The Islamic Personality by Sheikh Taqīuddīn An-Nabahānī

When the Shari’ah made it obligatory upon the Ummah to appoint a Khalifah, it also defined the method by which the Khalifah is appointed. This method is proven by the Qur’an, the Sunnah and the Ijma’a of the Sahabah (ra), and this method is the bay’ah. So the appointment of the Khalifah is carried out by the bay’ah to him. The Proof that this method is the bay’ah is confirmed from the bay’ah of the Muslims to the Prophet (saw) and from the order of the Prophet (saw) for us to give bay’ah to the Imam. The bay’ah of the Muslims to the Prophet (saw) was not on his Prophethood; rather it was on ruling, since it was a bay’ah over action and not a bay’ah on belief. So the Prophet (saw) was given the bay’ah in his capacity as a ruler and not as a Prophet and a Messenger. Because the acknowledgement of the Prophethood and the Message is a matter of belief and not a bay’ah, so the bay’ah could only have been for him in his capacity as the head of the State. The bay’ah was mentioned in the Qur’an and the ahadith. Allah (swt) said:

Allah (swt) also said:

Al-Bukhari reported: Ismail related to us that Malik related to me from Yahya bin Said who said: “Ubadah bin Waleed informed me that my father informed me from ‘Ubadah bin as-Samit (ra) who said:

Al-Bukhari reported: Ali bin Abdullah related to us that Abdullah bin Yazeed related to us that Saeed (who is ibn al-Musayyib) who said: Abu ‘Aqeel Zahrah bin Ma’bad narrated to me from his grandfather ‘Abdullah bin Hisham who witnessed the Prophet (saw) that his mother Zaynab, daughter of Hameed, took him to the Messenger of Allah (saw) and said: “O Messenger of Allah, take his pledge. The Prophet (saw) said:

Al-Bukhari said: ‘Abdan bin Abu Hamza related to us from Al-‘Amash from Abu Salih from Abu Hurairah (ra) who said: The Messenger of Allah (saw) said:

From these three ahadith it is explicit that the bay’ah is the method of appointing the Khalifah. The hadith of ‘Ubadah states that he gave bay’ah to the Prophet (saw) to listen and obey and this is a bay’ah to a ruler. The hadith of ‘Abdullah bin Hisham states that the Prophet (saw) rejected his bay’ah because he was not mature which indicates that it is a bay’ah on ruling. From the hadith reported by Abu Hurairah (ra) it is evident that it is a bay’ah to the Imam. The word ‘Imam’ in the hadith is undefined i.e. any Imam. There are other ahadith which refer to giving bay’ah to the Imam. It is reported in Muslim via Abdullah bin ‘Amru that the Prophet (saw) said:

Also Muslim narrates from Abu Said al-Khudri who said: The Prophet (saw) said:

And Muslim narrated that Abu Hazim who said: “I accompanied Abu Hurairah (ra) for five years and heard him narrate from the Prophet (saw) who said:

So the texts from the Qura'n and the Sunnah are clear that the method of appointing the Khalifah is the bay’ah. All the Sahabah understood this and followed it. So Abu Bakr (ra) was given a special bay’ah in the courtyard of Banu Sa‘ida, and a public bay’ah in the mosque, those who did not give him the bay’ah in the mosque and whose bay’ah is considered gave it later on like ‘Ali bin Abu Talib (ra). ‘Umar (ra) was given the bay’ah from the Muslims, ‘Uthman (ra) also was given the bay’ah by the Muslims and ‘Ali (ra) was given the bay’ah by the Muslims as well. So the bay’ah is the only method to appoint a Khalifah for the Muslims.

As for the practical details to conduct the bay’ah, they are evident in the appointment of the four Khulafaa who came directly after the death of the Prophet (saw), who are Abu Bakr (ra), ‘Umar (ra), ‘Uthman (ra) and ‘Ali (ra). And all of the Sahabah (ra) accepted this and confirmed it. If it was against the Shari’ah , they would definitely have denied it because it is related to the most important thing upon which the well being of Muslims and perseverance of the Islamic rule depends. Whoever follows what happened in the appointment of these Khulafaa will find that some Muslims had debated in the courtyard of Banu Sa‘ida; the nominees were Sa‘d (ra) , Abu ‘Ubaydah (ra), ‘Umar (ra) and Abu Bakr (ra) only, and as a result of the debate Abu Bakr (ra) was given the bay’ah. On the next day Muslims were called to the mosque and they gave him their bay’ah. As a result of this bay’ah, Abu Bakr (ra) became a Khalifah for the Muslims. When Abu Bakr (ra) felt that his illness carried with it death, he called upon the Muslims to consult them about who could become the next Khalifah. The opinion in these consultations focused on ‘Ali (ra) and ‘Umar (ra) only. He continued in these consultations for three months. When he completed them and knew the majority of the Muslims opinion he announced to them that ‘Umar (ra) would be the Khalifah after him. Immediately after his death Muslims came to the mosque and gave the bay’ah of Khilafah to ‘Umar (ra) so he became the Khalifah by this bay’ah from the Muslims not by the consultations or by the announcement by Abu Bakr (ra). When ‘Umar (ra) was stabbed, the Muslims asked him to appoint a successor for himself but he refused. They insisted, so he left it among six of the Sahabah (ra). Then after his death, the nominees appointed one of them, ‘Abdurrahman bin ‘Auf (ra), as a representative. He referred to the opinion of the Muslims and consulted them. Then he declared the bay’ah to ‘Uthman (ra). The Muslims stood up and gave their bay’ah to ‘Uthman (ra), and thereby he became the Khalifah by the pledge of the Muslims and not by the announcement of ‘Abdurrahman (ra). Later on ‘Uthman (ra) was killed and the majority of Muslims in Madinah and Kufa gave their bay’ah to ‘Ali bin Abu Talib (ra), so he too became the Khalifah by the bay’ah of Muslims.

From this it appears that the practical details to conduct the pledge of Khilafah is the debate among Muslims about who is suitable for the Khilafah. Once the opinion settles upon a list of people, their names will be publicised to the Muslims. For the one they choose from amongst them, they are asked to give him their bay’ah, and the rest of the nominees are also asked to give him their bay’ah as well. So in the courtyard of Banu Sa‘ida the debate was about Sa‘d (ra), Abu ‘Ubaydah (ra), ‘Umar (ra) and Abu Bakr (ra), then Abu Bakr (ra) was given the bay’ah which was equivalent to their selection. However, this selection was not binding for Muslims until his bay’ah was given by the Muslim populace. Abu Bakr (ra) discussed with the Muslims about ‘Ali (ra) and ‘Umar (ra) then he declared the name of ‘Umar (ra), who was then given the bay’ah. ‘Umar (ra) suggested the Khalifah to be from among the six people. After referring to the Muslims, ‘Abdurrahman bin ‘Auf (ra) declared the name of ‘Uthman (ra) who was then given the bay’ah. And ‘Ali (ra) was given the bay’ah immediately, as the situation was one of unrest, and it was known that no nominee was equivalent to him in the opinion of Muslims when ‘Uthman (ra) was killed. Thus the matter of bay’ah proceeds after the debate to nominate suitable candidates and from these, one is elected as the Khalifah, and then the bay’ah for him is taken from the people. Although this matter was evident in the consultations made for Abu Bakr (ra), it is very clear in the case of the bay’ah given to ‘Uthman (ra). Al-Bukhari narrated from Az-Zuhri that Hameed bin ‘Abdurrahman informed him that Al-Miswar bin Makhrama told him that the group appointed by ‘Umar (ra) met and consulted. Abdurrahman bin ‘Auf (ra) said to them:

So the nominees for the Khilafah were limited to the group named by ‘Umar (ra) after the Muslims had asked him to do so. ‘Abdurrahman bin ‘Auf (ra), after he withdrew himself from the nomination to the Khilafah, took the opinion of the Muslims about who would be the Khalifah. He then announced the name of the person who the Muslims wanted after consulting with them. After he announced the name of the person who the people wanted, the bay’ah was given to him and he became the Khalifah by this bay’ah. Therefore the hukm shari’ concerning the appointment of the Khalifah is to limit the nominees for the Khilafah by those who represent the opinion of the majority of Muslims. Then their names are displayed to the Muslims and they are asked to select one of the nominees to be Khalifah for all. Then it is determined whom the majority of the Muslims have chosen, and the bay’ah from all the Muslims is taken for him, whether each person had specifically chosen him or not. This is the method because of the Ijma’a of the Sahabah about ‘Umar (ra) limiting the nominees for the Khilafah to six specific persons, and the consensus of the Sahabah that ‘Abdurrahman (ra) takes the opinion of all the Muslims about who will be the Khalifah for them, and the consensus to give the bay’ah to the one who ‘Abdurrahman (ra) announced as the person elected by Muslims as a Khalifah is clear when he said:

All of these points clarify the hukm shari’ concerning the appointment of the Khalifah.

Two issues remain to be examined. One of them is who are the Muslims who appoint the Khalifah? Are they the influential people or a certain specific number of Muslims? Or do all of the Muslims appoint the Khalifah? The second issue concerns the actions occurring in this century in elections such as secret ballots, polling boxes and counting votes. Are these matters consistent with Islam and does Islam allows them or not?

As for the first issue, Allah (swt), has given the authority to the Ummah and he (swt) made the appointment of the Khalifah a right and duty for all Muslims; and He did not make it a right for one particular group excluding another, nor for a jama‘ah leaving another jama‘ah aside, since the bay’ah is a duty upon all the Muslims. The Prophet (saw) said:

And this is general for every Muslim. Therefore, the influential people do not possess the exclusive right to appoint the Khalifah and cannot ignore the rest of the Muslims. Nor do specific persons have the exclusive right. Rather, this right is for all the Muslims with no exception, it even includes the fajirs (wicked people) and munafiqeen (hypocrites), provided they are mature Muslims because the Shari’ah text came in a general form in this instance and nothing came to limit it (make it specific to certain people) except the refusal of the pledge from the young who have not yet reached the age of puberty. So the text has to be taken generally.

However, it is not a condition that all Muslims practise this right. While it is a duty, because the bay’ah is fard, it is fard kifayah (obligation of sufficiency) and not fard ain (individual obligation). Thus, if some of the Muslims fulfill it, the duty drops from the rest of the Muslims. But all Muslims must be enabled to practice their right in electing the Khalifah, regardless of whether they use their right or not. In other words, every Muslim must be able to participate in selecting the Khalifah. So the issue is to enable the Muslims to carry out the duty of establishing the Khalifah which Allah (swt) prescribed upon them, in such a way that this duty falls (from their shoulders). The issue is not the actual participation of all the Muslims in conducting this duty. This is because the duty which Allah (swt) has prescribed is to establish the Khalifah for the Muslims by their consent, and it is not a requirement for all Muslims to perform it. Two matters result from this: One of them is that the consent of all the Muslims in the establishment of the Khalifah is achieved. Secondly, the consent of all the Muslims about the appointment is not achieved. The Muslims are however enabled (to participate in the appointment) in both cases.

With regards to the first matter, no condition is set concerning a specific number required to appoint the Khalifah. Rather any number of Muslims can give their bay’ah to the Khalifah and in this bay’ah the consent of the rest of the Muslims is attained by their silence, or by proceeding to obey him, or by anything which implies their consent, then the appointed Khalifah becomes a Khalifah for all the Muslims. He will legally be the Khalifah even if only three people appointed him, because collectivity is achieved by carrying out the appointment of the Khalifah. The consent is achieved by their silence and through obedience or anything similar, on condition that this is accomplished by unfettered choice and in every respect enabling the expression of opinions for all. However, if the consent of all the Muslims was not achieved, then the appointment of the Khalifah would not be accomplished unless it was performed by a group that represents the consent of the majority of the Muslims, regardless of the number in this group. From here some jurists stated that the appointment of the Khalifah is established by the pledge given to him by the people of influence (ahl al-hall wa al-‘aqd), because they consider the influential people as the group which achieves the consent of the Muslims through the pledge they give to any man who fulfils the contractual conditions of the Khilafah. Therefore, it is not the pledge of the influential people which establishes the Khalifah, nor is their pledge a condition for the legality of the appointment of the Khalifah. Rather the pledge of the influential people is evidence indicating that the consent of the Muslims to the pledge has been achieved, because the influential people are considered as representative of the Muslims. And every evidence which indicates that the consent of the Muslims with the pledge to a Khalifah is fulfilled completes the appointment of the Khalifah, and the appointment of the Khalifah by this bay’ah (pledge) would be legal.

Accordingly the Shari’ah rule is to establish the Khalifah by any gathering where appointment of the Khalifah achieves the consent of the Muslims by any indication that proves this consent. It is the same whether this indication is the pledge of the majority of the influential people, the majority of the representatives of the Muslims, the silent acceptance of the Muslims regarding the group that gave the pledge, their hurry to show obedience as a result of the pledge or by any similar means, as long as they were provided with the full facility to freely express their opinions. It is not a Shari’ah rule that this gathering must be only from the influential people or that they are four or four hundred or more, or that they must be the residents of the capital or the regions. Rather the Shari’ah rule is that their pledge fulfils the consent of the majority of Muslims by any indication together enabling them to freely express their opinion fully.

What is meant by all Muslims is those Muslims who live in lands controlled by the Islamic State i.e. those who are subjects of the former Khalifah if the Khilafah exists, or those by whom the Islamic State’s establishment is accomplished and the Khilafah is contracted, in case the Islamic State was not established. They are the ones who stood to create it (the Khilafah) resume the Islamic way of life through it. As for the rest of the Muslims, their pledge and consent are not an essential condition, because they are believers outside the Islamic authority or they live in Dar al-Kufr (land of kufr) and they cannot join Dar al-Islam. So they have no right in the contracting pledge, but they must give the pledge of obedience because legally those who rebel from the Islamic authority are treated as rebels. As for those who live in Dar al-Kufr, the establishment of the Islamic authority is not achieved by them unless they establish it in reality or they enter into its domain. Therefore, the Muslims who have the right in the contracting pledge and their consent is considered a condition to ensure the legal appointment of the Khalifah are those Muslims by whom the authority of Islam is established in reality. It is not true to say that this is a rational study, or to say it has no Shari’ah evidence. This is because it is a study about the subject (manat) upon which the Shari’ah rule applies and not on the law itself, therefore it does not need a Shari’ah rule but rather must explain its reality. For example, the eating of dead meat is prohibited by the Shari’ah rule. Verification of what is the dead meat is the subject of the law i.e. the subject with which the law is related. So appointing of the Khalifah by Muslims is the Shari’ah rule, and that this appointment should be by consent and choice is also the Shari’ah rule. It is these provisions which need the Shari’ah evidence. As for who are the Muslims by whom the appointment is completed? And what is the matter by which the consent and choice are fulfilled? These (matters) are referred to as the subject of the law i.e. the subject which the law came to solve. The application of the Shari’ah rule upon the subject is the achievement of the law. Therefore, it is needed to study the subject (manat) which the Shari’ah rule came to treat by explaining its reality.

It is incorrect to say that the subject (manat) of the law is the ‘illah (reason) of the law so it would necessarily need Shari’ah evidence because the subject of the law is different than the reason of the law. There is a great difference between ‘illah and manat. The ‘illah is the incentive for the law i.e. the thing which indicates the intention (aim) of the Lawgiver (Ash-Shari’ i.e. Allah) for this law, and this must have a Shari’ah evidence so as to understand that it is the aim of the Lawgiver (Allah). Whereas the subject (manat) of the law is the subject for which the law came i.e. the question upon which the law applies, not its evidence or its ‘illah. What is meant by its being the subject with which the law is arrived at is that it is the subject with which the law suspends or hangs i.e. the law was brought to solve it. It does not mean that the law came because of it so as to be called the ‘illah of the law. So the manat of the law is that which is other than the conveyed (ghayr an-naqliyya) aspect of the Shari’ah rule. Its verification is different from the verification of the ‘illah. The verification of the ‘illah turns upon the comprehension of the text which came with a reason, and this is an understanding of what is conveyed and it is not the manat. The manat is other than than what is conveyed; its meaning is the reality upon which the Shari’ah rule is to be applied.

If you say alcohol is haram, the Shari’ah rule is the prohibition of alcohol. Verifying that a certain drink is alcohol or not, so as to judge it as haram or not is a verification of the manat. So it is necessary to study whether the drink is alcohol or not in order to state that it is haram. The investigation of the reality of the alcohol is a verification of the manat. And if you said that the water allowed to use for wudhu is the unrestricted (mutlaq) water then the Shari’ah rule is that the mutlaq water is the one which is allowed for wudhu. So the verification that the water is unrestricted or restricted in order to judge upon it as allowed for wudhu, is a verification of the manat. Therefore, it is necessary to study the water to determine if it is free or restricted. This study of the reality of the water is the verification of the manat. And if you said the person who made hadath (discharged something from back or front) has to make wudhu for the prayer, then the verification that the person is muhdath or not muhdath is a verification of the manat, and so on. Shatebi said in “Al-Muwafaqat”: “These subjects and their like which require defining the manat must take the evidence about it in conformity to the reality in relation to every incident.” And he said: “Ijtihad could be connected with the verification of the manat, and this does not require knowledge of the aims of the Lawgiver (Allah) nor does it require knowledge of the Arabic language, because the aim of this ijtihad is knowing the subject as it is. Thus it requires knowledge without which this subject could not be recognised according to the aim of knowing it. Therefore the mujtahid has to be knowledgeable and mujtahid from this aspect which he considers in order to apply the Shari’ah rule to conform to what is required.” The investigation of the ‘illah returns to understanding the text which came with a reason. And this is an understanding of the conveyed matters and it is not the manat, rather the manat is other than the conveyed matters. It is meant to be the reality upon which the Shari’ah rule applies. If you say that alcohol is haram, the verification of whether a liquid is alcohol or not is the verification of the manat. And if you say the unrestricted (mutlaq) water is that with which wudhu can be performed, then the verification that the water is unrestricted or not is the verification of the manat. And if you said that the muhdath has to make wudhu, then the verification that the person is muhdath or not is the verification of the manat. Thus the verification of the manat is the investigation of the thing that is the subject of the law. Accordingly, it is not a condition that the one who verifies the manat be a mujtahid or a Muslim, but it is enough that he or she be knowledgeable in the matter. So the study of who are the Muslims whose bay’ah is evidence of the acceptance or consent is a study about the verification of the manat.

This is in regard to the first question. As for the second issue, regarding what occurs nowadays in conducting elections by secret ballot, using polling boxes, distributing votes and the like; all these are styles to perform the selection by consent. Therefore, they do not enter under the Shari’ah rule nor the question of manat of the Shari’ah rule which is the subject that the Shari’ah rule came to solve. This is because this matter is not concerned with the actions of the slaves nor the subject upon which the Shari’ah rule applies. Rather they are the means of the human actions to which the Shari’ah rule came i.e. the action which the speech of the Law-giver (Allah (swt)) is related to; which in this instance, is the establishment of the Khalifah by consent, provided there is complete facilitation to enable the expression of opinion. Therefore, these styles and means are not part of what the Shari’ah rules are sought for, and they are treated as matters which the general text has permitted. There is no special evidence to forbid them, so they are mubah. The Muslims have the right to select these or other styles. Any style which leads to enabling the Muslims to carry out the fard of appointing the Khalifah by consent and choice, then the Muslims are allowed to use it unless there came Shari’ah evidence which prohibits it.

It is incorrect to say that this style is a human act and should not be conducted except according to the Shari’ah rule, with an evidence to indicate its rule. It is incorrect to say so because the human action which must be conducted according to the Shari’ah rule and which must have an evidence that indicates its law, is the action which is considered as an origin (asl) or a branch (far’) of an origin whose evidence for the origin is not general but rather specific (khaas). An example for this is the prayer, whose evidence is only related to establishing it and it does not include every action included in the prayer. Therefore there must be an evidence for every action in it. However the action which is a branch for an action wherein general evidence applies to its origin, that general evidence applies upon all its branches. The prohibition of an action which is a branch requires an evidence to prohibit it, and remove it from the rule of its origin and thus give it a new rule. This is the same for all the styles. In the question of elections, the original action is the appointment of the Khalifah by consent and choice. As for the actions which branch out from that such as polling, using polling boxes, separating of votes and the like, they all enter under the rule of the origin and do not require another evidence. To exclude any of them from the rule of the origin, i.e. to prohibit it, is a matter which requires an evidence. This is the case for all the styles which are human actions. Concerning the means which are tools like the box in which the voting papers are put, these take the rule of things and not the rule for actions upon which applies the Shari’ah principle:

The difference between method (tareeqah) and style is that the method is an action which is considered by itself as an origin, or a branch to an action that does not have a general evidence for its origin; rather its evidence is specific to it. The style is an action which is a branch to an action—i.e. the origin—upon which there is no general evidence. Therefore, the method must depend upon a Shari’ah evidence because it is a Shari’ah rule, thus it must be adhered to and Muslims have no choice concerning it unless its rule is ibaha (of permissibility). This is different from the style which does not depend on a Shari’ah evidence; rather it is included in the rule of its origin. Therefore, it is not obligatory to follow a particular style even if the Messenger (saw)

did so. Rather a Muslim is allowed to use any style as long as it leads to the performance of the action, and thus it becomes a branch to the action. Thus it is said that the style is defined by the type of action.