November 09, 2007 Friday Shawwal 27, 1428 Concept of Islamic caliphate
By Jafar Wafa Friday feature THE Orthodox Caliphate that came into being immediately after the demise of the Holy Prophet (pbuh) in 622 AD lasted for a short duration of thirty years, spanning the rule of the four pious Caliphs. It was a trail blazer in the realm of polity and statecraft, in its contemporary age of imperialism and dynastic rule. Islam introduced, for the first time, the concept of rule by a person from among the masses, chosen by pious citizens. They did not call him their king, or sovereign, but khalifutul momineen, meaning literally Leader of the Believers. It was so popular as a system of government that later historians falsely considered it to bear a close similarity with the system of government that was in vogue in other contemporary civilisations. For instance, the European political thinkers have always tried to prove that Khilafat was just another version of theocracy, or rule by the clergy the system with which they were conversant though, mostly, unhappily. Even Muslim scholars of yore, who lived and prospered during the period of autocratic rule by strong men and despots, have likened it to autocracy of the kind they lived under. When the fashion of polity changed in Europe, particularly after the French Revolution, the Islamic Khilafat came to stand on the same footing as the newly-founded republics of Europe which were ruled according to an approved popular constitution. After the end of the Second World War, when America emerged as the sole superpower, the trend was in favour of calling the Khilafat the precursor of Democracy. And since it was not only America but also the Soviet Union that became a leading power, and later a superpower, sharing the hounours of world leadership with the Americans, some of our intellectuals did not hesitate in comparing the Khilaphat with Soviet socialism. Commenting on this aspect of Islamic Khilafat, Syed Suleman Nadvi has recorded his considered opinion in these words which can be rendered in English thus: The fact is that, in its earliest stage, Islam sought to establish a type of government which was new in those times and the kind of precedents and precepts which it introduced, tended to present the image of a government which was simultaneously a theocracy, autocracy, constitutional democracy and dictatorial dispensation. This led to the political theorists of various hues and persuasions to interpret the system as conforming to that which they preferred themselves, although, in reality, it was such a kind of government whose origin can be traced entirely to the thinking of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) and, exclusively, to his effort to give a practical shape to the Islamic system of government. Therefore, it was neither theocratic nor autocratic, nor democratic, nor socialistic but such a holistic system which contains all the good ingredients of other known systems and excludes all those unhealthy and bad ingredients which vitiate other known systems of government (Seeratun Nabi Vol VII). The Quran avoids prescribing the specific details of an Islamic government in regard to its form and framework. The reason is not far to seek. One can sum it up in the words of the English poet, Alexander Pope, who wrote that for forms of government let fools contest, what is best administered is best. Therefore, an Islamic government may be categorised as any thing a theocracy, because it is required to function as a tool to ensure that Quranic dos and donts are implemented; or as a democracy because the Quran lays stress on administration by mutual consultation; or even a dictatorship because of the absolute power of the Khalifa, one he is chosen or nominated in that capacity. But the fact remains that none of these similarities of Khilafat with one or more existing systems of government leads conclusively to the perception that Khilafat too is comparable, in its entirety to one of the political systems functioning in various nation-states of the world. It is not a theocracy, because its head of government is neither Gods nominee nor a divinely-ordained ruler but is an ordinary human being selected through a consensus of fellow human beings, formally declaring their obeisance (bayet) to the office of authority. However, since the heads of government in that period were God-fearing, devoutly religious and of impeccable character, they richly deserved the title of pious Caliphs. Looking at the Khilafat from another angle, namely, the method of selecting the ruler by a consensus of competent and practising Muslims and not by any divine right, it can be called a democracy of a special kind where the ruler is advised to consult with others in appropriate mattes and where he lives like any ordinary person without the service of bodyguards and security of living in specially protected quarters. >From the above sweeping survey of the period of orthodox Caliphate no one can >deny that the system of government devised by Islam was such that denied >special status to the ruler who lived like any one else in the realm, though >armed with powers of a Byzantine emperor. With no special privilege or pelf attached to the office of the Caliph, if one was chosen to become a Khalifa and he accepted to shoulder the responsibility of the post, he had his eyes not on any material or monetary gain but on the desire to earn Gods pleasure by carrying out the duties of the head of state honestly and earnestly even if that meant offending some black sheep in the rank and file of the Ummah and thereby putting their own lives at stake. Actual events that followed the setting up of the Khilafat established the fact that to become a Khalifa was like wearing a crown of thorns. So, out of the four pious Caliphs, three were assassinated by hidden enemies. ABDUL WAHID OSMAN BELAL __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com