All that I have read points to the conclusion that it was not. The basic principle of Khilfah is that the Khilafah mist be chosen by the people. But when the rule past from One Sultan to the next since he was his brother or son that is a monrachy.
The same could be said about the times of other supposed khalifahs because they were monarchs, but for now I will focus just on the Ottomans.
any argument to the contrary will be very educational. Thanks
Hmm yeh this was something I was wondering about too. I mean if the khilafah is just getting transferred from father -> son -> bro then does that make it a khilafah? Also I'm not too clear on the way a khalifah is chosen, does the current khalifah pick the next one or is it upto the people?
Re: Was the Ottoman Empire a Khilafah?
[QUOTE]
Originally posted by Fraudz: *
All that I have read points to the conclusion that it was not. **The basic principle of Khilfah is that the Khilafah mist be chosen by the people*. But when the rule past from One Sultan to the next since he was his brother or son that is a monrachy.
The same could be said about the times of other supposed khalifahs because they were monarchs, but for now I will focus just on the Ottomans.
any argument to the contrary will be very educational. Thanks
[/QUOTE]
I don't know the answer to ur question but i don't agree with the basic principle that you have described. This principle has been different at different times. Hazrat Abu Bakr Siddique (ra) was chosen by Prophet Mohammed (pbuh) while in later cases companions chose other prophets' companion depending on the situation of the state at that time.
Re: Re: Was the Ottoman Empire a Khilafah?
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by khan_sahib: *
I don't know the answer to ur question but i don't agree with the basic principle that you have described. This principle has been different at different times. Hazrat Abu Bakr Siddique (ra) was chosen by Prophet Mohammed (pbuh) while in later cases companions chose other prophets' companion depending on the situation of the state at that time.
[/QUOTE]
chosen but the word "bayat" of people, i.e. people's support of the khalifah or approval of the nominee. Anyone can be nominated but whomever the people support will be the khalifah.The people who were chosen were actually nominated and people would have to say yes or no. If there are multiple nomniations than whomever has more support wins.
The case of the Ottoman Empire is different and I have listed the period in another post which i should have listed here too. Even if you go look at the dynasties prior to the Ottoman's even those as famous as Haroon ur Ruashid, you will see that they were dynastic monarchies for the most part.
anyway the time line
Look at the time line from Osam I and Orkhan I to Murad V and Hamid II, and see how much of a khilafah this monrachy was about.
I think real thought has to be given to the issue of Khilafah and its relation to any particular form of governing. After just 32 (632-661) years the form of government changed from Khilfah to monarchy, with only few lucky gaps the form remained the same up till today. The form of BeA’a (vote- popular or not popular) changed with time as there where more than one Sultan claiming to be the Khalifha at several time in history.
I personally think that the khilafah has more to do with Islamic Justice system and laws then the form of government.
more later inshallah...
Minime very good points indeed. I look forward to your other thoughts
When you say "chosen by the people", do you mean in Western style democratic, transparent and free elections with universal sufferage for all above 18 yrs of age, or do you mean selected by an elite slice of society?
mo best people at large, from what I understand, have to choose the person. I am not using the words voting, democratic etc on purpose here because otherwise the discussion will go off on a tangent somewhere.
The person who has popular support of people is the one who is chosen as the leader.
"Khalifah", correct me if i am wrong is the word used for the person who implements the islamic laws as described by Allah. Now, if people's approval was taken for the nominee or hands were raised or modern day ballot was used or any other method was used to bring that Khalifa then in my understanding using the above definition makes him Khalifa. Therefore, I think it's not the method that counts to make someone Khalifa but rather the actions of implementing Islamic law that counts. One might argue that any Tom, Dick and Harry of the muslim rulers might claim to be a Khalifa but their actions speak themselves i.e. if they fulfil the very basic requirement.
Also, I think in modern day world taking "bayat" or approval would be a difficult task and hence any appropriate method including public ballot should be equally valid alternative for bayat.
In which case the Khalifat of the early Islamic period (first 4) would be real using your earlier definition.
The Ottoman's were a dynasty-but they had the love of the ppl and took Islam to new heights.
The Ottoman "dynasty" had the label of Khalifat and that's where the term ended. In fact the Muslim dynasties before them were not very different. The rightly guided Khilafat ended in the very beginning of the history of Islam/Muslims. The primary reason was the decaying level of righteousness of the 'Ummah' in general, their treatment of the rightly guided Khulafah and also the premature process of establishment of the institution of Khilafa'at (the way Khulafahs were chosen).
To say that Khalifa is "chosen by the people" is not entirely true, as many dynastic monarchs claimed to have the backing of the majority of the people, and in comparison they were good moral rulers, but most Muslim scholars of past & present do not consider them among the "rightly guided Khalifas".
The true Khilafat has concrete spiritual foundations, where the will of the* people of Allah *become the choice of Allah as well and vice versa. The phenomenon is explained in the Quran as follows:
Allah had promised to those among you who believe and do good works that He will surely make them Successors in the earth, as He made Successors from among those who were before them; and that He will surely establish for them their religion which He has chosen for them; and that He will surely give them in exchange security and peace after their fear: They will worship Me, and they will not associate anything with Me. Then who so is ungrateful after that, they will be the rebellious. {Surah Al-Nur(24), Verse 55/56}
Whats note worthy is that Khilafat is promised to the true righteous believers and it's not only a political head figure of the state.
Quran also mentions other places the term Khilafat, as it was established in the nations before Muslims;
1) Khalifas, who are Prophets such as Adam and David. About Adam, God says in the Qur'an: "I am about to place a vicegerent in the earth" (2:31); and about David He says: "O David, We have made thee a vicegerent in the earth" (38: 26/27).
2) *Prophets who are the Khalifas of another and a greater Prophet **such as the Isrealite Prophets who all were the Khalifas of Moses. About them the Qur'an says: "*Surely, WE sent down the Torah wherein was guidance and light. By it did the Prophets, who were obedient to US, judge for the Jews, as did the godly people and those learned in the Law, because they were required to preserve the Book of Allah, and because they were guardians over it." (5: 44/45).
3) Non-Prophet Khalifas of a Prophet, with or without temporal powers, such as godly people learned in the Law. Their mission is to protect and preserve the law from being tampered with (same verse above 5: 44/45).
*A Caliphate That Follows the Guidance of the Prophet sallallahu `alayhi wa sallam: *
The Prophet Muhammad sallallahu alayhi wa sallam mentioned that just before the end of this world, the Muslim nation will be ruled by a Caliphate that will follow the guidance sent with the Messenger of Allah sallallahualayhi wa sallam.
Hudhaifah bin Al-Yaman reported that the Messenger of Allah sallallahu `alayhi wa sallam said:
*"Prophethood (meaning Muhammad (SAW) himself) will remain with you for as long as Allah wills it to remain, then Allah will raise it up whenever he wills to raise it up. Afterwards, there will be a Caliphate that follows the guidance of Prophethood remaining with you for as long as Allah wills it to remain. Then, He will raise it up whenever He wills to raise it up. Afterwards, there will be a reign of violently oppressive [The reign of Muslim kings who are partially unjust] rule and it will remain with you for as long as Allah wills it to remain. Then, there will be a reign of tyrannical rule and it will remain for as long as Allah wills it to remain. Then, Allah will raise it up whenever He wills to raise it up. Then, there will be a Caliphate that follows the guidance of Prophethood." *
Then Hudhaifah said, "The Prophet stopped speaking."
[As-Silsilah As-Sahihah, vol. 1, no. 5]
In this Hadith, the Messenger of Allah divided the history of the Muslim nation until the Day of Judgement into the following Five (5) stages:
*The reign of the Prophet Muhammad (SAW): *
remained during the time of The Prophet Hadrat Muhammad sallallaahu `alayhi wa sallam
*A Caliphate that rules according to the guidance revealed to the Messenger of Allah sallallaahu `alayhi wa sallam: *
This period is called the reign of the rightly guided Caliphs, starting with 1.Hazrat Abu Bakr Radi Allaho anhu , then 2.Hazrat Umar ibn-ul-Khattab Radi Allaho anhu, then 3.Hazrat Uthman ibn-e-Affan Radi Allaho anhu and ending with the martyr of 4.Hazrat Ali bin Abi Talib Radi Allaho anhu, may Allah be pleased with them all.
Some scholars included the short reign of Hazrat Hasan bin Ali Radi Allaho anhu, the grandson of the Messenger of Allah sallallaahu `alayhi wa sallam.
These are the thirty (30) years which the Messenger of Allah sallallaahu `alayhi wa sallam stated comprised the reign of the rightly guided Caliphs:
The Prophet sallallaahu `alayhi wa sallam said:
"The Caliphate will remain in my nation after me for thirty years. Then, it will be a monarchy after that."
[Ahmad, Tirmidhi and others, Sahih Al-Jami` ' As-Saghir no. 3341].
*The reign of unjust rule: *
This reign contains some injustice to a varying degree between one king and another. This period started after Hadrat Hasan bin Ali radi Allaho Anhu and includes the Umayyad, Abbasid, Mamluks and until the fall of the Great Ottoman Empire in the twentieth century.
This period includes all states that ruled in the Muslim World during those centuries. However, we exclude the reign of those rulers whose rule was similar to the rule of the rightly guided Caliphs, such as the reign of Hadrat Abdullah bin Zubayr Radi Allaho Anhu and Hadrat Umar bin Abdul-Aziz Rahmatulla Aleyh. These two(2) are considered among the just Caliphs from among the tribe of Quresh who ruled or will rule the Muslim nation.
*The reign of the tyrannical rule: *
This period started in the end of the Great Ottoman empire and continues. We ask Allah that He saves us from the evils of this period and that we witness its end soon. (Aameen)
This reign includes all the regimes that ruled the Muslim World, whether imperial, party oriented, governments controlled by the disbelievers, like those after World War I, populist or republic, which all sought to deprive Allah from His right as the Only Legislator and the only Soverign in all matters of life and religion.
When the Messenger of Allah sallallaahu `alayhi wa sallam mentioned the periods that this nation will experience, he categorized them according to the type of government, whether unjust, or that which follows the guidance of the Prophet, or autocratic and tyrannical, as we experience today.
*The return of a Caliphate that rules following the guidance and on the pattern of the Prophet sallallaahu `alayhi wa sallam: (Khilafah 'Ala Minhaj-in-Nubuwah) *
This period requires the Muslims to be prepared and strive for its imminent coming, by spreading the knowledge of the Book and the Sunnah. This is because nothing can resurrect this nation except that which resurrected its ancestors. Until this final period comes, the religion will become a stranger, the same way it started in Makkah, a stranger to its masters and slaves, the powerful and the weak, its women, and its children.
The fifth and last period that will witness the revival of politico-socio-economic system of Islam in its very true sense as it was implemented during the Caliphate of Khulafa-e-Rashideen will be GLOBAL!
In this regard, the major and minor premises are revealed in Quran, and the result actually does suggest the global reign of Khilafah 'Ala Minhaj-in-Nubuwah.
There are three places in Quran where the purpose of the Prophethood of Hadrat Muhammad sallallaahu `alayhi wa sallam is mentioned as follows without any change of a single word:
** "It is He (Allah) Who has sent His Messenger with Guidance and the Religion of Truth, that he (MuhammadSAW) may proclaim (dominate) it (Islam) over all religion."**
*[Al-Tauba:33, Al-Fatah:28, As-Saff:9] *
There are five places in Quran where it is stated that the Prohphethood of Hadrat Muhammad sallallaahu `alayhi wa sallam is for the whole mankind.
The most clearly stated place in the Quran is in Surah As-Sabah:
** "And We have not sent thee (O MuhammadSAW) save as a bringer of good tidings and a warner unto all mankind; but most of mankind know not."**
*[As-Sabah(34):28] *
At another place in Surah Al-Anbiya, Allah says in Quran:
** "And We sent thee (O MuhammadSAW) not, but as a Mercy for all creatures."**
*[Al-Anbiya (The Prophets)(21):107] *
Now the logical result for these minor and major premises of Syllogism is that:
*"The Prophethood of Muhammad(SAW) is for all mankind, and purpose of the Prophethood of Hadrat Muhammad sallallaahu `alayhi wa sallam is to dominate Islam over all religion." *
Wama Alaina Illal Balaagh wallaho Aalam bis sawaab!
On the other hand, in their defence, during the time of the Ottoman Empire, muslims were scattered so far and wide, and administration of Muslims so decentralised, that there would be no way to possibly hold free and fair elections to decide the Caliph. For example, how would you ensure that Muslims living under the Mughal Empire, recognising the Ottoman Sultan as Caliph, would all vote without being influence by the local dictatorship?
In such a scenario, how are you to select one, without risking civil war? Handing down from father to son worked. There were no major objections to the system (how much armed uprising was there?)
In any rate, it was not a monarchy per se, as found in Saudi Arabia. Caliphs could be forced to step down if they were shown to act contrary to Islam - and the Ulema did, on occasion, force some Ottoman rulers to step down.
*The answer to this question yes it was a a khilafah, the problem was that some of the rules were misintrepeted.
Here is reply to a question asked by many people*
*The Khilafah system was implemented continuously throughout the history of Islam *
Due to the current situation of the Muslims, it is natural that the Ummah is looking for a solution to its problems and dedicates its resources in order to alleviate itself from the catastrophes that are confronting it. In its efforts to solve its problems, it is also natural that the Muslims would realise that Islam is the only solution because it is deeply rooted in the minds of Muslims and embodies our history, language, culture, and sentiments. As a result of such a realisation, the Muslims would naturally work to bring Islam back into existence.
Today, more Muslims are beginning to return to their Islamic roots, and we are exerting a tremendous amount of energy and resources in order to change its situation. In the attempts to create a revival, those movements who are working to re-establish the Khilafah, have faced questions and obstacles, such as whether the Khilafah State existed, and was Islam ever implemented throughout its history?
*The root behind this questioning *
As a consequence of the cultural and political invasion of the West on the Muslims - which heavily concentrated on destroying concepts related to bringing Islam as a system - many ideas related to the method of Islam became weak, or completely misunderstood.
There were some who were infatuated with the West, and smitten by their ideals, who denied the Khilafah state existed. The West ensured that the Muslims, by their own initiative, would refuse central concepts such as the Islamic political system, to the degree that when the Khilafah's death certificate was signed in 1924, a scholar and Azhar graduate named Ali Abdul Raziq, plagiarised a French book and immediately issued it claiming that Muhammad (saw) never acted as ruler, imam, judge, or political leader, and that the Khilafah was not a part of Islam at all. He also claimed that the Muslims would convene and choose any political system to take care of their worldly affairs, but emphasised that Islam is exclusively for the individual and such a political system would not constitute a part of Islam. After issuing the book, Al Azhar issued a fatwa calling for the destruction of his certificate and claiming that he had left the fold of Islam. In spite of Azhar's response, that book was published immediately after the death of the Khilafah, leading one to conclude that the publishing of such a book was precisely timed to coincide with the destruction of Khilafah.
Today, Farish A Noor, a Malaysian political scientist and human rights activist said in an article dubiously entitled, Restoration of the Muslim Caliphate remains a Pipe-Dream, “Those Muslims who tried to revive the institution of the Caliphate…. were merely holding on to a fantasy that was a comfortable panacea for the painful realities of their daily lives.”
Another cause for the questioning of the ruling system of Islam is sinister too. There are those who are clambering to keep the Kufr systems, by passing fatawa which are contradictory to Islam, and which deny the existence of the Khilafah state in history as the Islamic political system, due to the fact that they wish to please their masters from amongst the corrupted rulers.
Furthermore there are those who are defeated by pessimism who constantly see darkness and despair, and are afraid to go out of their houses. Moreover there are those who have simply misunderstood the reality of history, and the events of the past, and state that Islam had its period, for a very short period only.
The West exerted a tremendous effort to alienate the Muslims from Islam, employing several tactics in order to achieve this aim. Among their many manoeuvres, they succeeded, through the Orientalists, in constructing a picture of the Islamic history as a grim era full of oppression and tyranny. As a result, many Muslims use such a scenario to counterattack any movement seeking to re-establish Islam in the realm of life. In order to legitimise their arguments, they present two particular points. They bring the example of the Umayyads and Abbasids and claim that their rule was that of a monarchy; and they cite stories of problems and incidents that occurred in history, exaggerate them in scope, and use them to justify their claim that Islam was not implemented. Examining the validity of such claims requires a more thorough and exhaustive study of the history.
*The Khilafah State is well defined *
The Khilafah state is well defined, and scholars in the past and present have presented the Khilafah structure in detail. It is beyond the scope of this article, to discuss the details, but the book issued by Hizb ut-Tahrir called “The Ruling System in Islam”, clearly illustrates the details of the ruling system, showing the basis of the Khilafah State, and revealing its pillars in an eloquent manner.
*The argument that the Khilafah lasted for 30 years *
There are some who have misunderstood the divine texts, and claim that the Khilafah lasted for 30 years. They base their understanding, by taking in an isolated manner an honourable hadith, which was narrated in the Musnad of Imam Ahmad, which states that the Prophet (saw) said, “The Khilafah in my Ummah after me will be for thirty years. Then there will be Mulk after that.” Some people translate the word mulk as Kingship.
To deal with this understanding we need to look to the hadith, and what it is addressing, and we need to look to this honourable hadith in context with other hadith. The 30 years that are mentioned is related to the period of the Khulafah Rashidah. So if we look to the period of the Khulafah Rashidah and look to the sum of the first five Khulafah it comes to exactly thirty years: two years and three months for Abu Bakr (ra), ten and a half years for Umar (ra), twelve years for Uthman (ra), four years and nine months for Ali (ra), and six months for al-Hasan (ra). The hadith then mentions that there will be mulk afterwards. If we look to this word, “mulk”, it has many meanings. Just by glancing at the famous Arabic dictionaries, like "Al- Muhit" of Fairuz Al-Abadi, it clearly illustrates this. The word mulk amongst other things does mean kingship, but also it means the one having charge over all the people, and also the word “hukm” (rule), is synonymous with the word sultan (authority), and mulk (dominion/rule).
Those who refer to this hadith claim the Umayyads and later generations were monarchies because even the hadith mentions the word Mulkan, which is derived from Malik, or ruler. Such an argument is built upon a false interpretation because the word Mulk as stated above means "dominion/rule/authority" and the word Malik can either mean "a ruler" in any context or "a ruler within a monarchical system." Thus, rulership does not immediately connote kingship or monarchy but can mean the rulership in any system. Allah (swt) mentions in the Qur'an the word Mulk, in the context of rule, amongst other ayat:
“By Allah's will they routed them; and Dawud slew Goliath; and Allah gave him dominion [Mulk] and wisdom and taught him whatever (else) He willed. And were it not for Allah's repelling some men with others, the earth would certainly be in a state of disorder; but Allah is Gracious to the creatures” [TMQ Al-Baqarah: 251].
Nobody can claim that Dawud (as) was a king because he would have to declare himself sovereign, an impossible act for a Prophet. In this context, Dawud (as) was given the authority to implement the revelation he received from Allah (swt), in the same manner that the Khalifah has the authority to rule only by Islam.
Also if we look to other hadith, they mention that there will be 12 Imams, which is a Shari’ah term to mean Khulafah, which can indicate that there were 12 Khulafah in the first three generations. As narrated by Jabir ibn Samurah (ra) that Muhammad (saw) said “The Islamic deen will continue until the Hour has been established, or you have been ruled by twelve Khulafah, all of them being from the Quraish” [Sahih Muslim].
In another hadith, amongst many others, the Prophet (saw) has indicated that their will be many Khulafah, It has been reported on the authority of Abu Hazim that he said: “I accompanied Abu Hurairah for five years, and heard him informing about the Prophet (saw), he said: ‘The Prophets ruled over the children of Israel, whenever a Prophet died another Prophet succeeded him, but there will be no Prophet after me. There will soon be Khulafa’a and they will number many.’ They asked; ‘What then do you order us?’ He (saw) said; ‘Fulfil the Bay’ah to them, one after the other and give them their dues for Allah will verily account them about what he entrusted them with’ [Sahih Muslim].
Also the example of the Sahabah, Tabieen, and Tabi-Tabieen, and the great Mujtahideen amongst them, is clear that they recognised Khulafah after Hasan (ra) and gave bay’ah to them freely, such as Khalifah Muawiya, Khalifah Abdullah ibn Zubayr (ra), and Khalifah Umar ibn Abdul Aziz (ra), and even those much later on such Khalifah Abdul Hamid II amongst many others.
*other questions and arguments people put forward. *
*The argument the Khilafah was a tyranny *
To legitimise their claims that Islam was not implemented during its history or that Islam cannot be implemented, some individuals refer to incidents described in history books that portray life under Islamic rule as a dismal existence in which oppression, misery, and persecution were the norm. In reality, these books often follow the footsteps of the Orientalists whose career was to attack and undermine Islam from every angle. The contents of such books point to isolated incidents that do not speak for the Ummah or the general state of affairs, and cannot be used to develop a clear picture of the society and the contemporary events that faced it. Many of these sources, if not all of them, are plagued with distorted facts and inflated statistics.
Moreover, such books contradict common sense. For instance, Khalifah Haroon al-Rashid is often the target of malicious attacks by these books that accuse him of a myriad of crimes - ranging from adultery to alcoholism to theft - as well as portray him as a tyrannical despot who sponsored mass executions and ruled the people with an iron fist. Yet the same Khalifah Haroon - who spent alternating years performing Hajj and waging Jihad, who built a water transport system that the Saudi regime cannot build today with their wealth and resources, and who saw the Islamic civilization rise to its zenith under his reign - was also nicknamed "Al-Rashid" and called the "Sixth Guided Khalifah." Many other contradictions and distortions are found in such books that aim only at undermining Islam and presenting a distorted picture.
Yet, even tyranny is not a cause for the invalidation of the Islamic ruling system, as the hadith mention; “‘The best of your Imams are those whom you love and they love you, and pray for you and you pray for them, and the worst of your Imams are those whom you hate and they hate you, and you curse them and they curse you.’ We asked; ‘O Messenger of Allah! Shall we not then declare war on them?’ He said; ‘No, as long as they establish Salah amongst you’ ” [Muslim from Auf bin Malik]. So the hadith is indicating that the rulers need to be obeyed, as long as he implements the Shari’ah.
The Islamic Ummah must take the initiative and objectively re-examine its history by scrutinising its sources. No longer can the Muslims afford to dwell on the dark images and continue to repeat the attacks of the Orientalists. Islamic history remains a history full of glimmering achievements and a shining example of civilization that portrayed humanity as a society of unparalleled justice, mercy, and advancement, for thirteen centuries.
*The period of the ransacking of the Khilafah in 1258-1261 *
There are some who claim that there was no Khalifah for a period of three years, and the Muslims ignored the duty of the Khilafah system. Again to understand the situation in this period, we need to study what happened. The reality of the Khilafah was that it was very weak centrally, in Baghdad, which was the capital, and a lot of the Wilayat (provinces) became very strong; virtually autonomous. So when the Mongols ransacked Baghdad, and killed the Khalifah, Mutasim in 1258 it shook the entire state as mentioned by Jalaluddin As-Suyuti in his book Tarikh al-Khulafah.
The region of Egypt, was controlled by the Walis (governors), who had assumed the title of Sultan. They were the Mamluk’s at the time, who had just defeated the previous Walis, the Ayubi's. As As-Suyuti mentions:
"In the 657 AH the world was without the Khalifah. The Tartars were descending upon the Ummah. The Sultan of Egypt was a boy, Mansur Ali bil Muizz (who was unable to do anything to help the Muslims)…There upon Sultan Qotuz, assembled the nobles and the principal men of the Ummah and there present was Shaykh Izzuddin bin Abdus Sallam who was a celebrated orator, and he said, ' Since, the enemy has overrun the Wilayah, it is incumbent upon the whole Ummah to oppose them, and it is lawful to take from the people what they can afford of their sustenance on the condition that the bait al mal be first exhausted…"
Then Qotuz, removed al-Mansur as the Sultan, and Qotuz, was then appointed as Sultan of the Wilayah. He then sent for Bayburs and met at Ain Jalut, where the Tartars were defeated, and the Muslims were victorious. In Rajab of 659 AH (May 1261) the Khalifah was proclaimed and given the bay’ah. His name was Al Mustansir Billah Ahmed, he had fled Baghdad in 1258, and when Bayburs became Sultan he set out to visit him, with the Qadis and other officials of the state. The first to give him Bay’ah was the Sultan Bayburs, then the Qadi al Qudaa, Tajuddin Aa'zz, then the Shaykh Izzuddin Sallam, and then the rest of the influential people.
The whole narration shows that the structure of the State was intact, apart from the fact that the Khalifah had been killed and that the Muslims did not have a Khaleefah for 3 years not because of a negligence of a duty, far from it, and it would be wrong to suggest so by the fact that the Muslims concerned for selecting a Khalifah were under an overwhelming power preventing them from doing so. This was the case of the Muslims after the murder of Uthman (ra) where the Muslims remained for five days without a Khalifah before pledging Ali (ra) as Khaleefah.
Even the Tartars, who ransacked Baghdad and directly occupied the Islamic State, could not escape the influence of Islam. When the Muslims finally expelled them, they accepted Islam, returned to give the Bay'ah to the Khalifah, and carried the banner of Islam to Russia and the Far East. No other incident in history witnesses that a nation conquered a people, and the conquerors soon carried the culture and ideas of the conquered! Only through the implementation of Islam and the power of the Islamic Ideology could the Muslims have profoundly influenced their invaders in spite of the intellectual decline and fragmentation existing within the Ummah at the time.
*The Case Of The Bay'ah *
Although the Khilafah remained with a single family during the time of the Umayyads and Abbasids, their ruling was not considered a monarchy for the following reasons.
The sovereignty was never given to the Head of State, and nor did the Head of State ever claim himself to be sovereign, i.e. the source of legislation, as is the case in the monarchical system. Throughout Islamic history, the Muslims always referred to the Hukm Shar'i as the source of their legislation and not to any particular individual.
The office of the Khilafah was never conferred upon individuals solely on the basis of inheritance. Although the Khilafah remained within a single family for several generations at a time, such an incident does not constitute inherited ruling because the Bay’ah was always given. In a monarchy, the son of the King or the ruler, by sole virtue of his family relationship, would immediately assume the ruling position afterwards. During the Islamic history, no Khalifah was ever appointed or designated to his post without the Bay’ah. Those few who did try to assume the position of Khalifah without a Bay’ah performed an illegitimate seizure of power and were quickly removed.
The controversy over the Bay’ah hovers around the incident in which Muawiya took the Bay’ah on his son, and such an incident is used to justify the claims that monarchical rule followed the generation of the Sahabah. Such a conclusion results from failing to distinguish between misapplying the rules and abandoning them altogether. Muawiya's case demonstrates a misapplication of the Shar'iah in which the Bay’ah was taken in the wrong manner. Furthermore, Muawiya based his understanding on Abu Bakr's (ra) actions when he nominated Umar (ra) before the termination of his Khilafah. In the same manner, Muawiya selected his son. Although Abu Bakr (ra) asked the opinions of the Muslims as opposed to Muawiya, such an act does not indicate that Muawiya abandoned the Shari’ah because the Bay’ah was not abandoned.
In spite of the misapplication, the Bay’ah was given consistently throughout the thirteen centuries of Islamic rule. The Shariah has laid down 2 points related to the Bay’ah that need to exist for the Bay’ah to be legitimate. Firstly the consent of all the Muslims needs to be sought, and secondly it needs to be done without coercion but by free will and consent. Generally the Bay’ah was given by the Sheikh al Islam or the Ahlul Halli wal Aqd, the notables of the Muslims who represented the Muslims as a whole, throughout Islamic history, although there were notable exceptions, who were accounted by the Ummah, and are seen in a negative light by Muslims of all generations. Thus, the case against the Bay’ah has no basis for claiming that Islam was not implemented.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by khan_sahib: *
Also, I think in modern day world taking "bayat" or approval would be a difficult task and hence any appropriate method including public ballot should be equally valid alternative for bayat.
[/QUOTE]
agreed, hmm sounds a lot like democratic elections nwo dunn it?
[QUOTE]
Originally posted by mAd_ScIeNtIsT: *
In such a scenario, how are you to select one, without risking civil war? Handing down from father to son worked. There were no major objections to the system (how much armed uprising was there?) *
and dude those are the type of issues that even our beloved khilafah affecianados dont have the answers to. the nitty gritty of how it will work and how it will be ste up.
But this is no defense of them. there was not even an attempt to gauge public opinion even if it was not thorough. it was handed down from one person to the next.
*In any rate, it was not a monarchy per se, as found in Saudi Arabia. Caliphs could be forced to step down if they were shown to act contrary to Islam - and the Ulema did, on occasion, force some Ottoman rulers to step down. *
huh??? any ideas what some of these "sultans" were upto? and stayed in power. while there were exceptions and reading some history would show that there was this contention and tension between the monarchs, the clergy, the military and the bureaucrats that was a characteristic of the empire. when the clergy had an upper hand they would get some butt kicked, and vice versa. it had less to do with accountability and more to do with political power games.
As a matter of fact you will see that the clergy was at odds with the monrachs quite often but could nto do anything sometimes and was strong enough to get the monarchs in trouble.
The clergy did get more interested in weilding power rather than focus on religion. Scientists and scholars were persecuted inquisition style by them in that era.
and how about the squabble with the military regarding whether using firearms was allowed.
The history of the Ottoman empire is fascinating, there were many factors in its crumbling, internal as well as external..empires in the past and in the future all went their way becuase of similar issues.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Fraudz: *
agreed, hmm sounds a lot like democratic elections nwo dunn it?
[/QUOTE]
so, what's the problem?
man u don't like it if it's kingdomship and u complain if it's like democratic elections. :)
there is no problem if there are elections to choose a khalifa but it's just that things have been made complicated so much so that people don't know what Khalifa stands for.
Just to sum up for the original question that was asked, let us make our authority Rasoolullah (SAW) himself... Is there any thing to say after what he (SAW) said it for the matter being discussed?
The Prophet sallallaahu `alayhi wa sallam said:
"The Caliphate will remain in my nation after me for thirty years. Then, it will be a monarchy after that."
[Ahmad, Tirmidhi and others, Sahih Al-Jami` ' As-Saghir no. 3341].
Monarchy is where the king makes rules for himself and does thing as he pleases. The khalifhs always implemented shariah as there source not there own whims and desires.
In the history of islam from muhammad(Saw) to the end of the islamic state in 19th century the leaders have all been legitimate and been given the bayah.
Only one incident in the entire 1400 years was the leadership questionable and that was at time of Yazid where Muawiyah forced the bayah to be accepted for his son and this is not allowed.
Even umar bin khattab was going to allow his son to be next kahlifh but then did'nt let him because he was competent enough. Indictaing if Umars son was competent he could also have become khalifh would people then say oh the islamic state leadership is based on nepotism!
Muslim reported on the authority of Abu Hazim, who said: I accompanied Abu Hurairah for five years and heard him talking of the Prophet's saying: The Prophets ruled over the children of Israel, whenever a Prophet died another Prophet succeeded him, but there will be no Prophet after me. There will be Khulafa and they will number many. They asked: What then do you order us? He said: Fulfil the bay'ah to them one after the other and give them their due. Surely Allah will ask them about what He entrusted them with.