The opinion of the classical scholars:
There seems to be a general agreement of the classical scholars on the illegality of more than one Islamic state. To quote all the scholars who hold this opinion would lead to an endless list. It will suffice to quote the following:
Imam Qalqashandi in his book Subhl Al-Asha says “It is forbidden to appoint two Imams at the same time”
Ibn Hazm in his book Al-Muhalla says “It is permitted to have only one Imam in the whole world”
Imam Sha’rani in his book Al-Mizan says “It is forbidden for the Muslims to have in the whole world and at the same time two Imams whether in agreement or discord”
Imam Jozairi says in his volumious work, Al-fiqh Ala Madhabi Al-Arba’a ” The Imams of the four schools of thought agree that the imama is an obligation…….It is forbidden for Muslims to have two Imams in the world whether in agreement or discord”
But their is seems to be an opinion that seems to allow this. Imam Mawardi says in his his book Al Ahkam Al Sultanyia “It is not allowed for the Muslim nation to have two Imams at one time, but a group has deviated and allowed it”. Imam Nawawi has also discussed this, “The scholars have agreed that it is not allowed to give the contract (of the pledge) in the same period of time even if Dar- Al -Islam spread (extensively) or not. Imam Haramain said in his book Al Irshaad “Our scholars have said that it is not allowed to have the contract (of Allegiance) with two people in one area and their is an Ijma on this.” He also says “If the distance between the two Imams is seperated and the area between them is enourmous then their is a possibility to this position..”. Imam Nawawi goes on to say “…This is a corrupt position against the (agreement) of the salaf and Khalaf, and the apparent wordings of the hadeeth”. From this we can derive three points
Ibn Hazm in his book Al-Muhalla says “It is permitted to have only one Imam in the whole world”
Imam Sha’rani in his book Al-Mizan says “It is forbidden for the Muslims to have in the whole world and at the same time two Imams whether in agreement or discord”
Imam Jozairi says in his volumious work, Al-fiqh Ala Madhabi Al-Arba’a ” The Imams of the four schools of thought agree that the imama is an obligation…….It is forbidden for Muslims to have two Imams in the world whether in agreement or discord”
But their is seems to be an opinion that seems to allow this. Imam Mawardi says in his his book Al Ahkam Al Sultanyia “It is not allowed for the Muslim nation to have two Imams at one time, but a group has deviated and allowed it”. Imam Nawawi has also discussed this, “The scholars have agreed that it is not allowed to give the contract (of the pledge) in the same period of time even if Dar- Al -Islam spread (extensively) or not. Imam Haramain said in his book Al Irshaad “Our scholars have said that it is not allowed to have the contract (of Allegiance) with two people in one area and their is an Ijma on this.” He also says “If the distance between the two Imams is seperated and the area between them is enourmous then their is a possibility to this position..”. Imam Nawawi goes on to say “…This is a corrupt position against the (agreement) of the salaf and Khalaf, and the apparent wordings of the hadeeth”. From this we can derive three points
1- That an isolated group in the period of Mawardi (364-450 A.H, 974-1058 A.C.) held an opinion that it was allowed
2- That Imam Al Haramain said that their was an ijma on it being forbidden. It must be understood that the Ijma must have come from the period afterwards as Imam Mawardi came in a period preceding Imam Al- Haramain ( 419-478 A.H , 1028-1085 A.H).
3- Imam Al-Haramain considers it a future possiblity that the allowance of more than two leaders, if the distances are extremely great, may be allowed. It must be noted that he considers it a possiblity. It seems that he is leaving the door open for future research. Imam Nawawi though rebuttles this harshly and closes the door firmly with the statement ” This is a corrupt position against the agreement of the salaf, khalaf, and the apparent wording of the hadeeths!!”
The door was opened again eventually with the position of Imam Shokani in his book “Al- Sail Al-Jirar” and Sadiq Bin Hassan Al-Kanooji Al-Bukhari, the author of the book “Rawdat Al-Nidia”. In fact Sadiq bin Hassan quotes form Imam Shokani’s book in order to put forward his understanding. The text is as follows.
Imam Shokani says ” …..after the spread of Islam, the expansion of its area,…..for every part their was a Wilaya to an Imam or Sultan ,………and every area would not follow the orders or prohibitions of the (sultan) of the other ………..Their seems to be no objection to a number of leaders and sultans, and it is a duty to follow everyone of them after the pledge to that area which gives the orders and prohibitions.
Also if the leader of the other area has anyone that revolts against him in his area then the ruling is death if the person does not repent. Also it is not a duty for the people of the other area to obey him nor fall under his protection because of the great distances between these two areas. This is because (the people) will not be able to know the news of the Imam (in the other area) or the sultan owing to the distances between them, not knowing who dies or lives. As a result the duty of obedience, will be a burden beyond one’s capacity. This is known to anybody who looks at the position of the people and nations, for the people of China and India will not know the leadership in Morocco let alone obey it…….know this as it is suitable to the Islamic principles, corresponding to the evidences. So leave aside what might be said against this, as the position of the nations of Islam in its first period compared to now is more clear then the sun in the daylight!!…….” .
The position of the Modern Scholars.
The position of the modern scholars and groups have split regarding this issue. From those who see the illegality is Shiekh Taqi-id-deen Al Nabahani, the founder of Hizb Al-Tahrir. In his book Nitham Al Hukm Fil Islam he says ” It is not allowed to have a multiple number of Khilafas, as it is not allowed for the Muslims to have two Khalifs in one period of time……”.
Regarding its legality a number of opinions have been put forward. Quamaruddin Khan in his book “The Political thought of Ibn Taymiyah” says “But this authority need not be one single unit Ibn Taymiyah for the first time in history endeavours to justify juridically that it may be divided…………..Ibn Taymiyah naturally does not use the modern terminology to express this idea, but he is very clear on this issue. In the beginning of the Siyasah, discussing the famous verse of the Quran, dealing with the question of trust authority and obedience, he observes, “The ulema say: the first verse is revealed about the rulers; it is obligatory on them to return their trusts………”. Here obviously Ibn Taymiyah is considering the possibility of many rulers and not of one supreme ruler of the community”.
Again Abu Zahrah in his book “Islamic Unity” says “The political position regarding unity must be fulfilled by this meaning i.e. the five duties that have been mentioned previously-for it is the goal to have this unity. It is not necessary for this accomplishment that the nation be unified (as a single unit). In fact it will be fulfilled strongly if the state is not one. Hence as a result it should not be our intention from this unity the establishment of a unified Islamic state, that will include all the Islamic principalities. This is because all the Islamic principalities are spread throughout the world…, nor is their a capital in the centre acting as a Qutb in which the Islamic rulings rotate around from which the orders and prohibitions are sent……………..On top of this the distancing between the continents …has lead to customs and habits…….and it is necessary that the system that takes this path be in accordance with this norm in agreement with the customs and habit, as long as they are good and do not contradict Islam. And even on top of this we cannot call for one nation so that the kings and presidents are not offended!!,…………..fearing that the crown will be lifted from their heads……….Hence the political union cannot be with one nation as this is not possible, and if it was possible it would not be easy to accomplish, and if it was easy to accomplish it would not be beneficial…..!!!!
Another upholder of this opinion is the poet Iqbal. He says “It seems to me that God is slowly bringing home to us the truth that Islam is neither nationalism nor imperialism but a league of nations which recognises artificial boundaries and racial distinctions for the facility of reference only and not for restricting the horizon of its numbers”. It personally does not seem clear to me that Iqbal does support it but this seems to be the opinion of Mazeheruddin Siddiqi the author of the book “Modern reformists thought in the Muslim World
Finally the group “Young Muslims U.K” seems to put forward this position in a way. I think this is where it relates to the method to establish the Islamic Khilafa. In one of its leaflets stating it objectives it says: “……..4-Building the Muslim state 5-Building the Khilafah, by gathering and unifying the Islamic Governments around the world, 6- Witnessing to Mankind, becoming the leader of humanity taking it away from the clutches of Shaytan” From this it seems they believe in the universality of the Islamic Khalifate but seem to legalise the presence of multiple Islamic states to achieve this.
The Evidences put forward by those who see the legality of Multiple Islamic States
1-The evidence that the enormous distances between the states will lead the people to not know the leaders in the other Islamic states. As it is obligatory for the people to have the authority of Islam ruling over them and the pledge of allegiance to the ruler owing to the hadeeth “Whoever dies without the pledge of allegiance(to a Caliph) dies the death of Jahiliyaah( the death of ignorance of the pre-Islamic period)” and many other evidence. Hence if the distances prevent the people from knowing the existence of other nations, let alone the leader, then it becomes a burden beyond ones capacity as washing ones arm up to and including the elbow for wudu when it is amputated!!!. This is because of the ayah (( ……Allah does not burden the soul beyond its capacity)). Abu Zahrah also sees the impossibility owing to the rulers wanting the crown on their heads.
2- The ayah (( O Mankind, verily We have created you from a male and female and made you into peoples and tribes to know each other…….)). From this ayah Abu Zahrah deduces the legality of having different people and tribes and therefore I assume different nations.
3-The Ayah ((…..Help each other in righteousness and piety)). Abu Zahrah I assume uses this ayah to show that the nations should co-operate on righteousness and piety. If they fight to take over each other to unite the Islamic nation, I assume they will not be working towards righteousness and piety I assume.
4- Having more then one Islamic state will not be beneficial and according to the hadeeth “Their is no harm or harming in Islam” It will be in fact Haraam!!
Discussion of the evidences
1- The evidence of ((…..Allah does not burden the soul beyond its capacity))
The discussion of this evidence will centre on two points. First the issue of distance and allegiance. Secondly the issue of the “crown of the king”.
Their is total agreement that Islam does not burden one beyond one’s capacity, and that once someone does not have the ability to what Allah has ordered owing to it’s impossibility then the burden is removed. The disagreement is on placing this principle outside of its context. First the Muslim is required to obey what he hears from the Imam whether it is by direct link to the caliph or by the amirs that the caliph appoints to remove the difficulty of the wide expanses. For these Amirs will be following the instructions of the Caliph and they will pass their orders to their subjects. This is confirmed by the hadeeth of the prophet “Whoever obeys me, obeys Allah, whoever disobeys me, disobeys Allah. Whoever obeys my Amir Obeys Allah, Whoever disobeys my Amir disobeys Allah”. Where is the impossibility in this ?!!! Imam Shokani may have had an excuse because of the technology of his time. But where is the excuse for the brothers now!!!!. Their is none. Rather with the televisions, radios, telegraphs, etc we are able to communicate with each other even if one is in China and the other is in Morocco. The Muslims may be in a bad technological state. But they are not this bad!!!! Secondly it is not a duty for every Muslim to directly co-operate in giving their allegiance to the caliph. This is confirmed by the Ijma of the sahabaa that the Muslims fought in battles with the death of one caliph, only to continue to fight without going back to give allegiance. Can we say that these Sahabaa died a death of Ignorance!! Rather it a duty on the nation as a whole if some do it, the sin is removed form the rest. That is the rest will obviously have their allegiance to the caliph but it need not be by direct participation. Finally whether our Kings and Rulers might object is really not an evidence. Pharaoh objected to Moses. Would that have been an excuse for Moses to stop!!!! May Allah protect us from this pathetic pessimism.
Hence from this since the cause was the “impossibility of the action” then the ruling is removed. This is because of the principle that the cause encircles with the ruling, if it is removed then the ruling is removed.
2-The Discussion of the Ayah ((……and made you into people and tribes to know each other…..))
Many a nationalist has used this ayah. But I would have not expected this to come from one of the Shiekhs of Azhar!!! People getting to know each other does not remove the responsibility of them being united. Their is no indication by the explicit text or the understood text or by an indication or by a specific cause that we are not allowed to have one leader or in fact more then one leader as this ayah is totally unrelated to this issue. Secondly this ayah destroys the premise of nationalism by ending with ((………..Verily the most noble of you is the most God fearing and Allah is most knowledgeable and aware)) . The most God-fearing is the one who wants to unite the Muslims and says that their is no difference between Arab and non-Arab except by Taqwaa. Thirdly the Salaf have defined knowing as knowing the various lineages i.e. to know which tribe one is from and not as knowing each other as separate nations with separate Khalifs.
3- The Discussion of the Ayah ((……..Help each other in righteousness and piety….))
Their is nothing to discuss. It has nothing to do with the topic. It is like me quoting the ayah which I have chosen randomly (( That the people of the book may know that they have no power……))
4- The Hadeeth “Their is no harm or harming in Islam”
Imam Ghazzali, Amidi, Ibn Hajib have reported an Ijma on not acting on general evidence before looking for specific evidence. It is the agreement of the scholars that when we are faced with a new situation we first look for a specific evidence then a specific Illah (cause), then a specific Ijma(consensus), then a general evidence, and then we finally ( if this Usul is taken) go onto principles like Masalih Mursala. Or else we end up in chaos!! For example, if we need to collect money to build a mosque but the only possible means is by acquiring a mortgage, we could say that building a mosque is a good thing as it gets the youth of the street, so having a mortgage is allowed based on the principle, Their is no harm or harming ( in Islam). This is a wrong way to go about things, as it is clearly forbidden in the ayah ( Allah has permitted trade and forbidden Interest……….). Hence our interests should be in line with the Islamic code of life and this is the best way to remove any form harm in our society. From this we get the correct understanding. This is just a copy of the answer to the same point in “power sharing”. It deserves no more. It is more harmful to have more than one Islamic state. It is beneficial to have one . That is all their is to it.
Conclusion
As it can be seen the upholders of the issue of Multiple Islamic states have not even a thread to hold on. But rather the statement of Imam Nawawi stays ” This is a corrupt position against the agreement of the salaf, khalaf, and the apparent wording of the ahadeeth!!”. In fact Imam Nawawi was referring to Imam Al Haramain. At least he had an excuse!!. Rather in fact the Ijma remains the Ijma of the scholars to those who take this including Imam Shokani and Imam Al-Haramain as they only allowed this under certain circumstances, and the Ijma of the sahaba. Yes! The Ijma of the sahaba. It is narrated that Al-Habbab Ibnu Munthir said:
“When the Sahabaa met in the wake of the death of the prophet at the saqifaa of Bani Sa’da, (they said) “One Amir from us and one Amir from you” (from the Muhajiroon and Ansaar) Upon this Abu Bakr replied “It is forbidden for the Muslims to have two Amirs for this would cause differences in their affairs and concepts, their unity would be divided and disputes would break out amongst them. The sunnah would then be abandoned , the bida’a would spread and the Fitna would grow , and that is in no one’s interest” (not even in the interest of Abu Zahraah!!!!) The Sahaaba heard this and consented. Hence it becomes a matter of Ijma.
As for the ahadeeth of the prophet they are numerous. I will quote some:
The prophet said “When the oath of allegiance has been taken for two Khalifs, kill the later of them”
The prophet said “Whosoever comes to you while your affairs are united under one man, intending to divide your staff or dissolve your unity kill him!!”
It is narrated from Abu Hazim ” I was for five years with Abu Hurairah and I heard him narrate from the prophet that he said “The prophets used to rule Banu Israel. Whenever a prophet died another succeeded him, but there will be no prophets after me; instead there will be Khalifs and they will number many. They asked “What then do you order us? He said :Fulfill Allegiance to them one after the other. Give them their due. Verily Allah will ask them about what he entrusted them with”
These Hadiths clearly show that we should give our allegiance to one Caliph after another, the key word being ONE!!.
The prophet said “Whosoever comes to you while your affairs are united under one man, intending to divide your staff or dissolve your unity kill him!!”
It is narrated from Abu Hazim ” I was for five years with Abu Hurairah and I heard him narrate from the prophet that he said “The prophets used to rule Banu Israel. Whenever a prophet died another succeeded him, but there will be no prophets after me; instead there will be Khalifs and they will number many. They asked “What then do you order us? He said :Fulfill Allegiance to them one after the other. Give them their due. Verily Allah will ask them about what he entrusted them with”
These Hadiths clearly show that we should give our allegiance to one Caliph after another, the key word being ONE!!.
To finish I would like to clarify a few points. First the so called fatwaa of Ibn Taymiaah.
I was shocked beyond belief when I read a book called “The Political thoughts of Ibn Taymiyah” by Quamaruddin Khan where he puts forward that Ibn Taymiyah allows multiple Islamic states at one period of time!! He says on p122-123 ” But this authority need not be one single unit, Ibn Taymiyah for the first time in history endeavours to justify juridically that it may be divided………. Ibn Taymiyah naturally does not use the modern terminology to express this idea ( No Kidding!!!), but he is very clear on the issue. In the beginning of the Siyasah discussing the famous verses of the Quran, dealing with the question of trust (amanah), authority and obedience, he observes, “The ulema say: the first verse is revealed about the rulers; it is obligatory on them to return the trusts to their owners…………..” Here obviously Ibn Taymiyah is considering the possibility of many Muslim states at a time; that is why he is talking of rulers and not one supreme ruler of the community.”!!!??? What utter rubbish!!!! By this understanding when I say parents refers to fathers and mothers, from the ayah “From what is left by the parents and those nearest related……..” Surah Al Nisah Verse 7, I have allowed “for the first time in history” a family to have more then one father and mother at the same time, be they divorced or not!!!??? . This makes most orientalist seem conservative!!. May Allah protect us from this.
Secondly it could be said that to have one Khalif is Fard, but one can have many amirs. That is correct but it is the Khalif who appoints the Amirs and the not the amirs who appoint the Khalif. I doubt anyone would say this as it is obvious and agreed upon by every scholar of Islam.. But just in case ignorance will show its ugly head, I will Quote Imam Ashunahji (Al-Qurafi) In his book Al Farooq:
” Whatever the prophet of Allah did on the authority of leadership it is NOT allowed for anybody to perform it except by the permission of the imam following the messenger of Allah because the reason of his work was in the capacity of a leader” and he continues
“……………….appointing judges and wali’es, dividing the booty…………are the responsibilities of the Khalifah…..or his assistants or deputy(that have been appointed), and it is not allowed for anybody except him.”
The evidence for this is provided by the hadeeth of the prophet “The Imam is a shepherd and he is responsible for his flock”. They could say their is no Khalif. The answer is go get one!!! Would anyone dare to say that he could not get married as it needed the condition of two male witnesses. The issue is the impossibility of the condition. Only then can it cancel the ruling. Otherwise like marriage a condition does not abrogate a ruling. It is not impossible to get a Khalif therefore this argument is invalid.
It could be said “What leads to a Wajib is a Wajib”. The answer is simple. What leads to wajib has to be halaal and not Haraam. Having more than one leader is haraam by Ijma. Finally it could be said that the hadeeths of the prophet refer to his locality and was only for his time. This is probably one of the most dangerous arguments. Not because it is strong but because it can destroy Islam. Specification of the ruling has to come from the text. This is from the mind i.e..
The prophet said “When the oath of allegiance has been taken for two Khalifs, kill the later of them”(If it is in my time or locality!!!)
It could be said that we have to gradually implement Islam and this is a method. InshaAllah the discussion of the method of Gradual Implementation will be discussed next.
[NOTE - The author's section on Gradualism is found here>>>] (Iculture)
Home Sri Lanka Think Tank-UK (Main Link)
[NOTE - The author's section on Gradualism is found here>>>] (Iculture)
No comments:
Post a Comment