For Educational purpose only and to raise Intellectual and Political awareness!
The Scholars have differed regarding the criterion of the ahlul-Hali
wal-‘Aqd and the views regarding the ahlul-Hal wa al-‘Aqd conflict,
however we will limit them to four views, thereafter we would clarify
which is the preponderant opinion among them:
1. The Consensus of the ahlul-Hali wa al-‘Aqd
2. A specific number of them, with difference on the number among them
3. The majority of the ahlul-Hali wa al-‘Aqd
4. The people of strength and power
The first view: The Khilāfah is not valid except with the consensus of the ahlul-Hali wal-‘Aqd.
This view is invalid by Ijmā’ (consensus) for three reasons:
As for Ijmā’, al-‘Allāmah ash-Shawkānī has said: “And it is not from the conditions of the validity of al-Imāmah that everyone who is suitable to give the Bay’ah to give it… For this is rejected by theconsensus of the Muslimīn – the first among them and their last, their predecessors and the ones to come.” [as-Sail al-Jarrār (p941)]
As for the reasons, they are three reasons:
١. Because it is a burden that cannot be borne
٢. Because it necessitates losing the purpose of the Khilāfah for which the Bay’ah is a route to. Stipulating Ijmā’ (consensus) leads to something forbidden which is “not establishing the purpose of al-Imāmah”. So this view is a route to what is forbidden. Imām Ibn Juzay (rahimahullāh) said: “The path to what is forbidden is forbidden.” [Taqrīb al-Wusūl f Ilm al-Usūl (p174-175)]
٣. Because no text has reached us that implies it.
Imām Ibn Hazm has clarified these reasons and said: “As for those who said: Indeed, al-Imāmah is not valid except with the pledge of the virtuous of the Ummah in all parts of the lands, this is falsehood. Because it is a burden that cannot be borne and something that is not in the capability – and how great it is as a hardship! And Allāh, the Most High, does not burden a soul except to its capability. And He, the Most High says:
"He has not placed upon you in the Deen any hardship."
1. The Consensus of the ahlul-Hali wa al-‘Aqd
2. A specific number of them, with difference on the number among them
3. The majority of the ahlul-Hali wa al-‘Aqd
4. The people of strength and power
The first view: The Khilāfah is not valid except with the consensus of the ahlul-Hali wal-‘Aqd.
This view is invalid by Ijmā’ (consensus) for three reasons:
As for Ijmā’, al-‘Allāmah ash-Shawkānī has said: “And it is not from the conditions of the validity of al-Imāmah that everyone who is suitable to give the Bay’ah to give it… For this is rejected by theconsensus of the Muslimīn – the first among them and their last, their predecessors and the ones to come.” [as-Sail al-Jarrār (p941)]
As for the reasons, they are three reasons:
١. Because it is a burden that cannot be borne
٢. Because it necessitates losing the purpose of the Khilāfah for which the Bay’ah is a route to. Stipulating Ijmā’ (consensus) leads to something forbidden which is “not establishing the purpose of al-Imāmah”. So this view is a route to what is forbidden. Imām Ibn Juzay (rahimahullāh) said: “The path to what is forbidden is forbidden.” [Taqrīb al-Wusūl f Ilm al-Usūl (p174-175)]
٣. Because no text has reached us that implies it.
Imām Ibn Hazm has clarified these reasons and said: “As for those who said: Indeed, al-Imāmah is not valid except with the pledge of the virtuous of the Ummah in all parts of the lands, this is falsehood. Because it is a burden that cannot be borne and something that is not in the capability – and how great it is as a hardship! And Allāh, the Most High, does not burden a soul except to its capability. And He, the Most High says:
"He has not placed upon you in the Deen any hardship."
It necessitates the loss of the interests of the Muslimīn before a
part from the hundred parts of the virtuous people of this land all
agree. So this corrupt view is invalid. And even if it was possible, it
would not be necessary since it is a claim with no evidence.” [al-Fasl fī al-Milal wa an-Nihal (v4-p129)]
Al-Imām al-Juwaynī said: “From what is certain is that Ijmā’ is not a condition in the conclusion of al-Imāmah according to Ijmā’… And what supports that is our knowledge by necessity that the purpose of appointing an Imām is to preserve the limits and what is forbidden in Islām and giving priority to the priorities of Islām. The majority of critical matters are not ones that can be subject to delays and not ones that can be lingered on. And if it is delayed in looking into it, that would have indeed brought about a shortcoming that cannot be made up for, which would be along with an aggravating craze that cannot be remedied. So it is clear from the set-up of al-Imāmah the impossibility of stipulating Ijmā’ in pledging allegiance for its establishment.” [al-Qhiyāsī ghiyās al-Umam fī at-Tiyās adh-Dhulm (p67-68)]
So this view is invalid because it contradicts the purpose of al-Imāmah.
The Second View: Stipulating a (specified) number (of people).
And those who selected this view differed amongst themselves regarding the number. They say that the Bay’ah is enough with:
One: because a contract is correct with one person,
Two: because according to a view it is the minimum of what is considered plural (in Arabic),
Three: because it is a Jamā’ah which is not permissible to differ with,
Four: because that is the highest number of witnesses that may be required for testifying,
Forty: like the Jumu’ah prayer according to ash-Shāfi’ī.
This view is invalid, because the explanations for these numbers are all invalid due to two reasons:
١. Because there is no text that provides proof for the number, so taking hold of a certain figure with no text is being despotic.
٢. Because there is no similarity at all between the analogies that they have mentioned and no connection to it with al-Imāmah.
Imām al-Juwaynī mentioned these two points and said: “These views have no origin in the issue of al-Imāmah… And these routes are from the weakest paths of resemblance. And they are the lowest measuring techniques in the Sharī’ah. And I do not view that I should decide based on it, in things which are doubtful, or more likely, or which has more than one possibility with none of it more befitting than the other. Then what are the assumptions with regards to al-Imāmah? And if a follower followed up the numbers that are considered in different places of the Sharī’ah, a comparative point that is far-off wouldn’t be missed… Thereafter there is no definite evidence regarding a specific number and so no number is more befitting than the other. And there is no reason to rule ascertaining a certain number. And if there is no evidence over any number, then a (specific) number wouldn’t be established.” [al-Qhiyāsī (p69-70)]
And the Qādī of Shām Shaykhul Islām Badrud-Deen Ibn Jamā’ah said: “A specific number is not stipulated in those who give the Bay’ah, on the contrary it is upon those who can be present when it is being given.” [Tahrīr al-Ahkām fī Tadbīr ahl al-Islām (p53)]
The third View: The Bay’ah is not valid except with the majority of the ahlul-Hali wal-Aqd.
Some stipulated that for al-Imāmah to be valid, the majority of the ahlul-Hali wal-‘Aqd should pledge allegiance. And here, the mixing and clashing (of views) has increased, so be precise with me O dear reader, because the matter is simple and easy upon one who refrains from desires and searches for the truth. Our dispute with those who take this view is regarding the Bay’ah being a condition for validity of the Khilāfah. As for the attainment of the Khilāfah with the majority, then this is correct. As for making the Bay’ah of the majority a condition for the validity of al-Imāmah, it is a false view because of the following:
١. Because there is no text that provide proof for stipulating that.
٢. And stipulating it may necessitate the loss of the purpose of al-Imāmah, for which the Bay’ah is made a path to.
٣. And stipulating it necessitates the invalidity of the Khilāfah of ‘Alī Ibn Abī Tālib – the validity of which, is agreed upon.
As for it not being backed by any text, this is something that is not disputed. As for the possibility that it would lead to loss of the purpose of al-Imāmah: That is because the agreement of the majority may be a very hard thing, like we have mentioned from Ibn Hazm who is certain that stipulating Ijmā’ is a burden that cannot be borne. Likewise, stipulating the agreement of the majority – also could be a burden that may not be borne, and so it is invalid like stipulating the Ijmā’ due to the same reason coinciding here. Ibn Hazm said: “Stipulating Ijmā’ is false. Because it is a burden that cannot be borne and something that is not in the capability– and how great it is as a hardship! And Allāh, the Most High, doesn’t burden a soul except to its capability. And He, the Most High says:
"He has not placed upon you in the Deen any hardship."
It necessitates the loss of the interests of the Muslimīn before a part from the hundred parts of the virtuous people of this land all agree. So this corrupt view is invalid. And even if it was possible, it would not be necessary since it is a claim with no evidence.”
And what supports the falseness of stipulating the pledge from the majority is our knowledge based on necessity that the purpose of appointing the Imām is for the preservation of the limits and what is forbidden in Islām, and giving priority to the priorities of Islām, and the majority of critical matters are not ones that can be subject to delays or can be subjected to lingering on. [quote of Imām al-Juwaynī]. As for it necessitating the invalidity of the Khilāfah of ‘Alī Ibn Abī Tālib then that is because we know that the majority of the ahlul-Hali wal-‘Aqd did not pledge allegiance to ‘Alī. Shaykhul Islām said: “Many of the Sahābah did not pledge allegiance to ‘Alī, like ‘Abdullāh Ibn ‘Umar and the likes of him. And the people with regards to ‘Alī were of three types: A type that fought alongside him, a type that fought against him, and a type that did not fight him nor fought alongside him.” [Minhaj as-Sunnah an-Nabawiyyah (v1 – p 535)]
Thereafter he mentions the measure of this amount (of people who didn’t pledge) by saying: “As for ‘Alī, from when he became the Khalīfah, almost half of the Muslimīn ranging from the earliest Muhājirīn and Ansār and others besides them – stayed away from giving the Bay’ah to him. From them are those who stayed without fighting alongside him nor fought against him like Usāmah Ibn Zayd, Ibn ‘Umar and Muhammad bin Maslamah. And from them were those who fought him. Thereafter many of those who pledged allegiance to him retracted from that: from among them were those who made Takfeer upon ‘Alī and made his blood permissible, and from them were those who went to Mu’āwiyah, like ‘Aqīl his brother, and others like him.” [Minhaj as-Sunnah an-Nabawiyyah (v8 – p316)]
And I see that some cite the saying of Shaykhul Islām and don’t understand its meaning – it is this saying: “And he only became an Imām (i.e. Abū Bakr) due to the Bay’ah of the majority of the Sahābah who were the people of power and strength. And due to this it didn’t matter that Sa’d Ibn ‘Ubadah refrained from giving it. Because that doesn’t diminish anything from the purpose of the appointment. For indeed, the purpose is to attain the capability and authority by which the interests of al-Imāmah can be attained. And that has indeed been attained by the agreement of the majority upon that.” [Minhaj as-Sunnah an-Nabawiyyah (v1 – p 530)]
Some took this statement and said that the condition for the validity of the Bay’ah is for it to be from the majority of ahlul-Hali wal-‘Aqd. Shaykhul Islām did not say this, on the contrary his saying is clear. Ibn Taymiyyah was talking from the point of demonstration and not identifying the origin. And he was talking about a specific incident and that was the Khilāfah of Abū Bakr as-Siddīq. And this Khilāfah has attained the purpose of al-Imāmah in it by means of the pledge of allegiance of the majority. So was it valid because the purpose of al-Imāmah was attained or because it was the Bay’ah of the majority? The answer is clear in the text itself when Ibn Taymiyyah said: “For indeed, the purpose is to attain the capability and authority by which the interests of al-Imāmah can be attained. And that (i.e. the purpose of al-Imāmah) has indeed been attained by the agreement of the majority upon that.”
Thereafter Ibn Taymiyyah has explained this in a position where he was establishing the origin and not in a place of demonstration, He said: “(The decisive factor is in) the agreement of the people of strength in a way that it is enabled with them to execute the aims of al-Imāmah, even if the leaders of strength is a small number, and the rest of them are in agreement to what they decide, al-Imāmah is attained by the Bay’ah by them (i.e. the few people of strength) to him. And this is what is correct which is what the Ahlus-Sunnah are upon. And this is the view of the leading Scholars.” [Minhaj as-Sunnah an-Nabawiyyah (v8 – p 356)]
From what has preceded, (it has been established that) stipulating the Bay’ah from the majority is invalid. On the contrary, if the majority of the ahlul-Hali wal-‘Aqd did not have any strength with them to carry out the responsibilities of al-Imāmah, the Bay’ah would not be binding even with them.
The fourth view: it is stipulated that the ahlul-Hali wal-‘Aqd should possess strength and power.
The companions of this view stipulate attainment of strength and power by the Imām for the validity of the Bay’ah. This is whether it is attained by way of Ijmā’ of the ahlul-Hali wal-‘Aqd –like in the case of ‘Uthmān – or by the majority – as in the case of Abū Bakr as-Siddīq – or by the Bay’ah of some – like in the case of the Bay’ah to ‘Alī Ibn Abī Tālib. So the decisive factor is attaining the purpose of al-Imāmah and even if that happened with the Bay’ah of one man who is obeyed, it would suffice. Shaykhul Islām said: “In their view (i.e. the Ahlus-Sunnah) al-Imāmah is confirmed by the agreement of the people of strength upon it. And a man does not become an Imām except with the people of strength agreeing upon him for it, by whose obedience to him leads to the attainment of the purpose of al-Imāmah. This is because the purpose of al-Imāmah is only attained by capability and authority. And if he is pledged allegiance to with a Bay’ah by which the capability and authority is achieved, then he becomes the Imām.” [Minhaj as-Sunnah an-Nabawiyyah (v8 – p 356)]
And he said: “Whoever says that a person becomes an Imām with the agreement of one or two or four, and these were not people who possessed capability and strength, then he is mistaken.” [Minhaj as-Sunnah an-Nabawiyyah (v 1– p 531)]
So by way of understanding the opposite we arrive at: “Whoever says that a person becomes an Imām with the agreement of one or two or four, and they were people who possessed capability and strength then he is not mistaken.” And this understanding has been mentioned by some Scholars. Al-Imām an-Nawawī said: “Even if ahlul-Hali wal-‘Aqd was connected to only one person who is obeyed, his Bay’ah is sufficient for al-Imāmah to be concluded.” [rawadha at-Talibīn wa ‘Umdat al-Muftīn (v10-p43)]
And al-Qalqashandī said: “The eighth – And it is the most correct according to our Shāfi’ī Scholars: That it is concluded by whom it is easy to attend when the Bay’ah is given, from amongst the Scholars and leaders and all types of people who are characterized with the characteristics of witnesses even if ahlul-Hali wal-‘Aqd was connected to one person who is obeyed, it is sufficient.” [ma’āthir al-Ināfah fī ma’alim al-Khilāfah (v1-p44)]
And al-Imām al-Juwaynī said: “If one man pledges allegiance – who is notable and has many followers and supporters, who is obeyed by his people – And if his Bay’ah results in what we have pointed to, al-Imāmah is concluded.” [al-Qhiyāsī qhiyaas al-Umam fī at-Tiyās adh-Dhulm (p71-72)]
Al-‘AllĀmah Muhammad al-Amīn ash-Shanqītī said in al-Adwä al-Bayān: “And what is implied by what ash-Shaykh Taqī ad-Deen Abul-‘Abbās Ibn Taymiyyah said in (al-Minhaj) is that, it is only concluded by the Bay’ah by those whose allegiance, its authority is strengthened, and he is capable of executing the Ahkām of al-Imāmah by it. This is because one who has no power over that is like any other individual from the people and is not an Imam.” [Adwā al-Bayān (v1-p23)]
This view is the preponderant view and the reason for that is – the decisive factor for us is the attainment of the purpose. And the purpose is establishing the Deen of Allāh, commanding good and forbidding evil. The purpose is not for so-and-so from the ahlul-Hali wal-‘Aqd to be pleased!
Al-Imām al-Juwaynī said: “From what is certain is that Ijmā’ is not a condition in the conclusion of al-Imāmah according to Ijmā’… And what supports that is our knowledge by necessity that the purpose of appointing an Imām is to preserve the limits and what is forbidden in Islām and giving priority to the priorities of Islām. The majority of critical matters are not ones that can be subject to delays and not ones that can be lingered on. And if it is delayed in looking into it, that would have indeed brought about a shortcoming that cannot be made up for, which would be along with an aggravating craze that cannot be remedied. So it is clear from the set-up of al-Imāmah the impossibility of stipulating Ijmā’ in pledging allegiance for its establishment.” [al-Qhiyāsī ghiyās al-Umam fī at-Tiyās adh-Dhulm (p67-68)]
So this view is invalid because it contradicts the purpose of al-Imāmah.
The Second View: Stipulating a (specified) number (of people).
And those who selected this view differed amongst themselves regarding the number. They say that the Bay’ah is enough with:
One: because a contract is correct with one person,
Two: because according to a view it is the minimum of what is considered plural (in Arabic),
Three: because it is a Jamā’ah which is not permissible to differ with,
Four: because that is the highest number of witnesses that may be required for testifying,
Forty: like the Jumu’ah prayer according to ash-Shāfi’ī.
This view is invalid, because the explanations for these numbers are all invalid due to two reasons:
١. Because there is no text that provides proof for the number, so taking hold of a certain figure with no text is being despotic.
٢. Because there is no similarity at all between the analogies that they have mentioned and no connection to it with al-Imāmah.
Imām al-Juwaynī mentioned these two points and said: “These views have no origin in the issue of al-Imāmah… And these routes are from the weakest paths of resemblance. And they are the lowest measuring techniques in the Sharī’ah. And I do not view that I should decide based on it, in things which are doubtful, or more likely, or which has more than one possibility with none of it more befitting than the other. Then what are the assumptions with regards to al-Imāmah? And if a follower followed up the numbers that are considered in different places of the Sharī’ah, a comparative point that is far-off wouldn’t be missed… Thereafter there is no definite evidence regarding a specific number and so no number is more befitting than the other. And there is no reason to rule ascertaining a certain number. And if there is no evidence over any number, then a (specific) number wouldn’t be established.” [al-Qhiyāsī (p69-70)]
And the Qādī of Shām Shaykhul Islām Badrud-Deen Ibn Jamā’ah said: “A specific number is not stipulated in those who give the Bay’ah, on the contrary it is upon those who can be present when it is being given.” [Tahrīr al-Ahkām fī Tadbīr ahl al-Islām (p53)]
The third View: The Bay’ah is not valid except with the majority of the ahlul-Hali wal-Aqd.
Some stipulated that for al-Imāmah to be valid, the majority of the ahlul-Hali wal-‘Aqd should pledge allegiance. And here, the mixing and clashing (of views) has increased, so be precise with me O dear reader, because the matter is simple and easy upon one who refrains from desires and searches for the truth. Our dispute with those who take this view is regarding the Bay’ah being a condition for validity of the Khilāfah. As for the attainment of the Khilāfah with the majority, then this is correct. As for making the Bay’ah of the majority a condition for the validity of al-Imāmah, it is a false view because of the following:
١. Because there is no text that provide proof for stipulating that.
٢. And stipulating it may necessitate the loss of the purpose of al-Imāmah, for which the Bay’ah is made a path to.
٣. And stipulating it necessitates the invalidity of the Khilāfah of ‘Alī Ibn Abī Tālib – the validity of which, is agreed upon.
As for it not being backed by any text, this is something that is not disputed. As for the possibility that it would lead to loss of the purpose of al-Imāmah: That is because the agreement of the majority may be a very hard thing, like we have mentioned from Ibn Hazm who is certain that stipulating Ijmā’ is a burden that cannot be borne. Likewise, stipulating the agreement of the majority – also could be a burden that may not be borne, and so it is invalid like stipulating the Ijmā’ due to the same reason coinciding here. Ibn Hazm said: “Stipulating Ijmā’ is false. Because it is a burden that cannot be borne and something that is not in the capability– and how great it is as a hardship! And Allāh, the Most High, doesn’t burden a soul except to its capability. And He, the Most High says:
"He has not placed upon you in the Deen any hardship."
It necessitates the loss of the interests of the Muslimīn before a part from the hundred parts of the virtuous people of this land all agree. So this corrupt view is invalid. And even if it was possible, it would not be necessary since it is a claim with no evidence.”
And what supports the falseness of stipulating the pledge from the majority is our knowledge based on necessity that the purpose of appointing the Imām is for the preservation of the limits and what is forbidden in Islām, and giving priority to the priorities of Islām, and the majority of critical matters are not ones that can be subject to delays or can be subjected to lingering on. [quote of Imām al-Juwaynī]. As for it necessitating the invalidity of the Khilāfah of ‘Alī Ibn Abī Tālib then that is because we know that the majority of the ahlul-Hali wal-‘Aqd did not pledge allegiance to ‘Alī. Shaykhul Islām said: “Many of the Sahābah did not pledge allegiance to ‘Alī, like ‘Abdullāh Ibn ‘Umar and the likes of him. And the people with regards to ‘Alī were of three types: A type that fought alongside him, a type that fought against him, and a type that did not fight him nor fought alongside him.” [Minhaj as-Sunnah an-Nabawiyyah (v1 – p 535)]
Thereafter he mentions the measure of this amount (of people who didn’t pledge) by saying: “As for ‘Alī, from when he became the Khalīfah, almost half of the Muslimīn ranging from the earliest Muhājirīn and Ansār and others besides them – stayed away from giving the Bay’ah to him. From them are those who stayed without fighting alongside him nor fought against him like Usāmah Ibn Zayd, Ibn ‘Umar and Muhammad bin Maslamah. And from them were those who fought him. Thereafter many of those who pledged allegiance to him retracted from that: from among them were those who made Takfeer upon ‘Alī and made his blood permissible, and from them were those who went to Mu’āwiyah, like ‘Aqīl his brother, and others like him.” [Minhaj as-Sunnah an-Nabawiyyah (v8 – p316)]
And I see that some cite the saying of Shaykhul Islām and don’t understand its meaning – it is this saying: “And he only became an Imām (i.e. Abū Bakr) due to the Bay’ah of the majority of the Sahābah who were the people of power and strength. And due to this it didn’t matter that Sa’d Ibn ‘Ubadah refrained from giving it. Because that doesn’t diminish anything from the purpose of the appointment. For indeed, the purpose is to attain the capability and authority by which the interests of al-Imāmah can be attained. And that has indeed been attained by the agreement of the majority upon that.” [Minhaj as-Sunnah an-Nabawiyyah (v1 – p 530)]
Some took this statement and said that the condition for the validity of the Bay’ah is for it to be from the majority of ahlul-Hali wal-‘Aqd. Shaykhul Islām did not say this, on the contrary his saying is clear. Ibn Taymiyyah was talking from the point of demonstration and not identifying the origin. And he was talking about a specific incident and that was the Khilāfah of Abū Bakr as-Siddīq. And this Khilāfah has attained the purpose of al-Imāmah in it by means of the pledge of allegiance of the majority. So was it valid because the purpose of al-Imāmah was attained or because it was the Bay’ah of the majority? The answer is clear in the text itself when Ibn Taymiyyah said: “For indeed, the purpose is to attain the capability and authority by which the interests of al-Imāmah can be attained. And that (i.e. the purpose of al-Imāmah) has indeed been attained by the agreement of the majority upon that.”
Thereafter Ibn Taymiyyah has explained this in a position where he was establishing the origin and not in a place of demonstration, He said: “(The decisive factor is in) the agreement of the people of strength in a way that it is enabled with them to execute the aims of al-Imāmah, even if the leaders of strength is a small number, and the rest of them are in agreement to what they decide, al-Imāmah is attained by the Bay’ah by them (i.e. the few people of strength) to him. And this is what is correct which is what the Ahlus-Sunnah are upon. And this is the view of the leading Scholars.” [Minhaj as-Sunnah an-Nabawiyyah (v8 – p 356)]
From what has preceded, (it has been established that) stipulating the Bay’ah from the majority is invalid. On the contrary, if the majority of the ahlul-Hali wal-‘Aqd did not have any strength with them to carry out the responsibilities of al-Imāmah, the Bay’ah would not be binding even with them.
The fourth view: it is stipulated that the ahlul-Hali wal-‘Aqd should possess strength and power.
The companions of this view stipulate attainment of strength and power by the Imām for the validity of the Bay’ah. This is whether it is attained by way of Ijmā’ of the ahlul-Hali wal-‘Aqd –like in the case of ‘Uthmān – or by the majority – as in the case of Abū Bakr as-Siddīq – or by the Bay’ah of some – like in the case of the Bay’ah to ‘Alī Ibn Abī Tālib. So the decisive factor is attaining the purpose of al-Imāmah and even if that happened with the Bay’ah of one man who is obeyed, it would suffice. Shaykhul Islām said: “In their view (i.e. the Ahlus-Sunnah) al-Imāmah is confirmed by the agreement of the people of strength upon it. And a man does not become an Imām except with the people of strength agreeing upon him for it, by whose obedience to him leads to the attainment of the purpose of al-Imāmah. This is because the purpose of al-Imāmah is only attained by capability and authority. And if he is pledged allegiance to with a Bay’ah by which the capability and authority is achieved, then he becomes the Imām.” [Minhaj as-Sunnah an-Nabawiyyah (v8 – p 356)]
And he said: “Whoever says that a person becomes an Imām with the agreement of one or two or four, and these were not people who possessed capability and strength, then he is mistaken.” [Minhaj as-Sunnah an-Nabawiyyah (v 1– p 531)]
So by way of understanding the opposite we arrive at: “Whoever says that a person becomes an Imām with the agreement of one or two or four, and they were people who possessed capability and strength then he is not mistaken.” And this understanding has been mentioned by some Scholars. Al-Imām an-Nawawī said: “Even if ahlul-Hali wal-‘Aqd was connected to only one person who is obeyed, his Bay’ah is sufficient for al-Imāmah to be concluded.” [rawadha at-Talibīn wa ‘Umdat al-Muftīn (v10-p43)]
And al-Qalqashandī said: “The eighth – And it is the most correct according to our Shāfi’ī Scholars: That it is concluded by whom it is easy to attend when the Bay’ah is given, from amongst the Scholars and leaders and all types of people who are characterized with the characteristics of witnesses even if ahlul-Hali wal-‘Aqd was connected to one person who is obeyed, it is sufficient.” [ma’āthir al-Ināfah fī ma’alim al-Khilāfah (v1-p44)]
And al-Imām al-Juwaynī said: “If one man pledges allegiance – who is notable and has many followers and supporters, who is obeyed by his people – And if his Bay’ah results in what we have pointed to, al-Imāmah is concluded.” [al-Qhiyāsī qhiyaas al-Umam fī at-Tiyās adh-Dhulm (p71-72)]
Al-‘AllĀmah Muhammad al-Amīn ash-Shanqītī said in al-Adwä al-Bayān: “And what is implied by what ash-Shaykh Taqī ad-Deen Abul-‘Abbās Ibn Taymiyyah said in (al-Minhaj) is that, it is only concluded by the Bay’ah by those whose allegiance, its authority is strengthened, and he is capable of executing the Ahkām of al-Imāmah by it. This is because one who has no power over that is like any other individual from the people and is not an Imam.” [Adwā al-Bayān (v1-p23)]
This view is the preponderant view and the reason for that is – the decisive factor for us is the attainment of the purpose. And the purpose is establishing the Deen of Allāh, commanding good and forbidding evil. The purpose is not for so-and-so from the ahlul-Hali wal-‘Aqd to be pleased!
[Pearls in Fiqh of Khilafah - By ash-Shaykh Abū ‘Abdur-Rahmān al-Lībī]
INSHA'ALLAH CLICK BELOW TO FURTHER READ SIMILAR ARTICLES:
- Ahl al-Hal wal-ʿAqd...
- Q&A on Khilafah...
- (VIDEO) YES KHILAFAH?!? NO KHILAFAH?!? - The Khilafah Arguments of both sides!
- (VIDEO) FINALLY! The Khilafah Debate - MUST WATCH !!!
- (VIDEO) Propaganda Of The Elite Lies Against Dowlah
- Lies against IS (Islamic State) aka ISIS, DEBUNKED !!!
- An Interesting Article to read indeed - "Isis was quick to understand a truth the West must now confront!"
- Why do we Need the Khilafah?
- Obligation of Khilafah
- Khilafah - Hope for the Ummah
- Coming of al-Mahdi & the Khilafah
No comments:
Post a Comment