, Op.cit., Vol. 30, p.101

[41] Al-Mawardi, Op.cit., p.34 https://shamela.ws/book/22881/42

[42] Jalal ad-Din as-Suyuti, ‘History of the Caliphs,’ a translation of Tarikh al-Khulafa’ by Major H.S.Jarrett, Calcutta, 1881, p.534

[43] The title Wazir was not used until the Abbasid era.

[44] 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.

[45] Al-Mawardi, Op.cit., p.45 https://shamela.ws/book/22881/55#p1

[46] Al-Mawardi, Op.cit., p.46 https://shamela.ws/book/22881/55#p1

[47] Al-Mawardi, Op.cit., p.35; https://shamela.ws/book/22881/44

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

[49] Al-Qāmus al-Muḥīṭ dictionary, https://shamela.ws/book/7283/1320

[50] 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. 11, p.149

[51] Tabari, https://shamela.ws/book/9783/1699

[52] From the state treasury (Bait ul-Mal)

[53] Dr Ali Muhammad As-Sallabi, ‘The Biography of Abu Bakr As-Siddeeq’, Dar us-Salam Publishers, p.271

[54] Holy Qur’an, Surah Al-Hujjurat, ayah 4

[55] Alī ibn Ahmad al-Wāhidī, Asbāb al-Nuzūl, translated by Mokrane Guezzou,2008 Royal Aal al-Bayt Institute for Islamic Thought, p.139

[56] The senior sahaba were his advisors

[57] The Mazalim will pro-actively check government policy to ensure no injustices are performed

[58] Dr Ali Muhammad as-Sallabi, ‘Umar ibn al-Khattab, His Life and Times,’ Vol.1, International Islamic Publishing House, p.149

[59] Al-Sallabi, ‘The Biography of Uthman bin Affan,’ p.78

[60] Sahih al-Bukhari 4481, https://sunnah.com/bukhari:4481

[61] Suyuti, History of the Caliphs, https://shamela.ws/book/11997/139

[62] Al-Sallabi, ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib,’ vol.1, p.245

[63] Sunan Abi Dawud 4398, https://sunnah.com/abudawud:4398

[64] Al-Sallabi, ‘Umar ibn al-Khattab, his life and times,’ vol.1, p.522

[65] waiting period after death/divorce of husband

[66] Al-Sallabi, ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib,’ vol.1, p.249

[67] Al-Sallabi, ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib,’ vol.1, p.253

[68] Although this was not a formal title, the actual role conforms to this reality

[69] Dr Ali Muhammad Sallabi, ‘Umar bin al-Khattab, His life and Times,’ Vol. 2, International Islamic Publishing House, p.98

[70] https://www.islamweb.net/ar/fatwa/175037/%D9%87%D9%84-%D9%82%D8%A7%D9%84-%D8%B9%D9%85%D8%B1-%D8%A3%D9%8A%D9%87%D8%A7-%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%86%D8%A7%D8%B3-%D9%85%D9%86-%D8%B1%D8%A3%D9%89-%D9%81%D9%8A-%D8%A7%D8%B9%D9%88%D8%AC%D8%A7%D8%AC%D8%A7-%D9%81%D9%84%D9%8A%D9%82%D9%88%D9%85%D9%87

[71] Al-Sallabi, ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib,’ vol.1, p.278

[72] Dr Ali Muhammad As-Sallabi, ‘The Biography of Abu Bakr As-Siddeeq’, Dar us-Salam Publishers, p.748

[73] Al-Bidaayah Wan-Nihaayah (2/319) quoted in Al-Sallabi’s Biography of Abu Bakr Siddiq, p.380

[74] Abu l-Hasan al-Mawardi, ‘The Laws of Islamic Governance,’ translation of Al-Ahkam as-Sultaniyah, Ta Ha Publishers, p.116; https://shamela.ws/book/22881/125

1. The Institutionalists
2. Background to Al-Mawardi’s book Al-Ahkam al-Sultaniyah
3. Why did he write the book?
4. Al-Mawardi’s State Institutions
   1. Al-Mawardi’s 20 Wilāyat
5. Where is shura?
   1. No Majlis Al-Shura in Islamic History
   2. Shura Institutions nowadays
6. Categories of government officials
7. Notes

Imam Al-Mawardi (d.1058) was a jurist, chief justice (Qadi al-Qudah), diplomat and statesman of the Abbasid Caliphate under the caliphs Al-Qadir (r.991-1031CE) and Al-Qa’im (r.1031-1075CE). He wrote his famous book al-Ahkam al-Sultaniyah near the end of his life, drawing on his experiences in government and politics. His book is therefore not theoretical, but a practical guide to ruling which is why it has stood the test of time, and is still used as a reference point to this day.

Abdelilah Belkeziz says, “The Medieval classical Islamic fiqh culture was replete with a tremendous legacy of conceptual production in this regard, and perhaps the most important of it was that bequeathed by Abu al-Hasan al-Mawardi in his writings, especially his authoritative reference book: al-Ahkam al-Sultaniyah (Sultanate Rules) which was the first Islamic conceptual expose to take the matter of the state from the realm of the kalam (theology) to that of fiqh, subjecting it to a theoretical complexity that would remain an authoritative referential (marja’iyah) for the remainder of subsequent writings on the subject. And it is a marja’iyah for which little has changed as many of the givens of fiqh of the khilafah for al-Mawardi are not predicated on the dictates of the texts of the shari’ah but inhere on the basis of the facts of political reality as well.”[1]

Most of the 20^th century scholars and thinkers who developed structural models for a modern caliphate, in some sense or other all refer back to Al-Mawardi.

The Institutionalists

The majority view among the ‘ulema nowadays is that Islam laid down a number of principles of ruling, but the detailed institutional structures are not fixed and will change with the times.

Hashim Kamali says, “There is nothing in the sharia to specify a particular type of political organisation. Khilafah and imamah have developed certain characteristic attributes which are generally seen to manifest the Islamic perception of political leadership. But this is mainly a result of the interplay of juristic doctrine and historical precedent which do not constitute an obligation under the sharia.”[2]

Mufti Taqi Usmani says, “Islam provides basic guidelines in the field of politics, but has not laid down all the details. It is for Muslims to decide how many government departments there are to be, how administrative powers are to be divided, whether there should be ministers or not, and if so, how many; the same applies to whether there should be a unitary form of government or a federal one, whether the legislature should be unicameral or bicameral, how advisory sessions should take place, and so on.”[3]

A number of 20^th century scholars and thinkers went a step further from just general principles, and outlined specific institutions which would be needed to run a state. Rashid Rida (d.1936), Al-Sanhūrī (d.1971), Mohammad Barakatullah (d.1927) and Taqiuddin an-Nabhani (d.1977) stand out as the most prominent in this regard.

The models they presented vary widely from a highly centralised authoritarian state, to a highly decentralised ‘Islamic League’. There is also a model akin to the Vatican where the caliph is simply a spiritual head of the Muslims with institutions related to religious affairs only.

An important point to keep in mind when discussing specific institutions of the caliphate is that all ruling systems from a high-level perspective, whether in ancient history or today share the same characteristics and institutions. A ruler, assistants, judiciary, military, police and administration are the same for all ruling systems. If we look to Ancient Egypt under the Pharaohs (3100BCE) we see a ruler – Pharaoh, wazir – Haman and treasurer – Qarun, who Allah (Most High) directly names in the Qur’an, because they are part of the ruling structure. We also see Pharaoh had an army, and from other historical sources he had governors called nomarchs. Allah says, “˹We˺ also ˹destroyed˺ Qarun and Pharaoh and Haman – Musa came with the Clear Signs to them, but they were arrogant on the earth.”[4] “Qarun was one of the people of Musa but he lorded it over them. We gave him treasures, the keys alone to which were a heavy weight for a party of strong men.”[5] “Pharaoh ordered, “O Hamân! Build me a high tower so I may reach the pathways”[6] “Certainly Pharaoh and Haman and their troops were in the wrong.”[7]

The Roman empire had essentially the same structure and so did the caliphate. With urbanisation and modern technology, the need for more and more institutions and administrative systems is required, but the skeleton structure is still the same. What distinguishes all these governing structures is the underlying ideology and foundations upon which the state is built, which in the case of an Islamic State is the sharia. Ann Lambton says, “The basis of the Islamic state was ideological, not political, territorial or ethnical and the primary purpose of government was to defend and protect the faith, not the state.”[8]

Umar ibn al-Khattab, the second caliph of Islam asked, “By Allah, I do not know whether I am a caliph or a king, for if I am a king then this is a tremendous matter.” Someone said, “Amir ul-Mu’minin, there is a distinction between the two of them.” He said, “What is it?” He said, “A caliph does not take except what is due and he does not use it except in the right way, and you, praise be to Allah, are like that. The king treats people unjustly, and takes from this one and gives to that one.” ‘Umar was silent.^[9]

Therefore, although both a caliph and king are rulers with full executive power there is a wide difference between them due to the underlying principles, which in the context of Umar’s question is justice.

Sayyid Qutb comments on the similarity in governing structures. “It may happen, in the development of human systems, that they coincide with Islam at times and diverge from it at others. Islam, however, is a complete and independent system and has no connection with these systems, neither when they coincide with it nor when they diverge from it. For such divergence and coincidence are purely accidental and in scattered parts. Similarity or dissimilarity in partial and accidental matters is also of no consequence. What matters is the basic view, the specific concept from which the parts branch out. Such parts may coincide with or diverge from the parts of other systems but after each coincidence or divergence Islam continues on its own unique direction.”[10]

Background to Al-Mawardi’s book Al-Ahkam al-Sultaniyah

In the 10^th century, during the later part of the Abbasid caliphate, the caliph lost most of his executive powers to Amirs and Sultans who paid nominal homage to the caliph in Baghdad. Eric Hanne describes this situation, “The death of al-Muqtadi in 487/1094 marked the final pivotal event in this tumultuous period. The central Islamic lands would never be the same as various alliances and rebellions helped divide the region into smaller and smaller areas of influence.”[11] Ibn Khaldun says, “They (the non-Arab rulers in the East) showed obedience to the caliph in order to enjoy the blessings (involved in that), but royal authority (mulk) belonged to them with all its titles and attributes. The caliph had no share in it.”[12]

Al-Radhi (r.934-940CE) was the last independent Abbasid caliph since the rise of the Buwahids (Buyids) in 934CE, and the establishment of their emirate over Iraq, and central and southern Iran, which 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.”[13] After Al-Radhi, his brother Al-Muttaqi (r.940-944) assumed the rule after him and Al-Suyuti says about him that “He had nothing of authority but the name.”[14]

The Caliphs Al-Qadir and Al-Qa’im attempted to claw back power from the Buwahids. During Al-Qa’im’s rule (r.1031-1075) the Buwahids power and authority began to wane, especially with the rise of the Seljuk Sultans who eventually defeated the Buwahids and established a sultanate over their former territories. In 1055, Tughril entered Baghdad and removed the influence of the Buyid dynasty over Al-Qa’im, but the Seljuk’s still held power over the caliph who remained a mere figurehead. This split between the caliph and the sultan (executive power), continued until 1517 when the Ottoman Sultan Selim I merged the offices of Sultanate and Caliphate, bringing the caliph back with full executive power again.

Eric Hanne describes the relationship between Al-Qa’im and the Buyids Amirs, in which Al-Mawardi’s book plays an important role in outlining the responsibilities of each grouping in maintaining supremacy to the religion. “Al-Qa’im’s acceptance by the populace of Baghdad was well on the way to being secured by the following year. The historians relate that upon his succession, al-Qa’im sent the qadi al-Mawardi to the Buyid amir, Abu Kalijar, in order to secure the bay’a from him. According to Ibn al-Athir, Abu Kalijar accepted al-Qa’im and sent him gifts and money. lbn al-Jawzi’s account is similar, stating that al-Mawardi sent back word of his good treatment at the hands of Abu Kalijar in Ahwaz. Ibn al-Jawzi’s account then relates the numerous gifts and types of wealth sent to the caliph along with the correspondence concerning the granting of the laqab, al-Sultan al-Mu’azzam Malik al-Umam (Glorified Sultan, King of the Nations). The caliph refused this request, stating that those terms were both reserved for the caliph himself. When asked whether Malik al-Dawla (King of the State) was possible, the response was that it sometimes was.”[15]

The fact that Al-Qa’im was able to refuse the Buyid request for the title of Sultan, shows the caliph had managed to regain some of his executive powers. This situation however would be short lived due to the rise of the Seljuks, and as Ibn Khaldun remarks, “From the time of an-Nâṣir (r. 1180-1225) on, the caliphs were in control of an area smaller than the ring around the moon.”[16] The fall of Baghdad and the caliphate in 1258 until its re-establishment in 1261 by the Mamluks in Egypt, shows what happens when there is internal disunity and fragmentation within the state.

Why did he write the book?

Al-Māwardī describes the reasons for writing his book which clearly shows it was written for the caliph Al-Qa’im, and the irregular situation of the bay’a contract being fasid (defective) due to the caliph’s loss of executive power. This power was fully delegated out to a Delegated Assistant (Wazir Al-Tawfid وَزِير التَفْوِيض) which in reality was the Buyid Amir and later Seljuk Sultan. Al-Māwardī when explaining the bay’a contract reiterates many times the stipulation that the entire ummah must obey the caliph which includes the Buyids and Seljuks. “So if the Imam fulfils the rights of the Ummah, as we have described above, he will have executed the claim of Allah, may He be exalted, regarding their rights and their duties: in which case they have a duty to obey and support him as long as his state does not change.”[17] He also emphasises that the caliph shouldn’t over-delegate his powers. “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.”[18]

Al-Māwardī says, “As the laws of governance are more applicable to those in authority but because these latter, being occupied with politics and management, are prevented from examining these laws as they are mixed with all the other laws, I have devoted a special book to them. Thus in response to the person to whom my obedience is due in this affair, I have made known to him the madhhabs (schools of thought) of the fuqaha’ (jurists) so that he sees both that his rights are respected and that his duties are fulfilled and that he honours the dictates of justice in their execution and aspires to equity in establishing his claims and in the fulfilment of others’ claims. I ask Allah, the Sublime, that He may grant the best possible aid and I desire of Him that He accord success and guidance by Himself and He is enough and sufficient for me.”[19]

Lambton summarises this as, “Al-Māwardī’s aim, so it would seem, was to strengthen the position of the imām against this erosion and usurpation of his power, and so he insists on certain matters — matters which, because of the contemporary situation, presumably seemed to him to require special emphasis.”[20]

Al-Mawardi’s State Institutions

There are many technical (istilahiyya) terms that scholars and thinkers have used to describe the structure of an Islamic State. Rashid Rida (d.1936) and Al-Sanhūrī (d.1971) use councils (مَجالِس majalis). Mohammad Barakatullah (d.1927) uses ministries (وِزارَة wizara), and Taqiuddin an-Nabhani (d.1977) uses institutions (أَجْهِزَة ajhizah).

Al-Mawardi uses the technical term al-wilāyāt al-khāssa (specific government functions) for his institutions, which he lists out as twenty wilāyāt in his book.

Al-Mawardi’s 20 Wilāyat

Where is shura?

Shura (consultation) is a key principle of the Islamic ruling system.

Judge Hussein bin Mohammed Al Mahdi – Member of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Yemen, says, “Shura is of great importance in the lives of nations and peoples. Any system or organization that seeks goodness and prosperity, seeks justice and equality, yearns for honor and dignity, loves the prevalence of security, stability and prosperity, and desires to prevent injustice, tyranny and despotism, must have Shura as its characteristic and method. This is because through Shura, truths are discovered, blindness is dispelled, what is right is derived, opinions are corrected, efforts are combined, responsibilities are distributed and the power of the nation is strengthened. This is only because through Shura, the factors of intimacy, affection, love, cooperation and mutual advice are ignited, and hands are joined to resolve dilemmas. Through Shura, a person reaches the dignity, prosperity, happiness and success he aspires to in the affairs of this world and the hereafter.

Through consultation, virtuous societies and strong countries are built. Through consultation, victory is achieved, hearts are won, and people of consultation cooperate to build nations, populate the earth, and please Allah.”[21]

No Majlis Al-Shura in Islamic History

What is noticeably absent from Al-Mawardi’s list is any formal institution of shura which in modern times is referred to as a Majlis Al-Shura (Consultative council). This is not unique to Al-Mawardi but across the Islamic political literature as Abdul-Aziz Belkiz says, “we do not find in the ancient texts concern for the subject of shura in Islam, rather it is almost not even indicated in the authoritative referential political Islamic legal corpus!”[22]

Hassan al-Turabi (d.2016) espouses the same view. “Modern Islamic literature is that which circulated the word and attributed to it its value and its salient content after the ancient books of fiqh had not meant much by it and had not conferred upon it this magnificent value because consultative political practice [based on shura] was not widespread and not possessed of much significance in Islamic history.[23]

We need to keep in mind that shura is a principle of ruling not an institution in itself. It underpins all institutions of the state. Therefore, shura does exist in Al-Mawardi’s model but is part of the Wazirate which houses the close advisors to the caliph.

It has been related that the Abbasid Caliph Al-Ma’mun (r.813-833CE) wrote regarding the choice of wazir: “I am looking for a man for my affairs who has all of the qualities of goodness, who is modest in his behaviour and resolute in his ways, a man who has been refined by manners and strengthened by experience, a man who if entrusted with secrets acts accordingly and if entrusted with important matters moves to execute them, a man whose forbearance causes him to be silent and whom knowledge causes to speak, a man for whom the moment is enough and for whom a glance is sufficient, a man who has the intrepidity of amirs and the perseverance of the wise, the humility of the ‘ulama and the understanding of the fuqaha; if people treat him well, he is grateful and if put to the test by their mistreatment. he is patient; he does not sell the portion of today only to be deprived the next; a man who captures the hearts of men by the sharpness of his tongue and the beauty of his eloquence.”[24]

Shura is also mentioned as a key part of the role of the ahl hali wal aqd (those who loosen and bind) who choose the caliph. Al-Mawardi says, “There are three conditions regarding those eligible to make the choice:

1. That they be just and fulfil all the conditions implied in this quality;
2. That they possess a knowledge by which they may comprehend who has a right to the Imamate and that they fulfil all the conditions implied by this knowledge;
3. That they possess the insight and wisdom which will lead them to choose the person who is most fitting for the Imamate and who is the most upright and knowledgeable with respect to the management of the offices of administration.[25]

In terms of the ordinary citizens, there were no mechanisms in place due to the limitations of the time, to allow them to voice their opinions en masse. Such a situation is a very recent phenomenon. In Britain women didn’t even get the vote until 1928. Prior to this as in America the only ones with the right to vote for representatives in parliament or congress were “gentlemen of property and standing”.

In 1835 America, voters had to be 21 years old and depending on the state they resided in, own the corresponding wealth and property listed below to be eligible to vote.[26]

Shura Institutions nowadays

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

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

Muhammad al-Ghazali says, “Al-Shura is a great Islamic principle! But, the means of realizing shura and setting up its apparatus has not been specified for us. It would appear that this is intended for differences in environment and level of civilization; rather we notice that one ummah of a high civilization changed the means of shura in it a number of times depending upon its experiences and the relative benefits.”[27]

Categories of government officials

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)[28] via the bay’a 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.”[29]

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”[30]

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’a to them, one after the other, and give them their dues for Allah will verily account them about what he entrusted them with.”[31]

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[32] is a guardian, and he is responsible over his subjects.”[33]

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).”[34]

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.”[35]

Al-Mawardi categorises these representatives into four types:

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

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

(iii) those who had specific powers in the provinces 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

(iv) those who had specific powers in specific districts, such as the qādī of a town or district, the collector of kharāj or sadaqāt of a district, the warden of a specific frontier district or the naqīb of a local military force.”[36]

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’a 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.”[37]

From Al-Mawardi’s list there are six institutions or government functions (wilayat) which need further discussion, because they will be important for understanding some of the models produced by later scholars which will be discussed in due course. These government functions are listed below and will be dealt with in separate articles إن شاء الله.

1. The Delegated Minister (وَزِير التَفْوِيض Wazir Al-Tafwid)
2. The Executive Minister (وَزِير التَنْفِيذ Wazir Al-Tanfidh)
3. The Executive Departments (دِيوان Diwan)
4. The Armed Forces (الْإِمَارَةِ عَلَى الْجِهَادِ Emirate of Jihad)
5. The Semi-Independent Leader (أَمِير الِاسْتِيلَاءِ Amir Al-Istila’)
6. Judicial Redress of government corruption (الْمَظَالِمِ Al-Mazalim)

Notes

[1] Abdelilah Belkeziz, ‘The State in Contemporary Islamic Thought,’ I.B.Tauris Publishers, 2009, p.79

[2] Muhammad Hashim Kamali, ‘Characteristics Of The Islamic State,’ Islamic Studies, vol. 32, no. 1, 1993, pp. 17–40. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/20840105

[3] Mufti Taqi Usmani, ‘Islam & Politics,’ Turath Publishing, Kindle Edition, 2020

[4] Holy Qur’an, Surah Al-Ankaboot, ayah 39

[5] Holy Qur’an, Surah Al-Qasas ayah 76

[6] Holy Qur’an, Surah Al-Ghaafir ayah 36

[7] Holy Qur’an, Surah Al-Qasas, ayah 8

[8] Ann K. S. Lambton, ‘State and Government in Medieval Islam,’ Oxford University Press, 1981, p.13

[9] Jalal ad-Din as-Suyuti, ‘History of the Khalifahs who took the right way,’ translated by Abdassamad Clarke, Ta Ha Publishers, pp.146

[10] Sayed Khatab, ‘The Power of Sovereignty-The Political and Ideological Philosophy of Sayyid Qutb,’ Routledge, 2006, p.35

[11] Eric J. Hanne, ‘Putting the Caliph in His Place: Power, Authority, and the Late Abbasid Caliphate,’ 2007, Fairleigh Dickinson University Press, p.130

[12] Ibn Khaldun, ‘The Muqaddimah – An Introduction to History,’ Translated by Franz Rosenthal, Princeton Classics, p.267

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

[14] Ibid, p.413

[15] Eric J. Hanne, ‘Putting the Caliph in His Place: Power, Authority, and the Late Abbasid Caliphate,’ 2007, Fairleigh Dickinson University Press, p.79

[16] Ibn Khaldun, ‘The Muqaddimah – An Introduction to History,’ Translated by Franz Rosenthal, Princeton Classics, p.385

[17] Abu l-Hasan al-Mawardi, Al-Ahkam as-Sultaniyah, Ta Ha Publishers, p.29

[18] Ibid, p.28

[19] Ibid, p.7

[20] Ann K. S. Lambton, Op.cit., p.88

[21] 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/26217/23#p1

[22] Abdelilah Belkeziz, Op.cit., p.172

[23] Abdelilah Belkeziz, Op.cit., p.172

[24] Al-Mawardi, Op.cit., p.38

[25] Al-Mawardi, Op.cit., p.10

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

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

[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 Eighth Study, Qitaal Mughtasib As-Sultah (Fighting the usurper of the authority)

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

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

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

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

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

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

[36] Ann K. S. Lambton, Op.cit., p.95

[37] al-Mawardi, Op.cit., p.28, https://shamela.ws/book/22881/35