Return of the Khaleepha? Political Zionism in Islam
What is the actual meaning of a khaleepha?
1. One of its meanings is successor. ANY ruler, whether Muslim or non-Muslim, is a khaleepha. This is also established in a hadeeth where the Prophet (S) is reported to have predicted the return to the Khaleepha BASED UPON THE PATTERN OF NUBUWWAH (Prophethood). The addition of the words 'Pattern of Nubuwwah' would have been unnecessary and redundant if khaleepha simply meant a Muslm ruler.
Further, most classical scholars hold the opinion that this period of the return of the rule on the pattern of nubuwwah was the of the rule of Umar ibn Abdul Aziz, otherwise known as Umar II for his justice. This means that the hadeeth has ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with the alleged concept of a Mehdi. Umar II began an extraordinary reform based upon the principles of Islamic social justice within the Muslim government that was corrupted earlier by a system of monarchy. Unfortunately, his reforms were cut short by his early death. The claims of groups that promote their cause through 'apocalyptic' prophecies under the guise of religion are nothing but baseless. A common hadeeth which is used to justify many radical Muslim groups is that the victorious Muslim army would come from Khurasan with the standard of black flags to assist the Mahdi. These groups have all adopted this black flag in light of the hadeeth, yet these narrations are all considered garbage by the hadeeth authorities such as Imam ibn Juazi (R).
2.
The word khaleepha also has the connotations of authority and free will. God Almighty says in the Quran, "I will place a khaleepha on earth", and this verse is clearly in reference to ALL human beings. The fact that a khaleepha can be evil and non-Muslim is substantiated by the response of the angels. "Are you going to place in the earth one that would create fitna?" If the khaleepha was a Muslim ruler, and signalled the return of Muslim 'greatness', than this response by the angels would have been patently absurd.
As is obvious, the Quran does not give any theological meaning of the word, unlike other terms such as Rasool, a specific type of Messenger. Thus, all of the Muslim movements that claim a return to the khaleepha as the cause of success is rooted in a gross misunderstanding of the term. If any group claims that the khaleepha is something special to Islam, they need to give proof from the Arabic language, and in actuality, there is NONE.
Further, when a Muslim ruler comes into power UNDER THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE, he is obligated to perform certain injunctions. It is common among these pseudo-groups to emphasize an almost unconditional obedience to the ruler or khaleepha, but the Islamic teachings emphasize not obedience to the ruler, BUT THE RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE RULER TO THE RULED. This is precisely why Umar would nto allow his governors to build a wall in-between his governors and the public, and he made it a strict policy that anybody could access the leader to put forth their grievances. A proper government functioning under the principles of Islam would adopt any means to secure this right for its citizens. A very basic example of this principle can been in Western society where citizens can lobby and express their views and grievances against the government, as well as take matters to the court. But at the same time, Islamic principles would reject the huge enormous costs for legal fees in Western socieities which allow justice only for the rich.
In many prophetic hadeeth, the accounting a ruler would face is related in severe terms. This is precisely why the Prophet (S) is reported to have stated that "We do not give posts to people who desire it." A person who does not realize the responsibility of leadership, can in no way be fit to lead.
Also, The hadeeth which emphasize obedience to the ruler are normally related in the context of rebellion and anarchy, i.e. the curb further bloodshed and anarchy. Further, a Muslim is simply required under the state to establihs prayer and pay zakaat, while obeying the law of the land. The former two are meant for legal purpose in respect to the government, i.e. to determine the nature of the obligation to a Muslim citizen as opposed to those that are not. The Quran states that the Muslim government must LEAVE the citizens alone if they fulfill these basic functions, meaning that they cannot force a Muslim to perform any good deeds, but they can only enjoin them to good.
Further, the Quran totally ends any notion of theocracy when it says in surah Taubah, "If they establish salaah and pay the zakaah, they are BRETHREN IN FAITH." This verse is directly addressed to the Companions of the Prophet (S), who were of the highest rank with respect to God. Yet, even here the Almihgty clearly asserts that their is to be no dinstinction in the eyes of law based upon 'spiritual rank'. This is why a Jew could even win a court case against Ali (R), who was the khaleepha of the Muslim ummah at the particular time the incident happened. This philosophy also destroys any concept of pir-hood and obedience to someobody based upon their alleged position with God. The Muslim is responsible to the law, and no personality can change this.
Thus the notions of an spiritual authority is automatically curbed with the statement 'brethren in faith'. The ruler is to treat all based upon equal footing, and its purpose is to protect the people and rule with justice. No claims to spiritual authority in life can change this fact, and spiritual ranking is only known to God and will be rewarded in the next life. And there is also another interesting point to this. In Islam, piety is not the only condition of being a ruler. The Prophet (S) rejected the desire of Abu Dharr (R) to be appointed to a government post, despite the Prophet (S) stating in another narration that he (R) was the most truthful person the earth had carried on its back. It was because of Abu Dharr's (R) excessiveness which did not make him possess the natural qualities and temperment that are required for a leader.
1. One of its meanings is successor. ANY ruler, whether Muslim or non-Muslim, is a khaleepha. This is also established in a hadeeth where the Prophet (S) is reported to have predicted the return to the Khaleepha BASED UPON THE PATTERN OF NUBUWWAH (Prophethood). The addition of the words 'Pattern of Nubuwwah' would have been unnecessary and redundant if khaleepha simply meant a Muslm ruler.
Further, most classical scholars hold the opinion that this period of the return of the rule on the pattern of nubuwwah was the of the rule of Umar ibn Abdul Aziz, otherwise known as Umar II for his justice. This means that the hadeeth has ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with the alleged concept of a Mehdi. Umar II began an extraordinary reform based upon the principles of Islamic social justice within the Muslim government that was corrupted earlier by a system of monarchy. Unfortunately, his reforms were cut short by his early death. The claims of groups that promote their cause through 'apocalyptic' prophecies under the guise of religion are nothing but baseless. A common hadeeth which is used to justify many radical Muslim groups is that the victorious Muslim army would come from Khurasan with the standard of black flags to assist the Mahdi. These groups have all adopted this black flag in light of the hadeeth, yet these narrations are all considered garbage by the hadeeth authorities such as Imam ibn Juazi (R).
2.
The word khaleepha also has the connotations of authority and free will. God Almighty says in the Quran, "I will place a khaleepha on earth", and this verse is clearly in reference to ALL human beings. The fact that a khaleepha can be evil and non-Muslim is substantiated by the response of the angels. "Are you going to place in the earth one that would create fitna?" If the khaleepha was a Muslim ruler, and signalled the return of Muslim 'greatness', than this response by the angels would have been patently absurd.
As is obvious, the Quran does not give any theological meaning of the word, unlike other terms such as Rasool, a specific type of Messenger. Thus, all of the Muslim movements that claim a return to the khaleepha as the cause of success is rooted in a gross misunderstanding of the term. If any group claims that the khaleepha is something special to Islam, they need to give proof from the Arabic language, and in actuality, there is NONE.
Further, when a Muslim ruler comes into power UNDER THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE, he is obligated to perform certain injunctions. It is common among these pseudo-groups to emphasize an almost unconditional obedience to the ruler or khaleepha, but the Islamic teachings emphasize not obedience to the ruler, BUT THE RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE RULER TO THE RULED. This is precisely why Umar would nto allow his governors to build a wall in-between his governors and the public, and he made it a strict policy that anybody could access the leader to put forth their grievances. A proper government functioning under the principles of Islam would adopt any means to secure this right for its citizens. A very basic example of this principle can been in Western society where citizens can lobby and express their views and grievances against the government, as well as take matters to the court. But at the same time, Islamic principles would reject the huge enormous costs for legal fees in Western socieities which allow justice only for the rich.
In many prophetic hadeeth, the accounting a ruler would face is related in severe terms. This is precisely why the Prophet (S) is reported to have stated that "We do not give posts to people who desire it." A person who does not realize the responsibility of leadership, can in no way be fit to lead.
Also, The hadeeth which emphasize obedience to the ruler are normally related in the context of rebellion and anarchy, i.e. the curb further bloodshed and anarchy. Further, a Muslim is simply required under the state to establihs prayer and pay zakaat, while obeying the law of the land. The former two are meant for legal purpose in respect to the government, i.e. to determine the nature of the obligation to a Muslim citizen as opposed to those that are not. The Quran states that the Muslim government must LEAVE the citizens alone if they fulfill these basic functions, meaning that they cannot force a Muslim to perform any good deeds, but they can only enjoin them to good.
Further, the Quran totally ends any notion of theocracy when it says in surah Taubah, "If they establish salaah and pay the zakaah, they are BRETHREN IN FAITH." This verse is directly addressed to the Companions of the Prophet (S), who were of the highest rank with respect to God. Yet, even here the Almihgty clearly asserts that their is to be no dinstinction in the eyes of law based upon 'spiritual rank'. This is why a Jew could even win a court case against Ali (R), who was the khaleepha of the Muslim ummah at the particular time the incident happened. This philosophy also destroys any concept of pir-hood and obedience to someobody based upon their alleged position with God. The Muslim is responsible to the law, and no personality can change this.
Thus the notions of an spiritual authority is automatically curbed with the statement 'brethren in faith'. The ruler is to treat all based upon equal footing, and its purpose is to protect the people and rule with justice. No claims to spiritual authority in life can change this fact, and spiritual ranking is only known to God and will be rewarded in the next life. And there is also another interesting point to this. In Islam, piety is not the only condition of being a ruler. The Prophet (S) rejected the desire of Abu Dharr (R) to be appointed to a government post, despite the Prophet (S) stating in another narration that he (R) was the most truthful person the earth had carried on its back. It was because of Abu Dharr's (R) excessiveness which did not make him possess the natural qualities and temperment that are required for a leader.
posted by Asim at 8:17 AM
1 Comments:
I believe that an upright muslim govt can use the systems that the Western govts have developed in modern times. The systems, such as elections, civil and criminal justice systems, democratic accountability via an elected parliament, rule of law, judicial precedence, separation of powers are definitely sound in principle and worthy of emulation. With some islamic spirituality infused in it, one could avoid the major pitfalls of these sytems that is actually the moral corruption of the people in the system.
Post a Comment
<< Home