WELCOME TO TRADITIONAL ISLAMISM

This is the first of the series that has been promised and this relates to the orthodox position on multiple Islamic States. Inshallah as always we will deal with the usual distortions and fabrications that are so common from this wretched Quilliam foundation!

First things first let’s list the wonderful quotes from Rashad and Majid Nawaz

With regards to Majid Nawaz we have these quotes on Imam Juwayni

“Imam al-Haramayn al-Juwayni (teacher of Imam al-Ghazali) clearly addresses this matter (references will be detailed in my next article) and states that due to such needs as these (having no one Imam) each area should select its leader and until they can agree to union amongst them they should continue in such a way”

And also…

“The obligation of having one Khalifah is based on zanni evidences, and so its absence cannot be Kufr Buwah, but the matter of his absence is subject to an Ijtihad, which Imam al-Haramayn has already done”

Majid also insists that the idea of a universal Caliphate can be dropped and I quote

“Imam Shawkani goes onto say in this work that the text indicates that we can have many A’immah (Imams) leaders (as this is the meaning of the hadith which he gives as evidence in Nayl ul-Awtar), If there are three of you in any part of the earth appoint one of you an Amir i.e. you should be lead by an Amir, and this may be parochial to you – supporting the position of Imam al-Juwayni al-Haramayn; Al-Sanani and others”

Finally in a Q and A sent as an email (which is available to anyone on demand and I challenge him to deny its authenticity) the Fraud Rashad has this to say

“If we take it to mean that there are various ijtihiadaat, e.g. Ibn Taymia’s point of view that what is required is justice and the correct interpretation of Islamic justice by a ruler or number of rulers – not a single caliph/head of state (see siyassat shariah, or qamaruddin khan’s political thought of ibn taymia, or nyazee’s theories of Islamic law, or you can have many khulafah and heads of state as the hadith mention that you should dispute someones authirty and create discension not having more than one authority, which is the valid interpretation of Imam Shawkani (nayl ul-awtar), or Imam Juwayani’s ghiyuath ul ummam where he explains the practical necessity is a valid criterion for many leaders independenly looking after the affairs of the muslims – a view which was criticised by some and supported by others e.g. Imam Qurtubi supported it and Nawawi criticised it, though recognised it as the opinion of the his “Imam” – see sharuh Sahih Muslim.”

 

Imam Juwayni and the need for Multiple States.

Majid, with the obvious support of Rashad want to impart another illusion with regards to this illustrious Imam.

First he claims that Imam Juwayni has this to say

“Imam al-Haramayn al-Juwayni (teacher of Imam al-Ghazali) clearly addresses this matter (references will be detailed in my next article) and states that due to such needs as these (having no one Imam) each area should select its leader and until they can agree to union amongst them they should continue in such a way”

Of course he wants to attribute to Imam Juwayni a strange view. Again in line with his view on Maqasid and in this case in matters of Hajiaat (matters of need but not necessity) he claims that Imam Juwayni in his Ghiath al Umam allows the Muslims to have multiple authorities when there is need, with the obvious implication that texts can be overridden when it comes to the Maqasid. Further on and we have this claim

“The obligation of having one Khalifah is based on zanni evidences, and so its absence cannot be Kufr Buwah, but the matter of his absence is subject to an Ijtihad, which Imam al-Haramayn has already done”

 

So yet again we have this reasoning. Something that is based on Dhunni evidence cannot be Kufr Buwah and it is therefore subject to Ijtihaad. The ludicrous reasoning is obvious for all to see. Clearly we can have clear cut Dhunni texts, well at least in meaning. So why do we have to resort to an Ijtihaad then? Whatever Ijithaad means, and Majid does not seem to clarify his view on this word, we surely do not need resort to general principles when we have a text based on a Dhunni chain i.e. ahad. Seriously his fallacies are beginning to bore me now. Interestingly the hadiths that establish the unity of the Caliphate are muttawatir by meaning and I will go into that later on in this article.

Anyway back to the primary texts of Imam Juwayni. He has this to say in his Irshaad

“Our companions have agreed on the proscription on pledging allegiance to two Imams throughout the Muslim world. They also went on to say “If it was allowed to have two Imams then it would fall under the same category as allowing two guardians of a potential bride to be married off to two husbands!” As for my position: The pledge to two Imams in one continuous area that is connected…is not allowed and an Ijma has become established on this, but if the different areas are so vastly apart (in terms of the authority of the Imam i.e. Shuzu3 al Nawah) then the possibility can be considered. This issue then goes outside what is definitely established “(as opposed to the initial scenario)

Then we have this in the Ghiath al Umam

In the seventh section dealing with appointing two Imams he has this to say.

“If the appointment of one Imam becomes feasible then the plan of Islam is established. If the Caliphate on its different levels (in strength) in both East and West of the lands has the ability to have an influence (i.e. its authority established) in these areas then it becomes obligatory to appoint him and in this case it is not allowed to have more then one Imam. This is a matter that is agreed upon and there is no difference of opinion on this”

So Imam Juwayni is now starting to clarify this “geographic” exception of lands that are “vastly apart”. He then for the whole page tells us about the calamities one can get when we have more then one Imam! Clearly Imam Juwayni does not think that the norm is plurality that can be used when the need arises! There are exceptions according to this Imam and he clarifies this further on

“It is possible that a certain people will be cut off from the authority of the Caliph (i.e. it is impossible for the orders of the Caliph to reach them) and between them and the Muslim lands is Dar Kufr. Because of this Caliph will not be able to have an authority …….With this scenario some have allowed the appointment of an authority in that area which cannot have any possible influence by the Imam . This has been attributed to our Shiekh Abu Hassan , Abu Ishaaq al Isfra’ani and others… “

Imam Juwayni goes on to agree with this view but finishes with the caption

“The person appointed though is not the Imam….”

and if this difficulty is removed then the Amir should pledge his authority to the Caliph. He considers another situation which really can reflect our reality today. What if we have a time where the lands of Islam no longer have an Imam? In other words we have a number of rulers that have authority over different areas. In this case he goes on to say they cannot claim to be an Imam. Imam Juwayni obviously, and here the word H’aja (need) comes in, does not invalidate the authority because of this need. He still though sees the need for an Imam to be appointed in this case! In fact he goes on and later clarifies the issue. If you have two Imams then the allegiance goes to the first one to claim it. If it is not clear then this does not alleviate the obligation of the Imam but it seems to be in the hands of the Muslims or at least those in authority to decide.

Imam Nawawi has this to say in his Sharh of Sahih Muslim on this view of Imam Juwayni

“…and if between them there are vast expanses then possibility can be considered… and this is a corrupt position that goes against the agreement of the Salaf, the Khalaf and the apparent wording of the hadith”

So let us recap on the views of Majid that he attributes to Imam Juwayni

1-We can have multiple rulers when the need arises

2-This is a Dhunni issue and in fact Imam Juwayni makes it a matter of the branches of our religion

Well clearly yet again we have a total distortion of the views of this illustrious Imam. In fact his views are totally the opposite of what is claimed! Subhanallah but we have learned to accept this now as the norm. What did Imam Juwayni really mean?

1-In principle we should have one Imam if he is able to have an influence on all the lands of Islam. This is a matter that is Qati i.e. definite even though it is an issue in the branches

2-In certain situations we can allow this rule to be qualified. These include the following scenarios

A-If the Imam cannot possibly have any influence on the area due to the vast distance between Muslim lands and the people also cannot receive his authority then it is allowed for them to appoint an Amir. He is not called the Imam though.

B-If we have a time when there is no Imam and we are faced with a situation where you have Amirs in different areas, then because of Duroora and Hajaa we should accept their authority but we should strive to have an Imam appointed to unite them. They may continue to be Amirs but it does not remove the obligation to appoint a Caliph. Again they are not called Imams!

C-In these situations if we have a claim to an Imama from different Amirs then we look at the temporal location of the claim. The first one to claim Imama should have priority but if it is not clear then this should not be an excuse to remove the obligation to have one Imam. It seems that this then rests with the people in authority or the Muslims as a whole to choose one.

Interestingly it seems that Imam Nawawi may have misunderstood the position of this Imam and was a tad bit to harsh but even with the whiff of the stench of disunity he put his pen to the Ink well and wrote

“…..and this is a corrupt position that goes against the agreement of the Salaf, the Khalaf and the apparent wording of the hadith”

Somehow I don’t think Imam Nawawi thought this was an ijtihaad (or at least his understanding of it) contrary to what Rashad would like to claim and I quote

“..Nawawi criticised it, though recognised it as the opinion of the his “Imam” – see sharuh Sahih Muslim”

Need I say more?

Imam Shokani 

To repeat Majid has this to say about him i.e. Imam Shokani

“Imam Shawkani goes onto say in this work that the text indicates that we can have many A’immah (Imams) leaders (as this is the meaning of the hadith which he gives as evidence in Nayl ul-Awtar), If there are three of you in any part of the earth appoint one of you an Amir i.e. you should be lead by an Amir, and this may be parochial to you – supporting the position of Imam al-Juwayni al-Haramayn; Al-Sanani and others”

Imam Shokani is most explicit in his book Sayl al Jarar

“…After the spread of Islam…and the borders moved further away from each other , then it is know that in each area you had a Wilayah to an Imam or Sultan …..There is no objection to having many Imams and Sultans and it is obligatory to obey each one of them after the bayah has been given to them from the people of the region to implement the Uamair and Nawahi of the State”

He goes on to say

“… If someone in that region chooses to rise up against the appointed Ruler then he is to be executed if he does not repent. It is also not obligatory for one nation (or area) to obey the Imam of another area or to come under its authority “

Well that seems to fly in the face of the apparent texts. Why would Imam Shokani say such a thing? Well he had an understanding of reality that made this a rukhsa. He goes onto say

“This is because of the vast expanses of the Islamic lands that have spread out. For this reason people of one area would not be able to be informed about there Imam or Sultan. They would not know who came into authority or who died among them. This is apparent to all those who see the reality of the people and the nations before us. For the people of China and India would not know who is in authority in Morocco let alone knowing the obligations on them and visa versa. …..So the difference between the situation of the Wilaya in early periods of Islam and situation now is clearer then the Sun in broad daylight…”

In fact the one who refuses to accept this in the words of Imam Shokani is not worthy to even discuss with. He cannot be approached with proofs if he cannot understand its reality!

So let us summarise the views of Imam Shokani

1-In the early periods of Islam we had an obligation to have one Imam

2-With the passage of time as the empire expanded, it was necessary to have a Sultan in each area. In each area we cannot have disunity

3-He seems to know this is a rukhsa that goes against the apparent texts so he ventures to give his reason why we have a different understanding of reality to the early period of the Caliphate.

4-The reason is based on the inability of the subjects in each nation to know about the affairs of others that are far apart. For example the people of China could not possibly know about the affairs of the Sultan in Morocco.

Now in my eyes Imam Shokani exaggerated things a bit as it was clear that even in the Ummayad time we had one Caliph controlling vast areas of lands. Still even if we take his understanding I am sure Majid would allow us the privilege to say that this fatwa is now defunct! I mean if the whole world can watch the World Cup finals in Football, I think it would be within the boundaries of our technological capability to pick up a phone and call someone in China even if we are in Morocco.

Or would Majid want to use the Maqasid to take us back in time?

 

Ibn Taymiaah and Multiple Islamic States

Rashad has this to say

“If we take it to mean that there are various ijtihiadaat, e.g. Ibn Taymia’s point of view that what is required is justice and the correct interpretation of Islamic justice by a ruler or number of rulers – not a single caliph/head of state (see siyassat shariah, or qamaruddin khan’s political thought of ibn taymia, or nyazee’s theories of Islamic law, or you can have many khulafah and heads of state as the hadith mention that you should dispute someones authirty and create discension not having more than one authority, which is the valid interpretation of Imam Shawkani (nayl ul-awtar)….”

Qumaruddin Khan’s book can be found here

http://www.iqra.org/index/itemdesc.asp?ic=707&eq=&Tp=

In this book he has this to say

“But this authority need not be one single unit Ibn Taymiyah for the first time in history endeavours to justify juridically that it may be divided…………..Ibn Taymiyah naturally does not use the modern terminology to express this idea, but he is very clear on this issue. In the beginning of the Siyasah, discussing the famous verse of the Quran, dealing with the question of trust authority and obedience, he observes, “The ulema say: the first verse is revealed about the rulers; it is obligatory on them to return their trusts………”. Here obviously Ibn Taymiyah is considering the possibility of many rulers and not of one supreme ruler of the community”.

Well we can clearly see amateurism already in this quote! I mean the views of certain Rukhsa’s can be traced back to the time of Imam Mawardi if not earlier! So this quote i.e.

“…..for the first time in history endeavours to justify juridically that it may be divided….”

Surely needs to be taken with a grain of salt. Unfortunately the same applies to his view on Ibn Taymiaah. On looking in Siyasat al Sharia I could not find one reference in his works that pointed to the allowance of multiple Imams! This is an excellent page to look into

http://www.muslimphilosophy.com/it/index.html

Siyasat al Shariaah is online so I challenge Rashad to bring the proof if he is brave enough. In fact we have an opposite understanding by Ibn Taymiaah

“All the different nations of Islam are to be viewed in the same category as one Islamic Nation” (Bi Manzilit al Balada al Wahida)

In other words legally in Islam they are to be viewed as one ummah!

See The Fatwa wa Iktiraat Ibn Taymiaah Chapter 4 page 105 taken from Majmu al Bu7uth al Faqhiha by by Zaydan page 50. We also have this quote from Siyasah al Shariah.

It is Obligatory to know that the office in charge of commanding the good and forbidding the evil is one of the greatest obligations of the Deen. In fact there is no establishment of the Deen except by it…..this is the opinion of the Salaf, such as al-Fadl ibn Iyaad, Ahmad Ibn Hanbal and others”

Note that the “office in charge” refers to the Caliphate. First it is in singular and secondly this opinion refers to the Salaf such al-fadl ibn Iyaad and Ahmad Ibn Hanbal. They clearly did not have a view that we are allowed multiple Caliphates.

Unfortunately this is a modern myth that has been passed around because of this book which is clearly not an academic reference.

Before I finish I just want to clarify that the the scholars that Ibn Khalduun quotes in his Muqadaamah and the group that Mawardi mentions as Shadh all subscribe to the view that is claimed by Juwayni. In fact Juwayni repeats the same scholars that Ibn Khaldoon quotes. So I do not think there is any need to delve further because the basic reasoning has been addressed. This is a good link as well, although I may not agree with all the reasoning in the article. Some more modern scholars are addressed.

http://www.geocities.com/I_R_D_L/new/articles/jihad/multiple.html

The Hadith relating to Unity

On the Authority of Abu Hurayirah

“The prophet (saw) said: There will Khalifs and there will be many. They asked: What do you order us? He said: Fulfill allegiance to them one after one and give them their due. Verily Allah will ask them about what he entrusted them with” Narrated by Bukhari and Muslim

The key phrases “one after one” pointing to the fact that you give allegiance go one Caliph at a time. The Isnad need not be discussed as it is narrated both in Bukhari and Muslim

On the Authority of Ibn Abbas

“Whoever sees from his Amir something that he hates then he should be patient for whosoever breaks even an arm length from the Jama’ah (i.e. the Muslims as a whole) has died the death of Jahilyiah”

and in the meaning of Imam Muslim

“Whosoever breaks from the Sultan even an arms length has died the death of Jahiliayah”

This narration is also in the Musnad of Imam Ahmad and again there is no need to comment on the Isnad of this narration. The meaning of the hadith is that we have one Jamaah and one Sultan or Amir and if we break our allegiance then we have rebelled (unless we have valid reasons). This is general and would include those who refuse to pledge allegiance to the Sultan of the Jamaa because they view the legality of many Sultans! So bring us proof if you are truthful to qualify this!

Again this narration is also narrated by Abu Hurayriah in Sahih Muslim

On the authority of Fadallah Bin Ubayad the prophet (saw) said

“Three people do not ask about, A man who has broken away from the Jama’ah and disobeyed his Imam and died in that state……”

This is narrated by Ibn Habban, Ibn Abi Asim, Al Hakim, and al Bukhari in al Adab al Mufrad with a Sahih Isnad.

Again this Isnad has nothing to comment on. This hadith shows a man who breaks away from the Jama’ah (singular) and its Imam will be in a sinful state. So again bring proof to qualify this with the allowance for multiplie Jama3at!

On the authority of Ibn Umar “ the Prophet (saw) said

“Whosoever takes his hand away from obedience then there is no excuse for him on the day of Judgement and whosoever dies breaking away from the Jamah has died the death of Jahiliyah”

This is narrated in the Musnad of Imam Ahmad, and by Ibn Abu Asim with a sahih Isnad yet again. This also supports the other narrations which are clearer in meaning.

On the authority of Abu Hurayriah The Prophet (saw) said “………..Oh Rasul Allah Shirk we know but what is the Nakth of al Safqaa and the abandonment of the Sunnah? He said “With regards to Nakth al Safqaa, it is giving a man the pledge of allegiance and then fighting him with your sword and with regards to the abandonment of the Sunnah then it is revolting against the Jamaah”

This has been narrated by Ahmad, Al Hakim, and Imam Dhahabi says it is Sahih. There is a question whether Abdullah Bin Sai’b al Shaybani al Kufi heard it directly from Abu Hurayriah or from an intermediate that is unknown

Still it is a supporting narration that goes along with the numerous hadiths mentioned.

On the authority of Abd al Rahman Bin Abd Rab al Kaaba

”………..Whosoever gives his hand in allegiance to the Imam and the fruits of his heart then he should give him if he can, for if someone else comes to dispute this then strike the laters neck….!”

This has been narrated by Muslim, Ibn Majah, Al Nisai, and Imam Ahmad. This Isnad again is Sahih except for the variations with regards to the words of Muawayiah in the end.

On the authority of Abdi Said al Khudri the Prophet (saw) said

“If the pledge of allegiance has been given to two Imams kill the later” Narrated by Imam Muslim with a sahih isnad.

On the authority of Abdullah Bin Umaru and Ibn 3ass that the prophet (saw) said

“ ……Whosoever gives his allegiance to the Imam with his hands and the fruits of his heart then he should if he is capable for if someone else comes to dispute this then strike the neck of the later” Again in Sahih Muslim with a sahih Isnad

On the authority of Arfaja that the prophet (saw) said

“ …Whosoever disputes the orders of this Ummah with its consensus then strike his neck wherever he may be”

Again in Sahih Muslim with a sahih isnad.

On the authority of Hudhaifa Bin al Yaman on the fitna the Prophet (saw) said

“….. What do you obligate from me if I see this situation. The prophet replied “ Hold on to the authority of the Jamah and its Imam!…..”

Again in Sahih Muslim with a sahih isnad

 

Umar Ibnu Al-Khatab and the consensus of the Sahaba. Al-Bukhari reported on the authority of Ibn Abas who said:

“… Abdur-Rahman came to me and said, “Would that you had seen the man who came today to the Chief of the Believers (‘Umar), saying, ‘O Chief of the Believers! What do you think about so-and-so who says, ‘If ‘Umar should die, I will give the pledge of allegiance to such-and-such person… ‘Umar became angry and then said, ‘Allah willing, I will stand before the people tonight and warn them against those people who want to deprive the others of their rights (the question of rulership).” This happened during the Hajj season, Abdur-Rahman convinced him that he should delay his speech until he arrives to Medina. Umar in Madina said: (O people!) I have been informed that a speaker amongst you says, ‘By Allah, if ‘Umar should die, I will give the pledge of allegiance to such-and-such person.’ …. Remember that whoever gives the pledge of allegiance to anybody among you without consulting the other Muslims, neither that person, nor the person to whom the pledge of allegiance was given, are to be supported, lest they both should be killed.”

It was reported by Nisa’i that Umar said: Anyone who calls the Imarah for himself or any other person without consulting the Muslims, it is not allowed for you not to kill him. A confirmation of the Isnad is needed but in meaning it is clearly sahih.

After the death of Uthman the people came to Ali to give him the bayah. Ali tried to decline but the Muslims insisted on him and he accepted under the condition he should be given the bayah in the mosque. Muhammad Ibnu Al-Hanafiah (Ali’s son) said: Ali said: Then it should be in the mosque, my bayah should not be hidden and it should be after the consent of the Muslims. (see Tareekh Al-Tabari, vol. 3, page 450, see also Al-Bayah Fi Al-fikr Al-Siasi Al-Islami, “The bayah in the Islamic political thinking”, by Mahmoud Al-Khalidi, page 107-108). Again the Isnad needs to be confirmed

In the books of Al-fasil-fil Milal by Ibnu Hazim, Tarikh of Al-tabari, Al-A’kd Al-Farid of Al-Waqidi, Al-Sira of Ibnu Kathir, Al-Sunan Al-Kubra of Bayhaqi and Siratu Ibn Hisham, that Al-Habbab Ibnu Al-Munthir said

“When the Sahaba met in the wake of the death of the Prophet (SWA) at the saqifa (hall) of Bani sa’ida: One Amir from us and one Amir from you (meaning one from the Ansar and one from the Muhajireen). Upon this Abu Bakr replied: “It is forbidden for Muslims to have two Amirs” Then he got up and addressed the Muslims.

And it has been reported in the Sirah of Ibnu Ishaq that Abu Bakr said on the day of Saqifa:

“It is forbidden for Muslims to have two Amirs for this would cause differences in their affairs and concepts, their unity would be divided and disputes would break out amongst them. The Sunnah would then be abandoned, the bida (innovations) would spread and Fitna would grow, and that is in no one’s interest.” Therefore Abu Bakr delivered the Shariah verdict on the unity of the Khilafah, stressing that it is forbidden for the Muslim Ummah to have more than one Amir. The Sahaba heard him and approved and consented, no one disputed the verdict, but submitted to it and accepted it as a law (indication of evidence from the Sunnah). The Ansar then conceded their claim to the Khilafah, and Al-Habbab Ibnu Al-Munthir was the first to give the pledge of allegiance to Abu Bakr”

These narrations need a detailied analysis of the Isnad but are sahih as far as I know. I have not gone into all the variations of this incident.

Clearly the companions would not prescribe a capital punishment for an act that is mubah!

So taking into account the narrations on the unity of the Muslims we have over 10 companions narrating hadith that obligate unity to one Jama’ah and a single Imam! In other words a Tawatur by Meaning! We have also numerous narrations that have reached the level of Tawatur from the Companions on the necessity of unity under one Caliph. I have mentioned four though alot more can be said.

This is by the way not exhaustive and inshallah will be updated as time goes on. If every Islamic source from the companions tells us that we should have unity before one Imam then the question arises about the ahistorical claim of those who allow disunity as an Azimaah! If we allow ahistorical understandings of text we can easily be lead to Kufr! In fact this is one of the principles behind Ijma al sahaba and all its variants be it silent or not.

So this quote of Majid now becomes questionable i.e.

“The obligation of having one Khalifah is based on zanni evidences, and so its absence cannot be Kufr Buwah,”