Hizb ut Tahrir/ Wilayah Turkey: Ankara Picket: "Syria, We Stand with you and remain with you!"
Abode of Islam, 27 Jumada I 1436 AH - 18 March 2015 CE
"The Imams (of the four madhabs: Abu Hanifa, Malik, Shaf'i, Ahmad) - may Allah have mercy on them - all agreed that the Imamah (Khilafah "Caliphate") is an obligation, and that the Muslims must appoint an imam (Khalifah) who implements the rites of the Deen and gives the oppressed justice against the oppressors, and they agreed that it is not permitted for there be over the Muslims, at any one time, two imams, in agreement or discord..." (The Jurisprudence of the Four Madhhabs [al-Fiqh ‘ala al-Madhahib al-Arba'a], 5:416.)
That's Imam al-Juzayri [d. 1360AH] speaking. A scholar of the 14th century AH and an authority of comparative fiqh. Here he mentions what is the agreed upon position of all the Islamic jurisprudential schools of thought regarding the Khilafah "Caliphate", the same position from the time of the Companions (ra) till his time.
Leading classical authorities from all schools of thought saw the issue of Khilafah "Caliphate" as absolutely critical, referring to it as being, "from the necessities of the shari'a that simply cannot be left" (al-Ghazali, al-Iqtisad fi al-I'tiqad, 199), "from the greatest interests of the Muslims and greatest pillars of the deen" (al-Amidi, Ghayat al-Muram, 366), "a pillar from the pillars of the deen" (al-Qurtubi, al-Jami' li Ahkam al-Qur'an, 1:265), "one of the greatest obligations of the deen" (Ibn Taymiyya, al-Siyasah al-Shar'iyyah, 129), and "the most important of obligations" (al-Haskafi, Radd al-Muhtar, 1: 548).
In other words, not only is the Khilafah "Caliphate" an obligation, it is one of the most important obligations; a pillar of Islam which simply cannot be left because without it Islam, quite simply, cannot be implemented comprehensively.
However, a certain modernist view begs to differ. It claims that a millennia of scholarship got it wrong and only now have its proponents succeeded in correctly reading the Qur'an and Hadith on the matter (as with so many other matters). An extraordinary claim, which one might be excused for rejecting off the cuff. Given the seriousness of the matter, however, let us deal with the argument on its merits.
Dr. Javed Ghamidi, one such proponent, argues that far from being an obligation Khilafah "Caliphate" is not even a "religious term".
A point of first principles is in order here.
Any term can have any one or more of three types of meanings: linguistic [lughawi], conventional [istilahi] and legal [shari']. Legal, here, is a reference to the Islamic law, the Sharia, and hence it is presumably this last class to which Dr. Ghamidi alludes by his category of "religious term". We may refer to it, more precisely, as a shari' term or, more loosely, as an Islamic term.
Linguistic meanings are coined by the people who originate or develop a language, such as the classical Arabs or Greeks. Conventional meanings are coined by people of a certain discipline who conventionally give certain terms specific meanings, such as the fuqaha or muhaditheen or quantum physicists for that matter. These terms are then used with those meanings in their disciplines, whilst they may have different meanings in another discipline. For instance, the word "sunnah" refers to a non-obligatory act in fiqh whereas in hadith it refers to any act, saying or tacit approval of the Prophet (saw).
Shari' meanings are coined only by Allah or His Messenger (saw) since they return to the Sharia which is based on revelation. Dr. Ghamidi agrees with this but, astonishingly, does not accept that the Qur'an or Hadith use the word ‘Khilafah "Caliphate"' in any meaning beyond its linguistic meaning of "succession". In fact, the word in clearly used in multiple ahadith in a specific meaning, a specific type of succession unknown to pre-Islamic Arabia, and not simply succession in a generic sense. For instance, the Prophet (saw) said,
«كانت بنو إسرائيل تسوسهم الأنبياء، كلما هلك نبي خلفه نبي، وإنه لا نبي بعدي، وستكون خلفاء فتكثر، قالوا: فما تأمرنا؟ قال: «فوا ببيعة الأول، فالأول، وأعطوهم حقهم، فإن الله سائلهم عما استرعاهم
"The prophets ruled over the children of Israel. Whenever a prophet died another succeeded him, but there will be no prophet after me. There will be khulafaa' and they will number many. They (companions) asked, "What then do you order us?" He said, "Fulfil the bay'ah (oath of allegiance) to them one after the other and give them their due right. Indeed Allah will ask them about what He entrusted them with." (Muslim, 1842)
Here the Prophet (saw) refers explicitly to those who would succeed him in ruling over the Muslims as khulafaa (sing. khalifah). This is not a reference simply to "successors" but to successors who come to power in a specific way (bay'ah) and who rule in a specific way (by comprehensive implementation of Islam). Indeed, their entire role as rulers is specified by sharia rules and principles which is what makes the concept new for its time and unique for all times. Had the Prophet (saw) simply wanted to refer to rulers he would have used the word hukaam (sing. hakim) which is the straightforward word in Arabic for rulers.
Similarly, in outlining the periods of rule to come on the Muslim Ummah, the Prophet (saw) also explicitly refers to the Khilafah "Caliphate", saying,
تكون النبوة فيكم ما شاء الله أن تكون، ثم يرفعها إذا شاء أن يرفعها، ثم تكون خلافة على منهاج النبوة، فتكون ما شاء الله أن تكون، ثم يرفعها إذا شاء الله أن يرفعها، ثم تكون ملكا عاضا، فيكون ما شاء الله أن يكون، ثم يرفعها إذا شاء أن يرفعها، ثم تكون ملكا جبرية، فتكون ما شاء الله أن تكون، ثم يرفعها إذا شاء أن يرفعها، ثم تكون خلافة على منهاج نبوة
"Prophethood will last among you for as long as Allah wills, then Allah will take it away. There will then be a rightly-guided Khilafah "Caliphate" on the way of prophethood. It will remain for as long as Allah wills, then Allah will take it away. There will then be a biting rule which will remain for as long as Allah wills, then He will lift it when He wills. There will then be tyrannical rule, and it will last for as long as Allah wishes, then He will lift it when He wills. Then there will be a Khilafah "Caliphate" Rashidah according on the way of prophethood." (Ahmad, 18406)
Notable here is the fact that all the periods referred to are periods of rule, one type thereof or another. Yet only some of these, to the exclusion of others, is referred to as Khilafah "Caliphate". Hence, Khilafah "Caliphate" is not just a reference to any ruling or government. It is a reference to the sought form of rule in Islam - the only valid form of rule in Islam given it is the only form sanctioned by the Prophet (saw).
Thus, the word "Khilafah "Caliphate"" in reference to Islamic rule is from the coinage of the lawgiver himself, not from any scholar and hence is a shari' or Islamic term.
Even if one were to accept the argument of Dr. Ghamidi that khilafah is merely "a term of political science and sociology of the Muslims like fiqh, kalam and hadith", the question arises: why not accept, adopt and use the term for Islamic government, just as you accept, adopt and use terms like fiqh and hadith? Why treat it differently to terms? Why the need to prove that it is not a religious term?
As for the Sharia rule that there can only be one Khalifah for all Muslims, the ahadith are explicit. The Messenger of Allah (saw) said,
إذا بويع لخليفتين، فاقتلوا الآخر منهما
"If the oath of allegiance has been taken for two khalifahs, kill the later of them." (Muslim, 1853)
He also said,
من أتاكم وأمركم جميع على رجل واحد، يريد أن يشق عصاكم، أو يفرق جماعتكم، فاقتلوه
"Whosoever comes to you while your affair is united under one man, intending to sow discord among you or dissolve your unity, kill him." (Muslim, 1852)
Dr. Ghamidi claims that the first hadith is not sound, even though it is in Sahih Muslim, every hadith of which is rigorously authenticated [sahih] by consensus of the hadith scholars.
More creatively, he re-interprets these ahadith as speaking to Muslims within one state separately to those who live in another such that each state must have one ruler. Evidently, the text of the ahadith are general [‘aam] and make no such qualification. Further, there were no such multiple states at the time these statements were made for such an interpretation to even be possible. The Prophet (saw) was speaking to the Sahaba and through them to all Muslims.
To maintain this untenable interpretation, Dr. Ghamidi goes to the extent of distorting references. He references Abu Bakr (ra) cautioning people, "that a state can only have one ruler," yet the report he cites from al-Bayhaqi's Sunan al-Kubra (no. 16550) makes no mention of any "state". Rather it quotes Abu Bakr as saying, "It is not permitted that the Muslims have two leaders..." (Italics emphasis mine) [la yahillu an yakuna lil-muslimeena ameeran], which is precisely our argument.
It is well established in Usul al-Fiqh that the definitive article of genus [lam al-jins], like the one used in "the Muslims" here, is a particle of generality, benefiting reference to every particular referent falling under the word. That is, the Muslims means all Muslims. Muslims as a whole can only have one ruler to lead them. That ruler is the Khalifah. Otherwise, there will be division, disunity and discord, a matter whose poignant reality today suffices from its expression in words.
Dr. Ghamidi agrees that multiple rulers will lead to severe difference, disorder and lack of discipline. Yet, surprisingly, he has no problem with the more than 50 states that divide the Muslim world into impotent entities!
The truth is that behind the intellectual gymnastics displayed by the likes of Dr. Ghamidi and other modernist "reformers" are the effects of power. Modern, secular liberal power. Theirs is a reading of the Islamic texts through the lens of secular liberalism and the modern world order. They read Islam through current realities, instead of understanding Islam independently and applying it to current realities. That is why their conclusions are those which facilitate, intentionally or otherwise, the maintenance of the status quo.
The concept of the Khilafah "Caliphate" radically challenges the global status quo and its oppressive structures. It seeks the unity of the Muslim world and a return of Islam to global leadership. The views of Ghamidi et al. do the precise opposite: they seek to maintain the status quo by conferring on it Islamic legitimacy. And they continue to miserably fail because the Ummah sees the modern secular order for what it really is: a system of oppression whereby an elite minority exploits everyone else and it knows that the Khilafah "Caliphate", apart from being a divine obligation, is the sole means of liberation from this oppression, not only for it but for humanity as a whole.
Written for the Central Media Office of Hizb ut Tahrir by
Umar Ali of Pakistan is a Muslim activist,
Writer and student of Arabic and Islamic Studies
O people of Indonesia, you know that our country is facing serious problems, this is why the majority of the people are demanding the establishment of a committee to combat embezzlement, Indonesia in particular is in a greater need for such a committee, because we realized the magnitude of the problems facing this country, and if we delay resolving them, this could destroy the country and its people.
We are now in front of the dangers of new liberalism and the new colonial power, which have increased their influence ... The new liberalism is the idea which is intended to ease the function of the state in economic affairs. Liberalism views the state as the main obstacle facing the control of individuals or companies on the economy ... But easing the function of the state in economic matters is implemented through privatization in the public sectors: oil and gas, electricity, highways, etc ... It also implemented through to cutting off financial aid (subsidies) on strategic goods (such as oil, gas, electricity, fertilizer, etc .. .), and the abolition of privileges granted to government companies by laws that equates between them and the private companies, even if they were foreign, and so on. Accordingly, the new liberalism is the way to weaken the state, and is only a step towards the state company, where the state is run by the evil alliance between politicians and business owners. Then political decisions were issued in favor of private companies, internal or foreign, rather than utilized for the benefit of the people.
The dangers of the new liberalism increased manifolds after the implementation of the free market among ASEAN countries in 2015 CE. The free market economy is the global plan of capitalism to expand its influence, especially in the areas of the developing countries, including Indonesia. In a free market economy barriers, whether taxes or legislation, are lifted to the free movement of labor, money and products, which are usually put in place to protect the domestic production and protect local labor. Hence it is clear that the free market between ASEAN countries opens our markets for products of the major colonial powers, and their investments in areas inhabited by 600 million people.
After the fall of Suharto, the state has adopted the direct election method for the selection of the president and the members of parliament and states governors, and it is known that the cost of the election campaigns is very high, only the big capitalists or those who are funded by the capitalists are able to pay for it; which makes capitalists in control of the state in all its organs, particularly the lawmakers who legislate laws to serve the interests of foreigners and local capitalists.
The new government's decision to increase fuel prices, for example, is the best proof of its liberal policies and its influence by foreign interests. Despite the reduction in fuel prices today to nearly the previous prices, but that will not cover the original purposes of this policy, which is the continuation to the liberal work in the commercial oil sector. The government has canceled the subsidy for oil, and this is what the foreign companies want to intervene more in the commercial sector of the gas. This trade is very wide and huge, where they take oil from Indonesia, they refine it and sell it to the people in international prices. It is actually expected that foreign companies gain huge profits, not less than 160 trillion rupiah in the year.
The foreign intervention in the legislative field is visible to all, even one parliamentarian said that there are 76 laws and more written by foreigners, such as oil and gas law, and the investments laws, and the electricity law, and the natural resources law, and banks law, and such laws that tighten the clutches of liberalism in Indonesia. That is why we described this country as subjected to new liberalism and the new colonialism.
New colonialism is colonialism in new styles followed by capitalist countries in order to keep control of the countries of others and exploit them. It was known in ancient times that the colonial policy is driven by gold, pride, and the Bible, and despite the weakness of religious motivation, but the first and second motivations remain strong.
O people of Indonesia, the new liberalism and the new colonialism have a dreadful and daunting effect on us, including: increase in the number of poor people, and economic inequality, corruption of morals as well as financial corruption, and thus the increase in the number of crimes because of poverty and economic inequality. Many of the rulers and parliamentarians in the capital and regions were arrested on charges of embezzlement, and this is a clear evidence of the fact that they justify the means for their political and financial purposes. The horrific exploitation of natural resources is a clear evidence of the extent of blindness these rulers from the benefit of the subjects in the exploitation of resources for the benefit of the people, but they turn them into corporations, civil or foreign, exploited to accumulate wealth.
Some look to the democratic system as an ideal political system that reflects the demands of the people and accurately represents them, but this image is deceptive. Politicians become close to the people during the election campaigns, and after the elections they do not care about the interests of the people, but they care only for the interests of their supporters and their donors whether they are from the people of the country or foreigners, that is why we find the governments weak in front of foreign companies. For example, Freeport Company plunders the country's mineral riches of gold, copper, lead and silver, and the government allows them through legislation to siphon the entire mineral wealth of Indonesia, and therefore, sovereignty is not for the people, as they say, but for the capitalists.
O our people in Indonesia, based on this it is necessary to save this country immediately. And there is no alternative but Islam, namely the Islamic Shariah and Khilafah "Caliphate". Save Indonesia and protect it by Shariah and the Khilafah "Caliphate"!
