Objection: Why was the term ‘Caliph’ used for all
the rulers after the Messenger of Allah (s.a.w.a.) till the recent
rulers of the Ottoman Empire, although they were neither appointed by
Allah nor by the Messenger of Allah (s.a.w.a.)? Moreover, their
governance did not carry the pure Islamic message nor did they have any
legal sanction from Allah. They were also labeled as oppressive tyrants,
whose reign had nothing to do with Islam and who had no qualms in
taking the servants of Allah as their slaves and usurping their wealth.
Answer: The term ‘Caliph of the Messenger of Allah (s.a.w.a.)’
was used in early Islam for the rulers immediately after him (s.a.w.a.)
by those who were close to them. Later, the domain of its usage
expanded and the above term was used for the oppressive kings as well,
fearing their tyranny and barbaric oppressions. After sometime, this
term was curtailed to a singular word i.e. ‘the Caliph’.
There is no doubt that this term and its application does not lead to
the change of words of the Holy Quran and the traditions, from what
appears from them at the time of usage nor do they change the words to
their new meanings. Also, the usage of this term was historically
erroneous because the Messenger of Allah (s.a.w.a.) never appointed Abu
Bakr as his caliph. As for Umar, Abu Bakr appointed him [1], so logically he should be called as the Caliph of Abu Bakr (and not the Messenger of Allah (s.a.w.a.)).
As for the status for the Messenger of Allah (s.a.w.a.) and his rule
over the affairs, then it was never due to the selection of the people
or his domination over the affair or the fear of his oppression. Nay! It
was only due to the choice of Allah, the High. Hence, using the terms,
‘emir’, ‘ruler’ and ‘king’ for those called as caliphs would be more
appropriate than being called as a ‘caliph’, leave alone the terms
‘Allah’s caliph’ or ‘the caliph of the Messenger of Allah (s.a.w.a.)’.
A right-thinking and sane person, not necessarily a follower of the
Ahle Bait (a.s.) can never permit, condone or overlook the usage of the
term ‘the caliph of the Messenger of Allah (s.a.w.a.)’ for the likes of
Usman, Moawiyah, Yazeed, Waleed, the tyrants of Bani Abbas and the
progeny of Usman, etc., who ruled over Syria, Iraq, Spain, etc.
Briefly, the epithet ‘Allah’s Caliph’ is a
lofty and elevated term. The same applies for the term ‘caliph’. It
cannot be used, and it is not correct to use it except for Allah’s
representative on the earth, whom He has chosen to establish justice, be
the highest role model for mankind, implement His laws, inhabit His
cities, spread goodness and preserve the laws of Shariah and signs of
truth.
Its usage is incorrect for any other person either due to disregard
or carelessness. For the clarification of the falsity of this claim,
when he was addressed as, ‘O caliph of Allah!’, Abu Bakr said, ‘No, I am
the caliph of Muhammad (s.a.w.a.)’ or ‘I am the caliph of Messenger of
Allah (s.a.w.a.).’[2]
Of course, his conferring the above titles on his own self has no
substance of truth in it because caliphate is representation of another,
and this representation cannot be complete without the appointment by
the represented one. Unanimity prevails concerning the fact that the
Messenger of Allah (s.a.w.a.) did not appoint Abu Bakr as his caliph,
nor did he (s.a.w.a.) make any will to him. None of Abu Bakr’s actions
like sitting in the place of the Prophet (s.a.w.a.), going on the pulpit
and praying in his (s.a.w.a.) prayer niche (mehraab), were on his behalf and under his (s.a.w.a.) representation.
The Sunnis are of the opinion that governance and the appointment of a
ruler is the duty of the Ummah (Islamic nation) and hence, it is
obligatory upon it to appoint him. Also, there was consensus in the
Ummah �” which actually never existed �” for the appointment of Abu Bakr, without force or fear. So, using the term ‘Caliph of the nation’
instead of ‘the caliph of the Messenger of Allah (s.a.w.a.)’ will be
more appropriate and correct. For, in their view, Abu Bakr was the
representative of the nation, whose collective responsibility was to
implement the laws and protect the system. Needless to mention, the
above idea has been formulated without devoting the slightest of
deliberations on the definition of ‘caliphate’ i.e. it’s representation
of the other.
(Abridged from the English translation of the book ‘Muntakhab
al-Asar’, vol. 1, (published by Naba Publications, Tehran, Islamic
Republic of Iran) by Ayatollah Lotfollah Saafi Golpaygani (may Allah
prolong his life))!
[1]
Even this appointment is debatable and not established because it is
said that when Usman became busy in writing the will of Abu Bakr, the
latter fainted. Usman thought that Abu Bakr had died and wrote the name
of Umar on his own. When Abu Bakr regained his senses, Usman informed
him of what he had done and Abu Bakr duly endorsed it.
What confounds the researcher is that Abu Bakr died during this very
illness and Umar was appointed as his successor on the basis of the
writing of Usman. But on this occasion, notwithstanding the serious
illness of Abu Bakr, Umar never protested that this man is not in his
senses! Nor did he prevent Abu Bakr from dictating his will like he had
prevented the Messenger of Allah (s.a.w.a.) from making known his will!
Surely, we are from Allah and unto Him shall we return!!
[2] Musnad of Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, vol. 1, p. 10
Categories:
English
0 comments:
Post a Comment
براہ مہربانی شائستہ زبان کا استعمال کریں۔ تقریبا ہر موضوع پر 'گمنام' لوگوں کے بہت سے تبصرے موجود ہیں. اس لئےتاریخ 20-3-2015 سے ہم گمنام کمینٹنگ کو بند کر رہے ہیں. اس تاریخ سے درست ای میل اکاؤنٹس کے ضریعے آپ تبصرہ کر سکتے ہیں.جن تبصروں میں لنکس ہونگے انہیں فوراً ہٹا دیا جائے گا. اس لئے آپنے تبصروں میں لنکس شامل نہ کریں.
Please use Polite Language.
As there are many comments from 'anonymous' people on every subject. So from 20-3-2015 we are disabling 'Anonymous Commenting' option. From this date only users with valid E-mail accounts can comment. All the comments with LINKs will be removed. So please don't add links to your comments.