Tuesday 14 July 2009

Is there a Divine ‘Method’ to Re-Establish the Caliphate (Khilafah)?



Rational necessity coupled with the undisputable evidences in the Islamic texts makes the existence of the Caliphate obligatory for all Muslims. Therefore, in the absence of the Caliphate, its restoration is also an obligation.

Only the Islamic Liberation Party (Hizb-ut-Tahrir) has made the claim that it has extracted the divine method from the Islamic texts through the process of Ijthad (scholarly exertion). The method, meaning that one must undertake the steps as part of an obligation to re-establish the Caliphate. This article disputes this, the points listed below elaborates upon this.


a) The method has been built entirely upon the evidences related to how the first Islamic State was established by the Prophet (SAW) and His companions. Naturally, the pool of evidence extends from how the Prophet (SAW) and His companions took the various steps from the beginning of the divine revelation in Mecca to the migration (Hijra) to Medina. First point to note is there is no evidence in the Hadiths or the Quran that explicitly or implicitly states how the Islamic State should be re-established.


The method is primarily built on extracting the evidences that led to the changing of the non-Islamic system to the Islamic System that manifested in the Islamic State in Medina. Those acts are applied to our current situation to re-establish the Islamic state by changing the non-Islamic system prevailing over Muslims. The common factor being that we are trying to change the political system governing a society. However, reason dictates that one must also look at the differences as well as the similarities in making an analogy between two different scenarios. There is a fundamental difference between the Prophet (SAW) establishing the first Islamic State in the primitive Arabian society, and of our situation of re-establishing the Islamic State amongst Muslims.


Since the two scenarios are so different, one would argue the differences outweigh the similarities thus the evidences extracted from the Seerah (Life of the Prophet) is not even applicable, let alone binding. Hence, one can argue that the establishment of the first Islamic State cannot be a reference point as we are re-establishing the state amongst Muslims.


There is a further significant problem in that the non-Islamic system of Medina was changed and not Mecca, thus the focus should be on those acts related to Medina and this is elaborated in the next point.


b) It is also fact that the Prophet (SAW) brought the entire religion of Islam, which included the establishment of the Islamic State in Medina. Deciphering which acts contributed towards the establishment of the Islamic State in Medina is very much subjective; and difficult given that the state was established in Medina which was transformed largely by Musab Bin Umayr (RA) who had minimal contact with the Prophet (SAW) and functioned almost autonomously.


Thus, with respect to the method, one can legitimately question the value in citing all the actions of the Prophet (SAW) in Mecca, which was geared towards changing the Meccan society, and it is fact that Mecca did not change; in fact it rejected the Prophet (SAW) until the end when it was opened up by force.


The evidences should be taken primarily from the actions of those who made Medina the first Islamic state. Reason dictates that if one is seeking evidences in relation to changing the society then clearly most of the episodes in Mecca should be ignored as it did not change through the actions of the Prophet (SAW) prior to migration to Medina. Rather Mecca remained hostile.


On a side point, those who are incessantly arguing for re-establishing the Islamic State in the Arab lands should note the Arabs in Mecca were amongst the best in Arabic, understood the miraculous nature of Quran very well and related to the Prophet (SAW), yet they rejected the message of Islam. So much for the Arabic language being the factor as the example from Mecca shows otherwise!


c) The claim that a given set of actions stated in the method should be applicable for all time to change different societies is false; - ironically the example of the Seerah proves this as Mecca did not change but Medina did. Therefore, the actions of the Prophet (SAW) showed that they were an attempt to change the society, which may work in some cases and not others, hence cannot be binding for all cases.


Furthermore, there is no corroborative evidence to make those steps obligatory especially given that we are referring to a situation (Seerah) that is fundamentally different to our situation of re-establishing the Islamic State. At most, one can make the case that one is permitted to emulate the steps taken by the Prophet (SAW) in establishing the first Islamic State, but they are not obligatory.


The only action that we can argue as applicable is the interaction with the society that we are attempting to change, and this was carried out by the Prophet (SAW) and His companions. In any case this is self-evident and dictated by rational necessity; and this is so general, thus to claim it is part of the method is meaningless. If we observe history, we see many examples where such changes took place through interaction. In terms of the details as to how one should interact with the society depends on the situation, as stated earlier, the actions failed in Mecca but not Medina. Thus, one is not obliged to follow those actions of the prophet (SAW) and His companions in trying to change the society.


As for the claim that seeking of Nusrah (help from those with ability to change the system) is also, part of the method is elaborated in the next point.


d) Once again the seeking of Nusrah is also dictated by ration as part of the actions that can be undertaken to change the society, however to claim that this is binding for all times as it is considered part of the method is false.


First there is no corroborative evidence for this, and secondly this contradicts the reality as in some cases seeking Nusrah may not be possible. For example, a dictatorial hostile regime would ensure that the persons holding the reigns of power are loyal thus getting Nusrah from them is impossible or unlikely. This is the case in many parts of the Islamic world further corroborated by the failure of HT to attain Nusrah over the last 50 years.


Furthermore, even if someone in a position of Nusrah became convinced of the method that the person(s) would feel obligated to resign from the position as the clear-cut verse that states one cannot be part of a hostile regime ruling by non-Islamic laws. This would nullify the ability to attain Nusrah. Hence, the claim that Nusrah is part of the method is false and it is only permitted to seek it in cases where it is suitable.


The party has also misconstrued the relationship between Nusrah and the use of force, which is discussed in the next point.


e) The constant claim made by the party (Hizb-ut-Tahrir) that it is a non-violent party that is seeking a peaceful change like that which occurred in Medina is false. If we look into the details, the tribes were ready for battle and willing to take on anyone who challenged the authority of the Prophet (SAW) as He entered Medina, and the second pledge given to the Prophet (SAW) by the 12 from Medina included the pledge to fight. Thus, violence was intrinsically linked to the Nusrah of Medina even though it did not occur, but that is incidental. Any change of system in the current times would involve fighting, unless the authority gave up the reigns of power willingly, but that is something one cannot determine or enforce.


In terms of precise evidence for changing the non-Islamic System to an Islamic one, the closest evidence is the Hadiths, which makes explicit references to changing a ruler by the sword if he deviates from the Caliphate. This is used by the Jihad orientated groups. The obvious implication is to use force to restore the caliphate and all the current secular states are in a deviated state. But again, this rule has to be applied with caution as it could lead to substantial loss of life, and this is not decisive either to argue that this is the only method to re-establish the Caliphate.


f) Some dubious arguments have been brought forward by some of the members of the Liberation Party claiming that there is a principle that every obligation (fardh or wajib) must have detailed explanation of how that should be achieved. The implication is that re-establishing the state is an obligation thus there must also be a detailed explanation how that can be achieved. The principle is not from the books of Islamic Jurisprudence, in any case it is irrational as the principle makes little sense in many cases the how (or the method) of an obligation is part and parcel of the definition. For example, the subject of prayer (Salah), the how or the method of the prayer does not exist as the definition of prayer contains how. This is composed of the various acts like the reciting Fathia (a chapter from the Quran), Ruku (bowing) Sujood (prostration) etc. Likewise for fasting, the notion is self-contained, fast by definition means abstaining from food, water and sex for certain duration.



In some cases the method to perform a specific obligation is separate from the obligation itself but there is no rule to say this has to be defined. Note these examples to clarify the point even further –


· It is obliged to fight the enemy in the battlefield but the method to fight the enemy is not defined. It is left to the people to use the appropriate means available to them.


· It is obligatory to cut the hand of the thief but the method is not defined. One can use a sword, and axe or some other sharp object.


· Likewise, it is obliged to re-establish the state but the method has not been defined but left to the people.


· This final example actually proves the point even further. It is obligatory to call the people to pray. The method was not defined initially and the companions with the Prophet (SAW)did not say we have to wait for the revelation to clarify the matter as there is a principle that every obligation must have a method - instead they began to consider the various methods to call people to prayer, until the revelation came to specify the Adhan.



Hence there is no such principle that states that the explanation of the obligation showing how it should be carried out must exist, in some cases the how of an obligation does not, in other cases it does and defined by the text or left for us to decide.


This then brings up the question, what is the correct method to re-establish the Caliphate. The short answer is there is none. There is no explicit text that states you must undertake these sets of actions to re-establish the state.


Therefore, we can use any permissible act to achieve the re-establishment of the state based on the principle of Ibaha, which states that all acts in origin are permissible until the text has forbidden it. So one can use charitable work or missionary type of work, but not acts like adultery to re-establish of the caliphate. This also confirms to the reality as the nature of society has changed significantly since the time of Mecca and different circumstances will require different sets of actions. As stated earlier that Mecca did not respond but Medina did even though bulk of the evidence and effort was focused in Mecca.


One can argue the core elements of society have remained the same like the presence of individuals, political authority and a system governing the various relationships; however, this would be an oversimplification of the problem and naive.


In a tribal society, the power resides with the few tribal leaders, whereas a nation state is far more complex with various facets. Therefore, to bring about a change to a nation state will require a different approach. As stated earlier it may be impossible to gain those (Nusrah) who have the position to alter the society.


In the context of the current times, it is almost a pre-requisite for mass support, thus one may have to resort to agitating the masses to create a mass revolution or uprising, which may eventually turn out to be bloody as we cannot always control how these things will turn out. But where is the evidence from the Seerah that we can agitate the masses to revolt and over turn the society, if Nusrah is the only way to bring about change? Medina did not involve mass agitation; rather it was the product of the people in key position being convinced of the call of Islam and finding it as a convenient solution to their endless feuds. The public opinion played little role in a tribal society.


Yamin Zakaria

London, UK

Copyright © Yamin Zakaria 2007

(http://yaminzakaria.blogspot.com)

13 comments:

  1. What are you islamic credentials and where were they recieved? Are you a scholar?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Hi

    I think your question is irrelevant. If you think the arguments have no basis please respond to them instead of resorting to personal attacks.

    Just consider me the most ignorant person on this earth. By addressing the above points enlighten me! :))

    Yamin

    ReplyDelete
  3. It wasn't a personal attack, it was a request for information. I just want to know where you recieved the ability to dismiss arguments and principles, and come up with your own. If you were educated by knowledgable scholars, then your opinion might have some weight. But if you just read a few books and think you can dismiss the work of mujtahideen then a lil problem arises.

    ReplyDelete
  4. You have already geared up to initiate a personal attack as you are wanting to discuss the author instead of what has been written!

    I did not dismiss the arguments and principles. I elucidated my points but it seems you are not interested to address that.

    It is irrelevant with regards to my scholarly credentials. What matters is the arguments presented and the evidences. A simple person can make strong point, and likewise a scholar can also make a blunder. The ultimate criteria is the arguments and evidences presented - not who is behind them!

    ReplyDelete
  5. AOA,
    Dear Brother, as you said in the beginning of the article that HT is the only political party who claims to have derived the method of establishing khilafah state through Ijtihad. Now your point is that there is no binding method to establish khilafah in Islam. What I have understood from the method of HT is very simple. The whole methodology of HT revolves around political and intellectual struggle against the prevailing (kufr) system with out taking part in it and with out resorting to arm struggle. For this they have given quite strong evidence from both Quran and Sunnah of the prophet (saw). Now if you or some else refutes the method proposed by HT for the re-establishment of khilafah then you should also come up with some details and not with some thing ambiguous like there is no divine method and one can go with any. Because for any party who has been involved in a serious battle of ideas with the capitalist and other kufr thoughts needs to have details of its method of reaching the goal. We have seen and still witnessing Islamic organization that took part in the democratic system and lost their credentials and gradually became secular.
    I would seriously be looking forward to know from you the detail methodology of re-establishing khilafah what ever that may be. Besides I have been reading your articles and debates and I believe you are an asset of the Ummah, so please do work for khilafah as you your self consider it obligatory, as I don’t know which organization you are working with for fulfilling this vital obligation, so I would also like to know that.

    wasalam
    Naeem khan

    ReplyDelete
  6. Salam Naeem

    I have given reference to arms struggle in the article, please kindly refer to that. It seems you have not really read the article. I have made the points with respect to the 'method' and why it is not valid.

    Yamin

    ReplyDelete
  7. Salam,

    I did read your article and that’s why I asked you about the missing thing. What I want is not just proving a method invalid rather giving an alternative. As for as I know and I have studied the literature of HT especially about the method of establishing khilafah I have found HT disproving other prevailing methods i.e. Democracy, arm struggle, calling people to partial Islam etc but does not stop here rather gives an alternative in the form of a comprehensive methodology which is extracted through the process of Ijtihad. I am asking you because I seriously want to know about any other methodology an organization could adopt and follow to bring Islamic state back, because an organization can’t go forward smoothly having ambiguous understanding of methodology amongst its own group. Besides, as I said HT believes in political and intellectual struggle with out doing to things, Taking part in democracy and resorting to arm struggling. This help HT stand clear in the struggle for the establishment of khilafah.
    Regards,
    Naeem Khan

    ReplyDelete
  8. Salam

    If you read the article I am sure you could not have missed this part "missing thing" -

    This then brings up the question, what is the correct method to re-establish the Caliphate. The short answer is there is none. There is no explicit text that states you must undertake these sets of actions to re-establish the state.


    Therefore, we can use any permissible act to achieve the re-establishment of the state based on the principle of Ibaha, which states that all acts in origin are permissible until the text has forbidden it. So one can use charitable work or missionary type of work, but not acts like adultery to re-establish of the caliphate. This also confirms to the reality as the nature of society has changed significantly since the time of Mecca and different circumstances will require different sets of actions. As stated earlier that Mecca did not respond but Medina did even though bulk of the evidence and effort was focused in Mecca.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I think the article has made the point; there does not have to be a method; this contradicts Hizb aqeeda stance that you cannot impose upon God that there must be a specific type of Shariah rule, with certain characteristics, this is demanding upon God a certain matter which is up to him.

    Also in terms of method if the answer is there is no defined methodology, then there is no defined methodology in the text.

    As for attacking the brother this is unnecessary, as what he is saying has been said by innumerable scholars that there is no single methodology.

    Similarly most scholars do not believe that there is a single method of appointing a ruler, this could be through mass election, election by powerful parties, through force, previous rulers decree, or anything that works as it is a pragmatic measure, and not defined, most jurists hold the latter view.

    Similarly does the rule of forbidding each of the munkaraat apply, or can it be at a minimal level just as a minimal level hatred in the heart, or with recourse to the greater Maslaha (interest) or lesser evil then we can start identifying matters pragmatically and focus on the fundamentals and priorities.

    The issue of correcting with the sword though is when the ruler denounces Islam, not when he orders you with sin, which is greater than permitting a sin, but neither situation permits raising the sword according to the majority position of Sunni scholarship.

    In such a scenario we should seek to gradually create a political change through a pragmatic method.

    A simple point that any Alim knows, seerah is not a source of Shariah, Sunnah and hadith are, not biography which is a mixture of opinion and narration strong and weak.

    Similarly when it comes to matters such as this, which at best are Ijtihadi, one should not respond as though you have some kind of divine revelation which is Qati, when it is all zanni but in actuality not even adopted by others. This should make us realize let us not discuss this and debate this in order to impose a point of view, especiall when it is weak.

    Correction: The Usuli qaida which was used to derive the rule is not the explanation of the obligation but the question of the ta'assi bi af'al ul-nabi which can be found in many books of Usul, such as Amidi and Imam al-Haramayn and Shawkani regarding if there is a command, then an action is undertaken in response, it follows the rule of the command.

    This issue does not apply here as there obviously is no obligatory command in the first place. If you can find a command in the text (not establish something is an obligation) in the form of a direct address that preceds the action (khitab al-sabiq).

    Also the assumption is that through istiqraa (inductive reasoning) you can deduce the action, which here is completely contradictory to the deductive approach which is adopted in everything else.

    Similarly there are no Shariah rules revealed in Makkah, which all make this discussion quite strange...

    Hizbi fiqh, political parties are fard kifayah (a bida without doubt as an obligation) specific fard method on a "group", another bida as obligations fall upon the Mukallaf i.e. the servant that has dimma moral responsibility, hence individuals, not parties or entities.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Correction: The Usuli qaida which was used to derive the rule is not the explanation of the obligation but the question of the ta'assi bi af'al ul-nabi which can be found in many books of Usul, such as Amidi and Imam al-Haramayn and Shawkani regarding if there is a command, then an action is undertaken in response, it follows the rule of the command.

    This issue does not apply here as there obviously is no obligatory command in the first place. If you can find a command in the text (not establish something is an obligation) in the form of a direct address that preceds the action (khitab al-sabiq).

    Also the assumption is that through istiqraa (inductive reasoning) you can deduce the action, which here is completely contradictory to the deductive approach which is adopted in everything else.

    Similarly there are no Shariah rules revealed in Makkah, which all make this discussion quite strange...

    Hizbi fiqh, political parties are fard kifayah (a bida without doubt as an obligation) specific fard method on a "group", another bida as obligations fall upon the Mukallaf i.e. the servant that has dimma moral responsibility, hence individuals, not parties or entities.

    Each of these missapplications of fiqh demonstrate the criticisms that the ulema have made on the Hizb, this does not detract from Nabhani - but the fact that the Hizb and it's shabab impose their dawa and state that there method is the only valid method and everyone else is on Kufr. This is why the criticism is necessary - and the irony of hizbis asking why are you being critical of all of the Ulema of the Ummah.

    The fact that, on the whole Muqalliddeen, discussing issues that they are completely unaware of.

    A fine example of the contradiction is that they are asking you for your credentials, though in the book tafkeer (thought) that the Mujtahid in a mas'ala is not required to fullfill any conditions not even speak arabic, just the issues at hand; so why not accept their own criterion and "the strongest ideas".

    ReplyDelete
  11. There was no intellectual and political struggle in Madina, some people embraced Islam, their followers followed them, the influential trbal leaders gave their pledge of allegiance and they then allowed the people to make hijra, and the prophet arrived and lead them. He made, a treaty without any time restrictions, as Mujtahid scholars have pointed out such as Dr Shaykh Wahbah al-Zuhayli, with various tribes allowing them to live by their own religious traitions, such as the Jewish tribes and their customs were the means of redress, and described all the people Muslim and non-Muslim, as one Ummah - nation or people. If we were to look at these actions, which were obligatory as a method to establish him in authority?! Hijra? Taking the pledge? Entering madinah? The treaty? Or is it the case that none are obligatory unless the specific fatwa for a situation arises? So one today makes Hijra from a land in which one is persecuted, as the companions and the Prophet did. The Quran says, they were expelled from their land. But not otherwise. There was no ideological call to thought and method, as their was no method and their was no ideology, but the principle belief in God and His Messenger and the Shariah came o be revealed later.

    Question: Why was their no fighting? The prophet explained he was not ordered to do so though the people of two tribes who embraced Islam and gave the Bayah, the second Bayah at al Aqaba, offered. Which means that this rule was then changed when Fighting was mentioned in the Quran, so today if people are being persecuted we don't say to them, don't defend the people, but to those who can, hey should, and those that can't they make Hijra.

    I repeat there was no such thing as intellectual and political struggle i.e. there were no ideological struggle, there were no ideologies, and there was no political struggle for two reasons: a) there was no authority which was established to be replaced by another system, nor was their an aspect of the system - as their was no laws to be changed for anther system or specific law - think over this as this is the explanation given for political struggle by the Hizb (b) There was no Shariah rules revealed - who says this? Taqi al-Din al-Nabhani says so in Shakhsiyah al-Islamiyyah. So there was no call to a system, but a belief and a denouncement of all that was wrong and immoral according to what they should reasonably and customarilly know was wrong. This is exactly what the Quran states many times; wa amroo bil-urf - an Ayah which clearly states order them with what is good - Imam Qurafi cites this as an example of a verse which clearly sanctions the authority of Urf. The verse of the female child, when she asks what crimes was killed? They obviously know that this is wrong, unnatural for people not to recognize this hence the question; otherwise it would have bee irrational to ask people who couldn't know that this is wrong.

    All of this demonstrates that there was no method to take power and establish the Islamic State, for the Prophet.

    Rather that the Prophet did Dawa they manner in which he saw fit and sometimes this was created a negative response but he persevered but spared his companions, when the Quraysh did not not listen he went elsewhere and this was successful in Madinah. Dawa, but no political and intellectual struggle.

    This is all an elaborate rational not textual explanation of how to change society today but not text base.

    ReplyDelete
  12. The strongest example of this point is deonstrated in the example of the blind man, abasa wa tawalla? You Frowned and turned away? The prophet was the beloved of Allah and was guided by him, but not in the actions he chose to make the dawa. If you want to argue "method" and "style" then you will again fail as all the actions are mubah as styles so no obligatory action (fi'l) to imitate, so you cannot use the principle of emulating the actions of the messenger, but the general orders of being kind, patient, calling people to Islam; the general rules of hijra and the rules of Jihad yes when fighting a non-Muslim authority which is persecuting Muslims, or not allowing them to practice their faith. There is no other bab of fiqh to do with these issues. Have a read of scholarly works and writings in areas of sirah and hadith and they will make these things clear.

    Everyone recognizes these issues and we should just square up, there is no such detailed ahkam, and if anyone which wishes to present them, we can go through the asbab, shurut, arkan and the dala'il of these ahkam - that would be a first! Even the hizb fail on this level, they have something general which they call their method without detailed rules and elaborations, criterion and Ijtihad in these issues.

    Remember when the Hizb said that society "froze" i.e. they failedd to create an intellectual and ideological change, and there could be no popular leadership, so it looked to the sirah and derived nussrah!! What is this failure to see this Ijtihad?! If it was in the text and principly established within it then this would have been the hukm from the beginning!

    This is all too clear. We should just accept that there is an opinion attributed to an alim which says there is a methodology which conflicts with the consensus of the ulema who take more pragmatic understanding of politics, based upon the general rules and principles of the Shariah.

    Remember before you cite other texts such as enjoing the good and forbidding the evil and accounting the rulers, remember they do not apply as stated by Hizb ut-Tahrir in the book, methodology of hizb ut-tahrir for change.

    ReplyDelete
  13. I think you needed to make your point concise in reference to the article, rather than to engage in delivering a lengthy sermon consisting of many issues, some it seems entirely irrelevant.

    I would hold the discussion here, and make your point on the website www.radicalviews.org

    ReplyDelete