Did Islamic khilafah last only for 30 years?

[moderator student of islam]

Assalamu alaikum,

 

Few days ago one of our brothers want to share this topics with us -

 

 

 

The argument that the Khilafah lasted for 30 years

 

 There are some who have misunderstood the divine texts, and claim that the Khilafah only lasted for 30 years. They base their understanding, by taking in an isolated manner an honourable hadith, which was narrated in the Musnad of Imam Ahmad, which states that the Prophet (saw) said, “The Khilafah in my Ummah after me will be for thirty years. Then there will be Mulk after that.” Some people translate the word mulk as Kingship.

 

 

 

To deal with this understanding we need to look to the hadith, and what it is addressing, and we need to look to this honourable hadith in context with other hadith. The 30 years that are mentioned is related to the period of the Khulafah Rashidah. So if we look to their period of rule and look to the sum of the first five Khulafah it comes to exactly thirty years: two years and three months for Abu Bakr (ra), ten and a half years for Umar (ra), twelve years for Uthman (ra), four years and nine months for Ali (ra), and six months for al-Hasan (ra). The hadith then mentions that there will be mulk afterwards. The word mulk has many meanings. The famous Arabic dictionaries, like "Al- Muhit" of Fairuz Al-Abadi, clearly illustrate this. The word mulk amongst other things does mean kingship, but also it means the one having charge over all the people, and also the word “hukm” (rule), is synonymous with the word sultan (authority), and mulk (dominion/rule).

 

 

 

Those who refer to this hadith claim the Umayyads and later generations were monarchies because, they claim, even the hadith mentions the word Mulkan, which is derived from Malik, or ruler. Such an argument is built upon a false interpretation because the word Mulk as stated above means "dominion/rule/authority" and the word Malik can either mean "a ruler" in any context or "a ruler within a monarchical system." Thus, rulership or ruling does not immediately mean kingship or monarchy but can mean ruling in any system. Allah (swt) mentions in the Qur'an the word Mulk, in the context of rule, amongst other ayat:

 

 

 

“By Allah's will they routed them; and Dawud slew Goliath; and Allah gave him dominion [Mulk] and wisdom and taught him whatever (else) He willed. And were it not for Allah's repelling some men with others, the earth would certainly be in a state of disorder; but Allah is Gracious to the creatures” [TMQ Al-Baqarah: 251].

 

 

 

Nobody can claim that Dawud (as) was a king because he would have to declare himself sovereign, an impossible act for a Prophet. In this context, Dawud (as) was given the authority to implement the revelation he received from Allah (swt), in the same manner that the Khaleefah has the authority to rule only by Islam.

 

 

 

Also if we look to other hadith, they mention that there will be 12 Imams, which is a Shari’ah term to mean Khulafah, which can indicate that there were 12 Khulafah in the first three generations. As narrated by Jabir ibn Samurah (ra) that Muhammad (saw) said “The Islamic deen will continue until the Hour has been established, or you have been ruled by twelve Khulafah, all of them being from the Quraish” [Sahih Muslim].

 

 

 

In another hadith the Prophet (saw) has indicated that their will be many Khulafah. It has been reported on the authority of Abu Hazim that he said: “I accompanied Abu Hurairah for five years, and heard him informing about the Prophet (saw), he said: ‘The Prophets ruled over the children of Israel, whenever a Prophet died another Prophet succeeded him, but there will be no Prophet after me. There will soon be Khulafah and they will number many.’ They asked; ‘What then do you order us?’ He (saw) said; ‘Fulfil the Bay’ah to them, one after the other and give them their dues for Allah will verily account them about what he entrusted them with’ [Sahih Muslim].

 

 

 

Also the example of the Sahabah, Tabieen, and Tabi-Tabieen, and the great Mujtahideen amongst them, is clear that they recognised the Khulafah after Hasan (ra) and gave bay’ah to them freely, such as Khaleefah Muawiya, Khaleefah Abdullah ibn Zubayr (ra), and Khaleefah Umar ibn Abdul Aziz (ra).

[Mustafa Zuhair]

Assalamu Alaikum

 

it is true that the Khilafah and Islamic ruling as a Satehood existed till 1924... in whatever form or its shortcomings, we have to accept that it was Khilafah. But what differred mainly between the Khulafa-e-Rashedeen and the later generations is that for the first 30 years, Khaleefah was selected based on Islamic rulings of Shoora, whereas after that, it was mainly Kingship - or rulers - who ruled in family chains, like Ummayyad, Uthmanees (Ottomans) etc.

 

This created a confusion amongst the scholars about the validity of the Khulafa as the selections did not entertain the Shariah laws fully and the in effect, monarchy was established. Many Khaleeefas were of credible rights to lead the Ummah, while some, unfortunately, did not bore the criteria to lead the Ummah and thus the downfall finally in 1924.

 

However, the bottom line remains that it was Islamic Shariah that ruled most of the World for more than 1000 years as the Islamic State or Khilafah, and was the longest running civilization to rule the World in recent past history. We have also got to remember that many episodes of misadvanture and misrulings during the Monarchy of Islamic State are quoted from western writers, which gives the allusion that the kingdom was run in anarchy rather than peace... which we should re-study for our own benefits and to learn our own past - through Muslims or netural writers, and we will find that despite its shortcomings, the Khilafah state lived upto the expectations of being the most effectively ruled empire - not only for the muslims, but for the non muslims as well.

 

Thus, it is true that the Khulafa-e-Rashedeen existed for 30 years or so, but what followed and existed as Islamic Empire till 1924 is nothing but Khilafah or the Islamic State ruled by the Islamic Shariah...  Nonetheless, an interesting topic for us to study and learn about what happened in those 1000+ years of the Khilafah by restudying them - not thru the western eyes, but through our own historical basis - a history that shows how study of Science flourished under the Khilafah, not the story of the dark ages of Europe during that time ... a history that shows how Spain was the seat of Civilization for the entire europe - not the story of spain being liberated from uncouth 'arabs',.. a history that shows how jews and chirstians not only co-exited, but also protected throughout the map of the Empire, and not the story that minorities were allegedly harrassed by the 'arab rulers'. We have to re study these to get us away from the set mindset that has been taught to us and propagated throgh western education... not helped either by the so called religios education system of Madrassahs - the syllabus of which was, ironically, designed by the British raaj!!!

 

Ma Assalam...

Allah Hafez

 

Mustafa Zuhair

---

From: moderator student of islam <moderator.stu...@gmail.com>
To: students...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Fri, December 11, 2009 10:56:25 AM
Subject: Did Islamic khilafah last only for 30 years?

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Students_of_Islam" group.
To post to this group, send email to students...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to students_of_is...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/students_of_islam?hl=en.

[moderator student of islam]

A brother sent this question -

 

How long the 'Khilafah' as a system continued to exist becomes our concern. What are the PRECISE basis that make you think that it continued till 1924 exactly, not before, nor after? Don't they (those precise basis) exist even after? If not, then enlighten me with definite, unambiguous fact & please be SPECIFIC.

[Sadique]

walaikum assalam,

it is true that the Khilafah and Islamic ruling as a Satehood existed till 1924 - I also have same question as the previous one.
How is it true??? Give precise answer. How you can justify these ottoman dynasty is Islamic where they establish shrine, propagate worshiping grave? Many of these are still present and evidence of their open disbelief. I don't tell you that all ottoman ruler are same. but what we see now is a proof of open disbelief at their last ruling period. Probably for this reason, Allah himself remove them by making the disbeliever dominant over us and still this punishment of Allah continue as current muslim ruler is not different than them 

Ma 'assalamah

Sadique

[mujta...@gmail.com]

Precise and un-ambigious clarification is:

Imam Shawkani and Imam Mawardi both had the book written, named as Al Ahkam As Sultaniyyah. In that, they have mentioned that An Islamic system of Judiciary is the minimum requirement for a state to be called a "Lesser Islamic state" not in true sense but with many flaws in it. 

Although SAUDI REgime the "Dar AL Kuffar" tries their best to show that - they have an Islamic judicial system in action, but I ask where is the proof? They themselves have uploaded stinky cpmments that secualrism is needed for the ARAB world and Ibn Tayimiyyah is the Radical thought provoker of the latest [800th] century, who still covers the mind of the Scholars in the muslim world. That was the speech contents of King Faisal, Governor of the MAkkah.

In 1924, Kemal with his Young Turks exiled the legal Khalif, accepted worldwide [to the extent where they had their control, excluding the Jazeeratul Arab], and brought in the secular constitution. there is a VDO documentary Available in the net named as "Outcry of UMMAH"; it shows the live videos of these facts.

Regards.

 

"Al Muslimoon Ummatun Wahida, Wa Biladahum Wahida, Wa Harbahum Wahida, Wa Salmahum Wahida".
Jaabir (radhi-yallaahu 'anhu) narrated that Allaah's Messenger (sal-Allaahu`alayhe wa sallam) said:

"Do not acquire knowledge in order to compete with the scholars, nor to argue with the ignorant, nor to gain mastery over the gatherings. Since whoever does that, then: The Fire! The Fire!"
From Imam al-Shafi'i is also narrated:

"People did not become ignorant nor differed except after their abandonment of the Arabic language and their inclination to the language of Aristoteles!"

" Fiqh was planted by Abdullah Ibn Mas'ud, irrigated by Alqama, harvested by Ibrahim al-Nakha'i, threshed by Hammad, milled by Abu Hanifa, kneaded by Abu Yusuf, and baked by Shaybani. The muslims are nourished by this bread." - Ibn Abidin, Ottoman Hanafi Jurist.

[Sadique]

It is so precise!!

From this definition, the state which ruled by disbeliever, where country member are disbeliever but only the country is ruled by "Islamic system of Judiciary " then that state is an "Islamic state"!

Even your statement is contradictory. from this definition, can u prove KSA is not an Islamic state?

walaikum assalam

Sadique

[Saalim Aabidal]

Abdullah vai composed the main bulk of this mail. I edited wherever necessary.

 

 

"It is true that the Khilafah and Islamic ruling as a Satehood existed till 1924... in whatever form or its shortcomings, we have to accept that it was Khilafah. But what differred mainly between the Khulafa-e-Rashedeen and the later generations is that for the first 30 years, Khaleefah was selected based on Islamic rulings of Shoora, whereas after that, it was mainly Kingship - or rulers - who ruled in family chains, like Ummayyad, Uthmanees (Ottomans) etc.

 

This created a confusion amongst the scholars about the validity of the Khulafa as the selections did not entertain the Shariah laws fully and the in effect, monarchy was established. Many Khaleeefas were of credible rights to lead the Ummah, while some, unfortunately, did not bore the criteria to lead the Ummah and thus the downfall finally in 1924."

 

The above is NOT TRUE. We don't believe in the strategy 'if hundred (for example) people lie hundred times identically, it becomes true".

 

Khilafah 'alaa minhaj al-Nubuwwah lasted for 30 years. Then came the Muluukiyyah/Kingship, however it was still sort of Islaamic regimen later on. BUT, "How long did this sort of Islaamic regimen last?" - is indeed difficult & almost impossible to distinct EXPLICITLY. Political corruption takes over periods of time, not from a particular twinkling of the eye, that could be specified to become in existence from then on.

 

Long before 1924, Ribaa based economy (this is only one example, not all) gaped the Ottoman empire. Innovations was being patronized (at least, by not hindering its propagation) by the government, and so on. If despite all those GRAVE problems, one considers the system shortly before 1924 as an Islaamic Khilafah, then what is the problem with current Saudi regimen? One can bring forth the same defence for the Saudi regimen as the HT bro bringing for  1924 Ottoman empire.

 

It should not be confused & therefore should always be kept in mind that Khilafah is not a matter of only declaration; as if the ruler declared it -without any actual change in implication- so it became the Khilafah OR vice versa. Long before 1924, Ottoman empire delved so deep into ani-Islaamic rituals etc. that it can not be in any mean termed as an Islaamic regimen. If someone stubborn still insists, he better show up with the followings [with DEFINITE evidences]

 

(i) The actual & precise definition of Khilafah IN ISLAAM.

 

(ii) The essential criteria of an Islaamic Khilafah, all of which MUST be present together. AND the EXPLICIT evidence that ALL THOSE criteria existed together upto 1924, and NOT ANY & ANY longer.

 

(iii) The essential criteria -ALL of- which MUST be ABSENT in an Islaamic Khilafah; and in presence of ANY of them, it will be EXCLUDED from being islaamic Khilafah. AND the evidence that ALL of THEM were NON-EXISTENT before 1924 & at least one of them came into existence exactly from 1924.

 

I REQUEST the MODERATOR(s) not to accept any mail that propagate the decieved concept that the Islaamic Khilafah lasted upto 1924 UNLESS it comes with AUTHANTIC & CLEAR-CUT -not COOKED- evidences.

 

I want to clarify one matter. That is, actually -in our consideration- current Saudi regimen is NOT an Islaamic regimen, just as it wasn't before 1924.

 

 

"Thus, it is true that the Khulafa-e-Rashedeen existed for 30 years or so, but what followed and existed as Islamic Empire till 1924 is nothing but Khilafah or the Islamic State ruled by the Islamic Shariah..."

 

The underlined portion is FALSE as Islaamic Shariah was tampered & altered (in effect) long before 1924. In fact, current Saudi also has a "to some extent" Islaamic Judicial system with many flaws; and its flaws are less than those of the 1924 Ottoman empire. But I am flabbergasted at HT's attitude that without any CLEAR-CUT (so far) proof, they consider Khilafah upto 1924 & not afterwards.

 

 

 

Precise and un-ambigious clarification is:

Imam Shawkani and Imam Mawardi both had the book written, named as Al Ahkam As Sultaniyyah. In that, they have mentioned that An Islamic system of Judiciary is the minimum requirement for a state to be called a "Lesser Islamic state" not in true sense but with many flaws in it. 

Although SAUDI REgime the "Dar AL Kuffar" tries their best to show that - they have an Islamic judicial system in action, but I ask where is the proof? They themselves have uploaded stinky cpmments that secualrism is needed for the ARAB world and Ibn Tayimiyyah is the Radical thought provoker of the latest [800th] century, who still covers the mind of the Scholars in the muslim world. That was the speech contents of King Faisal, Governor of the MAkkah.

In 1924, Kemal with his Young Turks exiled the legal Khalif, accepted worldwide [to the extent where they had their control, excluding the Jazeeratul Arab], and brought in the secular constitution. there is a VDO documentary Available in the net named as "Outcry of UMMAH"; it shows the live videos of these facts.

Regards.

THE ABOVE is full of Self-Contradiction. Whatever is written so far, is adequate to refute it.

[mujta...@gmail.com]

Dear Bro,

Assalam. Please clear me out on the issue "Islamic Judicial System" of SAUDI ARABIA. First u prove, KSA has an ISLAMIC JUDICIAL SYSTEM.

 

The books I have named has the bengali edition, but old copies. U r thinking as the WEST wants u to think. Even our renowned ISLAMIC SCHOLARS of present times are being clouded by US ISLAM. Dont think we are free off it. We are trying, May ALLAH help us all. Now the point is, Capitalism+Democracy [Own version] + Nuclear power has made US a super power. The Ottoman Caliphate was once a super power. Its source of energy and might was ISLAM. As we are observing the downfall of the US empire, we are fidning a hell lot of faults even with the democracy,capitalism and use of nuclear power. Do we find americans or british who used to think alike when it was about democracy and freedom, talking and writting and critisizing DEMOCRACY at the begining of 50's. No we Dont. But now, when the DEMOCRATIC systems are at its knees, we find a lot of past hardcore democrats asking for somethin else, besides democracy. They fear ISLAM, thats why they dont mention the NAME. Rather we find, even the muslims were thinking alike and chanting SLOGANs of DEMOCRACY. KEEP THESE FACTS SIDE BY SIDE, and think. ASK, an KSA educated person, whether the ISLAMIC JUDICAL system allows WATANIYAH within the state or not. Categorically, over time, same thing happened to Ottoman's also. The pointed out issues of SHirk, BIDAT that you have mentioned in the earlier email in response, was not available at the start. Islamic Tarikhs dont say so. A downfall of a super-power might happen for millions of reasons, but we as muslims, feel assured that we loose only when we loose our grip on our TAWHEED and ISLAM as a whole. Thats what also happened with the Uthmanis. I wrote Ottomans several times in this email, SOrry for that, thats what the BRITISH Fools used to call us, for not having the TONGUE to pronounce UTHMANIYA KHILAFAH.

Most of the time, the discussions on this topic ends up in a stagnant atge, similarly as the issue of the EJID's [MUWAWIYA RA's son] issue ends. Some Scholars of high esteems, end up arguing about his legitimacy as a TABEii even and the others end up supporting him as a nice guy, after all the messes he made.

Lets hope for the best outcome. Insha ALLAH.

[Saalim Aabidal]

I am sorry but to say that you are not a sincere reader. Have u noticed this part of my mail, "I want to clarify one matter. That is, actually -in our consideration- current Saudi regimen is NOT an Islaamic regimen, just as it wasn't before 1924." So why are u asking for the evidence of the presence of Islaamic judicial system in KSA? However, in my personal evaluation, the judiciary in KSA (at least, at several years before) - despite its numerous loop-holes & defects, is at least minimally better than that of the 1924 Ottoman's - though undoubtedly neither is truly Islaamic [please don't overlook this underlined portion].

 

In fact, I have noticed in you the tendency of ESCAPING questions when u face them. Ottoman empire preceded KSA; so in rational chronology, what is your evidence that there was actually a true islaamic judicial system in Ottoman empire exactly upto 1924? The Ottoman empire (in later periods - at least) was not based upon TRUE islaamic judicial system. Even the LITTLE remnant or tint of Islaamic judiciary was there, that was MAINLY according to Hanaafi school; NOT directly according to the Kitaab & Sunnah. BUT the reality is EXACTLY opposite; that is, the door to Ijtihaad MUST not be shut in a Khilafah system & it can't be based upon any particular school; rather there MUST be a Shuuraa' which will reconcile between them according to Divine Adillah & Nusuus. [Note that, I am not rejecting or denying the Hanafee school here - that is another debate I wanna avoid]. However, this point is not so crucial, so let us proceed otherways.

 

And we are NOT CONVINCED at what you sent on the authority of Imaam Mawardi or Imaam Shawkaani. Firstly, I am in doubt whether you quoted properly; secondly, even if you did it properly, it is not adequate & SUPREME & UNOPPOSED - as it is their own understanding; not divine evidence.

 

Once (few months ago) even in Britain there raised a proposal for the limited Shariah law for Muslims. Same proposal raised during Nawaz Sharif(?) regimen in Pakistan. So if the proposal was in effect, would it make the UK a Khilafah state? Certainly not.

 

Thirdly, I don't know what the context of the Imaam Mawardi or Shawkaani was (provided u didn't misquote); but it need not much intellect to understand that a pure & true Islaamic Judicial system can not exist solely when all the rest are corrupted. Let me exemplify. When the economy becomes Ribaa based, how can the Islaamic judicial system coexist in the same state? The Islaamic judicial system is COMPELLED to declare that economy as anti-Islaamic & Kuffar system; and then there must be an endless conflict unless either system undergoes actual modification or both systems compromise.

 

It may be true for you or many in the west that you/they are finding the loop-holes in democracy NOW; but not for US. From the very beginning, we were against it, & we still are according to our Islaamic knowledge. SO, your argument in this relevance bears no weight or distinct significance; and in fact, they are not at all any evidence.

 

Brothers in Islaam,

I regret my language if any of you are disheartened at it. But i am compelled to say that I found HT brothers full of double standard & self-contradiction. They don't EVEN accept Ahaad Hadith in matters of creed under the pretext (& some fact) of Zhannee vs 'Qat'ee, they are at the top of their voices warning us against the Kuffar/western conspiracy; but they find no problem to take evidences/references from the Kuffar sources like their (kuffar's) Newspapers or "the diary of a Jew spy". And again, they are now arguing with whatever means possible by them on whether Khilafah lasted upto 1924 or not - without any divine evidence; but with the [?!doubtful!?] opinion of of Imaam Mawardi & Imaam Shawkaanee, and with the logic of "U r thinking as the WEST wants u to think".

 

We are aware of the Kuffar conspiracy against Islaam & Muslim; but at the same time our UTMOST concern is the TRUTH. It is not an Islaamic approach that ANYTHING coming from the friends is always CORRECT & ANYTHING from the enemy is always incorrect. The messenger of Allaah authenticated Iblees Shaytaan when it (Iblees) informed a companion of the virtues of Ayat al-Qursi. 

 

In Islaam, we believe in whatever we find from the Kitaab or Sunnah. Even if you [HT brothers]think it [from your Hizbi viewpoint] complying to the Kuffar plot. The messenger of Allaah said, "The bond of Islaam will be untied one by one....... The first to untie is the Khilafah & the last is Salah." [Abdullah vai informed me that it is narrated by Ahmad & possibly (he is not sure) by Ibn Hibban. He also informed me that it is Saheeh to the best of his knowledge. And Allaah knows the best]. So we should not mess up the fact with distorted concepts merely out of the fear of the "would be" Kuffar propaganda.

 

What if was the Ottoman empire a superpower? And what if not? Does only being superpower makes the Khilafah?

 

And what an AWKWARD type of SUPERPOWER(?) the Ottoman Empire was? Refused -under the British threat- to assist the Tipu Sultaan against the English invaders!!

 

 

In fine, Islaamic Khilafah was abolished long before 1924. This is fact, not what the west want us think. And we don't feel ashamed of this fact; nor we are seized with panic & inferiority complexes that Islaamic Khilafah is something that does not last long. This is because, we know that we have to refine ourselves, purify our Creed & methodology; attain & maintain the recommended characteristics for revival & sustenance of the Khilafah. The Khilafah lasted as long as our predecessors maintained the MINIMUM quality for it; it abolished due to our faults, decline of qualifications - both in the religious aspects and in knowledge, science & technology and RnD. Unless we meen them again, irrational panics regarding "would be" Kuffar propaganda/conspiracy would not help.

 

AND Allaah SWT revealed, "Allaah has promised those among you who believe & do righteous deeds, that He will certainly grant succession [Khilafah] to them in earth, as he has granted Khilafah to those before them; and that He will grant them the authority/power to practise their religion which He has chosen for them; and He will surely give them in exchange a security after their fear (provided) they worship Me and do not associate anything with Me." [TMQ- 24:55]. 

So, brothers, please don't waste your & our invaluable time composing/sending/reading mails that are merely based on raay/arguments/logics, not on facts/Daleel.  

 

I expect in this regard only QUALITY (as just cited) mails from now on; that will specifically deal with the questions starting from the previous mail(s). And I hope, brothers are intelligent enough to comprehend. 

[moderator student of islam]

Assalamu alaikum,

 

brother saalim was somewhat harsh but I have to he did not make any mistake. Even one of our member quote from the then times which I blocked. Here is the content - 

On 12/16/09, Faisal <prs_f...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Salam Brothers, This question was directed towards me...I am so sorry for the delayed reply. Although the process of dismantling or destruction of the Khilafah started long before 1924 by postponement of deriving Ijtihad (the process of extracting Hukum Shari from the Shariar Daleels on new issues), Ignoring the spreading of Islam by abandoning Jihad and Restructuring some of the Islamic laws, but we still had a Khalif, may him be the weakest than all his predecessors. It was no more a mighty state, super power that it was before but still it existed as a symbol of obligation from the time of our beloved Rasoolullah (saw). Please check the attached original scanned newspaper (Times) cutting of that time. May Allah (SWT) help us revive the Ummah to the status He (SWT) Himself stated i.e. Koontum Khair...the Best Ummah by the Best, Sincere & Powerful sons of this Ummah today.

I want to conclude this topics unless the questions are answered by anyone as this waste all of our time and also diverse the new members. Also it is not the manner to ask question in replying a question.