The fact the Prophet (saw) did not tell Hudaifa anything about Hudaifa1 is of no consequence – surely you know that absence of an action means nothing e.g. Prophet (saw) never drove a car, wore a suit, eat a pizza etc can you comment on any of these subject matters based on the fact he did not do any of these? No, absence of action is meaningless.
Why directives of bay`ah were given after Medina again is meaningless – its like arguing why sala’h very late in Mecca or jihad in medina etc Time of revelation is now of no consequence to us when studying revelation. All fards must be performed regardless of when they were revealed.
Your reasoning is quite weak – it is not based on fiqh/usool al-fiqh. You must be careful to contain your reasoning within these disciplines – otherwise we need to start our discussion afresh, establishing the basis we will be using for our discussion.
You surprise me.
I was discussing the matter with you on the understanding that you hold the establishment of Khilaafah to be fardh (obligatory) upon Muslims. I did not know that for you, establishment of ‘Khilaafah’ had the same ‘Islamic significance’ as ‘driving a car’ or ‘wearing a suit’ or ‘eating a pizza’. If this is what you hold about the position of establishing ‘Khilaafah’, then lets call it a day, as no differences exist between us.
However, if you think that the establishment of ‘Khilaafah’ is an obligation upon Muslims, then either your analogies are completely misplaced or you hold that ‘driving a car’, ‘wearing a suit’ or ‘eating a pizza’ are also religious obligations for Muslims. Please do clarify that.
My dear brother, absence of a directive or an action of the Prophet (pbuh) can, at the most, render such action ‘not prohibited’ or ‘allowable’ (jaayiz). A clear directive of the Qur’an or the Sunnah is, however, necessary to render something ‘obligatory’ in the Islamic Shari`ah. I would, therefore, once again ask you to review your opinion about the narrative of Hudhayfah and explain that if, in the absence of the existence of ‘Khilaafah’, its establishment is obligatory upon Muslims, then why did the Prophet (pbuh) not tell Hudhayfah about it, when he asked him about his responsibilities under such circumstances. Please do keep in mind that it was the prime duty of the Prophet (pbuh) to inform people about their obligations, as per the Islamic Shari`ah.
Look at it another way. I am sure that if I ask you the same question, which Hudhayfah (ra) asked the Prophet (pbuh), your answer would not be the same as that of the Prophet (pbuh). Please do inform me of the basis of your difference of opinion, with the Prophet (pbuh).
Your reasoning is quite weak – it is not based on fiqh/usool al-fiqh.
My reasoning, is based on: 1) the clear words, context, mutually agreed upon background of a narrative ascribed to the Prophet (pbuh); 2) other narratives ascribed to the Prophet (pbuh) on the subject; and 3) common sense. Please do let me know what is it in my reasoning which is against ‘fiqh’ and ‘usul al-fiqh’?
However, If you do consider that my reasoning is ‘weak’, don’t you think I deserve to be told about the precise weakness therein, or would you only like to play ‘judge’ about the ‘strengths’ and ‘weaknesses’ of my reasoning?
You must be careful to contain your reasoning within these disciplines – otherwise we need to start our discussion afresh, establishing the basis we will be using for our discussion.
This is for you to decide.
However, please be careful in presenting any principles, which you cannot defend on the basis of the Qur’an or the Sunnah or common sense.
To carry on the discussion, I would insist that you give a clear answer to my question regarding Hudhayfah’s (ra) narrative.
February 25, 2001
- This should probably have been ‘Khilaafah’ or ‘establishment of Khilaafah’. [↩]