Continued... Abolition of Ottoman Caliphate

Anyway, in this long period of absence I learned something and immediately thought of this thread - and Qutuz.

Originally posted by Qutuz I gave you several hadith and also the statements of the Sahabah (ra) and also the statements of the Greatest Imams and Classical Scholars of this Ummah. If you reject all of those together, there's not much more I can do for you. The idea that all of them colluded to make up something that doesn't exist is just preposterous. It is you who is making up something that doesn't exist, a new modified version of Islam to suit your own needs.

Now Qutuz, I'd be interested in finding out what the great muhaddith Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal (after which the Hanbali Shariah school is named) said about the Caliph position. Because I'd quite surprised if he considered it a good thing. You see, Imam Hanbal refused to pray behind or visit the houses of his son or uncle because they worked in the government (of Caliph Mamun al Rashid). In fact the book I have here states
"Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal in the later years of his life challenged even the Caliph and his religious authority"

In fact all the 4 great Muhaddith had bad relations with Caliphs. Imam Hanifah was even poisioned (and died of it). Also according to the 4 Imams the opinion of the Sahabah is only important if there is a concensus (Ijma) between them.

Omar,

Now Qutuz, I'd be interested in finding out what the great muhaddith Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal (after which the Hanbali Shariah school is named) said about the Caliph position.

I think I posted already some of his statements regarding the position of Khalifah/Imam/Sultan, anyway here is something for you:

Imam Ahmed (rh.a.) said:

"Al-Fitnatu Ithaa lam yakun Imaamun Yaqoomu bi amril-Muslimeen", which means,

"The Fitna (mischief and tribuulations) occurs when there is no Imaam established over the affairs of the people".

You see, Imam Hanbal refused to pray behind or visit the houses of his son or uncle because they worked in the government

Actually in the case of his son (not sure about his uncle) it was due to the fact he received gifts from the Khalifah, which Imam Ahmad (rh) considered to be invalid as they were bought with the money of the Muslim Ummah.

I think you've confused his disdain with certain individual Khulafa, with a rejection of the Khilafah system itself. This is a clear error, as Imam Ahmad (rh) merely opposed certain Khulafa due to their erroneous Islamic positions or their lack of sincerity about Islam or their excesses. Nowhere did he ever write that he rejected the concept of Khilafah.

n fact all the 4 great Muhaddith had bad relations with Caliphs.

Here are some quotations of some of the great Muhadditheen regarding the Khilafah and the position of Khaleefah.

Not sure if you included Imam an-Nawawi (rh) as one of your 4 great Muhadditheen, but he's certainly recognised as one of the greatest by the other Ulema. Btw, most of the famous Muhadditheen (like Bukhari, Muslim, Tirmidhi etc.) were not necessarily the highest of scholars in the Ummah. Perhaps you mean the 4 great Mujtahid Imams of the 4 Madhahib (Imam's Ahmad, Malik, Abu Hanifa & ash-Shafi')??

Imam an-Nawawi (rh.a.) said,

"Ijma'oo 'alaa annahu yajib 'alal-Muslimeena nasabun Khaleefah".

"(The scholars) consented that it is an obligation upon the Muslims to select a Khaleefah". (Sharhu Sahih Muslim page 205 vol 12)

And also from Imam al-Haythami (rh) another of the great classical Ulema:

Imam al-Haythami said,

"A'lamu anna Sahabata- Ridhwaan Allahu 'alayhim -Ajma'oo 'ala anna nasab al-Imaamata ba'd inqiraadhi zaman in-Naboowa waajibon bal ja'aloohu ahamu wajibaat hayth ushtaghloo bihi 'an dafani rasool illah".

"It is known that the Sahabah (r.a.h) consented that selecting the Imaam after the end of the era of Prophethood was an obligation (Wajib).  Indeed they made it (more) important than the (other) obligations whilst they were busy with it over the burial of the Prophet (saw)". (al-Haythami in Sawaa'iq ul-haraqah:17.)

And Imam al-Ghazaali (rh) undoubtedly one of the greatest Ulema of al-Andalusia:

Imaam al-Ghazali (rh.a.) when writing of the potential consequences of losing the Khilafah said,

"The judges will be suspeneded, the Wilayaat (provinces) will be nullified, ... the decrees of those in authority will not be executed and all the people will be on the verge of Haraam".  (al Iqtisaad fil Itiqaad page 240.)

And the great Imam of the Mameluk period Ibn Taymiyyah (rh) also wrote extensively on the obligation of the Khilafah:

Imam Ibn Taymiyyah (rh.a.) said,

"Yajib an yo'rafa anna wilayata amr in-naasi min a'thami waajibaat id-Deen, Bal laa qiyaamu li-Deen illa bihaa".

"It is obligatory to know that the office in charge of commanding over the people (ie: the Khilafah post) is one of the greatest obligations of the Deen.  In fact, their is no establishment of the Deen except by it....this is the opinion of the salaf, such as al-Fadl ibn 'Iyaad, Ahmed ibn Hanbal and others". (Siyaasah Shariyyah  - chapter: 'The obligation of adherence to the leadership'.)

And also from Imam al-Qurturbi:

Imam al-Qurturbi (rh.a.) said,

"The Khilafah is the pillar upon which other pillars rest".

-----
These are but a tiny fraction of the writings of the classical Ulema on the topic of Khilafah, if you'd like to learn more about the unanimous rulings of the Ulema on the issue (and indeed the unanimous opinion of the Sahabah) then I suggest you get ahold of a classical Islamic text on this issue called ahkam as-sultaniyyah, it is available in English translation also. Apart from that there are several websites devoted to this topic, which have gathered many of the Islamic evidences in the one place, a good place to start is The Khilafah Homepage. The brother who maintains this site has done a lot of work in bringing evidences together in English for people to read.

This issue is unanimous, and has been since the time of the Prophet (saw), it's only in the post-Caliphate period that some people have tried to claim otherwise, yet no evidence for such an opinion exists, that the Khilafah is not necessary.

So I propose instead to you, can you bring the ruling of one single reputable classical scholar who claims the Khilafah is not fard (obligatory)??

If not, then you should be content with what I've brought for you, and realise this is the unanimous Islamic position on this issue, and only those who seek to see this Ummah remain backwards promote otherwise in order to keep us dominated by our enemies.

Also according to the 4 Imams the opinion of the Sahabah is only important if there is a concensus (Ijma) between them

Although you've got a correct concept here, your wording is not quite correct. The word important is not the suitable word here. The opinions of the Sahabah (ra) is always important but it can only be used as a source of Shari'ah law when there is Ijma'. So if for instance no Ayaat from the Qur'an or Hadith from the prophet (saw) existed to tell us about the concept of Khilafah and its obligatoriness, then we could look to the Sahabah (ra) and see if they unanimously agreed to this thing (which they clearly did), and then we could use their actions and sayings regarding this concept to make Islamic rulings. In fact the Ijma' of the Sahabah (ra) on this issue is one of the important sources for rulings on this issue specifically. As they were the first ones to actually go through the process of having to select a head of state.


Edited by Qutuz - 27-Nov-2006 at 02:56

Originally posted by �ok ge� Originally posted by Omar al Hashim "Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal in the later years of his life challenged even the Caliph and his religious authority".   To add more to what Omar said, I recall that the Caliph has no religious authority whatsoever as there is already a seperation of state and church since the earliest times of the Islamic empires. Therefore, because the Caliph lacked the religious authority, he had to imprison Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal to force him to issue the fatwa that the Quran was created by God. Had he had any religous authority, the Caliph would have not needed to do that.

Edited by malizai_ - 27-Nov-2006 at 07:03

It appears to me the 3 of us have described almost the same thing, but just having a slightly different understanding of the terminology involved.

For me, I (mis)understood "Religious Authority" to mean that he has the authority to implement the religion. For example, Abu Bakr (ra) declaring those who refused to pay Zakat as apostates and enacting the punishment against them.

As malizai mentioned he is not above the law, and this is something truly unique to the Islamic Khilafah system, that the head of state has absolutely no immunity from the law. He is also not like a Papal figure who is infallible and able to make his own laws from his whims and desires.

And as cok mentioned, if he is a qualified scholar (mujtahid) then he is able to issue his own rulings (ahkam), but this is by virtue of him having studied and become qualified to do so, not merely because he happened to be a Khalifah.

Originally posted by cok ]Bottom line of all of this, what sets Islam distinct and unique is the lack of centeralizing the religious authority in one person or group between the religious scholars

This is true to some extent, however, the rulings that the Khalifah adopt relating to state/communal affairs are binding upon all Muslims. For instance, during Ramadan, if the Khalifah adopted the opinion of global sighting for the commencement of fasting, then it would be binding upon all Muslims to adhere to this, even if they personally adopted a different ruling in normal circumstances.


Edited by Qutuz - 27-Nov-2006 at 12:04

Omar,

Actually I think Ibn Hanbal was imprisioned because he wouldn't accept the mutzalite(?) beliefs that the Caliph had

Yes, their primary belief being that the Qur'an is created.

You posted a couple which I checked before I posted but the quotes (including the new one) are quite vauge and I don't think you can ascertain his opinion based only on these quotes

Stating that fitnah and tribulations occur when there is no Khalifah installed is pretty clear if you ask me. Not just that, but Imam Ahmad (rh) also narrated some hadith referring to the Khilafah as well. I shall post them for you if you like.

Btw, do you have any statement, as I asked, in which Imam Ahmad (rh) gave any ruling that the Khilafah is not part of Islam and not necessary? I've read books about all 4 madhahib and all 4 of them unanimously declare it's a fard (obligation) to have a Khilafah state headed by a Khalifah/Sultan/Imam.

Are you certain about this? There is common traditionalist view that muslims shouldn't involve themselves in government.

There is? From where did you get this idea? Can you provide a single quote from any reputable classical Alim to back it up?

If this is the case, then the Prophet (saw) himself, who was head of state of the Muslims was doing something wrong? As were Abu Bakr (ra), Omar (ra), Uthman (ra), Ali (ra) and the hundreds of Sahabah (ra) who worked under them in their governments?

If Muslims were to abstain from government this would mean non-Muslims would govern us??? This is CLEARLY forbidden in the Qur'an.

Omar, It seems to me that you're just jumping from one argument or idea to another, without actually forming an opinion based on Islam. Please try to look to the islamic sources, and their explanations by the trustworthy Ulema, and then form an opinion based on Islam. Even if it differs from mine, I'm not concerned, but at least base it on Islam. None of the ideas you've brought so far have any basis in the islamic texts, all you've done is make conjectures about Imam Ahmad (rh) without any concrete evidence.

Imam Ahmed also rejected the post of Qazi

He is free to reject being appointed Qadhi if he likes, perhaps he had his reasons to. Yet nowhere did he ever state "The post of Qadhi is an invalid post", and this is the incorrect conclusion it seems you're trying to make.

Imam Abu Hanifah (rh) also rejected to be Qadhi under the Abbasieen, yet two of his greatest students, al-Qadhi Abu Yusuf and Muhammad ash-Shaybani were both appointed to, and accepted, the post of Qadhi. Abu Yusuf (who is one of the greatest Hanafi scholars ever to have lived) was actually Qadhi al-Quda' (Chief Judge). Again, Imam Abu Hanifah (rh) never gave any ruling that being a Qadhi is haraam, or that being a Khalifah is haraam, he simply refused the position himself, for whatever reasons he had.

Have you read his works? (I haven't yet, which is why I'm interested in his position)

Only the quote I gave you so far. But as I mentioned in his madhab and in all others, the organisation of the state of the Muslims (Khilafah) is considered one of the greatest obligations.

Originally posted by Qutuz Stating that fitnah and tribulations occur when there is no Khalifah installed is pretty clear if you ask me. Not just that, but Imam Ahmad (rh) also narrated some hadith referring to the Khilafah as well. I shall post them for you if you like.

You quote says Imaam (indefinte form) not Caliph. Looking at just this one quote there may be a big difference.

Btw, do you have any statement, as I asked, in which Imam Ahmad (rh) gave any ruling that the Khilafah is not part of Islam and not necessary? I've read books about all 4 madhahib and all 4 of them unanimously declare it's a fard (obligation) to have a Khilafah state headed by a Khalifah/Sultan/Imam.

I haven't read his works, I'm asking you. Can you post Imam Ahmad clearly stating that its fard?

There is? From where did you get this idea? Can you provide a single quote from any reputable classical Alim to back it up?

Well I certainly hope I can't find an Alim to back it up because as you say this belief is incorrect. Nonetheless there are people in this world you hold it.

Omar, It seems to me that you're just jumping from one argument or idea to another, without actually forming an opinion based on Islam. Please try to look to the islamic sources, and their explanations by the trustworthy Ulema, and then form an opinion based on Islam. Even if it differs from mine, I'm not concerned, but at least base it on Islam. None of the ideas you've brought so far have any basis in the islamic texts, all you've done is make conjectures about Imam Ahmad (rh) without any concrete evidence.

I'm not arguing, I'm just posting my idea to see what you can provide. Nor am I jumping around, I'm just interested in Imam Ahmads opinion. As I said in the first post "I'm interested in finding out what Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal said about the Caliph position"

Originally posted by �ok ge�   Yes, he was imprisoned because he refused to issue a fatwah that meets the Caliph and the Mutazellah view of the Quran creation. Imam Ibn Hanbal was advised to issue the Fatwah to ease the torture and pain on himself as in Islam, you are allowed to escape severe physical pain for pronounciation of blasphemous statements as long as you don't believe in them in your heart (Review Ammar Bin Yaser case). However Imam Ibn Hanbal refused to do so stating that people will follow his fatwas if he issued it regardless of his hidden intentions. Had the Caliph had the sufficient religious power to endorse his belief or the belief of what he sees as the right group on all Muslims, why would he need Imam Ibn Hanbal to issue that Fatwah?

Omar,

You quote says Imaam (indefinte form) not Caliph. Looking at just this one quote there may be a big difference

In the Shari'ah texts, the terms Khalifah, Sultan & Imam are used interchangeably.

Well I certainly hope I can't find an Alim to back it up because as you say this belief is incorrect. Nonetheless there are people in this world you hold it

Today in the post-Khilafah period, yes there's people who hold such an unIslamic belief. What I suggested is you therefore look to the more trustworthy classical Ulema, who for 1300 years all agreed that it's fard.

I'm just posting my idea to see what you can provide. Nor am I jumping around, I'm just interested in Imam Ahmads opinion.

I've already provided you with the rulings of several of the greatest Ulema from this Ummah. Trusted and respected classical Ulema who are agreed upon by all sides of the Islamic Ummah. Therefore I've asked you to bring just one single ruling from any reputable classical scholar to suggest the opposite. If you cannot, then it becomes clear that this is the only view in existence amongst the Islamic Ulema.