Al-Imām at-Tirmiẓī narrates in his Kitāb Tafsiril Qurān in Sunan at-Tirmiẓī that ‘Adī bin Ḥātim رضى الله عنه narrates:I came to the Nabī صلى الله عليه و سلم wearing a golden cross around my neck. He called out, “O ‘Adī! Throw this idol off your neck!”I then heard him reciting from Sūrah Barā’ah, “They made their priests and monks lords besides Allāh.”He then commented, “They did not worship them, but if they made something Ḥalāl for them,they took it as Ḥalāl and when they made something Ḥarām for them they took it as Ḥarām.”
One cannot blame a Muslim
for being affected by the media fanfare surrounding the Pope and innocently
comparing the situation of a divided Islām with a united Catholic Church under
a single leader. “Why do we not have a Khalīfah?” he might lament.
The comparison and the
lament, whilst born out of sincerity, are however incorrect and naïve.
No comparison between Pope and Amīrul Muminīn
Muslims must desist from seeking
points of reference in the West. Our points of reference are Allāh and His Rasūl صلى الله عليه و سلم. If we fail to do this, we unintentionally undermine our own
faith. Specifically in this instance, we have not fulfilled the command of Rasūlullāh
صلى الله
عليه و سلم
of pledging allegiance to a Khalīfah for close onto a century. The least we can
do however, is maintain the intention of a restoration and not contaminate the
concept of the institution with alien ideas. If we keep drawing parallels to the Papacy,
the danger exists that the day the Khilāfah is restored, the imagery of a
Papacy will be permanently imprinted on the minds on the Ummah.
I do not intend my blog to be an academic thesis on any
subject, but hope that the following should suffice for the thoughtful:
1. Catholics
believe the Pope to be infallible. On the other hand, the first Khalīfah, Abū
Bakr رضى
الله عنه, clarified in his inaugural address, “Now, it is beyond doubt
that I have been elected your Amīr, although I am not better than you. Help me,
if I am in the right; set me right if I am in the wrong. Truth is a trust;
falsehood is a treason.”
2. The Papacy is
an office that is bought, sold and bribed for. Whoever wishes to study the
sordid details may peruse the biographies of the Medici and Borgia families. On
the other hand, the first Khalīfah, Abū Bakr رضى الله عنه, clarified in his inaugural address,
“O people, I swear by Allāh
that I never desired the Khilāfah
either by day or by night, nor had I any inclination towards it. I never prayed
to Allāh openly or secrectly
to confer the office on me. I merely accepted this office lest some mischief arise
at this critical juncture in the history of the Muslims…”
3. The Catholic Church is largely a compromise and distortion
between Christianity and paganism. Thus even the symbols of the Pope, such as
the insistence on wearing red shoes, have their origins with idol worshippers
and has nothing to do with any heavenly scripture. The Khalīfah is strictly bound by
Shari‘ah in his office. Any personal failings have always been recognised as
such – his personal failing. It has never been institutionalised in Islām, unlike the Papacy. Popes
and priests married for at least three centuries, and then were forbidden to do
so. Catholics deny that the prohibition
was in order to increase the Church’s land holdings. Be that as it may, the
fact remains that in Islām
the Khalīfah has no
authority to concoct divine law at human whim centuries after the practice of a
different law. Again, the first Khalīfah
said, “Obey me as long as I obey Allāh
and His Rasūl صلى الله عليه و سلم.
When I disobey Him and His Rasūl
صلى الله عليه و
سلم, then obey me not.”
Allāḥ knows best why we needed the medicine of loss of Khilāfah
One of my teachers, Mawlānā Sulaymān
Chocksī, warned us against entertaining people’s
demands for explanations of Ḥikmah
(the divine wisdom behind a certain law or event). Such ventures merely lead to
confusing replies and demands for substantiating every injunction, even if the reason
might not have been clarified in the Qurān.
I would add that in declaring that that is why Allāh decreed something, am I
not elevating myself to some kind of consultant to Allāh? Since when did I reach such a status that Allāh explains unto me why He
decreed an event?
However, I see no harm in looking
at events on the ground and stating what I see.
I first clarify:
1. The Jew Ataturk and the Saudis terminated the Khilāfah and have much to answer
for in thus rebelling against Allāh.
2. Khilāfah is a command of Rasūlullāh صلى
الله عليه و سلم.
3. Had I lived a
century ago, I would have been obliged to obey the ‘Ulamā’ who sought to defend
the Khilāfah.
Unity of hearts, not authorities
I however say to those who lament
that the Catholics have a Pope and we have no Khalīfah:
A problem today is lack of
understanding of what Islāmic
unity is. Unity is not conformity and uniformity which are the hallmarks of
perhaps every single Muslim institute and organisation throughout the world.
Islāmic unity
means unity of hearts together with respect for difference of opinions. That is
why when the King wished to impose the Fatāwā
of al-Imām Mālik raḥimahullāh upon all Muslims to
ensure “unity,” the very first to oppose him was none other than the venerable
Imām himself. The Imām understood what unity
really meant and what the consequences of a monolithic, unthinking, robotic
Ummah would entail. We however have still not grasped the lesson.
Even the sternest Khalīfah, ‘Umar bin al-Khaṭṭāb رضى الله عنه , was a humble man who accepted differences of opinion. I may be
wrong, but I firmly believe that should the Khilāfah be re-established within
the next decade, this immature Ummah will produce such an overbearing dictator
who will be closer to the “infalliable” Pope than ‘Umar رضى الله عنه . My sympathies then to the wise Imām of al-Madīnah raḥimahullāh.
However, there are also signs of progress.
In this global atmosphere of religious dictatorship, the
advantage Muslims enjoy of not having a central authority, is that we have the
capacity to exercise our minds and submit our conscience only towards Allāh
instead of a dictator who uses “religious” blackmail against those who do not
tow the party line.
We must accept that the Khilāfah in its last Ottoman
days was really not an institute to be proud of, and there was no hope of
reform. It is highly likely that the very idealists and activists who now
declare that all our problems would be solved had Germany and Turkey won and
the Khilāfah
preserved, would be the very ones lambasting the Ottomans for not coming
anywhere the standard. By terminating the Ottoman state, Allāh has granted us a clean
slate, a fresh start and an opportunity to work towards the real Allāh-pleasing goal.
Now, not as a ritual, but truly….
Allāh knows best.
سليمان الكندي
