My Blog

Mu’awiyah became convinced of the benefits in nominating his son and proceeded to implement this plan despite opposition from the senior companions (sahaba) within the state.

Would the Caliph be elected and held accountable for all his actions?

Yes. Contrary to notions of the Islamic Caliphate being a religious dictatorship presiding over an authoritarian system, the head of state is elected within an open transparent election and is directly accountable for all his actions to the people. This accountability is maintained by having a vibrant open society and political parties, the presence of strong institutions including independent courts as well as the presence of strong values. There are many Islamic evidences that are well known that obliged enjoining good and forbidding evil (amr bil maaroof wa nahi anil munkar) upon rulers.

Within the Caliphate there is a specific institution called the Court of Unjust Acts (Mahkamut ul Madhalim), which has the mandatory power to look into any complaint against the Head of State, his advisers, any assistants or the governors in the provinces. Indeed the court itself has the right to look into any case of injustice by the executive even if nobody filed a complaint.

The Islamic political system has a number of key principles, two of the fundamental ones are that:

1. Legislation is derived from the divine sources i.e. the Qur’an and Sunnah, Ijmaa as-Sahaba (Consensus of the Companions of the Prophet) and Qiyas (Analogical reasoning)

2. The authority lies with the people.

The former principle contravenes the key tenet of secular democracies, while the second principle undermines the key features of dictatorships.

This means in origin that the people are the ones who hold the authority of ruling and they contract the ruler (Caliph) to rule according to the Qur’an and Sunnah. The contract or bai’ah stipulates that the ruler is permitted to rule the people as long as he rules according to the Quran and Sunnah. The appointment of the ruler is thus through popular consent from the people via an electoral process.

A ruler must have a mandate from the population or is considered illegitimate. This completely puts to rest the myth that the Caliphate would be some kind of religious dictatorship imposed upon the people through religious order.

There is no fixed-term limit for a leader. The Court of Unjust Acts can remove him at any time, if he breaches the constitutional contract of ruling or contravenes any of the qualifying conditions to rule. There is no need to wait five years for the next election to do this. The principle is rooted in divine law but can be seen as providing long term continuity as well as avoiding the compromises and money dependency that short term electoral cycles bring in modern democracies.

No a leader if he contravenes the constitutional limits or commits egregious acts he can be removed by the Court of Unjust Acts at any juncture. This court is independent from the executive and can listen to any complaint. In addition accountability – by ordinary citizens, political parties, independent media and the elected assembly is a constant obligation on the people - not to be exhibited once every four or five years via a ballot box.

Yes there are. There are regional assemblies (Majlis ul-Wilyiah) in each province (wiliyah) that are directly elected and whose term limit is five years and whose representatives then elect from amongst themselves a national assembly known as the Council of the Ummah (Majlis al-Ummah).

They have the responsibility to account the Head of State at the national level and account the appointed Governors at the local level. In addition their views/decisions sought on general public interest matters is considered binding.

Allah says in the Qur'an:

‘And do consult them in the matter, and if you decide (on an action/opinion) put your trust in Allah’ [al-Imran, 3:159]

The regional assembly can also by majority vote remove the locally appointed Governor by passing in effect a vote of no confidence.

No! Theocracies at their heart believe that there is a group or leaders who are infallible and who have an exclusive right to interpret the word of God, where no one is allowed to challenge their interpretation and anyone doing so is condemned. Muslims believe Prophets are selected by God but that subsequent political leaders are not. Their legitimacy must emanate from the authority of the people. The Islamic political system is not theocratic in nature with anyone allowed to challenge any ruling by either scholars or the head of state. We also do not accept either Iran or Saudi Arabia as valid models; the former has a split religious-secular model, neither Islamic nor democratic; while the latter is a hereditary monarchy that uses the religious establishment as a tool to control opposition to their capitalist and pro-West agenda.

Like most states, an Islamic state would have a written constitution that governs the society and therefore allows individuals and political parties to operate within that constitutional construct. Of course an Islamic constitution would be different to a constitution that promoted free-market capitalism and social liberalism. However constitutions, written or implied, in democratic states also constrain individuals and parties to ensure that everyone operates within the same political rules and systems. The Islamic system in that sense is no different.

To a certain extent, though since 9-11 we are seeing a greater intolerance of people who are challenging fundamental ideas. Within an Islamic political system, accounting leaders and their decisions is not merely encouraged – it is mandatory.

Allah says in the Qur'an:

‘Let there arise from amongst you group(s) who call to the khair, enjoin maaroof and forbid munkar. They are those who are successful.’ [al-Imran, 3:104]

meaning that there must at any one time be groups within the Ummah that account the rulers. We also know that Islamic history has a long record of accounting rulers, debate and discussion, and Islam draws a clear line between debate, criticism of authority on one hand and gratuitous abuse of key beliefs – unlike Europe’s position during the Danish cartoons abuse.

Media in the Caliphate is independent, in general not require any permission for work. Every citizen in the Caliphate is allowed to set up any kind of media operation within the agreed general guidelines of the laws – which prevents libellous attacks, the promotion of any kind of sexual depravity, racism or issues relating to national security. But scrutinising policy, questioning and accounting the executive and other branches of government is fully within their mode of action.

Islamic jurisprudence has detailed solutions and key principles derived from the Qur'an and Sunnah that are timeless. These can be applied to any new challenge or problem. This is well established in Islamic jurisprudence under the discipline of Ijtihad. Most democratic states still cite the Magna Carta in 1215 and the United States is based on a constitution written in 1776. In addition pan-national treaties or conventions like the European Convention on Human Rights or the Geneva Conventions are also viewed by their supporters as timeless accords.

Furthermore if one studies Islamic history one can see how during the Islamic Caliphate the Muslim world was at the forefront of science, technology and progress.

No, Islam evaluates human actions in five ways. Some actions are mandatory (fard), others are prohibited (haram) while some are disliked (makhruh) or recommended (mandoub or Sunnah). In any of these four categories, people have no right in setting policy – these matters can be seen as fixed principles in the state. 

However the fifth category is that which is categorised as permissible actions (mubah) i.e. actions that human beings are free to do without divine restriction – many state policies may well be amongst the mubah actions. Here people have every right via their elected assemblies to fully debate and decide the best course for the State. There are many occasions from the life of the Prophet where people were not just consulted but their collective decisions were considered binding. These issues are generally related to areas of communal interest that do not require specialist scrutiny in areas of education, health, the economy, industry and agriculture.

The Western cocktail of money and politics has caused huge problems in generating corruption, a degeneration of society’s values and instability in global peace and security as worldwide resources are constantly fought over. The Islamic system would take the money out of modern politics. The electoral circus every four or five years (every two years for the House of Representatives in the United States) in the West positively encourages the growth of money in politics forcing politicians to either raise grotesque amounts of money for re-election or maximise their own wealth before they get booted out.

The Islamic system, though not immune from the temptations on offer, seeks to actively detach both finance and the interests of corporations from politics by avoiding the constant electoral circus. In addition whereas capitalism and democracies are fused at the hip in the West, so creating a class of politicians who are either personally corrupt or beholden to a corporate class, no such influence is permitted in an Islamic political model where strong restrictions surrounding relationships and influence are in force.

The Islamic economic system is also the complete antithesis to the capitalist economy, putting the problems of the ordinary man over big business. Moreover, a record of corruption is a matter that would violate a contractual condition of ruling for the Caliph – meaning such a person would either not be allowed to take office, or would be removed once in office.

Yes, absolutely! Judges and courts are completely independent from the head of state and the executive and are key parts of the Caliphate's institutions. Moreover, a sitting judge who is investigating a matter relating to the executive cannot be dismissed till the conclusion of the investigation.

Correct. No one - including the head of state, their family, or any religious scholar - is above the law. And unlike the West where justice is skewed to those that are more powerful and wealthier, Islamic courts have historically - and will do so in the future - exercised justice for the weak, minorities and the less well off. This was because of the saying of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم mentioned in Bukhari and Muslim when he was petitioned to intercede for a noble lady who had committed theft: ‘The nations before were destroyed because if a noble person committed theft, they used to leave him, but if a weak person amongst them committed theft, they used to inflict the legal punishment on him. By Allah, if Fatima, the daughter of Muhammad, committed theft, Muhammad would cut off her hand!’

No this is a common accusation but has no grounding in fact. The Caliphate is mandated by divine law to treat non-Muslim citizens well; protecting their right to their religious beliefs and protecting their places of worship.

The State is forbidden from discriminating at all between the individuals in terms of rule, judiciary and management of affairs or anything similar. Rather, every individual should be treated equally regardless of race, creed, colour or anything else.

Allah says in the Qur'an:

'And if you judge between people, judge with justice.' (al-Nisa, 4:58]

'And let not the hatred of others to you make you swerve to wrong and depart from justice. Be just, that is nearer to piety' [Al-Maida, 5:8]

Also the Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم said: 'He who kills a covenanted person unjustly shall not find the scent of heaven; its scent is found the distance of a hundred year march.' [Tirmidhi]

Historically Jews and Christians were well protected and examples of Islamic Spain and the refuge given to Jews by Istanbul at the time of the Inquisition are documented examples. In one famous case from the early period of Islamic rule a non-Muslim took the head of state to court over a property dispute and won the case. Non-Muslims of any creed (or none) have no fear from an Islamic system and for many who see Western societies increasingly mired in materialism and political corruption may seem pleasantly surprised at the Caliphate’s alternative model.

No Islam completely rejects this. Islam does not believe in arbitrary arrest or torture or rendition or internment. Every person has the right to a presumption of innocence, a right to privacy and a right to a fair trial. Secular democracies do not have a monopoly over respecting the rights of its citizens.

Islam prohibits the State from spying on its citizens – something endemic in Muslim countries but also on the increase in many Western countries: Spying on Muslims is haram as stipulated in this verse.

Allah says in the Qur'an:

'And do not spy on each other' [Hujraat, 49:12]

This is a general prohibition of spying confirmed by the hadith reported by Ahmad and Abu Dawud in their narration from Al-Muqdad and Abu Umamah when they said:

The Messenger of Allah said: 'If the amir sought for suspicion amongst the people he would undermine them.' [Abu Dawud, Sunan, #4889 and al-Haythami, Majma’ al-Zawa’id, vol.5, p.218]

There are also clear constitutionally enshrined Islamic prohibitions on torture and abusive behaviour amongst other things – applied to the police, armed forces and security services as well as the general population - as a protection from such forceful rule.

Yes but this was specific to Europe where science was seen as an enemy to established tenets of the Church. The opposite happened in the Muslim world, the Caliphate actually drove scientific and technological progress on the back of Islamic tenets. Islam never mandated divine rules relating to science, administrative or technical issues. The significant achievements and advancements of the Caliphate historically have been recognised by many non-Muslim commentators, historians and experts.

China may have an amazing economic growth record but is a state that crushes its individuals and denies them any political rights. For China people are resources to be managed through the capitalist market not human beings who should be respected and treated like human beings.

Killing innocent people in cold blood for protesting in a public square is not a sign of a civilisation at ease with itself. Chinese internal policies in Xinjiang and Tibet are harsh and severe and are characterised by paranoia and the requirement for absolute obedience. China often accuses the West for engaging in brutal behaviour, however its treatment of the Uighurs shows its inability to build a cohesive society that can be attractive to minorities.

Despite attempts by Chinese politicians to portray the whole of China as vibrant, almost 40% or 500 million of China’s population live on less than $2 a day. Despite the great strength of China’s economy, too little of the new found wealth has circulated to the poor and the needy.

China has a terrible record when it comes to religious persecution. Its treatment of all religions but specifically Christianity and Islam is nothing short of horrific. Despite a huge propaganda effort to convince the world that China is becoming much more open and free since the June 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre, religious persecution has been intensifying. Chinese authorities have intensified their violent campaign against religious believers, including Evangelical Christians, Roman Catholics, Uighur Muslims, Tibetan Buddhists, and other groups, such as the Falun Gong.

By Abdul-Kareem Newell

When the volcanic ash cloud hit Europe last week I along with thousands of other Muslims was caught stranded in Saudi Arabia after performing the umra (minor pilgrimage).

As we set off for Jeddah Airport we were obviously concerned since our flight had been cancelled and we were unsure what assistance would be provided to us by the Saudi government’s Hajj ministry and Saudi Airlines.

In the days prior to our departure from Makkah we watched the news reports showing passengers stranded at airports across the world. On the whole these airports were providing those stranded with food, blankets and makeshift beds in an attempt to ease their plight. Thousands of others were being accommodated in hotels by their airlines because any airline based in the EU must by law provide food, drinks, and hotel accommodation.

On reaching the Saudi Airlines terminal at Jeddah Airport it very quickly became apparent that unlike the hundreds of other airlines and airports across the world the Saudi government would be providing absolutely no assistance to those stranded. The Hajj ministry and Saudi Airlines refused to provide any financial assistance to those affected saying they couldn’t afford to accommodate so many people. This is despite the fact that King Abdullah is the richest leader in the world with an estimated wealth of $21 billion!

The majority of those stranded and flying back to Europe were returning from performing umra and were not only guests in the country but were guests of Allah (Most High).

The Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) said: “The one who fights for the sake of Allah and the pilgrim who goes for Hajj or Umrah are all guests of Allah. He called them and they responded; they ask of Him and He will give them.” [Ibn Majah: 2893]

In Pre-Islamic Arabia a period commonly referred to as jahiliyyah (days of ignorance) the Arab tribes had a strong tradition of hospitality towards the guests. Much of their poetry was dedicated to the merits and honour of entertaining the guests and this practice remained strong even though they were mushrikeen (idol worshippers).

The Arab tribe ruling Makkah was known as Qureysh. They had an added responsibility towards the guests since they were in charge of the Holy Ka’bah and those performing the pilgrimages were not ordinary guests but the guests of Allah (Most High). Providing food and water to the guests of Allah (Most High) was considered a great honour and this honour fell to one of the families of Qureysh called Banu Hashim from which the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) is descended. The word Hashim in Arabic means the crushing of bread and it was the nickname of the Prophet’s (Allah bless him and give him peace) great-grandfather ‘Amr bin ‘Abd Munaf who upgraded the meals of the pilgrims by crushing bread in to the soup of meat that used to be cooked and given to them.

When Islam was revealed to Prophet Muhammad (Allah bless him and give him peace) this tradition of honouring the guests continued.

The Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) said: "Let whosoever believes in Allah and in the Last Day honour his guest." [Bukhari & Muslim]

The majority of the Arabian Peninsula today is ruled by King Abdullah and the Saudi royal family. They are now the ruling authority in Makkah as Qureysh were before Islam. Yet despite claiming to implement shari’a in their constitution (even though a Kingdom contradicts the Islamic ruling system of a Caliphate) those in power are even worse than pre-Islamic Makkah in terms of honouring the guests and providing for the guests of Allah (Most High).

Abu Maryam al-Azdi narrated that the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him and give him peace) said: "Whoever is put in charge of any of the affairs of the Muslims and remains aloof from them and pays no attention to their needs and poverty, Allah will remain aloof from him on the Day of Resurrection, and will pay no attention to his needs and poverty." [Abu Dawood, Ibn Maajah, Al-Haakim]

Although I was in the fortunate position Alhamdulillah of only spending one day at Jeddah airport before finding alternative hotel accommodation many were not so fortunate. There were women, children, sick, disabled and old people at the airport who were not even offered water by the airport officials!

"It's been absolutely awful. It's the worst experience I've ever had in my life," 35-year-old Rayhanah Runnell told AFP by phone on Thursday, hours before boarding a flight back to Britain. "I have a daughter of three and a son of seven years old, and they'd been sleeping on the benches and in the masjid (mosque) downstairs. They treat you like a piece of filth. There's been no sense of humanity whatsoever in this place since we have arrived."

However not all guests in the Kingdom are treated this badly. When Barak Obama came to Saudi Arabia in June 2009 he was housed at King Abdullah’s lavish desert horse farm and awarded the King Abdul Aziz Order of Merit, the country's highest honour. This is the same award George Bush received the year before, despite both US Presidents occupying Iraq and Afghanistan and being responsible for the daily deaths of Muslims.

This is the reality of living under a monarchy ruled by an oppressive King. There is no rule of law since the King is sovereign and the constitution is not worth the paper it’s written on. In Islam there is one ruling system which is the Caliphate ruling system where the rule of law exists based on shari’a.

‘Umar ibn al-Khattab, the second Caliph said, “By Allah, I do not know whether I am a Caliph or a king, for if I am a king then this is a tremendous matter.” Someone said, “Amir al-Mu’minin there is a distinction between the two of them.” He said, “What is it?” He said, “A Caliph does not take except what is due and he does not use it except in the right way, and you, praise be to Allah, are like that. The king treats people unjustly, and takes from this one and gives to that one.” ‘Umar was silent. [Suyuti, History of the Caliphs]

Throughout the history of the Caliphate facilities were provided for the travellers and guests, and in a future Caliphate such infrastructure will exist again inshAllah.

In the Caliphate of Umar bin al-Khattab, he set aside a large number of camels – which were a means of transportation available at that time – to make it easy for those who had no mounts to move between the Arabian Peninsula, Syria and Iraq. He also set up something known as dar ad-daqeeq (lit. House of flour) which was a place where saweeq, dates and raisins, and other requirements of life were stored, which could be used by stranded wayfarers and guests who were strangers. On the road between Makkah and Madeenah he provided whatever travellers would need and mounts to take them from oasis to oasis. Umar was following the guidance of the Qur’an which suggests that cultural development requires effective communications, which leads to security, so the traveller did not need to carry water or provisions with him. And Umar issued instructions to the tribes, generals and governors telling them to do the same.
[Dr Ali Muhammed as-Sallabi, ‘Umar ibn al-Khattab his life and times,’ volume 1 p. 388]

It was narrated from Katheer bin Abdullah, from his father, that his grandfather said: “We came with Umar ibn al-Khattab for Umrah in 17AH, and the people of the oases on the way asked him to let them build their houses between Makkah and Madeenah, where there had been nothing before, and he gave them permission, but he stipulated that the wayfarers had more right to the water and shade.” [Ahkam as-Sultaniyah by Al-Mawardi]

Although we were treated badly by the Saudi authorities a distinction must be made between the regime and the ordinary people who live under this regime as is the case in all Muslim countries today. The average person and low level government officials try to make good of a bad situation as best they can, and it’s with them that the future revival of this ummah lies.

Omar Farouk, who was also a stranded passenger in Jeddah complained of the treatment by the Saudi Authorities but said he was touched by the "kindness shown by some of the local people" who brought them food every day. "They're buying toys for the children and making sure the children are getting enough vitamins," he said.

I also witnessed this in Masjid al-Haram (Holy Mosque) where ordinary Muslims would go to the zam zam taps and bring cups of water to those performing tawwaf.

The descendants of the Muhajireen and Ansar living in Saudi Arabia today need to follow in the footsteps of their noble ancestors and re-establish the Caliphate in the blessed land of the Arabian Peninsula once again. The Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) gave good news that this period of oppressive kingship we are living under today would come to an end and the Caliphate (Khilafah) would be established once again.

The Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) said: "There will be Prophethood for as long as Allah wills it to be, then He will remove it when He wills, then there will be Khilafah on the Prophetic method and it will be for as long as Allah wills, then He will remove it when He wills, then there will be biting Kingship for as long as Allah Wills, then He will remove it when He wills, then there will be oppressive kingship for as long as Allah wills, then he will remove it when He wills, and then there will be Khilafah upon the Prophetic method" and then he remained silent. [Ahmed]

A team was dispatched from the US State Department in 1877 to assess the treatment of Jews in the Ottoman Caliphate. Their findings that Jews were very well treated and not persecuted are described in the news article below published on Wednesday 23rd August 1877 by the New York Times.

"The United States Minister says that justice to the Turk compels him to admit that the Israelites have been better treated by the Ottomans than by many of the Western powers and that the impression prevails that they are better treated in the Empire than the Christians."



ISRAELITIES IN TURKEY.

STATISTICS RECEIVED FROM THE UNITED STATES MINISTER.

500,000 HEBREWS IN THE OTTOMAN EMPIRE.

THEY ARE BETTER TREATED THAN CHRISTIANS BY THE TURKS.

PROTECTION EXTENDED BY THE UNITED STATES OFFICIALS.

WASHINGTON, Aug, 22. A dispatch has been received at the Department of State from the United States Minister to Turkey giving interesting details concerning the number, status, and persecution of the Israelites in the Ottoman Empire. The total number of Israelites in the Empire is given at 500,000. Of this total, Roumania contains 250,000, Asiatic Turkey 80,000, European Turkey 75,000. Servia 2,000, &c. The United States Minister says that justice to the Turk compels him to admit that the Israelites have been better treated by the Ottomans than by many of the Western powers and that the impression prevails that they are better treated in the Empire than the Christians. They are recognized as independent religious community with the privileges of their own ecclesiastical rule, their chief Rabbi, Chacham Bashi, possessing, in consequence of his functions, great influence.

The Turkish Minister of Foreign Affairs protested to Mr. Maynard that where Turkish rule obtained the Israelites always enjoyed every privilege and immunity accorded by the laws to Ottoman subjects. The only maltreatment of Israelites which has been brought to the notice of the United States Legation at Constantinople during the official term of Mr. Maynard, was that of the Rabbi Sneersohn, an American citizen. On Nov. 28, 1874, the Rabbi was set upon by his co-religionists, certain Jews at Tiberias, robbed of a considerable amount, and most shamefully maltreated by being imprisoned, stoned, stripped naked, and ridden in that condition through the streets of Tiberias, barely escaping with his life. The United States Consul at Beyrout went to Tiberias and had the perpetrators arrested. Some claimed British protection, and escaped by flight. The friends of the others assembled, overpowered the authorities, and rescued them. The legation at Constantinople then took up the subject, and it was being satisfactorily pushed-as fast as possible under the circumstances-when the Rabbi, doubtless tired out and impoverished, left for France and in his absence nothing further could be done.

The position which the Israelites hold in the Empire, the complex systems and situations, and the heterogenity of the races by which they are surrounded, the state of civilization and the religious animosities which prevail, the little authority exercised by the Ottoman Government over the provinces even in ordinary times, (protesting that it should not be held responsible for abuses in the provinces,) render whole subject not only difficult of solution, but even difficult of explanation. Some of the Israelites claim to be under British protection, others have been under Russian protection. Many hold themselves us an independent people, owing no allegiance to any Government, and it is only when persecuted or outraged that they seek the protection of any or all human powers. While all Governments, the United States Government foremost of all, are most anxious to extend the necessary sympathy and protection, international questions and equities interfere with and prevent that full protection which they would receive were they fixed citizens of any Government.

The United States Minister at Constantinople has requested the consular officers of his Government, throughout the Ottoman Empire, to observe carefully the condition of the Israelites within their several jurisdictions, and to report to the legation at Constantinople without delay any instances of persecutions of that people which may occur.



Published: August 23, 1877, The New York Times

Source



RELATED ARTICLE - DHIMMI - Non-Muslims living in the Caliphate

In most Muslim countries today the ruler and his extended family are some of the wealthiest individuals in the nation and in some instances even the world.

According to the official 2006 Forbes rich list of world leaders, the top three richest leaders are in Muslim countries.

First place is King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia with an estimated wealth of $21 billion. The royal family derives most of its wealth through oil, which represents 45% of the country’s $340 billion GDP.

Second place is the Sultan of Brunei with wealth of $20 billion. This wealth is gained from Brunei’s extensive petroleum and natural gas fields.

Third place is Sheikh Khalifa bin Zayed, President of the UAE with wealth of $19 billion. Most of his family’s wealth comes from the emirate’s oil wealth; it holds more than 90% of the 2.5 million barrels a day exported from the UAE.

The wealth of all these leaders is derived primarily from the country’s oil and natural resources. In Islam natural resources such as large quantities of oil and gas cannot be owned by private individuals. They are considered public property whose revenues must benefit all the Muslims.

Ibn ‘Abbas narrated that the Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم said: “Muslims are partners (associates) in three things: in water, pastures and fire,” reported by Abu Dawud. (Fire here refers to the fire based fuels.)

Unfortunately, a study of most of our leaders today reveals that they treat the country’s state treasury like their own personal bank accounts. Much of their true wealth is siphoned away from the Ummah and hidden offshore in Swiss bank accounts.

Reading through Islamic history we also find many examples of Caliph’s and wulah (governors) living very lavish lifestyles and taking very large sums of money from the state treasury (bait ul-mal) for their personal allowance.

So how much will the Caliph in a future Caliphate get paid?

To answer this question we need to look to the first Caliph of Islam Abu Bakr as-Siddiq (ra) and how this was dealt with in his Caliphate.

A short while after Abu Bakr as-Siddiq (ra) was appointed as Caliph, Umar ibn al-Khattab (ra) and Abu Ubaidah ibn al-Jarrah (ra) were walking in Medinah when they met Abu Bakr (ra) carrying garments on his shoulders and going to the marketplace to trade.

Umar asked Abu Bakr, “What are you doing?”
Abu Bakr replied, “I am going to trade.”
Umar said: “After you became responsible for all the Muslims???”

Abu Bakr said, “But I have to feed my family.”
So Umar said, “Lets go and we will pay you an allowance.” [from the state treasury Bait ul-Mal]

Umar and Abu Ubaidah decided to pay Abu Bakr 250 dinars a year and a daily allowance of half a sheep in food.

Some time later Umar was walking in Medinah when he came across a group of women. He asked them “What are you doing?”

They replied, “We are waiting for the Caliph.”

Abu Bakr did not turn up for office that day so Umar went searching for him and found him in the marketplace trading again.

Umar grabbed the hand of Abu Bakr and said, “What are you doing?”
Abu Bakr replied, “The allowance you gave me is not enough.”
Umar said, “Fine, we will increase it for you.”
Abu Bakr said, “I want 300 dinars a year and a daily allowance of a whole sheep in food.”
Umar said, “No. We are not going to give you that.”
Imam Ali (ra) intervened and said, “Give it to him.”
Umar said, “You think so?”
Ali replied, “Yes.”
So Umar said, “We agree.”

Abu Bakr then stood on the minbar in the masjid and called the sahaba. He said, “You have paid me 250 dinars a year and a daily allowance of half a sheep in food, and that wasn’t enough for me. So Umar and Ali have given me an increase to 300 dinars a year and a daily allowance of the whole sheep. Do you agree?”

The sahaba replied, “We agree.”


Points we can take from the above incident are as follows.

Firstly, the Caliphate is not an employee who gets paid a wage, since he is not hired by the Ummah. The Caliph is given a pledge of allegiance (bay’ah) by the Ummah to implement the Sharia and convey the Islamic Da’wah to the world. Although the Caliph is not paid a wage an allowance is assigned to him from the bait ul-mal to meet his needs. This allowance is a compensation for him since he is kept busy with the obligation of Caliphate and cannot work and pursue his own business interests.

This also applies to any of the ruling positions within the Caliphate such as the wulah and mu’awinoon (assistants).

Secondly, ruling is an act of ibadat (worship) performed purely for the pleasure of Allah سبحانه وتعالى. Therefore the office of Caliph should not be viewed as a means of becoming rich and amassing huge wealth as we find the Muslim rulers doing today. The Caliph will be paid an allowance that covers his expenses to a level that he can function comfortably in office and meet his needs.

Thirdly, the Majlis ul-Ummah (Council of the Ummah) will decide through shura (consultation) how much the Caliph’s allowance should be. They are the elected representatives of the Ummah and giving them the ultimate decision prevents any abuse of the public funds by the Caliph.

Adopting a slogan/anthem that can be acclaimed to distinguish a certain group of people from others, or a certain state from others is one of the permissible matters. The Muslims in the past had a slogan which they used when they met their enemies on the battle field. This was used at the time of the Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم and by his agreement. They took the slogan of (Ha Mim, they are not helped) in the battle of the trench and Qurayzah, and the slogan of (You, the helped, bring death, bring death) in Banu Al-Mustaliq, and so on.

This is besides the favours bestowed by Allah سبحانه وتعالى upon man of the characteristics created in him such as hearing, sight and speaking, all of these are included in the evidences of ibaha. So, man sees, speaks and applauds whatever he wants unless there is specific evidence related to any of them, which then he must observe.

Therefore, it is allowed for the Islamic State to adopt a slogan with which it applauds and by which it distinguishes itself from other states, where it uses it in its relations with other states, and it accompanies the Khalifah in his visits to other heads of states or during their visits to him. It can also be used by the public in their occasions, where they applaud with it in their assemblies, public gatherings, schools and broadcasts, and the like.

In regards to the method of applauding, i.e. the intensity of the voice, the lowering, or speaking with or without a nasal sound etc, all of this is allowed, because the Muslims used to declaim their poems with an exciting voice in accordance with the occasion they were applauding.

The state has adopted that it should have an anthem, which it uses when necessary, and it accompanies the Khalifah in his official meetings with the heads of states. Additionally the Ummah would use it on certain occasions.

The following has been noted for the anthem of the second rightly guided Caliphate after its establishment by the permission of Allah سبحانه وتعالى:

1-It should mention the fulfilment of the glad tidings of the Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم regarding the return of the second guided Caliphate, and the rise again of the banner of the Uqab, the banner of the Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم.

2-It should mention the glad tidings of the Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم when the Caliphate is established and the earth will bring out its treasures and the heaven will send down its blessings, and the earth will be filled with justice after being filled with tyranny.

3-It should mention the conquests and spreading of goodness in all of the worlds regions with the Caliphate ruling over all, particularly the lands of the three mosques to which journeys are made: al-Masjid ul Haram, the prophetic masjid, and al-Masjid ul-Aqsa after uprooting the Jewish State.

4-It would be concluded by the return of the Ummah as Allah wanted her to be: The best Ummah brought to mankind, where its main goal is to attain the good pleasure of Allah سبحانه وتعالى, Who would honour her with His favour, Mercy and the High Garden of Al-Firdaws.

5-Takbeer has to be repeated in it. This is because takbeer has a special impact in Islam and in a Muslim’s life. It is takbeer that reiterates in their victories, and in their holidays, and on their tongues and is mentioned on every effective occasion.