17.9 The Shar'a Did Not Designate A Specific Person For The Khilafah

17.9 The Shar'a Did Not Designate A Specific Person For The Khilafah - The Islamic Personality | Quran Course

0% read · 37 min left

Ce chapitre n’est pas encore traduit en français - voici l’original (anglais).

17.9 The Shar'a Did Not Designate A Specific Person For The Khilafah

par Sheikh Taqīuddīn An-Nabahānī37 min de lectureVu 24 fois

The view that the Messenger (saw) designated a specific person to be the Khalifah after him contradicts the Shari’ah texts. And the statement that the Messenger (saw) nominated certain persons to be Khulafaa after him until the Day of Judgement is even more contradictory to the Islamic texts.

As for invalidating (the opinion) that the Messenger (saw) nominated the Khilafah for someone after him, this is apparent in numerous ways:

First: This contradicts the pledge (bay’ah) since nominating a person means informing the Muslims as to who will be the Khalifah over them. Hence the Khalifah would be known so there would remain no need for legislating (tashri’) the pledge as the pledge is the method of appointing the Khalifah. So if he has already been appointed in advance, there remains no need to demonstrate the method of appointing him as, in fact, he has already been appointed. Nor can it be said that the pledge is the pledge of obedience to the Khalifah since the Shar’a has enunciated the obedience to the Khalifah and those in charge (ulu al-amr) in many other texts distinct from the text of the pledge. Obedience has been explicitly requested from Muslims; as for the pledge, it has been requested from Muslims in other request(s) not in consideration as being (merely) obedience, though it does include the meaning of obedience, but in consideration as being a contract for the Khilafah. Its meaning in all the ahadith that mentioned it is not obedience, rather it is about giving leadership to the one who is pledged and preparing to submit to this leadership. So making the pledge a condition for appointing the Khilafah contradicts the Messenger (saw) nominating a specific person to be Khalifah after him. Moreover, the words of the pledge which came in the correct (Saheeh) ahadith came in a general manner (‘aam) without specification (takhsees), and unrestricted (mutlaq) without any restriction (taqyeed), for anyone. Were they to mean the pledge for a specific person they would not have been general and unrestricted. The word(s) of the ahadith are:

All this indicates that the Messenger (saw) left the issue concerning who would be the Khalifah after him unspecified without specifying him. This is explicit in its indication that the Messenger (saw) did not designate a specific person for the Khilafah but rather left it as a right for all Muslims. When you add to this that some texts came with the collective (jam’u) language, this becomes a clear text in negating the Imam being a specific person.

Fourth: The Sahabah (ra) differed in their time about the persons to be the Khalifah among them. This difference among persons is evidence that the Messenger (saw) did not designate a specific person for the Khilafah. Among the very people who differed are those of whom it is said that the Messenger enunciated upon their Khilafah, namely: Abu Bakr (ra) and Ali (ra). Despite their differences, none of them ever argued that there was a text from the Messenger (saw) that the Khilafah is for him nor did any of the Sahabah (ra) argue that there was a text for certain people in general. Were there any text, they would have argued with them; so their failure to argue using any text means that there is no text for a specific person for the Khilafah. Nor should anyone say that there is a text which was known after them but it did not reach them, because we take our deen from the Sahabah (ra). They are the ones who conveyed the Qur’an, and narrated the hadith, to us. So if there is no text or any text from the Sahabah (ra), then it is not recognised in any way. We take whatever came from them while throwing away whatever did not come from them. In relation to the issue of a text for a Khalifah after the Messenger (saw), we find that all the Sahabah (ra) without exception including Abu Bakr (ra) and Ali (ra) agreed upon the absence of any text for a specific person for the Khilafah due to their failure to mention this despite the need for speaking and the necessity for mentioning the text if it existed. This indicates the invalidity of the Messenger (saw) designating a person for the Khilafah. Nor should one say that the failure to mention the text was due to the precaution to preserve the unity of the Muslims for this means hiding a rule of Allah and not delivering it at the very time it was urgently required, particularly in such an important matter for the Muslims. This hiding in the deen of Allah is not possible to come from the Sahabah (ra) of the Messenger of Allah (saw).

Fifth: There have come explicit texts that the Messenger (saw) did not appoint a Khalifah by the meaning that a specific person will be Khalifah after him. Al-Bukhari narrated from Abdullah bin Umar (ra) who said: It was said to Umar, will you not appoint a Khalifah? He said:

But he did not do so, so this is not an evidence. For the evidence is the Messenger’s (saw) saying, action or silent consent; anything other than these is not considered Shari’ah evidence. Secondly, Aisha (ra) is Abu Bakr’s daughter so were this hadith present she would have informed Abu Bakr (ra). Then he would have argued with it when he went to the courtyard (saqeefa) to contend with the Ansar when they gathered to pledge allegiance to a Khalifah amongst them. Therefore this hadith is rejected (mardud) and is unsuitable to be an evidence for the appointment of Abu Bakr (ra) as Khalifah.

As for the second hadith, it does not indicate the appointment of Abu Bakr (ra) as Khalifah because the woman said: “If I did not find you”; so it is correct that she failed to find him due to his absence in a war or any other matter. There is nothing in it to indicate that she meant by her words “If I did not find you” that you had died. The words which came in the hadith “As if she meant death” are the words of Jubayr and his understanding. So the Messenger’s command for her to go to Abu Bakr (ra) if she came and did not find him is no proof for the appointment of Abu Bakr (ra) as Khalifah after the Messenger (saw). Even if we were compelled to take her understanding to mean death, these words still would not designate Abu Bakr as Khalifah after him (saw). As for the third hadith, this is the appointment over prayer and nothing else. Appointment over prayer does not mean appointment in authority (hukm). As for their statement: “The Messenger of Allah was pleased with him in a matter of the deen, so should we not be pleased with him in a matter of the world (dunya)”; this is their understanding, and it is erroneous because there is a large difference between prayer and ruling. Not all who are suitable to become a leader (Imam) in prayer are suitable to be a leader in ruling. Moreover, the text is specific to prayer so it does not encompass other things, nor should it be taken to mean other things due to the specificity (khususiyya) of the text.

As for the fourth hadith, it is not considered a hadith as it does not relate anything from the Messenger (saw); rather it is Aisha’s opinion. The Sahabah’s opinion is not a proof nor considered Shari’ah evidence, so this (statement) is rejected as it is not a hadith and has no value in relation to the Shari’ah rules.

This is in relation to the ahadith presented by those who argue for Abu Bakr’s appointment as Khalifah. As for the ahadith presented by those who say the Messenger (saw) appointed Ali (saw), they are of three categories: A category in which the Messenger (saw) praised our master Ali (ra), a category in which some have deduced that the Messenger (saw) appointed Ali (ra), and a category which came up among the ones who used these ahadith as evidence to say that there exists clear text that the Messenger (saw) appointed Ali (ra) as the Khalifah.

As for the first category in which the Messenger (saw) praised Ali (ra), we will present a model from them by mentioning some of the ahadith and the others don't exceeding the meaning of praise.

Al-Bukhari narrated from Sahl bin S’ad (ra)

"All praise is due to Allah whom we ask for help, believe in and depend upon. We ask Allah to protect us from the evils of our souls and bad deeds, the One whom none can guide whom He causes to go astray or misguide whom He guides. I bear witness that there is no god but Allah and Muhammad is His slave and Messenger. As for what follows: O people, verily the The Kind & All-Knowing (swt) has informed me that He does not grant longevity to a Prophet except half the like of the one before him. Verily it is about to be that I will be called and I will respond. Verily I am accountable and you are accountable, so what will you say? They said: We bear witness that verily you have conveyed, advised and struggled so may Allah reward you well. He said: Do you not bear witness that there is no god but Allah and that Muhammad is His slave and Messenger that His paradise is true and His hellfire is true, that death is true, that the Hour will come without any doubt and that Allah will resurrect those in the graves? They said: Yes, we bear witness to this. He said: O Allah, do bear witness. Then he said: O people, will you not listen? They said: Yes. He said: Verily I will go to the cistern (alkauthar) and you will be presented at the cistern, whose breadth is that between Sana’a and Basra, before me. In it are cups of silver the number of which are the number of stars, so look how you take care of the two weighty things after me. An announcer announced: And what are the two weighty things, O Messenger of Allah? He said: The greater of the two weighty things is the Book of Allah, one end of which is in the hand of Allah and the other in your hands so hold fast to it and you will not go astray. The other smaller one is my household (‘utra). Verily the Kind & All-Knowing (swt) informed me that they will not go away until Ali reaches the cistern and I asked that from my Lord. So do not precede them or neglect them and if you do so you will perish. Then he took the hand of Ali and raised it until their armpits were seen and everyone recognised him and he said: O people, who takes precedence before the believers over their own selves? They said: Allah and His Messenger know best. He said: Verily Allah is my Patron (mawla) and I am the patron of the believers such that I take precedence before them over their own selves. So whoever has me as his patron then Ali is his patron. He said this three times, and in the words of Imam Ahmad, Imam of the Hanbalis, four times. Then he said: O Allah, befriend whoever befriends him and become an enemy to whoever takes him as an enemy. Love whoever loves him and hate whoever hates him, support whoever supports him and abandon whoever abandons him, and let the truth be with him wherever he is resides. Verily, let the witness who is present inform the (one who is) absent.’”

All of these are related to the Prophethood and appointment in it, and the throwing of the tablets (by Musa), and the Banu Israil taking to worship the calf and the like; there is nothing within them with the slightest relationship to rule and authority. It is not possible to suspect that it is related with the rule and authority, so there is no evidence that Musa was a ruler and he never appointed Harun in the rule at all.

This is the meaning of all the revealed ahadith whether they came with a cause like the incident of Tabuk or without any cause, which indicate that the Messenger (saw) made Ali (ra) supervise his family while he was absent during his lifetime similar to how Musa made Harun supervise his people while he was absent during his lifetime. With this action i.e. the Messenger’s (saw) appointment of Ali (ra), Ali became to the Messenger (saw) comparable to the status of Harun to Musa. There is no indication in these ahadith that the Messenger (saw) stated that Ali (ra) would become the Khalifah over the Muslims in ruling after the Messenger of Allah (saw)’s death.

As for the second text and the hadith of Ghadeer Khum, in the authenticated narration i.e. the narration of Muslim, it exhorts Muslims to hold fast to the Book of Allah and the family of his (saw) house, to be gracious to them, to honour and not to hurt them. There is no indication within it that the Messenger (saw) appointed his family over the Khilafah. The hadith states: “As for the people of my house, I exhort you before Allah in the people of my house”; there is nothing in this that indicates that he made the family of his house the Khulafaa in the rule over the people after his death. The words are clear in their stated text (mantuq) and meaning such that it can never be understood that he appointed the family of his house, or any one of them, to rule Muslims via the Khilafah after him. As for the second and third narrations, and all narrations similar to them, they do not change what came within it. There are two matters in these narrations. First, making Allah the patron in his statement:

In the (Arabic) language: the friend (al-waliyy) is opposite to the enemy so it is said: He took him as a friend. The (mawla) is the supporter and the master (as-sayyid). Friendship is opposite to enemity. And the waliy: One who takes care of affairs of the minor like the father and grandfather. The waliy of the marriage contract, the properties and the orphan is the one who takes care of the affair and becomes his sponsor. In the Mu’jam Lisan al-‘Arab (an Arabic dictionary): “Al-waliy is among the names of Allah (swt) who is the Helper (An-Nasir) and he is the One in Charge (Al-Mutawalli) of the affairs of the universe and all creatures, the Supervisor (Al-Qaim) over them.” And it said: “The waliy is the truthful (as-siddiq), the Helper, the follower (at-tab’i) and the beloved.” Abu Al-‘Abbas said about his statement (saw): “The one for whom I am his (mawla), then Ali is his (mawla)”i.e. whoever loves and befriends me should befriend him. None of this is the meaning of rule (hukm) and authority (sultan). Even the interpreters of this hadith who say that it is a clear text for the Khilafah of Ali (ra) are unable to come with any clear meaning in the language that the word “mawla” means the rule and authority linguistically. For example, Sheikh Abd al-Husain Ahmad Al-Amini An-Najafi says the following in his book “Al Ghadeer” in explaining the hadith of Al-Ghadeer: “At this point there no longer remains for the researcher any refuge from committing suicide that “mawla” came with the meaning of the foremost suitable in something even if we condescend that this is one of its meaning and that linguistically it is a word with several meanings.” The word “mawla” came with twenty seven meanings without mentioning the rule and authority among them. He said: After we know about the meanings of “mawla” which reach up to twenty seven meanings, it is not possible that it comes with a meaning in the hadith except with that which conforms to it in meaning, (and these meanings) are:

1) The Lord.

2) Paternal uncle.

3) Paternal uncle’s son.

4) Son.

5) Daughter’s son.

6) The slave who is freed.

7) One who frees a slave.

8) Slave.

9) Owner.

10) Follower.

11) One who is blessed.

12) Partner.

13) Confederate/Ally (haleef).

14) Companion.

15) Neighbour.

16) Guest.

17) In-law.

18) Relative (qareeb).

19) Benefactor/Beneficent.

20) One lost from his friends/dead (faqeed).

21) Friend (waliy).

22) Foremost/More suitable in something.

23) Leader (sayyid) who is not the owner or one who freed a slave.

24) Beloved.

25) Helper.

26) Agent (mutassarif) in the matter.

27) The one in charge (mutawalli) of the matter.

These are the meanings which came and not even one clear meaning came for the word “mawla” to denote rule and authority. Thus when he interpreted this meaning in relation to the hadith, he reached one of its meanings which he chose and said:

It is not possible to understand that giving him authority (sultan) is giving me (the same); rather the only understanding is whoever supports him supports me. So it becomes clear that all the ahadith which came (saying) that Ali (ra) is the “waliy” of every believer after the Messenger (saw) and their “mawla”, and that they must give him “muwalat” and befriend him because his “wilayah” is the “wilayah”, all these ahadith according to the language and Qur’anic texts cannot possibly be taken (as meaning) taking charge of the rule whether in respect to the meaning of the word or its position in the sentence(s) which came in the aforementioned ahadith. So these are not evidence that the Messenger (saw) appointed Ali (ra) to the Khilafah after him thus their arguing with these texts fails. Here we must take note of two issues. First among the two is the fact that the word is conjugated from a specific article and it does not mean that all conjugations of this article are unified in meaning so that one of them takes the other’s meaning. The language can have more than one word for a meaning or it may give only one meaning laid down for a word without giving this meaning to any other word, according to how the Arabs laid it down. The similarity of words in conjugation does not mean similarity in meaning; rather the word takes the meaning for which the Arabs laid down for it without taking note of the article of conjugation. The word “ja’a” and the word “aja’a” are from one article; despite that, the meaning of “ja’a” is he came and the meaning of “aja’a” is to give refuge to (alja’a). “An-nadhuw” with a “kasra” on the “nun” means emaciated camel, whereas with a “dhumma” on the “nun” it means garment. As for the word “mawla”, it does not mean that because one of its meanings is the agent, and the one in charge, of the affair and the foremost of the people then this means the rule and authority because the word “waliy al-amr” means the rule and authority due to the same conjugation. The “mawla” differs in meaning from “waliy al-amr” just like the agent and one in charge of the affair differs in meaning from “waliy al-amr.” “Waliy al-amr” is specific for the ruler, whereas “mawla” has many meanings none of which is the ruler. The agent in the affairs means the one in charge in every affair and not the ruler specifically and the ruler is not understood from it because the language did not place this meaning for it. The matter is one of acceptance according to what the Arabs placed for the word, not what someone may understand from a collection of words or various indications. Therefore, as long as the Arabs did not place the use of the word “mawla” to mean rule and authority then it can never be interpreted as such. This is first, as for the second it is the contextual connotation in general, however they, cannot give a word a meaning other than what the Arabs place for it in their explicit speech. Connotations specify one of the meanings of a collective word or contrastive to the word, and divert it from another, but it does not create a new meaning for this word which the Arabs did not place for it. The word “mawla” came in the hadith called the hadith of two weighty matters or the hadith of Khum, and there came connotations in the sentence(s) indicating encouragement to Muslims to trust based upon their trust of the Messenger (saw), does not give it a new meaning that Ali (ra) becomes the ruler after the Messenger (saw), as long as the language did not place for it this meaning. From this it becomes clear that the hadith of Khum and others which came with the words “mawla” and “waliy” cannot lead to the deduction that Ali (ra) is the Khalifah due to the Arabs not explicitly placing this meaning for this word.

As for the fourth text which is the hadith of brotherhood, its mere reading when one views that its sentence and words will not lead it be used as evidence. The texts which came upon this are:

3. The word “revealed” in His saying: “what was revealed to you” is a past participle verb built upon an ambigous (f’il madhi mubni li al-majhul) which means that what is intended from him is to convey all that has already been revealed to him from his Lord i.e. what came to him from the revelation and revealed to the Messenger (saw); so Allah (swt) commands the Messenger (saw) to convey to the people what has previously been revealed to him. So the meaning becomes to convey something revealed before the ayah’s revelation not to convey a specific matter which came with the ayah’s revelation such that the ayah was revealed because of it and he was commanded to convey it so the Messenger translated it to mean the testament and appointment. Therefore it is not possible to make the hadith an explanation for the ayah as the hadith which became the cause of the ayah’s revelation says that the ayah was revealed upon the incident mentioned by the hadith, so it was revealed upon something at the time of its happening. Whereas the ayah is explicit that it is the conveyance of something that occurred before the ayah was revealed. Therefore the hadith is not suitable to be the cause of the revelation.

4. The word “what (ma)” in His saying: “what was revealed to you” is a relative pronoun (ism mawsul) noun or intended indefinite noun (nakira maqsuda) which makes it suitable that what was revealed to him is one matter and one rule or many matters and many rules i.e. its meaning could be to convey the rule revealed to you or deliver everything which We (swt) revealed to you from the various matters and rules. That which would specify either of these two meanings is the contextual connotation and the mere reading of the ayah, let alone its scrutiny, clarifies that His saying: “Then you have not revealed His message” designates by His statement “His message” that the meaning of “what” is all what was revealed to you which is the message of Allah (swt). This decisively negates that the meaning of “what” is one rule revealed to you; moreover, the word “His message” has clarified the meaning of “what was revealed to you” to be the message of Allah.

5. Verily His (swt) statement at the end of the ayah:

This negates the conveyance which means that he has not delivered the message not that he has not conveyed a specific rule, in particular the conveyance of one rule is considered the conveyance of the message. The Messenger (saw) from the first day onwards conveyed the rules according to their revelation such that the conveyance of each rule was considered the conveyance. Thus it is impossible for the meaning to be not conveying one specific rule; rather the sentence’s meaning is that he has not conveyed the message. Since it is impossible for him to not convey the message, and it has been proven that before the ayah he was (already) conveying, the meaning of the ayah’s revelation becomes that there are people to whom the message has not been conveyed such that the absence of conveyance to them is considered absence of conveyance to the world. And the message’s conveyance is not considered conveyance except if it is conveyance to the world. Due to this Allah (swt) commanded him to convey the message to the people whom it has not reached i.e. convey it to the world until it is considered conveyance and that this conveyance be by the method of jihad. This meaning is strengthened (by the fact) that the ayah was revealed to the Messenger (saw) after the Treaty of Hudaybiyya. Quraysh used to be the chief enemy whom the Messenger (saw) fought with in spreading the da’wa until that time, so the treaty with them would perhaps lead one to understand the stopping of conveyance via jihad. So Allah commanded him to continue the conveyance via the method of jihad to the rest of the people whom he has not conveyed to among the Arabs, Romans, Persians, Copts and others such that his conveyance becomes conveyance of the message to the world so that the conveyance of this message is considered universal. This is what occurred in practice. After the revelation of this ayah the Messenger (saw) fought the Jews at Khayber, prepared the battle of Mu’tah, went with a large army to Tabuk and remained there, conquered Makkah, and wrote to the kings of Persia, the Copts, Rome and other kings which clarified from him the meaning of the revelation of His statement:

This is an address to the family of Abd al-Muttalib since the words started with his saying “O Banu Abd al-Muttalib.” So it is specific to them as he made him a Khalifah over them i.e. over the family of Abd al-Muttalib not the Khalifah of the Muslims since he said, “and my Khalifah over you.” Thus he is not the Khalifah for the Muslims as is depicted by the explicit text. Nor can one say here that the lesson is by the generality of the text not the specificity of the cause since this is a specific incident not a cause (sabab) not mentioning that the words are also specific and not general: “O Banu Abd al-Muttalib”, “my Khalifah among you” so the specification is demanded due to this being a specific incident not a cause, and also due to the absence of general words.

Just one of these four matters suffices to reveal the falsehood of this hadith and its contradiction, and it is obligatory to reject its narration (dirayah). Therefore it is clarified that the Messenger (saw) did not explicitly state making Ali (ra) the Khalifah after him. From all this it becomes clear that the ahadith narrated by those who argue that the Messenger (saw) designated a person for the Khilafah after him are rejected ahadith unsuitable to depend upon as evidence so they fall. There remains no evidence that the Messenger (saw) designated anyone to be in charge of the Khilafah after him; rather the evidence has been established contrary to that i.e. that the Messenger (saw) left the matter to the Muslims to choose whom they want in relation to the person but he specified for them the method for appointing the Khalifah.

As for the error in the views that the Messenger (saw) designated the persons who would be Khulafaa after him, it is clear from the absence of evidence of the ahadith which they claim designated Ali (ra) for it. Those who say that the Khilafah is for them only say this because they are the descendants of Ali (ra), so if their evidence does not apply in respect to Ali (ra) it also naturally does not apply in respect to his descendants due to the proof not applying in respect to him. Moreover, the ahadith which they narrate in its consideration as evidence for the Khilafah of the descendants of Ali (ra) by a clear text from Allah and His Messenger (saw) are the ahadith related to the family of the house which all indicate praise and no more than that. The hadith of the two weighty matters i.e. the hadith of Ghadeer Khum is considered a model for them, and its failing in argument has been demonstrated clearly so the rest of the ahadith follow it.