The Khilafah
Hizb ut-Tahrir
Contents
The Khilafah is a common leadership for all the Muslims in the world. Its role is to establish the laws of the Islamic Shari'ah and to carry the da'wa of Islam to the world. The Khilafah is also known as the Imamah, both terms have the same meaning. Several sound ahadith mention them with the same meaning, neither of the two terms has ever differed in meaning in any Shari'ah text i.e. the Qur'an or the Sunnah of the Prophet (saw), these being the only Shari'ah sources. It is not compulsory to hold to the term of Khilafah or Imamah, but rather it is compulsory to hold to the meaning of the term.
The establishment of a Khaleefah is an obligation upon all Muslims in the world. Performing this duty, like any of the duties prescribed by Allah (swt) upon the Muslims, is an urgent obligation in which there can be no choice or complacency. Negligence in performing this duty is one of the greatest sins, for which Allah (swt) punishes severely.
The evidence that the appointment of a Khaleefah is obligatory upon all Muslims is in the Sunnah and the Ijma'a (consensus) of the Sahabah. As for the Sunnah, Nafi'a reported saying: " 'Umar said to me that he heard the Prophet (saw) saying: Whoso takes off his hand from allegiance to Allah (swt) will meet Him (swt) on the Day of Resurrection without having any proof for him, and whoso dies whilst there was no bay'ah (allegiance or a pledge) on his neck (to a Khaleefah), he dies a death of jahilliyah." So the Prophet (saw) made it compulsory upon every Muslim to have a bay'ah on his neck, and described whoever dies without a bay'ah on his neck that he dies a death of jahilliyah. The bay'ah cannot be for anyone except the Khaleefah, and the Prophet (saw) made it obligatory upon every Muslim to have on his neck a bay'ah to a Khaleefah. Yet he did not make it an obligation upon every Muslim to give bay'ah to a Khaleefah. The duty is the existence of a bay'ah on the neck of every eligible Muslim, i.e. the existence of a Khaleefah who accordingly deserves a bay'ah upon the neck of every Muslim. So it is the presence of the Khaleefah which places a bay'ah on the neck of every Muslim, whether the Muslim gave a bay'ah to him in person or not.
Therefore, this hadith of the Prophet (saw) is an evidence that the appointment of the Khaleefah is an obligation and not a proof that giving the bay'ah is obligatory. This is so because the Prophet (saw) rebuked the Muslim who has not a bay'ah on his neck until he dies, not the one who did not give bay'ah. Hisham ibn 'Urwa reported on the authority of Abu Saleh on the authority of Abu Hurairah that the Prophet (saw) said: "Leaders will take charge of you after me, where the pious (one) will lead you with his piety and the impious (one) with his impiety, so listen to them and obey them in everything which conforms with the truth. If they act rightly it is for your credit, and if they acted wrongly it is counted for you and against them." Muslim narrated on the authority of al-A'araj, on the authority of Abu Hurairah, that the Prophet (saw) said: "Behold, the Imam is but a shield from behind whom the people fight and by whom they protect themselves." Muslim reported on the authority of Abu Hazim, who said: "I accompanied Abu Hurairah for five years and heard him talking of the Prophet's saying: 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 be Khulafa'a 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 due. Surely Allah will ask them about what He entrusted them with." Ibn 'Abbas narrated that the Prophet (saw) said: "If anyone sees in his amir something that displeases him let him remain patient, for behold, he who separates himself from the sultan (authority of Islam) by even so much as a hand span and dies thereupon, has died a death of the days of jahilliyah".
In these ahadith, the Prophet (saw) informs us that leaders will run the affairs of Muslims, and the ahadith include the description of the Khaleefah as a shield, i.e. a protection. So the description of the Imam as a shield is informative of the benefits of the presence of the Imam, thus it is a command for action, because if the information conveyed by Allah (swt) and the Prophet (saw) contained rebuke then it is a command of prohibition, and if it contained praise then it is a command for action. If the ordered action is necessary to implement a hukm shari'i (divine law), or by its negligence a hukm shari'i will be neglected, then this command is decisive. In these ahadith there is information also that those who run the affairs of Muslims are Khulafa'a, which indicates an order to appoint them. They also include a prohibition for Muslims to separate from the authority, which indicates the obligation upon Muslims to appoint an authority for themselves, i.e. ruling. Moreover, the Prophet (saw) ordered the Muslims to obey the Khaleefah and to fight those who dispute his authority as Khaleefah, which indicates an order to appoint a Khaleefah and to protect his Khilafah by fighting against whosoever disputes with him. Muslim reported that the Prophet (saw) said: "He who pledged allegiance to an Imam giving him the clasp of his hand and the fruit of his heart shall obey him as long as he can, and if another comes to dispute with him you have to strike the neck of that man." So the command to obey the Imam is an order to establish him, and the command to fight those who dispute with him is an evidence that this command is decisive in maintaining the presence of one Khaleefah.
In regard with the Ijma'a of the Sahabah they all agreed upon the necessity to establish a successor or Khaleefah to the Prophet (saw) after his death, and they all agreed to appoint a successor to Abu Bakr, then to 'Umar, then to 'Uthman, after the death of each one of them. The Ijma'a of the Sahabah to establish a Khaleefah manifested itself emphatically when they delayed the burial of the Prophet (saw) after his death whilst engaged in appointing a successor to him, despite the fact that the burial of the dead person is fard, and that it is haram upon those who are supposed to prepare for his burial to engage themselves in anything else until they complete the burial. The Sahabah were obliged to engage themselves in preparing the burial of the Prophet (saw), instead some of them engaged themselves in appointing a Khaleefah rather than carrying out the burial, and some others kept silent on this engagement and participated in delaying the burial for two nights despite their ability to deny the delay and their ability to bury the Prophet (saw). So this was an Ijma'a to engage themselves in appointing a Khaleefah rather than to bury the dead. This could not be legitimate unless the appointment of a Khaleefah is more obligatory than the burial of the dead. Also, all the Sahabah agreed throughout their lives upon the obligation of appointing a Khaleefah. Although they disagreed upon the person to elect as a Khaleefah, they never disagreed upon the appointment of a Khaleefah, neither when the Prophet (saw) died, nor when any of the Khulafa'a ar-Rashidun died. Therefore the Ijma'a of the Sahabah is a clear and strong evidence that the appointment of a Khaleefah is obligatory.
However, the establishment of Islam and the implementation of the Shari'ah rules in all walks of life is compulsory on Muslims through definitely proven evidences. This duty cannot be achieved unless there is a ruler who has an authority. The divine principle states 'what is necessary to accomplish a wajib (duty) is itself a wajib'. So the establishment of a Khaleefah is also compulsory according to this divine principle.
Moreover, Allah (swt) has ordered the Prophet (saw) to rule between Muslims by that which He (swt) revealed to him, and the order of Allah (swt) to him was in a decisive manner. Allah (swt) addressed the Prophet (saw) saying:
"And rule between them by that which Allah revealed to you, and do not follow their vain desires away from the truth which came to you". [TMQ 5:48]
And He (swt) said:
"And rule between them by that which Allah revealed to you and do not follow their whims, and beware (be on the alert) that they may deviate you away from even some part of what Allah revealed to you". [TMQ 5:49]
The speech of Allah (swt) to the Prophet (saw) is a speech to his Ummah unless there is an evidence which limits the speech to him. In this case there is no such evidence, so the aforementioned verses order all Muslims to establish the rule. The establishment of the Khaleefah does not mean other than the establishment of the rule and the authority. On the other hand, Allah (swt) made it obligatory upon Muslims to obey those in authority, i.e. the ruler, which indicates that the existence of the ruler is obligatory upon Muslims. Allah (swt) said:
"O you who believe obey Allah and obey the Messenger and those in authority amongst you". [TMQ 4:59]
Allah (swt) does not order obedience to those who do not exist. This indicates that the existence of the ruler is obligatory. When Allah (swt) orders obedience to those in authority it is an order to establish them. The implementation of the Shari'ah depends upon the existence of the ruler, thus, the establishment of the ruler becomes obligatory as its absence will result in the sin of neglecting the Shari'ah.
Therefore, it is clear from these evidences that the establishment of the rule and the authority amongst Muslims is fard, and it is also clear that the appointment of a Khaleefah who takes the charge of the rule and the authority is compulsory upon Muslims in order to implement the Shari'ah laws; and not for the sake of rule and authority only. Reflect upon what the Prophet (saw) said: "The best of your Imams (leaders) are those whom you love and they love you, who pray for you and you pray for them; and the worst of your Imams are those whom you hate and they hate you and you curse them and they curse you." The Messenger of Allah (saw) was asked: "Would we not declare war on them (face them with the swords)?" He said: "No, as long as they establish salat (meaning Islam) among you." This hadith is clear in informing about the good and bad leaders, and clear in prohibiting the challenge of their authority as long as they establish the prayer, which in this context indicates upholding of Islam, and establishing its rule.
So the obligation upon Muslims to appoint the Khaleefah who establishes the laws of Islam and conveys its call is a matter which has no doubt with regard to its certainty in the sound texts of Shari'ah. Moreover, it is an obligatory duty due to the fact that Allah (swt) made it fard upon Muslims to establish the authority of Islam and to protect the honour of Muslims. However, this duty is a collective one, so if some people of the Ummah accomplished it, the fard is fulfilled and thus responsibility drops from the rest of the Ummah. And if part of the Ummah was unable to achieve the fard, though they carried out the actions which establish it, then the responsibility remains upon all the Muslims, and the fard remains upon every Muslim as long as Muslims are without a Khaleefah.
To refrain from establishing a Khaleefah for the Muslims is a great sin because it is abstaining from carrying out a very important fard of Islam, upon which the implementation of the divine laws depends, even upon which the presence of Islam in the battlefield of life depends as well. So Muslims as a whole commit a great sin by refraining from establishing a Khaleefah for all Muslims. And if they agreed to remain without a Khaleefah the sin would befall all Muslims in the entire world. If some of the Muslims embarked on working to establish a Khaleefah and the others did not, the sin will drop from the shoulders of those who started to work to establish the Khaleefah, while the fard remains on them until the Khaleefah is appointed. This is so because the involvement in establishing the fard removes the sin for the delay of its fulfilment in its time, and for its non-fulfilment despite one's engagement in the work for establishing it, and despite his hatred of that which prevents him from accomplishing it.
As for those who were not engaged in the work for establishing the fard, the sin will remain on them as soon as the three days period has passed, from the departure of the Khaleefah until the appointment of a new Khaleefah, because Allah (swt) has entrusted them with a fard, which they did not carry out nor engage themselves in the work which is required for its completion. Therefore, they are sinful and deserve the punishment and shame from Allah (swt) in this life and the hereafter. They are sinful due to their refrain from establishing the Khaleefah or from the actions which (according to Shari'ah) establish the Khaleefah. It is clear and obvious that a Muslim deserves the punishment of Allah (swt) when he ignores any of the duties enjoined upon him, particularly the duty by which the other duties are implemented and the Shari'ah rules are established and the matter of Islam is brought aloft and the word of Allah (swt) is exalted in the Muslim and the rest of the world.
In regard with some of the ahadith over isolation from the people, and that confining oneself to adhere to the matters of personal worship, these ahadith do not serve as an evidence that permits abstaining from establishing a Khaleefah nor removes the sin due to this abstaining. When somebody studies these ahadith thoroughly he finds them related to the adherence to the deen rather than permitting the abandonment of establishing a Khaleefah for Muslims. For example, al-Bukhari narrated about Bisr ibn Obaydellah al-Hadhrami that he heard Abu Idrees al-Khoolani say that he heard Huthaifah ibn al-Yaman saying: "The people used to ask the Prophet of Allah (saw) about the good and I used to ask him about the bad in fear that it might catch me. So I said: O Prophet of Allah! We were in times of jahilliyah and mischief then Allah brought us this good, so is there any mischief after this good? He (saw) said: Yes. I said: Will there be any good after that mischief? He said: Yes, and it has smoke. I said: What is its smoke? He said: (Some) people guide without any guidance, you recognise some (from them) and deny some. I said: Will there be a mischief after that good? He said: Yes, (some) people who invite at the doors of hell, whoever accepted their invitation they throw him in it (hell). I said: O Prophet of Allah, describe them to us. He said: They are of our own skin (of our people) and talk our language. I said: What do you order me to do if that (matter) caught me? He said: Adhere to the jama'ah of Muslims and their Imam. I said: What if the Muslims have no jama'ah nor an Imam? He said: Then you abandon all those groups, even if you have to grab with your teeth the trunk of a tree till death comes to you as such." This hadith is clear in its expression that the Prophet (saw) orders Muslims to adhere to the jama'ah of Muslims and to adhere to their Imam, and to leave those who invite people to the doors of hell. When the questioner asked him that in case the Muslims have no Imam and no jama'ah what he has to do in regard with those who call at the doors of hell, the Prophet (saw) ordered him to abandon these groups, not to disassociate himself from the Muslims nor to abstain from the action for establishing an Imam. So his order is clear, disassociate yourself from all those groups, and he emphasised the dissociation of those groups even to the extent that his isolation from them would make him clench to the trunk of a tree until death comes to him. It means adhere to your deen by staying away from the misleading callers who are at the doors of hell. In this hadith there is no excuse or permission (for anybody) to abandon the work for establishing a Khaleefah, it is, rather, confined to the command of adhering to the deen and abandoning the callers at the doors of hell, and the sin will remain on him if he does not work to establish a Khaleefah. So he is ordered to abandon the misleading groups in order to save his deen from the callers of the misguidance, even if he had to clench to the trunk of a tree, but not to distance himself from the Muslim community and abandon the work for establishing the laws of the deen and establishing an Imam for Muslims.
Another example is what al-Bukhari narrated about Abu Said al-Khudri, who said: "The Messenger of Allah (saw) said: The best wealth of the Muslim is imminent to be sheep with which he follows the summits of mountains and the rain falls to save his deen from the affliction." This does not mean that one should isolate oneself from the Muslim community and abandon practising the divine laws and establishing a Khaleefah for Muslims when there is no Khilafah on earth. This hadith rather explains what is the best wealth of the Muslim at the times of temptation, it does not encourage anyone to distance himself from the Muslims and isolate the people.
Accordingly, no Muslim on the face of this earth has an excuse to abandon the duty of establishing the deen which Allah (swt) has ordered, that is, the establishment of a Khaleefah for Muslims, when there is no Khilafah on the earth, and no one to implement the hudood (limits) of Allah (swt) to protect the sanctities of Allah (swt), and no one to implement the laws of the deen and unify the Muslim community under the banner of La ilaha illa Allah, Muhammad ur-Rasul Allah. There is no permission in Islam to abandon the work for this duty until it is indeed completed.
The time limit given for Muslims to establish a Khaleefah is two nights. So no Muslim is allowed to stay for more than two nights without having a bay'ah on his neck. Making the upper limit as two nights is due to the fact that appointment of a Khaleefah is fard from the moment the previous Khaleefah dies or is deposed. But it is allowed to delay the appointment while engaging in it for two nights. If the delay exceeded two nights and the Muslims did not establish a Khaleefah, the matter is examined. If the Muslims were busy in establishing a Khaleefah but could not complete it within two nights due to overwhelming matters they cannot resist, then the sin will drop from them because they are engaged in establishing the duty and they are forced to delay it by compelling power. The Prophet (saw) said: "The sin due to mistake, forgetfulness and compulsion is removed from my Ummah." But if they were not engaged in performing the duty, then they would all be sinful until the Khaleefah is established and at that time the fard will drop from them. But the sin they committed in neglecting the establishment of a Khaleefah does not drop from them, it rather remains on them, and Allah (swt) will bring them to account for it the same way He (swt) brings any Muslim to account for any disobedience he commits when he neglects to perform a duty.
In regard with the evidence concerning the two nights time limit given to Muslims to perform the duty of establishing a Khaleefah, it is Ijma'a of the Sahabah The Sahabah started to meet in the courtyard of Bani Sa'ida, to discuss the appointment of a successor to the Messenger of Allah (saw) as soon as the news of the death of the Prophet (saw) reached them. They kept discussing in the courtyard, and on the second day they gathered the people in the mosque in order that they might give the bay'ah. This took two nights and three days. Also, when 'Umar became certain that his death was imminent as a result of the stab wound, he entrusted the people of shura (consultation) and gave them three days to choose a new Khaleefah. He recommended that if after the three days an agreement was not be reached about a Khaleefah then the dissenter should be killed after the aforementioned three days. 'Umar also empowered fifty Muslims to carry out this action, i.e. to kill the dissenter despite the fact they were of the shura people and of the eminent Sahabah. This order was given in front of the Sahabah, and no one was reported to deny or disagree with it, so it becomes Ijma'a of the Sahabah that Muslims are not permitted to stay without a Khaleefah for more than two nights and three days, and the Ijma'a of the Sahabah is a legitimate daleel shari'i (evidence) like the Qur'an and Sunnah of the Messenger of Allah (saw).
Khilafah is a contract of consent and selection, because it is a pledge to obey those in authority. So the consent of the person who is given the bay'ah to hold the Khilafah and the consent of those who give the bay'ah are essential. Therefore, if somebody rejected to be a Khaleefah and declined it, he must not be compelled to accept it, but another person is selected instead. Also, it is not allowed to take the bay'ah from the people by force, because, in this case, the pledge contract cannot be considered legal due to its contradiction with using force, since Khilafah is a contract of consent and selection devoid of any compulsion, like any other contract. However, if the pledge contract is accomplished by those whose bay'ah is reliable then the bay'ah would be legal, and the elected person would become the person in authority who must be obeyed. Bay'ah given to him later on becomes bay'ah of obedience rather than a bay'ah of Khilafah contract. In this case he is allowed to force the rest of the people to give him the bay'ah because it is a bay'ah of obedience which is wajib. It is not correct to say that it is illegal to use compulsion, because the bay'ah in this case is not a contract bay'ah on Khilafah. Accordingly, the bay'ah initially is a contract which is not legal except by consent and choice. But after the contract bay'ah is given to the Khaleefah, then bay'ah becomes an obedience to his order, and compulsion comes from the fact that it is allowed to implement the order of Allah (swt). Since Khilafah is a contract, then there must be a contractor for the contract to be considered legal, like in the judiciary where the person cannot be a judge unless he is appointed in this office by somebody else, and in the imarah nobody can be an amir (leader) unless there is a person who appoints him in this office. And in the Khilafah, no person can be a Khaleefah unless he is appointed in this post as a Khilafah.
Thereupon, it is clear that nobody becomes a Khaleefah unless the Muslims appoint him in this post, and he cannot have the authority of Khilafah unless he is contracted to it. And this contract can only be implemented by two parties - the first is the one who asked for the Khilafah and the second is the Muslims who accepted him as their Khaleefah. Therefore, the bay'ah of Muslims is essential to fulfill the Khilafah contract. Accordingly, if someone usurped power by force he will not become a Khaleefah even if he declared himself a Khaleefah for Muslims, because the contract of Khilafah has not been convened to him by the Muslims. And if he took the bay'ah from the Muslims by force, he is not considered a Khaleefah by such bay'ah, because the bay'ah by force is illegal. And Khilafah cannot be convened with it, since it is a contract of consent and selection which cannot be accomplished by force, but convened by a bay'ah of consent and choice. However, if this usurper managed to convince the people that it is in their interest to give him the bay'ah, and that the implementation of the Shari'ah laws requires from the people to give him the bay'ah and were convinced of that and accepted it, and they gave him the bay'ah by consent and choice, then he becomes a Khaleefah the moment he was given the bay'ah by consent and choice, though he initially held the power by force. So it is a condition that the bay'ah must occur by consent and choice whether the person who obtained the bay'ah was the ruler or not.
As for the people by whose bay'ah the Khilafah is established this can be derived by examining what happened in the bay'ah of the Khulafa'a ar-Rashidun and what the Sahabah agreed upon. In the bay'ah of Abu Bakr it was sufficient from ahle al-hal wal 'aqd (the people of influence) among Muslims in Medina alone; the opinion of Muslims in Mecca and the rest of the Arabian Peninsula was not sought, they were not even asked. It was the same case in the bay'ah of 'Umar. As for the bay'ah of 'Uthman, 'Abdul Rahman ibn 'Auf took the opinion of Muslims in Medina and did not confine it to the people of influence as Abu Bakr did when he nominated 'Umar. At the time of 'Ali it was sufficed with the bay'ah of the majority of the people of Medina and Kufa, and he was singled with bay'ah. His bay'ah was considered legal even by those who disagreed with him and fought against him, as they did not make bay'ah with any other person than him, and did not object to his bay'ah, they rather demanded revenge for the blood of 'Uthman, so their case was considered as rebels who avenged a matter from the Khaleefah and he had to explain it for them and fight them, but they did not form another Khilafah.
All this happened, i.e. giving the bay'ah to the Khaleefah from the people of the capital only without the rest of the regions, in front of the Sahabah, and none of them disagreed or denied that action of limiting the bay'ah to the majority of the people of Medina, though they disagreed on the person selected as Khaleefah and denied some of his actions, yet they did not deny that the bay'ah was made to him only by the majority of the people of Medina. So this was Ijma'a of the Sahabah that the Khilafah is established by those who represent the opinions of the Muslims in the matter of ruling. This is so because the people of influence and the majority of the residents of Medina represented the opinion of the majority of the Ummah in the matter of ruling in the whole territories of the Islamic State at that time.
Accordingly, the Khilafah is convened if the bay'ah is made by the majority of those who represent the Islamic Ummah, who are under the authority of the Khaleefah that is being replaced by another, as was the case at the time of Khulafa'a ar-Rashidun. Their bay'ah would then be a bay'ah of contract to the Khilafah. As for the bay'ah of the other people, it becomes a bay'ah of obedience after the Khilafah was convened to the Khaleefah, that is a bay'ah of submission to the Khaleefah, not a bay'ah of contract to establish the Khilafah.
This would be the case if there were a Khaleefah who died or was deposed and it is required to establish a Khaleefah in his place. But if there is no Khaleefah at all, and it became obligatory upon Muslims to appoint for themselves a Khaleefah to implement the Shari'ah laws and convey the Islamic call to the world, as is the case since the removal of the Islamic Khilafah in Istanbul in 1343 After Hijrah (1924 Christian Era) until the present day, then every country in the Islamic world is eligible to elect a Khaleefah and thereby establish a Khilafah. So if one country of the Islamic world appointed a Khaleefah, and the Khilafah was established for him, it becomes obligatory upon Muslims to make a pledge of obedience to him, i.e. a bay'ah of submission, after the Khilafah was convened to him by the bay'ah of the people in his country, whether this country was big like Egypt, Turkey and Indonesia or small like Albania, Cameroon and Lebanon, on condition that the country fulfils four criteria:
Therefore, if that country has fulfilled these four conditions, then the Khilafah has been established by the bay'ah of that country alone and it was convened with it alone as well, even if this country does not represent the majority of the influential people who represent the Islamic Ummah. This is so because establishing the Khilafah is a collective duty, and whoever performs this duty in the correct manner would accomplish the prescribed duty. And because the condition concerning the majority of the influential people applies if there was a Khilafah and there was a need to appoint another Khaleefah in place of the dead or deposed one. But if there was not a Khilafah at all and the establishment of one is necessary, then by its establishment in accordance with Shari'ah, the Khilafah will be convened legally by any Khaleefah who satisfies the conditions of the contract regardless of the number of the people who elected him, as the matter would be then a question of fulfilling a duty neglected by the Muslims for more than three days. Their negligence to this duty is a termination of their right to choose whom they want for a Khaleefah.
So if there arise some people who perform this duty, it suffices for the Khilafah to be established by them, and once the Khilafah is established in that country and contracted to a Khaleefah it becomes a duty upon all Muslims to rally under its banner and to give bay'ah to the Khaleefah, otherwise they would be sinful before Allah (swt). The elected Khaleefah must invite them to give him bay'ah and if they refused they would be considered as rebels whom the Khaleefah must fight until they submit to his authority. If another Khaleefah in the same or a different country is elected after the first Khaleefah who had the Khilafah convened to him legally by satisfying the four aforementioned conditions, then the Muslims must fight the second Khaleefah until he makes bay'ah to the first one. The evidence on this matter is what 'Abdullah ibn 'Amr ibn al-'As narrated, that he heard the Prophet (saw) saying: "He who has pledged allegiance to an Imam giving him the clasp of his hand and the fruit of his heart shall obey him if he can, if another person comes to dispute (his authority) strike the neck of the latter." And also because the Khaleefah of Muslims is the one who unites the Muslims under the banner of Islam. So if the Khaleefah is found the Muslim community would be found and it becomes obligatory upon Muslims to join this community and haram upon them to dissociate themselves from it. Ibn 'Abbas reported that the Prophet (saw) said: "If anyone sees in his amir something that displeases him let him remain patient because he who separates himself from the jama'ah even so much as a hand span and dies as that, he dies the death of jahilliyah." Muslim reported about Ibn 'Abbas that the Prophet (saw) said: "If anyone hates something from his amir let him remain patient because he who separates himself from the sultan (authority) even so much as a hand span and dies as that, he dies the death of jahilliyah." The indication from these two hadiths is to adhere to the Muslim community and to the authority of Islam.
Non-Muslims have no right in the bay'ah, and it is not obligatory upon them because it is a bay'ah on Islam and on the Book of Allah and the Sunnah of the Messenger of Allah and it requires belief in Islam, the Book and the Sunnah. Non-Muslims are not allowed to be involved in ruling nor to elect the ruler because they have no authority over Muslims and have no place in the bay'ah.
Bay'ah is an obligation upon all Muslims, and it is a right for every Muslim, man or woman. The evidence for it being an obligation is in many ahadith of the Prophet (saw), in which he said: "Whosoever dies without having a bay'ah upon his neck he dies a death of jahilliyah." As for being a right for Muslims, the bay'ah itself indicates that, because the bay'ah is offered by the Muslims to the Khaleefah, and not by the Khaleefah to the Muslims. The bay'ah of the Muslims to the Prophet (saw) was confirmed in the ahadith. Al-Bukhari reported that 'Ubada ibn as-Samit said: "We made a bay'ah to the Prophet (saw) to hear and to obey in whatever pleases and displeases us, and we should not dispute the authority of those who have been entrusted with it, and stand for the truth wherever we are fearing not the blame of any blamer for the sake of Allah." Al-Bukhari reported on the authority of Ayub on the authority of Hafsa on the authority of Umm 'Atiya, who said: "We gave a bay'ah to the Prophet (saw) and then he read to us that we should not associate anything to Allah and to refrain from weeping, upon which a woman amongst us withdrew her hand and said: A woman pleased me and I want to reward (repay) her. He said nothing, so she went and then returned." Abu Hurairah reported that the Prophet (saw) said: "Three persons to whom Allah will not talk on the Resurrection Day, nor purify them, and they will have severe punishment are: A person who has an excess of water on the road and prevents the wayfarer of it; and a person who gives bay'ah to an Imam for his worldly affairs only, so if the Imam gave him that which he wants he fulfilled (the bay'ah) to him, otherwise he would not; and a person trading a commodity to another in the late afternoon and he swore by Allah that he was offered so and so for it, although he was not, and the person believed him and bought it." 'Abdullah ibn 'Umar said: "When we gave a bay'ah to the Prophet (saw) to hear and obey, he used to say to us: In what you could." Jareer ibn 'Abdullah said: "I gave a bay'ah to the Prophet (saw) to hear and obey and he instructed me: In what you could and to advise every Muslim." Junada ibn Abu Umayyah said: "We entered the house of 'Ubada ibn as-Samit whilst he was ill and we said: May Allah make you a good person, talk to us of a hadith you heard from the Prophet (saw) and with which Allah benefits you. He said: The Prophet (saw) invited us and we gave him our bay'ah; and of which he pledged us with is to hear and obey in what pleases and displeases us, in our ease and hardship and in our selfishness, and not to dispute the authority of those who are entrusted with, saying unless you see clear (open) disbelief upon which you have a proof from Allah."
So the bay'ah for the Khaleefah is in the hands of the Muslims, and it is their right; it is they who give bay'ah, and it is their bay'ah which makes the Khilafah established for a Khaleefah. The bay'ah can be by shaking hand or by writing, with no difference between man and woman. A woman has the right to shake hands with the Khaleefah when she gives the bay'ah as men do. In regard with what 'Urwa reported on the authority of 'A'isha, she said: "The Prophet (saw) used to take the bay'ah from women by saying this verse. 'Not to associate anything with Allah'." She said: "The hand of the Prophet (saw) never touched the hand of a woman unless he possessed her." In this narration 'A'isha talked about her knowledge of the matter. So according to her knowledge the hand of the Prophet (saw) did not touch the hand of any other woman. But there are other ahadith which indicate the hand shaking. The hadith reported by Umm 'Atiya in which she says "a woman among us withdrew her hand" indicates that she was extending her hand forward for the bay'ah, but when the Prophet (saw) ordered them to refrain from weeping, the woman pulled her hand back from the bay'ah. The understanding of "a woman among us withdrew her hand" is that other women did not pull their hands back, which indicates that they gave their bay'ah by hand. This is a sound hadith reported by al-Bukhari and it is a text about handshaking both in word and in meaning (conception). So the bay'ah can be given by handshaking and by writing. 'Abdullah ibn Dinar said: "I witnessed ibn 'Umar where the people gathered around 'Abdul Melik ibn Marwan. Ibn 'Umar wrote: I agree to listen and obey to the slave of Allah 'Abdul Melik the servant of Allah and the Amir al-Mo'mineen according to the word of Allah and the Sunnah of His Prophet to the extent that I can." Moreover, the bay'ah is proper to be by any possible mean.
However, the bay'ah has to be given by the mature person, so it is improper to be given by the young. Abu Akeel Zahra ibn Ma'bed reported on the authority of his grandfather 'Abdullah ibn Hisham who witnessed the Prophet (saw), that his mother Zaynab, the daughter of Hameed, took him to the Prophet (saw) and said: "O Prophet of Allah, take a pledge from him" The Prophet (saw) said: "He is young", and wiped his head and made a du'a for him.
As for the words of the bay'ah they are not restricted to specific terms. But firstly they must include the action undertaken by the Khaleefah according to the Book of Allah and the Sunnah of His Prophet. Secondly they must also include a declaration of obedience in hardship and ease and obedience in that which pleases and displeases on the part of the person who gives the bay'ah to the Khaleefah. Or if the Khilafah is contracted to the Khaleefah by the bay'ah of other Muslims, then the bay'ah has become a trust on the neck of the one who gives the bay'ah and he is not allowed to retract it since it is a right in regard with the Khilafah contract till he gave it, and once he gave it he must abide by it. If he wanted to retreat from it he would not be allowed to do so. Al-Bukhari narrated about Jaber ibn 'Abdullah that a bedouin gave the Prophet (saw) his pledge on Islam, and an illness struck him so he said to the Prophet (saw): "Let me withdraw my bay'ah" but the Prophet refused, and the man went out. The Prophet (saw) then said: "The town (Medina) is like the bellow which repels its impurities and purify its goodness." Nafi'a reported saying: " 'Umar said to me that he heard the Prophet (saw) saying: He who withdraws his hand from the obedience of Allah, he will meet Allah on the resurrection day without having a proof for himself." To break the bay'ah of the Khaleefah is withdrawing of one's hand from the obedience of Allah. This is the case if his bay'ah to the Khaleefah is bay'ah of contract or it is a bay'ah of obedience to a Khaleefah whom the Muslims accepted and gave their bay'ah to. But if he gave his bay'ah in the beginning to a Khaleefah and it was not completed because the Muslims as a whole did not accept him as Khaleefah, then he has the right to withdraw from that bay'ah. So the prohibition mentioned in the hadith is focused on the withdrawal of a bay'ah to a Khaleefah, not to a man who did not have the Khilafah convened to him.
The Khaleefah must fulfill six conditions to be eligible for the Khilafah and to have the bay'ah contracted to him for the Khilafah. These six conditions validate the contract, if one was missing, the Khilafah could not be convened. The conditions are:
1. He must be a Muslim. The Khilafah can't be contracted to a kafir (disbeliever) at all, nor does he have the right of obedience to him, because Allah (swt) says:
"Allah will never allow for the disbelievers an (a way) authority upon (over) the believers." [TMQ 4:141]
Ruling is the strongest instrument in the hand of the ruler over the ruled people. The expression with 'Lun' (never) means perpetuation is a linkage of the decisive prohibition for the disbeliever to take the charge of ruling at all, whether it was the Khilafah or anything less than that.
2. He must be male. So the Khaleefah is not permitted to be a female, i.e. he must be a man, and it is invalid for the Khaleefah to be a woman. The proof of this is in what is reported by Abu Bakrah, who said: "Allah benefited me with a word I heard from the Prophet (saw) in the days of al-Jamal (camel) when I was about to join the people of al-Jamal and fight with them. When the news arrived that the people of Persia appointed the daughter of Kisra as a queen over them, the Prophet (saw) said: Any people appointed a woman to run their affairs will not succeed." So the information of the Prophet (saw) about the negation of success of those who appoint a woman to look after their affairs is a prohibition to appoint her, since this is a form of demand; and because this information included rebuke to those who appoint a woman by negating success to them, it is a linkage that the demand is a decisive prohibition. So the prohibition, here, to appoint a woman came with a linkage which indicates that the demand to leave is a decisive demand; thus the appointment of a woman is haram. The prohibition of her ruling applies to the Khilafah and any other ruling posts less than it, because the subject of the hadith is the appointment of the daughter of Kisra as a queen, so it is general in the subject of ruling which the hadith talked about. It is not specific to the incident of appointing the daughter of Kisra alone, and it is not also general in every function, so it does not include any function other than the ruling in anyway whatsoever.
3. He must be mature. The Khaleefah is not allowed to be a youth. 'Ali ibn Abu Talib narrated that the Prophet (saw) said: "The pen was raised from the sleeping person until he awakes and the youth until he reaches puberty, and the mentally disabled until he recovers sanity." So whosoever has the pen lifted from him is not in a position to conduct his affairs and legally he is not charged; so it is invalid for him to be a Khaleefah or in any ruling position less than that, because he does not have the right to conduct even his own affairs. Another proof for the illegality of the Khaleefah to be a youth is that the Prophet (saw) refused to receive a bay'ah from a youth. He refused the bay'ah of 'Abdullah ibn Hisham, and explained that it was due to his young age, saying "he is a youth." So if the bay'ah is not accepted from the youth and he is not allowed to give a bay'ah for another person as a Khaleefah, then it is obvious that he is not allowed to be a Khaleefah.
4. He must be sane. It is incorrect to appoint an insane as a Khaleefah, for the Prophet (saw) said: "The pen is raised from three..." and he mentioned amongst them "the insane until he regains his sanity." And we have already established that he who has the pen lifted from him is not accountable, because the commands of Allah (swt) and the legality of the conduct are based upon the state of mind. The Khaleefah carries out the acts of ruling and implements the divine commandments, so it is invalid for him to be insane.
5. He must be just. Thus it is invalid for him to be a fasiq (evildoer). Being just is an imperative condition for contracting and continuation of the Khilafah, because Allah (swt) made it a condition for the witness to be just. Allah (swt) said:
"Let two among you be just witnesses." [TMQ 65:2]
So if the condition of justness applies to a witness, it obviously applies even more as a condition for appointing of a Khaleefah.
6. He must be free. The slave is possessed by his master, so he does not have the authority to conduct his own affairs. By extension of this principle, we can conclude that he does not have authority to conduct the affairs of others and therefore he is in no position to rule over the people.
These are the conditions of contracting a man to the post of the Khaleefah, and any additional conditions of contract maybe conditions of preference if they are produced from sound texts, or if they came under a hukm proved by a sound text. This is so because in order that a condition be a condition of contract, its daleel should include a decisive demand that becomes a linkage for its binding. So if the evidence does not include a decisive demand, then the condition is one of preference and not of contracting. No evidence including a decisive demand was reported other than these six conditions, so they alone are the conditions of contract. Other conditions included in sound evidences are conditions of preference only. Therefore, it is not a condition of contract to the Khilafah that the Khaleefah must be mujtahid, because there was no sound text on the matter and because the duty of the Khaleefah is to govern, and he does not necessarily need to make ijtihad since he can enquire about the hukm, follow a mujtahid and adopt laws according to the opinion of that mutjahid. It is therefore not necessary for him to be a mujtahid, although it is preferable; but if he was not a mutjahid, the Khilafah would still be contracted to him. Also it is not a contracting condition to the Khilafah that the Khaleefah must be brave, or of the people of good vision to manage the affairs of the community and to conduct its interests. This is so because no sound hadith was reported on this issue and it does not come under a hukm shari'i which makes it a contracting condition; nevertheless it is preferable that the Khaleefah be brave and of deep insight and vision.
It is not also a contracting condition to the Khilafah that the Khaleefah must be of Quraish; what was actually reported on the authority of Mu'awiya was that he said: "I heard the Prophet (saw) saying: This matter is in Quraish. Anyone who disputes with them whilst they establish the deen, Allah will drag him in hell-fire on his face." And what was narrated about Ibn 'Umar that he said: "The Prophet (saw) said: This matter will remain in Quraish as long as there are two of them existing." These ahadith and others which were soundly referred to the Prophet (saw) about making the Khilafah to Quraish came in an informative form, and not a single one of them came in the command form. The informative form, although it indicates a demand, is not considered a decisive command unless it was associated with a linkage which indicates the confirmation; and these informative forms were not associated by any linkage which indicates the confirmation in any sound narration. So these ahadith indicate that it is a recommendation and not an obligation, thus it is a condition of preference, not a condition of contracting. In regard with his saying in the hadith "anyone who disputes them Allah will drag him in the hell-fire on his face", this is another reason for prohibiting their enmity and not a confirmation to his saying "this matter is in the Quraish" as the hadith states that the matter is in the Quraish, and that their enmity is prohibited. Also, the word "Quraish" is a name and not an adjective and in the terminology of usul (bases of fiqh) it is called a title; and the meaning of the name i.e. the meaning of the title is not acted on at all, because the name, i.e. the title, has no perception. Therefore the statement about Quraish does not mean that it cannot be in other than Quraish.
So the saying of the Prophet (saw) "this matter is in Quraish" and "this matter will remain in Quraish" does not mean that it is illegal for the Khaleefah to be from other than Quraish, nor that the leadership remain in Quraish. Rather it means that it is in them and correct to be in other than them. Thus the statement about them does not prevent the Khaleefah to be from other than them. Accordingly, this is a condition of preference and not a condition of contract.
Also the Prophet (saw) had appointed 'Abdullah ibn Ruwaha, Zaid ibn Haritha, and Usama ibn Zaid as amirs, all of them were not from Quraish. Thus the Prophet gave imarah (leadership) for people other than Quraish. The word "this matter" means the authority i.e. the rule and it is not restricted in the Khilafah alone. We can conclude therefore that since the Prophet (saw) appointed other than Quraish in the ruling then this is an evidence that ruling is not restricted to them and not prevented from people other than them. So these ahadith stated some of the people who are eligible for the Khilafah to indicate their preference, not to restrict the Khilafah to them and to prevent its contracting to people other than them.
Also, it is not a condition that the Khaleefah must be Hashemite or Alawite (from the family of 'Ali) because it was confirmed that the Prophet (saw) has given the ruling to people other than Bani Hashim, and Bani 'Ali, and when he left for Tabuk he appointed Muhammad ibn Maslama as ruler over Medina, and he was not a Hashemite or Alawite. He also appointed Mu'ath ibn Jabal and 'Amr ibn al-'As as rulers for Yemen, and they were not Hashemites or Alawites. It was also proved by decisive evidence that the Muslims made the bay'ah of Khilafah to Abu Bakr, 'Umar and 'Uthman, and that 'Ali had made bay'ah to each one of them although they were not of Bani Hashim. And all the Sahabah agreed on their bay'ah, and it was not narrated that anyone denied their bay'ah although they were not Hashemites nor Alawites. So this was an Ijma'a from the Sahabah, including 'Ali and Ibn 'Abbas and the rest of the Hashemites, that it is allowed for the Khaleefah to be non-Hashemite or non-Alawite. In regard with the ahadith talking about the superiority of 'Ali and the household of the Prophet (saw), they indicate their preference, not considering it a condition for the Khilafah contract that the Khaleefah must be from them.
From this it becomes clear that there is no evidence for any condition to contract the Khilafah other than the six conditions mentioned above. The others, assuming the correctness of all the texts which made mention of them or that they came under rules deduced from sound texts, are conditions of preference and not conditions of contracting. What is legally required to become a Khaleefah is the fulfillment of the conditions of contracting the Khilafah. Other than that, Muslims are informed about the candidates for the Khilafah so as to decide the best of them. But any person chosen by them will have the Khilafah contracted to him as long as the conditions of contract alone were fulfilled by him even if he does not possess other than them.
Seeking the Khilafah and debate for it is allowed to all Muslims, and it is not makruh. No text was reported to prohibit the competition for it. It was established that Muslims contended for it in the courtyard of Bani Sa'ida while the Prophet (saw) was shrouded on his bed, not buried yet. It was also established that the six persons of the shura, who were from the eminent Sahabah, contended for the Khilafah in front of all the companions and they were not denied this, and they agreed with them on this debate. This Ijma'a of the Sahabah indicates that the debate for Khilafah is permissible, and it is allowed to ask for it, and to seek it and to debate against each other by opinion and proof for the sake of attaining it. In regard with the prohibition of asking for imarah (leadership) mentioned in the ahadith, this is a prohibition for incompetent persons who are not fit for it, like Abu Tharr. But those who are fit for the imarah are allowed to ask for it. 'Amr ibn al-'As asked for it and the Prophet (saw) appointed him as a wali. So the reported ahadith are specific for those who are not qualified for it, whether it was an imarah or Khilafah. But those who are fit for it, the Prophet (saw) did not prohibit them asking for it, and he gave the imarah for those who asked for it. So since the Prophet (saw) gave the imarah to those who asked for it, and also prohibited asking for the imarah, then the prohibition is taken to mean those who are not up to the task and therefore the prohibition is not absolute.
It is not allowed to have more than one Khaleefah in the world because 'Abdullah ibn 'Amr ibn al-'As narrated that he heard the Prophet (saw) say: "Whoever takes a pledge to an Imam giving him his hand shake and the fruit of his heart has to obey him if he can. If another comes to dispute him strike the neck of the other." Also Abu Said al-Khudri narrated that the Prophet (saw) said: "If a pledge is taken to two Khaleefahs, kill the latter one." And 'Arafaja said that he heard the Prophet (saw) say: "If someone comes to you when you are united over one man and wants to break your strength and divide your unity, kill him." Abu Hazim also narrated that he accompanied Abu Hurairah for five years and heard him narrate about the Prophet (saw) saying: "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 be Khulafa'a and they will number many. They asked: What then do you order us?. He said: Fulfill the bay'ah to them one after the other and give them their due. Surely Allah will ask them about what He entrusted them with."
If Khilafah was established for two Khaleefahs in two countries at the same time, it would not be valid for either of them, because Muslims are not allowed to have two Khaleefahs. It is not correct to say that the bay'ah is valid to the one that had it first because the matter is to establish a Khaleefah, not to make a race for it, and also because it is the right of all Muslims, not the right for the Khaleefah, so the matter must go back again to the Muslims to establish one Khaleefah in case of establishing two Khaleefahs. It is incorrect to suggest a ballot between them because Khilafah is a contract, and the ballot is not included in the contract. And it is incorrect to refer to the saying of the Prophet (saw) "fulfill the bay'ah one by one" because this is the case if a pledge is given to Khaleefahs when there exists a Khaleefah, so the pledge is not valid except for the first one whose pledge was contracted, and whoever comes afterwards could not have the pledge contracted to him. The case under discussion is that if the Khilafah is established for two Khaleefahs when the majority of the influential people elected two Khaleefahs at the same time, and the pledge of each of them was contracted legally. So the two contracts are cancelled and the matter must be returned to the Muslims; if they established the pledge for one of them then it is contracted as new, not as a confirmation to his previous case, and if they established it to other than them, then it becomes a contract. Thus the matter is a right to all Muslims not to persons who enter in a race for it. And if two Khaleefahs were established, and the majority of the influential people in the affairs of ruling and Khilafah sided with one of them and it was they who elected him, while the minority was with the other, then the pledge would be for the one who the majority of the influential people in the matters of ruling elected, whether he was elected first, second or third, because he is considered the legal Khaleefah when the majority of the influential people elected him. The others must make a pledge to him for the sake of unity of the Khilafah, otherwise Muslims will fight him because the Khilafah is contracted by the pledge of the majority of the Muslims. He thus becomes a Khaleefah who must be obeyed by all Muslims and it becomes haram to elect another person.
However, the reality of the ruling is that the majority of the influential people, in whose hands lie the affairs of ruling, are usually found in the capital, because that is where the highest affairs of ruling are conducted. So if the residents of a province or provinces elected another Khaleefah and the pledge of the one that is in the capital came first, then the Khilafah is for him because the pledge given by the people of the capital is a linkage which indicates that the majority of the influential people are on his side, and the pledge in this case is for the first. But in the case that the Khaleefah in the provinces was elected first, the preference is given to the one who has the majority of influential people on his side, because the precedence of the people of the provinces in giving the pledge weakens the linkage that the majority of the influential people are present in the capital. In any case, it is not allowed to retain more than one Khaleefah, even if this leads to fighting against the one who did not have the Khilafah contracted to him.
The Khilafah is not contracted by appointing a successor or heir, because it is a contract between the Muslims and the Khaleefah. The pledge by the Muslims and the acceptance from the person whom they elect is a condition in the contract of the Khilafah. The appointment of a successor or heir does not suit to include this condition, so the Khilafah is not established with it. Accordingly, the appointment of the next Khaleefah, by the existing Khaleefah, is not included in the Khilafah contract because he does not have the right to contract it, and because the Khilafah is a right of the Muslims, not the Khaleefah, and they contract it to whom they wish. So the appointment of the next Khaleefah or recommending him by the existing Khaleefah is not correct, because he gives something which he does not possess. Giving something which is not possessed by the giver is illegal. So the existing Khaleefah cannot appoint another Khaleefah to succeed him, whether he was his son or relative or a person remote to him, and the Khilafah is not contracted to him at all, because its contract was not carried out by those who have it, thus it is an illegal, uncommissioned contract.
In regard with what was narrated that Abu Bakr appointed 'Umar, and 'Umar appointed the six persons from the Sahabah, and that the Sahabah have agreed on that and they did not challenge this action and thus it was an Ijma'a from them; this does not indicate that the appointment of a successor is legal. This is because Abu Bakr did not appoint a Khaleefah, rather, he consulted the Muslims about who might be Khaleefah for them. So he nominated 'Ali and 'Umar. Then the Muslims through three months during the life of Abu Bakr, chose 'Umar by their majority. Then after the death of Abu Bakr, the people came and gave their pledge to 'Umar, and hence the Khilafah was contracted to 'Umar. But before the pledge 'Umar was not a Khaleefah and the Khilafah was not established to him, neither by the nomination of Abu Bakr, nor by the selection of him by the Muslims. It was rather contracted when they gave him their pledge and he accepted it. As for the appointment of the six people by 'Umar, it was a nomination to them by him upon the request of the Muslims. Then 'Abdul Rahman ibn 'Auf consulted the Muslims about whom they wanted from the six people. The majority wanted 'Ali if he adhered to the practices of Abu Bakr and 'Umar, otherwise they wanted 'Uthman. When 'Ali rejected to adhere to the practices of Abu Bakr and 'Umar, 'Abdul Rahman ibn 'Auf gave the pledge to 'Uthman and the people gave their pledge. So the Khilafah was contracted to 'Uthman by the pledge given to him by the people, not by the nomination of 'Umar or the selection of the people. Had not the people given him their pledge, the Khilafah would not have been contracted to him. Therefore, there must be a pledge by the Muslims to the Khaleefah, and it is not allowed to occur by appointing a successor or a heir, because the bay'ah is a contract of ruling, and the Shari'ah law of contract applies to it.
When the Shari'ah made it obligatory upon the Ummah to appoint a Khaleefah, it defined also the method by which the Khaleefah is appointed. This method is proven by the Qur'an, the Sunnah and the Ijma'a of the Sahabah, which is the bay'ah. So the appointment of the Khaleefah is carried out by the bay'ah to him. Proof that this method is the bay'ah, is confirmed from the bay'ah of the Muslims to the Prophet (saw) and from the order of the Prophet (saw) for us to give bay'ah to the Imam. The bay'ah of the Muslims to the Prophet (saw) was not on his Prophethood, rather it was on ruling, since it was a bay'ah over action and not a bay'ah on belief. So the Prophet (saw) was given the bay'ah in his capacity as a ruler and not as a Prophet and a Messenger. Because the acknowledgement of the Prophethood and the Message is a matter of belief and not a bay'ah, so the bay'ah could only have been for him in his capacity as the head of the State. The bay'ah was mentioned in the Qur'an and the ahadith. Allah (swt) said:
"O Prophet, if the believing women come to give you a bay'ah that they will not associate anything as partners to Allah, not to steal, not to commit adultery, not to kill their children, not to produce any lie that they have devised between their hands and feet, nor disobey you in what is right then accept their bay'ah" [TMQ 60:12]
Allah (swt) also said:
"Lo! Those who give bay'ah to you (Muhammad) they give bay'ah only to Allah. The hand of Allah is above their hands" [TMQ 48:10]
Al-Bukhari reported about 'Ubada ibn as-Samit, who said: "We pledged ourselves to the Messenger of Allah to listen and obey in whatever pleases and displeases us, and that we should not dispute the authority of those who had been entrusted with it, and to stand for or say the truth wherever we are, fearing no blame of anybody for the sake of Allah." Al-Bukhari reported about 'Abdullah ibn Hisham, who witnessed the Prophet (saw), that his mother Zaynab, daughter of Hameed, took him to the Messenger of Allah (saw) and said: "O Messenger of Allah, take his pledge." The Prophet (saw) said: "He is young" and rubbed (wiped) his head and said du'a for him. Al-Bakhra narrated about Abu Hurairah, who said that the Messenger of Allah (saw) said: "Three persons to whom Allah will not talk on the Resurrection Day, nor purify them, and they have severe punishment are: A person who has an excess of water on the road and prevents the wayfarer of it; and a person who gives bay'ah to an Imam for his worldly affairs only, so if the Imam gave him that which he wants he fulfilled (the bay'ah) to him, otherwise he would not; and a person trading a commodity to another in the late afternoon and he swore by Allah that he was offered so and so for it, although he was not, and the person believed him and bought it." From these three ahadith it is obvious that the bay'ah is the method of appointing the Khaleefah. The hadith narrated by 'Ubada states that he gave bay'ah to the Prophet to listen and obey and this is a bay'ah to a ruler. The hadith about 'Abdullah ibn Hisham states that the Prophet (saw) rejected his bay'ah because he was not mature which indicates that it is a bay'ah on ruling. From the hadith reported by Abu Hurairah it is evident that it is a bay'ah to the Imam. The word 'Imam' in the hadith is undefined i.e. any Imam (of the time). There are other ahadith which refer to the bay'ah and the Imam.
It is reported in Muslim that the Prophet (saw) said: "Whoever gave bay'ah to an Imam giving him his handshake(clasp)...". And in Muslim, Abu Said al-Khudri said that the Prophet (saw) said: "If a bay'ah is given to two Khaleefahs kill the latter of them." And Muslim narrated that Abu Hazim said: "I accompanied Abu Hurairah for five years and heard him narrate that the Prophet (saw) 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 be Khulafa'a and they will number many. They asked: What then do you order us?. He said: Fulfill the bay'ah to them one after the other and give them their due. Surely Allah will ask them about what He entrusted them with."
So the texts from the Book and the Sunnah are clear that the method of appointing the Khaleefah is the bay'ah. All the Sahabah understood this and followed it. So Abu Bakr was given a special bay'ah in the courtyard of Bani Sa'ida, and a public bay'ah in the mosque, then who did not give him the bay'ah in the mosque gave it later on, like 'Ali ibn Abu Talib. 'Umar was given a bay'ah from the Muslims. 'Uthman also was given bay'ah from the Muslims. 'Ali was given a bay'ah from the Muslims as well. So the bay'ah is the only method to appoint a Khaleefah for the Muslims.
With regard to the practical details to conduct the bay'ah, they are evident in the appointment of the four Khulafa'a who came directly after the death of the Prophet (saw), who are Abu Bakr, 'Umar, 'Uthman and 'Ali. And all of the Sahabah accepted this and confirmed it. If it was against the Shari'ah, they would definitely have denied it because it is related to the most important thing upon which the well-being of Muslims and maintaining the Islamic rule depend. Whoever follows what happened in the appointment of these Khulafa'a will find that some Muslims had debated in the courtyard of Bani Sa'ida; the nominees were Sa'd, Abu 'Ubayda, 'Umar and Abu Bakr only, and as a result of the debate Abu Bakr was given the bay'ah. On the next day Muslims were called to the mosque and they gave him their bay'ah. As a result of this bay'ah, Abu Bakr became a Khaleefah for the Muslims. When Abu Bakr felt that his illness was fatal he called upon the Muslims to consult them about who would become the next Khaleefah. The opinion in these consultations focused on 'Ali and 'Umar only. He continued in these consultations for three months. When he completed them and knew the majority of the Muslims opinion he announced to them that 'Umar would be the Khaleefah after him. Immediately after his death Muslims came to the mosque and gave the bay'ah of Khilafah to 'Umar so he became Khaleefah by this bay'ah from the Muslims and not by the consultations nor by the announcement by Abu Bakr of the results. When 'Umar was stabbed, the Muslims asked him to appoint a successor for him but he refused. They insisted, so he mentioned six of the Sahabah. Then after his death, the nominees appointed one of them as a representative who was 'Abdul Rahman ibn 'Auf. He referred to the opinion of the Muslims and consulted them. Then he declared the bay'ah to 'Uthman. The Muslims stood up and gave their pledge to 'Uthman, and thereby he became a Khaleefah by the pledge of the Muslims and not by the announcement of 'Abdul Rahman. Later on 'Uthman was killed and the majority of Muslims in Medina and Kufa gave their bay'ah to 'Ali ibn Abu Talib, so he too became a Khaleefah by the bay'ah of Muslims.
From this it appears that the practical details to conduct the pledge of Khilafah is the debate among Muslims about who is suitable for the Khilafah. Once the opinion settles upon a list of people, their names will be publicised to the Muslims. For the one they choose from amongst them, they are asked to give him their pledge, and the rest of the nominees are also asked to give him their bay'ah as well. So in the courtyard of Bani Sa'ida the debate was about Sa'd, Abu 'Ubayda, 'Umar and Abu Bakr, then Abu Bakr was given the bay'ah which was equivalent to their selection. But this selection was not binding for Muslims until his bay'ah was given by the Muslim populace. Abu Bakr discussed with the Muslims about 'Ali and 'Umar then he declared the name of 'Umar, who was then given the bay'ah. 'Umar suggested the Khaleefah to be from among the six people. After referring to the Muslims 'Abdul Rahman ibn 'Auf declared the name of 'Uthman who was then given the bay'ah. And 'Ali was given the bay'ah immediately, as the situation was one of riot, and it was known that no nominee was equivalent to him in the opinion of Muslims when 'Uthman was killed. Thus the matter of bay'ah proceeds after debate to establish suitable candidates, then one of them is elected as a Khaleefah, then the bay'ah is taken for him from the people. Although this matter was evident in the consultations made for Abu Bakr, it is very clear in the case of the bay'ah given to 'Uthman. Al-Bukhari narrated on the authority of al-Zuhari that Hameed ibn 'Abdul Rahman had informed him that al-Meswar ibn Mahrama told him that the group appointed by 'Umar had met and consulted. " 'Abdul Rahman ibn 'Auf had said to them: I am not the one who competes with you for this matter but if you wish I could choose for you one from among you. So they assigned this to 'Abdul Rahman. When they charged 'Abdul Rahman with this matter, people turned to him to the extent that I did not see any one who followed this group or stepped behind them. The people turned to 'Abdul Rahman consulting him in those nights until the night of which we woke up in the morning and gave our pledge to 'Uthman." Al-Meswar said: " 'Abdul Rahman knocked at my door, after part of the night had passed, until I woke up. He said: I see you sleeping, by Allah, my eyes did not find much sleep tonight. Set forth and call al-Zubair and Sa'd. I invited them to him. He consulted with them. Then he called me and said: Call 'Ali for me, so I called him. He carried on a whispered conversation with him until the night faded away. Then 'Ali left him with some expectations, and 'Abdul Rahman was afraid about something from 'Ali. Then he said call 'Uthman for me, so I called him. He carried on whispered conversation with him until they departed as the muazin called for fajr prayer. After he lead the people in the fajr prayer, and the group of six persons met near the minbar (pulpit), he sent for all the Muhajirs and Ansar who were present (in Medina) and sent for the leaders of the army who delivered the pilgrimage that year with 'Umar. When they met, 'Abdul Rahman recited the shahadateen and said: O 'Ali! I viewed the matter of the people and did not see them equalling anyone to 'Uthman, so do not let anything disturb yourself. And he said (to 'Uthman): I give you the bay'ah upon the way of Allah, His Messenger and the two Khulafa'a who came after him. So 'Abdul Rahman, the Muhajirs, the Ansar, the leaders of the army and rest of the Muslims gave him the bay'ah."
So the nominees for the Khilafah were limited to the group named by 'Umar after the Muslims had asked him to do so. 'Abdul Rahman ibn 'Auf, after he withdrew himself from the nomination to the Khilafah, took the opinion of the Muslims about who would be the Khaleefah. He then announced the name of the person who the Muslims wanted after consulting with them. After he announced the name of the person who the people wanted, the bay'ah was given to him and he became Khaleefah by this bay'ah. Therefore the hukm shari'i concerning the appointment of the Khaleefah is to limit the nominees for the Khilafah by those who represent the opinion of the majority of Muslims. Then their names are displayed to the Muslims and they are asked to select one of the nominees to be Khaleefah for all. Then it is determined whom the majority of the Muslims have chosen, and the bay'ah from all Muslims is taken for him, whether each person had specifically chosen him or not. This is the method because of the Ijma'a of the Sahabah about 'Umar limiting the nominees for the Khilafah to six specific persons, and the consensus of the Sahabah that 'Abdul Rahman takes the opinion of all the Muslims about who will be Khaleefah for them, and consensus to give the bay'ah to the one who 'Abdul Rahman announced as the person elected by Muslims as a Khaleefah is clear when he said: "I viewed the matter of the people and did not see them compare anyone with 'Uthman." All of these points clarify the hukm shari'i concerning the appointment of the Khaleefah.
Two issues remain to be examined, one of them is who are the Muslims who appoint the Khaleefah? Are they the influential people or a certain specific number of Muslims? Or do all of the Muslims appoint the Khaleefah? The second issue concerns the actions occurring this century in elections, such as secret ballots, polling boxes and counting votes. Are these matters consistent with Islam, and does Islam allow them or not?
As for the first issue, Allah (swt), has given the authority to the Ummah and made the appointment of the Khaleefah a right and duty for all Muslims; and He did not make it a right of one particular group excluding another, nor for a jama'ah leaving another jama'ah aside, since the bay'ah is a duty upon all the Muslims. The Prophet (saw) said: "Whoever dies without having a pledge upon his neck would die the death of jahilliyah", and this is general command for every Muslim. Therefore, the influential people do not possess the exclusive right to appoint the Khaleefah and cannot ignore the rest of the Muslims. Nor do specific persons have the exclusive right. Rather, this right is for all the Muslims with no exception, it even includes the fajirs (wicked people) and munafiqeen (hypocrites), providing they are mature Muslims because the Shari'ah text came in a general form in this instance and nothing came to limit it (make it specific to certain people) except the refusal of the pledge from the young who have not yet reached the age of puberty. So the text has to be taken generally.
However, it is not a condition that all Muslims practice this right. Whilst it is a duty, because the bay'ah is fard, it is fard kifayah (collective duty) and not fard ain (individual duty). Thus, if some of the Muslims fulfill it, the duty drops from the rest of the Muslims. But all Muslims must be enabled to practice their right in electing the Khaleefah, regardless of whether they use their right or not. In other words, every Muslim must be able to participate in selecting the Khaleefah. So the issue is to enable the Muslims to carry out the duty of establishing the Khaleefah which Allah (swt) prescribed upon them, in such a way that the sin of not fulfilling this duty is removed from their shoulders. The issue is not the actual participation of all the Muslims in conducting this duty. This is because the duty which Allah (swt) prescribed is to establish the Khaleefah for Muslims by their consent, and it is not a requirement for all Muslims to perform it. Two matters result from this issue. One of them is that the consent of all Muslims in establishment of the Khaleefah is achieved, or secondly, the consent of all the Muslims about the appointment is not achieved, however, in both cases, the Muslims are able to participate in the appointment.
With regard to the first matter no condition is set concerning a specific number required to appoint the Khaleefah, rather any number of Muslims can give their bay'ah to the Khaleefah and in this bay'ah the consent of rest of the Muslims is attained by their silence, or by proceeding to obey him, or by anything which implies their consent, then the appointed Khaleefah becomes a Khaleefah for all the Muslims, and he will be legally the Khaleefah even if only three people appointed him, because collectivity is achieved by carrying out the appointment of the Khaleefah. The consent is achieved by their silence and through obedience or anything similar, on condition that this is accomplished by absolute choice and enabling the expression of opinions fully. However, if the consent of all the Muslims was not achieved, then the appointment of the Khaleefah would not be accomplished unless it was performed by a group that represents the consent of the majority of the Muslims, regardless of the number in this group. From here some jurists concluded that the appointment of the Khaleefah is established by the pledge given to him by the people of influence, because they consider the influential people as the group which achieves the consent of the Muslims through the pledge they give to any man who fulfils the contractual conditions of the Khilafah. Therefore, it is not the pledge of the influential people which establishes the Khaleefah, nor is their pledge a condition for the legality of the appointment of the Khaleefah, rather the pledge of the influential people is an evidence indicating that the consent of the Muslims to the pledge has been achieved, because the influential people are considered as representative of the Muslims. And every evidence which indicates that the consent of the Muslims with the pledge to a Khaleefah is fulfilled completes the appointment of the Khaleefah, and the appointment of the Khaleefah by this pledge would be legal.
Accordingly the divine rule is to establish the Khaleefah by any gathering whose appointment of the Khaleefah achieves the consent of the Muslims by any indication that proves this consent, whether this indication is the pledge of the majority of the influential people, the majority of the representative Muslims, the silent acceptance of the Muslims regarding the group that gave the pledge, their hurry to show obedience as a result of the pledge or by any similar means, as long as they were provided with the full facility to freely express their opinions. It is not a divine rule that this gathering must be of only the influential people nor that they are four or four hundred or more, or that they must be the residents of the capital or the regions. Rather the divine law is that their pledge fulfils the consent of the majority of Muslims by any indication together with enabling them to freely express their opinion fully.
What is meant by all Muslims is those Muslims who live in lands controlled by the Islamic State, i.e. those who are subjects of the former Khaleefah, if the Khilafah exists, or those by whom the Islamic State would be established and the Khilafah contracted, in case the Islamic State was not established. As for the other Muslims, their pledge and consent are not an essential condition, because they are believers disassociated from the Islamic authority or they live in dar al-kufr (land of kufr) and they can not join dar al-Islam, so they have no right in the contracting pledge, but they must give the pledge of obedience because legally those who rebel from the Islamic authority are treated as rebels. And those who live in dar al-kufr, the establishment of the Islamic authority is not achieved by them unless they establish it in reality or they enter into its domain. Therefore, the Muslims who have the right in the pledge of contracting and their consent is considered a condition to ensure the legal appointment of the Khaleefah are those Muslims by whom the authority of Islam is established in reality. It is not true to say that this is a rational study, or to say it has no divine evidence. The reason for this is that it is a study about the subject upon which the divine law applies and not on the law itself, therefore it does not need a divine law but rather must explain its reality. For example, the eating of dead meat is prohibited in the divine law. Verification of what is the dead meat is the subject of the law, it is a subject which is related to the law. So appointing the Khaleefah by Muslims is the divine law, and that this appointment should be by consent and selection is also the divine law. It is these provisions which need the divine evidence. But who are the Muslims by whom the appointment is completed? And what is the matter by which the consent and selection are fulfilled? These are referred to as the manatt (subject) of the law, i.e. the subject upon which the law came to treat. The application of the divine law upon the subject is the achievement of the law. Therefore, it is needed to study the manatt which the divine law came to treat by explaining its reality.
It is incorrect to say that the manatt of the law is the illah (reason) of the law so it would necessarily need a divine evidence. It is incorrect to say that, because the subject of the law is different than the reason of the law. And there is a great difference between illah and manatt (the reason and the subject). Illah is the incentive for the law, i.e. the thing which indicates the intention (aim) of the law giver (Allah) for this law, and this must have a divine evidence which indicates such, so as to understand the aim of the law giver (Allah). Whereas the manatt of the law is the subject for which the law came i.e. the question upon which the law applies, and not its evidence nor its illah. What is meant by its being the subject with which the law is commissioned or entrusted, is that it is the subject with which the law suspends or hangs, i.e. the law was brought to solve it. It does not mean that the law was legalised because of it so as to be called the illah of the law. So the manatt of the law is that which is other than the traditional aspect of the divine law. Its verification is different from the verification of the illah. The verification of the illah is referred to as the comprehension of the text which came justified with the argument, and this is an understanding to the tradition and it is not the manatt. But the manatt is other than the traditions, it is meant to be the reality upon which the divine law is to be applied.
For example, alcohol is haram, the divine law is the prohibition of alcohol. The investigation that a certain drink is alcohol or not, so as to judge it as haram or not is a investigation of the manatt. So it is necessary to study whether the drink is alcohol or not in order to state that it is haram. The investigation of the reality of the alcohol is a verification of the manatt. And if you said that the water allowed to use for wudu is the mutlaq (absolute, unrestricted) water then the divine law is that the mutlaq water is the one which is allowed for wudu. So the investigation that the water is unrestricted or restricted in order to judge upon it as allowed for wudu, is a verification of the manatt. Therefore, it is necessary to study the water to determine if it is free or restricted. This study of the reality of the water is the verification of the manatt. And if you said the person who made hadath (discharged something from back or front) has to make wudu for the prayer, then the verification that the person is mohdath or not mohdath is a verification of the manatt, and so on. Shatebi said in the book Al-Muafaqat: "These subjects and the like which we necessitated to define the manatt must take the evidence about it according to the reality of every incident." And he further states: "Ijtihad could be connected with the verification of the manatt, and thus it does not require the knowledge of the aims of the law giver (Allah), nor does it require the knowledge of the Arabic language, because the aim of this ijtihad is knowing the subject as it is. So it requires the knowledge of what this subject can't be recognised without. Therefore the mujtahid has to be knowledgeable and mujtahid from this aspect in order to apply the divine law according to the specific requirement."
The investigation of the illah is referred to the understanding of the text which came justified (provided with reasoning). And this is an understanding of the traditions, and it is not the manatt, rather the manatt is other than the tradition. And it is meant to be the reality upon which the divine law applies. As an example we observe that alcohol is haram, however, the verification of whether a liquid is alcohol or not is the verification of the manatt. And if you said the mutlaq water is that with which wudu can be performed, then the verification that the water is free or not free is the verification of the manatt. And if you said that the mohdath has to make wudu, then the verification that the person is mohdath or not is the verification of the manatt. Thus the verification of the manatt is the investigation of the thing that is the subject of the law. Accordingly, it is not a condition that the one who verifies the manatt be a mujtahid or a Muslim, but it is enough that he/she be knowledgeable of the matter. So the study of who are the Muslims and whose pledge is evidence of the acceptance or consent for the Khaleefah, is a study about the verification of the manatt.
This is in regard to the first question. As for the second issue, regarding what occurs nowadays in conducting elections by secret ballot, using polling boxes, the count of votes and the like, all these are styles to perform the selection by consent. Therefore, they do not enter under the divine law, nor in the question of manatt of the divine law which is the subject that the divine law came to treat, because this matter is not concerned with direct Muslim deeds or the subject upon which the divine law applies; rather they are the means of the human action to which the divine law came, i.e. the action which the speech of the law-giver (Allah) is related with, which in this instance, is the establishment of the Khaleefah by consent, provided that there is a complete facilitation to enable the expression of opinion for this question. Therefore, these styles and means are not part of what the divine laws are sought for. And they are treated as matters which the general text has permitted, and there is no special evidence to forbid them, so they are mubah. So Muslims have the right to select these or other styles. Any style which leads to enabling the Muslims to carry out the fard of appointing the Khaleefah by consent and selection, Muslims are allowed to use, unless there is a divine evidence which prohibits it.
It is incorrect to say that this style is a human act and should not be conducted except according to the divine law, with an evidence to indicate its rule. It is incorrect to say so, because the human action which must be conducted according to the divine law and which must have an evidence that indicates its law, is only the action which is considered as an origin, or it is a branch of an origin action whose evidence is special, not general. An example for this is the prayer, whose evidence is only related to establishing it, and it does not include every action included in the prayer. Therefore there must be an evidence upon every action in it. But the action which is a branch for an action that a general evidence applies to its origin, then the general evidence applies on all its branches. The prohibition of an action (which is a branch) requires an evidence to prohibit it, and get it out of the rule of its origin and thus give it a new rule, and so are all the styles. In the question of elections, the original action is the appointment of the Khaleefah by consent and selection. But the actions which branch out from that such as polling, using the polling boxes and counting of the votes and the like, they all enter under the rule of the origin, and do not require another evidence. To exclude any of them from the rule of the origin, i.e. to prohibit it, is a matter which requires an evidence. This is the case for all the styles which are human actions. Concerning the means which are tools like the box in which the voting papers are put, these take the rule of things and not the rule for actions, upon which applies the principle "Originally things are permitted unless there exists an evidence of prohibition."
The difference between method and style is that method is an action which is considered by itself as an origin, or a branch to an action that does not have a general evidence for its origin, rather, its evidence is special. The style is an action which is a branch to an action upon which there is no general evidence. Thence, the method must depend upon a divine evidence because it is a divine rule, therefore it must be adhered to, observed, and closely followed. And Muslims have no choice concerning it unless its rule is ibaha (permissible). This is different from the style which does not depend on a divine evidence, rather it is included in the rule of its origin. Therefore, it is not obligatory to follow a particular style even if the Prophet (saw) did so. Rather a Muslim is allowed to use any style as long as it leads to the performance of the action, and thus it becomes a branch to the action. Therefore, it is said that the style is defined by the kind of action.
A Khaleefah is deposed immediately if his personal situation has changed in a way that necessitates his removal; alternatively the Khaleefah must be deposed in certain situations where he is not allowed legally to continue as a Khaleefah. The difference between the two situations is that in the first case which removes him from the position of Khaleefah, allegiance to him is not obligatory the moment the incident has occurred. But in the second case in which he necessarily has to be deposed, obedience to him remains obligatory until his deposition is completed. There are three matters which effectively change his situation and would remove him from the position of Khaleefah according to the first criteria above:
Firstly: If he left Islam and insisted on apostasy.
Secondly: If he became totally insane and did not regain his sanity.
Thirdly: If he became captive in the hands of an overpowering enemy, and can't escape from them, and his rescue from captivity is impossible.
In these three cases he is removed as Khaleefah and is deposed at once, even if no decision was announced to depose him, so his obedience is not obligatory, and his orders are not executed by those who have evidence of the presence of any one of the above cases. But it must be proved that any of these cases did occur to him, and this proof should be in front of the mathalim court, which decides to remove the Khaleefah and judges on his deposition so that the Muslims can appoint another Khaleefah.
What changes his situation in a way that does not immediately remove him from the Khilafah, but he cannot remain as a Khaleefah, are five matters:
Firstly: His justice was challenged, by becoming openly fasiq.
Secondly: He changed to a female or became bisexual.
Thirdly: He became insane, but not entirely, so he regains his sanity sometimes and madness at other times. In this case no guardian or deputy can be appointed for him, because the contract of the Khilafh falls to him personally, and it is not allowed, in this case, for another person to act as deputy to him.
Fourthly: Incompetence to accomplish the duties of the Khilafah for any reason, whether a loss of a part of his body, or an incurable disease that prevents him from performing the deeds. The crucial point is that due to his incompetence to perform the deeds as a Khaleefah, the affairs of the deen and the interests of the Muslims are neglected. This is munkar that must be removed, and it cannot be removed except by disposing the Khaleefah inorder to facilitate establishing a Khaleefah other than him. So deposing him in this case becomes a wajib.
Fifthly: Overpowering that renders him incompetent to run the affairs of Muslims by his opinion according to Shari'ah. If an overpowering force subjected him to the extent that he became unable to run the affairs of the Muslims by his own opinion according to the rules of Shari'ah, then he becomes legally incompetent to carry out the duties of the Khilafah, so he must be deposed. This matter could be conceived in two cases.
In the first case, one or more members of his court overpowered or controlled him, so they proceed independently in implementing the matters and compel him to act by their opinion, such that he becomes unable to disagree with them, and is compelled to proceed according to their opinion. In this case, it is examined; if it is likely to save himself of their influence within a short period of time then he is given this short period to remove them and rid himself of them. If he did that then the objection disappears and the incompetence is removed. Otherwise he must be deposed.
The second case, he becomes in a situation of captivity by falling under the control of an enemy and under his influence, who directs him as he likes and deprives him of his will in running the affairs of Muslims. In this case, it is examined; if it is possible to dissociate himself from falling under their control within a short period of time, then he is given this short period. If it was possible to separate himself of them, and he managed to salvage himself of the enemy's control, then the objection disappears and the incompetence is removed. Otherwise he must be deposed.
In these five cases the Khaleefah must be deposed once anyone of them occurs. But their occurrence needs a proof which should be decided in front of the court of mathalim. So it judges the cancellation of the Khilafah contract and deposes the Khaleefah, inorder that Muslims contract the Khilafah for another person within three days.
This subject of Khilafah is a political study. It is a discussion about the highest post of ruling, and of course, a study of its thoughts. It would be a great error for the non-Muslim reader to assess the truthfulness of the thoughts presented in this book against anything other than the reality. Similarly, Muslims should only judge in accordance with the Book of Allah (swt) and the Sunnah of the Prophet (saw). This is the case because the correctness of the thought is not judged by another thought unless it is a branch of that throught. Rather, it is judged according to its agreement with reality, or its agreement with its origin which is proven to agree with reality. Therefore, we warn the reader of the necessity to read these thoughts with accuracy and awareness of the reality which they express. So while the ruling crisis in the Islamic world is apparent, and the crisis in ruling in many other parts of the world is noticeable, it is worth understanding the ruling thoughts so as to realise through contemplating that he arrived at the solution of the ruling crises in the world and the best solution for the ruling of human beings and caring for their affairs. To find the sound solution for ruling the people, thought must be directed in a way to limit the criterion for assessment to the agreement with reality or the agreement of the divine rules to them.
It is wrong to make democracy as a standard for the correctness of the thoughts, or to be influenced by its concepts. Since democracy has spread in the world to the extent that its name prevailed over all popularised nations as an ideal; the oriental countries began adopting it after the Western countries adopted it, despite the difference in its meaning. Muslims as a whole have been affected by it with no difference between those who believe that the Khilafah is established by Muslims or those who believe that Allah (swt) and His Prophet (saw) have assigned the Khaleefah. Both parties reconcile their opinions to the people in the name of democracy or in the name of some of its thoughts. Therefore, we repeat the warning not to take, while studying these thoughts, any other thoughts as a criterion, particularly the thoughts of democracy. For example, some of those who study ruling, have noticed some forms of the governments in the countries familiar to them, and read about other forms of government historically. And by logical assumptions they write about the forms of governments and say: if the government was entrusted by all the people or the majority of them, then this form of government is called 'democracy'. And if the government was restricted to the hands of a few people, then this form of ruling is called 'autocracy'. But if the ruling was delegated to one ruler from whom all others take their authorities, then this form of ruling is called 'royalty' or 'monarchy'. They mean by ruling both authority and legislation. Upon these bases all the various ruling forms were rebuilt. From this, the types of states and unions among states stemmed. It derived from this also the types of government, elections, the right of voting, and the like.
These thoughts are different from the Islamic thoughts of ruling both wholly and in detail. The difference between them is great, because the ruling system in Islam is the Khilafah system. It is a model completely distinguished from any other ruling style. The Shari'ah that is applied in founding the ruling, in caring for the citizens affairs, and in the external affairs is from Allah (swt). It is not from the people, nor from a few people or from any individual. Every person who embraces Islam has the right to understand this Shari'ah the way that his knowledge of the Arabic language and the Shari'ah texts achieves. And he has the absolute right, within the limits of the Arabic language and the Shari'ah texts, to understand what his mind brings him to and his opinion becomes a Shari'ah verdict on him and upon anyone who accepts his understanding of the Shari'ah verdict and adopts it. He has the right to govern the people according to it if he was a ruler or a judge. But if the Khaleefah, who is the head of the Islamic state, adopted any Islamic opinion, then the opinion that the Khaleefah adopts alone becomes the law, and it becomes a duty upon all the citizens to live according to the adopted opinion, although this does not mean they have to leave their opinions. Rather, they must legally work within the law, i.e. the opinion which the Khaleefah has adopted, and to submit to it alone. But they are not prevented from educating the people with their opinions and inviting to Islam according to them. People are left free to think in Islam according to the basis upon which Islam is established, that is the Islamic 'aqeeda (creed). So they have the right to think regarding legislation and other matters provided that everything emanates from the 'aqeeda.
This is in regard to the legislative and intellectual aspect. But with regard to ruling, it differs from legislation. It means the sultan (authority) and not the ruling system, because the ruling system is of the legislation, it is from the divine rules. And the authority has been assigned by the Shari'ah to the whole of the Muslims, i.e. the Ummah, to everybody of the Ummah, male or female. So every Muslim has the right in the authority, and has the right to practice this right whenever it is required. By this right in the authority which the Ummah possesses, she establishes upon her one man to implement the Shari'ah of Allah, and gives him the pledge upon the Book and the Sunnah by a pledge of consent and selection from him and from her. The resulting contract of Khilafah between him and her, is not a hiring contract. Because it is a contract to implement the Shari'ah, not a contract to serve and benefit her, although the implementation of the Shari'ah is for her service and interest since it is a mercy for her and mankind. But it should be noticed that in the action, upon which the Khilafah contract is concluded, that what matters is the implementation of the Shari'ah and not the benefit of the Ummah. If her immediate benefit disagreed with the Shari'ah then the Shari'ah alone has to be implemented. Therefore, if she demanded to leave a divine rule, the Khaleefah obliges her to do it. And if she left the Shari'ah he is obliged to fight her till she returns to it, as he was established only to implement the Shari'ah. The Ummah has also no right to depose the Khaleefah as she desires, rather she has the right to depose him in certain cases, and he is deposed by himself and removed from the Khilafah in particular cases. He can be fought against in one case only, that is if he were to apply anything other than Islam. So his matter is not within the hands of the Ummah though she herself has established him, rather this matter is in the hands of the Shari'ah.
But the authority, which is a right to the Ummah, does not end by appointing the Khaleefah but the authority remains with her, and its aspect in the case of the existence of the Khaleefah is by taking him to task on his actions in applying the Shari'ah and in caring for her affairs, by the styles she decides within the limits of the Shari'ah law. He must submit to her accounting, and to clarify for her the situation which she might complain of and question him about. Even if she raised the arms against him because of that, he is not allowed to fight her till he clarifies any suspicion she holds and what he considers to be the truth.
This is the ruling in Islam, and upon this basis the ruling system is built. It does not lead to any types of states, rather it is itself one form. It is a system of unity not a system of union. It makes it a duty to struggle to preserve the unity system and to demolish the union system. It does not have types of governments, in fact it has no governments. The state and the government are one body, which is the Khaleefah and his mu'awin (assistants). As to what branches from this system regarding the method of appointing the Khaleefah, the necessity to guarantee the consent and selection for every Muslim in electing the Khaleefah and giving a pledge to him, and facilitating for the Ummah on an individual basis, this consent and selection, all these matters came through divine rules specific to the subject of Khilafah and general in every contract, including the contract of Khilafah. Though Khilafah system may appear similar to the democratic system with regard to the freedom of elections, voting, and to voice some opinions, it is incorrect to consider the two systems as similar because in the democratic system, these matters result from the liberties, whilst in Islam they result from the conditions of the Khilafah contract and every contract, i.e. the consent and selection, which if not fulfilled in the Khilafah contract, the contract would be illegal, and the Khaleefah would not then be legal.
The difference between guaranteeing the freedom in elections and securing the consent and selection in the contract is that the freedom is the decision of the people. So if it was not achieved it would not affect the legality of the contract. But securing the consent and the selection is the rule of the contract not the law of the people. So if it was not achieved the contract would be illegal and not concluded. Similarly, all the thoughts of Islam differ from the thoughts of democracy. They are at the same time different from aristocracy, monarchy, and off course the concept of empire. So if the thoughts of Islam are studied, they have to be studied in their capacity as a ruling system distinguished from any other system, and with regard to their agreement with the reality of the ruling, but not any ruling, rather the reality of a particular ruling, that is the ruling with which man governs mankind practically, and according to the highest level of exalted values, or with regard to the divine evidences from which these ruling thoughts have been deduced.
Upon this basis we demand the reader to study this subject as a study of a ruling system that is completely distinguished from other systems; without adopting any criterion for the correctness of these thoughts except their agreement with the reality of the system which was the most exalted compared to any other ruling system mankind has been ruled with, or their agreement with the basis from which they emanated, which is the Book of Allah (swt) and the Sunnah of the Messenger of Allah (saw).