It's been over seven months, with 45,000+ civilians killed in P41estine the majority of whom are women and children. Similarly with Muslims worldwide (Burma, Kashmir, Uygurs in East Turkestan etc..), and the silence of "Muslim" rulers is deafening. The only solution is for Muslims to mobilize their armies and unite under a single umbrella of Khilafah, which is the promise of Allah SWT. If you are in a position of power, please raise your voice. If you can't do much, please consider donating to Palestine Red Crescent Society or any other charity organisations which you truly trust, JazakAllah khairan.

Subscribe to this RSS feed
Islamic Ruling System

Islamic Ruling System (94)

 

 

The first edition of the book The Ruling System was written in the early 1950’s CE.Western culture had a great effect on the minds of the educated sons of the Muslims. One of its effects, which dominated their thinking, was that Islam is a spiritual religion that does not have a system that can solve the problems we face today, that there was no ruling system for the state, and the state that Islam had was merely religious and spiritual.

 

Those undertaking the work for Islam used to call for it with general thoughts that were not crystallised. They lacked the clarity in showing Islam as a complete system for life, state and society. They used to call for a return to Islam in an open and general manner without them having a clear vision in their minds as to what the systems of Islam were or the manner in which they were going to restore the ruling by Islam. The fact that ruling by what Allah has revealed could not be restored without the Khilafah was absent from their da’wah. That is why establishing the Khilafah and reinstating the ruling by what Allah has revealed did not find a place in their program of work.

 

At such a time a structure undertook the study of the situation of the Ummah at her present time and the condition she had reached. And it studied her history, power and the authority she had in the State that was the leading state in the world. It was a state that was established on the Islamic ‘aqeedah and Ahkam Shar’iah that emanate from it and which the State apply, implement and convey it as a Message to the world. Then this structure undertook an aware study of Islam from its original sources in the Qur’an and Sunnah and came to the following conclusion that Islam is a complete and comprehensive system that solves all of life’s problems. So it wrote books explaining all of this in a general manner without touching upon the details. Thus it wrote books on the systems of Islam, such as the ruling, economic and social system. And in writing these books it observed the practical aspect so that the Muslims realise that Islam is a practical ideology and a complete system fit for implementation, so that they adopt its systems and work to bring it back in the realm of life via the establishment of the Khilafah State. The Khilafah State is the only method for applying these systems in the reality of life.

 

The understanding of these thoughts and systems expanded. This was owing to the structure conveying them to the Muslims, continuously discussing and talking about them, and by referring to their sources to crystallise them. All of this was in order to establish them in the realm of life. These thoughts and concepts were no longer confined to being only broad guidelines or just giving a general picture; especially after Islam had become the expectation of Muslims and their object of hope in rescuing themselves from the situation they were in. This was after realising that Islam was the complete and comprehensive system that solves all of life’s problems. Likewise it became an incentive for them to learn more details of the Khilafah State that they work to establish and to know more details about the systems of Islam which the Khilafah State would implement upon them. This was the incentive for us to expand these books and enrich them with many details that hitherto were not present in the first edition.

 

Regarding the third edition of the book The Ruling System, we worked to expand it and demonstrate in a detailed manner the reality of the Khilafah State, its apparatus and tasks and whatever relates to it. We elucidated how the form of ruling in Islam is unique and distinct, differing with all other ruling systems existent in the world. In addition, we have set forth the principles of ruling in detail and the apparatus of the Khilafah State, the method and styles of appointing a Khaleefah. Also, we explained that the Khilafah State is a human state and not a divine state. We also mentioned the Mu’awinoon (Assistants) and their mandatory powers, and the ruling regarding Shura (consultation) and its mandatory powers. And we presented the clarification that it is obligatory to implement Islam completely and comprehensively and that it is forbidden to implement its rules gradually. Similarly we have shown how it is forbidden for the State to be a police state and when obedience to the ruler is obligatory and when it is forbidden, and when we are obliged to unsheathe the sword in his face and that we are obliged to account him in every instance. In the third edition we missed the chance of giving the reference for the Ahadith and confining to the text mentioned in the books of hadith. In taking many of the Ahadith we used to rely on the texts mentioned in the trustworthy and recognised books of fiqh (jurisprudence) but the books of fiqh would sometimes transmit a hadith by meaning only or just confine itself to a portion of the hadith that it used as an illustration or evidence. So when the third edition went out of print we undertook the task of finding the references of all the Ahadith mentioned in the book and we mentioned from where each hadith had been taken and we confined to the text stated in the books of hadith. We excluded every hadith whose authenticity or suitability as a proof was not assured for us. Likewise we are convinced of all the reports cited in the books from their sources. Any report we were not sure of or if we found it to be weak, we omitted it from the book. Similarly we corrected certain concepts and rules as a result of the discussions and reviews. As a result, the book came out in this form, which we present to the Muslims.

 

We pray to Allah that He grants in this book much goodness and that He quickly honours the Muslims by establishing the Khilafah State so that what has been mentioned in the book is put in application and implementation. Verily, for Allah that is not a hard matter.

 

15th of the sacred month of Muharram 1417 AH

 

1/6/1996 ‘

 

Abdul Qadeem Zalloom

 

 

 

4.9 Seeking the Khilafah

To seek the Khilafah post and compete over it is lawful to all the Muslims and it is not Makruh; no text has ever been listed indicating its prohibition. It has been confirmed that the Muslims competed for it in the hall of Banu Sa’ida while the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) was lying on his bed still unburied. It has also been confirmed that the six members of the Shura council who were all senior Sahabah competed over the post, in the presence of the Sahabah and no one had reproached them but rather consented to this competition. This demonstrates that a consensus (‘Ijmaa’) of the Sahabah has been established about the permissibility of competing for the Khilafah post and the permissibility of applying for the post and campaigning for it by putting forward the arguments and opinions, proposals etc for the aim of achieving that goal. As for the prohbition of seeking the Imarah (authority) that came in the Ahadith, it is forbidding the weak persons, like Abu Dharr, who are not deemed suitable for it. But those who are suitable for the Imarah are permitted to seek it by the evidence of the courtyard of Bani Saa’idah and the incident of the six people of the Shura. Therefore, the Ahadith are specific to those who are not qualified for the post, whether it was Imarah or Khilafah, the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) did not reproach the one who was qualified for it, the, and He appointed the one who asked for it. Since the Messenger (pbuh) appointed the Imarah to the one who asked for it. He (pbuh) forbade the seeking of Imarah regarding the one who seeks it from those who are not suitable. Thus it was not an absolute prohibition.

 

Published in Islamic Ruling System
Be the first to comment!
Read more...

4.8 The Bay'ah

The Bay’ah is an obligation upon all Muslims and it is also the right of every Muslim, male and female. The evidences concerning the Bay’ah being an obligation are numerous; of these is the speech of the Messenger of Allah (pbuh):

“Whoever dies while there was no allegiance on his neck dies a death of the days of ignorance (Jahiliyyah).” [Narrated by Muslim] The fact that the Bay’ah itself indicates that it is the right of the Muslims, is understood from the Bay’ah itself, for it is from the Muslims to the Khaleefah, and not from the Khaleefah to the Muslims. The Bay’ah of the Muslims to the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) has been confirmed in much sound Ahadith listed as Sahih. In Al-Bukhari, it has been reported that Ubadah Ibnus Samit said:

“We pledged ourselves in complete obedience to the Messenger of Allah, in weal and woe, and that we would not dispute the matter (authority) with its people, that we would speak or stand the truth at all times wherever we were and that in Allah’s service we would fear the censure of no one.” In Bukhari, it has been narrated on the authority of Ayyub from Hafsa that Umm Atyya said:

“We gave our Bay’ah to the Messenger of Allah (pbuh), so He (pbuh) recited to us ‘they should associate none with Allah’ and He forbade us from wailing. A woman among us withdrew her hand saying: ‘so and so woman has made me happy and I want to reward her’, He (pbuh) said nothing, the woman went then came back.” ‘Abu Hurayra reported that the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) said:

“There are three types of people whom Allah would not talk to nor would He praise or purify them on the Day of Judgement, and they will be subjected to severe punishment: A man who has water to spare and would not give it to the wayfarer, and a man who gives his Bay’ah to an Imam for his own good, if He gave him what He wanted He would be loyal to him, otherwise He would not, and a man who offers another man goods for sale after Asr prayer, swearing by Allah that He was given so much price for it, and so He believed him and took the goods, while He was not given that price for it.” [Narrated by Bukhari and Muslim] Al-Bukhari and Muslim narrated from ‘Abdullah Ibnu ‘Umar, He said:

“when we gave our Bay’ah to the Messenger of Allah (pbuh), to hear and to obey, He (pbuh) used to say to us: ‘As much as you can.’”

Al-Bukhari narrated from Jarir Ibnu ‘Abdullah, He said:

“I gave my Bay’ah to the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) to hear and to obey, so He dictated to me: ‘As much as you can, and to give advice to every Muslim.’” Junada Ibnu Aby Umayya said:

“We entered Ubadah Ibnus Samit’s home while He was ill and said to him: ‘May Allah cure you, won’t you tell us a Hadith that Allah my reward you for, which you heard from the Messenger of Allah (pbuh)?’ He said: ‘The Messenger of Allah (pbuh) called us and we gave him our Bay’ah, and said: of what He took from us that we pledged to hear and obey, in weal and woe, in ease and hardship and in preference to ourselves and that we would not dispute the matter (authority) with its people’, He said: ‘unless we witness a flagrant act of disbelief which we have proof about from Allah (swt).’” [Narrated by al-Bukhari and Muslim]

Thus the Bay’ah for a Khaleefah is in the hands of the Muslims, it is their right and they are the ones who give the Bay’ah and their Bay’ah is the one that makes the Khilafah convened to the Khaleefah. The Bay’ah is given by a handshake, but it could also be given in writing. ‘Abdullah Ibnu Dinar said: “I witnessed Ibnu ‘Umar when people agreed on (the imarah of) ‘Abdul Malik ibn Marwan, He said: ‘I write herewith that I agree to hear and obey the servant of Allah, ‘Abdul Malik, the Ameer of Believers, according to the Book of Allah and the Sunnah of His Messenger, and to the best of my ability.’ The Bay’ah can also be given by any other means.

However, the Bay’ah should only be taken from the adult, as the Bay’ah of the child is not valid. Abu Aqeel Zahrah Ibnu Ma’abad reported on the authority of his grand-father ‘Abdullah Ibnu Hisham who lived during the time of the Messenger of Allah (pbuh), that his mother Zainab Ibnatu Hamid took him to the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) and said: “O Messenger of Allah, take a Bay’ah from him”; upon this the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) said:

“He is young”, He (pbuh) wiped over his head and prayed for him. [Narrated by Bukhari]

As for the wording of the Bay’ah, this may vary; it is not restricted to any specific wording. It should, however include the commitment that the Khaleefah acts according to the Book of Allah and the Sunnah of His Messenger; and that the person who gives the Bay’ah should pledge to obey in weal and woe and in ease and hardship. Once the Bay’ah is given to the Khaleefah or the Bay’ah of the Muslims to him contracted the Khilafah to the Khaleefah, then the Bay’ah becomes a trust on the neck of the one who gives the Bay’ah. Thereafter He is not allowed to withdraw it. It is the right of every Muslim to partake in contracting the Khaleefah. Once the Khaleefah has been contracted, it is not allowed for anyone to withdraw it. It is not allowed for him even if He wanted to do so.. Al Bukhari narrated from Jabir ibn ‘Abdullah  that a bedouin gave Bay’ah to the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) on Islam, but He became ill, so He said:

‘Relieve me of my Bay’ah”, the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) said:

“The town (Madinah) is like the mason’s bellow (or furnace), it gets rid of (cleans) its impurity, and its goodness (scent) manifests (shines).” Muslim also narrated from Nafi’, He said: ‘Abdullah ibn ‘Omar said to me: I heard the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) say:

“Whoever withdraws a hand from obedience, He would meet Allah on the day of judgement without having proof for himself.” So breaking the Bay’ah to the Khaleefah is a withdrawal of the hand from the obedience to Allah. However, this is the case if his Bay’ah to the Khaleefah was a Bay’ah of contract, or a Bay’ah of obedience to a Khaleefah who had been contracted by the Muslims. But if He pledged himself to a Khaleefah initially, and the Bay’ah was not completed to him (the Khaleefah), then He has the right to relieve himself from that Bay’ah, in view of the fact that the Muslims, as a whole, did not accept him. So the prohibition expressed in the Hadith is focused on withdrawing a Bay’ah to a Khaleefah, not to a man for whom the Khilafah contract was not completed.

 

Published in Islamic Ruling System
Be the first to comment!
Read more...

4.7 Who appoints the Khaleefah

The Legislator (Ash-Shari’) has given the authority to the Ummah, and made the appointment of the Khaleefah by all Muslims. He (swt) has not confined it to a particular group to the exclusion of another group, nor to a particular section to the exclusion of another section, thus the Bay’ah is an obligation on all Muslims:

“Whoever dies while there was no allegiance (Bay’ah) on his neck He dies a death of the days of ignorance (Jahiliyyah).” [Narrated by Muslim from ‘Abdullah Ibn ‘Umar] This applies to every Muslim. It therefore, follows that the prominent figures are not the only people eligible to appoint the Khaleefah to the exclusion of other Muslims. Those eligible to appoint the Khaleefah are not a specific group of people; rather this right belongs to all Muslims without exception, even to the hypocrites (Munafiqeen) and the wrongdoers (Fujjar), so long as they are mature Muslims. This is because the relevant texts came in a general form, nothing else has been reported to specify them except the rejection of the Bay’ah of the child who is under the age of maturity, and therefore they remain general in their scope.

Although, it is not a condition for all the Muslims to exercise this right, eventhough it is their right. Although it is an obligation on them, since the Bay’ah is obligatory, the obligation is one of sufficiency (Fard Kifayah) and not an individual obligation (Fard ‘Ayn). Accordingly, if some of the Muslims performed it the rest of the Ummah would be exempted. Nevertheless, the whole of the Ummah should be enabled to exercise their right of appointing the Khaleefah, regardless of whether they utilised this right or not. In other words, every Muslim should be able to participate in appointing the Khaleefah, by genuinely enabling him to do so. Therefore, the point at issue is in enabling the Muslims to perform that which Allah (swt) has ordained upon them of appointing the Khaleefah in a way that would exempt them of this duty and not the actual exercise of that duty by all the Muslims. This is because the obligation that Allah (swt) ordained on them is to appoint the Khaleefah by the Muslims and by their consent, and not obliged upon all Muslims to appoint him. Two issues could actually arise from this matter: One is that the consent of all the Muslims of his appointment was realised; the other is that the consent of all the Muslims of this appointment was not achieved, although, in both cases, the Muslims were genuinely enabled to exercise this right.

As far as the first issue is concerned, it is not stipulated to have a specific number of those who appoint the Khaleefah. In Actuality any number of Muslims who give their Bay’ah to the Khaleefah, whereby the consent of the Muslims is achieved by their remaining silent, or by pledging allegiance and obedience to him, or by any other similar sign which indicates their approval, can appoint the Khaleefah. Thereupon, the appointed Khaleefah becomes the Khaleefah of all the Muslims and He would be the lawful Khaleefah according to the Shari’ah, even if only five people appointed him. This is because they would be regarded as a valid group able to appoint a Khaleefah. Consent would be achieved through the Muslims remaining silent and pledging obedience or the like, on condition that this should be carried out with absolute flexibility of choice and with the necessary steps taken to enable everyone to voice his (or her) opinion should they wish to do so. If the consent of all the Muslims was not achieved then the appointment of the Khaleefah would not take place unless a group of Muslims undertook the task of appointing him and in so doing the consent of the populace is achieved, i.e. the majority, regardless of the number of that group. In this context, some learned scholars have concluded that: The appointment of the Khaleefah can be carried out if He is given the Bay’ah by the Ahlul Hall Wal Aqd because they - the scholars - regard them as being the group which represents the opinion of the Muslims at large, and those who are able to give the Bay’ah to any man who satisfies the contractual conditions. However, the Bay’ah of the Ahlul Hall Wal ‘Aqd does not actually make the appointment of the Khaleefah a forgone conclusion. Their Bay’ah is by no means a precondition which makes the appointment of the Khaleefah lawful. The Bay’ah is merely a sign indicating that the consent of the Muslims has to be achieved, since they are regarded as the representatives of the Muslims. Any indication that the consent of the Muslims has been realised by the Bay’ah of a Khaleefah makes the appointment legal and binding.

Therefore, the Shar’ai verdict is executed if a group of people appointed a Khaleefah and in so doing the consent of the Muslims was achieved by any indication. It could also be by the Bay’ah of the majority of the Ahlul Hall Wal ‘Aqd or by themselves being the representatives of the Muslims, or by the silence of the Muslims about the Bay’ah of the Khaleefah whom they had given the Bay’ah to. It could also be by the Muslims rushing to pledge allegiance and obedience on the strength of such a Bay’ah, or by any other means or indications so long as they had been fully enabled to voice their opinion. The Shari’ah verdict does not contain any provisions maintaining that such an indication must be arrived at through the Ahlul Hall Wal’Aqd or that they should constitute five or 500 people or more or less, nor that they need be the inhabitants of the capital or the provinces. The Shari’ah rule merely states that with their Bay’ah the consent of the majority of the Muslims is achieved according to any indication that reflects such consent. This means that the right to vote has been guaranteed, and their ability to voice an opinion has not been curtailed.

In this context, “all the of Muslims” means those Muslims living in that country under the rule of the Islamic State, i.e. those who were the subjects of the previous Khaleefah, if the Khilafah was (already) established, or those through whom the Islamic State would be reestablished, and by whose Bay’ah the Khilafah would be contracted if the Islamic State was not established and they had worked towards establishing it so as to resume the Islamic way of life. The Bay’ah of the other Muslims would not be considered as a condition, nor would their consent be considered as such. This is because they would either be outside the authority of Islam, or living in Dar-ul Kufr and unable to join Dar-ul Islam. In either case, they would not have the right to give the Bay’ah of contract but they should give the Bay’ah of obedience. Those who do not submit to the authority of Islam would be considered rebels (Bughat). Those living in Dar-ul Kufr were thus evidently unable to achieve the establishment of the Islamic authority and therefore they cannot now establish it practically or join it immediately. Thus, the Muslims who possess the right to excercise the Bay’ah of contract and those whose consent is conditional for the Khaleefah to be lawfully appointed are the ones through whom the authority of Islam effectively gains its establishment. It would be wrong to say that this is an intellectual matter that has no Shari’ah evidence to back it up with. One cannot say this because this is related to the subject of the verdict (Manat-ul Hukm) and not the verdict itself. Therefore, it is necessary to explain its reality, rather than bring a Shari’ah evidence for it. For instance, the eating of carrion meat is forbidden, now that is the verdict (Hukm). To investigate and determine what constitutes carrion meat would be the subject of the verdict, i.e. the Manat or the subject that the verdict is related to. Thus the Muslims have to establish a Khaleefah constitutes the Shari’ah verdict, and this appointment has to be carried out by consent and choice would be the verdict too, these are what require evidence. Whereas, if we were to ask who constitutes the Muslims by whom the appointment would be carried out and what constitutes the matter which makes consent and choice achievable these would constitute the subject of the verdict (Manat-ul Hukm), i.e. the subject for which the ‘Hukm’ (verdict) had come to deal with. The conformity of the Shari’ah verdict with the subject makes the verdict achievable and accomplished. So the subject that the Shari’ah verdict came for should be investigated by explaining its reality.

It would be incorrect to say that the ManaT-ul Hukm is the reason behind the Hukm (‘illatul Hukm) therefore requiring evidence. This is incorrect because the subject (ManaT) of the verdict is different from the reason (‘illah) behind the verdict; in fact there is a big difference between the subject and the reason. The reason is what initiates the verdict to be initiated, i.e. it is the thing that indicates the intention of the Legislator behind the verdict. Without any doubt, this requires a Shari’ah evidence to indicate and understand the intention of the Legislator for initiating the verdict. As for the subject of the verdict, this is the subject upon which the verdict applies or to which the verdict is related. In other words, it is the issue that the verdict conforms and not its evidence nor its reason (‘illa). It therefore, follows that the ManaT is the thing that the verdict is attached to, i.e. the verdict is brought to deal with it, or solve it. It is not true to say that the verdict is brought because of it, so as to say that it is the reason behind the verdict. Thus, the ManaT of the verdict is the nontextual aspect of the Shari’ah verdict. To realise it would be other than to realise the reason, for realising the reason would be to understand the text that had come to justify the reason, and this is to actually understand the text (Naqliyyat). This is not the ManaT either, because the ManaT is completely different from the Naqliyyat, as it (ie. the ManaT) is the reality to which the Shari’ah verdict conforms.

 

Published in Islamic Ruling System
Be the first to comment!
Read more...

4.6 By which people is the Khilafah contracted

From reviewing what took place in the Bay’ah of the Khulafaa’ Ar- Rashidoon and the consensus of the Sahabah (Ijmaa’), one can conclude that the Khilafah is contracted by the Bay’ah. In the Bay’ah to Abu Bakr, the Bay’ah from the influential figures amongst the Muslims, (Ahlul Hall Wal ‘Aqd) in Madina alone was enough to contract the Khilafah. The Muslims of Makkah were not consulted, nor were those living in other parts of the Arabian Peninsula, indeed they were not even asked about their opinion concerning the matter. This was also the case in the Bay’ah to ‘Umar. With regards the Bay’ah to ‘Uthman, ‘Abdul Rahman Ibnu ‘Awf asked the Muslims of Madina regarding their opinion and He did not merely content himself by asking the influential people. When the Oath was taken for ‘Ali, most of the people of Madina and Kufa gave him their Bay’ah, and He was singled out in the Bay’ah. His Bay’ah was valid even for those who opposed him and fought against him because they never actually gave their Bay’ah to another man nor did they object to his Bay’ah. They rather demanded revenge for the blood of ‘Uthman (for his killing). So the verdict regarding them was that they were rebels who withdrew from the Khaleefah over one particular issue. In this instance the Khaleefah had to explain the situation to them and fight against them. These rebels did not establish another Khilafah.

All of this occurred in the past - the Bay’ah for the Khaleefah by the people of the capital to the exclusion of the other regions - in the presence of the Sahabah. Nobody objected to or condemned that such action be confined to the people of Madina. This is considered to be a general consensus of the Sahabah (Ijmaa’) that states that those who represent the Muslims’ opinion in matters relating to ruling can contract the Khilafah. This is simply because the influential people and the majority of the people of Madina, were the majority of those who represented the opinion of the Ummah regarding the ruling matters, all over the territories of the Islamic State at the time.

Therefore, the Khilafah is contracted if the Bay’ah was taken from those who represent the majority of the Islamic Ummah that lives under the authority of the (last) Khaleefah, in whose place another Khaleefah is sought to be appointed, as it was the case at the time of the Khulafaa’ Ar- Rashidoon. Their Bay’ah would constitute a Bay’ah of contract, while for the others, once the Khilafah has been contracted; their Bay’ah would be classed as a Bay’ah of obedience, i.e. a Bay’ah of allegiance to the Khaleefah and not a Bay’ah of contract.

This would be the case if there was a Khaleefah who died or was removed and a new Khaleefah was sought to replace him. However, if there was no Khaleefah at all in office, and the Muslims were under obligation to appoint a Khaleefah for them to implement the rules of the Shar’a and to convey the Islamic call to the world. This has been the case since the destruction of the Islamic Khilafah in Istanbul in the year 1343 Hijri (1924). Every country in the Islamic world would be eligible to give Bay’ah to a Khaleefah and thus the Khilafah would be contracted to him. If any country throughout the Islamic world gave Bay’ah to a Khaleefah and the Khilafah was contracted to him, then it would become an obligation on all the Muslims living in all the other countries to give him the Bay’ah of obedience, i.e. the Bay’ah of allegiance after the Khilafah was contracted to him by the Bay’ah of the Muslims in his country. This is regardless of the size of that country, big like Egypt, Turkey and Indonesia or small like Jordan, Tunisia and Lebanon. However, this country must fulfill four conditions:

Firstly. The authority in that country must depend on the Muslims only and should not depend on a non-Islamic country or a non-Islamic influence.

Secondly. The security of the Muslims in that country must be guaranteed in the name of Islam, not in the name of Kufr. This means that the protection of the country against domestic or foreign threat should be a protection of Islam solely by a Muslim force, in its capacity as a purely Islamic force.

Thirdly. The implementation of Islam should take place with immediate effect in a comprehensive and radical manner, and that country must be involved in conveying the Islamic Call.

Fourthly. The Khaleefah must fulfil all the contractual conditions; although He needs not fulfil the conditions of preference, since what really matters are the conditions of the contract.

Should that country satisfy these four conditions then the Bay’ah of that country alone would have established the Khilafah, even if it did not represent the majority of the influential people within the Islamic Ummah. This is because establishing the Khilafah is an obligation of sufficiency (Fard Kifayah), and whoever performs that duty legitimately would then have accomplished the obligation. However, stipulating that the Bay’ah should be by most of the influential people would only apply if the Khilafah existed and a Khaleefah was sought to succeed the deceased Khaleefah or one who had been removed. But if there was no Khilafah at all and we sought to establish one, then the fact that it was established legitimately, the Khilafah would be contracted to any Khaleefah who fulfilled the contractual conditions, regardless of the number of Muslims who had given him the Bay’ah. For what matters at that point in time is the establishment of a duty that Muslims have neglected for a period that has exceeded three days. Their neglect of that duty would strip them of their right to choose whom they want. Therefore, under these circumstances, whoever performs the duty would be enough for the Khilafah to be contracted by them. Once the Khilafah was established in that country, and the Khilafah was effectively contracted to a Khaleefah, all the Muslims would be obliged to come under the banner of the Khilafah and give their Bay’ah to the Khaleefah, otherwise they would be sinful before Allah (swt). The Khaleefah should invite them to give the Bay’ah to him. If they were to refuse then the verdict regarding the rebels (Bughat) would apply on them, and the Khaleefah should fight against them until they entered under his loyalty. If the Bay’ah were to be given to another Khaleefah in that country, or in any other country for that matter, once the Bay’ah had been given to the first Khaleefah, and the Khilafah had been legitimately contracted to him with the four conditions being fulfilled. The Muslims would then be obliged to fight against the second ‘Khaleefah’ until He had given his Bay’ah to the first Khaleefah. It has been narrated on the authority of ‘Abdullah Ibnu ‘Amru Ibn al-‘A‘as that He heard the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) say:

“Whoever 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 must strike the neck of that man.” The Khaleefah is also the one who unites the Muslims under the banner of Islam. So once the Khilafah was established, the Jama’ah (community) of the Muslims would have existed, and it becomes an obligation upon the Muslims to join it, and it is a sin to alienate oneself from it. Al-Bukhari and Muslim narrated from Ibnu ‘Abbas that the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) said:

“If anyone sees in his Ameer something that displeases him, let him remain patient, for behold! He who separates himself from the Jama’ah (community) by even so much as a hand span and dies thereupon He has died the death of Jahiliyyah.” Muslim also reported on the authority of Ibnu ‘Abbas that the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) said:

“If anyone sees in his Ameer something that displeases him let him remain patient, for if anyone separates himself from the Sultan (authority) by even so much as a hand span and dies thereupon, He has died the death of Jahiliyyah.” We gather from these two Ahadith that adherence to the Jama’ah (the community) and to the Sultan (authority) is obligatory.

The non-Muslims have no right in the Bay’ah. This is because it is a Bay’ah on Islam, i.e. on the Book of Allah (swt) and on the Sunnah of His Messenger (pbuh). It necessitates Iman (belief) in Islam, in the Book and the Sunnah. The non-Muslims can’t be in the ruling positions nor can they elect the ruler, because there is no way (power) for them over the Muslims, and they have no say in the Bay’ah.

 

Published in Islamic Ruling System
Be the first to comment!
Read more...

4.5 The verdict on the usurper

If a usurper were to seize power by force He would not become Khaleefah, even if He declared himself to be the Khaleefah of the Muslims. This is because the Muslims in this case would not have contracted the Khilafah to him. If He were to take the Bay’ah from the people by force and coercion He would not become Khaleefah even if the Bay’ah was given to him. This is because a Bay’ah that is taken by force and coercion is not considered valid and the Khilafah cannot be concluded by it. For it is a contract based on mutual consent and choice and cannot be concluded forcefully or by coercion. The Khilafah cannot therefore be concluded except by a Bay’ah of consent and choice. However, if the usurper managed to convince the people that it would be in the interest of the Muslims to give him their Bay’ah and that the implementation of the Shar’a rules obliges them to give the Bay’ah, and they were convinced of that and accepted it and then gave him the Bay’ah by consent and free choice, He would become Khaleefah from the moment that the Bay’ah was given to him by consent and choice. This is the case, even though in the first place He seized the authority by coercion and force. The condition is giving the Bay’ah and that it must be by mutual consent and free choice, regardless of whether the one who was given the Bay’ah was the ruler or not.

Published in Islamic Ruling System
Be the first to comment!
Read more...

4.4 Contracting of the Khaleefah

The Khilafah is a contract based on mutual consent and choice, it is a Bay’ah of obedience to whoever is entitled of obedience of people in authority. It is therefore imperative to have the consent of the one who is given the Bay’ah to take the post, and of those who give him the ba Bay’ah. Thus, it is forbidden to force anyone to become Khaleefah if He rejected the post of Khilafah. He should not be forced to accept it. Under such circumstances another person would then have to be considered to fill the post. It is also forbidden to take the Bay’ah from the people by force or by using coercion because in this case the contract would be invalid. Mutual consent and choice have to be observed without any compulsion as in any other contract. However, if the Bay’ah has been contracted by those whose Bay’ah is reliable then the Bay’ah would be considered valid and concluded, and the person for whom the Bay’ah was given would become the person in authority, his obedience would subsequently become compulsory. If afterwards the rest of the people were to give him their Bay’ah, it would be a pledge (Bay’ah) of obedience and not of contracting the Khilafah. Only then could He force the people to give him the Bay’ah, because, at this stage, it would be imposing on them obedience to him, and this is compulsory under Shari’ah law. In this case it would not be a Bay’ah of contracting the Khilafah. Some people may claim that it is forbidden to coerce people to give their Bay’ah. Firstly, the Bay’ah is a contract that would only be valid if mutual consent and choice (within the Islamic Shari’ah) was observed. Once the Bay’ah has been concluded it would become a Bay’ah of obedience, i.e. submission to the order of the Khaleefah, where compulsion would then become lawful as an execution to the command of Allah. Since the Khilafah is a contract, it cannot take place without a contractor. It is like the judiciary, where a man cannot become a judge unless somebody had appointed him as such. The same applies to the Imara; a man cannot become Ameer unless somebody had appointed him as an Ameer. So a man cannot become a Khaleefah unless somebody had appointed him into the Khilafah post. This indicates that no man assumes the post of Khilafah unless the Muslims appointed him to the post, and He would not possess the mandatory powers of the Khilafah unless it was first contracted to him. This contract would not be concluded unless two parties existed, one party would be the one seeking the post of Khilafah (the potential Khaleefah) and the other party would be the Muslims who accepted him to be their Khaleefah. Therefore, for the Khilafah to be contracted the Bay’ah of the Muslims is necessary.

Published in Islamic Ruling System
Be the first to comment!
Read more...

4.3 The conditions of preference

 

The aforementioned are the contractual conditions necessary for the Khaleefah to be appointed. Any other condition, apart from the seven mentioned above, does not constitute a necessary prerequisite for contracting the Khilafah. Such conditions however, constitute conditions of preference if the texts relating to them are confirmed, or if they are listed under a rule that has been confirmed by a sound (Sahih) text. In order for the condition to be a contractual one it should have evidence that includes a decisive command (Talab Jazim) to indicate that it is obligatory. If the evidence does not include a decisive command then the condition becomes only one of preference. No evidence containing a decisive command has been found except for those seven conditions; therefore they alone constitute the contractual conditions. As for the other conditions, whereby a rule has been confirmed as sound, these would constitute conditions of preference only. Therefore, the stipulation that the Khaleefah must be a Mujtahid is not a contractual condition because this has not been confirmed by a text indicating a decisive command. Moreover, the duty of the Khaleefah is to rule, so He is not in need of his own Ijtihad, as He could ask about a verdict or follow the opinions of a Mujtahid and adopt opinions on the basis of his imitation (Taqlid), thus it is not necessary for him to be a Mujtahid. It is, however, preferable for him to be so, but if He is not his Khilafah would still be contracted. The Khaleefah does not have to be brave, nor a shrewd politician or an expert in managing the affairs of the people because there are no evidences to back these conditions, nor do they come under a divine rule that makes them contractual conditions. It is, however, preferable for the Khaleefah to be brave with vision and opinion . The Khaleefah does not also necessarily have to be from Quraysh. As for what has been reported by Al-Bukhari from Mu’awiya that He said: I heard the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) say:

 

 

“Verily this matter is within Quraysh. As long as they implemented the Deen, if anyone were hostile to them, Allah would throw him on his face.” And what Al-Bukhari narrated on the authority of Ibnu ‘Umar that He said: The Messenger of Allah (pbuh) said:

 

 

“This matter would still be within Quraysh even if only two of them remained.” These and other Ahadith, proved sound and related to the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) that the authority is amongst the people of Quraysh, they have actually come in an informative form and not an imperative one. Not one Hadith actually carries a command even though they carry a request. Such a request, however, is not a conclusive command because there is no evidence to qualify them for this. No Hadith has been linked to any connotation (Qareena) that makes it a conclusive command, which indicates that it is Mandub (desirable) and not obligatory. It is, therefore a condition of preference and not a contractual condition. As for Allah’s Messenger (pbuh) saying:

 

 

“if anyone were hostile to them, Allah would throw him on his face.” This indicates prohibition of being hostile to them and not confirmation to his saying:

 

 

“this matter is within Quraysh.” The Hadith says that the matter (ruling) is within them, and it then proceeds to forbid hostility to them. Besides, the word Quraysh is a name and not a description. In Shari’ah terminology it is known as a title. And the meaning derived from the title is never considered, because the title has no meaning (Mafhoom) at all. Therefore, the mention of Quraysh does not mean that the position of ruling cannot belong to other than Quraysh. So when Allah’s Messenger (pbuh) said:

 

 

 “Verily this matter is within Quraysh...” and his saying:

 

 

“This matter would still be within Quraysh...” He (pbuh) did not mean that it is wrong for it (the ruling) to be in other than Quraysh. He (pbuh) meant that it is within Quraysh and, as well, it is valid to be in the hands of others who are not from Quraysh. Thus specifying the people of Quraysh as rulers does not necessarily mean that others are not valid to rule. Therefore, it is a condition of preference and not a contractual condition.

 

Indeed the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) appointed ‘Abdullah Ibn Ruwahah, Zayd Ibnu Harith and Usama Ibnu Zayd to positions of authority and all three were not from Quraysh. Thus the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) did appoint people from other than Quraysh to positions of ruling. In this phrase “this matter” (Amr), means the authority, i.e. the authority to rule, and this does not only apply to the post of Khilafah. The fact that the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) did appoint people from outside Quraysh in posts of authority indicates that authority is not exclusively confined to the people of Quraysh, and prevented from others. Therefore, the Ahadith have mentioned some of the people who are worthy of the Khilafah post, to indicate their preference and do not indicate that it is exclusively confined to them or prohibited for other than them.

 

The Khaleefah does not also have to be Hashemi or ‘Alawi because the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) appointed people who were not from Banu Hashim nor from Banu ‘Ali to positions of authority. When He (pbuh) went out to Tabuk, He appointed Muhammad Ibnu Maslama as Wali over Madina and He was neither a Hashemi nor ‘Alawi. He (pbuh) also appointed Mu’az Ibnu Jabal and ‘Amru Ibn al-‘A‘as over Yemen, neither were of the Hashemi or ‘Alawi. In any case, it has been definitely proven that the Muslims gave the Bay’ah to Abu Bakr, ‘Umar and ‘Uthman, and that ‘Ali gave the Bay’ah to the three of them despite the fact that they were not from Banu Hashim. The Sahabah did not object giving the Bay’ah to them, and it was not reported that anyone had actually objected giving Bay’ah to them, because they were not Hashemites or ‘Alawis. This is considered a consensus of the Sahabah, (Ijmaa’) including ‘Ali and Ibnu Abbas and Banu Hashim’s entire household, that the Khaleefah could be from other than a Hashemi or an ‘Alawi. As for the Ahadith expressing a preference of ‘Ali and the Messenger of Allah’s household, these do not indicate that the Khilafah can’t be contracted except to them, they rather indicate that they are more favourable to it.

 

The above clearly indicates that there is no evidence whatsoever stating that there are other contractual conditions apart from the seven previously outlined. Any other condition constitutes a condition of preference and not a contractual one if the text expressing such a condition has been proven genuine or such a condition has come under a rule (Hukm) derived from a sound text. Under Shari’ah law, what is required is the contractual condition for the Khilafah to be contracted to the Khaleefah. Apart from this, the Muslims will be told about it when the candidates are presented to them, so that they can elect the one whom they prefer. Any man whom the Muslims choose would be appointed Khaleefah if the contractual conditions were fulfilled regardless of the other conditions.

 

Published in Islamic Ruling System
Be the first to comment!
Read more...

4.2 Conditions of the Khaleefah

 

The Khaleefah must satisfy seven contractual conditions in order to qualify for the Khilafah post and for the Bay’ah of Khilafah to him to take place legitimately. These seven conditions are necessary. If just one condition is not observed the Khilafah contract would not have taken place and it would be considered null and void.

 

The contracting conditions are:

 

Firstly. The Khaleefah must be Muslim; the post of Khilafah is never allowed for the unbeliever, nor is it allowed to obey him. Because Allah (swt) says:

 

 

“And Allah will never (lan) give the unbelievers any way (of authority) against the believers.” [TMQ An-Nisa: 141]

 

Ruling is the strongest way for the ruler over the ruled, hence the term ‘lan’ (never) means the categorical prohibition of the unbeliever (Kafir) from taking a post of authority over the Muslims, be it the Khilafah or any other post of authority. This in turn forbids the Muslims from accepting the Kafir to rule over them.

 

Besides, the Khaleefah is the person in authority and Allah (swt) has decreed that the person in charge of the affairs of the Muslims should be Muslim. Allah (swt) says:

 

 

“O you who believe, obey Allah and obey the Messenger and those in authority (Ulil-Amr) from amongst you.” [TMQ An-Nisa: 59]

 

He (swt) also says:

 

 

“When there comes to them some matter touching public safety or fear they divulge it .If they had only referred it to the Messenger or to the people of authority (Ulil- Amr) from among them.”[TMQ; An-Nisa: 83]

 

The phrase “Ulil-Amr” has always been mentioned in connection with the Muslims, it has not been mentioned in any other context other than to indicate that the people concerned are Muslims. This proves that they must be Muslims. Since the Khaleefah is the person in authority and it is He who appoints people in positions of authority such as his Mu’awinoon (assistants), Wulah and ‘ummal, He himself must, therefore, be Muslim.

 

Secondly. The Khaleefah must be male. It is forbidden for a female to be Khaleefah, i.e. the Khaleefah must be a man, not a woman. Al-Bukhari reported on the authority of Abi Bakra that He said: Allah has given me the privilege of a word which I heard from the Messenger of Allah during the days of Al-Jamal (the camel), when I was about to join the people of Al-Jamal and fight with them: When the Messenger of Allah heard that the people of Persia had appointed the daughter of Chosroes (Kisra), He said:

 

 

“People who appoint (Wallaow) a women as their leader will never succeed.” If the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) foretold the failure to those who assign the running of their affairs to a woman this indicates a prohibition. This is because it came in the form of reproach to those who give authority over themselves to a woman by negating their success thus indicative of definite prohibition. So the prohibition of appointing a woman to a position of authority came linked with a connotation (Qareenah) that indicates that the prohibition is decisive. Therefore, appointing a woman as a ruler is forbidden (Haram). Appointing a woman to a position of authority in this case means appointing her as Khaleefah and any other post connected with ruling. This is because this Hadith is related to the issue of ruling not specific to the appointment of Chosroes’s daughter as queen. The Hadith is not also general to cover everything but related only to matters regarding ruling and authority, so it does not apply to other than ruling positions.

 

Thirdly. The Khaleefah must be mature; it is forbidden to appoint a youth (pre-pubescent). Abu Dawoud narrated from ‘Ali Ibnu Abi Talib that the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) said:

 

 

“Accountability is lifted off three persons: The dormant until He awakes, the boy (adolescent) until He reaches maturity and the deranged until He regains his mind.” In another narration from ‘Ali

 

 

“The pen has been raised off three persons: The deranged in his mind till He restores his mind, the dormant till He wakes up and the adolescent till He reaches maturity.” Therefore, the person for whom the pen is raised is not able to be responsible for himself, and He is not under any liability by Shar’a, so it is unlawful for him to become Khaleefah or to hold any post of authority for He is not responsible for his own actions. Evidence is also derived from the fact that the Messenger Aqeel, Zahra ibn Ma’abed from his grandfather ‘Abdullah Ibnu Hisham who reached the time of the Prophet (pbuh) and his mother Zainab bint Humair took him to the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) and said: ‘O Messenger of Allah! Take his Bay’ah’. The Prophet (pbuh):

 

 

“He is still a little boy”, so He stroked his head and prayed for him. Therefore, if the Bay’ah of the little boy is not valid, and He cannot give a Bay’ah to a Khaleefah, He evidently cannot be Khaleefah himself.

 

Fourthly. The Khaleefah must be sane; it is unlawful for a Khaleefah to be insane because the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) said:

 

 

“The pen has been raised off three persons: The deranged in his mind till He restores his mind, the dormant till He wakes up and the adolescent till He reaches maturity.” The person off whom the pen is raised is not under obligation. Also the mind is the condition for responsibility and for the validity of actions. The Khaleefah enacts the rules and executes all the legal duties, it is therefore unlawful to have an insane Khaleefah because the insane cannot look after himself, nor is He responsible for his own actions, thus He cannot look after the affairs of the people by greater reason (Bab Awla).

 

Fifthly. The Khaleefah must be just (‘Adl); it is not allowed for him to be a ‘Fasiq’ (rebel). Justice is an obligatory foundation for contracting the Khilafah and for its continuity. This is because Allah (swt) has stipulated that the witness must be just. He (swt) says:

 

 

“And seek the witness of two just men from amongst you.” [TMQ At-Talaq: 2]

 

So if the witness must be just, then the Khaleefah who holds a higher post and rules over the witness himself should, by greater reason, be just. For if justice was stipulated in the witness, its presence in the Khaleefah must exist by greater reason (Bab Awla).

 

Sixthly. The Khaleefah must be a freeman; since the slave is under his master’s sovereignty, so he cannot run his own affairs, therefore he has no power to run other people’s affairs and be a ruler over them.

 

Seventhly. The Khaleefah must be able and skilled in carrying out the task of the Khilafah; this is an integral part of the Bay’ah. One who is unable to do so cannot perform the duty of running the people’s affairs by the Book and the Sunnah upon which he took the pledge of allegiance (Bay’ah).

 

 

 

 

 

Published in Islamic Ruling System
Be the first to comment!
Read more...

4.1 The Khaleefah

The Khaleefah is the man who represents the Ummah in the ruling and authority and in the implementation of the Ahkam Shari’ah (Divine Laws). Islam has decreed that the ruling and authority belong to the Ummah. It is she who appoints someone who runs that on her behalf, and Allah (swt) has made it obligatory upon the Ummah to execute all of the rules of Shar’a.

Since the Muslims appoint the Khaleefah, this makes him a representative of the Ummah in terms of ruling and authority and as well in the implementation of the rules of Shar’a. Therefore, He does not become a Khaleefah unless the Ummah gives him the pledge of allegiance (Bay’ah). By giving her Bay’ah to him over Khilafah she effectively appointed him as her representative. Through this Bay’ah the Khilafah is concluded to him, He therefore possesses the authority (Sultan) through the Ummah and they are obliged to obey him.

The man who rules the Muslims does not become Khaleefah unless the pledge of allegiance, i.e. the Bay’ah was given to him by the influential people (Ahlul Hall Wal Aqd) from amongst the Ummah , with choice and content. He should fulfil all the conditions required for concluding the Khilafah to him, and thereafter proceed to implement the Ahkam Shari’ah With regards to his title, it could be the Khaleefah, or the Imam or the Ameer of the believers. These titles have been narrated in sound Ahadith and in the Ijmaa’ of the Sahaba. The Khulafaa’ Ar-Rashidoon (first four Khulafaa’) have held such titles. Abu Said Al-Khudri reported that the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) said:

“If the Bay’ah has been taken for two Khulafaa’ kill the latter of them.” [Narrated by Muslim] ‘Abdullah ibn al-‘A‘as reported that He heard the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) say:

“Whoever 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...” [Narrated by Muslim] Auf Ibnu Malik reported: I heard the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) say: 

“The best of your Imams are those whom you love and they love you and who pray for you and you pray for them...” [Narrated by Muslim] As for the title “Ameer ul-Mu’mineen”, the first to be called that was ‘Umar ibnul Khattab. Then it continued to be on the title given to those who followed him, at the time of the Sahabah and those who followed them. It is not obligatory to adhere to these three titles, rather it is allowed to give whoever takes charge of the Muslims’ affairs other titles. Any other title has, however, to indicate the same meaning such as ‘the ruler of the believers’ or ‘the head of the Muslims’ or ‘the Sultan of the Muslims’ or any other title that does not contradict with there meaning. As for titles which carry a specific meaning and which contradict the Islamic laws connected with ruling, such as the title of king or president of the republic or emperor, these are forbidden to be used by whoever takes charge of the affairs of the Muslims because they contradict the meaning of the laws of Islam.

Published in Islamic Ruling System
Be the first to comment!
Read more...

4 The structure of the state

The state is founded on eight pillars:

1) The Khaleefah

2) Delegated Assistants

3) The Executing Assistants

4) The Ameer of Jihad

5) The Governors (Wulah)

6) The Judiciary

7) The Administrative Departments

8) The Council of the Ummah

Evidence of this structure is reflected in the actions of the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) since this was the form in which he set up the structure of the State. He (pbuh) was the head of State and he ordered the Muslims to establish a head of State when he ordered them to establish a Khaleefah or an Imam. As for the assistants, the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) chose Abu Bakr and ‘Umar as his two assistants. Al-Hakim and Al-Tirmithi narrated from Abu Sa’id Al Khudri that the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) said:

“My two ministers from the heavens are Jibra’eel and Mika’el and from the people of the earth are Abu Bakr and ‘Umar.” The meaning of the term “my two ministers” here is my two assistants, because this is what the word Wazir (minister) linguistically means in Arabic. As for the word ‘minister’, which people currently refer to, this is a Western term that means the function of a particular type of ruling. This is alien to that which the Muslims know and it contradicts the Islamic ruling system. Indeed the assistant, who the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) called minister (Wazir), is not assigned to a certain function. He is rather an assistant to whom the Khaleefah gives a general delegation to carry out tasks; and he should not be assigned to a specific task. As for the governors (Wulah), the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) appointed them over the provinces (Wilayaat). He (pbuh) appointed Attab Ibnu Usayd as Wali over Makkah after its conquest. After Bazan Ibnu Sasan had embraced Islam he (pbuh) appointed him Wali (governor) of Yemen. The Messenger of Allah (pbuh) also appointed many other Wulah. The Messenger of Allah  was in direct charge of the judiciary. He  appointed the judges in order to settle the disputes between the people. So he (pbuh) appointed ‘Ali Ibnu Abi Talib as judge over Yemen, and he (pbuh) charged Mua’z Ibn Jabal and Abu Mousa with Judiciary and Imarah over Yemen. Al-Tabarani reported through trustworthy narrators from Masrooq, he said:

“The people of Judiciary at the time of the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) were six: ‘Umar, ‘Ali, ‘Abdullah Ibn Ma’sood, Ubay ibn, K’ab, Zayd ibn Thabit and Abu Mousa Al-Ash’ari.” As for the administrative system, the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) appointed secretaries to run the various government departments, these were as directors of departments. He (pbuh) appointed Mu’ayqib Ibnu Abi Fatima as director (under secretary) of booty and Huzayfah Ibnul Yaman was appointed as a director in charge of assessing the harvest of Hijaz. He (pbuh) appointed others in charge of the other departments, where over each one of them, there was a secretary. As for the army, which administratively is under the Ameer of Jihad’s authority, it was effectively under the control of the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) and it was he who was the effective commander of the army where he used to deal with its administration and run its affairs. However, the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) would appoint commanders to lead certain expeditions. On one occasion he (pbuh) appointed ‘Abdullah Ibnu Jahsh at the head of an exploratory mission to Quraysh. On another occasion the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) appointed Abu Salma Ibnu ‘Abdil Asad as the commander of a regiment of 150 men, and he (pbuh) gave him its banner. This regiment contained some of the best Muslim warriors, among whom were ‘Abu Ubayda Ibnul Jarrah, Sa’d Ibnu Abi Waqqas and Usayd Ibnu Hudhayr.As for the Council of the Ummah whose function is one of consultation (Shura) and holding the ruler accountable, the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) did not establish a permanent one in his lifetime, but he did consult the Muslims whenever he deemed it fit. Thus he (pbuh) gathered the Muslims and consulted them on the day of ‘Uhud’ and on the day of ‘Hadithul-ifk’ (slander of Ayesha rdh) and on several other occasions. Though he (pbuh) gathered the Muslims for consultation, he (pbuh) would summon some of his companions on a regular basis and consult them; they were regarded as the chiefs of the people. They were Hamza, Abu Bakr, Ja’afar, ‘Umar, ‘Ali, Ibnu Mas’ud, Salman, ‘Ammar, Huzayfah, Abu Dharr, Al-Muqdad and Bilal. They were considered as his (pbuh) Shura Council, for he consulted them on a regular basis. This demonstrates that the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) had set up a specific structure for the State, and that he (pbuh) adhered to that structure until he joined his Lord (swt). Then after him (pbuh) came his Khulafaa’ (successors) and they followed him in ruling according to the same structure that the Messenger (pbuh) established himself. They did that in front of the Sahabah. The structure of the government of the Islamic State should, therefore, be in this form. Some may argue that the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) appointed a separate official in charge of finance and that he placed him in charge of the department of finance. This might lead people to think that the department of finance is an independent body that is not part of the overall government structure. However, the reality is that the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) did appoint a special official in charge of finance, which meant giving him an independent department to run, but he (pbuh) did not make it an independent structure, rather a part of the structure (of the government). Some of the Wulah (governors) were appointed with general mandatory powers that included both ruling and finance, whilst some were appointed in ruling powers only, and he appointed a special Wali over finance. For example, the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) sent ‘Amru and finance as prescribed in the letter he (pbuh) handed to him. Furwa Ibnu Musaik’ was appointed by the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) as ‘Amil over the tribes of Murad, Zubayd, and Muzhaj, and Khalid Ibnu Said Ibnul A’as was appointed with him as collector of Zakat. The Wali in charge of ruling alone was known as the Wali of Salah; this is a Shari’ah term meaning the Wali in charge of all matters of administration, judiciary, politics, warfare and Ibadaat, amongst other duties, with the exception of finance. The Wali in charge of finance was alternatively known as the Wali of Kharaj, meaning the one who was responsible for collecting the Zakat and land Kharaj together with other financial duties. The Wali (governor) who held the position of general governorship was known as the Wali of Salah and Kharaj. This clearly demonstrates that the financial department was not a separate structure, but part of the duties of the Imarah i.e. the Wilayah .A governor may be appointed specifically to run the financial affairs of a district, or the job could be given instead to the general governor. In either case, the financial department ultimately did not follow a special department in the centre of the state (the capital), but it remained under the control of the Khaleefah. So it is part of the (state) structure, not a separate structure. In a similar fashion the Imarah of Jihad, which supervises war, foreign, domestic and industrial affairs, was always under the direct control of the Messenger of Allah (pbuh), as well as his Khulafaa’. The Messenger of Allah (pbuh) used by himself to prepare the army and supervise its training and weaponry, and run all its affairs, the way he used to run the foreign and domestic affairs. He (pbuh) sent people to Jurash in Yemen to learn how to manufacture weapons. The Khulafaa’ who came after him (pbuh) followed the same policy. However, at the time of ‘Umar Ibnul Khattab he set up a war cabinet (Diwan ul-Jund) and he appointed a head to that cabinet which is the function of the Ameer of Jihad.

Thus, the State that the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) had established was founded on this structure.

Published in Islamic Ruling System
Be the first to comment!
Read more...
Page 6 of 7

@2023 System of Islam.