Once the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) died, the Sahabah unanimously agreed on giving the Bay’ah to the Khaleefah to replace him (pbuh) as the head of State. The Muslims continued appointing the Khulafah until the year 1342 Hijri, i.e. 1924 CE. They also called this man Amir al-Mu’mineen or just simply the Imam.
No Muslim becomes a Khaleefah without the Ba’yah and the Islamic State followed that rule until the last days of its reign. The application of the Ba’yah varied. In some cases, the Khaleefah was given the Ba’yah directly. Some Khulafah recommended another person other than their relatives. Some passed it on to their sons or other members of their family. And others recommended more than one person from his family. However, this recommendation was not enough to make them the Khaleefah, they had to receive the Ba’yah before taking office. No Khaleefah has ever been appointed without a Ba’yah. The giving of the Ba’yah also varied. It was taken from Ahl al-Hall wal ‘Aqd (prominent and distinguished figures - linguistically the people who loosen and bind); it was also taken from the people; and in some cases it was taken from Sheikh al-Islam (the leading scholar). There were certain instances where the taking of the Ba’yah was abused. However, it was still a valid Ba’yah and not simply a succession to the post of Khaleefah, head of the Khilafah.
Each Khaleefah would appoint his assistants who were in some periods of history called Wazirs, (assistants). The Khaleefah would appoint the governors, the Chief Justice, the Army Commanders and the Heads of the State Department. This was how the structure of the State was constituted at all times. The structure never changed until the colonial disbelieving powers destroyed the ‘Uthmani State and divided the Islamic world into many statelets.
Many internal events took place within the Islamic State throughout its history. This was generally not caused by alien factors, but instead due to a misunderstanding of Islam for the prevailing circumstances at the time. Those who later interpreted the situation attempted to change the status quo according to their own understanding. Each one of them attempted to exert an opinion to redress the existing state of affairs at the time. However, these different opinions were still considered Islamic1.
Therefore, such differences were connected with the Khaleefah himself as a person, and not with the post of Khaleefah. For example, differences were about who should be Khaleefah and not about the ruling structure. Differences were restricted to some details and consequently, had nothing to do with the basics nor with the outlines. The Muslims never differed about the Book (Qur’an) and Sunnah. The differences arose out of their understanding of the Qur’an and Sunnah. Similarly, the Muslims never differed about the appointment of the Khaleefah, but on who should fill the position. They never differed about the obligation of implementing Islam comprehensively, nor about carrying it to the whole world. All of the Khulafah ruled on that basis, implementing Allah’s rules and inviting people to the Deen of Allah. Some of them actually misapplied the rules of Islam due to misunderstanding them, and some of them misapplied the rules deliberately. However, they all implemented Islam and nothing else. They all held their relations with other countries, peoples and nations on the basis of Islam and for the sake of carrying the Message to the whole world.
Therefore, internal differences never affected the expansion of the Islamic conquests and the spreading of Islam. The Islamic State went on conquering other countries with the aim of spreading Islam, from its inception until the 11th century Hijri (17th century CE). It conquered Persia, India, Caucasia (in Russia) until it reached the frontiers of China, Russia and the Caspian sea to the East. The Islamic State conquered al-Sham to the North; Egypt, North Africa and Andalus (Spain) to the West; as well as conquering the Anadhoul (Turkey), the Balkans, Southern and Eastern Europe until they
1 Translator - There is a difference between an Islamic opinion and the Islamic opinion. The Islamic opinion means that the opinion is the only opinion for the issue. An example of the Islamic opinion is that the structure of the Ummah has to be united without any separation such as borders. However, an Islamic opinion means an opinion amongst many others derived from Islamic sources. An example of an Islamic opinion are the requirements for the post of Khalifah.
reached the Black Sea, together with al-Qaram (Crimean Peninsula) and the South of the Ukraine. The armies of the Islamic State reached the very gates of Vienna. It never stopped conquering other countries nor did it relent from conveying the Message of Islam until weakness crept in and the misinterpretation of Islam became apparent. It then rapidly deteriorated to the point where it began adopting rules and legislation from other systems alien to Islam, thinking that they did not contravene the Shari’ah, and finally it was destroyed.
The progress and prosperity of the Islamic State was commensurate to its intellectual strength, its creative ability and its Ijtihad and Qiyas (analogical reasoning for extracting a rule from the Islamic texts). In the first century, its conquests expanded the State vastly and Ijtihad reached new dimensions as the State faced new problems in the conquered lands. The application of the Shari’ah laws concerning new issues which arose in Persia, Iraq, al-Sham, Egypt, Spain, India and other countries encouraged the inhabitants to embrace Islam. This state of affairs confirmed the validity of Ijtihad which was performed and the creativity of the Muslims. This continued until the 5th century Hijri, and then the creativity and Ijtihad waned resulting in the deterioration of the State’s structure.
During this time, the crusades occurred and they preoccupied the Muslims for a time until they emerged victorious. Following this, the Mamluks came and ruled over the Islamic State, and they paid little attention to the intellectual aspects, so the intellectual abyss expanded and the political thinking stultified. The subsequent invasion of the Tartars resulted in the loss of a great number of books thrown into the Tigris river and the destruction of this considerable intellectual heritage only served to rub salt into the wounds. The intellectual ailment which these factors engendered, contributed to the stagnation of Ijtihad. The search for new verdicts concerning new issues that arose was restricted to the issuing of Fatawa and the twisting and misinterpretation of the texts.
As a result, the intellectual and political level of the State spiraled downward. Then came the ‘Uthmanis and they assumed power. They concentrated on military might and conquered Istanbul (Constantinople) and the Balkans and they stormed Europe in a spectacular manner, making them the leading state. However, this did not lift the intellectual level. The military might was not backed up by an intellectual revival and this resulted in the military power of the State evaporating by the day until it completely vanished. In any case though, it did carry the Message of Islam and it managed to spread Islam successfully, for the people of the conquered lands embraced Islam and they accounted for millions who are Muslim to this day.
Two factors contributed to give some Khulafah and governors the ability to run the affairs in a manner which impaired the unity and might of the State. Those factors are:
1) The existence of many different opinions (in understanding the Hukm Sharii in some issues), and
2) The reluctance of the Khaleefah to adopt some specific rules related to the political system though adoption occurred in other areas such as economics.
However, this factor did not affect or endanger its existence. As an example, the rule of the governors was general and they were given wide mandatory powers enabling them to deputize on behalf of the Khaleefah over many issues. This developed in some governors a sense of supremacy, becoming almost independent and autonomous. They simply contented themselves with giving the bay’ah to the Khaleefah and praying for him at Jum’uah, as well as issuing currency bearing his name, and other trivial issues. The authority remained firmly within their grasp and this turned those Wilayat (regions) into semi-independent statelets; for example, Hamdaniyeen and the Saljuqs and others. However, this wide mandatory power given to the Wali was not by itself the cause of the State disintegrating into statelets.
As an example, the governership of ‘Amr ibn al-‘As over Egypt had wide mandatory power, as was that of Mu’awiyah ibn Abi Sufyan’s over al-Sham and these governors never separated themselves from the Khilafah. However, when the Khulafah weakened and accepted the status quo from the Wulaa’, this trend took root and each Wilayah acted like a state of its own even though they remained part of a single State and under one system of government. Despite all of this the State still remained intact, a single unity, where the Khaleefah always appointed and removed Wulaa’. No matter how powerful a Wali became, he never dared to disassociate officially from the rule of the Khaleefah. The Islamic State was never at any time a confederation of Wilayat, even at the height of the independence enjoyed by the Wulaa’. It always remained one State with one Khaleefah who was the only body with mandatory powers engulfing the whole State, including the small villages.
As for the issue concerning the Khilafah in Spain and the birth of the Fatimid State in Egypt, these are different from the issues of the governors. In the case of Spain, the governors actually took over the Wilayah and declared independence, but the Wali there was never given Ba’yah as a Khaleefah for all Muslims. However, later he carried the title of Khaleefah of the people of that Wilayah, but not over all the Muslims. The Khaleefah of the Muslims remained one and the ruling belonged to him. The Wilayah of Spain in that situation was regarded as a Wilayah which was not under the authority of the Khaleefah. This was also the case for Iran during the ‘Uthmani rule, as there was no Khaleefah there, but Iran was a Wilayah outside the rule of the Khaleefah. As for the Fatimids in Egypt, it was established by the Ismailis, which is a non-Islamic sect.
Therefore, their action cannot be considered a legitimate one and their state cannot be considered Islamic one. Their presence along with the presence of the Abbasid Khilafah cannot be considered a presence of multiple Khilafah since the Fatimids was not a legitimate Khilafah. It was a coup attempt orchestrated by this sect to change the Islamic State to one that is controlled by their false understanding. Therefore, the Islamic State remained one unit without division, it was never divided into states, although there were some attempts to capture the rule based on specific understanding. These attempts failed and the State remained One.
The Islamic State remained one and undivided, it was not a group of states, what took place was a host of attempts to seize power with a desire to implement a certain Islamic understanding of ruling. These attempts eventually came to an end and the Khilafah reverted to a single entity. The proof of the unity of the Islamic State despite the existence of numerous ruling situations can easily be demonstrated by considering that the Muslim could travel at that time from one Wilayah to another. From East to West, wherever Islam reigned, without being asked about his origins and without being restricted, for the Islamic domain was one single land.
This is how the Islamic State has always united Muslims under one jurisdiction and remained as such. It remained strong and prosperous until the colonial disbelieving forces destroyed it as a State in 1924 when they abolished the Khilafah at the hands of Mustafa Kamal.