18 The Islamic State Is A Human State And Not A Theocratic State.

18 The Islamic State Is A Human State And Not A Theocratic State. - The Islamic Personality | Quran Course

The distinction from the rest of humanity is that he is revealed to i.e. in the Prophethood. Apart from that he is a human like the rest of mankind. So he is in the rule a human like other people so whoever becomes Khalifah after him would doubtless be a human being like the rest of the people since he is his Khalifah in the rule not in Prophethood or the Message. Therefore infallibility is not a condition for it since it is not one of the matters which require infallibility which is only required for Prophethood. He is a ruler, nothing else, so there is no place for requiring infallibility for those who are in charge of it. In fact, it is not allowed to require infallibility for the one undertaking it as infallibility is restricted to Prophets and it is not allowed for other than Prophets as its existence for the Prophet and Messenger (saw) is required for conveyance. So it is infallibility in conveyance and its acquirement in never performing a haram naturally follows the infallibility in conveyance as the infallibility in the latter cannot be complete save with the infallibility from performing haram. The matter which requires it is the conveyance, The Islamic Personality Vol 2 95

not the people’s belief or non-belief or the error in actions or its absence; rather the matter requiring it is the conveyance of the message, nothing else. This is because were he not made infallible from Allah (swt), it would be possible for him to conceal the message, add to or reduce in it, lie against Allah (by saying) what He had not said or made a mistake and convey other than what he had been commanded to convey. All this is negated in a message from Allah (swt) and negated in his being a Messenger who must be believed. Therefore it is inevitable that the Messenger be characterised with infallibility in conveying the message, so the infallibility from committing haram naturally comes due to this. Due to this, the scholars differed in respect to the infallibility of Prophets from committing haram; some said he is infallible from committing the greater sins (kabair) only and the small sins (saghair) are acceptable from him, while some said he is infallible from committing both greater and smaller sins. They said this according to whether the actions are consequent upon the completion of the conveyance or not. If the fulfilment of the conveyance is consequent upon them, then the infallibility in conveyance covers them such that the Prophet becomes infallible from (committing) them as the conveyance is not completed save with his being infallible from them. Whereas if the completion in conveyance is not consequent upon them, then the infallibility does not cover them so he is not infallible from them as the conveyance is accomplished without it. Accordingly there is no difference among the Muslims that the Messenger (saw) is not infallible in committing actions which are contrary to what is better, as the conveyance of the message is not dependant upon them. Thus the infallibility is specific to conveyance and therefore it does not exist except for Prophets and Messengers nor is it possible in anyone other than them.

Tirmidhi narrated this hadith which is clear that the Imam can err, forget and sin. Despite that, the Messenger (saw) commanded to continue obeying him as long as he rules by Islam and clear disbelief has not occurred from him and he has not commanded with sin. After the news of the Messenger (saw) about the Khulafaa that there will be some which the Muslims will dislike yet he commanded obedience, is there after that any possibility of saying that the Khalifah must be infallible and that it is not permitted from him what is permitted from human beings? This is from the reality of the Khalifah in relation to the absence of the condition of infallibility, rather even the absence of permission to even make it a condition. However, those who said it is required that the Khalifah be infallible have presented evidences for their view, so we must examine and clarify what is within them. These evidences are summarised in four evidences:

1. The Imam stands in the position of the Messenger in preserving the Shari’ah , conveying and teaching it, supervising the citizens’ affairs, establishing justice among them, assisting the oppressed, establishing the mandatory Islamic punishments (hudood) and discretionary punishments (ta’zeer) and implementing Islam in the Shari’ah way. Therefore it is inevitable that he be infallible and pure from all evil, large or small, whether they occurred deliberately or through forgetfulness, from the beginning of his life to the end.

2. If sin is possible from the Imam, it will require an infallible Imam to prevent him from committing sins and erring. And if it is permitted for the second to err and perform sins, then it would require another infallible Imam to prevent this from him, and it would continue in this manner until the matter ends with an infallible Imam against whom it is not possible to commit sins or errors. Therefore there must be an infallible Imam.

3. The Imam is a divine post to protect the Shari’ah rule revealed with the objective to be followed and acted upon, not a rule of the people. Nor is the Shari’ah a law and constitution among the (normal) constitutions of government possible to be played with. So the Lord of the people whose matter is glorified would not entrust a ruler over the people except one who is infallible such that the people are at ease with him and the rules from him upon their truly being the rules of Allah (swt) without any doubt entering into it which would prevent acting upon or following them. This is not possible except with the infallibility of the ruler supervising the Shari’ah’s preservation as the fallible person due to the possibility of sin and error upon him cannot be depended upon nor can one be definite that what he leads the people to is the rule of Allah (swt) in that which is indefinite before the people. The objective is not his establishment to preserve some of the rules (while) not (preserving) other (rules), but rather all that came from the Prophet (saw) Thus there must be someone who knows all the rules and a protector for all of them to act according to them as long as there is a world; were there to be appointed one who knew (only) some of the rules, or upon whom sin and error is possible, his appointment would be contrary to the objective of responsibility i.e. obedience to and acting upon all that the Shari’ah came with which is known to remain until the Day of Judgement. Since contradiction of the objective is impossible from the All-Wise (swt), then appointing one who is fallible or knowing only some of the rules is impossible.

4. The texts came indicating the obligation that the Khalifah be infallible. There are Qur’anic ayat which came announcing this which is clear from three ayat.

a) Allah (swt) says:

This ayah is an evidence for the infallibility of those in authority i.e. infallibility of the Imam, because Allah (swt) commanded the obedience of those in authority in an unrestricted manner without specifying the obedience for a specific or period. This requires that the obeyed one is infallible as a fallible one can command with sin and error. If his obedience was obliged while this is (his) situation though it is forbidden, this obliges that the Lord whose matter is glorified has commanded to combine two opposites or contradictory matters which is impossible. The obeyed one must be infallible. Also, Allah (swt) linked obedience to those in authority with obedience to the Messenger (saw) whose obedience is linked to His (swt) obedience which requires exaltation. Those meant in authority here are the infallible Imams. These are the evidences of those who say that it is a condition that the Imam be infallible. The response to each one of this is summarised in the following:

Firstly: The Khalifah takes the place of the Messenger in rule by implementing the Shari’ah not conveying it from Allah (swt); he is his (saw) Khalifah in rule not in conveying from Allah (swt). This does not require from him that he be infallible as the office of rule does not require infallibility, whether rationally or by Shari’ah. True, there are some attributes required for the Khalifah which are: Islam, being a man, being free (not a slave), maturity (i.e. having attained puberty), sanity, uprightness and ability. Each one of these attributes has been required based upon evidence(s) the Shari’ah came with. However, requiring these conditions does not mean that the Khalifah is infallible from contradicting them; rather they mean that the one who is in charge of this post is obliged to have these attributes when he is appointed to it not that he is infallible from losing them. It is possible for him to lose them upon which either he deserves removal or he leaves the Khilafah (i.e. he no longer remains the Khalifah). Requiring these attributes from the Khalifah is like requiring justice from the witness in relation to his description with it in order to accept his testimony; this does not mean requiring him to be infallible from contradicting it. Therefore the Khalifah’s standing in the Prophet’s place in rule is not evidence that he must be infallible. As for conveying the Shari’ah by the Muslims, it is not conveying it from Allah (swt). Rather it is performing what Allah (swt) demanded from the Muslims to carry the da’wah to mankind, to teach them the thoughts of Islam and its laws and it cannot ever mean anything other than that. It is not conveyance from Allah (swt); rather it is one of the responsibilities which the Messenger (saw) came with and it is not like the conveyance of the Messenger (saw) from Allah (swt). Therefore it does not require infallibility; performing it is like performing the other Shari’ah responsibilities. It is not obliged upon the Khalifah in his capacity as Khalifah; rather it is obligatory upon every Muslim who knows the Shari’ah. The Khalifah is commanded to convey the Shari’ah in his capacity as a Muslim; this is in his capacity as a scholar if he is one, as conveying is obligatory upon the Muslim knowledgeable in the Shari’ah in what he knows. Infallibility is not obligatory upon the conveyors nor is it a condition for them. As for carrying the Islamic da’wah obliged upon the Khalifah in his capacity as Khalifah, this is obliged upon him in his capacity as a ruler in whose hands is the authority. It is obliged upon him to carry it via a specific method i.e. jihad, which does not require infallibility. Rather there is no place for requiring it.

Secondly: The Khalifah does not, when he sins require an Imam to prevent him from committing sins, rather he requires an Ummah that will account him and change it or him. The Messenger (saw) clarified that the Ummah will account him and requested it to reject (any munkar) from him; he made the one who is pleased with him and follows him upon his sin responsible before Allah. Muslim narrated: Both Abu Ghassan Al-Masma’iy and Muhammad bin Bishar from Mu’adh (with the words being from Abu Ghassan) who related to us (i.e. bin Hisham Al-Dastawai) that my father related to me from Qatadah that Al-Hassan related to us from Dhubbat bin Mahsin Al-‘Anziyy from Umm Salamah, wife of the Prophet (saw), from the Prophet (saw) who said:

The objective in establishing the Khalifah is not that he is appointed to protect all that the Prophet (saw) came with such that it is said that it is obligatory for him to know all the rules and be a protector for all of them. Rather the objective in establishing him is to establish the rules of the Book and Sunnah i.e. to implement Islam and carry its da’wah to the world which does not require from him to know all the rules and protect all of them. Therefore it is not required for him to be infallible so accordingly appointing him does not neccesarily mean contradicting the objective for which he was appointed. As for the people’s trust in him such that they take all rules from him as the rules of Allah (swt) in reality without any doubt which prevents acting upon and following them, this does not come from the Khalifah being infallible or fallible. Rather it comes from the evidence of the rule itself; if it is a Shari’ah evidence and has been deduced by a Shari’ah deduction, the people will trust that this rule is a Shari’ah rule and no doubt will enter into them in this situation preventing them from acting upon and following it without looking to who the Khalifah is, even if he himself differs from the rule they deduced. This is because a difference of opinion in deduction does not make a rule legitimate before a mujtahid and illegitimate before another. Rather it is a Shari’ah rule before all Muslims as long as there is (even) obscure evidence (shubha daleel) from the Shari’ah evidence before the deducer of the rule and it is possible according to the linguistic and Shari’ah knowledge's that one can deduce this type of deduction. As for his being fallible due to the possibility of sin and error upon him leading to lack of trust in him, and that one is not definite that what he leads to is the law of Allah (swt), the issue here is one of the rule and the ruler i.e. the rule he rules by and arrives at and the ruler who rules and arrives at. The trust sought is not whether the ruler arrives at Allah’s (swt) law or whether he rules by it or not. The consideration is only in the rule which he rules by and adopts in relation to it being an Islamic law or not. It is not in relation to the person who gives it as to whether he is infallible or not. That which makes the people implicitly trust the rule so as to prevent doubt entering into it which would prevent them from acting upon or following it is their consideration of the rule itself as to whether it is legitimate or not. It does not depend on whether the Khalifah from whom they take the rule is infallible or not.

Moreover as for the post of the Khalifah, the Lord of the Worlds does not appoint a Khalifah for His Messenger nor does the Messenger appoint a Khalifah for himself. Rather, the Muslims appoint a Khalifah over themselves whom they pledge upon the Book of Allah and the Sunnah of His Messenger (saw). The evidence for this is the ahadith of the pledge, and their coming in general texts and their ascription to an unrestricted Imam not a specific one. Similarly the evidence for that are the general responsibilities upon the Khalifah in his relation with the Ummah. Therefore the post of Khalifah does not require infallibility in any way whatsoever.

Fourthly: As for the texts which came as evidence for the requirement of infallibility, there does not exist in them even one text which is related to infallibility. As for the first evidence which is the ayah: