Mere Islam

Friday, May 13, 2005

Reflections on the Khilâfah...

I'm currently reading, along with several other books, Khalid Blankinship's The End of the Jihad State: The Reign of Hisham Ibn'Abd Al-Malik and the Collapse of the Umayyads which is a truly excellent study not only on the reasons behind the demise of the Umayyads, but on the doctrine of Jihad, the spread of Islam and a myriad of related subjects. It's just so refreshing to read a well-written and well-defended academic thesis on Islamic history written by a Muslim convert that I can't really express how much I'm enjoying it.

In the same vein, awhile back I came across an essay by Khalid Blankinship on Lampost Productions, now my favorite Maliki website, entitled The History of the Caliphate (Word .doc, Acrobat .pdf), in which he answers some key questions about the khilâfah. He points out that after the fall of the Umayyads and with the advent of the 'Abbâsids, the Ummah has never again been united under one khalifa. The article also discusses the fiqh of the khilâfah and the ways that various titles, such as "Amir al-Mu'minin" and "Khalifa'", have been used both legitimately and illegitimately by various Muslim rulers.

The following observation by Khalid Blankinship demonstrates, in a somewhat tongue-in-check way, the problems that restoration of the khilâfah presents when viewing this role form a traditional standpoint: "It would seem to me that any attempt to restore the khilâfah today would have to begin by asking why all Muslims should not swear allegiance to King Muhammad VI of Morocco, who certainly holds this claim and does so through an ancient and venerable lineage that goes back much earlier than the Ottoman claim and is much more authentic. Not that I hold the view that that is what is to be done, but it would seem that classical theory would require allegiance to the existing khalîfah rather than setting up another as rival." Points to ponder, indeed.

Related to this, since it has to do with the early khilâfah, are the questions of how Muslims should view the Sahabah, their various disagreements and the fact that they actually engaged in armed conflict with one another? These questions are treated in great detail in Defence Against Disaster: The Accurate Position of the Companions After the Prophet's Death, which is an English translation of Qadi Abu Bakr Ibn Al-'Arabi's seminal work al-'Awâsim min al-Qawâsim. I highly recommend this book for any Muslim who is confused over the various debates surrounding the Rightly-Guided Caliphs and the early fitnas - and SunniPath.com has some answers to such questions as well (1, 2).

Deen On...

3 Comments:

At 5/13/2005 02:21:00 PM, Blogger nnydd said...

The basic requirement is to have a leader, an imam. The term caliph was not even in use until the time of Uthman r.a. It is not an issue to have the leader use the term prime Minister or a President to fulfill this basic requirement. In today's society, OIC can be a good platform to reform the Muslim sense of central authority. If everyone can agree, then the President of OIC could be the next imam, or the caliph (successor).

The political movements in Muslim lands aims to win support from the masses in their own country so that the dispute over this central authority can be solved.

If may be true that the reimplementation of a caliphate system as happened during the ottoman, the Umayyad and the Abbasid is quite impossible in today's world, but that is if one narrow mindedly defined caliphate as those three, which after all were monarchy in essence. This issue over monarchy-caliphal system have been discussed by the Syafii Qadi of Mecca, Imam Ahmad Zaini Dahlan and as far as we are concern, there is no problem with it. This is because the scholars understand that the struggle towards establishment of a caliph (basically a successor) is in essence in trying to elect a leader.

When people say they are working towards establishing a caliph, or if they are saying they are opposing the establishment/working towards a caliphate system, we may want to know what definition he really use? The fiqhi position, or the argument used by the orientalists...

 
At 5/13/2005 02:28:00 PM, Blogger nnydd said...

This post has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 5/21/2005 02:23:00 AM, Blogger Jallal said...

Salam,

Interesting topic.

I do not think Al-Khilafa is mandatory for a Muslim community. For centuries, the term “khilafa” has become a dogma for Muslims. It does not need to be. The khilafa concept was set up at the time to accommodate the birth of Islam and the first Muslims. Nowadays, we live in a new context, and the only thing that Koran is specific about is “shura”. The Koran states that Muslim affairs should be agreed upon through consultation. How? Not necessarily by the concept of Khilafa, but through any system that involves consultation. For instance, today’s democracy, after some adaptation, is certainly one form of consultation.

Jallal

 

Post a Comment

<< Home

 

W A R N I N G:  Eschatology Can Break Out At Any Moment

 


Shukr Islamic Clothing