Question
You refute the understanding of HT of the hadith of bayah “Whosoever dies without oath on their neck dies death of jahiliyyah“, by using analogies such as obedience to parents being fard, paying of zakat etc
I contend your analogies are totally false and inappropriate to the context of discussion.
I can demonstrate this to you.
The hadith provides the obligation to ensure the existence of the Khalif.
You try analogizing that it is fard to obey parents and how silly it would be to say that it is fard to establish them if they do not exist. The original obligation here is totally different to that extracted from the hadith of bayah, thus the 2 obligations are totally different thus no similarity/analogy!
Secondly what text do you use to say it is fard to obey parents and this obligation is of a mutlaq nature.
Answer
I had only given the analogies to show that there are a number of directives in the Shari`ah, which are applicable only under specific circumstances. Thus, I had shown in my referred article that as the directive regarding ‘good behavior’ with parents or the directive regarding the payment of Zaka’h are conditional upon the presence of the parents or on the accumulation of wealth, which is over and above the limits set as Nisaab, in the same manner, the directive regarding obedience toward rulers or regarding fulfillment of the pledge of allegiance given to these rulers is, obviously, conditional upon the presence and the existence of the rulers.
You write:
The hadith provides the obligation to ensure the existence of the Khalif.
Your stated interpretation is absolutely without any basis. I am sure if you have any basis, for the stated interpretation, you would have no objection in explaining it.
You write:
You try analogizing that it is fard to obey parents and how silly it would be to say that it is fard to establish them if they do not exist.
I fully agree with you. In fact, as I see it, it is equally ‘silly’ to think that because it is obligatory to fulfill allegiance to the rulers, therefore, in the absence of the ‘rulers’ it is obligatory to establish a rule and to put a ‘ruler’ in position. This ‘silliness’ of this point was precisely what I had wanted to establish, which, it seems, I succeeded in.
You write:
The original obligation here is totally different to that extracted from the hadith of bayah, thus the 2 obligations are totally different thus no similarity/analogy!
Again, I agree with you. However, the similarity that I pointed out was not in the two (or more) obligations but in their being conditional upon external circumstances. In case you disagree with my contention and want me to believe that the directive regarding the bay`ah is not conditional upon the existence and the presence of the ‘ruler’ and the ‘rule’, then you should kindly explain your basis of believing so.
You write:
Secondly what text do you use to say it is fard to obey parents and this obligation is of a mutlaq nature.
I do not say that. In fact, I never did.
I take the opportunity to briefly explain why, in my opinion, is the directive regarding the ‘bay`ah’ of the ‘ruler’ conditional upon the existence of a ‘rule’ and the presence of a ‘ruler’. I would sincerely request you to look closely at these points and before trying to refute them, please try to understand them first. I am sure that if my stated arguments hold no weight, you will, insha’Allah, easily be able to refute them. However, if you try to refute them without first understanding them (as you seem to have done with my analogies), there is hardly a chance that your refutation will hold any grounds, in my eyes.
I understand the referred directives regarding bay`ah to be conditional upon the existence of the ‘rule’ and the presence of a ‘ruler’ because of the following reasons:
-
The words of the referred narrative ascribed to the Prophet (pbuh), themselves, entail a clear indication of the fact that they refer to a situation, where a rule has already been established and a ruler is already present. The referred narrative has been reported as:
من خلع يدا من طاعة لقي الله يوم القيامة لا حجة له ومن مات وليس في عنقه بيعة مات ميتة جاهلية (مسلم، کتاب الإمارة، رقم ٣٤٤١)
Whoever frees a hand from obedience [to his ruler] shall meet God, on the Day of Judgment, in a state that he shall have no excuse [for his behavior]. Whoever dies without allegiance [to his ruler], dies a death of Jahiliyyah. (Muslim, Kitaab al-Imaarah, No. 3441)
The first part of the narrative relates to turning back from one’s pledge of allegiance to one’s ruler. It is obvious from this part of the narrative that a ‘ruler’ and a ‘rule’ and a ‘pledge of obedience’ to the ‘ruler’ already exists1. After this, the Prophet (pbuh) is reported to have continued saying: “Whoever dies, without pledging allegiance to his ruler…”. Thus, the first part of the narrative has established the pre-existence of a ‘ruler’, for the pledge of allegiance.
Seen in the correct perspective, the narrative entails two directives regarding the rights of the Muslim rulers, which their subjects must steadfastly fulfill. 1) when a rule is established and a ruler takes charge, the Muslims should not turn back on their pledge of allegiance and obedience toward the ruler; 2) when a rule is established and a ruler takes charge, no Muslim should avoid pledging allegiance to him, thereby keeping himself free of his responsibilities toward the ‘ruler’.
-
It is a well known fact that all these directives regarding the fulfillment of one’s bay`ah toward one’s rulers were given only after the migration and the subsequent establishment of a sovereign Muslim state in Medinah. All through the thirteen years of the pre-Hijrah period, not a single directive was given regarding the fulfillment of the bay`ah, as being obligatory upon the Muslims, neither were the Muslims prompted to strive for the establishment of the Khilaafah, even though they were all living under a collective system ruled by the staunchest of rejecters and enemies of the Almighty. However, as soon as an independent state was established in Medinah, the Prophet (pbuh) directed the Muslims to 1) neither avoid pledging allegiance to their rulers; 2) nor turning back upon their allegiance. It is quite clear that had the establishment of ‘rule’ been obligatory upon the Muslims, there would have been no better time to give directions regarding it, than during the extreme persecution of the Meccan era.
According to another narrative, in which a companion of the Prophet (pbuh) is reported to have asked the Prophet (pbuh) regarding his personal duties and obligations under a situation of anarchy, where no ‘rule’ exists nor any single ‘ruler’ may be considered as truly representing the Muslims. The Prophet (pbuh) replied:
فاعتزل تلك الفرق كلها ولو أن تعض بأصل شجرة حتى يدركك الموت وأنت على ذلك (بخاري، كتاب المناقب، رقم ٣٣٣٨)
Then you must stay away from each of these groups, even if you have to take shelter under a tree for the rest of your life.
It may be noted that the question asked clearly refers to a situation, in which a ‘rule’ does not exist, nor is a ruler present. However, in response to the question, the Prophet (pbuh) did not direct the companion to form a group, with the target of establishing a ‘rule’ (or as some would prefer to call ‘Khilaafah’). On the contrary, he directed him to stay away from all groups and to live a life of seclusion. Obviously, had the establishment of ‘khilaafah’ been obligatory upon the Muslims, the Prophet (pbuh) would then have given a clear directive to that effect, in response to the inquiry of the companion.
These are some of the points on the basis of which I am of the opinion that the directive regarding the bay`ah of the ruler being obligatory is clearly conditional upon the existence of the ‘rule’ and the presence of the ruler.
February 22, 2001
- In fact, it is to avoid this inconsistency that the Hizb al-Tehrir has interpreted the first part of the narrative as relating to obedience to God, rather than to the rulers. [↩]