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
