An Islamic State is an ideological state. It is founded on
some principles and beliefs and not on race, tribe or family. All the Muslims
believing in God and following God and His Messengers are equal citizens of the
state and as such enjoy equal rights. None among them bears superiority over his
fellow citizens. The only thing that raises some of them among others is their
piety, understanding of religious sources and ability to reach conclusions using
independent reasoning. In an Islamic society, it is only excellence on the basis
of taqwa (God-consciousness) that earns some people the authority to rule others
and decide their collective affairs. They are not elected for the purpose
considering their superior race or pure descent.
The above fact is a very conspicuous directive of the Holy
Qur’ān. We do not think it necessary to quote the divine commands in this regard
from the Book. Yet, unfortunately, having misinterpreted a Hadīth narrative,
some people believe that only a Qurayshite may be elected as ruler of the
Muslims. No other person can be elevated to the position of khalīfah. The text
of the Hadīth follows:
الأئمة من القريش
The rulers are from among the Quraysh.
The most common interpretation of the above prophetic
Hadīth violates the above mentioned fundamental Islamic doctrine in this regard.
It also provides the disputants with a firm basis to label objections on Islam.
To explain our point fully we need to refer to some of the objections against
the Islamic system of government.
The most favorite objection raised against such faulty
conception of the Islamic system goes as follows. Islam very vociferously claims
that all humans are equal. Such Qur’ānic claims are in fact hollow. When it is
believed, based on the consensus of the Muslim, that only a Qurayshite can
assume the chair of khilāfah, the Islamic claim of equality of mankind loses all
meaning. What kind of equality can exist in the presence of such marked
discrimination? This doctrine grants the Quraysh a status no less than what the
Levites held among the Children of Israel or that held by the Brahmans among the
Hindus. Just like the Hindu religious law does not allow a Vaisya or a Shudra to
participate in social and political affairs, Islam considers non-Qurayshites
inherently ineligible for the post.
Another objection against such a conception of Islamic
system of state claims that, God forbid, the Holy Prophet (sws) Muhammad (sws)
failed to found the state in accordance with his teachings. The whole life he
propagated equality and justice, and condemned racial discrimination only to
hand over the state and political authority to his family a little before his
death.
It will not be out of place to mention that it was this
Hadīth narrative which, during the British rule in India, some English
Orientalists and political leaders employed in misguiding the Muslims and in
thus achieving their political ends regarding the Muslim movement of khilāfah.
They tried to make the protesting Muslims realize that they were going out of
the way in order to protect and help out the Turkish khilāfah, whereas their
religion only recognizes the right to rule only for the Qurayshites. In the
presence of such a pronounced judgment from their Messenger, how can they
consider helping the Turkish khalīfah a religious obligation? It was on the
contrary a violation of the sharī‘ah.
In present times, some “intellectuals” have endeavored to
establish, on the basis of the Hadīth mentioned above, that some of the basic
and fundamental teachings of the religion can be abandoned if the wise
consideration of the circumstances demands such an expedient suspension of the
sharī‘ah. Though equality is one of the fundamental teachings of Islam
underscoring many a Qur’ānic commandment and Prophetic teaching, yet, they
maintain, it was only wise to abandon such teachings in those crucial
circumstances as prevailing around the death of the Prophet (sws) and thus the
right to rule was held exclusive for the Quraysh. That is why the Prophet (sws),
before his death, made it clear to the people that only the Quraysh would be
chosen as political leaders of the state after him.
True Context of the Prophetic Hadīth under Discussion
These and other objections labeled against the political
teachings of Islam, owe themselves to an erroneous interpretation of the Hadīth
mentioned above. The prophetic saying has been interpreted severing it from its
context and considering it an order or commandment rather than an expression of
the hard political reality of the time.
We believe it was neither a command nor a testamentary will
left by the Holy Prophet (sws) rather it was a decision, a judgment pronounced
on a dispute under current in that political context. There is no denying the
fact that the issue was not presented before the Holy Prophet (sws) as a dispute
between prospective candidates for the khilāfah yet it was there in the minds of
the people and manifested itself in different forms. It was not difficult for
the Holy Prophet (sws) to read the real implication of the question and that
after his death it would translate into a serious dispute, giving rise to
dissension among the ummah. Therefore, the Holy Prophet (sws) considered it only
wise to decide the issue in his life. He stated that considering the political
condition of Arabia at that time it was only the Quraysh who could assume the
authority.
One party of the claimants to the khilāfah were the Quraysh.
The only contestants besides them were the Ansār. During the Prophet’s time,
only these two groups wielded political influence. Though Islam had purified
them of any bias of the jāhiliyyah period yet they kept alive the lawful flare
of tribal solidarity. During the lifetime of the Holy Prophet (sws), their
mental state would not reveal itself in much serious forms. However, after his
death such a dispute could have intensified. Though it was not feared that their
lust for power would generate political dissension, for both groups aspired to
serve the religion of God more actively, yet their enthusiasm for service of
God’s religion could create contention and problems in the nascent state. This
did not leave the Holy Prophet (sws) but to decide the matter during this
lifetime.
Since both groups were contesting for the political
leadership of the Muslim world of the time and not for a position for the imām
of a mosque, the only criterion for a just decision and preference of one over
the other was their services to religion and the political influence they
exerted over other Arab tribes.
Both had rendered equal services to religion and were its
true and diligent followers. If the Quraysh had some specific services rendered
to religion, the Ansār had some other equally important ones to their credit.
Therefore, we see, that whenever the Holy Qur’ān counts their services to the
religion of God, it praises both in equal terms. We cannot therefore base
ourselves on the Qur’ān in saying that any among them has been given more
importance. Similarly the Holy Prophet (sws) too has always considered the
services of both the parties equal and neither of the parties lost significance
in his sight. Therefore, none among them could be given superiority over the
other on the question of their religiosity and service to Islam.
The Quraysh, however, outmatched the Ansār in that they
exercised more political influence over the Arabs than the Ansār did. The
political supremacy a group wields does not mean anything if taken alone.
However, added with the sound religious grounding of the group, it renders that
particular group competent enough to successfully run the state and guard the
public and religious interests of the nation. It therefore adds to the qualities
of that group and makes it more deserving of political power than others. In
Islam, the responsibility of khilāfah is allotted to a group keeping in
consideration its religiosity as much as its political status. The Quraysh were
considered a dominant political power in Arabia even before the advent of Islam.
This position they did not lose after the rise of Islam. Their rule was not
therefore an unfamiliar and unacceptable thing for the Arabs. The Arabs could
readily recognize the rule of the Quraysh in Islam which they were accustomed to
obey in the jāhiliyyah period provided no religious commandment prohibited them
doing so. By the grace of Almighty Allah the Quraysh had, by serving the
religion of God, attained prominence among the believers too. Thus they were
equipped with both qualities necessary for political leadership: political
dominance and their services to the religion of God. This is the fact on the
basis of which the Holy Prophet (sws) decided in favor of the Quraysh against
the other claimant party namely the Ansārs, and explicitly stated that the
considering the hard political reality of the time the leadership would go to
the Quraysh. Consequently, this timely verdict of the Holy Prophet (sws) later
helped greatly in removing the conflict among the Quraysh and the Ansār that did
not take long to appear. It has been reported that just after the Prophet’s
death the Ansār gathered in the Saqīfah of Banū Sā‘idah and claimed their right
to rule the Muslims.
It would be utterly wrong to claim that the Holy Prophet (sws)
decided in favor of the Quraysh merely because of their Qurayshite origin. Had
there been a third political group outmatching the Quraysh and the Ansār in
their services to religion and wielding more political influence than these two,
the Holy Prophet (sws) would have decided in the favor of that group.
Further Clarification of the Issue
Though the explanation of the Hadīth we have offered is
very clear, yet some people may still have some questions in their minds in this
regard. We will first of all try to determine such possible confusions and then
provide our response to them:
First, it may be asked that what determines the difference
between a decision pronounced on a dispute and an independent directive. One may
also hold that the preference the Holy Prophet (sws) gave to the Quraysh in this
regard should be taken as it is. It does not make any difference whether they
were given preference over the Ansār or all the nations of the world. One thing
is certain: the Holy Prophet (sws) preferred them over others.
Second, one may seek to know how is it established that it
was a judgment on a dispute in absence of any historical proof to the fact that
there existed any such contention between the Quraysh and the Ansār during the
lifetime of the Holy Prophet (sws).
Third, how can one be sure that it was really a judgment on
a dispute between the two groups? Did the Holy Prophet (sws) make it clear that
he was deciding a dispute? Are there some other indications in the related
historical material which provides sufficient proof to say that it was a
decision and not an independent ruling?
Fourth, many scholars have stated that there is a consensus
of the ummah on that none other than the people of Qurayshite origin be made
rulers. How can a dissenting view be validated then?
We believe that none of these is a serious issue yet they
can potentially lead people into confusion. We, therefore, consider it desirable
to explain them.
As regards the first confusion, we wish to explain that
there is a difference, though subtle, between a decision pronounced on a dispute
and an independent ruling. This requires a little elaboration. It is however
upon the interlocutors to seriously try to understand it. A decision pronounced
on a disputed issue between two parties applies only to the very contestants. It
cannot be extended to a third group. It means that when a third party which is
more deserving than the first two appears it would be considered the rightful
owner of the position allotted to any two of the original contestants. In other
words, considering it a decision pronounced on a dispute entails that the right
will accrue to any third contestant with more solid qualification. If,
therefore, the Holy Prophet (sws) gave an independent ruling to the effect that
no non-Qurayshite has the right to rule Muslims then it will be considered an
absolute directive applied to all in all times. None will be able to lawfully
rule the Muslims till the Day of Judgment except for the Quraysh. Then the
Muslims will have to search for a Qurayshite to appoint as the head of the state
whenever they have to form one. If there is nobody of the Qurayshite origin in a
Muslim state, it has to import one. If on the contrary it was just a judgment on
a dispute then it would mean that the Quraysh were given preference over the
Ansār only. It does not then entail that this preference was universal and the
Quraysh were given preference over all the people of the world and that none
would lawfully rule the Muslims except for them no matter how clearly competent
and remarkably deserving.
As regards the difference the nature of the Prophetic
command creates, it can be ascertained through careful analysis of the basis of
the preference. In order to know the basis, we have to see the nature of the
dispute first. We will see what the issue being contested was and what were the
factors which contributed to such a dispute. Thus if we come to know that the
dispute was among the Quraysh and the Ansār on the issue of khilāfah on the
basis of their racial origin, and the Holy Prophet (sws) preferred the Quraysh
on the basis of their race and descent that would take us to the conclusion that
in the matter of the right to rule in Islam the basic criterion is racial
origin. It was the racial origin based on which the Holy Prophet (sws) preferred
the Quraysh over the Ansār. However, a thorough investigation into the whole
issue reveals that the dispute was over the right of caliphate and both parties
considered themselves more deserving for the caliphate on the basis of their
religious services and their political power; but the Holy Prophet (sws) decided
in favour of the Quraysh. This means that in Islam the issue of rule is decided
considering the religious services and the political status of the contesting
parties. The right to rule then accrues to that group that wields more political
power, is recognized by all the factions of the society as political leaders and
outshine others in their services to the religion. Racial origin does not play
any role in this second case.
Now, we believe, it is clear what difference does it make
to consider the prophetic saying a decision on a dispute rather than an
independent judgment.
The answer to the second question consists of certain
points, which follow.
First, the dispute between the Quraysh and the Ansār did
not necessarily relate to the issue of khilāfah because the question of
ascendancy to the khilāfah could not have been manifested until after the death
of the Holy Prophet (sws). We know that the Ansār considered themselves equal to
the Quraysh in their political status and their religious services. On the basis
of this fact, we can conclude that a contest between both parties really
existed. This feeling had generated in their minds a sense of competition with
the Quraysh. There is no denying the fact that the Ansār considered themselves a
dominant political power at least in Madīnah. They were in no way wrong in this
estimation of their political power in their hometown. We also know that their
services to Islam were no less important than those rendered by the Quraysh.
That is why they considered themselves equal to the Quraysh both politically and
religiously. The presence of such a spirit of contest was so pronounced that no
student of their history can deny it. Let us, for example, consider the
following speech of their leader Sa‘d Ibn ‘Ubādah delivered in the meeting of
the Ansār in the Saqīfah of Banī Sā‘idah:
يا معشر الأنصار إن لكم سابقة في الدين و فضيلة في الاسلام لسيت
لقبيلة من العرب. ان رسول الله لبث في قومه بضع عشرة سنين يدعوهم إلى عبادة الرحمن
و خلع الاوثان فما آمن به من قومه إلا قليل والله ما كانوا يقدرون ان يمنعوا رسول
الله ولا يعرفوا دينه ولا يدفعوا عن انفسهم حتى اراد الله بكم الفضيلة و ساق إليكم
الكرامة و خصكم بالنعمة و رزقكم الإيمان به و برسوله والمنع له ولاصحابه والاعزاز
لدينه والجهاد لاعدائه فكنتم اشد الناس على من تخلف عنه منكم واثقله على عدوكم من
غيركم حتى استقاموا لامر الله تعالى طوعا و كرها و اعطى البعيد المقادة
صاغرا داحرا حتى اثخن الله تعالى لنبيه بكم الارض و دانت باسيافكم له العرب و توفاه
الله تعالى و هو راض عنكم قرير العين فشدوا ايديكم بهذا الامر فإنكم أحق الناس
وأولاهم به فاجابوه جميعا ان قد وفقت في الراي واصبت في القول
O party of the Ansār: “Your excellence with regards to
your services to the religion of Islam is not the share of any other tribe in
the whole of Arabia. The Prophet (sws) of God stayed among his folks more than a
decade. He continued calling them to worship the Most Merciful and pleaded them
to abandon their idols. None believed in his message except for a few. These few
however did not have the power to protect the Messenger of God nor were they
able to propagate his religion. They could not even defend themselves. This
state of affairs remained until God intended to grant you excellence. He granted
you respect and specifically chose you for his bounty. He bestowed upon you the
ability to believe in Him and in His Messenger. He chose you for the protection
of His Prophet (sws) and the Companions (rta), for helping the religion grow and
for fighting the enemies of God. You have been the most hard on those who turned
away from religion, from among you or other people. You continued rendering
services till the enemies had been made to bow before the will of God willingly
or unwillingly. Those from the far flung areas were compelled to follow. God
conquered the land for the Holy Prophet (sws) through you. He made the Arabs
surrender before him through your swords. Now the Messenger of God has departed
for the next world while he was pleased with you. This is why you deserve the
right to succeed him more than any other group. Hold this (khilāfah) firmly.”
Then all those present among the Ansār said: “What you have opined and expressed
is right.”
We do not think it possible that these feelings of
competition sprouted instantly among the group of Ansār and that there were no
traces of contest before this event. Considering that such a spirit of contest
was there in the minds of the Ansār, one may say, the Holy Prophet (sws) had to
address the issue. He felt compelled to guide the people in the right direction
so that they could amicably solve the dispute.
That such feelings indeed were there in the minds of the
Ansār can be gleaned from the fact that the Hypocrites would take advantage of
such a communal attachment during the lifetime of the Holy Prophet (sws).
History clearly shows that at various occasions the Hypocrites incited the
feelings of the Quraysh and the Ansār in such a way that people from both
parties drew out their swords against each other. One such incident happened
during the expedition of marīsī‘.
The incident of Saqīfah Banī Sā‘idah did not accidentally
happen. There were various factors which worked behind such an expression from
the Ansār. There is no doubt that in every such case the Hypocrites had played
their role. The Hypocrites could not have succeeded in inciting the communal
bias of the Ansār if there were nothing supportive in their minds to be
aggravated. Who could have been more sensitive to all these affairs than the
Holy Prophet (sws)? It was only he who could come up with a proper solution to
the problem and could curb the ensuing difficulties. We find it perfectly
understandable that the Holy Prophet (sws) realized the feelings of competition
underlying various expressions from both groups. He therefore decided on the
matter before it could get aggravated after his passing away. Thus the Holy
Prophet (sws) could curb the conflict between the Ansār and the Quraysh which
the Hypocrites were able to raise just after his demise.
Second, it is utterly wrong to say that during the lifetime
of the Holy Prophet (sws) Muslims had never imagined that the Holy Prophet (sws)
would depart or that the issue of khilāfah would be raised after that. Such
assumptions clearly negate the influence of the Prophet’s teaching over the
Companions (rta) and misrepresent the mentality of the Muslims of the time. Had
the Holy Prophet (sws) left this ummah in dark regarding such basic issues they
would have fallen in more grievous kinds of ignorance and the prophet’s saying:
“the nights (ie. the future) of this ummah are as bright as its days (ie. the
prophetic era),” would be totally proved wrong. Every Muslim living during the
time of the Holy Prophet (sws) fully appreciated the fact that he was a human
being and that he would depart from this world one day. They knew that they had
to establish a government after him. Somebody would succeed him. The principles
and basis of the khilāfah were also clear to them. They knew what would be the
nature and characteristics of the caliphate in the beginning as well as later
deviations expected to creep in the institution. All these things had clearly
been explained by the Holy Prophet (sws). The Companions (rta) have reported
them all as recorded in the books of Hadīth.
How could the Companions (rta) ignore the issues facing
them? They could certainly not remain oblivious to the issues which directly
related to them and which affected their lives. They knew that thinking over
these realties and forming an opinion in this regard was no sin. If it were not
for fear of a lengthy discussion, we could cite all the traditions which
enlighten us in this regard and help us know that the Ansār had in their minds
some issues and problems expected to surface after the death of the Holy Prophet
(sws).
In response to the third question, we state that the text
of the Hadīth: “the rulers would be from among the Quraysh” does not contain any
textual indication to the explanation we have offered. It does not explicitly
state that the Prophet (sws) passed a judgement on a disputed matter. However,
the text does not also indicate that it was an independent directive. Neither
does it guide us to the fact that because of wise consideration of the
circumstances we can abandon the basic teachings of Islam.
The text therefore is not decisive in ascertaining any of
the explanations given so far. In such cases, the scholars of the science of
Hadīth follow the principle of ta’wīl (interpretation).
Such an interpretation is usually done according to the
principle that a khabr-i wāhid (an individual report) cannot contradict the
basic categorical teachings of Islam. An individual report contradicting the
categorical teachings of Islam has to be interpreted in such a way that it is
shown in conformity with the basic principles of Islam. Such an interpretation
should then be strengthened by external and textual indicators and
circumstances.
Now we discuss the factors which force us to take the
Hadīth as a decision over a dispute based on the criterion of religious services
of the groups involved and their political power.
The first thing that substantiates our interpretation is
that, as stated above, there existed a spirit of contest and competition between
the Quraysh and the Ansār. Such a spirit was at occasions exploited by the
Hypocrites to sow difference among both the major groups even during the life
time of the Holy Prophet (sws). This could have made the Holy Prophet (sws) see
that after his death this feeling, though positive, could be misused by the
Hypocrites in a well planned manner and could be destructive for the unity and
solidarity of the nascent state. This sense of apprehension required that the
Holy Prophet (sws) decide the most crucial issue of succession in his lifetime
so that at the hour of need his decision could guard the community from possible
dissonance.
Secondly, such a claim over the khilāfah could only be made
by the Ansār. In the whole of Arabia, at that time, there was no other group
besides them with such great services to religion and political influence over
other tribes, except for the Quraysh, on the basis of which that group could
claim to be the rightful heir of the Prophet’s political leadership. The other
groups therefore were not considered claimants for the post of khilāfah on this
ground. There was also no other compelling connection of those groups with the
question, making them a potential candidate and subject of the prophetic
judgement.
Thirdly, according to the most fundamental teachings of
Islam no individual or group can rightfully be given priority over others except
on the basis of their services to Islam and the political dominance in the
public. None can however lay any kind of preference over others on the basis of
their racial or tribal origin. The Holy Qur’ān says:
يَا أَيُّهَا النَّاسُ إِنَّا خَلَقْنَاكُم مِّن ذَكَرٍ
وَأُنثَى وَجَعَلْنَاكُمْ شُعُوبًا وَقَبَائِلَ لِتَعَارَفُوا إِنَّ أَكْرَمَكُمْ
عِندَ اللَّهِ أَتْقَاكُم
O People, We have created you from a male and a female
and made you into nations and tribes that you might get to know one another. The
noblest of you in God’s sight is he who is the most righteous among you. (49:13)
Similarly, the Holy Prophet (sws) also made it clear that
no Arab enjoys any kind of superiority over a non-Arab and no non-Arab has any
such preference over an Arab. The only thing that can lend excellence to a
person is God-consciousness. Keeping in view the above mentioned clear Qurā’nic
teachings and the prophetic clarifications, we cannot correctly take the Hadīth:
“the leaders would be from among the Quraysh” to mean that the Quraysh were
given preference over all others in this regard on the basis of their Qurayshite
origin. Seen in the light of the Qurā’nic teachings and prophetic explanations,
it can only be interpreted to mean that the Holy Prophet (sws) considered the
political power wielded by the Quraysh over Arabs and their unparalleled
services to the religion of God. Even the Ansār did not match them in this
regard.
Fourthly, the text of some of the prophetic Hadīth in this
regard indicates that the question of Quraysh’s superiority was in fact created
in relation to the Ansār. They also make it clear that the basis of the
preference attached to the Quraysh was not their origin but the confidence of
the majority of the Arabs in them. Consider the following narratives:
While arguing against the claim of the Ansār regarding the
khilāfah, Abū Bakr (rta) said to Sa‘d Ibn Mu‘ādh (rta):
لقد علمت يا سعد أن رسول الله قال و انت قاعد قريش ولاة هذا
الأمر فبر الناس تبع لبرهم و فاجرهم تبع لفاجرهم فقال سعد صدقت
Sa‘d, you well know that the Holy Prophet (sws) said in
your presence that the Quraysh are the rightful custodians of the khilāfah. The
righteous Arabs follow the righteous among the Quraysh and the evil among the
Arabs follow the evil among the Quraysh. Sa‘d replied: “You are right.”
Another saying ascribed to Abū Bakr (rta) says:
و لم تعرف العرب هذا الأمر إلا لهذا الحي من القريش
The Arabs are not familiar with the rule of any group
other than the Quraysh.
‘Alī (rta) says:
عن رسول الله الناس تبع لقريش صالحهم تبع لصالحهم و شرارهم تبع
لشرارهم
The Holy Prophet (sws) said: “The people [of Arabia]
follow the Quraysh. The righteous Arabs follow the righteous among the Quraysh
and the evil Arabs follow the evil among the Quraysh.”
This theme has been discussed in various other narratives.
All these things do not make sense unless they are taken to imply that the Holy
Prophet (sws) wanted to make it clear to any claimant of the khilāfah that the
only group which can fulfill the responsibilities of the khilāfah are the
Quraysh because the Arabs would not accept the rule of any other group. A little
deliberation over the political circumstances of the time shows that only the
Ansār could lay such a claim on the right of khilāfah besides the Quraysh. We
must also consider the fact that it was the political influence of the Quraysh
over the Arabs during the days of ignorance and also after Islam that is being
discussed as the basis of preference in this regard. Nothing in the text of the
relevant narratives indicates that it was the Qurayshite origin that provided
the basis. Just as in a democratic culture the party which enjoys the confidence
of the majority is given the right to rule, similarly the Quraysh were given the
responsibility to run the government after the Holy Prophet (sws) because of the
confidence of the majority of the Arabs they enjoyed and the services they had
rendered to the religion of God.
In response to the fourth objection which says that the
condition of Qurayshite origin is based upon the general consensus on this point
obtained in the ummah, we hold that if this is the consensus established among
those participating in the meeting called by Ansār in the Saqīfah of Banū
Sā‘idah then we recognize it. It is a known fact. If the reference is towards
some other kind of consensus then the claim is unfounded. Such a consensus is
not known to Muslim scholarship. Perhaps it was only limited to Imām Nafsī and
Shahrastānī. As regards the consensus of opinion among the elders of the Ansār
and the Quraysh in the Saqīfah of Banū Sā‘idah, it did not violate any principle
of Islam. It was perfectly in accordance with the Islamic teachings. It is not
the peculiarity of this consensus under discussion rather all consensuses held
in the entire history of Islam were in accordance with the Islamic teachings.
Never ever the ummah gathered over a view which violated the principle teachings
of Islam. We believe that no consensus is considerable and valid unless it is in
accordance with Islamic teachings. If the ummah or the scholars of the ummah
agree over an issue which contradicts Islamic teachings, the agreed upon matter
is not valid because it lacks the basic conditions of consensus in Islam. Such a
violation is utterly wrong and should never be heeded to.
The elders among the Ansār and the Quraysh did not agree on
the opinion that only the Quraysh would enjoy the right to rule after the Holy
Prophet (sws) because they were of a superior race. As stated above they reached
a consensus on the point that the Quraysh enjoyed the confidence of the majority
Arabs and had rendered great services to Islam and, on that account, they would
be given the right to rule in those particular circumstances. Had the Quraysh
lacked any of these qualities and had there been some other group having these
qualities, the Quraysh would never be given that priority. The negation of this
right to rule would not have, however, removed their Qurayshite origin. Had the
Companions (rta) known that the basis of such preference was the Qurayshite
origin, the Quraysh would have argued that according to the Prophet’s teachings
no non-Qurayshite would be taken as the ruler. They would have brought the
discussion to end simply by proving this point. A scholar well versed in the
history of Islam when reads through the reliable works on the subject can learn
that the arguments of the Ansār and the Quraysh in the meeting held in the
Saqīfah were not based on the origin of the Quraysh. They, on the contrary,
pleaded to their political competence and the services to religion as the basic
criterion.
If racial origin and tribal affiliation would mean
something in this regard only the tribe of Banū Hāshim could have been the most
prominent claimant of khilāfah. They were the noblest race. But the crucial
question in this regard was the political competence and influence over the
subjects. The Quraysh possessed this quality collectively. No clan among the
Quraysh individually wielded that political power over the Arabs which they
wielded collectively. That is why we see that the Holy Prophet (sws) did not say
that it was necessary for a caliph to be of Qurayshite origin. On the contrary,
he said that the rulers would be from among the Quraysh. This sufficiently
proves that the basis of decision in this regard is their political power and
not their origin.
Had the Companions (rta) taken the prophetic saying to mean
that the Qurayshite origin was a necessary condition for a caliph and that this
principle is a major clause of Islamic political directives and had the Ansār
and the Quraysh agreed on this understanding of the Prophet’s saying, it would
not have been possible for ‘Umar (rta), one of the participants of the claimed
ijmā‘, to wish to transfer the khilāfah to some non-Qurayshite. Every student of
Islamic history knows that on his death bed the caliph ‘Umar (rta) was requested
to nominate his successor. He sorrowfully said that if Mu‘ādh Ibn Jabal would be
alive he would have nominated him as his successor. He said:
فإن سألني ربي قلت إني سمعت نبيك يقول
انه يحشر يوم القيامة بين يدي العلماء برتوة
Then, if my Lord would ask me: [“Whom have you handed
over the affairs of the ummah?]”, I would be able to say: “in the hands of
Mu‘ādh Ibn Jabal. I heard your Prophet (sws) say that Mu‘ādh would be walking in
front of all the scholars.”
Similarly regarding Sālim he said:
If Sālim would be alive, I would not have been forced to
form this council asking it to select a caliph from among them. I would have
nominated him instantly.
One wonders how the caliph ‘Umar (rta) expresses his grief
over the loss of Mu‘ādh, one of the Ansār. How did ‘Umar (rta) remain ignorant
of the ijmā‘ these people so vociferously claim over the condition of Qurayshite
origin for the caliph when we know that he was present in the meeting of the
elders among the Ansār and the Quraysh? Do we have to believe that the nature of
that ijmā‘ was more clear to Imām Nafsī and Shahrastānī than it was to ‘Umar (rta)?
We must notice that ‘Umar expressed his desire to appoint a non-Qurayshite even
during the same political circumstances. The Quraysh still enjoyed, in their
collectivity, the confidence of the Arabs. They were still united and organized.
They had among them great leaders like ‘Uthmān (rta) and ‘Alī (rta).
The matter of Sālim is even more enlightening. He was not a
Qurayshite even not an Arab by origin. He was an ‘ajamī, a freed slave, not even
a free ‘ajamī man. He was freed by Abū Hudhayfah or his wife. ‘Umar (rta) says
that if Sālim were alive he would have appointed him as his successor.
The crux of the matter is that it was not the Qurayshite
origin that determined the status of the Qurasyh rather the basic criterion was
the confidence of the people in them. In that time, the confidence of the people
the Quraysh enjoyed or potentially enjoyed was considered by the Holy Prophet (sws).
This made them competent enough to fulfill the responsibilities of the khilāfah.
Considering their political power, they could have nominated a slave, any from
among the Ansār, or even a non-Arab. Their nominee could have run the government
with them on his back. Without this political power and influence, none could
have been competent enough to be burdened with the responsibility. This explains
the Prophetic saying: “the rulers will be from among the Quraysh.” Do you think
that when a group or a party is appointed as ruler considering their political
mandate it would be a violation of any of the Islamic teachings? Such preference
for the majority parties against the minority is considered the real beauty and
apex of democracy. But unfortunately we have interpreted this virtue to be a
violation of the basic Islamic principles of justice and equality and have
toppled one of the pillars of Islam opening the door of deterioration in other
principles too.
Viewpoint of Ibn Khaldūn
It would not be out of place to explain the viewpoint of
Ibn Khaldūn in this regard.
Those well versed in Ibn Khaldūn’s prolegomena know that
his political theory is based on the concept of communal support and political
unity. This communal support and political unity develops out of blood
relations. People of a race create the sense of unity among them in that each
individual of them has a strong urge to support and help others. This mutual
help and care creates in turn the courage to protect the interests of the
community and seek for it the opportunity to self-rule and this last thing
culminates in a formal government.
According to Ibn Khaldūn, the communal support which
engenders a government initially develops out of common descent. However, the
common descent works only when the sense of unity among the group is strong
enough to create the feeling of help and protection of the fellow group members.
The stronger this feeling for others and the desire to help and protect the
members of the group the more productive this common descent is. Without this it
is not enough to be considered a firm basis for the establishment of a rule. In
that case, it would only be an illusion.
According to Ibn Khaldūn, the Quraysh were able to wield
that political power and supremacy among the Arabs only on the basis of this
communal support. This communal support when further strengthened by their
religious affiliation made them rightful heirs of the political legacy of the
Holy Prophet (sws). No other Arab tribe was their rival in this regard. They
were the rightful owners of the right to rule until their communal support and
the resultant political power was shattered. Once the Quraysh lost this basic
competence to rule other nations, which had developed their communal support and
the required political power, they were replaced by these new political powers.
The above is a summary of Ibn Khaldūn’s political theory.
If, according to him, the Quraysh were made rulers of the Arabs and the rightful
owners of the khilāfah only because of their communal support and the resultant
political power over other factions in the Arabian society of the time, then it
becomes clear that this factor does not necessitate the suspension of any basic
Islamic principle. One can however accept or reject it on the basis of sound
proofs but one cannot maintain that Ibn Khaldūn has come up with a theory which
violates any of the basic teachings of the Qur’ān. If Ibn Khaldūn lived in the
modern age, he would have put his theory differently. He would have said that
since the Quraysh were the most powerful party among all the Arabian tribes both
in terms of their religiosity and political power, they were granted the right
to rule by the Holy Prophet (sws).
(Translated from Islāmī Riyāsat by Tariq Mahmood Hashmi)
_____________________
|