The emergence of the first Islamic State in 622CE went unnoticed at first by the Sassanid and Byzantine empires. The Persians and Romans were fighting each other in a major war[1], and so their focus was not on the nomadic Arabs who had never previously posed any type of threat to their empires.
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.”[2]
What precipitated these conquests, and the establishment of an empire and civilisation which lasted as a state in one form or another for 1300 years is a miraculous achievement. Within thirty years of the Islamic State’s establishment in Medina, the Persian Empire fell, and the Romans were confined to modern day Türkiye after losing all their territory in Ash-Sham, Egypt, North Africa and their naval dominance in the Mediterranean.
Transforming Yathrib to Al-Medina Al-Munawwarah
On entering Medina after the hijra (migration) from Mecca, the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ embarked on transforming the divided tribal society of Yathrib, into Al-Medina Al-Munawwarah (The Enlightened City). This new society would be a state based on the ideology of Islam where the old tribal bonds (asabiyah) were replaced with a new bond, that of Islam and brotherhood. The old tribal law was replaced with a new divine law – sharia, and a new vision of spreading the message of Islam (daw’ah) to the world through conquest was nurtured among its people.
Fred Donner says, “It is therefore essential to note that the embryonic Islamic state created by Muhammad displayed certain features giving it considerably more cohesiveness and a more thoroughly centralized structure than was found in normal Arabian tribal confederations. It is in these novel features that the impact of the new ideology of Islam upon the solid political accomplishments of Muhammad’s career is most clearly visible-indeed, it was the new ideology that gave those accomplishments durability and made of them the foundation of the conquest movement.”[3]
The Prophet ﷺ began laying the foundations of this new state and establishing institutions to look after people’s affairs. He ﷺ built a mosque – Masjid Al-Nabawi – which became the centre of the state acting like a government headquarters. Foreign dignitaries would be hosted in the masjid, important communications were delivered from the minbar (pulpit) and government officials and army commanders were given their orders from there.
Part of the masjid was converted into a shelter for the poor and homeless Muslims known as Ahl Al-Suffah. This was more than a simple housing shelter. It was an educational establishment where the occupants spent their time in learning and development, playing important roles as soldiers in the battles, and in running the state long after the Prophet ﷺ had passed away. Abu Huraira is one of the graduates of Ahl As-Suffah, which is why he is the top narrator of hadith as he spent so much time with the Prophet ﷺ learning and memorising. During the caliphate of Umar ibn al-Khattab he was appointed as the governor of Bahrain.
A new ‘constitutional document’ called the Sahifa (Medina Charter) was written which governed the relationships between the Muslims, and between the Muslims and the Jewish tribes in and outside Medina. This document firmly established the Prophet ﷺ as head of the new state, and the sharia as its governing law. Rached Ghannouchi says, “The Medina Charter created the necessary basis for an open political and civilizational space that would extend around the globe, encompassing without exception all the peoples, civilizations, religions, and tribes it encountered in its path, opening the way for mutual engagement with one another within this space and for joint participation in creating the contours of this new society.”[4]
A new marketplace was established to stimulate economic activity in the mainly farming community of Medina famous to this day for its date palms.
Finally, he ﷺ appointed a wide array of government officials (‘ummal عُمّال) from the sahaba to manage the affairs of the state. Wazirs, private secretaries, scribes, tax collectors, army commanders, foreign envoys, teachers, media representatives, market inspectors, regional judges and governors were all appointed to run the state.
Fred Donner says, “The advent of a notion of divine law that was the duty of believers to obey, then, set the stage for a more orderly approach to social and political relations. It may, furthermore, have eased the way for the rise of a state bureaucracy-so necessary to the functioning of a state, yet alien to the pre-Islamic political scene in northern and central Arabia. For with the acceptance of the idea of a supreme authority transcending tribal affiliations, it became possible for believers to accept administrators who were representatives of that authority. It was a situation in marked contrast to the pre-Islamic setting, in which only representatives of one’s own tribe, or of a dominant tribe, would have been heeded.”[5]
In the beginning the Prophet ﷺ took a much more hands on role leading most of the major battles himself and managing most of the affairs of state himself. He ﷺ managed and participated in the building of Masjid Al-Nabawi. He ﷺ acted as a judge for all disputes in Medina, and he ﷺ distributed funds to the people. Later he delegated duties to the sahaba as they became more competent and skilled in the affairs of state. This is most stark in the military expeditions. An expedition led by the Prophet ﷺ is called a ghazwa, and those led by a sahabi are known as a sariyya.
This shows that there was a clear tarbiyyah (training) programme preparing the sahaba to continue running the state and expanding it after his ﷺ death. As an example, Zayd bin Thabit was a secretary to the Prophet ﷺ. He was tasked with translating the letters of the Jews and learnt Hebrew in 15 days. In Abu Bakr’s caliphate he continued to be a secretary. In Umar’s caliphate he was a deputy caliph, teacher in Medina and head of the judiciary, roles which he continued to hold under Uthman bin Affan.
This tarbiyyah programme started in Mecca in Dar al-Arqam, and continued throughout the Prophet’s ﷺ life in Medina. Muhammad As-Sallabi says, “In less than one half of a century, the singularly superior men that the Prophet educated were blessed with many great victories as they carried the message of Tawheed (Islamic Monotheism) all over the world. In the early years of his Prophethood, the Messenger of Allah wisely chose and trained the key people that would be needed to lead the Muslim nation through its glorious first century of being. It is with that end in mind – the spread of Islam all over Arabia and to many parts of the world – that we can truly appreciate the early days of education and training in the house of Al-Arqam.”[6]
When the Persian governor of Yemen Bādhān ibn Sāsān embraced Islam, the Prophet ﷺ kept him in place as As-Sallabi describes, “Kisra’s viceroy to Yemen was Bādhān ibn Sāsān. During the Prophet’s lifetime, Bādhān embraced Islam, and the Prophet ﷺ recognizing good leadership qualities in Bādhān allowed him to remain governor of Yemen. It was always the case that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ appointed people based on their qualities and on the job performance that could be expected of them. The Prophet ﷺ knew that Bādhān was an experienced leader and that he was well-acquainted with the people of Yemen and with their needs; thus he, and not a person of high-ranking from Mecca or Al-Madeenah, was best suited for the job; hence the Prophet’s decision to allow Bādhān to stay on as governor.”[7]
What is a state?
When we study the Islamic texts i.e. the Qur’an and Sunnah, we do not find reference to the word “state” (دَوْلَة dawla) in reference to ruling and politics. The word “state” is a technical (istilah) term whose meaning has evolved over the centuries, but in its current usage means “a politically organized body of people usually occupying a definite territory.”[8]
Muhammad Hussein Abdullah says, “It is possible for the people of any particular skill, art or expertise, and in any time period to set terminological conventions (istilahiyyat), utilising the worded expressions (أَلْفاظ alfazh) of the language and transfer them to specific meanings associated to their field.”[9]
Fred Donner says, “The very concept of the “state” as a political organism or institution is relatively recent—a product of European political development and political philosophy of the fifteenth century and later. Before this time, we find references to “kingdom”, “empire”, “sovereign city (polis)” and so on, but in no European language does there seem to have existed a term or concept that is equivalent to the modern concept of the “state”. This is also certainly true of the early Islamic world, which used terms such as khilafa (“caliphate”), imara (“amirate”), or mamlaka (“kingdom”). The word dawla, which means “state” in modern Arabic, was used in early Islamic times, but in the sense of “turn of fortune”, hence “turn in power”; it only acquired its modern meaning in later centuries.[10]
Nonetheless, following the emergence of the term and concept of “the state” in European discourse, it has become commonplace to attempt to define the “state” and to identify examples of political organizations that fit the definition even in remote antiquity. Because the state is not a natural (ontological), but rather a social (constructed), phenomenon, however, definitions of it have varied in response to the diverse realities of particular political organisms and to the perceptions and concerns of the observer.”[11]
The Encyclopaedia of Islam describes the origins and transformation of the term dawla in Arabic. “It seems that at the beginning of the Abbasid period, the term dawla was by no means well established in the meaning of “dynasty”. However, the word was frequently used by the Abbasids with reference to their own “turn” of success. Thus it came to be associated with the ruling house and was more and more used as a polite term of reference to it. Soon, one could speak of the supporters and members (ashab, rijal) belonging to the dawla, the supporters and members of the dynasty; again, the precise date of the earliest occurrence of such usage as yet eludes us.”[12]
Was Medina a state?
While there is ‘ijma ‘ulema that the Prophet ﷺ established a state and the elements of a state in Medina, some modernists and orientalists in the 20th century began to dispute this fact. Most famous of these is Ali Abdel Razek who was an ‘Alim and Judge in Egypt under British occupation, and a graduate from Al-Azhar university. In 1925 he published a book ‘Islam and the Foundations of Governance’ (Al-Islam Wa Usul Al-Hukm) which in summary said, “Islam does not advocate a specific form of government.”[13]
Ali Abdel Razek said, “On inquiring into the judicial system of the times, we realise that neither this nor the other institutions and practices typical of any government existed in a clear or unequivocal shape during the lifetime of the Prophet. An objective scholar can conclude from this that the Prophet never in fact appointed a governor to keep order and administer the affairs in territories which God placed at his command. Everything that has been reported on this subject leads us to the conclusion that the Prophet from time-to-time delegated certain limited functions, such as command over troops, supervision of property, leadership of the prayer, instruction in the Qur’an, and the propagation of the faith, to certain individuals. These assignments were not continuous or permanent, as we can see from examples of pronouncements during military missions or expeditions; as well as from the examples of appointing a deputy during the Prophet’s absences from Medina while at war.”[14]
This book went against ‘ijma and as a result Ali Abdel Razek was stripped of his ‘Alimijaza (permission to teach).
The Council of scholars at Al-Azhar gave a detailed response refuting all his claims. In summary in relation to charge 3 which is relevant to our discussion here they said,
“CHARGE 3 – That he claims that the system of ruling in the era of the Prophet was the subject of uncertainty, ambiguity, turbulence or shortcomings and so is perplexing.
This is a clear statement from Sheikh Ali which proves the charge. If he admits to some of the systems of governance in Islamic law, then he contradicts his admission, and decrees that these systems are nonexistent.
…
We, the Sheikh of the University of al-Azhar along with the unanimous agreement of twenty-four scholars from the Council of Senior Scholars, judged Sheikh Ali Abdul Raziq, a member of the University of al-Azhar and a Shari’ah judge in the Primary Shari’ah Court of Mansoorah and the author of the book (Islam and governance) be expelled from the community of scholars.
The Office of General Administration of the Religious Institutions issued this judgement on Wednesday 22 Muharram 1344 (August 12 1925).”[15]
Signed: the Sheikh of the University of al-Azhar[16]
Rached Ghannouchi says, “The structure of the Islamic state that developed in Medina at the time of the Messenger ﷺ and the Rightly Guided Caliphs provided all the elements necessary to any state, namely a people [umma], a territory, a political authority, and a legal system.”[17] He continues, “It seems hard to imagine that anyone could deny the reality of the political society that arose in Medina after the Hijra. This was a remarkable body politic, independent as to its territory, its unified laws, and its leadership, its inhabitants tied together by common relations, texts, and goals. Further, this society exercised all the functions of a state, including defense and justice, and the authority to ratify treaties and send out emissaries. No one among those who built this system had any doubt about its nature. Supreme legislative authority belonged to God and His Messenger (the Book and the Sunna), and the other sources of law like ijtihad were secondary sources to be used within the frame of reference and supreme legal framework of the Qur’an and Sunna—that is, guided by divine revelation and its objectives.”[18]
The Five Institutions of State
For the purposes of this article, we will use Fred Donner’s definition of a state where he says, “The state, then, can be described as having an ideology of Law, coupled with certain definable institutions. The institutions intrinsic to the state are, generally, those needed to establish its Law and to maintain the political order. These we can consider to be the following:
(a) a governing group
(b) means for preserving the position of the governing group in the political hierarchy against both external and internal threats, i.e. an army and police
(c) means for providing for the adjudication of disputes in the society i.e. a judiciary
(d) means for paying for state operations, i.e. a tax administration
(e) institutions to perform other aspects of policy implicit in the legal and ideological foundations of the state”[19]
When we apply these criteria to Medina, we can clearly see that the Prophet ﷺ did establish a state with all the institutions mentioned by Donner. The actual institutions and offices of state were very basic due to the reality of Arabia during that period, and the time and resources available to develop them.
What is clear though is that the Prophet ﷺ was not creating any ordinary state. He ﷺ was laying the foundations of a state which would transform in to a global empire[20] and civilisation that would eventually encompass the entire world. He ﷺ said,
“Every Prophet used to be sent to his nation exclusively but I have been sent to all humankind.”[21]
Institution
Medina
a governing group
Prophet Muhammad ﷺ was the head of the government. He had assistants and secretaries which in modern day translate to an Executive Office and Executive Departments.
means for preserving the position of the governing group in the political hierarchy against both external and internal threats, i.e. an army and police
There was no standing army because in Nomadic Arabia the tribes would be the fighting unit. However, the Prophet ﷺ would organise the army expeditions and appoint the commanders. For the major battles he would organise the tribes in the battle similar to a commander assigning regiments in the modern day. There were guards and patrols in Medina which can be considered as shurta (police)
means for providing for the adjudication of disputes in the society i.e. a judiciary
The Prophet ﷺ combined all three branches of government executive, judicial and legislative since he was a prophet. In Media he ﷺ would perform the function of judiciary, but when the state expanded and became an ‘empire’ he ﷺ appointed judges for the provinces such as Mecca and Yemen.
means for paying for state operations, i.e. a tax administration
A number of new centralised taxes on agriculture, trade, war booty and wealth were introduced.
institutions to perform other aspects of policy implicit in the legal and ideological foundations of the state”[22]
State administrative functions were implemented as required to look after the affairs of the people.
Fred Donner says, “The transition to state organization was, of course, a gradual process; one cannot isolate any specific moment at which the Islamic state can be said to have come into existence. But it is clear that Muhammad, by the end of his career, controlled a polity that had in some measure acquired the main characteristics of a state: a relatively high degree of centralization, a concept of the primacy of law or centralized higher authority in the settlement of disputes, and institutions to perform administrative functions for the state existing independent of particular incumbents. For want of a precise moment, we can select the hijra in A.D.622 and the start of Muhammad’s political consolidation in Medina as the point at which the rise of the new Islamic state begins.”[23]
The Institutions of the Islamic State in Medina
Contrary to those who claim otherwise, when we study the seerah of the Prophet ﷺ we can derive a number of principles and institutions of ruling which show that Medina was a state. Although the styles and means related to these institutions developed over time, the underlying principles were there. For example, the Bait ul-Mal (State Treasury) started off as an upper room (مَشْرُبَةٍ) in the Prophet’s ﷺ house.[24] It then became a separate building in the time of the Rightly Guided Caliphs before becoming a room on an elevated platform only accessible by ladder during the Umayyad period.
This transformation from simple state infrastructure to fully fledged institutions continued throughout the caliphate’s history. Today we can adopt all types of styles and means, technology and administrative principles within certain broad limits of the sharia, to create as many institutions as are required to run a modern state.
Having said this, the Islamic ruling system will inevitably share characteristics with other forms of government, since the top-level institutions such as having a ruler, judiciary, military, police, executive departments and so forth are the same for all ruling systems. What distinguishes them is the underlying ideology and foundations upon which the state is built.
We can see this in the Prophet’s ﷺ state. Appointing government posts and establishing institutions was by no means unique, as the Romans and Persians had governors, ministers, armies, police, taxation, currency etc. What made Medina unique however is the underlying ideology of Islam.
As an example, taxation in the Prophet’s ﷺ state was not oppressive and did not bankrupt the poor as happened in the Persian and Roman domains where someone in debt could actually be enslaved. Islam came and abolished this. The high conduct of the Muslim armies and the kind treatment of non-Muslim citizens (dhimmi) in the newly acquired provinces of Bahrain and Yemen was something stark to what went before. This is why the Christians of Homs said to the Muslim army led by Abu Ubaidah during the conquest of Syria, “Your rule and justice are dearer to us than the oppression that we used to suffer [under the Byzantines].”[25]
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.”[26]
This is a logical structure mapped to how modern states are organised in order to better understand the Prophet’s ﷺ state structure.
Institution
Medina
Head of State
Prophet Muhammad ﷺ
Wazirs (Ministers)
Deputy Leader in Medina
Assistant Leaders
Executive Office
Secretaries (Kuttab)
Media Representatives (Poets)
Army
Provinces
Judiciary
Regional Judges
Market Inspectors (hisba)
Treasury
Distributing state benefits
Tax Collectors
Tax Secretaries
Land Surveying
Housing the Poor (Ahl as-Suffah)
State Administration (Executive Departments)
Trade & Development
Agriculture & Irrigation
Transportation (roads)
Internal Security (Police)
Salah and Mosques
Hajj
Education
Health
Foreign Affairs
For a full picture of the actual structure and the name of those sahaba who held positions please see the book “History of the Islamic State’s institutions”.
The Prophet Muhammad ﷺ was a ruler-prophet and so held all three branches of government, executive, legislative and judicial, although legislation (sharia) was not from him ﷺ but from Allah (Most High):
“He does not speak from his own desire. It is only a revelation sent down ˹to him˺.”[27]
As the state expanded most notably to Yemen, he then appointed separate judges for the new provinces, and new governors. Ali ibn Abi Talib was appointed as Qadi (judge) for Yemen. It was narrated that ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib said:
“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.’”[28]
After the death of Yemen’s 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.”[28.5]
The Prophet ﷺ therefore began to delegate executive and judicial power as the state expanded.
Solidifying the State
“The Messenger of Allah ﷺ and his Companions remained in Mecca, after the advent of the revelation, for ten years in a state of fear: sleeping at night and waking in the morning with weapons at their sides. Then the Prophet was commanded to migrate to Medina. One of his Companions asked him: ‘O Messenger of Allah, there is not a single day in which we feel safe such that we can put down our weapons.’ The Messenger of Allah ﷺ said: ‘It will not be long before one of you will be sitting unarmed amidst huge numbers of people, none of whom carries a weapon.’
“Allah has promised those of you who believe and do righteous actions that He will certainly make them successors in the land, as He did with those before them; and will surely establish for them their faith which He has chosen for them; and will indeed change their fear into security—˹provided that˺ they worship Me, associating nothing with Me. But whoever disbelieves after this ˹promise˺, it is they who will be the rebellious.”[29]
Consequently, Allah, exalted is He, enabled His Prophet ﷺ to have the upper hand over the Arabian Peninsula, and the Muslims were able to put down their weapons and feel safe. They remained safe after Allah, exalted is He, took to Himself His Prophet, and during the reign of Abu Bakr, ‘Umar and ‘Uthman, may Allah be well pleased with them. When they fell into that which they fell and were ungrateful, Allah brought fear into their hearts; they changed and so Allah, exalted is He, changed what they had.”[30]
This change in Medina from fear to security and peace only occurred after the signing of the Treaty of Hudaibiyah, and the conquest of Khaibar six years after the Hijra. Allah (Most High) describes the treaty as a “clear victory”:إِنَّا فَتَحْنَا لَكَ فَتْحًا مُّبِينًا “Indeed, We have granted you a clear victory”[31]Yasir Qadhi explains the reasoning behind this, “The Treaty of Ḥudaybiyyah, despite its drawbacks, marked the first instance wherein the Quraysh recognised the Muslims as an independent entity. It was a turning point in the sīrah, and the Quraysh had accepted that the Muslims were here to stay.”[32] He continues, “Until Ḥudaybiyyah, the Muslims had been living under a constant threat, which had officially ended. The Battle of the Trench showed that even their safe haven of Medina could be attacked, but the Treaty of Ḥudaybiyyah guaranteed at least ten years of safety and security. This newfound security allowed the Prophet to finally spread the Message of Islam globally, writing to international leaders.”[33]
It was also at this time that the Prophet ﷺ sent a message to the Muslims living in the Kingdom of Aksum in Abyssinia, to come to Medina. Before this time, it seems that the Prophet ﷺ was keeping Abyssinia as a plan B in case the state of Medina fell.
During the Meccan period, a number of Muslim families migrated to Abyssinia to escape the persecution of the Quraysh. The Kingdom of Aksum was ruled by a just Christian king known as the Negus (Najashi). Sayyid Qutb (d.1966) describes this event as not just a means of escaping repression, but part of a larger plan by the Prophet ﷺ. “The Messenger of Allah ﷺ was searching for a stronghold outside of Makkah, a stronghold that could protect the beliefs of Islam and guarantee the freedom to openly practice Islam. In my estimation, this was the foremost reason that prompted the migration (to Abyssinia). The view which states that the Prophet’s ﷺ Companions migrated only to save themselves is not corroborated by strong evidence. Had they migrated only to save themselves (from torture and temptation to leave the fold of Islam), those Muslims who were weakest – in status, strength, and protection – would have migrated as well, but the fact is that slaves and weak Muslims, who bore the major grunt of persecution and torture, did not migrate. Only men who had strong tribal ties – ties that protected them from torture and temptation – migrated to Abyssinia. In fact, the majority of those who migrated were members of the Quraish (as opposed to imported slaves or weak Muslims who lived in Makkah but were not from the Quraish, such as the family of Yasir.)”[34]
Al-Ghadban in his seerah writes, “This poignant observation from Sayyid Qutb (may Allah have mercy on him) is supported by events in the Seerah (the Prophet’s biography). In my view, the strongest evidence of that is the overall result of their migration to Abyssinia. From what we know (i.e., from what is related in historical narrations), the Messenger of Allah didn’t send for those who migrated to Abyssinia until after (the Prophet’s) migration to Yathrib (i.e., Al-Madeenah), Badr, Uhud, Khandaq, and Al-Hudaibiyyah. For a total of five years (after the Prophet’s migration), Yathrib was vulnerable to complete destruction at the hands of the Quraish. The last of Quraish’s attacks and attempts of destroying (the Muslims in Al-Madeenah) occurred during (the Battle of) Al-Khandaq. After this battle, when the Messenger of Allah ﷺ felt certain that Al-Madeenah was a safe stronghold for Muslims – there being no more danger of an impending attack from the polytheists – he ﷺ summoned those who had migrated to Abyssinia. There was no longer any need to keep a precautionary base in Abyssinia, where the Prophet ﷺ would have possibly been able to seek refuge had Yathrib fallen into the hands of the enemy.”[35]
Transformation to empire
Up until the signing of the Treaty of Hudaibiyah in 6 Hijri (628CE) the state remained fairly static in terms of its size. It was only after the signing of this treaty that things began to change. One of the key conditions which made it a “clear victory” was:
“Any third party that wants to enter into an agreement or alliance with Muhammad has the right to do so. And any third party that wants to enter into an agreement or alliance with the Quraish has the right to do so.”[36]
This allowed the tribes of Arabia to make alliances with the Islamic State in Media without fear of sanctions from the Quraysh. Consequently, the Khuzaa’ah tribe entered into the agreement, saying, “We are upon an agreement and a covenant with Muhammad”; and the people of Banu Bakr also entered into the agreement, saying, “We are upon an agreement and a covenant with the Quraish.”[37]
Now that the Prophet ﷺ was freed up to make alliances with any tribes without interference from Quraysh, he sent a series of letters to all the empires, kingdoms and major tribes of Arabia and beyond including Egypt and Abyssinia.
Ibn Shihāb al-Zuhrī, one of the greatest scholars of the Tabi’in (successors), comments, “There was no greater victory given to Islam before Ḥudaybiyyah that was bigger than Ḥudaybiyyah. Not a single intelligent person heard about Islam except that he accepted it. Within two years of Ḥudaybiyyah, the number of Muslims doubled, or more.”[38] Ibn Hishām comments on al-Zuhrī’s statement, adding, “There were 1,400 people in the Pledge of Divine Acceptance (Bay’atul-Ridwan), and two years later in the Conquest of Mecca, there were 10,000 people.”[39]
These letters made the presence of the Prophet ﷺ felt far beyond Medina, and brought the attention of the Roman and Persian empires. As mentioned earlier Kisra was enraged by the Prophet’s ﷺ letter and ordered his arrest. This incident led to the Persian governor in Yemen Bādhān ibn Sāsān accepting Islam and Yemen becoming the first real province (wiliyah) of the state with Bādhān its first governor (wali). Prior to this the tribal heads would simply manage their local affairs as mini-provinces. Even within Medina the sub-clans of the Aws and Khazraj had acted as mini-provinces since the beginning of the Hijra.
The same occurred in Bahrain, which also became a governorate for the Islamic State when its ruler Al-Mundhir ibn Sawa embraced Islam after receiving a letter from the Prophet ﷺ.[40]
If we look at the size of the Islamic State’s army we can see this massive increase in numbers. On entering Medina after the Hijra the Prophet ﷺ undertook a census of available fighters which was 1500 men.[41] If we fast forward to the Battle of Tabuk then we see that the army had increased to 30,000 soldiers!
The Islamic State is not a utopia, as we can see from all the difficulties faced by the Prophet ﷺ and sahaba when establishing and solidifying the state in Medina. Problems are simply part of life, which is why a government is needed in the first place. Imam Ghazali says, “a sultan is necessary for achieving well-ordered worldly affairs, and well-ordered worldly affairs are necessary for achieving well-ordered religious affairs, and well-ordered religious affairs are necessary for achieving happiness in the hereafter, which is decidedly the purpose of all the prophets.”[42]
The creation of the Islamic State in Medina and the Islamic civilisation encompassed many lands and diverse peoples, transforming the lives of those it ruled over by establishing true justice. Even many non-Muslims have attested to this fact. Carly Fiorina, the former CEO of Hewlett Packard said in a speech in 2003, “It [Islamic world] was a civilization that was able to create a continental super-state that stretched from ocean to ocean, and from northern climes to tropics and deserts. Within its dominion lived hundreds of millions of people, of different creeds and ethnic origins. One of its languages became the universal language of the world, the bridge between the peoples of a hundred lands.”[43]
Notes
[1] The Byzantine-Sasanian War (602-628CE). The Persian conquest of Jerusalem in 614 CE was celebrated by the Quraysh in Mecca as a victory for paganism. Allah (Most High) then revealed Surah Al-Rum prophesising the defeat of the Persians in 3-9 years. Allah (Most High) says, “Alif-Lam-Mim. The Romans have been defeated in a nearby land. Yet following their defeat, they will triumph within three to nine years.”
The Roman Emperor Heraclius offered peace to the Persian Emperor Khosrow in 624, threatening otherwise to invade Iran, but Khosrow rejected the offer. On March 25, 624, Heraclius left Constantinople to attack the Persian heartland. He won a decisive victory paving the way for the final recapturing of Jerusalem in 628 which occurred at the same time as the signing of the Treaty of Hudaibiyah and the despatching of letters by the Prophet ﷺ to the Roman and Persian emperors.
Dr. Mustafa Khattab says, “This Meccan sûrah takes its name from the reference to the Romans in verse 2. The world’s superpowers in the early 7th century were the Roman Byzantine and Persian Empires. When they went to war in 614 CE, the Romans suffered a devastating defeat. The Meccan pagans rejoiced at the defeat of the Roman Christians at the hands of the Persian pagans. Soon verses 30:1-5 were revealed, stating that the Romans would be victorious in three to nine years. Eight years later, the Romans won a decisive battle against the Persians, reportedly on the same day the Muslims vanquished the Meccan army at the Battle of Badr [13 March 624].” [Dr. Mustafa Khattab, ‘The Clear Qur’an: A Thematic English Translation’]
Most commentators of the Qur’an when explaining this verse mention that the Muslims were hoping for the Romans to be victorious over the Persians, because the Romans were people of the Book whereas the Persians were mushrikeen like Quraish.
Ibn Attiyah however, has an alternative explanation of this verse. In his Tafseer, Muharar al-Wajiz (المحرر الوجيز) he asserts that the main reason why the Muslims rejoiced on hearing of the Roman’s victory was not because the Romans were people of the book, or that their victory would prove the truthfulness of the Qur’an. It was rather from a strategic viewpoint that a victory for the Romans would be in the best interests of the Muslims. Ibn Attiyah writes, “what is closer to the truth in the matter is that Muslims wanted the weaker enemy to win, for if the greater and stronger enemy won, they would become a more formidable foe (for the Muslims in the future). Reflect on this point while you keep in mind that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ wanted his religion to reign supreme over all other nations.”
[2] 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’
[3] Fred Donner, ‘The Early Islamic Conquests,’ Princeton University Press, 1981, p.69
[4] Rached Ghannouchi, ‘Public Freedoms in the Islamic State,’ World Thought in Translation, Translated by David L. Johnston, Yale Books, 2022, p.123
[5] Fred Donner, ‘The Early Islamic Conquests,’ Princeton University Press, 1981, p.60
[6] Dr Ali Muhammad As-Sallaabee, ‘The Noble Life of the Prophet ﷺ,’ p.173
[7] Dr Ali Muhammad As-Sallaabee, ‘The Noble Life of the Prophet ﷺ,’ p.1625
[11] Fred Donner, ‘The Articulation of Early Islamic State Structures,’ Routledge, 2012, p. xiii
[12] B. Lewis, Ch. Pellat and J. Schacht, ‘The Encyclopaedia of Islam,’ Volume II, Leiden E.J. Brill, 1991, p.178
[13] Elizabeth Suzanne Kassab. Contemporary Arab Thought: Cultural Critique in Comparative Perspective. Columbia University Press, 2010. p.40
[14] Ali Abdel Razek, ‘Islam and the Foundations of Political Power,’ a translation of Al-Islam Wa Usul Al-Hukm, 1925, Translated by Maryam Loutfi, Aga Khan University-ISMC; Edinburgh University Press, 2013, p.64
[15] Kamal Abu-Zahra, ‘The Centrality of Khilafah in Islam,’ p.30
[16] Kamal Abu-Zahra, ‘The Centrality of Khilafah in Islam,’ p.45
[17] Rached Ghannouchi, ‘Public Freedoms in the Islamic State,’ World Thought in Translation, Translated by David L. Johnston, Yale Books, 2022, p.122
[18] Rached Ghannouchi, ‘Public Freedoms in the Islamic State,’ World Thought in Translation, Translated by David L. Johnston, Yale Books, 2022, p.117
[19] Fred Donner, ‘The Articulation of Early Islamic State Structures,’ Routledge, 2012, p.2
In no way is an Islamic empire comparable to the colonial empires of the Europeans.
Hugh Kennedy says, “The use of the word “empire” to describe the early Muslim state is of course controversial, and it has no equivalent in the Arabic sources. The Arabic word dawla, often used to describe the Abbasid regime has none of the hegemonic over-tones of “empire”. The “empire” I refer to is the first caliphate, which lasted from the time of the election of Abu Bakr after the death of the Prophet in 11/632 to the collapse of the last remaining vestiges of the power of the ‘Abbasid caliphs of Baghdad in 323/935. The empire began as essentially an Arab-dominated polity, but by the time of its collapse the elite was multi-ethnic and defined by its Muslim faith and its allegiance to the Abbasid cause. The use of the term “empire” will seem in-appropriate to some, but I use it to describe a political system in which a dominant elite rules over a collection of countries in which different areas have their own ethnic and cultural identities. Among the defining features of such a polity is the role of a dominant ideology, in this case Islam and the loyalty to a ruling dynasty. It also has an elite that is pan-imperial, that is to say that it can exercise power in many different areas of the empire and its loyalties are to the centre and to other members of the elite, rather than to the local communities over which it exercises power. These criteria are, of course, more a working definition than a defining statement of political theory, but I hope they will help to clarify the issues with which I am dealing. I use the term without any negative or pejorative (“evil empire”) connotations, but simply as a description of a certain type of polity.” https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/islm.2004.81.1.3/html
[38] Ibn Hishām, al-Sīrah al-Nabawiyyah, vol. 3, pp. 268-269
[39] Ibn Hishām, al-Sīrah al-Nabawiyyah, vol. 3, p.269
[40] Dr Ali Muhammad As-Sallaabee, ‘The Noble Life of the Prophet ﷺ,’ p.1620
[41] Dr Ali Muhammad As-Sallaabee, ‘The Noble Life of the Prophet ﷺ,’ p.882
[42] Al-Ghazali’s Moderation in Belief: Al-Iqtiṣād fi al-I‘tiqād, translated by A M Yaqub, University of Chicago Press, Chicago and London, 2013, p.229
Islam emerged in the town of Mecca which was part of the Nomadic Zone in Hejaz, a strip of land in western Arabia running parallel to the Red Sea. A series of tribes lived in this Nomadic Zone, some were settled in towns such as Mecca, Taif and Yathrib, and others lived as Bedouins out in the desert.
Fred Donner describes the environment in the Nomadic Zone, “There was, then, no state in northern Arabia to impose its control over the tribes, so that society was dominated by the most powerful tribal groups-which were, as we have seen, those focused around warrior nomads or holy families. Despite the fact that confederations headed by warrior nomads as well as those headed by holy families lacked the administrative and legal features that we associate with the state, however, they did resemble the state in one respect: they functioned as sovereign entities, independent of external political control and desiring to extend their domination over new groups and areas. This meant not only that they acted as rivals to one another, as we have seen, but also that in those regions where confederations came into contact with established states on the peripheries of northern and central Arabia, the two tended to clash.”[1]
In the Nomadic Zone, the constant warring between tribes, idol worship and the shocking social practice of burying daughters alive, is why this period prior to the coming of Islam is known as jahiliyyah (time of ignorance). “Early Islamic historians have coined the term (Jahiliyyah) to describe the chaos that prevailed in the zone of nomadic power during 5th and 6th centuries, before the advent of Islam. The term Jahiliyyah might be painting to the spiritual ignorance of that era but it also definitely pinpoints the political and social chaos that existed. There is a unanimous agreement among historians that during the fifty years or so before the advent of Islam nomadic zone of Arabia was a devastated and ruined land”[2]
Quraysh
Quraysh was the dominant tribe in Hejaz and in fact all of Arabia due to its control of the haram (noble sanctuary) housing the Ka’ba, where pilgrims from the Arab tribes would flock each year to perform the annual Hajj. It also dominated Hejaz due to its monopoly on the trade route between Yemen and Ash-Sham.
There were no kingdoms or states as we know them in the Nomadic Zone. Quraysh contained a number of sub-tribes or clans who jointly ran the political and economic affairs of Mecca. Yasir Qadhi says, “The people of Mecca did not have one ruler. Instead, they deferred to a council of senior figures. Their rule can be described as a form of aristocracy. Each tribe had a leader, and each leader held a seat on this senior council.”[3] This council was called Dār al-Nadwah (دار النَدوَة). It’s the same council where the Quraysh gathered to plot the assassination of the Prophet ﷺ in order to prevent him from migrating to Medina and establishing an authority there.
The other major city in Hejaz was Ṭā’if, 100km north of Mecca, which was inhabited by the Thaqif tribe. The Qur’an references this city, وَقَالُوا۟ لَوْلَا نُزِّلَ هَـٰذَا ٱلْقُرْءَانُ عَلَىٰ رَجُلٍۢ مِّنَ ٱلْقَرْيَتَيْنِ عَظِيمٍ “And they exclaimed, “If only this Quran was revealed to a great man from ˹one of˺ the two cities!”[4]
Similar to the situation in Mecca, they did not have one ruler but were ruled by three brothers – Abd Yālīl, Masʿūd, and Ḥabīb. It is these three that the Prophet ﷺ spoke to on his famous trip to Ta’if after the death of his uncle Abu Talib, and loss of protection in Mecca effectively rendering him “stateless”.
After the conquest of Mecca, we see singular leadership in the Hejaz where “before becoming Muslim, people used to call the Prophet ‘Amir of Mecca’ and ‘Amir of the Ḥijâz’.”[5] This shows a clear distinction between the old and new governing structures in the Hejaz.
The noblest of the Quraysh sub-tribes was Banu Hashim, named after the Prophet Muhammad’s ﷺ great-grandfather. Yasir Qadhi says, “Hāshim’s name was ʿAmr, but he would grind (hashama) barley for the Hajj pilgrims and thus became known as Hāshim (The Grinder) due to his generosity. After a deadly drought, he was responsible for the economic success of the Quraysh after founding the idea of the bi-yearly trade routes to Rome in the summer, and Yemen in the winter. The Qur’an references this in Sūrah Quraysh, ‘For [the favour of] making the Quraysh secure—secure in their trading caravan [to Yemen] in the winter and [Syria] in the summer—let them worship the Lord of this Sacred House, Who fed them against hunger and made them secure against fear.’”[6]
The Prophet ﷺ said: “Verily Allah granted eminence to Kinānah from amongst the descendants of Ismāʿīl, and he granted eminence to the Quraish amongst Kinānah, and he granted eminence to Banū Hāshim amongst the Quraish, and he granted me eminence from the tribe of Banu Hashim.”[7] The Prophet’s lineage is therefore the most noble lineage to exist.
This camel route established by Hāshim brought caravans of goods from the Indian Ocean via the port of Aden to the Byzantines in Ash-Sham[8]. Montgomery Watt, mentions that the Quraysh “were prosperous merchants who had obtained something like a monopoly of the trade between the Indian Ocean and East Africa on the one hand and the Mediterranean on the other.”[9]
Securing these caravans was of utmost importance to Quraysh, so they established a network of tribal alliances along the camel route, which not only provided security from highway robbers, but also rest stops for the camels and merchants. This was seen as a far safer route than the potentially hazardous conditions a merchant ship could fall into on the Red Sea. George Hourani describes this preferred route, “Rather than face the terrors of the Red Sea, the Arabs developed camel routes along the whole western side of their peninsula.”[10]
This made Quraysh the dominant force in Hejaz. It also explains why the elites of Quraysh were so desperate to stop the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ from establishing a state. This new state in Yathrib (later renamed to Medina), a city 450km north of Mecca, would threaten their summer trade caravans to Ash-Sham which provided an economic lifeline to Mecca or more accurately the rich and powerful of Mecca at the expense of the lower classes, which is a common theme throughout history and up to today. This is why in a final act of desperation they conspired to assassinate the Prophet ﷺ to prevent his migration to Medina.
The Empires
Arabia was flanked by two great empires – the Byzantines (Romans) in the West and the Sassanids (Persians) in the East. These empires did not venture into the Nomadic zone directly, but rather relied on proxies and local alliances with Arab tribes to police and maintain control of the nomadic Arabs. The Romans and the Persians never anticipated in their wildest dreams, that out of the Nomadic Zone of Arabia would emerge an empire and civilisation which after its establishment, would destroy their own empires within 30 years.
Fred Donner describes the situation of how the empires-controlled Arabia. “Because they could not control central and northern Arabia directly, the South Arabian, Byzantine, and Sasanian states relied primarily on policies of alliance to keep the nomads of that region from interfering too seriously in their domains. These alliances assumed one of two forms, corresponding to the two kinds of tribal confederation that existed in northern and central Arabia: alliances directly with tribal confederations dominated by warrior nomads, who then served the state as “policemen”; and alliances with settled dynasties of nobles, which dominated confederations of tribes in the same manner as the religious aristocracy.”[11]
Alliances with Arab Tribes
In the 10th year of Prophethood, Allah (Most High) ordered the Prophet ﷺ to expand the seeking of authority to Arab tribes outside of Mecca, since no further progress could be made with Quraysh in achieving the establishment of a new state to protect, implement and propagate Islam to the world. Ali ibn Abi Talib said, “When Allah ordered His Messenger to present himself to the tribes of the Arabs, he left, along with myself and Abu Bakr, for Mina.”[12]
The Persian Empire had an alliance with Bakr ibn Wa’il who spanned North Eastern Arabia and Iraq. One of Bakr ibn Wa’il’s sub-tribes was Banu Shayban bin Tha’laba. This is one of the tribes that the Prophet ﷺ met and discussed with at Mina with the aim of providing protection to the message and the eventual establishment of a political authority.
At Mina during the annual Hajj season the Prophet ﷺ met with Banu Shayban bin Tha’laba. He spoke with their sheikh and military leader Al-Muthanna bin Haritha who said, “I heard and liked what you said, Oh Quraysh brother. I was impressed by your words. But our answer should be that of Hani’ bin Quhaysa[13]; for us to leave our religion and follow you after one sitting with us would be like us taking residence between two pools of stagnant water, one al-Yamama and the other al-Samawa[14].” The Messenger of Allah ﷺ asked “And what might those pools of stagnant water be then?”
Al-Muthanna replied, “One of these is where land extends to the Arab world, and the other is that of Persia and the rivers of Kisra (Persian Emporer). We would be reneging on a pact that Kisra has placed upon us to the effect that we would not cause an incident and not give sanctuary to a troublemaker. This policy you suggest for us is such a one that kings would dislike.
As for those areas bordering Arab lands, the blame of those so acting would be forgiven and excuses for them be accepted, but for those areas next to Persia, those so acting would not be forgiven, and no such excuses would be accepted. If you want us to help and protect you from whatever relates to Arab territories alone, we should do so.”
The Messenger of Allah ﷺ replied, “Your reply is in no way had, for you have spoken eloquently and truthfully. (But) Allah’s religion can only he engaged in by those who encompass it from all sides.”
He ﷺ then asked, “Supposing it were only shortly after now that Allah were to award you their lands and properties and furnished you their young women, would you then praise Allah and revere Him?”[15]
Banu Shayban later accepted Islam and al-Muthanna bin Haritha was appointed by Abu Bakr as the Amir ul-Jihad for the Iraq campaign against the Persians, their former allies.[16]
The Prophet’s ﷺ statement, “Allah’s religion can only he engaged in by those who encompass it from all sides,” shows the state he was establishing was completely different to what had existed previously in Arabia. This state would not be confined to a specific geographical area but would expand to encompass the Roman and Persian Empires.
Alliances with the Arab Kingdoms
There were two main Arab vassal states bordering the Nomadic Zone. These provided a buffer zone for the empires against any attempts by the nomadic Arabs to infiltrate their lands. This is why the first encounters with the Romans and Persians by the Islamic State were through these kingdoms.
The Lahkmid Kingdom in North-East Arabia and Iraq was a vassal for the Persians.
The Ghassanid Kingdom in Ash-Sham was a vassal for the Byzantines. It was against the Ghassanids that the Battle of Mut’ah took place and later the Battle of Tabuk.
The Persian emperor also established direct rule through governorates in Yemen and Bahrain.
In Yemen, the Persians established direct rule after they defeated the Abyssinian Kingdom of Aksum in 570CE. This year corresponds to the Year of the Elephant, when the Abyssinian general Abraha attempted to destroy the Ka’ba. His plan failed, and Abraha and his army were destroyed by a flock of birds who bombarded them with clay stones shredding them to pieces.
Allah (Most High) says, “Do you not see what your Lord did with the Companions of the Elephant? Did He not bring all their schemes to nothing, unleashing upon them flock after flock of birds, bombarding them with stones of hard-baked clay, making them like stripped wheatstalks eaten bare?”
The Year of the Elephant is also the year the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ was born.
Immediately after the signing of the Treaty of Hudaibiyah in 6Hijri (628CE), the Prophet ﷺ despatched letters to the leaders of all the major powers in the region. These included not just the vassal states of the Lahkmids and Ghassanids, but also directly to the Byzantine and Sassanid emperors.
The letter to the Persian Emperor
Chosroes II (r. 590 to 628CE) known as Kisra in Arabic, was the Sassanid emperor (shāhanshāh). The Prophet ﷺ sent Abdullah ibn Hudhafah As-Sahmi to Bahrain with Kisra’s letter. There he handed it over to Bahrain’s Persian Governor Al-Mundhir Ibn Saawa who then passed it on to Kisra.
Kisra was enraged when he received the Prophet’s ﷺ letter. After the letter was read out Kisra took it, tore it apart, and said, “He writes to me when he is my slave!” Upon learning of Kisra’ s response, the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said, “May Allah tear apart his kingdom!”[17]
Kisra then ordered is governor in Yemen Bādhān ibn Sāsān to arrest the Prophet ﷺ and bring him to his court. Bādhān sent a messenger to Medina with a letter: “Verily, the king of kings (shāhanshāh) has written to the king Bādhān, ordering him to send someone to you, and take you to him.” The Prophet ﷺthen shocked the messenger by informing him that Kisra had just been assassinated by his son Shairawai (Sheroe/Kavad II).[18] When Bādhān heard the news of Kisra’s demise and the fact that the Prophet ﷺ knew it had occurred, he accepted Islam. Yemen then left the Persian Empire becoming a new governorate for the Islamic State.
The same occurred in Bahrain, which also became a governorate for the Islamic State when its ruler Al-Mundhir ibn Sawa embraced Islam after receiving a letter from the Prophet ﷺ .[19]
The letter to the Roman Emperor
Heraclius (r. 610-641CE) known as Heraql in Arabic was the Byzantine emperor. The Prophet ﷺ sent Dihyah al-Kalbi with a letter to Heraclius inviting him to Islam. After receiving the letter Heraclius ordered his men to find someone from Quraysh who he could question about this new prophet. As discussed, Quraysh had economic ties to Ash-Sham through their trade route from Yemen.
Abu Sufyan who at the time was not Muslim, happened to be in Ash-Sham on business. He narrates that Heraclius sent for him to come along with a group of the Quraish who were trading in Sham, and so they came to him. Abu Sufyan then mentioned the whole narration and said, “Heraclius asked for the letter of Allah’s Messenger ﷺ. When the letter was read, its contents were as follows: ‘In the name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful. From Muhammad, Allah’s slave and His Messenger to Heraclius, the Chief of Byzantines: Peace be upon him who follows the right path (guidance)! Amma ba’du (to proceed)…’”[20]
Abu Sufyan’s son Mu’awiya became the governor of Ash-Sham under Umar ibn al-Khattab, and later the caliph of the Muslims.
These close links between Quraysh and the Byzantine empire, and between Quraysh and the Persian Arab allies via the Hajj, show that the Prophet ﷺ and the sahaba (companions) were fully aware of the ruling structures in the empires and their vassal kingdoms. In spite of this the Prophet ﷺ established a unique state and did not copy these existing governing structures in terms of their ruling principles. In administrative aspects such as military tactics he did copy the Persians (Battle of the Trench) because administration is one of the principles of ruling as will be discussed later.
When the Messenger of Allah ﷺ was informed that the Persians had crowned the daughter of Chosroes as their ruler, he ﷺ said, “People who appoint a woman over their affairs will never succeed.”[21] Meaning it is not permitted for the caliph to be a woman.
Near the end of Mu’awiya ibn Abi Sufyan’s reign as caliph (661-680CE) he embarked on a course of action of introducing hereditary rule, which was not from the Islamic ruling principles, but rather from the Roman and Persian civilisations. There was major opposition from the senior sahaba to his attempts to make his son Yazid the caliph after him.
Mu’awiya wrote to his governor in Medina Marwan ibn Al-Hakam to take the bay’a for Yazid. Marwan addressed the people: “The Ameer of the Believers has decided to appoint his son, Yazid, as his successor over you, according to the sunna of Abu Bakr and ʿUmar.” Abd al-Rahman ibn Abi Bakr (d.675CE) stood up and said, “Rather, according to the sunna of Chosroesand Caesar! Abu Bakr and ʿUmar did not appoint their sons to it, nor anyone from their families.”[22]
The Islamic State of Prophet Muhammad ﷺ
The emergence of the first Islamic State in 622CE went unnoticed at first by the Sassanid and Byzantine empires. The Persians and Romans were fighting each other in a major war[23], and so their focus was not on the nomadic Arabs who had never previously posed any type of threat to their empires.
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.”[24]
It is from this environment that a new state emerged in Medina, which was something out of the ordinary in Nomadic Arabia which had never known a state like this before.
Notes
[1] Fred Donner, ‘The Early Islamic Conquests,’ Princeton University Press, 1981, p.41
[22] Jalal ad-Din as-Suyuti, ‘History of the Umayyad Khaleefahs,’ translated by T.S.Andersson, Ta Ha Publishers, p.24
[23] The Byzantine-Sasanian War (602-628CE). The Persian conquest of Jerusalem in 614 CE was celebrated by the Quraysh in Mecca as a victory for paganism. Allah (Most High) then revealed Surah Al-Rum prophesising the defeat of the Persians in 3-9 years. Allah (Most High) says, “Alif-Lam-Mim. The Romans have been defeated in a nearby land. Yet following their defeat, they will triumph within three to nine years.”
The Roman Emperor Heraclius offered peace to the Persian Emperor Khosrow in 624, threatening otherwise to invade Iran, but Khosrow rejected the offer. On March 25, 624, Heraclius left Constantinople to attack the Persian heartland. He won a decisive victory paving the way for the final recapturing of Jerusalem in 628 which occurred at the same time as the signing of the Treaty of Hudaibiyah and the despatching of letters by the Prophet ﷺ to the Roman and Persian emperors.
Dr. Mustafa Khattab says, “This Meccan sûrah takes its name from the reference to the Romans in verse 2. The world’s superpowers in the early 7th century were the Roman Byzantine and Persian Empires. When they went to war in 614 CE, the Romans suffered a devastating defeat. The Meccan pagans rejoiced at the defeat of the Roman Christians at the hands of the Persian pagans. Soon verses 30:1-5 were revealed, stating that the Romans would be victorious in three to nine years. Eight years later, the Romans won a decisive battle against the Persians, reportedly on the same day the Muslims vanquished the Meccan army at the Battle of Badr [13 March 624].” [Dr. Mustafa Khattab, ‘The Clear Qur’an: A Thematic English Translation’]
Most commentators of the Qur’an when explaining this verse mention that the Muslims were hoping for the Romans to be victorious over the Persians, because the Romans were people of the Book whereas the Persians were mushrikeen like Quraish.
Ibn Attiyah however, has an alternative explanation of this verse. In his Tafseer, Muharar al-Wajiz (المحرر الوجيز) he asserts that the main reason why the Muslims rejoiced on hearing of the Roman’s victory was not because the Romans were people of the book, or that their victory would prove the truthfulness of the Qur’an. It was rather from a strategic viewpoint that a victory for the Romans would be in the best interests of the Muslims. Ibn Attiyah writes, “what is closer to the truth in the matter is that Muslims wanted the weaker enemy to win, for if the greater and stronger enemy won, they would become a more formidable foe (for the Muslims in the future). Reflect on this point while you keep in mind that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ wanted his religion to reign supreme over all other nations.”
[24] 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’
It’s widely accepted in political philosophy that there are three branches of government:
1
Executive
implements laws
2
Legislative
makes laws
3
Judicial
interprets laws and resolves disputes
These three branches exist in every ruling system including the Islamic system but differ in their degree of separation.
We can classify such a model under the concept of technical terminology (الاِصْطِلاحات istilahiyyat) which are used to teach and understand Islam. Muhammad Hussein Abdullah says, “It is possible for the people of any particular skill, art or expertise, and in any time period to set terminological conventions (istilahiyyat), utilising the worded expressions (أَلْفاظ alfazh) of the language and transfer them to specific meanings associated to their field.”[1]
There are many technical terms that scholars and thinkers have used to describe the structure of an Islamic State. Al-Mawardi (d.1058) uses ruling spheres (وِلايات wiliyyat). 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).
All of these are permissibile as part of the sharia maxim:
لا مُشَاحَّة في الاصطلاح بعد الاتفاق على المعنى
There is no dispute over terminology after agreement on the meaning.[2]
Trias Politica – Separation of Powers between the three branches
Baron de Montesquieu (d. 1755), a French political philosopher, first introduced the idea of these three branches with a view to separating the powers between them.[3] His ideas heavily influenced the founding fathers of America and in particular James Madison, the ‘Father of the Constitution’. This is why these three branches of government are explicitly defined as separate institutions in the American constitution.
In the US system there is strict institutional separation between the three branches. In other democratic systems such as the UK, the legislative and executive branches are closely linked since the Prime Minister and his cabinet are also members of the legislative parliament. Even in the US system the separation between the executive and legislative is not as distinct as is made out. This is because the President can issue executive orders which effectively make law. Trump’s signing of hundreds of executive orders on entering office is a clear example of this. This is why Mogens Herman Hansen says, “Today Montesquieu’s separation of powers is riddled with so many exceptions that it is an obstacle rather than a help to understand the structure of modern democracy.”[4] Sovereignty in an Islamic State on the other hand is with the sharia and therefore underpins all three branches of government which eliminates such contradictions.
Does this separation of powers also apply to an Islamic State? Al-Sanhuri (d.1971) answers this question. “This brings us to address the question of the separation of powers in Muslim law. It is known that modern public law makes this theory the cornerstone of the constitutional regime. Exaggerated at first in the sense of a complete separation, it was then brought back to its reasonable proportion: distinction of the three powers and coordination between them in the functioning. Muslim law does not consider the judicial power as independent of the executive power. It subordinates the former to the latter, but this subordination has no practical importance, because Caliph and Judge must both bow before the Law, that is to say, before the legislative power.
It is between the executive and judicial powers, on the one hand, and the legislative power, on the other hand, that there is a complete separation, even more rigorous than that which exists in modern law.”[5]
Executive Branch
The Islamic State has a unitary executive, where in origin all executive ruling power is with the caliph. similar to the US President. Article II of the US constitution states, “The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.” This doesn’t make the caliph an absolute monarch or dictator, in the same way it doesn’t make the US president an absolute monarch or dictator, because both posts are restricted by other branches of government namely the legislative branch which is ultimately sovereign.
This power is transferred to the caliph from the ummah who are the source of authority (مَصْدَر السُلْطَة masdar al-sultah)[6] 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.”[7]
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”[8]
The Prophet ﷺ informed us that those who are charged with this responsibility of ruling are the caliphs. He ﷺ said,
“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.”[9]
The Prophet ﷺ described the caliph (imam) as having general powers of responsibility in ruling:
“The Imam[10] is a guardian, and he is responsible over his subjects.”[11]
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).”[12]
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.”[13]
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.”[14]
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.”[15]
Legislative Branch
In an Islamic state the legislative branch is the sharia, which binds the caliph, limits his powers and prevents him from overstepping the law. This is primarily achieved through binding the caliph to a constitution when he is given the bay’a on taking office. This is continuously enforced through institutional mechanisms such as the Supreme Court, Majlis al-Nuwaab (House of Representatives) and the Dar al-‘Adl (House of Justice) fulfilling the function of an upper house.
Al-Sanhuri says, “For the Caliph, contrary to what is sometimes said, is not an autocratic sovereign. He has very extensive executive and judicial powers, but he cannot encroach on the legislative domain.”[16]
“Do not oppress or bring difficulty upon my Ummah (he repeated that three times). O Allah, whoever commands my Ummah with that which they have not been commanded with, then they are absolved from him.”[17][18]
Mohammad Al-Mass’ari comments on this hadith, “It is therefore not permissible for the ruler to impose upon the Ummah a law which has not been deduced by a correct Shar’i deduction, let alone a law that is from man’s production. Similarly, it is prohibited upon the Ummah to obey him in that. This is in addition to other restrictions and conditions related to the obedience to the ruler which have been detailed in our book “The obedience to the Uli l-Amr (rulers): Its limits and restrictions”.
All of this clearly indicates that the siyadah (sovereignty) belongs to the shar’a. Otherwise, it would have been permissible for the ruler to impose laws from other than the Shar’a and compel the Ummah to obey him, due to the generality of the evidences mentioning the obligation of obedience. However, Islam prohibited Muslims to obey the ruler if he commanded them with a ma’siyah (sin), or what is worse than that, in the case where he was to make the Halal Haram, and the Haram Halal. It has been established and indeed by Tawatur (concurrent reports) establishing decisive definite knowledge, in respect to the Muslim and disbeliever, equally, that he ﷺ said:
“There is no obedience to anyone if it is disobedience to Allah. Verily, obedience is only in good conduct.”[19]
This separation of powers in Islam was also recognized by orientalists and modern academics who have studied Islamic history.
C.A. Nallino (d.1938) an Italian orientalist and Professor of The History and Institutions of Islam, at The Royal University of Rome in 1919, wrote “While these universal Monarchs [caliphs] of Islam possessed, like any other Mussulman [Muslim] sovereign, limitless executive and judicial powers, they were destitute of legislative powers; legislation in the proper sense of the word could be nothing less than the divine law itself, the sceria [sharia], of which the only interpreters are the ulama or doctors.”[20]
Another orientalist Thomas Arnold (d.1930) a Professor of Arabic and Islamic Studies at SOAS in London wrote: “The law being thus of divine origin demanded the obedience even of the Caliph himself, and theoretically at least the administration of the state was supposed to be brought into harmony with the dictates of the sacred law. It is true that by theory the Caliph could be a mujtahid, that is an authority on law, but the legal decisions of a mujtahid are limited to interpretation of the law in its application to such particular problems as may from time to time arise, and he is thus in no sense a creator of new legislation.”[21]
Wael Hallaq says, “The ruler himself was also expected to observe not only his own code but, more importantly, the law of the Sharīʿa. As a private person, he remained, like any common Sharīʿa subject, liable to any civil claim, including debts, contracts, and pecuniary damages. Likewise, he was punishable for infractions of the Sharʿī penal laws and Qurʾānic ḥudūd —the reasoning in all these domains being grounded in the assumption that all Muslims, weak or strong, are equal in their rights to life and property and in their obligations toward one another. In the Sharīʿa, the sultan and his men enjoyed no special immunity.”[22]
Judicial branch
The caliph also has the power to appoint and dismiss judges, and he himself can be a judge in a case where he has no personal interest. This doesn’t mean however that the judicial branch is with the caliph, because the judiciary in an Islamic State always has decisional independence, which means the judge should be able to decide the outcome of a trial solely based on the law and case itself, without letting the media, politics or other things sway their decision. The Prophet Muhammad ﷺ said:
“Judges are of three types, one of whom will go to Paradise and two to Hell. The one who will go to Paradise is a man who knows what is right and gives judgment accordingly; but a man who knows what is right and acts tyrannically in his judgment will go to Hell; and a man who gives judgment for people when he is ignorant will go to Hell.”[23]
There is no better example of this than when the fourth caliph Ali ibn Abi Talib took a Jew to court and his judge – Qadi Shurayh whom he appointed as Chief Judge in the capital Kufa, ruled against Ali and in favour of the Jew. The Jew said, “The Amir al-Muminin 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.”[24]
Another example is the Abbasid Caliph al-Ma’mun (r.813-833CE), who used to personally sit in the Mazalim Court every Sunday. One day a woman in rags came to the court and confronted al-Ma’mun complaining that her land had been seized. Al-Ma’mun asked her: “Against whom do you lodge a complaint?” She replied: “The one standing by your side, al-‘Abbas, the son of the Amir of the Believers.” Al-Ma’mun then told his Qadi, Yahya ibn Aktam, (while others say that it was his wazir Ahmad ibn Abi Khalid), to hold a sitting with both of them and to investigate the case – which he did in the presence of al-Ma’mun.”[25] Since the case involved the caliph’s son, al-Ma’mun deferred it to his Chief Qadi similar to what Ali ibn Abi Talib had done.
Wael Hallaq says, “It was this paradigmatic law that was applied in the courts of the Islamic world, and it was applied, as a rule, faithfully by a judicial order committed to the letter and spirit of the law’s moral and just constitution. If it is true, as Kelsen argued, that “democracy requires that the legislative organ should be given control over the administrative and judicial organs,”166 then the Islamic form of governance amply provides for such a democratic system, since the Islamic judicial and executive branches remained—insofar as society was concerned—under the control of the “legislative” power.
But we have also seen that there is more than one reason to claim this system to be highly representative. However, the point here is even more emphatic. Islamic governance separated the executive power from the legislative by degrees, making the former wholly subservient to the will of the latter, the supreme moral law. The law of the courts was also independent, despite the executive’s prerogative to appoint and dismiss qāḍīs. This prerogative was more nominal than substantive, for notwithstanding judicial appointments and dismissals, the paradigmatic law applied by the qāḍīs always remained that of the Sharīʿa.”[26]
Conclusion
True separation of powers will only be achieved in an Islamic State that makes the sharia sovereign in all spheres of state and society.
Wael Hallaq says, “Whereas the modern state rules over and regulates its religious institutions, rendering them subservient to its legal will, the Sharīʿa rules over and regulates, directly or through delegation, any and all secular institutions. If these institutions are secular or deal with the secular, they do so under the supervising and overarching moral will that is the Sharīʿa.
Therefore, any political form or political (or social or economic) institution is ultimately subordinate to the Sharīʿa, including the executive and judicial powers. The Sharīʿa itself, on the other hand, is the “legislative power” par excellence. Unlike the modern state, in Islamic governance the Sharīʿa is unrivaled in this domain, and no power other than it can truly legislate. There is no judicial review in Islam, and so the judiciary could never directly contribute to legislation, as we shall see in more detail later. [27]
Notes
[1] Muhammad Hussein Abdullah, ‘Al-Waadih Fee Usool ul-Fiqh,’ 1995, First Translated English Edition 2016, p.555
[3] Charles de Secondat, Baron de Montesquieu, The Spirit of Laws, Translated by Thomas Nugent, revised by J. V.Prichard, Based on an public domain edition published in 1914 by G. Bell & Sons Ltd., London
[4] Hansen, Mogens Herman. “THE MIXED CONSTITUTION VERSUS THE SEPARATION OF POWERS: MONARCHICAL AND ARISTOCRATIC ASPECTS OF MODERN DEMOCRACY.” History of Political Thought, vol. 31, no. 3, 2010, pp. 509–31. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/26224146.
[5] ʻAbd al-Razzāq Aḥmad Sanhūrī, Le Califat, Son Évolution Vers Une Société Des Nations Orientale, Travaux Du Séminaire Oriental d’études Juridiques et Sociales … t. 4 (Paris: P. Geuthner, 1926). P.5
[6] Hashim Kamali, ‘Citizenship and Accountability of Government: An Islamic Perspective,’ The Islamic Texts Society, 2011, p.197
[7] 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)
[16] ʻAbd al-Razzāq Aḥmad Sanhūrī, Le Califat, Son Évolution Vers Une Société Des Nations Orientale, Travaux Du Séminaire Oriental d’études Juridiques et Sociales … t. 4 (Paris: P. Geuthner, 1926). P.5
[20] C.A. Nallino, ‘Notes on the nature of the caliphate in general and on the alleged Ottoman Caliphate,’ a translation of ‘Appunti sulla natura del Califfato in genere e sul presunto Califfato Otttomano,’ Printed at the press of the foreign office, Rome 1919, p.7
One of the fundamental concepts in Usul Al-Fiqh (Foundations of Islamic Jurisprudence) is understanding the meaning of a particular Arabic word or expression (لَفْظ lafzh), because the Islamic texts i.e. Qur’an and Sunnah are in Arabic.
Muhammad Hussein Abdullah says, “Deducing the sharia rules from the Qur’an Al-Kareem and the Sunnah An-Nabawiyah rests upon knowledge of the Arabic language, knowledge of its categories (disciplines) and its Dalalat (implications and indications). That is because the Qur’an and the Hadith have come in the Arabic language.”[1]
Iyad Hilal says, “Unless the text of the Qur’an and Sunnah is correctly understood, no ruling can be deduced from it. The linguistic structure of the text in Qur’an and Sunnah varies from one style to another. Some examples of these linguistic styles are: Dhanni (speculative text), Qata’i (definitive text), ‘Aam (general text), Khass (specific text), Haqiqi (literal text), and Majaazi (metaphorical text). The rules to distinguish and differentiate between these styles are an important subject in Usul al-Fiqh.”[2]
Arabic word meanings in sharia are those known at the time of revelation
A very important principle in ijtihad (extracting new rules) in relation to Arabic word meanings is that in order to derive a hukm (rule), the Arabic meaning MUST have been known to the Arabs at the time of revelation i.e. to the Prophet ﷺ and the sahaba. For someone centuries later to bring a new meaning to an Arabic word, and then use this meaning in ijtihad or even in ‘aqeeda is not permissible and is rejected.
Al-Shatibi says, “Among the assumptions is that it is necessary in the understanding of the sharia to follow what was known to the unlettered people, and these are the Arabs in whose language the Qur’an was revealed. If there was a continuous usage (‘urf) in the language of the Arabs, it is not valid to deviate from such meaning in the understanding of the sharia. If there was no such usage, it is not valid to apply meanings for its understanding that were not known to the Arabs.”[3]
As an example, the Ahmadiyya re-interpret the clear-cut verse which refers to the Prophet ﷺ as the final seal of the Prophets خَاتَمَ ٱلنَّبِيِّـۧنَ to mean the best of the Prophets. Allah (Most High) says,
“Muhammad is not the father of any of your men, but the Messenger of Allah and the Final Seal of the Prophets.”
The Ahmadiyya say, “the phrase Khatamun Nabiyyin idiomatically means the Best of the prophets,” which is completely false, because خاتم (khaatam) does not have a metaphorical meaning of ‘best’. This was the case at the time of revelation and even today. This is an example of corruption that Ibn Al-Qayyum discusses,
والاصطلاحات لا مُشَاحَّة فيها إذا لم تتضمَّن مفسدة
“There is no dispute over the terms (الاصطلاحات) if they do not contain any corruption.”[4]
This means it is not permissible for the terminologists to transfer the word from its meaning in the language completely, rather it is required that the original meaning remain. As an example, if a husband said to his wife: ‘If I say: You are divorced three times, I did not mean divorce by it, but rather my purpose was for you to stand and sit’, then that is not to be taken into account, rather the divorce takes place.
Muhammad Hussein Abdullah says, “the Haqiqa Al-‘Urfiya Al-Lughawiya (customary meaning) is specific to the (original) people of the language upon whose language is relied upon for proof or evidence. So it is not permissible today to transfer an Arabic word that had been originally or initially been placed down and set down for a specific meaning, to a new meaning, so as to make a Haqiqh ‘Urfiya Lughawiya from it.”[5]
The categories of Arabic words
The scholars of usul defined many categories of words and expressions. For the sake of this discussion, we will deal with five broad categories of words in relation to the meaning of an individual or singular worded expression (Lafzh Al-Mufrad).[6]
Linguistic Meaning (Al-Haqiqa Al-Lughawiya)
Customary Meaning (Al-Haqiqa Al-‘Urfiya)
Technical Meaning (Al-Haqiqa Al-Istilahiyya)
Sharia Meaning (Al-Haqiqa Ash-Shar’iya)
Metaphorical Meaning (Al-Majaz)
Linguistic Meaning (Al-Haqiqa Al-Lughawiya)
This is the original dictionary meaning of a word designated by the pure Arabs (العرب العاربة Al-Arab al-Ariba).
If there are multiple linguistic meanings then the word is called a mushtarak (homonym). Specifying the mushtarak to one of its meanings requires a qareenah that specifies that meaning. If no qareenah is found, then it is obligatory to understand the word according to all of its linguistic meanings.
Examples include:
asad
أَسَد
lion
bid’ah
بِدْعَة
innovation
hukm
حُكْم
judgment
gha’it
غائِط
low place
salah
صَلاَة
supplication (du’a)
wazir
وَزِير
assistant
In origin we always use the clear (واضِح wadih) linguistic meaning unless there is an indication (قَرِينَة qareenah) to transfer (نَقْل naql) the word to another meaning.
Ata Bin Khalil Abu Rashta (b.1943) says, “In terms of the etymology – the original linguistic usage of the word is the basis. When a human being pronounces a word, they intend the meaning the word is originally used to indicate. If the speaker intends something other than the original meaning then they will give an indication (qareenah).”[7]
In terms of outweighing (tarjeeh) between the different meanings, in origin the linguistic meaning will take precedence over the metaphorical meaning. In non-sharia texts, the linguistic meaning will take precedence over the customary and sharia meaning.
Customary Meaning (Al-Haqiqa Al-‘Urfiya)
If the meaning of a word transfers (naql) from its linguistic meaning to a new meaning due to custom (‘urf), then it is called a customary meaning. This happens across all languages where the meaning of some words changes over time, with the original meaning lost completely.
An example is the word Al-Gha’it (الغائِط) which linguistically means a low place in the earth. Over time its meaning changed to mean human excretion or going to the toilet. This was its meaning at the time of revelation, and so when we find Al-Gha’it in the Qur’an it needs to be understood not as a low place but as going to the toilet. Al-Gha’it is found twice in the Qur’an in the verses related to the breaking of wudu’. Allah (Most High) says,
Therefore, it is going to the toilet that breaks the wudu’, and not a low place.
We need to reiterate that in order to use the customary meaning of a word in interpreting the Qur’an and Sunnah, this meaning MUST have been known at the time of revelation. Allah (Most High) says,
[Another of them] said, ‘Do not kill Yusuf, but, if you must, throw him into the hidden depths of a well where some caravan may pick him up.’[9]
Although caravan (سَيّارَة) has a customary meaning nowadays which means car, we cannot under any circumstances interpret this verse to mean a car! This would be completely ludicrous and outside the bounds of the Arabic language, but this is what the Ahmadiyya have done as discussed previously.
It is also what Christoph Luxenberg, a German ‘scholar’ of Arabic has done by claiming that the Arabic word Houri (حُورِ) doesn’t mean a woman of paradise, but instead means a white grape or raisin! This is in reference to the verse where Allah (Most High) says,
كَذَٰلِكَ وَزَوَّجْنَـٰهُم بِحُورٍ عِينٍۢ
“so it will be. We shall wed them to maidens with large, dark eyes.”[10]
According to Christoph Luxenberg this would translate as “We shall wed them to white grapes with eyes”! Angelika Neuwirth also refutes this argument commenting, “an interpretation that ignores the fact that already in Syriac literature, such as in the Hymns of Ephrem, grapes within a paradisiacal context are not to be taken in the literal sense but rather stand allegorically for sensory pleasures, above all the erotic.”[42]
In terms of outweighing (tarjeeh) in a sharia text, the customary meaning will take precedence over the linguistic meaning as shown above.[11] In fact this is the same in the western legal systems.
The word ‘gay’ linguistically means joyful and carefree, but now has a well-established customary meaning of being someone who has relations with their own gender. If someone was arrested and came before the court for distributing leaflets saying “I hate gays”, but in their defence said they meant gay as joyful because they hate happy people, then the judge would reject this. This is because it’s clear and well-established that the predominant meaning of gay in today’s reality is not joyful and carefree, and this is not the first meaning which comes to mind when someone hears that word.
Technical Meaning (Al-Haqiqa Al-Istilahiyya)
This is actually a subset of the customary meaning and is also referred to as Al-Haqiqah Al-‘Urfiyah Al-Khaassah (Specific Customary Meaning) or simply (الاِصْطِلاحات istilahiyyat). These are technical terms which are used to apply to specific areas of knowledge such as grammar, government, military and medicine etc.
Sharia texts
With regards to sharia texts then for a technical term (اِصْطِلاح istilah) term to be used to derive a rule, it needs to have been known at the time of revelation, the same as with the customary meaning.
An example of an istilah term in the sharia texts is the word hukm which means both judging and ruling. The origin of the verbal noun حُكْم (hukm)[12] as used by the Pure Arabs is the ‘bit’ of a horse.[13] A ‘bit’ is a piece of metal or synthetic material that fits in a horse’s mouth and aids in the communication between the horse and rider. It’s part of the bridle and allows the rider to connect with the horse via the reins. Al-Qurtubi says,
“(Al-Hakeem) is the one who prevents corruption, and from which it is called the “hikmah (حِكْمَة) of the bridle” (bit), because it prevents the horse from running and going unintentionally.”[14]
There are many words derived from حُكْم such as حِكْمَة (wisdom), حَكِيم (ruler), حاكِم (judge) and حُكُومَة (government), but all can be linked back to this origin of a ‘bit’ which is about controlling and guiding.
Oh Dawud! We have made you a khaleefah on the earth, so judge between people with truth and do not follow your own desires, letting them misguide you from the Way of Allah.[15]
The term khaleefah (successor) in this ayah is explicitly linked to the term hukm, and so the meaning here will include both ruling and judiciary. Imam Al-Razi (d.1210) in his Tafseer says one of the meanings of this ayah is:
“We have made you a ruler (malik) over people and an enforcer of judgment (hukm) among them.”[16]
A contemporary interpretation of this ayah is from Sayed Khatab who says, “The word hukm here is a verb that commands the leader to ‘Judge’ and to ‘Rule’ with justice. These Qur’anic texts indicate that the term hukm has both governmental and legal connotations. Thus, the word hukm is to rule and to judge according to the law. This implies that, if the judge is also the ruler or governor, he is commanded to rule and to judge on the basis of the law. This was the case with the Prophet; he was the judge and the ruler. If the ruler is not the judge (the two positions are separate), the Qur’an commands both the ruler and the judge to observe their duties on the basis of the law. This means that, whether the term hukm is to judge or to rule, the law stands sovereign over the rulers and the judges.”[17]
Ata Bin Khalil Abu Al-Rashtah says, “the term Hukm is not a homonym (mushtarak) in the definitions Qadaa’ (execution) and Sultaan (Authority), but is a linguistic reality (haqeeqah lughawiyah) when it holds the meaning of Qadaa, and is a specified common reality (haqeeqah ‘urfiyah khassah) i.e. istilah in the meanings of Ruling and Authority.”
Since the istilah term was known and in widespread use at the time of revelation, the word hukm in the Qur’an and Sunnah means judging and ruling so the commands will apply to both.
Another example is the word wazir which linguistically means helper. Ibn Khaldun says, “The wazirate is the mother of governmental functions and royal ranks. The name itself simply means ‘help’.[18] However, it also has a istilah meaning which is assisting a ruler i.e. a minister. The Prophet ﷺ said, “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.”[19]
The sahaba also used wazir in this context of governmental affairs. 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!”[20]
In terms of outweighing (tarjeeh) in a sharia text, the technical meaning will not take precedence over the linguistic meaning because it’s a specific meaning only applied to some specific situations. The linguistic meaning on the other hand is general and applies generally. The context of the sharia text will determine which meaning is intended, as mentioned in the discussion above on the word hukm.
Non-Sharia texts
The classical scholars introduced many new technical terms (الاِصْطِلاحات istilahiyyat) into Islamic Jurisprudence (فِقْه fiqh) in order to teach Islam to later generations. Muhammad Hussein Abdullah says, “It is possible for the people of any particular skill, art or expertise, and in any time period to set terminological conventions (الاصطلاحات istilahiyyat), utilising the worded expressions (أَلْفاظ alfazh) of the language and transfer them to specific meanings associated to their field.”[21]
These words in their technical meaning were not known in the time of the Prophet ﷺ and the sahaba, so are not found with this meaning in the Qur’an and hadith. Examples are ‘aqeeda (creed) and tawhid (monotheism) which are related to belief, ‘amm (general), mushtarak (homonym), madhhab (school of thought) and istinbat (deduction) related to fiqh, and siyada (sovereignty), hukumiyyah (government), qanun (law), diwan (accounts) and dawla (state) related to ruling.
These technical meanings exist in every language and civilisation. As an example, the word domain linguistically means a field of action or a territory ruled by a government. It also has an istiliahi meaning in the field of IT where it specifies the location and usage of a particular website, e.g. IslamCiv.com.
There is a well-established sharia maxim (qa’ida) related to this which is:
لا مُشَاحَّة في الاصطلاح
There is no dispute over terminology
which can be expanded to:
لا مُشَاحَّة في الاصطلاح بعد الاتفاق على المعنى
There is no dispute over terminology after agreement on the meaning.[22]
This principle essentially means that when discussing technical or specialised terms (الاصطلاحات istilahiyyat), minor differences in wording or the precise label used are not important as long as the underlying meaning is agreed upon. As long as the core meaning or concept is understood, the specific terminology used to express it should not be a point of contention. This is a principle which should be borne in mind when discussing the Islamic culture, because many modern-day disputes and controversies have arisen due to disputes over the misunderstanding of terminology.
Case Study: Is Islam an ideology?
Hamza Yusuf at the time of the Arab spring in 2011, was heavily criticised for saying Islam is not an ideology because his opponents equated the foreign western term ‘ideology’ with deen. In their view someone who says Islam is not an ideology is effectively saying Islam is not a deen or way of life. This is highly problematic. The term ‘ideology’ in Arabic is idiyulujiyyah (أَيديُولُوجِيَّة) which is clearly not an original Arabic word. There is also another Arabic term mabda’ (مَبْدَأ) which some translate as ideology because this means basis or principle. In either case both words are new technical terms (istilahiyyat) which are not found in the Islamic texts and therefore have no sharia implications as the maxim states, لا مُشَاحَّة في الاصطلاح “There is no dispute over terminology”.
Hamza Yusuf explains his position and why he doesn’t accept the foreign term ‘ideology’ or even describing Islam with the word ‘thought’ (fikr). This is a perfectly valid viewpoint once someone focuses on the meaning of what he is saying and not the term itself.
“In my previous blog on Egypt’s “revolution,” I wrote, “Islam is not a political ideology and hence does not offer a political solution per se.” This caused great consternation in some people, and several uncouth remarks were made in response to that statement…
It appears from the comments I received that the reason so many people had trouble with that sentence I wrote is because they did not understand the term “ideology” in my usage, as it has several possible usages. An Arab poet once wrote, “Only the wearer knows what’s under his cloak, and only an author knows what’s the meaning of his book.” Some people responded defending my statement and clearly showed me that many people did understand what I meant by that term. However, “disambiguation” for others was clearly necessary. So, let me explain my usage of the ambiguous term “ideology” and why I think it has nothing to do with Islam. It comes from a French term that was used in the revolutionary period to articulate a new way of thinking not encumbered by metaphysics, religion, or tradition. Napoleon derogatively referred to the proponents of ideology as “ideologues.” While it has a neutral meaning, as in “world-view,” most educated Westerners would view it pejoratively. Islam is wahy, a revelation from God, not an ideology.
Islam shares nothing with what can be called an ideology if we understand the term both etymologically and in modern usage. Indeed, there are several Islamophobic websites now which claim that Islam is not a true religion but only an ideology. Furthermore, you can’t even find a word in classical Arabic that expresses the meaning of “ideology”; no equivalent word can be found in Ibn Manzur’s authoritative dictionary of classical Arabic, Lisan al-Arab, and it is certainly nowhere to be found in the Qur’an or hadith. Neither the Salaf nor any of the scholars for that past 1300 years of Islam used that term. In fact, it only becomes widespread after ideologues in the Islamic world, infected with Marxist thought, began to re-form Islam as a colonial and post-colonial resistance movement
Since the Arabs don’t even have a word for this phenomenon in their classical language, they had to make one up to express the idea; when we look up “ideology” in any modern English-Arabic dictionary, we find, “idiolojiyyiah.” However, if we use classical Arabic to attempt to translate this word, “mandhur fikri” is a closer rendering. “Fikr” is not an attribute of God. “Mufakkir” is not one of God’s 99 Names, and unlike “tafakkur,” which carries a positive meaning in the Qur’an, “fikr” has a negative connotation, as in “Innahu fakkara wa qaddara, fa qutila kayfa qaddara” (74:18-19), which is translated, “For he thought and calculated. And how he calculated, to his doom.”
Islam is not an idea, even though some modern writers have used the term fikr Islami (Islamic thought). One of my teachers in Mauritania, a master of Arabic and Islam, once said to me, “What does fikr Islami mean? I have never seen that in an old book on Islam.” When I explained its meaning, he said, “That is very different from how the Salaf would have understood Islam.”[23]
The Problem of Terminology
When choosing technical terms especially those borrowed from foreign cultures and systems such as ‘ideology’, we need to be careful not to cause confusion in understanding the Islamic culture. This is not an exact science and inevitably people will have different views, but as a principle we should use the language of Islam when describing our laws, institutions and systems. There has been a tendency in modern times to use western terms which causes confusion as to what political Islam actually is, and also distances us from our history.
Aisha Bewley says, “When we discuss things like authority and command, or even ‘state’ or ‘leader’, in Islam, we run into problems because these are not terms intrinsic to Islam – they have been adopted from the West and employ Western concepts. Various words are employed for them and there has been a whole evolution of the terminology.”[24]
There are neutral terms such as state (دَوْلَة dawla), tax (ضَرِيبَة dariba), ministry (وِزارَة wizara) and law (قانُون qanun) which are fine to be used. Republic, Federal, Democratic, Secular and Human Rights need to be handled with care. It’s clear that even if someone used ‘Islamic Democracy’, it in no way is comparable to Western Democracy since the sharia red-lines can never be crossed as Tahir-ul-Qadri says “in an Islamic state, any law which is passed against the Shari‘ah will be challenged and nullified, and will have no legal effect.”[25]
Muhammad Asad (d.1992) comments on this approach of using foreign terminology. “One of the main reasons for the confusion regarding the idea of the Islamic state is the indiscriminate application-both by the upholders and the critics of this idea-of Western political terms and definitions to the entirely different concept of Islamic polity. Not infrequently we find in the writings of modern Muslims the assertion that “Islamic is democratic” or even that it aims at the establishment of a “socialist” society; whereas many Western writers refer to an alleged “totalitarianism” in Islam which must necessarily result in dictatorship. Such superficial attempts at political definition are not only mutually contradictory, and therefore of no practical value for the purposes of a serious discussion, but also carry with them the danger of looking at the problems of Muslim society from the angle of Western historical experiences alone and, thus, of envisaging developments which may be justifiable or objectionable-depending on the viewpoint of the observer-but may be wholly out of place within the world-view of Islam. One should always remember that when the European or American speaks of “democracy,” “liberalism,” “socialism,” “theocracy,” “parliamentary government,” and so forth, he uses these terms within the context of Western historical experience.”[26]
Sharia Meaning (Al-Haqiqa Ash-Shar’iya)
If the meaning of a word transfers (naql) from its linguistic meaning to a new meaning defined by the sharia i.e. the Qur’an and Sunnah then it is called a sharia meaning.
The most well-known example in this regard is the word salah (صَلاَة) which linguistically means supplication (du’a), but the sharia gave it a new meaning which is the five times a day prayer and its bowing, prostration and other pillars.
In terms of outweighing (tarjeeh) between the different meanings, the sharia meaning will take precedence over the other meanings if it is well-known. Therefore, when Allah (Most High) says,
Then this is an order to pray in the well-known form five times a day. It is not an order to raise one’s hands in du’a.
Another example is the word bid’ah (بِدْعَة) which linguistically means innovation, but the sharia came and gave it an additional meaning related to innovations in the religion. The Messenger of Allah ﷺ said,
“The evilest of matters are those that are newly invented, and every newly invented matter is an innovation (bid’ah), and every innovation (bid’ah) is misguidance, and every misguidance is in the Fire.”[28]
Al-Harawi (d.1215) said, “Bid’ah is an opinion that does not have any basis in the Qur’an or Sunnah, whether via an apparent connection, or a concealed derivation.”[29]
The linguistic meaning of bid’ah can still be used depending on the context and this is the reason the scholars discussed the concept of bid’ah hasana (good innovation) based on the statement of Umar ibn Al-Khattab when he organised the Muslims praying tarawih in the masjid in Ramadan under one Imam and one congregation.
Abdur Rahmaan Bin ‘Abdin Al-Qaarri related: “I went out in the company of Umar bin Al−Khattaab one night in Ramadan to the mosque and found the people praying in different groups. A man praying alone or a man praying with a little group behind him. So, Umar said, ‘In my opinion it would be better to gather these (people) under the leadership of one Qaari (Reciter) (i.e. let them pray in congregation).’ So, he made up his mind to congregate them behind Ubayy bin Ka’b.
Then on another night I went again in his company and the people were praying behind their reciter. On that, Umar remarked, ‘What an excellent innovation (bid’ah hasana) this is; but the prayer which they do not perform, but what they miss due to sleep is better than the one they are offering.’ He meant the prayer in the last part of the night. (In those days) people used to pray in the early part of the night” as related by Al-Bukhari and Malik.”[30]
Abu Iyas Uwaydah comments on this. “The word bid’ah used by Umar here must be understood linguistically meaning wonderful and good and should not be understood from the meaning given in the Hadeeth of the Nabi ﷺ: ‘every newly invented matter is an innovation (bid’ah), and every innovation (bid’ah) is misguidance’[31]
This is because this action from Umar (ra) was not a newly invented thing, and was not from the prohibited acts of bid’ah because we reported a short while ago that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ had prayed the Taraweeh prayers in Jama’ah on a number of nights in the Masjid: “So when it was the third (night from the end i.e. 27th) he gathered his family and wives and people and prayed with them” as reported by Abu Dawud and other than him from Abu Dharr (ra).
So ‘Umar (ra) did not invent a new matter by gathering the people behind Ubayy Bin Ka’b and therefore this action cannot be considered as following under the meaning of the Hadith: ‘every newly invented matter is an innovation (bid’ah), and every innovation (bid’ah) is misguidance.’”[32]
Al-Khadimi says, “If you follow up on everything that has been said on praiseworthy bid’ah, whether in theology, fiqh, statements, or character, within the category of acts of worship (as whatever is in human habits is not from bid’ah in the first place, as discussed previously), then you will find it to be permissible in the Shariah, whether by Allah, His Messenger, by scholarly consensus, or analogy – but by means of an implied or indicated meaning of a text, not the text itself in explicit terms.”[33]
Metaphorical Meaning (Al-Majaz)
If the meaning of a word transfers (naql) from its linguistic meaning to another meaning which doesn’t fall within the categories discussed previously, and has a link and indication (qareenah) to the original word, then it can be termed a metaphor. Metaphors exist within all languages and they exist in many places in the Qur’an as the mufasireen have discussed.
Interpreting a word as having a metaphorical meaning within the Islamic texts, especially those with sharia implications has many rules and these are discussed by the scholars of the Arabic language in balaghah (eloquence) and elucidated by the scholars of Qur’an – the mufasireen.
An example within the Arabic language is the expression:
زيد أسدZaid is a lion.
Here the word lion (أَسَد) has transferred from its linguistic meaning to a metaphor meaning bravery with an assumed ‘like’ due to the relationship of simile (tashbih). This is a natural part of all languages to enrich and enhance speech through similes and metaphors.
In terms of a sharia text then the most famous example in this regard is the word touch (لَمْس lams) found in the two Qur’anic verses on wudu’ in relation to ‘touching’ a woman and whether it breaks wudu’ or not.
Allah (Most High) says,
أو لامَسْتُمُ النِّسَاءَ فلم تجِدُوا ماءً فتيَمَّمُوا
The Hanafis and others interpret the expression لامَسْتُمُ (touched) in a metaphorical sense to mean sexual intercourse, since the word lams has this meaning in other verses of the Qur’an.
Allah (Most High) says: ثم طلَّقْتُمُوهُنَّ مِن قَبْلِ أَنْ تَمَسُّوهُنَّ “Then you divorce them before you have touched them”[35] meaning you have had sexual intercourse with them, and His saying: وإنْ طلَّقْتُموهنَّ مِن قَبْلِ أِنْ تَمَسُّوهُن “And if you divorce them before you have touched them”[36]meaning you have had sexual intercourse with them, and His saying: ولم يَمْسَسْني بَشرٌ “And no man has touched me”[37] meaning he has not had sexual intercourse with me.
Saeed ibn Jubayr said, “We discussed touching, and some of the Mawali said: It is not intercourse, and some of the Arabs said: It is intercourse. I mentioned that to Ibn Abbas, and he said: ‘Which of them were you with?’ I said: ‘With the Mawali.’ He said: ‘The Mawali were defeated. Touching and intimate contact are intercourse, but Allah, the Almighty, uses euphemisms (kiniya) for whomever He wishes.’”[38]
The Shafi’is while acknowledging the metaphorical meaning, use the original linguistic meaning of lams to mean physical touch.
In the age of social media and keyboard warriors who are quick to jump from sensation to action without thinking, whenever they come across an article or video they dislike, we need to remind ourselves of the sayings of our Messenger ﷺ.
“Verily, a servant may speak a word pleasing to Allah, thinking nothing of it, yet by it Allah raises his status by a degree. Verily, a servant may speak a word displeasing to Allah, thinking nothing of it, yet by it he plummets into Hell.”[39]
“Do you know who are bankrupt?” They said, “The one without money or goods is bankrupt.” The Prophet said, “Verily, the bankrupt of my ummah are those who come on the Day of Resurrection with prayers, fasting, and charity, but also with insults, slander, consuming wealth, shedding blood, and beating others. The oppressed will each be given from his good deeds. If his good deeds run out before justice is fulfilled, then their sins will be cast upon him and he will be thrown into the Hellfire.”[40]
If someone takes the time to contemplate on what a person is actually saying in terms of the meanings of their expressions as opposed to the technical terms, then many of the disputes which occur online will disappear overnight. Even if someone still holds to their opinion, this is fine as long as they acknowledge the legitimate viewpoint of the other party and keep in mind the sharia maxim:
لا مُشَاحَّة في الاصطلاح بعد الاتفاق على المعنى
There is no dispute over terminology after agreement on the meaning.[41]
Notes
[1] Muhammad Hussein Abdullah, ‘Al-Waadih Fee Usool ul-Fiqh,’ 1995, First Translated English Edition 2016, p.418
[2] Abu Tariq Hilal/Abu Ismael al-Beirawi, ‘Understanding Usul Al-Fiqh,’ Revival Publications, 2007, p.9
[3] al-Shatibi, Al-Muwafaqat fi Usul al-Shar’ia (The Reconciliation of the Fundamentals of Islamic Law), Volume II, Garnet Publishing, 2014, p.62
[11] Ata Bin Khalil Abu Rashta, تيسير الوصول إلى الأصول Taysir al-Wusul min al-Usul
[12] The grammarians differed on the original roots of every derived Arabic word. Some said they are derived from the masdar (verbal noun) as is mentioned here. Others said they are derived from the verb (three-letter roots).
The opinion presented here is predominately the Hanafi opinion but other scholars also adhere to it. If someone follows a different mazhab (school of thought) such as the Shafi’i school then they need to follow the opinion of their respective mazhab, and not mix opinions without consulting with a scholar first.
Introduction
Imams and jurists differed on whether touching a woman invalidates wuḍūʼ or not.
There are several opinions:
Abdullah ibn Mas’ud, Abdullah ibn Umar, al-Zuhri, Rabi’ah, and al-Shafi’i held that touching a woman invalidates wuḍūʼ.
Ali ibn Abi Talib, Abdullah ibn Abbas, Ubayy ibn Ka’b, al-Hasan, Mujahid, Qatadah, Sa’id ibn Jubayr, al-Sha’bi, Ata’, Tawus, Abu Hanifa, Abu Yusuf, and Ibn Jarir al-Tabari held that it does not invalidate wuḍūʼ.
Abu Hanifa and Abu Yusuf said: “Unless the private parts are touched and the penis is ejaculated, even if no semen is emitted.”
Malik, Ahmad, and Ishaq ibn Rahawayh held that touching with lust invalidates wuḍūʼ.
To clarify the truth on this issue and determine the most correct opinion, we will review all the evidence.
The Sharia Evidences
1- The Almighty’s saying:
أو لامَسْتُمُ النِّسَاءَ فلم تجِدُوا ماءً فتيَمَّمُوا
“Or you have had contact with women and do not find water, then perform tayammum”[1]
This is the reading of Nafi’, Ibn Kathir, Abu Amr, Asim, and Ibn Amir.
It was also read:
أو لَمَسْتُم
“Or you have touched”
This is the reading of Hamza and Al-Kisa’i.
2- On the authority of Muadh ibn Jabal who said:
«أتى رسولَ الله – صلى الله عليه وسلم – رجلٌ فقال: يا رسول الله ما تقول في رجلٍ لقي امرأةً لا يعرفها، فليس يأتي الرجل من امرأته شيئاً إلا قد أتاه منها غير أنه لم يجامعها؟ قال فأنزل الله عزَّ وجلَّ هذه الآية {أَقِم الصَّلاةَ طَرَفيِ النَّهارِ وزُلَفاً من الليلِ إنَّ الحَسَناتِ يُذهبنَ السَّيِّئاتِ} الآية، قال: فقال له النبي- صلى الله عليه وسلم -: توضأ ثم صلٍّ، قال معاذ فقلت: يا رسول الله أَلَه خاصةً أم للمؤمنين عامةً؟ قال: بل للمؤمنين عامةً» رواه أحمد والترمذي والدارقطني والبيهقي والحاكم.
“A man came to the Messenger of Allah ﷺ and said: ‘O Messenger of Allah, what do you say about a man who meets a woman whom he does not know, and he does not do anything to his wife except that he does it to him, except that he does not have intercourse with her?’ He said: ‘Then Allah, the Almighty, revealed this verse:
“Establish prayer at the two ends of the day and at the approach of the night. Indeed, good deeds do away with misdeeds.”[2][3]
The Prophet ﷺ said to him: ‘Perform wuḍūʼ and then pray.’ Muadh said: ‘I said: O Messenger of Allah, is it for him specifically or for the believers in general?’ He said: ‘Rather, for the believers in general.’”[4]
3- On the authority of Urwah ibn al-Zubayr, on the authority of Aisha,
أن رسول الله – صلى الله عليه وسلم – قبَّل بعض نسائه، ثم خرج إلى الصلاة ولم يتوضأ، قال عُروة: قلت لها: مَن هي إلا أنتِ؟ فضحكت» رواه أحمد وابن ماجة والدارقطني.
“The Messenger of Allah ﷺ kissed one of his wives, then went out to pray without performing wuḍūʼ. Urwah said: I said to her: ‘Who is she but you?’ And she laughed.”[5]
4- On the authority of Aisha, she said:
إنْ كان رسولُ الله – صلى الله عليه وسلم – لَيُصلِّي، وإني لَمعترضةٌ بين يديه اعتراضَ الجنازة، حتى إذا أراد أن يُوتِر مسَّني برجله» رواه النَّسائي وأحمد.
“The Messenger of Allah ﷺ would pray, and I would stand in front of him like a funeral procession, until when he wanted to perform the witr, he would touch me with his foot.”[6]
5- On the authority of Aisha, she said:
قدتُ رسول الله – صلى الله عليه وسلم – ليلةً من الفراش، فالتمسته فوقعت يدي على بطن قدميه وهو في المسجد، وهما منصوبتان وهو يقول: اللهم إني أعوذ برضاك من سَخَطك، وبمعافاتك من عقوبتك، وأعوذ بك منك لا أُحصي ثناءً عليك أنت كما أثنيتَ على نفسك» رواه مسلم والترمذي وأبو داود والنَّسائي وأحمد.
“I missed the Messenger of Allah ﷺ one night in bed, so I looked for him and my hand fell on the soles of his feet while he was in the mosque, and they were raised and he was saying: ‘O Allah, I seek refuge in Your pleasure from Your wrath, and in Your pardon from Your punishment, and I seek refuge in You from You. I cannot count Your praises. You are as You have praised Yourself.’”[7]
6- On the authority of Aisha, she said:
كنت أغتسل أنا ورسول الله – صلى الله عليه وسلم – من إناء واحد، تختلف أيدينا فيه من الجنابة
“The Messenger of Allah ﷺ and I used to perform ghusl from one vessel, and we would take turns in it to remove impurity (janabah).”[8]
It was narrated by Ibn Abi Shaybah with the wording:
كنت أغتسل أنا والنبي – صلى الله عليه وسلم – من إناء واحد نضع أيدينا معاً
“The Prophet ﷺ and I used to perform ghusl from one vessel, placing our hands together.”
It was narrated by Al-Nasa’i with the wording:
… من إناء واحد نغترف منه جميعاً
“…from one vessel, from which we would both draw water.”
He also narrated with the wording:
قالت لقد رأيتُني أُنازع رسول الله – صلى الله عليه وسلم – الإناء أغتسل أنا وهو منه
“She said: I saw myself disputing with the Messenger of Allah ﷺ over the vessel, and he and I would perform ghusl from it.”
It was narrated by Ibn Hibban with the wording:
إني كنت أغتسل أنا ورسول الله – صلى الله عليه وسلم – من إناء واحد تختلف أيدينا فيه وتلتقي
“The Messenger of Allah ﷺ and I used to perform ghusl from one vessel, and our hands would take turns in it and meet.”
7- On the authority of Umm Salamah,
أن رسول الله – صلى الله عليه وسلم – كان يُقَبِّلها وهو صائم ثم لا يُفطر ولا يُحدث وضوءاً
“The Messenger of Allah ﷺ used to kiss her while he was fasting, and then he would not break his fast or perform wuḍūʼ.”[9]
8- On the authority of Aisha, she said:
كنت أنام بين يدي رسول الله – صلى الله عليه وسلم – ورجلاي في قِبْلته، فإذا سجد غمزني فقبضتُ رجليَّ، فإذا قام بسطتهما
“I used to sleep in front of the Messenger of Allah ﷺ and my feet were in his direction. When he prostrated, he nudged me, so I closed my feet. When he stood up, I spread them out.”[10]
Authenticity of the ahadith on wuḍūʼ
The second hadith is interrupted because Abd al-Rahman ibn Abi Laila did not hear it from Muadh. At-Tirmidhi said, “The chain of narration of this hadith is not continuous. Abd al-Rahman ibn Abi Laila did not hear it from Muadh ibn Jabal.” Therefore, the hadith is weak (da’if) and cannot be used as evidence. I mean the hadith which contains the additional command to perform wuḍūʼ and prayer.
The third hadith was deemed weak by some and authenticated by others. The truth is that this hadith was deemed weak because they considered the mentioned Urwah to be Urwah al-Muzani, as mentioned in Sunan Abu Dawud, and al-Muzani is unknown. However, Ahmad, Ibn Majah, and al-Daraqutni clearly stated that this Urwah was Urwah ibn al-Zubayr, thus negating their view that this hadith was weak. As for the view of some that the hadith was weakened by the fact that Habib did not narrate it from Urwah, this is not accepted, because Abu Dawud included an authentic hadith narrated by Habib from Urwah. Thus, it becomes clear that the weakening of this hadith is not authentic, so it is acceptable and valid to use it as evidence.
Regarding the fourth hadith, Al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar said, “Its chain of transmission is authentic.”
The fifth hadith is also authentic.
The last three hadiths are also authentic.
Therefore, only the second [part] of the second hadith is discarded, leaving the others.
Explanation of the Qur’anic Verses on wuḍūʼ
We begin with the first text because it is the original, the Almighty’s saying:
أو لامَسْتُمُ النِّسَاءَ فلم تَجِدُوا ماءً فتيمَّمُوا
“Or you have had contact with women and cannot find water, then perform tayammum”
which appears in verse 34 of Surah An-Nisa and in verse 6 of Surah Al-Ma’idah.
“O believers! Do not approach prayer while intoxicated until you are aware of what you say, nor in a state of ˹full˺ impurity (junub) – unless you merely pass through ˹the mosque˺—until you have bathed (ghusl). But if you are ill, on a journey, or have relieved yourselves (al-gha’it), or been in contact (lams) with women and cannot find water, then purify yourselves (tayammum) with clean earth, wiping your faces and hands. And Allah is Ever-Pardoning, All-Forgiving.”[11]
O believers! When you rise up for prayer, wash your faces and your hands up to the elbows, wipe your heads, and wash your feet to the ankles. And if you are in a state of ˹full˺ impurity (junub), then take a full bath (ghusl). But if you are ill, on a journey, or have relieved yourselves, or been in contact (lams) with women and cannot find water, then purify yourselves (tayammum) with clean earth by wiping your faces and hands. It is not Allah’s Will to burden you, but to purify you and complete His favour upon you, so perhaps you will be grateful.
The verse in Al-Nisa’ is addressed to the believers not to approach the places of prayer – meaning the mosques – while intoxicated, and not to approach them if they are in a state of major ritual impurity (janabah), except just passing through until they have washed themselves. This is the beginning of the verse.
As for the second half, it wanted to clarify to the Muslims the ruling on performing tayammum when water is not available. So it mentioned the situations in which a Muslim needs to perform tayammum when water is not available.
The second half says, وَإِن كُنتُم مَّرْضَىٰٓ“And if you are ill” meaning ill, أَوْ عَلَىٰ سَفَرٍ “or on a journey” meaning traveling, أَوْ جَآءَ أَحَدٌۭ مِّنكُم مِّنَ ٱلْغَآئِطِ“or one of you comes from the toilet” meaning in a state of minor ritual impurity, أَوْ لَـٰمَسْتُمُ ٱلنِّسَآءَ“or you have touched women” meaning in a state of… and you do not find water, then perform tayammum.
Anyone looking at the context of the verse will find that the gap following أَوْ لَـٰمَسْتُمُ ٱلنِّسَآءَ“or you have touched women” only applies to the case of major ritual impurity (janabah), not the case of minor ritual impurity. By placing the case of major ritual impurity in the gap, all the cases of tayammum when water is unavailable are completed.
However, if we place the case of minor ritual impurity in the gap, the cases are not completed, and the verse becomes repetitive and does not convey a new meaning.
Therefore, the original and most honorable interpretation of the Qur’an is that it be interpreted in a way that conveys completeness and perfection.
The correct thing to say, then, is that the gap should be filled with the case of major ritual impurity, or the case of major ritual impurity here. If this is the case, then لَـٰمَسْتُمُ“you have touched” can be interpreted as referring to sexual intercourse, not touching a woman’s body.
Indeed, the structure and style of the verse require that what is meant by touching is sexual intercourse, for Allah Almighty counted coming from the toilet as a requirement for tayammum, as a warning of minor ritual impurity, and He counted touching as a warning of major ritual impurity. This is in contrast to His Almighty’s statement in the command to wash with water:
ولا جُنُباً إلا عابري سبيلٍ حتى تغتسلوا
“And do not wash yourself while you are in a state of major ritual impurity, except when passing through, until you have washed yourselves.”
If touching were to be interpreted as touching that invalidates wuḍūʼ, it would be a warning that dirt replaces water in removing major ritual impurity.
The verse of Al-Ma’idah makes the subject clearer and strengthens this interpretation of the verse of An-Nisa’.
The beginning of the verse requests wuḍūʼ and explains it. Then it requests the removal of major ritual impurity, i.e., it requests the removal of minor and major ritual impurity, by using water.
Then the second half of the verse came to explain the ruling on tayammum when water is not available, and to complete the entire discussion.
The verse says,وإن كنتم مرضى “And if you are ill” i.e., in a state of illness,أو على سفرٍ “or on a journey” i.e., in a state of travel, أو جاء أحد منكم من الغائط “or one of you comes from the toilet” i.e., in a state of minor ritual impurity, أو لامستم النساء “or you have touched women” i.e., in a state of major ritual impurity or major ritual impurity,فلم تجدوا ماء فتيمَّموا “and you do not find water, then perform tayammum” i.e., perform tayammum for the states of major and minor ritual impurity, which are the two states mentioned in the beginning of the verse, and water was used in them, and the two excuses that permit tayammum were added to them, which are the state of illness and the state of travel.
Thus, the verse is complete, covering all the cases and excuses for tayammum. This interpretation excludes the deficiency in mentioning the cases if أَوْ لَـٰمَسْتُمُ “or you touched” was interpreted as touching with the hand.
It would have been possible to imagine a verse in which the cases of tayammum were missing. However, since both verses came to explain the ruling on wuḍūʼ, major ritual impurity, and tayammum, and they mentioned the cases in which earth is used instead of water, and they were in the same order, then the missing cases in the two verses are completely unlikely.
Therefore, if you touched, the only appropriate interpretation is to refer to sexual intercourse.
Among those who adopted this interpretation were Ali ibn Abi Talib, Ubayy ibn Ka’b, and Abdullah ibn Abbas, who were the most knowledgeable companions of the interpretation of the Book of Allah. It was also interpreted by Abu Hanifa, Mujahid, Tawus, al-Hasan, Sa’id ibn Jubayr, al-Sha’bi, Qatadah, al-Tabari, and al-Shawkani, who were among the most famous interpreters of the Book of Allah from the early and later generations, and among the most famous jurists.
Touching can linguistically refer to sexual intercourse or physical touching
This interpretation, in addition to being a jurisprudential interpretation, is also an interpretation that the language allows, and similar examples are found in several verses of the Holy Quran, such as the verse in which Allah the Almighty says: ثم طلَّقْتُمُوهُنَّ مِن قَبْلِ أَنْ تَمَسُّوهُنَّ “Then you divorce them before you have touched them” meaning you have had sexual intercourse with them, and His saying: وإنْ طلَّقْتُموهنَّ مِن قَبْلِ أِنْ تَمَسُّوهُن “And if you divorce them before you have touched them” meaning you have had sexual intercourse with them, and His saying: ولم يَمْسَسْني بَشرٌ “And no man has touched me” meaning he has not had sexual intercourse with me.
Similar or close to it is the verse in which Allah the Almighty says: فالآن باشروهن “So now have sexual intercourse with them” meaning you have had sexual intercourse with them.
It is mentioned in the hadith about a woman who commits adultery: لا تردُّ يدَ لامس “She should not reject the hand of the toucher,” as a euphemism for fornication. The Holy Qur’an and the Sunnah of the Prophet ﷺ mentioned touching, groping, and direct contact in the sense of sexual intercourse. This is linguistic, Shariah, and fiqh.
The two noble verses have two readings: لامَسْتم “you have touched” and لمسْتم “you have kissed”.
Muhammad ibn Zayd distinguished between them in meaning, saying: “The linguistic view is that لامستم means “you kissed” or something similar, because each of them has an action. He said: لمستم means “you covered” and “you touched,” and women do not have an action in this regard. So the two verses have both meanings linguistically.”
Since touching can linguistically refer to sexual intercourse, just as touching with the hand can also linguistically refer to sexual intercourse, the context determines which of the two meanings of this word is appropriate.
The juristic context we have mentioned is evidence that the intended meaning of “you touched” is sexual intercourse, and this is what people find comforting.
Interpreting it as touching with the hand is a linguistic interpretation without examining the context or closely examining the two verses.
What is striking is that those who interpreted it as touching with the hand cited hadiths proving that touching linguistically refers to touching with the hand, as if this were a disputed issue requiring proof. We agree with them that touching linguistically refers to touching with the hand, with no need to provide proof. Rather, they should provide evidence that the verse intended this meaning and not the other.
Hadith explaining the linguistic meaning of “touch”
Thus, the verse indicates sexual intercourse, but to avoid quickly closing the door to discussion, let us examine the hadiths that are suitable for explaining and interpreting this Quranic word, and thus serve as evidence for the intended meaning.
They used the second hadith as evidence that touching invalidates wuḍūʼ. They said that the man in the hadith touched the woman and was about to have intercourse with her, but he did not, so the Messenger ﷺ ordered him to perform wuḍūʼ. They believe this to be evidence that touching invalidates wuḍūʼ.
We respond to them by saying that this hadith is disconnected and weak, as we mentioned earlier, so it is not suitable as evidence. The origin of the story is in the two Sahihs, and it was not narrated that the Messenger ﷺ ordered the man to perform wuḍūʼ or even to pray. The incident is a single one narrated in the Sahihs without asking for wuḍūʼ, and it was narrated in a weak hadith ordering wuḍūʼ. Therefore, the authentic hadiths should be accepted and the weak hadith should be rejected. Therefore, this hadith does not support them.
They also cited as evidence the statement of Umar “Kissing is a form of touching, so perform wuḍūʼ for it,” and that Ibn Umar “used to consider kissing a form of touching, and he ordered wuḍūʼ for it,” and the statement of Ibn Masud, “Kissing is a form of touching, and wuḍūʼ is required for it.” These three narrations were narrated by Al-Daraqutni and Al-Bayhaqi.
We say that these narrations are the sayings of the Companions, and the sayings of the Companions are not evidence. In reality, they are their understandings and interpretations that we are not bound by, especially when we know that a number of the Companions and Followers (tabi’in) said otherwise, among them the scholar of this ummah and interpreter of the Qur’an, Ibn Abbas.
Saeed ibn Jubayr said, “We discussed touching, and some of the Mawali said: It is not intercourse, and some of the Arabs said: It is intercourse. I mentioned that to Ibn Abbas, and he said: ‘Which of them were you with?’ I said: ‘With the Mawali.’ He said: ‘The Mawali were defeated. Touching and intimate contact are intercourse, but Allah, the Almighty, uses euphemisms for whomever He wishes.’” Narrated by Al-Bayhaqi.
It was also narrated by Abd Al-Razzaq, and its wording is: “… The two Mawali were mistaken, and the Arab was right, and it is intercourse, but Allah protects and uses euphemisms.” These are equivalent to the others, and they are all understandings and interpretations, not evidence and texts suitable for explanation and context. The evidence is the Qur’an and the hadiths of the Messenger ﷺ.
We have already looked at the Holy Quran, and now we will look at the remaining hadiths. The third hadith: “He kissed one of his wives, then went out to pray without performing wuḍūʼ.”
The fourth hadith: “When he wanted to perform witr, he touched me with his foot.”
The fifth hadith: “My hand landed on the soles of his feet while he was in the mosque, and they were upright.”
The sixth hadith: “From a single vessel, in which our hands alternate.”
“From a single vessel, we put our hands together.”
“From a single vessel, from which we both scoop.”
“I saw myself disputing with the Messenger of Allah ﷺ over the vessel.”
“From a single vessel, in which our hands alternate and meet.”
The seventh hadith: “He used to kiss her while he was fasting, then he did not break his fast or perform wuḍūʼ.”
The eighth hadith: “When he prostrated, he nudged me, so I held my feet together, and when he stood up, I spread them out.”
The fourth hadith states that the Messenger ﷺ touched Aisha with his foot while he was praying.
The eighth hadith states that he nudged her while he was praying. Both hadiths indicate that the Messenger ﷺ touched Aisha while he was praying and did not interrupt his prayer.
The fifth hadith states that Aisha touched the Messenger ﷺ with her hand while he was praying and he did not interrupt her prayer.
The third and seventh hadiths state that the Messenger ﷺ used to kiss his wives without performing wuḍūʼ. Kissing does not invalidate his wuḍūʼ.
The sixth hadith indicates that he used to touch his wife and his wife used to touch him, and neither of their wuḍūʼs was invalidated. This hadith needs explanation and clarification of the evidence due to its obscure nature.
I say: If touching a woman invalidated wuḍūʼ, they would not have allowed their hands to scoop water together during ghusl, lest one of them touch the other and thus invalidate their wuḍūʼ. They would then emerge from ghusl without having performed a minor ritual purity, i.e., they would have performed ghusl and emerged without performing wuḍūʼ. It is well known that it has been proven that the Messenger ﷺ did not perform wuḍūʼ after ghusl (ghusl).
It was narrated on the authority of Aisha that she said, “The Messenger of Allah ﷺ did not perform wuḍūʼ after ghusl for major ritual impurity.”[12]
It was also narrated by At-Tirmidhi, who said, “It is a hasan saheeh hadith.”
It was also narrated by Al-Hakim, who said, “This is a saheeh hadith.”
The Messenger ﷺ guided his ummah that ghusl is sufficient for prayer, and that wuḍūʼ is included in it. The fact that he performed ghusl with his wife from a single vessel, reaching out to it together, and they disputed over the vessel and their hands met in it, and then he did not perform wuḍūʼ or order his wife to perform wuḍūʼ, is evidence and proof that the meeting of hands does not invalidate wuḍūʼ, because it is not permissible to remain silent in a context of need and clarification.
This hadith is evidence that touching a woman does not invalidate wuḍūʼ, and it was an action of his ﷺ and an action of his wife, and his silence on that and his approval.
If the third hadith – which is an action of the Prophet ﷺ – and the fourth hadith – which is an action – and the seventh hadith – which is an action – and the eighth hadith – which is an action – all indicate that the Messenger ﷺ used to touch his wives without performing wuḍūʼ, that is, if there are four hadiths that state that the Messenger ﷺ touched women and did not perform wuḍūʼ, then this is clear evidence that touching a woman does not invalidate wuḍūʼ.
The proof that the Messenger ﷺ touched women and did not perform wuḍūʼ is established by four authentic hadiths that are suitable for use as evidence, and this is one of the strongest types of proof.
On the other hand, there is not a single hadith that mentions the actions of the Prophet ﷺ or even the actions of a companion in front of him, that he touched and performed wuḍūʼ. That is, a companion touched and performed wuḍūʼ with the approval of the Prophet ﷺ. This is a valid indication to determine what is meant by the two noble verses, and that they refer to sexual intercourse, or rather, they negate the nullification of mere touching in its various forms, such as kissing, touching with the hand, and nudging with the foot.
Is the action of the Prophet ﷺ touching his wives and not making wudu specific to him?
Someone might say that the two verses negate touching with the hand, and the hadiths mention an action of the Prophet ﷺ that does not negate it, so the hadiths can be interpreted as being specific to him ﷺ. We respond to him by saying: We do not accept this statement because we do not accept that the two verses negate it. Rather, we say, out of leniency, that the two verses are possible, and with possibility, the evidence is invalidated. It is more appropriate that neither meaning should be based on it and the hadiths should be interpreted as having a possible meaning. This is not correct to say. Indeed, if the two verses only indicate negation, and the actions of the Messenger ﷺ mention that they do not negate it, then the action or actions of the Prophet ﷺ can be interpreted as being specific to him. However, in our case, this interpretation is not correct.
The second is that the hadiths explain the Qur’an and do not contradict it. The fact that the two verses are lenient in their meanings is that if the hadiths contain an action or a saying, they are suitable for explaining the two verses and determining what is meant by the two possible meanings. Here, the actions of the Messenger ﷺ are suitable for explaining the meaning of the two verses and determining the intended meaning. This statement is more appropriate than the statement of the existence of a contradiction between the Qur’an and the hadith, such that we are forced to resort to the statement of the specificity of the actions of the Messenger ﷺ because the statement of specificity is not usually resorted to except when the contradiction is established and it is not possible to reconcile and combine, and here it is possible to reconcile and combine.
The third is that the hadiths are not limited to his actions ﷺ but they also include the actions of others and his approval of them. The hadiths show that his wives used to touch the Messenger ﷺ by kissing and other means, and he did not tell them that their wuḍūʼ had been invalidated, despite the existence of reasons for this explanation if touching invalidated their wuḍūʼ. This is also evidence of the correctness of what we are saying.
Fourth, we have a text indicating that the wives of the Messenger ﷺ understood that kissing the Messenger ﷺ without invalidating his wuḍūʼ was not limited to him, but rather included all Muslims.
Al-Daraqutni narrated with a chain of transmission that Al-Hafiz Abadi deemed good on the authority of Aisha: “She heard Ibn Umar’s statement: ‘There is no wuḍūʼ for kissing.’ She said: ‘The Messenger of Allah ﷺ would kiss while he was fasting and then not perform wuḍūʼ.’”
Al-Daraqutni even narrated from Aisha what is more explicit and definitive in its evidence. He narrated from her with a chain of transmission that he was silent about, just as Al-Hafiz Abadi was silent about: “The Prophet ﷺ said: ‘There is no wuḍūʼ for kissing.’”
Ibn Jarir al-Tabari said in his tafsir: “The more correct of the two opinions on this matter is the opinion of those who said that Allah meant by His statement, ‘Or you have touched women,’ intercourse, not other meanings of touch, because of the authenticity of the report from the Messenger of Allah ﷺ that he kissed some of his wives and then prayed without performing wuḍūʼ.”
Then he cited the hadiths: two hadiths from Aisha, one hadith from Zainab al-Sahmiyyah, and one hadith from Umm Salamah, which is mentioned under item 7. He commented on that by saying: “In the authenticity of the report in what we mentioned from the Messenger of Allah ﷺ there is clear evidence that touch in this context is intercourse, not all meanings of touch.”
Conclusion
Therefore, touching a woman with her hand, mouth, foot, or any other part of her body does not nullify wuḍūʼ. Rather, it is sexual intercourse alone that nullifies wuḍūʼ.
With this opinion, we have applied the two verses and all the authentic and valid hadiths as evidence, whether they were reported from his actions or his words, or from the actions of his companions with his approval or silence. We have thus distanced ourselves from the view of contradiction that would force us to resort to interpretation or claim of exclusivity.
Having refuted the view that touching invalidates wuḍūʼ, we have demonstrated the error of the view that touching with lust invalidates wuḍūʼ. Since kissing, which is usually done with lust, does not invalidate wuḍūʼ, and is the highest degree of touching with lust, then touching with lust is undoubtedly not invalidating.
As for the opinion that says that if a man sits with his wife and has sexual intercourse and ejaculates, his wuḍūʼ is invalidated even if he does not ejaculate, this is an opinion that has no basis other than the hadith of Muadh, and we have shown its weakness and unsuitability for evidence and argument.
Thus, we conclude this issue and conclude with the opinion that touching a woman does not invalidate wuḍūʼ, whether with or without lust.
The Qur’an is the speech of Allah, the Creator and Originator of the universe and everything within. The miraculous nature of the Qur’an is in its language, because Qur’anic Arabic breaks the natural law of language in terms of its eloquence, beauty, rhetoric, structure, rhythm, rhyme, grammar, clarity and depth which is beyond the ability of the best poets and linguistics.
Allah placed a challenge in the Qur’an that if anyone doubts this book is from Him, then produce one chapter (surah) like it in Arabic:
“If you have doubts about what We have sent down to Our slave, produce another chapter equal to it, and call your witnesses, besides Allah, if you are telling the truth.”[1]
No human being has ever met this challenge, and no one ever will.
One aspect of Quranic Arabic is in its perfect word choice. The way the words are placed in the verses, and the similarity between them is never incidental, but rather a deliberate choice by Allah.
An example of perfect word choice and sentence structure can be found in Surah Al-Ikhlas, which is the 112th chapter of the Qur’an, and one of the final ten short surahs which every Muslim in the world is taught from a young age.
Angelika Neuwirth, a Professor of Qur’anic studies at the Free University of Berlin has made a fascinating discovery in Surah Al-Ikhlas by comparing it to the credal declarations of the Jews and Christians found in Deuteronomy 6:4 and the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed (381CE) respectively.
The excerpt from Neuwirth’s book is highly academic in its language and may be difficult for some to follow, so I recommend watching the video produced by the The Muslim Paradigm which is a very good explanation of her findings.
Surah Al-Ikhlas
Allah Most High says,
Arabic
Transliteration
English
قُلْ هُوَ ٱللَّهُ أَحَدٌ
Qul huwal laahu ahad
Say, ‘He is God the One,
ٱللَّهُ ٱلصَّمَدُ
Allah-hus samad
God the eternal.
لَمْ يَلِدْ وَلَمْ يُولَدْ
Lam yalid Wa-lam yoolad
He begot no one nor was He begotten.
وَلَمْ يَكُن لَّهُۥ كُفُوًا أَحَدٌۢ
Wa-lam yakul lahoo kufuwan ahad
No one is comparable to Him.’
Comparison Table
Nicene Creed
Dtn 6:4
Surah Al-Ikhlas
We believe in one God,
Hear, Israel, the Lord is our God, the Lord is One (ehad)
Say, ‘He is God the One (ahad),
The Father Almighty, Maker of heavens and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.
God the eternal.
And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds (aeons), Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made,
He begot no one nor was He begotten.
being of one substance with the Father.
No one is comparable to Him.’
A Response to the Jewish credo
Angelika Neuwirth says, “It is difficult not to hear the beginning verse, “Say: He is God is one,” as a free translation of the Jewish credo, Shmaʿ Yisraʾel, adonai elohenu adonai eḥad, “Hear Israel: the Lord, our God, is one” (Dtn 6:4). The keyword “one”eḥad, resonates unmistakably in the Arabic text with aḥad, “one.”
This “multivocity” “polyphony,” of two texts in one is achieved through an “ungrammaticality,”[2] a violation of Arabic grammar, which in place of the noun aḥad in rhyme position would require the adjective wāḥid. According to the theory of the researcher of poetics Michael Riffaterre, ungrammaticality denotes a verbal phenomenon that, by standing out from a certain text, makes reference to another text where this form is “normal.” What initially appears as an irregularity shows itself, through knowledge of the “other text,” to be a bridge between two texts that mutually illuminate each other: Riffaterre speaks here of a dual sign, a sign of double significance: “The sign of double significance works through a play on words. . . . It is initially perceived as mere ungrammaticality, until one discovers that there is another text in which the word is ‘grammatical.’ Once this text is identified, the sign of double significance becomes significant in its form, which makes reference to that other code.”
As we have seen, the Jewish text remains hearable through the Qur’anic version. This audible “citation,” hearable across linguistic borders, underlines the new Qur’an-specific turn, which transfers the old credo, a confession-specific text marked by address to Israel, into a universal text to be repeated by all men. To make the Jewish credo universally valid, and thus also acceptable to a non-Jewish hearership, the text is reformulated, but without losing the distinct form in which it already possesses authority.”[3]
Circumstances of revelation
This finding makes sense if we look to the Asbab an-Nuzul (Circumstances of revelation) of Surah Al-Ikhlas. Al-Wāhidī narrates that “a group of Jewish people went to the Prophet ﷺ and said to him: “Describe to us your Lord, for He has revealed His description in the Torah. Tell us: what is He made of? And to which species does He belong? Is He made of gold, copper or silver? Does He eat and drink? Who did He inherit this world from? And to whom will He bequeath it?”[4]
In response to this questioning by the Jews, Allah revealed Surah Al-Ikhlas.
Difference between Al-Wāhid and Al-Ahad
While Allah’s name al-Wāhid (the One) appears in twenty-two verses of the Qur’ān, the name al-Ahad appears only once in Surah Al-Ikhlas. Muqith Mujtaba Ali says, “There is no Arabic literature which ever uses the word Ahad by itself in a positive way — except for Surah al Ikhlas.”[5] This would seem to confirm the findings of Angelika Neuwirth that the word Ahad was chosen by Allah as a response to the Jewish credo.
It should also be noted that Al-Ahad is an attribute of Allah and also carries additional meanings which fit perfectly with this surah. Muqith Mujtaba Ali says, “The word wāhid is simply the Arabic word for the number ‘one’. As a name of Allah, it refers to His being the one and only true God. It also refers to His being the First, before whom nothing existed. This in turn, communicates that no one deserves to be worshipped besides Allah, and that He has no partner in divinity.
The word ahad, by contrast, conveys an uncountable oneness. It is not one in a series. It cannot be added to or divided into fractions. Its stands for a singular, unique entity. Also, in Arabic grammatical usage, it is the form of the word ‘one’ used to distinguish an individual from others, like in the phrase ‘one of them’ in ‘Only one of them showed up.’
Consequently, the name al-Ahad, it is more exclusive in its meaning than the name al-Wāhid, referring specifically to Allah’s essence, communicating that Allah is absolutely singular in His essence and utterly unique in His attributes. No one is like Him in any way.”[6]
Imam Al-Razi (d.1210) in his tafsir says “that Al-Wāhid and Al-Ahad are not two synonymous names.” He continues, “Al-Azhari (d.980)[7] said: Nothing is described as Al-Ahadīyah except Allah the Most High. It is not said: A man is Ahad nor is a dirham Ahad, as one says: A man is Wāhid, meaning unique in it. Rather, Al-Ahad is an attribute of Allah the Most High, which He has kept to Himself, so nothing shares it with Him. Then they mentioned aspects of the difference between Al-Wāhid and Al-Ahad:
1- that Al-Wāhid is included in Al-Ahad, and Al-Ahad is not included in Al-Wāhid.
2- If you say: “No one (Wāhid) can resist so-and-so,” it is permissible to say: “But two can resist him, unlike one (Al-Ahad).” But if you say: “No one (Ahad) can resist so-and-so,” it is not permissible to say: “But two can resist him.”
3- Al-Wāhid is used to affirm, and Al-Ahad to negate. You say to affirm, “I saw one (Wāhid) man,” and you say to negate, “I did not see anyone (Ahad),” which indicates generality (al-‘umum).[8]
This is the miracle of the Qur’an with its perfect word choice that can produce multiple meanings to multiple realities. It addresses the Jews and their credo and it also addresses a more general concept of Allah’s oneness, singular power and sovereignty.
A Response to the Christian credo
Angelika Neuwirth continues, “Not quite so striking on first glance is the fact that the short sura makes reference to a further credo. The text that was central in Judaism had long been interpreted in Christian theology in terms of a Trinitarian credo. In the Nicene Creed, it takes this form: “We believe in one God, the Father, the all-powerful, who created everything, heaven and earth, all that is sensible and insensible. And in the one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who was born as the only child from the Father before all time, light out of light, true God out of true God, born, not created, of one essence with the father.”
The Qur’anic verse 112:3, lam yalid wa-lam yūlad, “he did not engender a child, nor was he born,” resonates as an echo of the Nicene Creed “born, not created.” But the verse unmistakably rejects the statement of the Nicene Creed, genēthenta ou poiēthenta, “born, not created.” It is remarkable that it thereby employs a double expression that is no less emphatic than the original, lam yalid wa-lam yūlad,“he did not engender child and was not born,” and thus remains close to the “translated” text in its rhetorically marked form. A negative theology is here established, achieved through a recognizable inversion of a key text that is prominent locally—though among Christians rather than Jews. This negative theology is condensed in verse 4: walam yakun lahu kufuwan aḥad, “and no one is equal to him.”
This verse, which up to now has been read simply as a particularly forceful confession of monotheism, is striking. It introduces kufuwan, “equal,” which occurs only once in the Qur’an, as a reproduction of the important theological concept homoousios, Greek for “equal in nature.” It thus not only inverts the Nicene Creed’s statement of the essential likeness of Christ with the Father, homoousios to patri, but also goes beyond it to epistemically exclude the mere thought that any created being could be equal to God—to say nothing of the essential likeness of a son. This is yet another ambitious rhetorical translation, but one that induces a rigorous reinterpretation of an older text.”[9]
The foundations (‘usul أُصُول) of an Islamic State are ‘sovereignty is to the sharia’ (سيادة للشرع) and ‘authority is with the ummah’ (سلطان للأمة). We have already discussed sovereignty in an Islamic State, and now we will discuss the second ‘usul which is authority.
Imam Ghazali said, “religion and authority are twins” (الدين والسلطان توأمان ad-deen was-sultan tawaman).[1] This is because you cannot have one without the other, as Ibn Taymiyyah says, “The Ummah is the safeguard for the shar’a.”[2] Ibn Taymiyyah also mentions that “If authority and wealth were intended to make one come nearer to Allah, and were virtually dispensed in His cause, then that would lead to the establishment of deen and to prosperity in worldly affairs. If, on the other hand, authority was divorced from deen or deen was divorced from authority, then the whole affairs of the people would be spoiled.”[3]
While sovereignty and authority are twins, ultimately it’s the sharia (sovereignty) which underpins the nature and legal limits of authority within an Islamic state. Al-Mawardi says, “It is the Law however, which has delegated affairs to those who wield authority over them in matters of the deen- Allah, may He be exalted, has said:يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا أَطِيعُوا اللَّـهَ وَأَطِيعُوا الرَّسُولَ وَأُولِي الْأَمْرِ مِنكُمْ ‘O you who believe, obey Allah and obey the Messenger and those in authority among you’.[4]Thus, He has imposed on us obedience to those in authority, that is those who have the command over us.”[5]
Ka’b al-Ahbar (d.652CE) gives a nice analogy of the relationship between sovereignty (Islam), authority (ruler) and the safeguard of the authority which is the people.
مثل الإسلام والسلطان والناس: مثل الفسطاط والعمود والأوتاد. فالفسطاط الإسلام، والعمود السلطان، والأوتاد الناس. ولا يصلح بعضهم إلا ببعض
“Islam, the ruler, and the people are like a tent, a pole, and pegs. The tent is Islam, the pole is the ruler, and the pegs are the people. Each is useful only with the others.”[6]
What is authority?
Authority is defined as “the power or right to give orders, make decisions, and enforce obedience.”[7] In our discussion here, we are using authority in the context of government and ruling because “in sociology and political science, authority is the legitimate power of a person or group over other people.”[8]
There are different words for authority or the source of authority (masdar al-sultah مَصْدَر السُلْطَة)[9] in the Islamic texts, such as sultan (سُلْطان), jamā’ah (جَماعَة) and ulu’l-amr (أُو۟لِى ٱلْأَمْرِ).
Sultan
In its original usage by the Ancient Arabs (العَرَب العاربة), the word السَليط means oil, and السِلْطة means a long arrow (السَهْم الطَوِيل). “The central meaning is the ability to conquer from afar[10], like a long arrow that strikes from afar, and like oil that is used to light a lamp to overcome darkness, and enable one to see things.”[11] Therefore sultan conforms to the definition of authority being “the power or right to give orders, make decisions, and enforce obedience.”[12]
Sultan may refer specifically to the ruler, or to authority sultah (سُلْطَة) in general i.e. government. The term may also refer to the source of authority from which it gains its legitimacy to rule. As will be discussed later, this locus is the ummah, or more specifically her political representatives known in the classical texts as the Ahlul hali wal-aqd (أَهْل الحَلّ والعَقْد), which literally means ‘the people who loosen and bind’, i.e. those who have the authority to contract, remove and account the caliph.
We can see these three meanings in the hadith of the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ where he said,
“If anyone sees in his Ameer something that displeases him let him remain patient. For behold! He who separates himself from the sultanby even so much as a hand span and dies thereupon, he has died the death of jahiliyyah (days of ignorance).”[13]
The word sultan here is mutlaq (unrestricted) and can refer specifically to the ruler, or the government in general because the caliph (imam) is the state, and in origin all executive power is with him similar to the US President. This is based on the famous hadith of the Prophet ﷺ where he said,
“The Imam[14] is a guardian, and he is responsible over his subjects.”[15]
Abdul-Qadeem Zallum (d.2003) comments on this hadith, “This means that all the matters related to the management of the subjects’ affairs is the responsibility of the caliph. He, however reserves the right to delegate anyone with whatever task he deems fit, in analogy with wakala (representation).”[16] These officials of the state (wakeels) are then part of the overall authority (sultan) of the state.
We also find the words Hukm (حكم) and Mulk (ملك) used in the Qur’an and hadith which refer to ruling and authority. Abdul-Qadeem Zallum says, “Ruling (al-hukm الحكم), reign (al-mulk الملك) and authority (al-sultan السلطان) have the same meaning which is the authority that executes the rules.”[17] In other words they are all synonyms for ruling and authority.
Sultan in this hadith may also refer to the source of authority (masdar al-sultah) which is the ummah and the Ahlul hali wal-aqd. This is the main focus of this article.
Jamā’ah
Jamā’ah (جَماعَة) is a general word that includes many types of groups.[18] “The central meaning is the coming together of many homogeneous things, by meeting, coalescence, or accumulation.”[19]
In a hadith whose wording and meaning is similar to the one above, the Prophet ﷺ said,
“Whoever withdraws obedience (to the Ameer) and separates from the jama’ahand dies thereupon, he has died the death of Jahiliyyah.”[20]
The word jamā’ah in this context is a synonym to sultan, and means the ummah and the Ahlul hali wal-aqd i.e. the source of authority.
Hudhaifa bin Al-Yaman narrates that ‘The people used to ask the Messenger of Allah ﷺ about the good but I used to ask him about the evil lest I should be overtaken by them. So I said, “O Messenger of Allah! We were living in ignorance and in an (extremely) bad atmosphere, then Allah brought to us this good (i.e., Islam); will there be any evil after this good?” He said, “Yes.”
I said, “Will there be any good after that evil?” He replied, “Yes, but it will be tainted (not pure).” I asked, “What will be its taint?” He replied, “(There will be) some people who will guide others not according to my guidance. You will approve of some of their deeds and disapprove of some others.”
I asked, “Will there be any evil after that good?” He replied, “Yes, (there will be) some people calling at the gates of the (Hell) Fire, and whoever will respond to their call, will be thrown by them into the (Hell) Fire.”
I said, “O Messenger of Allah! Will you describe them to us?” He said, “They will be from our own people and will speak our language.”
I said, “What do you order me to do if such a state should take place in my life?” He said, “Stick to the jamā’ahand their Imam.”
I said, “If there is neither a jamā’ahnor an Imam?” He said, “Then turn away from all those sects even if you were to bite (eat) the roots of a tree till death overtakes you while you are in that state.”[21]
This hadith makes a clear distinction between the jamā’ah and the ruler (Imam), so jamā’ah is the source of authority meaning the ummah and the Ahlul hali wal-aqd.
In regards to the meaning of the word jamā’ah, Imam Al-Tabari states: “The correct interpretation is that Muslims are obligated to hold fast to the jamā’ah, the group that agrees on who should be appointed to rule, and then obeys him. Anybody who violates his bay’a (pledge of allegiance) has thereby left the jama‘ah.” He continues referencing the hadith of Hudhaifa bin Al-Yaman above: “It is related in the hadith that when the people do not have an imam, and thus split into parties, a Muslim, if he can, should not follow anyone into a schism. He should stay removed from all parties, for fear that he may fall into evil.”[22]
Ulu al-amr
The ulu’l-amr (أُو۟لِى ٱلْأَمْرِ) means those in authority, and is taken from the Holy Qur’an where Allah ta’ala says,
“Those in authority: They are the Ameers and Sultans and Judges, and any who have a legitimate mandate (sharia wiliyah) not a tyrannical mandate (taghoot wiliyah).”[24] These officials of the state all derive their authority from the Imam and are wakeels (delegates) to him as mentioned previously.
Ibn Ashur says:
فَأُولُو الأمْرِ هُنا هم مَن عَدا الرَّسُولِ مِنَ الخَلِيفَةِ إلى والِي الحِسْبَةِ، ومِن قُوّادِ الجُيُوشِ ومِن فُقَهاءِ الصَّحابَةِ والمُجْتَهِدِينَ إلى أهْلِ العِلْمِ في الأزْمِنَةِ المُتَأخِّرَةِ، وأُولُو الأمْرِ هُمُ الَّذِينَ يُطْلَقُ عَلَيْهِمْ أيْضًا أهْلُ الحَلِّ والعَقْدِ.
“The people in authority (Ulu al-amr) here are those other than the Messenger, from the Caliph to the Hisbah[25], from the army commanders, from the jurists (fuquha) of the Companions and the mujtahids to the people of knowledge in later times. The Ulu al-amr are also those who are called the Ahlul hali wal-aqd.”[26]
Muhammad Abduh says,
بأولي الأمر جماعة أهل الحل والعقد من المسلمين، وهم الأمراء والحكام، والعلماء ورؤساء الجند وسائر الرؤساء والزعماء الذين يرجع إليهم الناس في الحاجات والمصالح العامة، فهؤلاء إذا اتفقوا على أمر، أو حكم وجب أن يطاعوا فيه بشرط أن يكونوا منا، وألا يخالفوا أمر الله ولا سنة رسوله ـ صلى الله عليه وسلم ـ التي عرفت بالتواتر، وأن يكونوا مختارين في بحثهم في الأمر، واتفاقهم عليه، وأن يكون ما يتفقون عليه من المصالح العامة، وهو ما لأولي الأمر سلطة فيه ووقوف عليه، وأما العبادات وما كان من قبيل الاعتقاد الديني فلا يتعلق به أمر أهل الحل والعقد، بل هو مما يؤخذ عن الله ورسوله فقط ليس لأحد رأي فيه إلا ما يكون في فهمه
“what is meant by those in authority is the group of Ahlul hali wal-aqd from among the Muslims, and they are the Ameers and rulers (hukkam), and the scholars and leaders of the army and all the leaders and chiefs to whom the people refer in needs and public interests. So if they agree on a matter or a ruling, it is obligatory to obey them in it on the condition that they are from us, and that they do not contradict the command of Allah or the Sunnah of His Messenger ﷺ which is known by continuous transmission (tawatur), and that they are free in their research into the matter and their agreement on it, and that what they agree on is from the public interests, which is what those in authority have authority and control over.
As for acts of worship (‘ibadat) and what is of the type of religious belief (‘aqeeda), the matter of the Ahlul hali wal-aqd is not related to it. Rather it is something that is taken from Allah and His Messenger only, and no one has an opinion on it except what is in his understanding.”[27]
We see again that the three meanings of authority are present here, the ruler, the government and the ummah and her political representatives. Rashid Rida defines the ulu al-amr as the ummah. He says this verse “commands obedience to those who hold authority [ulu al-amr]—who constitute the main body of the ummah—not the one who holds authority. That is because he is one of them. He is obeyed only on the basis that the Muslims who pledge allegiance to him support and have confidence in him.”[28]
Importance of authority
The Muslim ummah throughout Islamic history, understood the importance of political authority in Islam. This authority manifested itself primarily in the institution of the khilafah (caliphate), which existed in one form or another for 1300 years, from the time of Abu Bakr as-Siddiq to the last Ottoman caliph Abdul-Mejid II. Rashid Rida (d.1934) who lived through the last tumultuous period of the caliphate, and who was active in attempting to preserve it and re-establish it said, “For Muslims, the greatest agitation concerns Islamic sovereignty, without which they believe Islam cannot exist. Concern for its existence flows in the blood of every Muslim’s veins. That is because no Muslim can envision his religion enduring without the existence of an Islamic state, one that is independent, strong, and self-sufficiently capable of implementing the rulings of the revealed law.”[29]
This understanding of the intrinsic link between Islam’s existence and a state is based on the hadith of the Prophet ﷺ:
“The prophets ruled over the children of Israel, whenever a prophet died another prophet succeeded him, but there will be no prophet after me. There will soon be Khulafaa’ and they will number many.” They asked; “What then do you order us?” He said: “Fulfil the bay’ah to them, one after the other, and give them their dues for Allah will verily account them about what he entrusted them with.”[30]
It’s for this reason that when the Prophet ﷺ died, the sahaba despite their overwhelming grief, delayed his ﷺ burial, and instead focussed on appointing a caliph. This was agreed upon by the senior sahaba and represents an ijma (consensus) that within the Fard al-Kifiya (communal obligations) the appointment of a caliph takes priority. Sa‘d al-Taftazani (d.1390CE) mentions ijma as an evidence (daleel) for appointing an Imam. “He explains in his commentary that this means the consensus of the sahaba (إِجْمَاع الصَّحَابَة). He states: ﷺ وَهُوَ الْعُمْدَة، حَتَّى قدموه على دفن النَّبِي‘This is the preeminent issue. They even prioritized it over the need to inter the Prophet ﷺ.’”[31]
Al-Bayhaqi and Ibn ‘Asakir narrated that Abu Hurayrah (ra) said: “By the One Whom there is no god but Him, if Abu Bakr had not been appointed caliph then Allah would not have been worshipped.” Then he said it a second time and then he said it a third time.
Someone said to him, “How so, Abu Hurayrah?” So he said, “The Messenger of Allah ﷺ directed Usamah ibn Zaid, along with seven hundred men, to Syria. When they arrived at Dhu Khushub the Prophet ﷺ died, the Arabs around Madinah reneged on their Islam and the companions of the Messenger of Allah ﷺ gathered around him [Abu Bakr] and said, “Bring these back. Do you direct these against the Byzantines while the Arabs around Madinah have reneged?” He [Abu Bakr] said, “By the One Whom there is no god but Him, even if dogs were dragging the wives of the Prophet ﷺ by their feet I would not return an army which the Messenger of Allah had sent out, nor undo a standard which he had tied!”
He sent Usamah, and every tribe he would pass by which was wishing to renege would say (to themselves), “If these (the people of Madinah) did not have power, the like of these (the army) would not have come out from among them, so let us leave them alone until they meet the Byzantines.” They met them, defeated them, killed them and returned safely, so that they (the tribes) remained firm in Islam.”[32]
Political authority has the biggest influence in shaping and controlling society. Uthman bin Affan (ra), the third caliph said,
إن الله يزع بالسلطان ما لا يزع بالقرآن
“Allah prevents by the authority (sultan) what He does not prevent by the Qur’an.”[33]
Imam Ghazali echoes this point when discussing the importance and obligation of the Imamate (caliphate). He says, “a sultan is necessary for achieving well-ordered worldly affairs, and well-ordered worldly affairs are necessary for achieving well-ordered religious affairs, and well-ordered religious affairs are necessary for achieving happiness in the hereafter, which is decidedly the purpose of all the prophets.”[34]
Ibn Khaldun describes the dangers to society when a tyrannical authority is in power. “Good rulership is equivalent to mildness. If the ruler uses force and is ready to mete out punishment and eager to expose the faults of people and to count their sins, (his subjects) become fearful and depressed and seek to protect themselves against him through lies, ruses, and deceit. This becomes a character trait of theirs. Their mind and character become corrupted. They often abandon (the ruler) on the battlefield and (fail to support his) defensive enterprises. The decay of (sincere) intentions causes the decay of (military) protection. The subjects often conspire to kill the ruler.”[35]
What is Society?
Society is defined as “a large group of people who live together in an organized way, making decisions about how to do things and sharing the work that needs to be done. All the people in a country, or in several similar countries, can be referred to as a society.”[36]
The concept of society (مُجْتَمَع) is intrinsically linked to the discussion of authority, because it’s the authority and government which plays the greatest role in shaping and controlling society. The Ottoman historian Tursun Beg (d.1499) said, “With the pen of scribes, the ruler turns the noble into a wretched, and the wretched into a noble…with the sword of executioners he takes lives. As such he manifests the attributes of the Necessary Existent as if he shares the sultanate with Him except that the ruler of the world is a mortal.”[37]
The source of authority (masdar al-sultah) is based on societal concepts which are in turn based on the Islamic ‘aqeeda which forms a distinct viewpoint of life, and which influences the type of authority that is established. This is why Ibn Al-Qayyum said, “Ponder upon the Hikmah (Wisdom) of Allah عز وجل where He has made people’s kings, leaders, and those of authority over them, of the same kind as their own deeds. It is as if the people’s deeds appeared in the forms of their kings and leaders.”[38]
Society consists of individuals who through their regular interaction with one another form permanent relationships which are based on concepts. These relationships must be managed by a political authority because as Wael Hallaq says, “No society can live without an ordering apparatus that, by necessity, requires some type of discipline.”[39]
As soon as a person steps outside their house and starts to interact with others in whatever form, then societal concepts and the law of the land kicks in to manage these relationships. When going to buy goods you need to use the currency of the country. Shops won’t accept currency which isn’t legal tender. When driving you have to follow the traffic laws. If you decide to drive on the opposite side of the road it will end in a crash and maybe loss of life.
The Prophet ﷺ described the reality of society and these relationships in a famous hadith known as Hadith al-Safina (Hadith of the Ship) where he ﷺ said,
“The example of the person abiding by Allah’s order and restrictions in comparison to those who violate them is like the example of those persons who drew lots for their seats in a boat. Some of them got seats in the upper part, and the others in the lower. When the latter needed water, they had to go up to bring water (and that troubled the others), so they said, ‘Let us make a hole in our share of the ship (and get water) saving those who are above us from troubling them.’ So, if the people in the upper part left the others do what they had suggested, all the people of the ship would be destroyed, but if they prevented them, both parties would be safe.”[40]
These relationships must be managed by an authority which prevents anyone overstepping the limits and threatening society. In the case of the hadith above, the authority (ship’s captain) is the one who would prevent the drilling of a hole in the bottom of the ship.
Ibn Khaldun elaborates on this point. “We have explained before that human beings cannot live and exist except through social organization and co-operation for the purpose of obtaining their food and other necessities of life. When they have organized, necessity requires that they deal with each other and satisfy their needs. Each one will stretch out his hand for whatever he needs and (try simply to) take it, since injustice and aggressiveness are in the animal nature. The others, in turn, will try to prevent him from taking it, motivated by wrathfulness and spite and the strong human reaction when one’s own property is menaced. This causes dissension, which leads to hostilities, and hostilities lead to trouble and bloodshed and loss of life, which lead to the destruction of the species. Now, (the human species) is one of the things the Creator has especially (enjoined us) to preserve.
People, thus, cannot persist in a state of anarchy and without a ruler who keeps them apart. Therefore, they need a person to restrain them. He is their ruler. As is required by human nature, he must be a forceful ruler, one who exercises authority.”[41]
“If the truth were to follow their whims and desires, the heavens and the earth and everyone in them would have been brought to ruin. No indeed! We have given them their Reminder, but they have turned away from it.”[42]
Ummah is the source of authority
In an Islamic society, these concepts which underpin the societal relationships must be based on the Islamic ‘aqeeda (belief), which creates a distinct viewpoint of life. This viewpoint then creates an opinion on which interests are deemed important and necessary, leading the people to establish an authority to fulfil these interests. In the words of Alexander Hamilton, “What is government itself but the greatest of all reflections on human nature?”[43]
Taqiuddin an-Nabhani (d.1977) says,“Authority (sultah) means looking after people’s interests. People’s viewpoint towards actions and things as being interests or not differs according to the difference in their viewpoint about life.
Hence, according to this viewpoint, their viewpoint about the interests is formed, and according to its change their viewpoint about the interests changes.
Therefore, if people were in agreement in their viewpoint about the interests, in a country such as Iraq[44] for instance, the authority would lie in the Ummah; and if there were no foreign power, stronger than her, intellectually and militarily, dominating her, she would in such a country establish someone to run her affairs, i.e. she would establish the authority that manages her interests, or she would keep silent about those who appointed themselves to manage her interests.”[45]
Tocqueville (d.1859) writing in the mid-19th century on democracy in America makes a similar observation. “The inhabitant of the United States attaches himself to the goods of this world as if he were assured of not dying, and he rushes so precipitately to grasp those that pass within his reach that one would say he fears at each instant he will cease to live before he has enjoyed them. He grasps them all but without clutching them, and he soon allows them to escape from his hands so as to run after new enjoyments… Death finally comes, and it stops him before he has grown weary of this useless pursuit of a complete felicity that always flees from him.”[46] He continues, “that their principal affair is to secure by themselves a government that permits them to acquire the goods they desire and that does not prevent them from enjoying in peace those they have acquired.”[47]
Rousseau (d.1778) again made a similar point[48] on the relationship between society and authority. “The first and most important deduction from the principles we have so far laid down is that the general will alone can direct the State according to the object for which it was instituted, i.e., the common good: for if the clashing of particular interests made the establishment of societies necessary, the agreement of these very interests made it possible. The common element in these different interests is what forms the social tie; and, were there no point of agreement between them all, no society could exist. It is solely on the basis of this common interest that every society should be governed.”[49]
These points make it clear that authority in origin is with the ummah, i.e. they are the source of authority (masdar al-sultah).
Authority of the Caliph
As discussed, the source of authority in origin is with the Muslim ummah. This can be articulated another way by the phrase ‘authority is with the ummah’ (سلطان للأمة), which is a foundational principle of the Islamic ruling system. Abdul-Qadeem Zallum says, “The principle[50] that the ‘authority is with the ummah’ is taken from the sharia rule that states that the appointment of the caliph is the right of the Ummah, and that the caliph can only take up his post and exercise his authority by taking a bay’ah.”[51]
Bay’ah
The bay’ah (البيعة) or pledge of allegiance, is a ruling contract which governs the relationship between Muslims and the Islamic state. For those Muslims living under the authority of the state, the bay’ah is their citizenship contract with its ruler – the caliph.
The bay’ah is the method of appointing the caliph and legitimising his rule. It must be given with the consent of the ummah, who are free to choose whomever they wish to rule them, within the boundaries of the sharia rules. If the bay’ah and its conditions are absent, then the caliph has no authority to rule and will be considered a usurper. From the time of Abu Bakr to the last caliph Abdul-Majed II, the bay’ah was always present and legally convened, albeit misapplied for much of Islamic history.
Legitimate authority
The famous sociologist Max Weber (d.1920) defines authority as “the probability that a specific command will be obeyed.”[52] He then goes on to discuss three types of legitimate authority.[53]
1- Traditional Authority – power that is rooted in traditional, or long-standing, beliefs and practices of a society. It exists and is assigned to particular individuals because of that society’s customs and traditions. Hereditary rule would fall under this category.
2- Rational-Legal Authority – derives from law and is based on a belief in the legitimacy of a society’s laws and rules and in the right of leaders to act under these rules to make decisions and set policy. This form of authority is a hallmark of modern democracies. It is also the type of authority we find in an Islamic State. Although unlike in a democracy, the laws and rules in an Islamic State are derived from the sharia, since the sharia and not human beings is sovereign.
3- Charismatic Authority – stems from an individual’s extraordinary personal qualities and from that individual’s hold over followers because of these qualities. Many times this type of authority is combined with either traditional or rational-legal authority. The Rightly Guided Caliphs of the past were exemplary personalities and could be described as Philosopher-Kings in Platonic speak, but their legitimacy was always from the Muslim ummah who consented to their rule through the contract of bay’ah. Hence they had a rational-legal authority combined with a charismatic authority.
The bay’ah falls under the category of rational-legal authority since it is a ruling contract. For this contract to be valid the ummah must give their consent, which means they must be consulted (shura) either directly or through their political representatives the Ahlul hali wal-aqd. Ibn Khaldun says, “Therefore, it is necessary to have reference to ordained political norms, which are accepted by the mass and to whose laws it submits. The Persians and other nations had such norms. The dynasty that does not have a policy based on such (norms) cannot fully succeed in establishing the supremacy of its rule.”[54]
Shura (consultation)
One of the principles of the Islamic ruling system, and a mark of a rightly guided caliphate is shura (شُورَىٰ).
In Arabic “The pivotal meaning [of shura] is to extract what something contains of goodness or suitable, strong effect. Like honey in the waqba[55] or the hive, it is extracted from it, and like camels containing fat and the appearance of that fat on them, and like the well containing water to water the crops so they grow, and like feeding the fire with fuel so its flame rises and appears. This rise and appearance is from the door of exit.”[56]
Umar bin Al-Khattab informed the senior sahaba in a khutbah (sermon) during his caliphate:
“So, if any person gives the bay’ah to somebody without consulting (shura) the other Muslims, then the one he has selected should not be granted allegiance, lest both of them should be killed[57].”[58]
Muhammad Haykal comments on this hadith, “The sahaba listened to this speech and none spoke out against what was said. Consequently, it represented and Ijmaa’ (consensus) upon what was mentioned in terms of the obligation to take the opinion of the Muslims in respect to whom is chosen to be a Khalifah over them.”[59]
Shura as a ruling principle existed throughout the Islamic caliphate but was confined to the ruling class, wazirs, tribal leaders and ‘ulema who made up the Ahlul hali wal-aqd. With regards to the bay’ah, the predominant opinion adopted by the ‘ulema gave the caliph the authority to designate his successor, and the ummah’s political representatives (Ahlul hali wal-aqd) consented to this. Therefore, the bay’ah was legal convened from a contractual viewpoint although we can say it was misapplied since the correct opinion is bay’ah must be through shura as Umar ibn Al-Khattab mentioned. This is the way of all the Rightly Guided Caliphs and those caliphs who followed in their footsteps like Umar ibn Abdul-Aziz.
Bay’ah transfers authority from the ummah to the caliph
Muhammad Haykal elaborates on this principle ‘authority is with the ummah’ and its relationship with the bay’ah. “The sultah (authority) in Islam belongs to the Ummah and she passes it to the ruler in accordance to a contract (‘aqd) between her and him upon the basis that he rules her by the Kitab of Allah and the Sunnah of His Messenger ﷺ.
This what the Sharia texts guide to, in the case where it made the sultah in respect to the contract of the rule, similar to the commodity in the contract of sale, and it is the subject upon which the contract is made. Just as the seller owns a commodity and then gives it up based upon a contract called the ‘Aqd ul-Bai’ (contract of sale), similarly the Ummah owns the sultah and then gives it up to the ruler based upon a contract called the ‘Aqd ul-Bay’ah (contract of the pledge i.e. contraction of the authority). Just as the thing that the purchaser must provide in return of what he receives in terms of a commodity is mentioned within the contract of sale, which is the price, similarly, the matter that the ruler must provide in return for taking the authority is mentioned within the bay’ah contract, and that is the ruling by the Kitab of Allah and the Sunnah of His Messenger ﷺ.”[60]
Al-Shawkani (d.1834) says, “The one whom the Muslims have not given the bay’ah to, has no wilayah (legal governing authority) belonging to him and he does not have the right to carry out what the Imam carries out, as a whole or in part. This is because the sabab (cause) of the wilayah is the bay’ah.”[61]
Hashim Kamali says, “The representative capacity of the head of state is a corollary of the bay’ah, which he receives from the electorate and which pledges him to the trust (amanah) of government and the enforcement of Shari’ah. Muslim jurists have concurred in the view that the ruler derives his authority and power from the ummah which is also entitled to depose him when his condition changes and he fails to administer the affairs of religion and the temporal affairs of Muslims.”[62]
The Ummah’s Political Representatives
The sharia texts related to the bay’ah are ‘aam (general) in their address by use of the relative pronoun مَنْ which translates as whoever.[63] They therefore include the entire Muslim ummah, which is why we say the source of authority in origin is with the ummah. This is seen in numerous ahadith on the bay’ah:
مَنْ كَرِهَ مِنْ أَمِيرِهِ “Whoever sees in his Ameer…”[64]
مَنْ خَرَجَ مِنَ الطَّاعَةِ “Whoever withdraws obedience (to the Ameer)…”[65]
مَنْ بَايَعَ إِمَامًا “Whoever gave bay’ah to an Imam…”[66]
مَنْ مَاتَ وَلَيْسَ فِي عُنُقِهِ بَيْعَةٌ “Whoever dies while having no bay’ah on his neck…”[67]
When it comes to exercising that authority however, a problem arises because the bay’ah is a contract of one-to-millions i.e. between the caliph and the Muslim ummah. This is different to other Islamic contracts which are one-to-one such as buying, selling and marriage. This poses a challenge on how you get the consent of millions of people which is a condition in Islamic contracts.
Historically it was not possible for every Muslim to participate in the election of the Imam, which is why in the rightly guided caliphate of the sahaba, the senior representatives of the people would contract the bay’ah to the caliph. The rest of the Muslims would accept their opinion and rush to pledge their bay’ah to the newly appointed caliph. This was done either directly in the Prophet’s Mosque in Madinah, which was the capital of the state, or indirectly through the governors in the other provinces.[68] The classical scholars called this contracting group the Ahlul hali wal-aqd which literally means the ‘people who loosen and bind’.
Ahmad ibn Hanbal says, “The imamah is not effective except with its conditions […], so if testimony was given to that by the Ahlul hali wal-aqd of the scholars of Islam and their trustworthy people, or the imam took that position for himself and then the Muslims were content with that, it is also effective.”[69]
Al-Mawardi says, “Imamate comes into being in two ways: the first of these is by the election of the Ahlul hali wal-aqd, and the second is by the delegation of the previous Imam.”[70]
This is why Sa‘d al-Taftazani said, “By ummah, he means those who loose and bind (Ahlul hali wal-aqd), namely, those who on the basis of their prestige and rank represent the community. Their leadership is over others, or over all individuals within the community.”[71]
Therefore, in modern times, the ummah elects the Ahlul hali wal-aqd to be their representatives in the Majlis al-Nuwwab (House of Representatives)[72]. This House institutionalises the principles of shura and accountability, and will act as an electoral college for the election of the caliph. Dr. Abdul-Karim Zaidan (d.2014) mentions:
أما علاقة أهل العقد والحل بالأمَّة: فهي علاقة النائب والوكيل، فهم يباشرون انتخاب رئيس الدولة ـ الخليفة ـ نيابةً عن الأمة ومن ثَمَّ يعتبر انتخابهم ملزمًا للأمة.
“As for the relationship of the Ahlul hali wal-aqd with the ummah: it is the relationship of the representative (na’ib) and the agent (wakeel). They initiate the election of the head of state – the Caliph – on behalf of the ummah, and therefore their election is considered binding on the ummah.”[73]
Hasan al-Banna (d.1946) concludes a marriage between the ‘people of the authority’ (ahl al-al wa al-aqd) and the representatives of the ummah in the parliament when he writes: “The modern parliamentary system establishes the protocol for arriving at the people of authority (ahl al-al wa al-aqd) through what the constitutional fuqaha put in place of systems of elections and their various means,” with the result that, “this system ought not be declined so long as it leads to the choice of the people of authority (ahl al-al wa al-aqd).”[74]
Who are the Ahlul hali wal-aqd?
The sharia has not defined who the Ahlul hali wal-aqd or people’s representatives are, “it did not appoint them by name or by their persons”[75], as mentioned by Hasan al-Banna. This definition falls under manat ul-hukm (reality the rule is applied to) and will vary throughout the ages.
Hasan al-Banna describes the Ahlul hali wal-aqd as “being composed of three groups:
1) the mujtahidun of the fuqaha whose assertions can be depended upon in fatwas and matters of implementation of the rulings (al-ahkam);
2) the people of experience (ahl al-khibrah) in general matters;
3) whoever has a position as a leader or chief among people…all of these may be correctly subsumed under the rubric of ‘the people of authority’ (ahl al-al wa al-‘aqd).”[76]
Sa‘d al-Taftazani mentions something similar that “they are scholars [ulama], heads of the ummah, and people of distinction.” Imam Nawawi adds in Al-Minhaj: “they are those who are readily able to meet.” His commentator Ramli explicates that this is so since “they determine matters, and other people follow their decisions.”[77]
Are the Ahlul hali wal-aqd elected or appointed to the Majlis?
The reason for the existence of the Ahlul hali wal-aqd is to represent the ummah’s opinions in order for a valid bay’ah to be contracted to the Imam. Dr. Abdul-Karim Zaidan describes this relationship as “the relationship of the representative (na’ib) and the agent (wakeel).”[78]
Prior to the establishment of the Islamic State in Madinah, at the Second Bay’ah of Al-Aqaba, the Messenger of Allah ﷺ did not know all the representatives of the 75 attendees from Al-Aws and Al-Khazraj, so he ﷺ said to them,
“So they brought out from among them twelve leaders, nine from the Khazraj[79], and three from the Aws.”[80]
Once the state had been established, the Prophet ﷺ came to know who the natural representatives of the Ansar were, and so He ﷺ singled them out for consultation as he knew they represented the opinion of their respective clans. This continued throughout the Rightly Guided Caliphate.
In modern times it is not possible for the leader to know who the representatives are except for a select few such as leaders of groups, ‘ulema and influential businessmen. Therefore, the ummah will elect the Ahlul hali wal-aqd to be members of the Majlis. This is similar to what we see in western countries with elections every 2-4 years, and constituencies drawn up based on population size.
The caliph also reserves the right to appoint certain individuals to the Majlis if there is a shortage of qualified mujtahideen or those with particular expertise in fields such as economy and finance, which are necessary for scrutinising proposed laws sent to the Majlis for debate.
Although the primary reason for the Ahlul hali wal-aqd is to contract the caliph, there are other functions they serve such as accounting the caliph and his government, and acting as a ‘legislature-lite’ for laws and policies which fall under the scope of administrative law, which is the bulk of law in modern societies. For this reason, the scholars have placed some extra conditions on the Ahlul hali wal-aqd so that those chosen are competent enough to choose the best person for caliph, and play a role in the shura and accounting process after his election.
It should be noted however, that all that is required in sharia is that the person standing for election is mukallaf (legal responsible i.e. mature and sane), a citizen, and a representative of the people. This is due to the generality of the address “whoever”مَنْ in the ahadith related to the bay’ah as discussed earlier.[81] The representatives can be men, women, Muslims or non-Muslims, although in the context of the bay’ah and the electoral college function of the Majlis, the non-Muslim members can voice their opinion but are not involved in the election. This is because non-Muslim citizens (dhimmi) have a different citizenship contract with the state called dhimma which is discussed elsewhere.
Al-Mawardi places three conditions on the Ahlul hali wal-aqd:
“There are three conditions regarding those eligible to make the choice:
1. That they be just and fulfil all the conditions implied in this quality
2. That they possess a knowledge by which they may comprehend who has a right to the Imamate and that they fulfil all the conditions implied by this knowledge
3. That they possess the insight and wisdom which will lead them to choose the person who is most fitting for the Imamate and who is the most upright and knowledgeable with respect to the management of the offices of administration.”[82]
Imam Al-Rafi’i (d.1226CE) adds that at least one of the Ahlul hali wal-aqd must be a mujtahid. He says, “The basic principle is the stipulation that one of them must be a qualified for ijtihad: a mujtahid.”[83]This is important in modern societies which require new laws and systems of a multitude unheard of previously. This means the caliph will need to appoint mujtahideen to the Majlis if not enough are elected by the ummah.
In addition to some Majlis members being mujtahid, there is a need for those in the Majlis to be knowledgeable in politics and governmental affairs. This is a natural quality for those running for office and shouldn’t require any specific appointments to the Majlis in this regard.
Rashid Rida elaborates on this point, “learning as a stipulated qualification evolves over time. The knowledge that would entitle someone to the imamate in this era differs from the knowledge that was required in previous eras. Certain scholars have said that one of the reasons why the Companions’ preference was to select Abu Bakr as caliph, may God be pleased with him, was that he was the one among them with the greatest knowledge of the Arabs’ lineages, circumstances, and strengths. For this reason, he did not fear what ‘Umar feared when it came to fighting apostates.
Now, the imam and those who make up the body of counselors – Ahlul hali wal-aqd who are the substance of his imamate and the pillars of his government—are required to be versed in the laws of war and peace, major treaties, and conditions in the nations and states neighboring and having political and commercial relationships with Islamic lands: their politics and power, what may be feared and hoped from them, and what is needed to avoid harming them and procure benefit from them.”[84]
Ibn Hajar (d.1449) says something similar when discussing the bay’ah to Uthman bin Affan. “What is apparent from ‘Umar’s conduct regarding his emirs, whom he appointed in the lands, is that he did not only consider the question of who was superior in religion. Rather, he also considered knowledge of politics, along with avoidance of what the revealed law prohibits. Hence, he installed, namely appointed as emir, Mu‘awiyah, Mughirah bin Shu‘bah, and ‘Amr bin al-‘As, although there were others who were superior in the matters of religion and learning, such as Abu al-Darda’ in Syria and Ibn Mas‘ud in Kufah.”[85]
This is the sunnah of the Prophet ﷺ where the tribal leaders and some governors, remained in positions of authority and responsibility after their conversion to Islam, because they already had a personality capable of looking after people’s affairs. Muhammad As-Sallabi says, “Kisra’s[86] viceroy to Yemen was Bādhān ibn Sāsān. During the Prophet’s lifetime, Bādhān embraced Islam, and the Prophet ﷺ recognizing good leadership qualities in Bādhān allowed him to remain governor of Yemen. It was always the case that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ appointed people based on their qualities and on the job performance that could be expected of them. The Prophet ﷺ knew that Bādhān was an experienced leader and that he was well-acquainted with the people of Yemen and with their needs; thus he, and not a person of high-ranking from Makkah or Al-Madeenah, was best suited for the job; hence the Prophet’s decision to allow Bādhān to stay on as governor.”[87]
The ways of appointing a caliph
Dr. Wahbah Az-Zuhaili (d.2015) mentions four ways of appointing a caliph. He says, “The Fuqaha’ of Islam have mentioned four ways in respect to the manner of appointing the highest ruler for the state and these are:
We will see that the correct Islamic method, in accordance with the principle of Shura and the principle of collective obligations, is one method, which is the bay’ah of the Ahlul hali wal-aqd, and the inclusion of the ummah’s approval of his (caliph) choice. As for anything other than that, its basis is weak due to arbitrary interpretation of texts, or reliance on weak texts and personal whims, or approval of an existing reality that Muslims did not find wisdom or interest in revolting against, or eliminating its existence to stop the bloodshed and prevent chaos, and taking into account external circumstances, or fear of the ferocity of the one holding power that came to him through illegitimate means such as inheritance and the like.”[89]
Shaykh Khudari Bak (d.1927) in a similar manner lists the same ways of appointing an Imam as Wahbah Az-Zuhaili, with the exception of the textual method adopted by the shia. In regards to the bay’ah, he splits this in to two parts – specific and general shura.
“These three ways of choosing the imam (general shura, specific shura of a group chosen by the previous imam, or succession to the post) are the three ways which were practised in the first era of Islam.
There is a fourth way which the scholars after the first era instituted for the establishment of the imamate, and that is by way of dominance. This happens when the Muslims have no imam, there are differences among them, and they cannot agree on a particular person. In such a situation, it is lawful for a person who knows that he has the capacity to lead the Muslim community because of his knowledge or the influence of his tribe, to demand this post of caliph. He would hence oblige the people to obey him, whether they responded willingly or by force. Once the situation subsides and his claim is accepted, his caliphate will be established and obedience to him will become obligatory.”[90]
As the source of authority, only bay’ah through shura gives true consent and free choice to the ummah. In the other three ways i.e. text, designated succession and the dominant ruler, the ummah and her representatives may give consent and accept the status quo but this should not be the norm. Rashid Ridda says, “Nor should people allow power to become like a ball that tyrants can kick back and forth between themselves, and receive from each other. Those living in nations who have been wronged allowed that to happen, assenting to that because they were ignorant of the power that was latent within themselves. They did not realize that the power wielded by their monarchs and emirs was actually their own.”[91]
Bay’ah through shura
Bay’ah through shura marks the difference between a rightly guided caliphate and mulk (monarchy).
“The Khilafah will be for thirty years. Then it will become mulk.”[92]
Israr Ahmed (d.2010) says “Since we cannot recreate as such the Islamic Order as it functioned during the age of the Rightly Guided Caliphate, we must adopt the following principle: we should take the principles and ideals from the model of the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ and the Rightly Guided Caliphs (RAA), and then incorporate these principles and ideals in the political institutions that have been developed in the contemporary civilized world as a result of the process of social evolution.”[93]
Al-Mawdudi (d.1979) lists seven characteristics of a Rightly Guided Caliphate[94]:
1. Electoral Khilāfah
2. Shūrāwi governance
3. Bayt al-māl (treasury) a matter of trust
4. The Responsible governance
5. Supremacy of the Sharī‘ah
6. A government free from ethnicities and prejudices
7. Nourishing freedom as a value
Two parts to the bay’ah
The bay’ah can be split into two parts:
1- Bay’ah of Contract (بيعة الانعقاد)
2- Bay’ah of Obedience (بيعة الطاعة)
The bay’ah of contract is the actual contracting ceremony where the caliph is appointed by the Ahlul hali wal-aqd. This is referred to by some as the private bay’ah (bay’at al-khassa) but in reality this is a public event. The saqeefa bay’ah to Abu Bakr was in public and witnessed by many of the Ansar who were there. It was not undertaken inside Sa’d’s house but outside on his saqeefa in full view of his Sa’ida clan and the rest of the Muslims. Once this process is concluded, the caliph is the new ruler, and he must fulfil the conditions of his contract which is primarily ruling by Islam. The Muslims must also fulfil their side of the contract which is obedience.
The bay’ah of obedience, also referred to as the public bay’ah (bay’at al-‘amma) is not another bay’ah. It is simply the Muslims publicly confirming their side of the existing bay’ah contract, which is obedience. In fact, the bay’ah of obedience can be given multiple times, and the caliph can demand it from the Muslims if he so wishes. This is similar to what some westerners do when they renew their marriage vows. They are still contractually married, but renew their vows with each other to reconfirm and celebrate their relationship.
We can clearly see these two parts in the bay’ah of the Rightly Guided Caliphs and during the Umayyad, Abbasid and Ottoman dynasties. Eric Hanne comments on the bay’ah to the Abbasid Caliph Al-Qadir: “Going beyond the concerns of regional and household politics, however, the events surrounding al-Qadir’s rise to the Caliphate also shed light on the procedural issues surrounding the installation of new caliphs. Al-Qadir was required to participate in two bay’ah ceremonies, the first the bay’at al-khassa (private bay’ah), generally limited to the household and members of the new caliphal administration and court, and the second one, the bay’at al-‘amma (public bay’ah), a general audience in which the people were allowed to give their oath of allegiance to the new caliph. The final phase of the procedure with regard to Baha’ al-Dawla and al-Qadir included an officially witnessed ceremony wherein both leaders swore mutual oaths of fealty to one another.”[95]
Since bay’ah through shura was enacted primarily by the Rightly Guided Caliphs let us look at the process they followed so we can derive some principles for re-enacting this in modern times.
Abu Bakr’s Bay’ah
When the Sahabah knew for certain that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ had died, the Ansar gathered in the saqeefah (portico or courtyard)of Banu Saa’idah and the Muhajireen gathered elsewhere with Abu Bakr. Both groups had the same purpose which was to choose the next caliph from among themselves. Before they arrived at a decision however the Muhajireen remembered their brothers from the Ansar, and they said to one another, “Let us go to our brothers from the Ansar, for they have the right to help us arrive at a decision regarding this matter.”[96]
Umar ibn Al-Khattab said: “Remember that whoever gives the bay’ah to anybody among you without consulting the other Muslims, neither that person, nor the person to whom the pledge of allegiance was given, are to be supported, lest they both should be killed. And no doubt after the death of the Prophet ﷺ we were informed that the Ansar disagreed with us and gathered in the saqeefah of Banu Saa’idah. `Ali and Zubair and whoever was with them, opposed us, while the Muhajireen gathered with Abu Bakr.”[97]
Although Ali ibn Abi Talib and Zubair al-Awwam didn’t participate in contracting Abu Bakr as caliph they both gave the Bay’ah of Obedience and never voiced any opposition to the action of the Muhajireen and Ansar in delaying the burial of the Prophet ﷺ in favour of choosing the next caliph.
Ali and al-Zubayr said: “The only thing that disappointed us was that we were not consulted, but we believe that Abu Bakr is the most qualified of the people for it (caliphate) after the Messenger of Allah ﷺ.”[98]
Umar continues: I said to Abu Bakr, ‘Let’s go to these Ansari brothers of ours.’ So we set out seeking them, and when we approached them, two pious men of theirs met us and informed us of the final decision of the Ansar, and said, ‘O group of Muhajireen! Where are you going?’ We replied, ‘We are going to these Ansari brothers of ours.’ They said to us, ‘You shouldn’t go near them. Carry out whatever we have already decided.’ I said, ‘By Allah, we will go to them.’
So we proceeded until we reached them at the saqeefah of Banu Saa’idah. Behold! There was a man sitting amongst them and wrapped in something. I asked, ‘Who is that man?’ They said, ‘He is Sa`d bin ‘Ubada.’ I asked, ‘What is wrong with him?’ They said, ‘He is sick.’
After we sat for a while, the Ansar’s speaker said, ‘None has the right to be worshipped but Allah,’ and praising Allah as He deserved, he added, ‘To proceed, we are Allah’s Ansar (helpers) and the majority of the Muslim army, while you, the emigrants, are a small group and some people among you came with the intention of preventing us from practicing this matter (of caliphate) and depriving us of it.’
When the speaker had finished, I intended to speak as I had prepared a speech which I liked and which I wanted to deliver in the presence of Abu Bakr, and I used to avoid provoking him. So, when I wanted to speak, Abu Bakr said, ‘Wait a while.’ I disliked to make him angry. So Abu Bakr himself gave a speech, and he was wiser and more patient than I. By Allah, he never missed a sentence that I liked in my own prepared speech, but he said the like of it or better than it spontaneously.
After a pause he said, ‘O Ansar! You deserve all (the qualities that you have attributed to yourselves, but this question (of Caliphate) is only for the Quraish as they are the best of the Arabs as regards descent and home, and I am pleased to suggest that you choose either of these two men, so take the oath of allegiance to either of them as you wish. And then Abu Bakr held my hand and Abu Ubada bin `Abdullah’s hand who was sitting amongst us. I hated nothing of what he had said except that proposal, for by Allah, I would rather have my neck chopped off as expiator for a sin than become the ruler of a nation, one of whose members is Abu Bakr, unless at the time of my death my own-self suggests something I don’t feel at present.’
And then one of the Ansar said, ‘I am the pillar on which the camel with a skin disease (eczema) rubs itself to satisfy the itching (i.e., I am a noble), and I am as a high class palm tree! O Quraish. There should be one ruler from us and one from you.’
Then there was a hue and cry among the gathering and their voices rose so that I was afraid there might be great disagreement, so I said, ‘O Abu Bakr! Hold your hand out.’ He held his hand out and I pledged allegiance to him, and then all the emigrants gave the Pledge of allegiance and so did the Ansar afterwards. And so we became victorious over Sa`d bin Ubada (whom Al-Ansar wanted to make a ruler). One of the Ansar said, ‘You have killed Sa`d bin Ubada.’ I replied, ‘Allah has killed Sa’d bin Ubada.’
`Umar added, “By Allah, apart from the great tragedy that had happened to us (i.e. the death of the Prophet), there was no greater problem than the allegiance pledged to Abu Bakr because we were afraid that if we left the people, they might give the Pledge of allegiance after us to one of their men, in which case we would have given them our consent for something against our real wish, or would have opposed them and caused great trouble. So if any person gives the pledge of allegiance to somebody (to become a caliph) without consulting the other Muslims, then the one he has selected should not be granted allegiance, lest both of them should be killed.”[99]
Abu Bakr’s bay’ah on Monday afternoon was the Bay’ah of Contract given by a small group from the Ahlul hali wal-aqd who represented the views of the wider Muslim Ummah. When Sa’eed ibn Zaid was asked, “When was Abu Bakr confirmed by the people?” he said, “The day on which the Messenger of Allah ﷺ died; they disliked for even a part of a day to pass by without them being united as a group (with a leader to rule over them).”[100]
The Muslims of Madinah fell in to two main categories. The Muhajireen who emigrated from Makkah with the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ, and the Ansar who consisted of two tribes called Al-Aws and Al-Khazraj. The Ahlul hali wal-aqd who contracted the bay’ah to Abu Bakr consisted of tribal leaders, wazirs and those strongest in the ideology of Islam.
The next day on the Tuesday, the Muslims of Madinah gathered in the Masjid and Abu Bakr’s appointment was announced. They then came one by one giving him the Bay’ah of Obedience by shaking his hand. Messengers were dispatched to the various provinces, and the Muslims living there gave bay’ah via their governors.[102]
Anas bin Malik Narrated: That he heard Umar’s second speech he delivered when he sat on the minbar (pulpit) on the day following the death of the Prophet ﷺ. Umar recited the Tashahhud while Abu Bakr was silent. Umar said, “I wish that Allah’s Messenger ﷺ had outlived all of us, i.e., had been the last (to die). But if Muhammad is dead, Allah nevertheless has kept the light amongst you from which you can receive the same guidance as Allah guided Muhammad with that. And Abu Bakr is the companion of Allah’s Messenger ﷺ He is the second of the two in the cave. He is the most entitled person among the Muslims to manage your affairs. Therefore get up and swear allegiance to him.” Some people had already taken the bay’ah to him in the saqeefah of Banu Saa’idah but the bay’ah taken by the public was taken at the minbar. I heard Umar saying to Abu Bakr on that day. “Please ascend the minbar,” and kept on urging him till he ascended the minbar whereupon, all the people swore allegiance to him.[103]
The inhabitants of Medina pledged their allegiance to Abu Bakr directly in the Masjid and placed their hands on his hand. Meanwhile the inhabitants of Makkah and At-Taaif made their pledges to Abu Bakr’s governors (wulah).[104]
The election of the first caliph in Islam – Abu Bakr As-Siddiq clearly illustrates the two parts of the bay’ah. Abdul-Qadeem Zalloom says, “Thus the first bay’ah of the saqeefah was the Bay’ah of Contract, while the Bay’ah of the Masjid, on the next day, was that of obedience.”[105]
This bay’ah by the Muslim masses on the Tuesday would have taken some time to complete. Once it was finished then the burial preparations and funeral prayer for the Prophet ﷺ were organised. Ibn Ishaq (d.768CE) says, “When Abu Bakr had received the bay’ah, the people began preparing on the Tuesday for the burial of the Messenger of Allah.”[106]
Sa‘d al-Taftazani (d.1390CE) mentions ijma as an evidence (daleel) for appointing an Imam. “He explains in his commentary that this means the consensus of the sahaba (إِجْمَاع الصَّحَابَة). He states: ﷺ وَهُوَ الْعُمْدَة، حَتَّى قدموه على دفن النَّبِي ‘This is the preeminent issue. They even prioritized it over the need to inter the Prophet ﷺ.’”[107]
Al-Haythami (d.1405CE) said the same, “It is known that the Sahabah consented (‘ijma) that selecting the Imam after the end of the era of Prophethood was an obligation (Wajib). Indeed they made it more important than the other obligations whilst they were busy with it over the burial of the Prophet.”[108]
Abu Bakr’s bay’ah shows us the principle of political representation and the electoral college in action. In modern times we can transpose the saqeefa to an elected Majlis Al-Nuwaab (House of Representatives) who will elect the new caliph on behalf of the people. This is one option available to the ummah depending on the situation within the state at the time.
Another option is for a general election to be held where the entire ummah who are citizens of the state can directly participate through voting. This is similar to what occurred during the bay’ah to Uthman bin Affan, the third Rightly Guided Caliph of Islam, where the inhabitants of the Islamic State’s capital in Madinah directly participated in the bay’ah contract by voicing their preference for the main candidates Ali ibn Abi Talib and Uthman bin Affan.
Uthman bin Affan’s Bay’ah
After Umar ibn Al-Khattab was stabbed and his death was imminent, the Ahlul hali wal-aqd (senior sahaba) came and asked him to nominate a successor as Abu Bakr had done for him. Umar couldn’t come to a decision so he appointed a council of six candidates who were all from the 10 promised jannah to meet after his death and appoint a caliph.
Umar summoned Ali ibn Abi Talib, Uthman bin Affan, Sa’d ibn Abi Waqqas, Abdul-Rahman ibn Awf, and al-Zubayr ibn Al-Awwam. Umar said to them, “I have looked into the matter and consider you to be the chiefs and leaders of the people. This matter will remain among you alone.”[109]
By appointing an electoral council of six[110], Umar restricted the potential candidates for the post of caliph to these six alone. Shaykh Khudari Bak (d.1927) refers to this way as specific shura of a group chosen by the previous imam.
Umar’s authority to nominate these candidates was not from himself, but from the ummah’s political representatives – the Ahlul hali wal-aqd since they were the source of authority and not the caliph. In modern times it will be the Majlis members who will select the candidates not the caliph.
Rashid Rida says, “The majority of the sahaba affirmed ‘Umar’s action. Thus, it was the object of consensus (‘ijma) and was settled. The principle underlying pledging allegiance is that it follows consultation (shura) with the majority of the Muslims and the choice of the Ahlul hali wal-aqd. The bay’ah of others is not to be taken into consideration except when it follows theirs. ‘Umar’s action, may God be pleased with him, contradicted this definitive principle.[111] Thus, it was a precipitate move that resulted from exceptional circumstances. It does not reflect a principle of the shari‘ah which should also be implemented in other cases.”[112]
Someone suggested to Umar that he appoint his son Abdullah ibn Umar who was one of the prominent scholars of Madinah who used to give fatawa (legal decisions) for people, and an expert on governmental affairs. Umar responded harshly to this suggestion, “Allah curse you! You were not saying this for Allah’s sake!”[113]
Umar was known as the door against fitnah (tribulations)[114] and wanted to prevent the concept of hereditary rule appearing in the state. Although, due to Ibn Umar’s skills he said to the council, “Abdullah ibn Umar will be there as an adviser, but he shall have nothing to do with the matter [of the actual appointment].”[115]
The electoral council were also part of the Ahlul hali wal-aqd, and although their contracting of the bay’ah to Uthman would be sufficient, Abdul-Rahman ibn Awf withdrew his candidacy and went around the capital Madinah seeking shura from the different clans of Quraysh and the Ansar, on who they wanted as the next caliph. He found their opinions were in favour of Ali and Uthman, but that the people also wanted a continuation of Abu Bakr and Umar’s actions in ruling rather than any stark changes.
After Umar passed away, the council met and they all agreed for Abdur-Rahman ibn ‘Awf to be the arbitrator and make the final judgement. Abdur-Rahman ibn ‘Awf took his role incredibly seriously and not only consulted those in the council, but also widened the consultation to the inhabitants of the capital Madinah. Al-Miswar bin Makhrama said, “Abdur-Rahman called on me after a portion of the night had passed and knocked on my door till I got up, and he said to me, ‘I see you have been sleeping! By Allah, during the last three nights I have not slept enough.’”[116]
Abdul-Rahman said, “Now then, O Ali. I have looked at the people’s tendencies and noticed that they do not consider anybody equal to Uthman, so you should not incur blame (by disagreeing).” Then Abdul-Rahman said (to Uthman), “I gave the bay’ah to you on condition that you will follow the sunnah of Allah and His Messenger, and the two caliphs [Abu Bakr and Umar] after him.” So Abdul-Rahman gave the bay’ah to him, and so did the people including the Muhajireen, the Ansar, the chiefs of the army and all the Muslims.[117]
There a number of other principles we can take from the electoral council process such as the time limit of the bay’ah and the appointment of a interim leader who runs the state until a caliph is appointed. The main point we can take for our discussion on authority is the addition of extra conditions to the bay’ah contract, which in modern times translates in to binding the caliph to a constitution. The extra condition added to Uthman’s bay’ah was following the sunnah (usul) of the two previous caliphs Abu Bakr and Umar. Abdur-Rahman said (to Uthman),
“I gave the bay’ah to you on (condition) that you will follow the sunnah of Allah, and His Messenger, and the two caliphs after him (i.e. Abu Bakr and Umar).”
So Abdur-Rahman gave the bay’ah to him, and so did the people including the Muhajireen and the Ansar and the leaders of the armies and all the Muslims.[118]
The Ahlul hali wal-aqd were all senior sahaba and all consented to the extra bay’ah condition “to follow the sunnah of Abu Bakr and Umar.” This represents an ijma which is a shar’a daleel (legal evidence).
Following the sunnah of Abu Bakr and Umar does not mean following their individual opinions. We know that Abu Bakr and Umar both differed in their opinions and administrative styles. Uthman also differed with Abu Bakr and Umar in some of their opinions and policies. Therefore, the bay’ah condition of following the sunnah of Abu Bakr and Umar does not mean following their individual opinions, but rather means following their usulul-fiqh (foundational legal principles). In legal terminology this means Uthman was a mujtahid madhab performing ijtihad within the madhab of Abu Bakr and Umar.
Binding a caliph to a constitution is within the ummah’s authority to insist upon. A constitutional caliphate is clearly in the benefit of the Muslims, and will unite them preventing much of the fitna (discord) and disunity of the past. Binding the caliph to a constitution with a condition on the bay’ah is therefore essential in the modern era. Through a constitution we can force the creation of a caliphate based on prophethood as was prophesised by the Messenger ﷺ, ثم تكون خلافة على منهاج النبوة“then there will be Khilafah upon the Prophetic method.”[119]
This method of the Imam nominating his successor continued throughout the Caliphate’s 1300 history. Unfortunately, those caliphs who came after the Rightly Guided Caliphs starting with Mu’awiya, on the whole turned the nomination from one based on shura and meritocracy, to nominating family members. This was prophesised by the Messenger of Allah ﷺ who said,
تكون الخلافة ثلاثين سنة ثم تصير ملكا
“The Khilafah will be for thirty years. Then it will become mulk (monarchy).”[120]
Ibn Kathir says,“The first monarchy began with the rule of Mu‘awiyah, making him the first king (malik) in Islam and the best of them all.”[121]
The ummah’s political representatives – Ahlul hali wal-aqd consented to this, and the ‘ulema accepted this status quo, even going as far as permitting this method of contracting the bay’ah by giving the caliph authority to designate his successor and the successor after that.
Al-Mawardi says, “Imamate comes into being in two ways: the first of these is by the election of the Ahlul hali wal-aqd, and the second is by the delegation of the previous Imam.”[122]
Ibn Khaldun also justified this situation of the caliphs designating their successors, even if they designated their own sons. “After Mu‘âwiyah, caliphs who were used to choosing the truth and to acting in accordance with it, acted similarly. Such caliphs included the Umayyads ‘Abd-al-Malik and Sulaymân and the ‘Abbâsids as-Saffâḥ, al-Manṣûr, al-Mahdî, and ar-Rashîd, and others like them whose probity, and whose care and concern for the Muslims are well known. They cannot be blamed because they gave preference to their own sons and brothers, in that respect departing from the Sunnah of the first four caliphs. Their situation was different from that of the (four) caliphs who lived in a time when royal authority (mulk) as such did not yet exist, and the restraining influence was religious. Thus, everybody had his restraining influence in himself. Consequently, they appointed the person who was acceptable to Islam, and preferred him over all others. They trusted every aspirant to have his own restraining influence.”[123]
Al-Hasan al-Baṣri said: “Two men put disorder into people’s affair. First, ʿAmr ibn al-ʿAs when he advised Mu’awiya to raise the copies of the Qurʾan and they were lifted up. He said, “Where are the reciters (al-qurraʾ)?” Then the Khawarij asserted that judgement only belongs to Allah. This assertion of Allah’s judgement will continue until the Day of Rising.
Second, al-Mughira ibn Shuʿba, when he was Mu’awiya’s governor over Kufa and Mu’awiya wrote to him, “When you read my letter, come to me, dismissed from your office.” But he delayed and when he finally came to him, Mu’awiya asked, “What took you so long?” Al-Mughira replied, “An affair that I had to settle.” He said, “And what was that?” He said, “The bay’a for Yazid’s succession after you.” He said, “And did you complete it?” He replied, “Yes.” Then Mu’awiya said, “Return to your post.” When al-Mughira departed, his companions asked him how it went and he replied, “I have placed Mu’awiya’s foot in a stirrup of error, in which it will remain until the Day of Rising.”
Al-Hasan al-Basri added: Therefore, they have taken bay’ah for their sons and were it not for that, it would have been a matter of consultation (shura) until the Day of Rising.”[124]
One the main justifications for this ijtihad of giving the caliph the right to appoint his successor, is the bay’ah to Umar ibn Al-Khattab on the recommendation of Abu Bakr. If we study this bay’ah process we can see clearly that it was a bay’ah based on shura, in line with the rest of the Rightly Guided Caliphs and in no way a justification for hereditary rule.
He consulted Abdul-Rahman ibn Awf and Uthman bin Affan[127] who were from the 10 promised Jannah, and other prominent sahaba before announcing his recommendation that Umar ibn Al-Khattab should be the next caliph.
Abu Bakr summoned Uthman to him in private and said to him, “Write,
‘In the name of Allah, the Merciful, the Most Merciful. This is the ‘ahd[128] which Abu Bakr bin Abi Quhafah has enjoined on the Muslims. Now then…’”
At this point, he fainted, losing consciousness. Uthman wrote,
‘Now then, I have appointed Umar bin al-Khattab as my successor over you. I have not neglected the best among you.’
Then Abu Bakr awoke and said, “Read it to me.” When he read it to him, Abu Bakr said, “Allahu Akbar” and then went on, “I see that you were afraid that the people would quarrel if I died suddenly in my coma.” Uthman said, “Yes.” Abu Bakr said, “May Allah reward you kindly for the sake of Islam and its people!” Abu Bakr confirmed the text from this place.[129]
The wider ummah accepted this decision and after the death of Abu Bakr, the inhabitants of the capital in Madinah gave the Bay’ah of Contract and the Bay’ah of Obedience to Umar in the Prophet’s ﷺ Mosque as was customary at the time.
Nomination based on shura turned to hereditary rule
Although Mu’awiya tried to justify his actions by what Abu Bakr did in nominating Umar, this is invalid because as discussed earlier Abu Bakr took shura from the ummah and chose someone based on meritocracy not familial ties. The people said to Abu Bakr, “O Caliph of the Messenger Allah, your opinion is our opinion (i.e., appoint your successor for us).” He said, “Then give me some time, so that I can see what is best in the view of Allah and what is best for His religion and His slaves.”[130]
Mu’awiya had initially tried to take bay’ah for Yazid via his governor in Madinah Marwan ibn Al-Hakam. He wrote to Marwan to take the bay’ah and Marwan addressed the people: “The Ameer of the Believers has decided to appoint his son, Yazid, as his successor over you, according to the sunnah of Abu Bakr and ʿUmar.” Abd ar-Rahman ibn Abi Bakr stood up and said, “Rather, according to the sunnah of Khusraw and Caesar! Abu Bakr and ʿUmar did not appoint their sons to it, nor anyone from their families.”[131]
Later when Mu’awiya came in person to Madinah to take the bay’a, Abu Bakr’s other son Muhammad ibn Abi Bakr said to him, “You want us to entrust you to Allah in the affair of your son, but, by Allah, we will not do that. By Allah, return this affair as a matter of shura among the Muslims or we will bring it against you all over again.”[132]
Nomination (wilayatul ‘ahd) is not bay’ah
It should be noted that bay’ah is a contract between the Muslims and the Caliph. Bay’ah cannot be given to a successor while the previous Caliph is still in office, as Mu’awiya did. Abdullah ibn Al-Zubayr said to Mu’awiya, “Allegiance to both of you can never be combined.”[133] Making Yazid the crown prince was not a valid bay’ah but simply a contract of nomination (wilayatul ‘ahd). After Mu’awiya’s death the Muslim representatives were free to dispose of this nomination and choose someone else if they so wished. This is similar to Abu Bakr’s nomination of Umar. The bay’ah was only given to Umar ibn Al-Khattab after Abu Bakr had passed away.
Ibn Taymiyyah elaborates on this point. “Similarly, ‘Umar became the Imam when they gave him the bay’ah and obeyed him. Had it been destined that they would not have implemented the ‘Ahd (delegation) of Abu Bakr in respect to ‘Umar, then he would not have become the Imam, whether that was permissible or not.
That is because the allowed and prohibited relate to the actions whilst the ruling and authority represent an expression of the occurring power or capability. Had it been destined that Abu Bakr gave the bay’ah to ‘Umar alongside a group whilst the remainder of the Sahabah refrained from giving him the bay’ah, then he would not have become an Imam by that. He only became an Imam by the bay’ah (pledge) of the majority of the people and for that reason the holding back of Sa’d (i.e. Sa’d ibn ‘Ubaadah from the Ansar) did not harm that because it does not impair or diminish what is intended in terms of the Wilaayah (authority, ruling and leadership).
As for ‘Umar having rushed to give him the bay’ah then there must be a precedent in respect to every bay’ah. As for his delegation (or nomination) to ‘Umar then that was completed through the Muslims giving the bay’ah to him after the death of Abu Bakr after which he became an Imam.”[134]
Attempts to transfer the bay’ah back to shura
During the Umayyad period there were two caliphs who attempted to transfer the bay’ah back to one of shura instead of hereditary rule. They are Mu’awiya ibn Yazid ibn Mu’awiya and Umar ibn Abdul-Aziz.
Mu’awiya ibn Yazid was made wali al-ahd (heir apparent) by his father Yazid ibn Mu’awiya. Like his father he received the bay’ah from the Ahlul hali wal-aqd in Ash-Sham but the Ahlul hali wal-aqd in Hijaz gave bay’ah to Abdullah ibn Al-Zubayr.
Mu’awiya ibn Yazid was a pious and honest man but he was only in power for forty days before passing away. He is noted as one of the Umayyads who tried to remove hereditary rule and bring back shura for the bay’ah. He assembled the people together and said: “O people! Indeed, I have been entrusted with your affairs while I am weak and unable. I would therefore like for you to concede leadership to a man of strength in the same manner that as-Siddiq i.e. Abu Bakr) endowed ‘Umar. If you will, then appoint a committee for consultation comprised of six persons from amongst you as ‘Umar bin al-Khattab did; for just one of you cannot be right concerning it. And so, I have bequeathed your affairs to yourselves, therefore you should appoint the one that is most fitting to undertake leadership over you.”
He then stepped down and entered his house, and did not come out until he had died. It is believed that he was either poisoned or stabbed.[135] Another martyr in trying to correct the bay’ah and reverse hereditary rule.
Mu’awiya ibn Yazid marks the end of what historians call the Sufyanid authority i.e. rulers from Banu Umayyah who are from Abu Sufyan’s lineage, and the start of the Marwanids, i.e. rulers from Marwan ibn al-Hakam’s line.
Umar bin Abdul-Aziz (r.99-101H / 717-720CE)
Umar bin Abdul-Aziz did manage to revive the process of shura which is one of the reasons why he is counted among the rightly guided Caliphs, and also known as a mujaddid (reviver). “Having now officially assumed the seat of the Caliphate, Umar ascended the Minbar (pulpit) in what would be his first encounter with the Ummah. He said: “O people! I have been burdened with the responsibilities of the Caliphate against my own will and without your consent. I thereby remove the bay’ah to me that is on your necks so that you are at liberty to elect anyone whom you like.” But the audience cried out with one voice that he was the fittest person for the high office and said: “We have chosen you, O Amir al-Mu’mineen, and we are pleased that you have blessed and honoured our good affair.” At this juncture, Umar sensed that he was not going to be able to evade bearing the responsibility of the Caliphate, and so he decided to go on with determining his method and approach in dealing with the politics of the Muslim Ummah…”[136]
After Umar bin Abdul-Aziz’s death, the Umayyads continued with the wiliyatul-Ahd (succession contract) and so Yazeed ibn Abdul-Malik (Yazeed II) became the caliph according to the contract laid down by his brother Sulayman ibn Abdul-Malik.
Bay’ah through Domination
The last way of appointing a caliph by the ummah is where a usurper or dominant sultan takes power by force. Since the ummah in origin has not consented to this dominant sultan then he cannot be a caliph and the bay’ah would be considered batil as one of its pillars (rukn) is missing. The bay’ah is a contract and must conform to the rules of contracts in Islam which is free choice and consent of both parties.
If the ummah and her representatives decide to accept the legitimacy of this ruler, then the bay’ah will become legally convened. Ibn Hajar says, “The jurists have unanimously agreed that it is obligatory to obey the dominant sultan and jihad with him, and that obedience to him is better than revolting against him because of that of shedding blood and pacifying the masses.”[137]
Such a situation has been permitted by the ‘ulema but it is an emergency situation and should not be the norm. If this occurred in a future Islamic state due to the removal of a corrupt caliph in a coup d’etat for instance, then elections need to be held as soon as is feasibly possible because the ummah is the source of authority not the dominant sultan.
Shaykh Khudari Bak says, “There is a fourth way [of bay’ah] which the scholars after the first era instituted for the establishment of the imamate, and that is by way of dominance. This happens when the Muslims have no imam, there are differences among them, and they cannot agree on a particular person. In such a situation, it is lawful for a person who knows that he has the capacity to lead the Muslim community because of his knowledge or the influence of his tribe, to demand this post of caliph. He would hence oblige the people to obey him, whether they responded willingly or by force. Once the situation subsides and his claim is accepted, his caliphate will be established and obedience to him will become obligatory.”[138]
Dr. Wahbah Az-Zuhaili says “Subjugation (Al-Qahr) is an exceptional circumstance which does not conform to the origin which dictates that the authority be established by choice. Approving or accepting it, is based upon giving consideration to a situation that has befallen due to the necessity (Daroorah) and to prevent the shedding of blood …”[139]
Muhammad Haykal says, “Likewise, in respect to the method of gaining mastery (At-Taghallub), the Mutaghallib (one who takes over the rule by force) does not become the caliph by the mere taking control over the authority. Rather, he would only become the caliph at a time when the people accept him (by choice) and give the bay’ah to him. If they refuse to give him the bay’ah (pledge) he would remain a ruler who has usurped the authority.
That is just like when a person usurps a commodity from another and then if that other accepts and sells it to him (the usurper) the ownership of the property would be transferred to him. However, if the owner remains adamant about not selling the commodity to the usurper, then the one refusing remains the rightful Shar’i (legal) owner of the commodity. The usurper would remain as such irrespective of how much time passes over his usurpation.”[140]
Yazid ibn Mu’awiya and Abdul-Malik ibn Marwan gain power through force
Two examples of the use of force to take the bay’ah during the Umayyad Caliphate, are the rule of Yazid ibn Mu’awiya (r.60-64H/680-683CE) and Abdul-Malik ibn Marwan (r.73-86H/692-705CE).
There is ikhtilaaf (difference of opinion) among the ulema on Yazid’s legitimacy. Many scholars accept he was a legitimate caliph such as Al-Dhahabi, but that he was sinful and blameworthy for the oppression and persecution he committed against the sahaba, and the murder of al-Hussain and his family. Others such as Ibn Al-Jawzi reject his legitimacy and call him a usurper, because he never had a legally convened bay’ah that was given through free choice and consent by the majority of the Ahlul hali wal-aqd (political representatives of the ummah). The strongest opinion seems to be that of Ibn Al-Jawzi that Yazid was not a legitimate caliph.
It was mentioned in the Tafseer of Al-Alusi: “Ibn al-Jawzi (May Allah’s mercy be upon him) stated in his book: ‘As-Sirr ul-Masun’: “From the general beliefs that is prevalent amongst those attributed to the Sunnah is that they say: That Yazid was in the right and that Al-Hussain (ra) was wrong to rebel against him. Had they examined the Seerahs they would have become aware of how the bay’ah was contracted to him and that the people were compelled with it! And that he did every ugly (or abominable) act. If we would have evaluated the Sihhah (correctness and validity) of the bay’ah contract, then there appeared from it all that would oblige the annulment of the contract. Nobody inclines to that view except every ignorant person, blind in the Madhhab who believes that by adopting that opinion he is being harsh against the Rawaafid (i.e. Shi’ah).”[141]
With regards to Abdul-Malik, Suyuti summarises his bay’ah. “He received the bay’ah according to his father’s contract during the Caliphate of Ibn Al-Zubayr, but his Caliphate was not valid and he remained as the usurper (mutaghallib) of Egypt and Syria. He then seized Iraq and its provinces before Ibn Al-Zubayr was killed in 73H/692CE. From that day, his Caliphate became valid and his authority firmly established.”[142]
This then explains the difference between the bay’ah to Yazid ibn Mu’awiya and Abdul-Malik ibn Marwan who were both usurpers. The bay’ah to Yazid was never legally convened because the Ahlul hali wal-aqd never gave bay’ah through free choice and consent. Whereas with Abdul-Malik, the Ahlul hali wal-aqd in Hijaz and Iraq, finally agreed to give bay’ah once Abdullah ibn Al-Zubayr had been killed by Abdul-Malik’s infamous commander, Hajjaj bin Yusuf. Among those who gave bay’ah to Abdul-Malik after Ibn Al-Zubayr’s death were Abdullah ibn Umar and his family in Madinah.
Bukhari narrates from Abdullah bin Dinar: “I witnessed Ibn Umar when the people gathered around Abdul Malik. Ibn Umar wrote: ‘I gave the bay’ah that I will listen to and obey Allah’s Slave, Abdul-Malik, Ameer of the believers according to Allah’s Laws and the Traditions of His Messenger as much as I can; and my sons too, give the same pledge.’”[143]
There are numerous examples in Islamic history of rulers taking power and then the ummah consenting to their rule, legitimising the bay’ah. This occurred not just in the Umayyad period but also in the Abbasid and Ottoman Caliphates.
What enabled this abnormal situation to become the norm?
Rashid Rida answers this question. “You know now that what enabled—and enables—tyrants to rule is nothing but the partisan support of their own kin. Tyrants are motivated purely by a desire for power. Their aim in fighting is not to glorify Allah’s word, nor is it to establish the scales of truth and justice for all people. This community has had its affairs corrupted and its power stripped by nothing other than:
• people assuming that obedience to unjust and violent rulers is an absolute obligation under the shari‘ah
• people assuming that the rule of tyranny is lawful under the shari‘ah
• people assuming that the rule of a tyrant has the same legal validity as the rule of a rightful imam, an imam whose rule rests on a pledge of allegiance given by those in authority and those who loose and bind who elected him
• every unjust tyrant restricting authority and power and might to his own family by asserting that the right to appoint his son, or someone else among his kin, is his entitlement under the shari‘ah, and a principle to be observed in and of itself
• the failure to see how Mu‘awiyah’s designation of his son Yazid as his successor differed from Abu Bakr As-Siddiq’s designation of ‘Umar bin al-Khattab. Yazid was a dissolute wrongdoer, and Mu‘awiyah’s designation of him was rejected by the Muslims. ‘Umar, the just imam, was a man of great virtue. Abu Bakr consulted with the people who loose and bind, persuading them and receiving their consent before designating him.”[144]
How to maintain authority with the ummah?
The societal concept of the source of authority (masdar al-sultah) being with the ummah, requires continuous education and culturing (تربية tarbiya) to keep it alive. Rashid Ridda says, “Nor should people allow power to become like a ball that tyrants can kick back and forth between themselves, and receive from each other. Those living in nations who have been wronged allowed that to happen, assenting to that because they were ignorant of the power that was latent within themselves. They did not realize that the power wielded by their monarchs and emirs was actually their own.”[145]
In an Islamic society, these concepts which underpin the societal relationships must be based on the Islamic ‘aqeeda (belief), which creates a distinct viewpoint of life. This viewpoint then creates an opinion on which interests are deemed important and necessary, leading the people to establish an authority to fulfil these interests. In the words of Ibn al-Qayyim, “Ponder upon the Hikmah (Wisdom) of Allah عز وجل where He has made people’s kings, leaders, and those of authority over them, of the same kind as their own deeds. It is as if the people’s deeds appeared in the forms of their kings and leaders. If the people are upright, then their kings and rulers will be upright, and if they turn away (from uprightness), then their leaders will turn against them. And if they oppress and tyrannize, then their kings and rulers will tyrannize and oppress.”[146]
There are five areas of society which are responsible for maintaining the concepts which underpin the societal relationships at the core of which are sovereignty is with the sharia, and authority is with the ummah. These areas are individual citizens, groups, educational establishments, media and state institutions which provides a safeguard for society as Ibn Taymiyyah says, “The Ummah is the safeguard for the shar’a.”[147]
Individuals
Preserving the ummah as the source of authority in society, and ensuring the government and its policies are in line with the sharia, starts first and foremost with the individuals of the ummah changing themselves, and their societal concepts, which should lead eventually to a natural change in the political authority of the state. Allah ta’ala says,
“Indeed, Allāh will not change the condition of a people until they change what is in themselves.”[148]
If the people change in the direction of obedience to Allah and His sharia, then this is a good change full of blessings. If however, they change in the direction of disobedience and abandoning the sharia, then this entails the displeasure of Allah, and may even lead to punishment and affliction descending upon the society. This links to the last part of the verse,
“Verily, if people see an oppressor and they do not seize his hand, Allah will soon send His punishment upon all of them.”[150]
“As mentioned previously in the discussion on society, Taqiuddin an-Nabhani says, “if people were in agreement in their viewpoint about the interests, in a country such as Iraq[151] for instance, the authority would lie in the Ummah; and if there were no foreign power, stronger than her, intellectually and militarily, dominating her, she would in such a country establish someone to run her affairs, i.e. she would establish the authority that manages her interests, or she would keep silent about those who appointed themselves to manage her interests.”[152]
All people can play a part to the best of their individual abilities. In a hadeeth[153] the Prophet ﷺ said,
“So be mindful of Allah to the best of your ability”[155]
Groups
If structured correctly, then groups of whatever form can have a positive effect on the society and contribute towards change. The general permission to form any type of group is taken from the Qur’an where Allah (ta’ala) says,
وَتَعَاوَنُوا۟ عَلَى ٱلْبِرِّ وَٱلتَّقْوَىٰ
“Cooperate with one another in goodness and righteousness”[156]
Whatever path someone embarks upon they will almost certainly end up forming some type of group no matter how small, because an individual has limited time and resources. This is why individual YouTubers may start out on their own but over time require financial assistance for equipment, software, editing, and other production costs which they receive through Patreon sponsorship.
The objective of the group will determine the type of structure required. An educational group will have one shape and a political party another shape. These are all permitted administrative structures within the sharia.
If the groups are focussed on the betterment of society with healthy competition among them, and reject partisanship and ‘cult-like’ tendencies, then they can make great change. This is what we saw with the sahaba who under the leadership of the Prophet ﷺ literally changed the world.
What cannot be allowed in an Islamic society is the creation of ‘cult-like’ entities which create fitna and oppression, and ultimately end up destroying people’s lives. These are the type of groups as Margaret Singer says that “create fortified boundaries, confining their membership in various ways and attacking those who would leave as defectors, deserters, or traitors; they recruit new members with ruthless energy and raise enormous sums of money; and they tend to view the outside world with increasing hostility and distrust as the organization ossifies.”[157]
Case Study: Role of Sufism in Islamicising Türkiye
The transformation of Türkiye under Erdogan and the AKP away from extreme secular values has been dramatic and something I have personally witnessed. During the 90s Muslims were leaving Türkiye as it was too un-Islamic. People with beards and hijabs were singled out for harrassment. Contrast this to nowadays where many from the west are moving to Istanbul which has a sizeable ex-pat community from western nations.
In May 1999, Merve Kavakci, a newly elected woman MP for the pro-Islamic Virtue Party appeared in parliament wearing a headscarf. She faced a strong reaction from secular MPs and the Prime Minister at the time. She was booed, shouted at and prevented from taking her oath of office. Fast forward 20 years and she became the Turkish ambassador to Malaysia![157.5]
This change in Türkiye didn’t happen overnight but was the result of decades of tarbiya. Soner Cagaptay describes one of the influencers of this change – the Sufi sheikh Mehmet Zahid Kotku.
“The Islamists who followed Erbakan into politics—including Erdogan, who would later name his first-born son, Necmettin Bilal, after his political idol—gained their distinct world view in part from membership of an immersive spiritual community. More than a few of the MSP’s (National Salvation Party) top politicians were members of the Iskenderpasa mosque in Istanbul’s conservative Fatih district, led by the Sufi sheikh Mehmet Zahid Kotku. It was here that these men developed and refined their alternative vision for state and society in Turkey. Their community’s roots ran deep. Shunned by the Kemalist state, the Sufi community evolved to meet the new circumstances of the republic. After the Sufi lodges were shuttered, the sheikhs met with their communities informally, in mosque gardens or in private homes. Many took positions as state-appointed imams at mosques, quietly carrying on their Sufi role as well. Kotku, the imam of the Iskenderpasa mosque, came from just such a tradition. During Kotku’s tenure, which began in 1952, the Iskenderpasa lodge was coming into its own as a place of fellowship for Imam Hatip-educated and other conservative professionals and businessmen, many of whom felt alienated in Istanbul’s secular, European-influenced public life. In spite of his secular upbringing, Erbakan, for instance, was a deeply devout man with reservations about the West and secularism, and his attitude reflected that of a typical Islamic community member.
Sufi communities are traditionally founded upon the deep ties (rabita) that bind followers to a sheikh, whose authority is passed down through a line of teachers that ostensibly reaches all the way back to the Prophet Muhammad. The sheikh leads his community in interactive conversations to instruct them on matters of ethics and morality. Kotku’s followers marveled at the incisiveness of the leader’s conversation. Even outsiders praised Kotku for the cogent, unadorned style of his teachings, which were interwoven with practical messages. Kotku himself never expressed a desire to become overtly involved in politics. It is said that in the years leading up to his death in 1980, he admitted his regret at the extent to which his community had become embroiled in the political contests of the day. But Kotku’s message was undeniably political: his teachings offered a depiction of a just society that implied clear prescriptions for political action. In these teachings, Islam provided a model for the organization of the country’s economy. From Islamic principles, Kotku suggested, it is possible to derive answers on how to govern, even on fairly technical, economic matters. Community members would come to Kotku for practical political advice as well: Turkish politician Korkut Ozal claims that his brother Turgut Ozal, who would later become the country’s prime minister and president, first tried to enter the legislature on the Islamist MSP ticket in 1977 because Kotku advised him to do so. As a young man Erdogan also attended the Iskenderpasa mosque, as did later AKP leaders such as Abdulkadir Aksu and Besir Atalay.”[158]
Educational Establishments
Traditional institutions such as schools, colleges and universities can be very effective in nurturing the next generation towards change. This can only occur if these centres of learning contain practical curriculums and employ effective teaching methods. Mohammad As-Sallabi says,
“The sahaba did not treat Islamic knowledge as if it were a series of facts that are pertinent exclusively to the sphere of the mind, but have nothing to do with the heart or with actions. As a result of acquiring knowledge about Allah, His Names, His attributes, and His actions, the Prophet’s Companions loved Allah; worshipped Him; longed not only to meet Him, but also to enjoy looking at His Noble Countenance; glorified Him; feared Him; strove hard to avoid doing those things that would bring upon them His wrath and punishment; hoped for reward from Him – for Paradise and His Good Pleasure; and cherished good thoughts about Him. Hence they embodied the positive effects of having knowledge of and faith in Allah: love, fear, and hope.”[159]
Institutions which do not conform to this method of culturing will produce people with lots of information but no understanding. Allah ta’ala gives a beautiful analogy of knowledge which does not benefit the person:
“The example of those who were entrusted with ˹observing˺ the Torah but failed to do so, is that of a donkey carrying books.”[160]
Meaning, they can carry the physical burden of the books, but do not understand a word of them.
The most famous institution of change in Islamic history is Dar al-Arqam founded in the early years of the daw’ah in Makkah. Mohammad As-Sallabi describes the impact of this establishment.
“The house of Al-Arqam ibn Abi Arqam was the greatest institution of higher learning that mankind has ever known; how can this not be so, when its teacher was the Messenger of Allah ﷺ the teacher of all of mankind. Upon graduation, the students of that school served humanity by helping to free people from the shackles of servitude to all created beings and by doing their part to bring people out from the darkness of disbelief and into the light of iman (faith).
The graduates of the house of Al-Arqam became great men in their own right, for even after the Prophet’s ﷺ death, they continued, with an inexhaustible supply of energy, to spread the message of Truth to all of mankind. So great were the graduates of that school that no one from the centuries that followed them equalled a single one of the likes of Abu Bakr As-Siddeeq, ‘Umar ibn Al-Khattaab, ‘Uthmaan ibn ‘Affaan, ‘Alee ibn Abee Taalib, Sa’d ibn Abee Waqqaas, and so on.
In less than one half of a century, the singularly superior men that the Prophet ﷺ educated were blessed with many great victories as they carried the message of Tawheed (Islamic Monotheism) all over the world. In the early years of his Prophethood, the Messenger of Allah ﷺ wisely chose and trained the key people that would be needed to lead the Muslim nation through its glorious first century of being. It is with that end in mind – the spread of Islam all over Arabia and to many parts of the world – that we can truly appreciate the early days of education and training in the house of Al-Arqam.”[161]
When looking back to Islamic history we find that behind all the great figures are great teachers. The famous Seljuk wazir Nizam ul-Mulk (d.1092) established the Nizamiye (النظامیة) universities in the 11th century. Imam Al-Juwayni was head of one of these Nizamiye and Imam Al-Ghazali was a professor at the Baghdad Nizamiye. Although it took decades, these institutions worked in the background educating a huge number of scholars who then went out in to society as tutors and Imams of mosques, creating an environment which enabled the likes of Salahudin Ayyubi to emerge, and finally defeat the crusaders who had occupied the holy land of Palestine for nearly 100 years.
Media
The media has always played a pivotal role in accounting governments and shaping public opinion. Its form may have evolved over the ages but its impact is still feared by the ruling classes.
When the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ began his mission in Makkah it was this ruling class that immediately clamped down on him and the early Muslims to prevent the spread of the message.
The government of the Caliphate does not have a monopoly on the media. Any citizen of the Islamic State is allowed to set up media whether newspapers, magazines, radio or television. Permission is not required to establish this type of media, although a licensing mechanism will be in place and a code of conduct that must be adhered to.
All states have limits to the general remit of the press and they must operate within the law. The Islamic State is no different in this regard except the underlying values of the society impose different limits on what is acceptable and unacceptable speech. Sensitive information related to national security cannot be published. Slander, libel, incitement, racism, insulting religious beliefs and the propagation of depraved and misguided cultures are not allowed by sharia.
The media within the Caliphate has full rights to account the Caliph and his government, investigate any government oppression (mazlama), or other issues that pose a danger or are in the interests of the society at large. The media can investigate and publish this without fear of any arrest or persecution.
The work of the media within the Caliphate falls under the general obligation of enjoining the good (ma’ruf) and forbidding the evil (munkar) which is a collective duty on society as a whole.
“Let there be a group among you who call ˹others˺ to goodness, encourage what is good, and forbid what is evil—it is they who will be successful.”[162]
The first thing that Amir al-Mu’mineen Ali said after he was appointed [as caliph] was: “No one has any right to this matter (the position of leader) except the one you appoint, and I cannot decide any matter without your approval.”
This is similar to what Abu Bakr said when he was appointed: “If I do well, then help me, and if I do wrong, then set me straight.”
Umar said something like it: “The dearest of people to me is the one who points out my mistakes to me.” Umar also said: “I am afraid that I may do wrong and no one will stop me for fear of me.”
Uthman said something with the same meaning: “If you find in the Book of Allah that you should put my leg in chains, then put my leg in chains.”
This is how the caliphs acted in the era of the Rightly Guided Caliphs. They submitted to the right of the Ummah to watch over the rulers, and no one objected, which indicates that there was agreement (ijma) on this.”[163]
State Institutions
The two main state institutions where the ummah and her representatives practically enact their authority is the Majlis al-Nuwwab (House of Representatives) and the Dar al-’Adl (House of Justice). They are loosely equivalent to a lower and upper house in a bicameral democratic system. The Majlis (lower house) is elected by the people, whereas the Dar al-’Adl (upper house) will be appointed consisting of ‘ulema who will scrutinise government legislation and policies, and deal with disputes between the Majlis and the caliph.
The Majlis institutionalises the principle of shura and the Dar al-’Adl institutionalises the principle of addressing Mazalim (government oppression). It is these two bodies which play a key role in the bay’ah and ensuring the caliph fulfils the bay’ah contract throughout his rule. The groups, educational training of scholars and the media all revolve around these two bodies.
Muhammad al-Ghazali says, “Al-Shura is a great Islamic principle! But, the means of realizing shura and setting up its apparatus has not been specified for us. It would appear that this is intended for differences in environment and level of civilization; rather we notice that one ummah of a high civilization changed the means of shura in it a number of times depending upon its experiences and the relative benefits.” [164]
Conclusion
Noah Feldman asks an important question. “All this brings us to the question of whether, in power, Islamists could in fact bring about the rule of law. As the case of Iran shows, a government organized in the name of Islam can be as constitutionally corrupt as a secular autocracy and so may find itself equally unpopular with its citizens. If the Islamists cannot deliver political justice, they will find themselves discredited like their predecessors. Yet if the Islamists can deliver on their promise of justice, it seems more than possible that a return to some form of shari‘a governance could spread throughout the Arab and Muslim worlds.
Whether this will happen depends ultimately upon the Islamists’ ability to develop new institutions that would find their own original and distinctive way of giving real life to the ideals of Islamic law. This could be an Islamically oriented legislature, infused with the spirit of a democratized shari‘a; or it could be a court exercising Islamic judicial review to shape and influence laws passed in its shadow. In either case, however, such an institution on its own would not be enough to deliver the rule of law. Under the influence of the legislative branch, the judicial branch, or even both, the executive branch would have to develop a commitment to obeying legal and constitutional judgments.”[165]
Without constant vigilance and watching over the society in the areas discussed above, then any constitution or government no matter how Islamic it is on paper, will never be practically implemented upon the people.
Rashid Rida highlights this point, “failing to act and rule in accordance with the shari‘ah in some matters leads to failing to do so in other matters. Or, it creates a situation in which it becomes impossible to adhere to the shari‘ah, as what was originally a source of pure benefit has become a cause of corruption. That then affects the community’s thinking, morality, and customs, until it is transformed through great changes in its core values and distinctive characteristics. Evil and good, falsehood and truth: each emboldens and supports those of its kind. The Islamic community forsook what would have protected it from declining and falling in that manner, and built the steps to progress for it. It forsook what would have enabled it to derive ordinances from the shari‘ah’s rules that befit its condition in every era, and attain a state of perfection.”[166]
Notes
[1] Al-Ghazali’s Moderation in Belief: Al-Iqtiṣād fi al-I‘tiqād, translated by A M Yaqub, University of Chicago Press, Chicago and London, 2013, p.229
[2] ‘Ad-Dawlah Wa Nizhaam Al-Hisbah in the view Ibn Taymiyyah, Muhammad Al-Mubaarak: 38
[3] Ibn Taymiyyah, ‘The Political Shariyah on Reforming the Ruler and The Ruled,’ Translation of as-Siyasah ash-Shari’ah fi Islah ar-Ra’i war-Ra’iyah, Dar ul Fiqh, UK, p.256
[5] Abu l-Hasan al-Mawardi, The Laws of Islamic Governance, translation of Al-Ahkam as-Sultaniyah, Ta Ha Publishers, p.10
[6] Ibn ‘Abd Rabbih, ‘The Unique Necklace,’ translation of Al-‘Iqd al-Farid, Volume I, ‘The Center for Muslim Contribution to Civilization,’ Garnet Publishing, 2006, p.6; Arabic original: https://shamela.ws/book/23789/12
[18] Abu Hilal al- Askari, “A Thesaurus of Assumed Synonyms in Arabic”, a translation of al-Furūq fī l-lugha. Adaptation By Prof Dr Mohammad Akram Chaudhary, p.408; Original Arabic: https://shamela.ws/book/10414/256
[28] Muhammad Rashid Rida, ‘The Caliphate or Supreme Imamate,’ Translated by Simon A Wood, Yale University Press, 2024, p.60; Original Arabic: https://shamela.ws/book/9682
[34] Al-Ghazali’s Moderation in Belief: Al-Iqtiṣād fi al-I‘tiqād, translated by A M Yaqub, University of Chicago Press, Chicago and London, 2013, p.229
[37] Hüseyin Yılmaz, ‘Caliphate Redefined: The Mystical Turn in Ottoman Political Thought,’ Princeton University Press, 2018, p.184; Tursun Beg, Tarih- i Ebu’l- Feth, 15
[48] In Rousseau’s model the people are sovereign and therefore the government is there to fulfil their interests, whereas in an Islamic state the sharia is sovereign so the government fulfils the peoples interests within the limits of the sharia. If the people wanted alcohol legalised for Muslims [dhimmi are permitted to drink] then no Islamic government could ever undertake this no matter the demand since the sharia is the ultimate law in the state. This has already been discussed in the article Sovereignty in an Islamic State.
[49] Jean Jacques Rousseau, ‘The Social Contract,’ Translated by G. D. H. Cole, public domain, Book II, p.18
[50] Scholars have used different istilahi (technical) terms for the foundations of ruling. The word used here is qa’ida which is a synonym to usul in his context.
[55] Al-Waqba is a small cave at the top of the mountain where bees put honey, which is the most delicious and expensive type of honey. He said: Abu Dhuayb Al-Hudhali He headed to a dome in the top of a mountain, below the setting sun, with an elegant harvest.
[57] Ibn Hajar comments on this: “In respect to his statement: “lest both of them should be killed” it means: A warning to beware of being killed. The meaning of the term used here is تغرة (Taghirratan) which is derived from أغررته تغريرا ‘That the one does that has deceived himself and his companion and exposed them both to being killed.’” [Fat’h ul-Bari’ 12/144]
[59] Muhammad Khayr Haykal, ‘Al-Jihad wa’l Qital fi as-Siyasa ash-Shar’iyya,’ vol.1, The Eighth Study, Qitaal Mughtasib As-Sultah (Fighting the usurper of the authority)
[63] A relative pronoun (الاسم الموصول) in Arabic grammar is a pronoun that begins a relative clause and relates it to the main sentence where it is contained. There are terms like “who,” “whose,” “which,” and so on do the same role in the English language. https://kalimah-center.com/arabic-relative-pronouns-and-relative-clauses/
[72] The Majlis al-Nuwwab is not a legislature like we find in the western liberal democracies. It does a legislative function but within a strict framework limiting voting to administrative laws only. Sharia laws will be subject to ijtihad and undertaken by the ‘ulema (scholars) in the Majlis only.
The hidden pronoun (dameer mustatir) in the verb تصير is a هي and it refers back to the word Khilafah. This doesn’t mean the Khilafah will end after thirty years, rather it means the Khilafah will continue but with the characteristics of mulk. Sayf ad-Deen al-Amidi (d.1233CE) says,
أنه قال: «ثم تصير ملكا» والضمير فى قوله: تصير ملكا، إنما هو عائد إلى الخلافة؛ إذ لا مذكور يمكن عود الضمير إليه غير الخلافة، وتقدير الكلام، ثم تصير الخلافة ملكا، حكم عليها بأنها تصير ملكا، والحكم على الشيء، يستدعى وجود ذلك الشيء He ﷺ said, «ثم تصير ملكا» “Then it becomes a kingdom.” The [hidden] pronoun in his phrase, تصير ملكا “It becomes a kingdom,” refers to the caliphate, as there is no mentioned entity to which the pronoun can refer other than the caliphate. The interpretation of the statement, ثم تصير الخلافة ملكا “Then the caliphate becomes a kingdom,” is a hukm that it will become a kingdom, and a ruling on something requires the existence of that thing. [Sayf ad-Deen al-Amidi, ‘al-Imaamah min abkar al-afkar fi usul ad-din,’ Shamela edition, p.1151]
[94] Sayyid Abu’l A‘la Mawdūdī, ‘Islam’s Political Order-The Model, Deviations And Muslim Response,’ Translated by Tarik Jan Edited by Anis Ahmad, IPS Press 2018, p.81
[95] Eric J. Hanne, ‘Putting the Caliph in His Place: Power, Authority, and the Late Abbasid Caliphate,’ 2007, Fairleigh Dickinson University Press, p.64
[96] Asrul-Khilaafah Ar-Raashidah, by Al-Umaree p.40
[100] Abaatel Yajibu An-Tamuhhu Minat-Taareekh, by Ibraaheem Shu’oot (p.101)
[101] Abu Ja`far Muhammad b. Jarir al-Tabari, ‘The History of Al-Tabari’, translation of Ta’rikh al-rusul wa’l-muluk, State University of New York Press, Volume X, p.1
[102] Dr Ali Muhammad As-Sallabi, ‘The Biography of Abu Bakr As-Siddeeq’, Dar us-Salam Publishers, p.250
[110] Umar included Talha ibn Ubayd Allah but since he was travelling he didn’t participate
[111] The individual opinion and ijtihad of a sahabi (may Allah be pleased with all) is not a binding sharia daleel. Only their consensus (‘ijma) is a binding daleel.
[119] Musnad Ahmed bin Hanbal (Hadith # 18430), As-Saheeha al-Albani (Hadith # 5). It has been declared Hasan by Sh’uaib Arnaoot, and al-Albani classified it as Sahih. The text quoted is the one from Musnad Ahmed.
[120]https://www.islamweb.net/ar/library/index.php?page=bookcontents&flag=1&ID=6074&bk_no=22 The hidden pronoun (dameer mustatir) in the verb تصير is a هي and it refers back to the word Khilafah. This doesn’t mean the Khilafah will end after thirty years, rather it means the Khilafah will continue but with the characteristics of mulk. Sayf ad-Deen al-Amidi (1156-1233CE) says, “He ﷺ said: ثم تصير ملكا ‘then it will become a mulkan’. The personal pronoun (dameer) in تصير ملكا ‘taseeru mulkan’ refers to the Khilafah. Since the mentioned (verb) cannot refer to anything other than the Khilafah, it’s as if it is saying ‘and then the Khilafah becomes a mulk’. It judged that the Khilafah will become a mulk, where the judgment on a thing requires that the thing itself still exists.” [Sayf ad-Deen al-Amidi, ‘al-Imaamah min abkar al-afkar fi usul ad-din,’ p.306; Kamal Abu-Zahra, ‘The Centrality of the Khilafah in Islam,’ p.48]
[121] Ibn Kathir, ‘The Khilafah of Banu Umayyah,’ translation of Bidiyah wan-Nihiya, Darussalam, p.21
[128] This is not a bay’ah contract but a wiliyatul-‘ahd which is not binding a simply a recommendation of nomination. The ummah are free to ignore it or accept it.
[134] ‘Al-Muntaqaa Min Minhaaj Al-I’tidaal’, Adh-Dhabiy and ‘Ikhtisaar Minhaaj As-Sunnah, Ibn Taymiyyah: p57 from (‘Ad-Dawlah Wa Nizhaam ul-Hisbah in the view of Ibn Taymiyyah’, by Muhammad Al-Mubaarak: 37)
[135] Ibn Kathir, ‘The Khilafah of Banu Umayyah,’ translation of Bidiyah wan-Nihiya, Darussalam, p.205
[136] Dr. Ali Muhammad As-Sallabi, ‘Umar bin Abd al-Aziz,’ Darussalam, p.107
[152] From the writings of Taqiuddin an-Nabhani 1961
[153] There is ikhtilaaf (difference of opinion) on the strength of the isnad (chain) in this hadith.
The isnad is: Muhammad ibn Idris –> Ahmad ibn Abi al-Hawari –> Marwan ibn Muhammad –> Yazid ibn al-Samt –> al-Wadhin ibn Ata –> Yazid ibn Marthad
The last in the chain is Yazid ibn Marthad who met and transmitted from three sahaba – Ubadah bin As-Samit, Shiddad bin Aws, and Wathilah bin Al-Asqa’. He is therefore a Tabi’ and considered a trustworthy narrator.
The actual sahabi who narrated this from the Prophet ﷺ is missing, making the hadith mursal. The opinion held by Imam Malik and all Maliki jurists and others is that the mursal of a trustworthy person is valid, although in this hadith Al-Albani doesn’t accept this.
The dispute is over al-Wadhin ibn Ata. Al-Albani is of the opinion that al-Wadhin ibn Ata is weak and so the hadith is da’if. Other scholars including Sheikh Bin Baz (d.1999) who quotes this hadith, are of the opinion that al-Wadhin ibn Ata is trustworthy.
Therefore, the hadith for these scholars is hasan, which is the opinion I have adopted and Allah knows best.
The meaning is also in conformity with another famous hadith in Bukhari and Muslim,وَكُلُّكُمْ مَسْئُولٌ عَنْ رَعِيَّتِهِ “Each of you is a guardian and responsible for his charges.”
Professor Mohammad Hashim Kamali, is the founding CEO of IAIS (International Institute of Advanced Islamic Studies) in Malaysia. He has featured for many years in The 500 Most Influential Muslims in the World, and written numerous books on Islamic law and constitutionalism. This is an excerpt from one of his books ‘Citizenship and Accountability of Government: An Islamic Perspective’.
The 12 Principles.
(1) Political authority in the Islamic system of rule belongs to the community (ummah) as it is the community that elects the head of state and is ultimately entitled to depose him in the event of manifest abuse.
(2) Consultation and the right of the people to be consulted in government affairs is one of the principal means by which the community participates in government, voices its concerns over government policy, and takes the government to account.
(3) The Qur’anic principle of promotion of good and prevention of evil (amr bi’l-ma’ruf wa-nahy ‘an al-munkar) and its allied concept of giving sincere advice (nasihah) also render the government accountable to the people and encourage public participation in its affairs.
(4) There is no recognition in Shari’ah of any prerogative or exception to the rule of law. No one is above the law and this includes the head of state and all government officials including the administration and consultative assemblies.
(5) The community is vested with the right to depose Haqq al-‘azl of a deviant ruler and government.[1]
(6) The citizen’s duty to obey the lawful government comes to an end when the government itself violates the law. A corollary of this is the recognition in Shari’ah of the citizen’s right, under certain circumstances, of disobedience and defiance (Haqq al-khuruj) against a deviant ruler.
(7) Accountability in the Islamic system of rule is also manifested in the selection and appointment of officials, the criteria of selection and dismissal of government employees.
(8) The trust of governance (amanat al-Hukm) in Islam is predicated accountability to God Most High and to the community. This is also a consequence of the concept of vicegerency (khilafah) which entrusts the community to establish a good government.
(9) The Shari’ah also recognizes the right to complaint (Haqq al-shakwa) by one who is wronged or made a victim of official abuse.
(10) Everyone is accountable for what they do. This is the substance of the foundational principle of muhasabat al-nafs, which applies equally to the ruler and ruled.
(11) One of the consequences of accountability under the rule of law is that violators and those who are found guilty of misconduct are liable to the payment of damages, penal sanctions, or both.
(12) Bribery and corruption are punishable offences, and use of official position for personal advantage of any kind is not tolerated.[2]
Notes
[1] This will be through the supreme court (Mahkamat al-Mazalim).
[2] Hashim Kamali, ‘Citizenship and Accountability of Government: An Islamic Perspective,’ The Islamic Texts Society, 2011, p.195
Rashid Rida (d.1935) was a Syrian scholar who was the founder and editor-in-chief of Al-Manar magazine (1898-1940) based in Cairo. This was a monthly periodical and highly influential publication which had a following across the Muslim world.
Sheikh Rashid Rida
Following in the footsteps of Imam Al-Mawardi (d.1058) and his book Al-Ahkam as-Sultaniyyah (The Laws of Islamic Governance) which was the defacto go-to-guide on Islamic ruling for nearly a millennium, Rashid Rida published his own book called ‘The Caliphate or Supreme Imamate’ (الخلافة أو الإمامة العظمى). This book had initially appeared as a series of articles in Rashid Rida’s Al-Manar Islamic magazine throughout the winter of 1922–23 during the tumultuous events of the abolition of Ottoman Sultanate[1] before being formally published as a separate book in 1923.
Cover of the second issue of Al Manār magazine, 1899
In a similar way to Al-Mawardi’s Al-Ahkam as-Sultaniyyah, Rashid Rida’s momentous work first lays out the classical theory of the caliphate and siyasa sharia (Islamic politics), before mapping out practical steps on how to revive a rightly guided caliphate. This is a caliphate based on shura (consultation) where the authority is held with the ummah, who can freely choose and account their rulers. This is in stark contrast to the hereditary system of rule (mulk) that the caliphate had fallen in to since the time of Mu’awiya to the Ottoman caliphs under which Rashid Rida lived. He says, “The Islamic caliphate has essentially been eliminated, and only remnants remain. Yet there are still Muslims among us who are striving to eliminate even those remnants! They imagine that allowing the caliphate to endure in any form weakens the Muslims. But the opposite is the case: eliminating the caliphate is what has weakened the Muslims. Where we do still invoke it we do so to support autocrats. That is a falsehood, one that slanders Islam and the Muslims. Had we held fast to the caliphate’s firm bond, we would have become masters of the world. This is acknowledged by many foreign scholars, but not by any of our own political leaders.”[2]
1920s Middle East
The beginning of the 20th century was a tumultuous time for the Muslim world, with Britain and France literally carving up the Middle East like a cake, and eating from its resources in the same way people eat from a dish. The Messenger of Allah ﷺ foretold this when he said:
‘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 into your hearts.’ Someone asked: ‘Oh Messenger of Allah, what is Al-Wahn?’ He said: ‘Love of the world and dislike of death.’[3]
The infamous Sykes-Picot agreement
What is the Kingdom of Hejaz?
Sharif Hussein, was the Amir and Sharif of Mecca from 1908 under the Ottoman Caliphate. This is a role his family had held since the 10th century. A few generations prior, his family developed a working relationship with Britain. Using the Anglo-Afghan War of 1878 as a pretext, one of his relatives also called Sharif Hussein (r.1877–1880) established a secret dialogue with Britain, and in time, strengthened it until he was assassinated in March 1880.[4]
Sharif Hussein of Mecca
This is why George Birdwood, the first Sheriff of Bombay from 1846 to 1858 suggested that the caliphate be transferred to this Sharif Hussein of Mecca, so the caliphate could remain under British control and used for British interests. In an article in the Times on 12 June 1877, he stated that “it is a great pity that we do not get the Muhammedans of India to look up to the Sharif of Mecca as the Caliph of Islam for he lives by the side of our road to India and would be as completely in our power as the Suez Canal”.[5]
In 1916 with the aid of the British, Sharif Hussein successfully led an Arab revolt against the Ottomans and established an independent kingdom in Hejaz and the holy cities of Mecca and Medina, called the Kingdom of Hejaz.
Kingdom of Hejaz flag which is the basis of the flags of many Arab states today
Background to Rashid Rida’s book
It’s against this backdrop of British interference in the caliphate, and its open support to the Kingdom of Hejaz and its king, Sharif Hussein, that led Rashid Rida to lay out in his book ‘The Caliphate or Supreme Imamate’, ten obstacles in appointing Sharif Hussein as the Caliph, and transferring the Kingdom of Hejaz in to a caliphate as some had suggested.
Sheikh Rida did not want a caliphate to be established that would ultimately become a tool in the hands of the foreign occupiers. He wanted a caliphate that revived the tradition of shura based rule, and not autocratic hereditary rule. This placed him at odds with the Ottoman regime, but also with the French and British empires with Mark Sykes[6] describing him as a fanatical Muslim.[7]
There are many lessons we can take from Rashid Rida’s points, and apply them to today when we are attempting a similar process in reviving the long-lost caliphate.
The central lesson here is related to sovereignty, and removing the influence of western powers and institutions, who subjugate the Muslim lands to their will. Syria is the latest example of this.
Without full sovereignty over the territory, law and policies of the state, there can be no Dar ul-Islam, and hence no Islamic government.
10 Obstacles to Making the Hijaz the Seat of the Caliphate
This is an excerpt from Rashid Rida’s book ‘The Caliphate or Supreme Imamate’.
“…we can appreciate that the Arabs’ lands—and more so the Arabian Peninsula, and even more so the Hijaz—are the Islamic lands most worthy of being home to the Islamic caliphate. This becomes more apparent when one considers the religious reform that it is the caliph’s duty to undertake in this era. But today there are obstacles blocking the possibility of the genuine caliphate that Muslims desire being located in the Hijaz. Given its present condition, people in other Islamic lands would not agree to adhere to it. What, then, if it were desired that it govern all of the Arabs’ lands, or manage the other Islamic lands’ affairs? What if it were desired that its government become an archetype of the most perfect government, without which there can be no hope of reforming the human condition? Here, we discuss the points that are most important when it comes to these obstacles and present conditions in the Hijaz:
(1) In order to maintain his power the king, who has imposed his rule on the Hijaz in this era, depends on a non-Islamic state[8]. This state has subjugated many Muslim peoples, and it wishes to subjugate others, especially the Arabs. He has entangled himself with it through treaties and ties by which he has recognized that the Arab community stands in relation to that non-Islamic power as does a minor in relation to a guardian, and that it is responsible for the community’s development and for securing it internally and externally. This even means that this non-Islamic state is entitled to enter his lands with military force to curb internal disorder. Anyone who wishes may consult what we published on this subject in Al-Manar, Volume 23, pages 612–24.
King Faisal and Lawrence of Arabia among others
(2) This king has given himself the title “King of the Arabs.” He wants to be recognized as the Arab community’s greatest leader. He wants to be regarded as the representative of all of the independent Arab governments. That would mean that they are also debased, bound, and burdened by those treaties, and stripped of their independence. However, all the Arab governments neighboring him are in all respects stronger and more righteous than his government, and they have not bound themselves by treaties that deprive them of their independence.
(3) He assented to making his two sons[9] who serve as leaders in certain Arab lands that are under the domination of the aforementioned foreign state, subservient to that state’s Colonial Office. In that respect they resemble many national leaders who serve in that state’s colonies. By doing that, he and his sons became the first to help a non-Muslim, foreign state in colonizing Arab lands.
King Faisal’s coronotion on 22 August 1921 as King of Iraq in the presence of General Aylmer Haldane, Commander-in-chief of all British troops in Mesopotamia
(4) His government is autocratic and dictatorial. It lacks any restraint. He does and he rules as he wishes. We know this through things that we hear of and read about in its newspaper Al-Qiblah: reports of seizures of property, official penalties, and other things that, so far as we are aware, have no basis under the Islamic revealed law. As for positive law [al-qawanin al-wad‘iyyah], he forbids it and declares those who act in accordance with it to be unbelievers!!
(5) This government opposes all of the sciences that would support religious and this-worldly reform. In addition to its hatred of the modern sciences and arts, even geography, it bans many works on Islamic law from the Hijaz. These include works by Islam’s two great reformist shaykhs, Ibn Taymiyyah and Ibn Qayyim, as well as works by others.
(6) It has been established through various lines of evidence that the members of this dynasty covet the caliphate, the emirate, and power, even if that should be under the patronage of a foreign authority rather than an Islamic one. As stated above, one who seeks the role of governance should not be appointed to it.
(7) The members of this dynasty lack the most important qualifications that are stipulated for the caliphate, especially knowledge of Islamic law. We see evidence of this in what we read in the king’s official publications and his government’s statements: errors of language; qur’anic verses that have been distorted; hadiths whose ascription to the Messenger, God’s prayer and peace be upon him, is fraudulent; and interpretations of texts that are contrary to what the wording actually conveys and what has been the object of the consensus of both exegetes and nonexegetes. Further, we see these errors continuing rather than being corrected. This indicates that not a single one of the Islamic ulama in all of the Hijaz has dared to correct a mistake—relating to a qur’anic verse, a hadith, or a rule of Islamic law—published in their newspaper, which is a symbol of ignorance. We will refrain from mentioning what we have come to know through our own experience, and from trustworthy people’s reports of their experiences.
(8) Most of the Islamic world loathes the current government of the Hijaz. We see it defamed in the papers in Egypt, Tunisia, Algeria, Java, Turkey, India, and elsewhere. Yet many of these papers’ editors and writers do not know everything that we know about its bad condition.
(9) Those who seek to revive the institution of the caliphate in Islam aim to realize three goals by doing that.
1- The establishment of a consultative Islamic government, one that accords with what God prescribed so that it becomes a proof for all of humankind, as mentioned previously.
2- The resuscitation of Islam’s civilization through developing the sciences, arts, and industries that enable strength and prosperity. It is a civilization that combines the material blessings of worldly life with religious and spiritual virtues, and loosens the knots of all social problems.
3- Religious reform through eliminating superstitions and innovations, reviving the prophetic example, uniting the people, and fortifying the ties of Islamic brotherhood and the other human virtues. The government of the Hijaz lacks the will to pursue these high goals. There is no hope that its ruling dynasty would consent to the theoretical and practical means upon which this great reform depends.
(10) The Hijaz lacks the power and prosperity upon which the caliphate’s establishment depends. It lacks the strength to stand independently. How, then, could it carry the burdens of this great office? None of the Muslim Arabs in the lands neighboring it would agree to adhere to its weak and autocratic government. How, then, would other Muslims assent to that?”[10]
What is Dar ul-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) is 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, “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.”[11]
How to claw back sovereignty in the Muslim world
The only way to ensure sovereignty is with the sharia where the lands become independent of the foreign powers, and the basic law of the state is based on the Islamic sharia sources, is by combining sovereignty and authority together as Imam Ghazali said, “religion and authority are twins” (الدين والسلطان توأمان ad-deen was-sultan tawaman).[12] This is because you cannot have one without the other. Sovereignty needs the people in authority to enforce it, and those people outside government to ensure its enforced.
Authority must be with the people to ensure the sharia remains supreme and that the government, laws and values of society are Islamic, which is the reason for the existence of an Islamic State in the first place. Rashid Rida says, “Nor should people allow power to become like a ball that tyrants can kick back and forth between themselves, and receive from each other. Those living in nations who have been wronged allowed that to happen, assenting to that because they were ignorant of the power that was latent within themselves. They did not realize that the power wielded by their monarchs and emirs was actually their own.“[13]
If this was achieved then the dominion of the Islamic State will spread far and wide as was narrated from Thawban that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said:
“The earth was brought together for me so that I could see the east and the west, and I was given two treasures, the yellow (or the red) and the white – meaning gold and silver. And it was said to me: ‘Your dominion (mulk) will extend as far as has been shown to you.’”[14]
5 concepts to be propagated on the caliphate
We conclude with the words of Rashid Rida concerning what should be propagated to the Muslim masses and in particular the Ahl Hali wal aqd (lit. those who loose and bind) who the ummah look up to as her representatives, in order to change world opinion on the caliphate and bring the authority back in to the ummah’s hands.
He says, “The first priority for the party of reform (حزب الإصلاح Hizb Al-Islah) that we have conceived is to direct all of its energy and resolve toward delineating the most ideal form of the Islamic caliphate and its government. That form entirely befits the current era, and it is by enabling the creation of such a government that this era is distinguished over others. Then, this party should attempt to convince people of influence who reside in the Islamic lands where there is hope that such a government could be established of the following points:
how it would safeguard public welfare;
how it would enable the provision of services and prosperity;
how it is superior to every other type of government in the world;
how its establishment is feasible;
how the doubts of Europeanized Muslims and those who have given up hope are unfounded. All of this is straightforward, as we ourselves have found by experience.”[15]
Notes
[1] In the 10th 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. This splitting of the sultanate and the caliphate i.e. the splitting away of the executive authority from the caliph continued in this way until 1517CE when the Ottoman Sultan Selim I united the institutions of sultanate and the caliphate once again. In 1922 the Sultanate was officially abolished, handing executive power to the Turkish Parliament. Two years later on 3rd March 1924, the office of the Caliphate was also abolished.
[2] Muhammad Rashid Rida, ‘The Caliphate or Supreme Imamate,’ first published 1922-1923, translation of Al-Khilafa aw al-Imama al-‘Uzma, translated by Simon A Wood, Yale University Press, 2024, p.133; original Arabic https://shamela.ws/book/9682
[4] Buzpınar, Şit Tufan,. “Background of an Assassination in the Hijaz: Sharif Husayn, the Afghans, and the British.” Turkish Journal of History, vol. 0, no. 75, 2021, pp. 223-249. [Database Container], https://doi.org/10.26650/iutd.976176
[5] Itzchak Weismann & Fruma Zachs, ‘Ottoman Reform and Muslim Regeneration: Studies in Honour of Butrus Abu-Manneh,’ I.B. Tauris, 2005 p.27; George Birdwood, The Times, 12 June 1877
[6] Architect of the Sykes-Picot agreement which carved up the Middle East between the French and the British, and ultimately led to the creation of the Zionist entity of Israel.
[7] Mahmoud Osman Haddad, “Arab Religious Nationalism in the Colonial Era: Rereading Rashid Rida’s Ideas on the Caliphate,” Journal of the American Oriental Society 117.2 (1997): 268.
[12] Al-Ghazali’s Moderation in Belief: Al-Iqtiṣād fi al-I‘tiqād, translated by A M Yaqub, University of Chicago Press, Chicago and London, 2013, p.229
“I wish I could meet my brothers.” The companions of the Prophet said, “Are we not your brothers?” The Prophet said, “You are my companions, but my brothers are those who have faith in me yet they never saw me.” [Musnad Aḥmad 12579]
Born in Damascus in 1954, Ragheed served as a pilot in the Syrian Air Force. In 1980, at the age of 26, he faced a decision that would change his life forever. During the infamous military crackdown in Hama by the sorry excuse of the human being, Hafez al-Assad, he was ordered to bomb civilian areas. He refused. He chose to stand against the killing of innocent people, even as it meant turning against a regime known for its brutality. A true stand of true courage.
This cost him dearly, of course, in worldly terms. Stripped of his military position, he was forced to seek asylum abroad, but his attempts were unsuccessful. Upon his return to Syria in 1981, he was arrested at Damascus Airport. Convicted in absentia by a military court on nonsense trumped up charges, he was imprisoned.
He spent the next 43-years in the dungeons of the Assads: Mezzeh, Tadmur (Palmyra), Adra, and ten years in Sednaya concentration camp. Yes, you read that right: 43 years! By some accounts, this makes him the longest-serving political prisoner in the world!
In these dark corners of oppression, Ragheed faced the unimaginable—torture, isolation, humiliation, and the relentless passage of time cut off my family, friends, and society. Yet, he became a beacon of hope for his fellow prisoners. Known for his artistic talents, he crafted sculptures from bread dough and organized chess games, bringing moments of relief where possible into the harshest conditions.
His sacrifice extended beyond the prison walls. Ragheed’s imprisonment meant decades apart from his family. His son Wael was born shortly after his arrest, but Ragheed did not see him for the first two decades of his life, meeting for the first time in 2005.
Ragheed al-Tatari was finally released on December 8, 2024, on the back of the blessed revolution and the fall of the despotic regime. He is now honoured among the slaves of Allah. But the real honour, and the real reward of a momentous sacrifice, awaits him in the next world, in sha’ Allah!
“The most privileged people in the world from among the people of Hellfire will come on the Day of Resurrection to be dipped in Hellfire, then it will be said: ‘O son of Adam, did you see any good? Did you get any blessing?’ He will say: ‘No, by Allah, my Lord!’
Then, the most miserable people in the world from among the people of Paradise will come on the Day of Resurrection to be dipped in Paradise, then it will be said: ‘O son of Adam, did you see any hardship? Did you have any distress?’ He will say: ‘No, by Allah, my Lord! I did not once see hardship or distress.’” [Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim 2807]
Islamic Civilization 