It is necessary that any political movement or any Muslim working to re-establish the Khilafah has a clear insight into the nature of the Islamic system. The following is from the book Nidhaam ul-Hukm fil Islam, the Ruling System in Islam by Taqiuddin an-Nabhani (may Allah have mercy on him), which details the ruling system. The extract elaborates the structure of the State.
The framework of the ruling system in Islam
The Islamic ruling system is distinct from all other existing ruling systems in the world. It is different in the basis on which it is built, different in its principles and concepts, different in its criteria and laws by which it governs and looks after the affairs, different in its constitution and implementation and execution of laws, and in the way the state is represented which distinguishes it from all other systems in the world.
The framework of the Islamic ruling system is not monarchical
It does not approve of the monarchical form of government nor does it have anything in common with it. The monarchical system of government adopts a hereditary rule. The sons inherit the throne from their fathers, and they inherit their legacies. Whereas in Islam, there is no hereditary rule, the rule is performed by whom the Ummah gives her pledge of allegiance willingly and selectively.
The monarchical system allows the monarch special privileges and rights exclusively to him, he is above the law and he is answerable to none, he is the symbol of the country, either a monarch without ruling powers like the monarchs of Europe, or a monarch who rules and even becomes the source of the rules, running the land and the people as he wishes, like the kings of Saudi Arabia, Morocco and Jordan.
The Islamic system however, does not allow the Khaleefah or the Imam any special privileges or rights, he has the same rights and duties of every single individual of the Ummah, he is not the symbol of the Ummah who holds an honorary position without any ruling powers, nor is he a symbol that rules and runs the country and people’s affairs as he pleases. He is a trustee (representative) of the Ummah in rule and in authority, the Ummah selects him and gives him the pledge of allegiance of her own choice to implement on her Allah’s Shari’ah. He is guided and restricted in his actions, ways of looking after the affairs of the Ummah and her interests by the Shari’ah. Besides there is no hereditary monarchy in Islam, it even abhors hereditary rule and forbids that the rule be taken by legacy. The rule is assumed by the Khaleefah only when the Ummah, willingly, gives him the pledge of allegiance.
The framework of the Islamic ruling system is not republican
The Islamic ruling system is not republican either. The republican system is based on the democratic regime, where the supremacy is to the people. The people have the right to rule and legislate, they reserve the right to appoint the ruler and depose him. They reserve the right to adopt a constitution and enact new laws, to abolish, alter or modify the rules. Whereas the Islamic ruling system is based on the Islamic Aqeeda and on the Shari’ah laws. The supremacy is to the Shari’ah of Allah and not to people (Ummah), the Ummah has not the right to legislate, nor does the Khaleefah. The sole legislator is Allah (swt), the Khaleefah has only the right to adopt the rules for the constitution, and the laws that are derived from the Book of Allah (swt) and the Sunnah of His messenger. The Ummah does not have the right to remove the Khaleefah; what removes him is the Shari’ah; however the Ummah has the right to appoint him. For Islam has that the authority belongs to her and the rule belongs to her as well, so she is represented by a Khaleefah whom she selects and give the Bay’ah.
In the presidential framework of the republican system, the president of the republic takes up the mandatory powers of the head of state and the prime minister, he does not have in his cabinet a prime minister, but secretaries of state, like in the US. In the parliamentary framework, the president has a prime minister, and the mandatory ruling powers are in the hands of the ministerial cabinet not the president of the republic like in France and Germany.
In the Khilafah there are no ministers, nor a council of ministers working with the Khaleefah like in the democratic system, where ministers have special portfolios and mandatory powers of their own. The Khaleefah has assistants who work with him and assist him with the executive duties. The Khaleefah heads them in his capacity as the head of state and not prime minister, nor as a head of an executive body. The Khaleefah has no council of ministers working with him, he has all the mandatory powers; his assistants help him to execute those mandatory powers.
Besides the republican system, in both its framework, presidential and parliamentary, the president is responsible and accountable to his people, and his representatives (deputies, M.P.s, congressmen). The people and their representatives have the right to remove the president for the supremacy in the republican system belongs to the people.
The is contrary to the Imara of the believers, verily the Amir of the believers, even if he is responsible before the Ummah and her representatives and even if he is accountable to the Ummah and her representatives, the Ummah has no right to remove him, and thus their representatives have no right to remove him either. He is removed only if violates the Shari’ah in a way which the Court of Unjust Acts deems that it deserves his removal.
In the republican system, whether it is presidential or parliamentary, the term of the presidency is fixed and cannot be exceeded.
Whereas the Khilafah system does not determine the Khaleefah’s term of office, it is determined by the implementation of Shari’ah, for as long as the Khaleefah is implementing the Islamic rules to the full, the rules that are derived from the Book of Allah, and the Sunnah of his Messenger, he remains a Khaleefah in office, regardless of how long his Khilafah term lasts. If the Khaleefah violated the Shari’ah, and deviated from implementing the Islamic rules his term in office would be terminated even if it were for one month, or one day. He must be removed.
We conclude therefore that the differences between the Khilafah system and the republican one are wide, so is the difference between the Khaleefah and the president of a republic. It is therefore forbidden to claim that the Islamic system is a republican system, for there exists a big contradiction between the bases on which the two systems are founded. In addition to the difference in the framework and other institutions.
The framework of the Islamic ruling system is not imperial
It is neither imperial, since the imperial system of government is far from the Islamic one. Despite the differences of race, the regions ruled by Islam, although governed by a single administration - in (central office) - they are not ruled by an imperial system. The Imperial system does not treat the races equally in the various regions of the empire. The empires central region has always some privileges, in the rule, finance and economy. The Islamic way of ruling is to equate between all the subjects in all the regions of the state. Islam grants non-muslims who hold citizenship, the full rights that the Muslims have, they enjoy also the same privileges furthermore, every single citizen regardless of his or her creed enjoys better rights than in any other system, even better than a Muslim living abroad and holding no citizenship. With this equity, the Islamic system differs completely from the Imperial one. The Islamic system does not make the regions under its rule colonies, nor areas of exploitation, nor sources of wealth pouring into the central region alone, but rules and treats all regions the same, for Islam considers all regions to be one single entity, no matter how far apart they were, and no matter how many different races there are. Every single region is considered to be part of the state and its citizens enjoy the same rights as those in the central region. Islam makes the ruling authority, the system and its legislation the same in all the regions.
The ruling system in Islam is not a federal one
The ruling system in Islam is not federal. Its regions have autonomy over their own affairs and enjoy some kind of self rule, but unite in the general rule, a system of unity, where Marrakesh in the West is considered to be the same as Khurasan in the East, the province of Al-Fawwoum would be the same of Cairo if it were the Islamic capital. The financing and the budget is one and the same for all the regions. Money is spent equally on the affairs of the subjects, regardless of the Wilayah. If for instance, the taxes collected in one Wilayah were double its expenditure, the money spent will be to cover the Wilayah’s needs but not according to how much tax it raised. If another Wilayah’s taxes fell short of its expenditure, this would not be considered, but dismissed and money will be spent to satisfy the Wilayah’s needs from the general budget whether it raised enough taxes or not.
Therefore the ruling system is unitary not a federation. That is why the Islamic ruling system is distinguished from other known systems, in origins and its bases, even if some aspects were similar to other systems. In light of what we listed so far, we conclude that the Islamic system is central in its rule, where the high authority is at head office, and where the authority and hegemony engulfs every single part of the state no matter how remote. Independence of any part of it is not allowed, ensuring that the state does not disintegrate. The high authority, is the body which appoints the army commanders, the Walis, rulers and finance and economy officials. It appoints judges in all the regions and the ones whose duties are to rule; it is the initiator of all the rules all over the country.
The ruling system in Islam is a Khilafah system, the general Ijma’a about the unity of the Khilafah has been established so has the unity of the state, and the unlawfulness of giving the Bay’ah to more than one Khaleefah. All the Imams, jurists and Scholars have agreed on this. If another Khaleefah is given the pledge, while a Khaleefah is in office or a Khaleefah had already been given a pledge, the second one should be fought until he himself gives the pledge of allegiance to the first Khaleefah or be killed, for the pledge has been lawfully confirmed to be the right of the one who is properly given it first.
The Vision of the Khilafah
The mandatory powers of the Khaleefah:-
The Khaleefah is the state. He possesses full mandatory powers given to the state and they are:-
A - It is he who makes the divine laws that he adopts binding. They would then become laws that have to be obeyed and their violation would be forbidden.
B - He is responsible about the internal and foreign policies of the state; he is the high commander in chief of all the armed forces and he has full powers to declare war, hold peace treaties, truces and all other treaties.
C - He has the powers to accept (foreign) ambassador’s and to refuse them, as well as the power to appoint Muslim ambassadors and to remove them.
D - It is the Khaleefah who appoints and removes the assistants and Walis; they are all responsible before him and before the council of the Ummah.
E - It is he who appoints and removes the supreme judge (Qadhil-Qudhat), as well as district administrators, army commanders, chiefs of staff, and the commanders in chief; they are all (responsible) answerable to him and not to the Council of the Ummah.
F - It is he who adopts the Divine laws, on the light of which the state’s budget is drafted, and he decides the details of the budget and the expenditure of each department which is allotted according to its needs, whether it is revenues or expenses.
Evidence of these mandatory powers is drawn from the fact that the Khaleefah in its essence is a general rule over all the Muslims worldwide, with the objective of implementing the Deen’s rules and of carrying the Message of Islam to the world, which is another evidence. However the word state is a terminology, whose meaning differs among different nations. For Western people for instance state means the land, inhabitants and the rulers, for the state in their view is defined within borders they call the country, and sovereignty in their view belongs to the people, with collective and not individualistic ruling. Thus the concept of the state became known as the sum total of the country, the inhabitants and the rulers. Therefore, they have a head of state, i.e. head of the government, the people and the country (land) and a chief of government i.e. a prime minister.
However, in Islam, there are no permanent borders, for the Message has to be carried to the whole world, and therefore frontiers move with the authority of Islam; the term country means the place where a person resides permanently i.e. his home and homeland, no more no less. The supremacy is to the Shari’ah, not to the people; the rulers are directed by the will of the Shari’ah and the Ummah is also directed (controlled) by the Shari’ah; Ruling is individual and not collective. The Messenger of Allah (saw) said: “If three of you set off in a Journey, appoint one of you (as leader).”
He (saw) also said: “If three of you went out on a journey, you should appoint a leader from among you.” He (saw) also said: “If a bay’ah has been taken for two Khaleefahs, kill the latter of them.”
Therefore, the meaning of the state in Islam differs from that in other systems. The state in Islam means the leadership and ruling, and its mandatory powers rest with the authority of the leader, and since the Khaleefah is the one who takes up the authority, he then is the state. When the Messenger of Allah (saw) established the Islamic state in Madina he was the head of state and the whole of the authority belonged to him, and all powers related to the rule were his, and this was so during all his lifetime until he (saw) died. Then after him came the Khulafa Al-Rashideen, and each one of them enjoyed the full authority and possessing all the mandatory powers related to the rule. This also serves as evidence that the Khaleefah is the state. Besides, when the Messenger of Allah (saw) warned against rebellion and disobedience to the Amir, he expressed it as being a rebellion against the authority. He (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, he has died the death of Jahiliyyah.” The Khilafah is the rule over the believers, the Khaleefah is therefore the authority, and he has all the mandatory powers, i.e. he is the state and possesses all the powers given to the state. This is the general evidence about these mandatory powers. As for the listing of these powers enjoyed by the Khaleefah, this is in fact the listing of the powers which exist within the state, and we now move onto the listing of the detailed rulings of these powers.
As for the detailed (elaborate) evidence about the six sections mentioned above, the evidence about section “A” is the general consensus of the Sahabah. As for law, it is a term which means the order which the authority (Sultan) issues so that people abide by it; law has been described as being the group of principles which the Sultan (authority) compels people to follow in their relationships (transactions) i.e. if the Sultan issues rules, then these rules became law and people have to abide by them, and if the Sultan does not issue them, then they do not become law and people are not obliged to abide by them. The Muslims follow the rules of Shari’ah, so they abide by Allah’s commands and prohibitions. What they abide by are the commands and prohibitions of Allah, not those of the Sultan, so what they follow are divine laws and not the orders of the Sultan. However these Shari’ah laws have been interpreted differently by the Sahabah, so that their understanding of divine rules differed, and each one of them complied by rules which accorded with his own understanding.
However, there are some divine rules related to managing the affairs of the Ummah that all the Muslims should abide by with one single opinion, and not according to each individual’s own Ijtihad. This in fact took place in the past. Abu Bakr for instance considered it fit to distribute the wealth equally among all Muslims for it was their equal right. Umar deemed it wrong to give in the same way to those who had fought the Messenger of Allah (saw) and those who fought alongside him, as well as equally to both the wealthy and the needy. However when Abu Bakr was the Khaleefah, he ordered his opinion to be enacted (enforced) and the judges and Walis executed his opinion and Umar submitted to Abu Bakr’s opinion and executed it. And when Umar became Khaleefah he enforced his own opinion which differed from that of Abu Bakr’s i.e. he ordered the money to be divided according to merit (excellence) and not equally, thus the Muslims were given according to the length of time they had been Muslims and according to their needs. Muslims abided by this rule, and the judges and Walis executed it. Therefore a general consensus of the Sahabah was established stating that the Imam has the right to adopt specific rules and order them to be implemented. Muslims therefore have to abide by such rules even if they contradicted their own Ijtihad, and they must abandon their own opinions and Ijtihads. These adopted rules are in fact laws. Thus the enacting of laws belongs to the Khaleefah alone and no one else has this right.
As for section “B”, its evidence is derived from Allah’s Messengers’ (saw) actions. He (saw) used to appoint the Walis and judges and hold them accountable. He (saw) used to control sales and purchases and prohibit fraud and cheating. He (saw) used to distribute the wealth among the people, and help the unemployed find work. He (saw) used to run all the state’s internal affairs, and he (saw) used to address the kings and meet with the envoys and receive the delegations. He (saw) also ran all the foreign affairs of the state. He (saw) used to effectively take command of the armed forces, during the raids and he (saw) used to lead the battles, and he (saw) used to send all the expeditions and appoint their leaders. In one instance he (saw) appointed Usama Ibnu Zayd at the head of an expedition to Al-Sham; the Sahabah were not pleased at this due to Usama’s young age, but the Messenger of Allah (saw) forced then to accept his leadership, which proves that he effectively was the commander of the armed forces and not just its high Commander in chief. It was he (saw) who declared war on Quraysh, and on Banu Qurayzah, Banu Nadir, Banu Qaynuqa’, Khayber and the Romans. All the wars that took place where declared by him (saw). This indicates (proves) that only the Khaleefah possesses the right to declare war. It was also the Messenger of Allah (saw) who signed the treaties with Banu Madlij and their allies of Banu Dhumra; He (saw) signed a treaty with Yuhanna (Johnathon) Ibnu Ru’ba, the friend of Ayla, and he (saw) also signed the treaty of Al-Hudaybiyah. The Muslims on that occasion were outraged but he (saw) ignored their opinion and dismissed their pleas, and went ahead and signed the treaty. This proves that only the Khaleefah possesses the mandatory powers to sign treaties, whether these were peace treaties or any other.
As for the section “C”, its evidence is that the Messenger of Allah (saw) received the two envoys of Musaaylama, and it was he (saw) who received Abu Rafi’i, an envoy from Quraysh. It was also he (saw) who sent envoys to Hercules Chosroes, Al Muqaqas, Al-Harith Al Hossani King of Al-Heerla, Al Harith Al-Hamiry. King of Yemen, the Negus Al-Habishi, and he sent Uthman ibn Affan to Quraysh during the Hudaybiyah affair. This proves that the Khaleefah is the one who accepts the ambassadors (envoys) and refuses them and it is he who appoints the ambassadors.
As for section “D”, its evidence is that it was the Messenger of Allah (saw) who used to appoint the Walis, for he appointed Mu’adh as Wali over Yemen; and He (saw) used to remove then; he removed Al A’la’ ibn al-Hadhrami from his post as Wali of Bahrain after its people complained about him; this indicates that the Walis are responsible before the people of the Wilayah (region-district), and also the Khaleefah, as well as the council of the Ummah, for it represent all the Wilayahs. This is concerning the Walis. As for the assistants, the Messenger of Allah (saw) had two assistants: Abu Bakr and Umar. He did not remove them and appoint others to replace them during all his lifetime. It was he (saw) who appointed them and he (saw) never removed them. However, since the assistant derives his authority from the Khaleefah and since he acts in the capacity of his deputy, the Khaleefah therefore has the right to remove him, by analogy with the deputy for the mandator has the right to dismiss (remove) his deputy.
As for the section “E”, its evidence is derived from the fact that the Messenger of Allah (saw) appointed Ali as judge over Yemen; Uqabah ibn Amer reported that two men in dispute came to the Messenger of Allah (saw) seeking justice, so he (saw) said to me: “Judge between them.” I said: “You are better and worthier of that.” So he (saw) said: “It does not matter.” So I said: “What shall I do?” (how do I judge?). He (saw) said: “Judge! And if you get it right, you shall get ten rewards and if you get it wrong you shall get one reward.” It is narrated on the authority of Amru ibn Al A’as that he said that two men in dispute came to the Messenger of Allah (saw) so he (saw) said the me: “O Amru Judge between them.” I said : “You are worthier than me O Messenger of Allah.” He (saw) said: “If you judge right between them you shall get ten rewards and if you don’t you shall get one reward.”
Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) used to appoint and remove judges. He appointed Sharih judge over Kufa and Abu Musa as judge over Basra. He also removed Shurahbeel ibn Hasnu from his post as Wali over Al-Sham and appointed Mu’awiya instead. Shurahbeel said to him: “Is it because of an act of disobedience or treason that you removed me?” Umar replied: “Neither, but I wanted to appoint a different man.” Ali on one occasion appointed Abu Aswad and then he removed him so he asked him: “Why did you remove me. I never cheated or committed a crime?” Ali said: “I noticed that your voice rose above the disputing men.”
Umar and Ali did this before the Sahabah and none of them disapproved or censured their actions. This proves that the Khaleefah reserves the right to appoint the judges in principle, and he can also delegate someone to appoint the judges on his behalf. This is in analogy with the deputation, for he reserves right to assign to a deputy any of his mandatory powers 46 and delegate someone to perform any of his dispositions. As for the state’s departments, the Messenger of Allah (saw) appointed secretaries for the various department of the state. They were considered to be as directors of those departments. He (saw) appointed Al-Harith ibn Auf Al Hazyy in charge of his stamp, and Nu’ayqib ibn Abi Fatima as secretary of the booty. He (saw) also appointed Hudhayfah ibn Al Yaman as the head of fruits and harvest assessment department, and Zubayr ibn Al Awwam as director of Sadaqah. He (saw) appointed Al Mughira ibn Shu’ba as director in charge of registering the various transactions and so on.
As for the army commanders and chief commanders, the Messenger of Allah (saw) appointed Hafiza ibn Abdul Muttalib as commander of an army of thirty riders to confront Quraysh on the seashore, and appointed Muhummad ibn Ubayda ibn Al Harith at the head of sixty fighters and instructed him to confront Quraysh in the Wadi of Rabigh. He (saw) also appointed Sa’ad ibn Abi Waqqas at the head of an expedition numbering twenty riders and dispatched him towards Makkah. Therefore, he (saw) used to appoint the army commanders which proves that it is the Khaleefah who appoints the commanders and the army chiefs of staff.
All these were answerable to the Messenger of Allah (saw) and nobody else, which indicates that the judges, directors of departments, army commanders, chiefs of staff and various senior officials are answerable to none but the Khaleefah. They are not answerable to the council of the Ummah. Only the delegated assistants, the Walis and the Amils are responsible before the council of the Ummah for they are rulers and nobody else is responsible before the council, but everyone has to report back to the Khaleefah.
As for section “F”, the revenues and the expenditures are controlled and managed according to the Shari’ah rules, every single Qirsh (-penny) is debited according to Shari’ah and every single Qirsh spent in the same way. However the details of the expenditure or what is known as the breakdown of the expenditure are left to the Khaleefah to decide according to his Ijtihad. So are the details of revenues. It is the Khaleefah for instance 47 who decides on the amount of the Kharaj of land, and the Jizya as well as any other levies and revenues. It is the Khaleefah who decides on the expenditures reserved for each project, such as road works, hospitals etc. All such matters are left to the Khaleefah to decide, and it is the Khaleefah who reserves the right to act on his own Ijtihad and opinion. The Messenger of Allah (saw) used to receive the revenues from the Amils, and spend them. It was he (saw) who authorised the Walis on some occasions to receive monies and spend them. This was the case when he (saw) appointed Mu’adh over Yemen. Then the Khulafa Rashideen did the same, each one of them collected the revenues and spent them according to his opinion and own Ijtihad in his capacity as Khaleefah. None of the Sahabah ever disapproved, and nobody ever spent a single Qirsh without the Khaleefah’s consent. When Umar appointed Mu’awiya as Wali, he gave him a general Wilayah whereby he had powers to collect and spend. All this proves that the details of the budget are decided by the Khaleefah or anyone acting on his behalf.
These are the detailed evidences about the Khaleefah’s mandatory powers and these are confirmed by the Hadith of Allah Messenger (saw): “The Imam is a guardian, and he is responsible over his subjects.” The word he indicates the restriction or exclusivity, i.e. every matter related to the management of the subjects affairs is the responsibility of the Khaleefah and the Khaleefah alone. He reserves the right to delegate anyone with whatever task, however he deems fit, and this is analogous to deputation.