|
It is an undeniable fact that for the past many centuries, the
word khilafah is being used as a term. However, it is
certainly not a religious term. It needs to be understood that
religious terms cannot be coined by scholars like Razi,
Ghazali, Mawardi, Ibn Hazm and Ibn Khaldun. Similarly, not
every word which Muslims start using in a particular sense
becomes a religious term. On the contrary, religious terms can
only be coined by God and His messengers, and are acceptable
only when their meaning as a term is validated from the Qur’an
and Hadith or other divine scriptures. Words as sawm, salah,
hajj and ‘umrah etc are regarded as religious terms because
God and His messengers have accorded them this status, and
have used them at various instances as terms. On the other
hand, the word khilafah is a word of the Arabic language and
means “vicegerency,” “succession,” and “political authority.”
It is used as a common Arabic word in one of these meanings at
all places in the Qur’an and Hadith. It may be noted that
certain verses of the Qur’an have generally been cited to
convince people that they are used as terms. In all such
verses, people have actually not translated the words khilafah
and khilafah in the translation of the verses and have kept
them intact in their original Arabic form. By doing this, they
want to give the impression that these words have been used as
terms. If all these verses are looked up in any authentic
translation, one will be at a loss to understand how this
inference was made, just as one of my critics seems to be at a
loss at the inferences made by me!
Presented below are the Urdu translations of two very
competent scholars:
1. Verse 40 of Surah Baqarah
And when your Lord said to the angels: “I have to make a na’ib
in the earth.” (Shah ‘Abd al-Qadir)
And when your Lord told the angels: “I will make a na’ib in
the earth.” (Mahmud al-Hasan)
2. Verse 26 of Surah Su‘ad
O David! We have made you a na’ib in the country; so govern
people with justice. (Shah ‘Abd al-Qadir)
O David! We have made you a na’ib in the country; so govern
people with justice. (Mahmud al-Hasan)
3. Verse 55 of Surah Nur
God has promised that those among you who have accepted faith
and have done righteous deeds, in fact He will in the coming
times make them hakim
in the country the way He made hakim those prior to them.
(Shah ‘Abd al-Qadir)
God has promised those among you who have accepted faith and
have done righteous deeds, in fact He will in the coming times
make them hakim in the country the way He made rulers those
prior to them. (Mahmud al-Hasan)
The words na’ib and hakim used in these verses are a
translation of the Arabic words khalifah and istikhlaf, and it
is quite evident that they do not have any religious
connotation in them except if a person claims that every word
used in the Qur’an becomes a religious term.
Similar is the case with the Ahadith and Athar. The word
khalifah and all its derivatives are used in them in the same
meanings as the ones stated earlier. So much so, in one Hadith,
the word khalifah is used for God Himself in the meaning of
“successor.” It is for this very reason that when meanings
such as “rightly guided government” or “government in
accordance with the way of prophethood” need to be expressed,
then words such as rashidah and ‘ala minhaj al-nubuwwah
have
to be appended with the word khilafah. By regarding such
appended words to be understood with the word khilafah, our
scholars have made khilafah a term. As such, it certainly is a
term of political science and sociology of the Muslims just as
the words fiqh, kalam, hadith and other similar ones have
become terms, but it cannot be regarded as a religious term.
No one except God and His Messenger has the authority to coin
a religious term. This is solely their prerogative. If some
word is regarded as a religious term, then it has to be
deduced from the words of these two authorities. It cannot be
adduced from works like the Muqaddimah of Ibn Khaldun.
As for the view that according to Islam there should be only
one global government in the world, it is evident to every
person of learning that the Qur’an is absolutely devoid of any
such directive. Two Ahadith are, however, cited in favour of
this view. One of them is: God’s Messenger (sws) is reported
to have said that prophets ruled the Israelites; so, when one
of them passed away, another would take his place; but there
is no prophet after me; however, there will be rulers and they
will be plenty. It was asked: “What is your directive about
them O Prophet?” He replied: “Fulfill your oath of allegiance
with the first one and then with the one who is the first
after him.”
The second Hadith is: “When the oath of allegiance is pledged
to two rulers, kill the second one.”
Though this second narrative is not sound as far as its chain
of narration is concerned, yet even if it is regarded to be
correct, it is an incontestable reality that none of these
Ahadith state in any sense what has been derived from them.
What is said in these narratives is that if Muslims pledge
their oath of allegiance to a ruler and then another person
rebels against him and invites people to pledge allegiance to
him, then each Muslim should adhere to his first oath of
allegiance. Moreover, if the second person claims to be their
ruler and some people even pledge their oath of allegiance to
him, then he should be executed.
Such is the nature of these directives that their cogency can
be made evident to every person. Thus, after the demise of the
Prophet Muhammad (sws) when a member of the Ansar tribe
suggested that a ruler each from the Ansar and the Muhajirun
should be appointed, ‘Umar (rta) on this very principle opined
that two swords cannot exist in one sheath, and Abu Bakr (rta)
also cautioned people at this instance that a state can only
have one ruler. This is because such an arrangement will
result in severe differences, disorder instead of order will
arise and the discipline of the state will be ruined, and
instead of [following] the way on which the Prophet (sws) left
his people a religious innovation that one state will be
governed by two rulers will emerge.
If the ascription of these Ahadith to the Prophet (sws) is
correct, then they imply what has been explained above. No
logic can adduce from them that Islam has directed its
followers to set up a single government in the whole world.
Similarly, no reasoning can deduce from these narratives that
if the adherents of Islam are able to convert the majority of
people of other countries to Islam, then they cannot set up
their own government and if they do so, as in the case of
today’s fifty odd Muslims countries, they will be regarded as
sinners.
Scholars of Islam must bear in mind that the precepts of God’s
religion must remain pure and unaltered. No scholar, jurist or
Hadith doctor has the authority to make people liable for a
directive for which the Almighty has not made them liable.
Hence I have written and would like to repeat that the
establishment of United States of Islam based on the union of
countries in which Muslims are in majority can be the desire
of every person and we can also strive to fulfill this desire,
but the view that such a union is a directive of the Islamic
shari‘ah defying which Muslims are committing a sin has no
basis.
(Translated by Dr Shehzad Saleem)
_________________
|