بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم
والصلاة والسلام على رسوله الكريم
وعلى آله واصحابه اجمعين
والعاقبة للمتقين
Months ago I wrote an article detailing my view on the significance of
the institution of Khilafa and my understanding of Ayat al-Istikhlaf. In the
first line of that article I articulated my thesis: ’’The institution of
Khilafah is not a fundamental component of the Religion of Islam but instead a
manifestation of Allah’s favor and blessing upon the deserving community of
Muslims.’’ Consequently, the fact that the Muslims today are bereft of Khilafa
is a sign that we have lost some favor in the sight of Allah, due to our corruption,
and are therefore not deserving of it. The Children of Israel before us were
given their version of Khilafa in the land, the monarchy beginning with kings
Saul, David and Solomon (peace be upon them). But when the Israelites became
corrupt, that institution, an example of God’s divine favor upon them, was
gradually eroded and finally terminated altogether at the hands of
Nebuchadnezzer in 589 BCE. If we examine the history of our Umma, we were
originally blessed with the Rightly-Guided Khilafa, the four righteous caliphs
Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman and Ali (may Allah be pleased with them). However,
following the same pattern as the Israelites before us, that divine blessing
and institution of Khilafa was eroded into dynastic rule of tyrannical and impious
kings, and then terminated altogether at the hands of Hulagu Khan in 1258 CE.
A false understanding of the reality of Khilafa crept into the Muslim
world in the 20th century, championed by a certain Taqi ud-Din an-Nabahani,
founder of Hizb ut-Tahrir. According to this new ideology, the Khilafa is not
only essential for the practice of Islam, it is its most important component
without which there can be no Islam. It is this erroneous idea that motivated
other groups (al-Qa’ida, Islamic State and others) to pick up arms and even
commit acts of terrorism in order to establish the Khilafa. Other groups that
adhere to this ideology are apparently non-violent, and advocate the
establishment of the Khilafa through peaceful means. Most, however, are only
non-violent and unwilling, for the moment, to pick up arms for their cause as a
matter of strategy and not creed. HT itself seeks to establish the Khilafa
through stealth. It works to secretly indoctrinate military officers of various
Muslim states, aiming to motivate a coup d’état that will be the basis for
establishing the Khilafa. This top down approach that HT aims for was no doubt
inspired by the various Arab military coups in Egypt, Syria, Iraq and Libya
during the 20th century. It also reveals the fact that HT is not really a
religious, Islamic organization. It resembles more the Ba’ath Party and bears
so many fundamental characteristics of fascism and revolutionary Marxism.
Those who argue that Islam cannot be practiced without the institution
of Khilafa point to things like the collection of Zakat, the establishment of
Islamic courts, the organizing and commanding of armies for waging Jihad, and
even the appointment of prayer leaders and sermonizers. In short, it becomes
impossible for Muslims to practice much of their Religion, including very
fundamental parts of it, in the absence of a Khilafa. My answer to this
argument is twofold. Firstly, it is not necessarily impossible or even
problematic to practice or implement many of these things in the absence of a
Khilafa. Secondly, if, theoretically, there is something in our Religion which
cannot be implemented without the institution of Khilafa, then it is certainly
not a fundamental part of it and definitely not obligated upon us. Although the
world of Islam is currently bereft of a unified Khilafa, the Muslims are
nonetheless under the authority of numerous states, republics, kingdoms,
sultanates, emirates and sheikhdoms. Although this division of the Muslim Umma
into these multiple polities is not ideal, nor are their particular forms of
government ideal from Islam’s perspective, they are nevertheless valid and
Muslims are obligated to acknowledge their temporal authority and be in a state
of obedience to them. These polities have the authority to discharge necessary
functions like collecting the Zakat, establishing Islamic courts, waging Jihad
in defense of the Religion, etc. Furthermore, in scenarios in which a Muslim
community does not even have an autonomous state, such as if they are under
colonial rule or foreign occupation by the non-Muslims, or living as minorities
in non-Muslim states, they still possess the authority to organize voluntary collection
of Zakat and establishment of voluntary or unofficial tribunals to execute
Islamic family laws. By voluntary, I mean that Muslims are obligated to pay the
Zakat as a religious duty, but in the absence of a state that will discharge
the duty of collecting and distributing Zakat, Muslim individuals and families
voluntary discharge their religious obligation by entrusting their Zakat to a
non-government Islamic organization that will distribute it on their behalf, or
they directly give their Zakat to individuals who are worthy of receiving it.
In all these scenarios, the religious duty of paying Zakat will be fulfilled.
It is my thesis that far from being obligated to establish a unified, global
Khilafa, Muslims are not even obligated to establish a state or polity. Of
course it is ideal that Muslims have a state or polity to ease and facilitate
the practice and propagation of Islam. When sayyidina Hubab b. al-Mundhir (radi
Allahu anhu) proposed, after the death of the Prophet Muhammad (sall Allahu
alayhi wasallam), that the Ansar and Muhajirin go their separate ways and
establish two separate polities, he was not proposing something that was haram
or forbidden by our Religion. His proposal was rejected because it was not
ideal, and it was superior to have a single polity under a unified Khilafa for
the entire Umma to better facilitate the practice and propagation of Islam. In
those critical days, the establishment of the unified, rightly-guided Khilafa
through which Islam spread far and wide, and the Muslims enjoyed temporal power
to be able to conquer Jerusalem, Damascus, Egypt, Iran, North Africa,
Transoxania, etc., that was a takwini affair, the manifestation of Allah’s
will, and not tashri’i, meaning something legislated by Allah that the
Muslims were obligated to do.
No comments:
Post a Comment