Xalifaning holatini o'zgartiradigan va shu sababli uni xalifalikdan chetlashtiradigan masalalar uchtadir:

The issues which alter the state of the Khalifah and ,therefore, remove him from the Khilafah are three:

a. Agar Davlat rahbarligi shartnomasining shartlaridan biri buzilsa, masalan, u dinidan qaytsa, yoki ochiq gunohga yo'l qo'ysa, yoki aqldan ozsa, yoki shunga o'xshash biror narsa yuz bersa. Chunki bular shartnomaning shartlaridan va davom etishning shartlaridandir.

a. If one of the contracting conditionsof the leadership of the State becomes deficient, such as if he apostatises, or commits flagrant sin, or becomes mad, or anything similar. This is because these are from the conditions of contracting, and the conditions of continuation.

b. Xalifalik vazifalarini bajarishga qodir emasligi, qanday sabab bilan bo‘lishidan qat’i nazar.

b. The incapability to execute the duties of the Khilafah, for any reason whatsoever.

c. Majburlash ostida bo‘lish, bu uni musulmonlar manfaatlari yo‘lida o‘z ijtihodiga ko‘ra, Shariat doirasida mustaqil ravishda harakat qilishdan mahrum etadi. Shunday ekan, agar biror zo‘ravon kuch uni shu darajada bo‘ysundirsaki, u faqat o‘z ijtihodi bilan, Shariat qoidalariga muvofiq, raiyat ishlarini boshqara olmay qolsa, u Davlat vazifalarini bajarishga huquqan yaroqsiz deb hisoblanadi va shu holda Xilofatdan chetlatiladi. Bu ikki holatda yuzaga kelishi mumkin:

c. Coercion over him which makes him unable to independently act in the interests of the Muslims according to his opinion in agreement with the Shari’ah. So if an overpowering force could subdue him to the point that he became unable to govern the affairs of the subjects by his opinion alone according to the Shari’ah rules, he is considered legally incapable of executing the duties of the State, in which case he would be removed from the Khilafah. This could occur in two situations:

Birinchi holat: Uning maslahatchilaridan bir kishi yoki bir guruh kishilarning unga shunchalik ta'siri o'tadiki, ular ishlarni boshqarishni to'liq o'z qo'llariga ola boshlaydilar. Agar uni ularning ta'siridan xalos etish mumkin deb hisoblansa, u belgilangan muddat davomida ogohlantiriladi; agar u ularning ta'sirini yo'qotmasa, u lavozimidan chetlatiladi. Agar uni xalos etish mumkin emas deb hisoblansa, u darhol chetlatiladi.

The first situation: For an individual or group of individuals from his advisors to hold sway over him to the point they began to take full control of running the affairs. If it was believed that he could be liberated from their influence, he is admonished for a specific time, and if he does not remove their influence, then he is removed. And if it was not believed that he could be liberated, he is removed immediately.

Ikkinchi holat: U kuchliroq dushman qo'lida asir bo'lib qolishi, bu haqiqiy ma'noda yoki dushmanning ta'siriga bo'ysunishi orqali bo'lishi mumkin. Bu holat baholanadi: agar uning ozod etilishi umid qilinsa, u holda hech qanday umid qolmaguncha kechiktiriladi; agar uning ozod etilishida umid bo'lmasa, u holda darhol chetlatiladi.

The second situation: For him to become a prisoner in the hands of an overpowering enemy, either literally or by his submission to the influence of the enemy. This situation is evaluated – if it was hoped he could be liberated, then there is a delay until no such hope remains, and if there were no hope in his liberation, then he is removed; if there was no hope in his liberation, then he is removed immediately.

Bunga dalil – xalifaning shartlari haqida rivoyat qilingan matnlar bo‘lib, bu matnlar ushbu shartlar faqat lavozimni egallash uchun emas, balki lavozimda davom etish uchun ham shartlar ekanini ko‘rsatadi. Payg‘ambar ﷺ shunday deganlarida...

The proof for this is the texts that have been related in regards to the conditions of the Khalifah, since these texts indicate that these conditions are conditions for continuation and not simply conditions for taking the position alone. When the Messenger (pbuh) said.

. » لَنْ ي فُْلِحَ قَ وْمٌ وَلَّوْا أَمْرَهُمُ امْرَأَة «.

. » لَنْ ي فُْلِحَ قَ وْمٌ وَلَّوْا أَمْرَهُمُ امْرَأَة «.

“Hech qachon ayol kishini o‘z rahbari qilgan qavm muvaffaqiyatga erishmaydi” (Al-Bukhari Abu Bakradan rivoyat qilgan). Uning so‘zlari hukmni ham o‘z ichiga oladi: shaxs rahbar bo‘lib turgan ekan, u ayol bo‘lishi mumkin emas. Shunday ekan, hukmron bo‘lgan erkak biror sabab bilan ayolga aylanib qolsa, u bu shartni yo‘qotgan bo‘ladi va uni zudlik bilan lavozimdan chetlatish vojib bo‘ladi. Xuddi shunday, Alloh (SWT) aytgan: “Ey iymon keltirganlar! Allohga itoat qilinglar, Rasulga (ﷺ) va sizlardan bo‘lgan hokimlarga itoat qilinglar” (TMQ 4:59). Uning (SWT) “sizlardan” degan so‘zi “hokimlar” so‘zi yonida kelganida, hokimlik lavozimidagi shaxs to‘liq shu lavozimda turgan ekan, Islomga e’tiqod qiluvchi bo‘lishi kerakligini aniq bildiradi. Demak, agar hokimlik lavozimidagi shaxs bizdan bo‘lmagan, boshqacha aytganda kofir bo‘lib qolsa, Qur’on hokimlik lavozimidagi shaxs uchun belgilagan bu xususiyat, ya’ni musulmon bo‘lish sharti yo‘qoladi va u bu lavozimdan chetlatiladi, chunki u biz orasidan, ya’ni musulmon bo‘lmagan holda hokim bo‘lishi to‘g‘ri emas. Xalifa shartlari to‘g‘risida rivoyat qilingan barcha matnlarga ham xuddi shu narsa taalluqlidir. Ular tavsiflangan shaxs uchun zarur bo‘lgan doimiy xususiyatlarni o‘z ichiga olgan keng qamrovli matnlar bo‘lib, bu ularning faqat lavozimni egallash uchun emas, balki davom etish sharti ekanligini ko‘rsatadi. Shunga asoslanib, Xilofatni tuzish shartlari uni chetlatish shartlari hamdir, chunki ularning mavjudligi Xilofatni tuzishning sharti, matnning umumiyligi tufayli esa uning davom etishining sharti hamdir; ularning yo‘qolishi esa uning davom etishining yo‘qolishini anglatadi, shu sababli shaxsning o‘z lavozimida qolishi man etiladi. Bu maqolaning “a” bandi uchun dalildir.

“Never will succeed such a nation that makes a woman their leader” (reported by Al-Bukhari from Abu Bakrah), his words included the ruling, so as long as the person is a leader, he could not be a woman; so if a man who was a ruler became a woman, due to any reason, then he would have lost this condition and it would be obligatory to remove him immediately. In the same manner, when Allah (swt) said. “O you who have believed, obey Allah and obey the Messenger (pbuh) and those in authority among you.” (TMQ 4:59), His (swt) words “Among you” next to “those in authority” clearly means that the person of authority must be an adherent of Islam as long as he is a person of authority. So if the person of authority became someone not from amongst us, in other words, became a disbeliever, then this characteristic which the Quran stipulated for the person of authority would be lost - the loss of the condition of being Muslim - at which point he becomes removed from this position of authority since it is not correct for him to be a person of authority while he is not from amongst us, in other words, not a Muslim. And the same applies to all the texts which have been related in regards to the conditions of the Khalifah; they are comprehensive texts which encompass the perpetual characteristics that are necessary for the one described, which indicates that they are conditions of continuation and not simply conditions for taking the position alone. Based upon that, the conditions for the contracting of the Khilafah are also the conditions for removing him, since their presence is a condition for the contracting of the Khilafah, and a condition for its continuation due to the generality of the text, and their loss means the loss of its continuation, and so it is prohibited for the person to remain in their position. This is the proof for paragraph “a” of the article.

"b" bandining dalili shundan iboratki, Xalifalik shartnomasi o‘z vazifalarini bajarishga qaratilgan. Shuning uchun agar u shartnoma qilingan vazifani bajarishga qodir bo‘lmay qolsa, uni lavozimdan chetlatish vojib bo‘ladi, chunki u haqiqatda yo‘q kishi holatiga tushib qoladi. Bundan tashqari, Xalifa sifatida topshirilgan ishlarni bajara olmasligi sababli, dinning masalalari va musulmonlarning manfaatlari to‘xtab qoladi. Bu esa bartaraf etilishi lozim bo‘lgan yomonlikdir, uni esa faqat uning o‘rniga boshqasi qo‘yilishi orqali chetlatishdan boshqa yo‘l bilan bartaraf etib bo‘lmaydi. Bunday holatda uni chetlatish majburiy bo‘ladi. Shuni bilish kerakki, bu biror aniq sababga bog‘liq emas. Balki uning amallarini bajarishda ojizlikka olib keladigan har qanday narsa uni chetlatishni taqozo qiladi. Agar u ojizlikka olib kelmasa, uni chetlatilmaydi. Shu sababli, tanasining a’zolarini yo‘qotishi chetlatishni taqozo qiladimi yoki yo‘qmi, deb aytib bo‘lmaydi. Xuddi shunday, u biror aniq kasallikka chalinsa, bu chetlatishni taqozo qiladimi yoki yo‘qmi, deb ham aytib bo‘lmaydi. Chunki bu borada hech qanday nass yo‘q. Aksincha, shariat hukmi shuki, o‘ziga topshirilgan amallarni bajarishga ojiz bo‘lgan kishini chetlatish talab etiladi, ojizlikning sababi qanday bo‘lishidan qat’i nazar. Bu hukm faqat Xalifaga xos emas, balki umumiydir va biror ishga topshirilgan har bir kishiga tegishlidir, u hokim sifatida tayinlangan bo‘lsin, masalan, viloyat hokimi, yoki xizmatchi sifatida tayinlangan bo‘lsin, masalan, bo‘lim boshlig‘i. Uning ojizligi uni chetlatishni taqozo qiladi.

As for paragraph “b”, its evidence is that the contract of the Khilafah is over the execution of its duties; so if he becomes incapable to execute what he was contracted upon, it becomes obligatory to remove him since he has become like one who in reality is not there. Additionally, due to his inability to execute the actions which are commissioned to him as Khalifah, the issues of the Deen and the interests of the Muslims would be suspended, and this is an evil that must be removed, and it cannot be removed except by his removal so as to be replaced by someone else. His removal in this situation would become mandatory. It should be known that this is not linked to a specific reason; rather anything which afflicted him leading to his incapacity in executing his actions necessitates his removal. If it does not make him incapable, then he is not removed, and for this reason it cannot be said that losing limbs from his body necessitates removal or not, in the same way, it cannot be said that if he is afflicted by a specific illness, it necessitates his removal or not. This is since there is no text regarding this at all; rather the Shari’ah rule is that the one incapable of executing the actions which they have been commissioned for necessitates his removal, whatever the reason for this incapacity. This is not specific for the Khalifah, rather it is general and applies to everyone who is commissioned to an action, irrespective of whether he was appointed as a ruler such as a governor or as an employee such as a department manager; his incapacity necessitates his removal.

"c" bandi uchun dalil "b" bandi uchun dalil bilan bir xil. Sababi shuki, Xalifa sifatida unga yuklatilgan amallarni bajara olmaslik ikki turga bo'linadi: haqiqiy (hissiy) ojizlik va huquqiy ojizlik. Haqiqiy ojizlik – u jismonan ojiz bo'lganda, ya'ni amallarni bajarish uchun jismoniy qobiliyatini yo'qotganda, va bu "b" bandida muhokama qilingan. Huquqiy ojizlik esa – u amallarni bajarishga jismonan qodir bo'lsa-da, amallarni o'z ixtiyori bilan erkin bajara olmasligida. Bunda haqiqiy ojizlik qoidasi unga nisbatan qo'llanadi, chunki u o'zi tomonidan yuklatilgan amallarni bajarishga qodir emas, sababi ishlarni o'zi erkin boshqarish qobiliyatidan mahrum. Shu sababli u xuddi g'oyib bo'lgan kishiga o'xshab qoladi va shuning uchun uni chetlatish zarur bo'ladi. Bu ikki holatni o'z ichiga oladi: birinchisi – qamalib qolish, ikkinchisi – zo'ravonlik bilan ustun kelinishi.

The proof for paragraph “c” is the same as the proof for paragraph “b”. That is because the incapacity to execute the actions that have been commissioned to him as the Khalifah is of two types: literal incapacity and legal incapacity. Literal incapacity is when he is physically incapable, in other words, the loss of the physical capability to execute the actions, and this is what was discussed in paragraph “b”. Legal incapacity is when he is physically able to execute the actions, but he is incapable of freely acting to undertake the actions, and so the rule of literal incapacity would apply to him, since he is unable to undertake the execution of the actions which have been commissioned to him by himself, due to his incapability of freely acting in the affairs by himself, and so he becomes like the one who is absent; for this reason, it is necessary to remove him. This has two situations: the first is being confined, and the second is being overpowered.

Ушбу мажбурий чеклаш ҳолатига келсак, бу — халифанинг ёрдамчиларидан бири унинг устидан ҳокимиятни қўлга олиб, ишларни тўлиқ назорат қилиши ва уни уларни бажаришдан тўсиши ҳолатидир. Хилофат лавозимини бошқарувчи ҳам айнан ўша шахс бўлади. Шу сабабли бундай вазиятдаги халифа эркин гапира олмайдиган ва мажбурланган шахс сингари ҳисобланади. Хилофат шартномаси фақат халифанинг шахсига боғлиқ бўлгани ва унинг ўзи бу ишларни бевосита бажариши вожиб бўлгани учун, унинг устидан бундай чеклов ёки ёрдамчиларининг тўлиқ назорати унинг ўзига юклатилган вазифаларни бажариш қобилиятини йўқотганини англатади. Демак, у худди йўқ бўлган шахс каби бўлиб қолади ва уни лавозимидан четлатиш лозим бўлади. Бироқ бу ҳолат алоҳида баҳоланади: агар халифа устидан ҳокимиятни қўлга олган шахснинг таъсирини бартараф этиш ва чекловни бузиш мумкин, деган умид бўлса, унинг четлатилиши кечиктирилади; агар чеклов бартараф этилмаса, у лавозимидан четлатилади.

As for the situation of confinement, it is when someone from his assistants takes control over him, and takes full control of implementing the issues while preventing him from dealing with them, and the one in control is the one who deals with the position of the Khilafah, and so the Khalifah in this situation is considered to be like the one who is confined and is prevented from freely speaking. Since the contract of the Khilafah only proceeds upon the person of the Khalifah, and ,therefore, it is obligatory to attend to the Khilafah himself, this confinement over him or the full control of his assistants means that he has lost the ability to execute the actions that have been commissioned to him; accordingly, he has become like the one who is absent and must be removed. However, this situation will be evaluated; if there was some hope that the influence of the one who took control over the Khalifah could be removed and that his confinement could be broken, then his removal is delayed; if the confinement is not broken, then he is removed.

Hukmdorning dushman qo'lida asir bo'lib qolishi, ya'ni bosib olingan holatga kelishi va o'zini ularning qo'lidan qutqara olmasligi haqida gap ketganda, u musulmonlarning ishlarini boshqarishga qodir emasligi sababli, unga berilgan imomat shartnomasi bekor bo'ladi. Bu holat dushman kofirlardan bo'lsinmi yoki isyonkor musulmonlardan bo'lsinmi, farqi yo'q. Bunday vaziyatda butun ummat zimmasiga uni jihod qilish yoki fidya to'lash yo'li bilan qutqarish vojib bo'ladi. Agar bunga umid bo'lmasa, va u kofirlar qo'lida asir bo'lsa, darhol lavozimidan chetlatiladi. Agar u isyonkorlar qo'lida asir bo'lsa, vaziyat o'rganiladi: agar ularning o'zlarida imom bo'lsa va xalifani qaytarib olishdan umidlarini uzsalar, o'sha paytning o'zidayoq lavozimidan chetlatiladi; agar ularda imom bo'lmasa, u qamoqda bo'lgan holatda deb hisoblanadi, ya'ni ma'lum muddat kutiladi, agar uning qamoqdan ozod bo'lish imkoni bo'lmasa, lavozimidan chetlatiladi.

As for the situation of being overpowered, such as when he becomes a prisoner in the hand of the overpowering enemy and is unable to liberate himself from them, then he is prevented from the contract of the leadership given to him due to his incapability of looking into the affairs of the Muslims. This is the case whether the enemy was from amongst the disbelievers or rebellious Muslims. In this situation, it is obligatory upon all the Ummah to save him either through fighting or paying a ransom, and if there was no hope of this happening, then if he was a prisoner in the hands of the disbelievers, he would be removed immediately. If, however, he was a prisoner of the rebels, the situation would be evaluated; if they had an Imam, and they lost hope in recovering the Khalifah, then he would be removed at the time, and if they did not have an Imam, then he would be considered as the one who is in the situation of confinement, in other words, they would delay for a period, and if his imprisonment was not ended, he would be removed.

Bu dalillar uchta paragrafning hammasi uchun va umuman olganda, xalifalikning shartlari uchun dalildir. Shuningdek, unga topshirilgan vazifani bajara olish ham shartdir. Demak, unga topshirilgan vazifani bajarishga qodir emasligi bu shartning yo'qolishiga olib keladi. Shuni e'tiborga olish kerakki, ushbu shartlarning ba'zilarining yo'qolishi uni xalifalikdan chetlashtiradi, ya'ni shartnomani darhol bekor qiladi, ba'zilarining yo'qolishi esa uni xalifalikdan chetlashtirmaydi, lekin uni chetlatishni talab qiladi. Islomdan murtad bo'lish, butunlay aqldan ozish va kofirlar qo'lida uni ozod qilish umidisiz jismoniy asir bo'lish uchta holat bo'lib, ular uni xalifalikdan chetlashtiradi va uning chetlatilishi haqida hukm chiqarilmagan bo'lsa ham, u darhol o'z-o'zini lavozimdan ozod qiladi. Demak, unga itoat qilish vojib emas, uning buyruqlari amalga oshirilmaydi va u bilan tuzilgan xalifalik shartnomasi bekor qilinadi.

These are the proofs for the three paragraphs and in totality, they are the proofs for the conditions of the Khilafah. So, in the same manner, the ability to carry out what has been commissioned to him is a condition. Thus, his incapacity to carry out what he has been commissioned to do entails the loss of this condition. However, it should be noticed that the loss of some of these conditions remove him from the Khilafah, in other words, annul the contract instantly, and the loss of some of them does not remove him from the Khilafah but would mandate his removal. The three situations of apostasy from Islam, being completely mad and becoming a physical prisoner in the hands of the disbelievers with no hope of releasing him, remove him from the Khilafah and he has deposed himself immediately even if his removal was not ruled upon. Therefore, it would mean that it is not obligatory to obey him, and his orders are not implemented and the contract of the Khilafah with him is annulled.

Agar uning adolatli xulqi aniq gunoh ko'rinishi bilan buzilsa, yoki jinsini ayolga yoki jinsi aniq bo'lmagan kishiga o'zgartirsa, yoki vaqtinchalik aqldan ozish bilan og'risa, yoki xalifalikni amalga oshirishga haqiqatan ham qodir bo'lmay qolsa, yoki maslahatchilaridan biror shaxs yoki guruh ta'siriga tushib, ishlarni to'liq o'z qo'liga olganlari tufayli cheklangan bo'lsa, yoki ozodlikka umid bilan jismonan asir bo'lib qolsa, yoki uni nazorat qilayotgan kofirlarning ta'siriga tushsa — bu yettita holatda uni lavozimidan chetlatish vojibdir. Biroq uni faqat qozining hukmi bilan chetlatish mumkin. Bu yettala holatning barchasida, to uni chetlatish buyrug'i chiqarilguncha, unga itoat qilish va uning amrlarini bajarish vojibdir, chunki bu holatlardan birortasi xalifalik shartnomasining o'z-o'zidan bekor bo'lishiga olib kelmaydi, balki qozining hukmiga suyanadi. Yo'qolganda uning xalifalikdan chetlatilishiga olib keladigan shartlar bilan, yo'qolishi uni xalifalikdan chetlatmasa-da, chetlatilishga loyiq qilib qo'yadigan shartlar o'rtasidagi farq shundaki: yo'qolishi shartnomani boshidanoq va mohiyatan haqsiz qiladigan shartlar shartnomaga qaytadi yoki uning rukunlaridan biri hisoblanadi. Bunday holda, agar ular xalifalik shartnomasi tuzilgan paytda mavjud bo'lmasa, shartnoma haqsiz bo'lib, tuzilmagan hisoblanadi. Agar ular xalifalik davrida paydo bo'lsa, shartnoma haqsiz bo'lib, bekor qilinadi. Bunga islom, aql-idrokning sog'ligi va amallarni mustaqil ravishda bajara olish qobiliyati kabi shartlar misol bo'la oladi. Shartlar haqida aytadigan bo'lsak, ularning yo'qolishi shartnomani botil qilmaydi, balki uning asosi qonuniy bo'lib qoladi, lekin u shartnomani uning xususiyatlari jihatidan botil qiladi, chunki bu nuqson shartnomaning o'zi yoki uning ruknlaridan biriga emas, balki unga biriktirilgan xususiyatga qaytadi. Bunday holatda shartnoma botil bo'lmaydi, balki nomukammal bo'ladi. Shunday ekan, agar bu shartlarning barchasi xalifalikka shartnoma tuzilgan paytda mavjud bo'lmasa, xalifalik tuziladi, lekin u nomukammal bo'ladi va uni bekor qilish qozining hukmiga bog'liq bo'ladi. Xuddi shunday, agar bu shartlar xalifalik davrida yuzaga kelsa, shartnoma nomukammal bo'ladi, lekin o'z-o'zidan bekor bo'lmaydi. Balki uni bekor qilish qozining hukmiga bog'liq bo'ladi. Bunga misol qilib erkak bo'lish, adolatli bo'lish va shunga o'xshash shartlarni keltirish mumkin. Ushbu izohdan ma'lum bo'ladiki, xalifaning holatidagi o'zgarish uni xalifalikdan chetlashtiradigan o'zgarish bilan, uni xalifalikdan chetlashtirmaydigan, lekin uni chetlatilishga loyiq qiladigan holatdagi o'zgarish o'rtasidagi farq aniqlanadi.

As for if his just character is damaged by the appearance of clear sin, or changing his sex to female or someone whose gender is not clear, or if he became afflicted by temporary madness, or he became literally incapable of carrying out the Khilafah, or he is confined through being influenced by an individual or group from his advisors who take full control of executing the affairs, or he becomes a physical prisoner with the hope of being able to be liberated, or he falls under the influence of the disbelievers who control him; in these seven circumstances, it is obligatory for him to be removed, however, he is not removed except by a judge’s verdict. In all of these seven circumstances, it is obligatory to obey him and execute his orders until the order to remove him is issued; this is because none of these situations results in the automatic annulment of the contract of the Khilafah but rather relies upon the verdict of a judge. The difference between the conditions which if lost result in his removal from the Khilafah and those conditions whose loss does not remove him from the Khilafah but rather mean that he is deserving of being removed, is that those conditions whose loss makes the contract invalid from its origin and quality, in that they return to the contract or are one of its pillars, then the contract would be invalid in this case since if they were not present at the time of the contracting of the Khilafah, then the contract would be invalid and would not have been concluded. If they appear during the period of the Khilafah, the contract would be invalid, and would be void as well. This would occur with conditions such as the condition of Islam, sanity and the capability to carry out the actions individually. As for the conditions whose loss does not make the contract invalid, but rather its basis remains legitimate, but it makes it invalid from its properties, since it does not return to the contract itself, nor to one of its pillars, but rather to a property attached to it. In this case, the contract is not invalid but rather is imperfect. So if all these conditions were not present at the time of contracting the Khilafah, the Khilafah is contracted but it would be imperfect and its annulment would rely upon the verdict of a judge. In the same manner, if they appear during the period of the Khilafah, then the contract would become imperfect, but it would not void itself. Rather, its annulment would rely upon the verdict of a judge. Examples of this would be like the condition of being male, just and whatever is similar. It is from this explanation, that the difference between the changing of the condition of the Khalifah which removes him from the Khilafah, and the changing of condition which does not remove him from the Khilafah but rather makes him deserving of being removed has been arrived at.