Rebutting the Imaginary Foundations of “Baghdadi’s” Alleged Khilafah (Part 2)

الحمد لله والصلاة والسلام على رسول الله وعلى آله وصحبه ومن والاه

In the previous article we explained that the first core point in rebutting the foundations upon which the alleged khilafah was established is the lack of shura, i.e. establishing it without taking the opinion of Ahlul-Halli wal-aqd as they claim.

The second point in rebutting the foundations upon which the khilafah of ISIS was established

In al-Adnani’s statement “this is Allah’s promise” came “we point out to the Muslims that with the announcement of the khilafah it has become an obligation upon all of the Muslims to give bay’ah to and support the khaleefah Ibrahim حفظه الله and that it has nullified the legitimacy of all emirates, groups, governorates and organisations that his authority extends to and his soldiers reach. Imam Ahmad رحمه الله said in a narration of Abdoos bin Malik al-Attar: “If one overcomes them by the sword and becomes the khaleefah and is referred to as Amir al-Mo’mineen, it is not legal for anyone who believes in Allah to spend the night without recognizing him as imam, be he a righteous man or a sinner.” The khaleefah Ibrahim حفظه الله has fulfilled all of the conditions of khilafah that the people of knowledge mentioned and was given bay’ah in Iraq by the Ahlul-Halli wal-aqd in the Islamic State, succeeding Abu Omar al-Baghdadi رحمه الله , and his authority has spread over vast areas of Iraq and ash-Sham, for the land today submits to his order from Halab to Diyala.”

We notice in this speech confusion about the issue of the ways to establish the alleged khilafah. Sometimes it is said that the state was established by the bay’ah of Ahlul-Halli wal-aqd; other times it is said that it is by usurping. These are two contradictory matters that are not reconcilable. Either the state was established by choice, or it was established by usurping, due to the differing rules relating to the two methods.

Imam Ibn Jama’ah said in his book Tahrir al-Ahkam fi Tadbir Ahl il-Islam:

الْإِمَامَة ضَرْبَان: اختيارية وقهرية… وتنعقد الْإِمَامَة الاختيارية: بطريقتين. والقهرية: بطرِيق ثَالِث. الطَّرِيق الأول فِي الاختيارية: بيعَة أهل العقد والحل: من الْأُمَرَاء وَالْعُلَمَاء، والرؤساء، ووجوه النَّاس الَّذِي يَتَيَسَّر حضورهم بِبَلَد الإِمَام عِنْد الْبيعَة، كبيعة أبي بكر رَضِي الله عَنهُ يَوْم السَّقِيفَة… الطَّرِيق الثَّانِي: اسْتِخْلَاف الإِمَام الَّذِي قبله: كَمَا اسْتخْلف أَبُو بكر رَضِي الله عَنهُمَا، وَأَجْمعُوا على صِحَّته… وَأما الطَّرِيق الثَّالِث، الَّذِي تَنْعَقِد بِهِ الْبيعَة القهرية: فَهُوَ قهر صَاحب الشَّوْكَة، فَإِذا خلا الْوَقْت عَن إِمَام فتصدى لَهَا من هُوَ من أَهلهَا، وقهر النَّاس بشوكته وَجُنُوده بِغَيْر بيعَة أَو اسْتِخْلَاف، انْعَقَدت بيعَته، ولزمت طَاعَته، لينتظم شَمل الْمُسلمين وتجتمع كلمتهم. وَلَا يقْدَح فِي ذَلِك كَونه جَاهِلا أَو فَاسِقًا فِي الْأَصَح

Imamah is of two types: chosen and compelled … the chosen imamah is convened by two ways, and the compelled by a third way. The first way for the chosen is with the bay’ah of Ahlul-Aqdi wal-Hall from the amirs, ulema, chiefs, and the prominent people who are easily gathered in the land of the imam for the bay’ah, like the bay’ah of Abu Bakr رَضِي الله عَنهُ on the day of as-Saqeefah… The second way is by the appointment of the imam before him, like the appointment of Abu Bakr رَضِي الله عَنْهُمَا and they agreed on its correctness … As for the third way, that is convened with the compelled bay’ah, it is by the compulsion of the powerful. If there was some time without an imam, then a suitable man overcame and forced the people by his might and his army, without a bay’ah or appointment, his bay’ah is convened, and obedience to him is obliged, to organise the unity of the Muslims and unify their word. Him being ignorant or a fasiq will not harm that, according to the most correct opinion.” Ibn al-Abideen in his annotation said

( قَوْلُهُ وَتَصِحُّ سَلْطَنَةُ مُتَغَلِّبٍ ) أَيْ مَنْ تَوَلَّى بِالْقَهْرِ وَالْغَلَبَةِ بِلَا مُبَايَعَةِ أَهْلِ الْحَلِّ وَالْعَقْدِ وَإِنْ اسْتَوْفَى الشُّرُوطَ الْمَارَّةَ

“(His statement: the soundness of the authority of the usurper) i.e. whoever took over by compulsion and overcoming, without the bay’ah of Ahlul-Halli wal-aqd if he fulfilled the conditions.” The reality of the usurper is that he decimates the ruling without a correct contract of imamah for him, i.e. without the bay’ah of Ahlul-Halli wal-aqd, then after seizing power, asks for the bay’ah for himself. Therefore, it is obligatory to determine the way of the establishment of the alleged khilafah and not to mix up matters.

The reality is that the idea upon which the state and the alleged khilafah of al-Baghdadi were established is the idea of usurping and not the bay’ah of Ahlul-Halli wal-aqd. Therefore, the followers of al-Baghdadi and the state organisation defended this idea with their words in “this is Allah’s promise” statement: “Imam Ahmad رحمه الله said in a narration of Abdoos bin Malik al-Attar:

ومَن غلب عليهم بالسيف؛ حتى صار خليفة، وسُمّي أمير المؤمنين: فلا يحل لأحد يؤمن بالله أن يبيت ولا يراه إمامًا، برًّا كان أو فاجرًا

“Whoever overcomes them by the sword until he becomes the khaleefah and is known as Amir al-Mo’mineen, it is not allowed for anyone who believes in Allah to remain a night and not recognise him as imam, whether he was just or a transgressor.” They also defended it in the statements “extending the hands…” of Abu Hamam al-Athari and “informing mankind of the birth of the Islamic State” by Uthman bin Abd ur-Rahman at-Tameemi. This is the basis of the establishment of their state, and it is invalid due to what follows:

  1. In explaining the establishment they used the evidence of Ahmad bin Hanbal:

ومَن غلب عليهم بالسيف؛ حتى صار خليفة، وسُمّي أمير المؤمنين: فلا يحل لأحد يؤمن بالله أن يبيت ولا يراه إمامًا، برًّا كان أو فاجرًا

“Whoever overcomes them by the sword until he becomes the khaleefah and is known as Amir al-Mo’mineen, it is not allowed for anyone who believes in Allah to remain a night and not recognise him as imam, whether he was just or a transgressor.” But, this is an incorrect deduction, because Ahmad’s madhab is that the imamah is by choice. This quotation contradicts what is apparent of his madhab, therefore some ulema tried to interpret it. Abu Ya’la al-Firaa’ in al-Ahkam as-Sultaniyyah said

ويمكن أن يحمل ما قاله في رواية عبدوس وغيره، على أنه إذا كان هناك عارض يمنع من نصبة العدل العالم الفاضل وهو أن تكون النفوس قد سكنت إليه وكلمتهم عليه أجمع، وفي العدول عنه يكثر الهرج

“It is possible to construe what he said in the narration of Abdoos and others to mean that if there was an obstacle preventing the appointment of the excellent, just and knowledgeable, and that is that the souls have settled for him and unified their word, and that removing him would bring much disorder” i.e. in the situation of necessity with the conditions that the dominance is real, security is realised, and the people have submitted to him, and his imamah is accepted. This is what al-Buhooti confirmed in Kashf al-Qinaa’ with his saying

لأن عبد الملك بن مروان خرج عليه ابن الزبير فقتله واستولى على البلاد وأهلها حتى بايعوه طوعا وكرها ودعوه إماما ولما في الخروج عليه من شق عصا المسلمين وإراقة دمائهم وذهاب أموالهم

“Because, Ibn Zubayr rebelled against Abd ul-Malik bin Marwan, so he killed him and seized power over the land and its people until they gave him bay’ah willingly and unwillingly, and put him as imam, due to what is in rebelling against him of splitting the Muslims stick, spilling their blood and wasting their wealth.” Ibn Najeem also confirmed this in al-Bahr ar-Ra’iq and Sheikh Zadah in Majma’ al-Anhar fi Sharh Multaqa al-Abhar with his saying

فإن بويع ولم ينفذ حكمه فيهم لعجزه عن قهرهم لا يصير إماما

“If he was given bay’ah and he did not implement the rule among them due to his inability to compel them, then he does not become imam.” So, have the conditions been fulfilled in the khilafah of al-Baghdadi? i.e. has al-Baghdadi prevented disorder, or increased it? and have the souls settled for him and unified their word, or been divided and torn apart? and is his dominance real, or does he still fight the Muslims who reject his khilafah?

  1. Abu Ya’la explained the statement of Ahmad in his book al-Mu’tamad fi Usul id-Deen with his saying

يريد الغلبة لنظرائه ممن يطلب الأمر، فإذا غلبهم فبايعه الناس بعد ذلك صار خليفة، ولم يرد به أنه يصير بنفس الغلب

“He intends the one who overcomes his rivals from among those seeking command, so if he beats them and the people gave him the bay’ah after that, then he becomes the khaleefah, and he (Ahmad) did not intend that he becomes (the khaleefah) with the overcoming itself.” This has not been realised, with the proof being the rejection of the majority of organisations and the majority of Muslims to give the bay’ah, so al-Baghdadi’s imamah became null having no value. Sheikh as-Sawi al-Maliki in his annotations said

قوله: [فشرط الإمام تسليم العدول] إلخ: مفرع على ما قبله وهو في غاية الإجمال؛ فالمناسب تعبيره كالأصل حيث قال: فرقة خالفت الإمام الذي ثبتت إمامته باتفاق الناس عليه، ويزيد بن معاوية لم تثبت إمامته لأن أهل الحجاز لم تسلم له الإمامة لظلمه (اهـ) فتحصل أن المتغلب لا تثبت له الإمامة إلا إن دخل عموم الناس تحت طاعته وإلا فالخارج عليه لا يكون باغيا كقضية الحسين مع اليزيد

“His statement [so the condition of the imam is giving up on going back] etc. branches from what came before it, and is extremely summarised; So it is suitable to consider it like the origin where he said: ‘a faction disagreed with the imam whose imamah was secured by the agreement of the people, while the imamah of Yazid bin Mu’awiyah was not consolidated, because the people of al-Hijaz did not surrender the imamah to him due to his oppression.’ So you get that the imamah is not established for the usurper, except when the generality of people enter his obedience, otherwise the one opposing him is not an aggressor, like the case of al-Hussein and al-Yazid.”

  1. The usurper seizes power by ruling over the Muslims with force, duress, and compulsion; which is invalid. Imam al-Haramayn said in Ghiyath al-Umum

وإن كانت ثورته لحاجة ثم زالت وحالت، فاستمسك بعدته محاولا حمل أهل الحل والعقد على بيعته، فهذا أيضا من المطاولة والمصاولة، وحمل أهل الاختيار على العقد له بحكم الاضطرار، وهذا ظلم وغشم يقتضي التفسيق

“If his uprising was for a need which then ended and the situation changed, so he held onto his equipment trying to get Ahlul-Halli wal-aqd to give him the bay’ah, this is also by way of extending and assailing, and it is making the people of choice contract him by force. This is oppression and tyranny and requires declaring him a fasiq.” Taking the bay’ah by force and compulsion is not considered nor is the khilafah contracted by it, because the bay’ah is a contract of satisfaction and choice. Umar bin al-Khattab said in a sermon in front of the sahabah:

فَمَنْ بَايَعَ أَمِيرًا عَنْ غَيْرِ مَشُورَةِ الْمُسْلِمِينَ فَلا بَيْعَةَ لَهُ، وَلا بَيْعَةَ لِلَّذِي بَايَعَهُ، تَغِرَّةَ أَنْ يُقْتَلا

“Whoever gives bay’ah to an imam without consulting the Muslims has no bay’ah, and there is no bay’ah for the one he gave bay’ah to, for they both may be killed” in the narration of Ahmad. In the narration of al-Bukhari

مَنْ بَايَعَ رَجُلًا عَنْ غَيْرِ مَشُورَةٍ مِنَ المُسْلِمِينَ فَلاَ يُبَايَعُ هُوَ وَلاَ الَّذِي بَايَعَهُ، تَغِرَّةً أَنْ يُقْتَلاَ

“Whoever gave bay’ah to a man, without consulting the Muslims, is not to be pledged allegiance to, nor is the one whom he pledged allegiance to, for they both may be killed.” Ibn Hajar said in al-Fath al-Bari “(تَغِرَّةً أَنْ يُقْتَلاَ) …the meaning is that the one who does that has endangered himself and his companion and offered them both to be killed.” In Umar’s رَضِي الله عَنهُ advice to the sahabah after he was stabbed:

أَمْهِلُوا ، فَإِنْ حَدَثَ بِي حَدَثٌ فَلْيُصَلِّ لكم صُهَيْبٌ ثَلَاثَ لَيَالٍ ، ثُمَّ اجْمَعُوا أمركُمْ ، فَمَنْ تَأَمَّرَ منكم عَلى غَيْرِ مَشُورَةٍ من المسلمين فَاضْرِبُوا عُنُقَهُ

“Take your time, if it happens to me, then it happens, so Suhayb should pray with you for three nights, then gather your affairs, so whoever conspires from among you without consultation of the Muslims, strike his neck.” (Ibn Sa’d narrated it in at-Tabaqat with a sound chain, as al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar said in al-Fath).

Kamil Ali Ibrahim Rubaa’ said in his book Nazariyyat ul-Khurooj fil-Fiqh is-Siyasi il-Islami “The imamah of the usurper is not legal in the shari’ah for the following reasons

  1. The khilafah is a contract, and contracts are established on satisfaction and choice, while the usurper of power extorts the right of the Muslims to choose.
  2. Recognising the usurper squanders and destroys the most important principles of the Islamic shari’ah, which is shura, ‘if the door was opened for every undue usurper, then shura is destroyed.’
  3. Unity is in the interest of the Muslims, yet usurping power is a cause for division, differences and fighting, and history bears witness to that.
  4. The usurper is clearly at odds with the guidance of the rightly guided khulafaa who were appointed by the bay’ah.

Therefore, “the usurping sultan would be sinful for shedding the blood of the Muslims and dominating them through subjugation, force and coercion, and a legitimate khilafah would not rise through him, for violating the Islamic legislative method to appoint a khaleefah… However, some jurists see that this usurping sultan‘s ruling becomes valid in Islam if he fulfilled some conditions, most notably:

  1. a) He becomes dominant in a land that has the components of a state as per the region surrounding it, so he has stable authority in it and has control over the internal and external security of the land towards the region surrounding him.
  2. b) He implements Islam with justice and benevolence in that land, and sets a good repute for himself between the people, so they like him and are satisfied with him.
  3. c) The people of that land give him the bay’ah of contracting with satisfaction and choice, not with coercion and force, and fulfilling the conditions of the legitimate bay’ah including that the bay’ah in origin should be from the people of that land, and not from the group of the usurping sultan, because the legitimate bay’ah is like that following the example of the Messenger of Allah ﷺ. The Prophet ﷺ was keen to take the initial bay’ah from the Ansar of Madinah with satisfaction and choice, and not take it from his sahabah, the Muhajiroon, and the second pledge of allegiance proves this.” (Taken from the answer to a question put to Sheikh Ata bin Khaleel Abu Rishtah dated 14th Ramadan 1435). All of these conditions were not fulfilled in the alleged khilafah of al-Baghdadi.

We wrote this article to explain the truth, and as an advice to those who have been deceived. We ask Allah عزّ وجلّ to expedite the establishment of the true khilafah that the Prophet ﷺ gave glad tidings of in his saying

ثُمَّ تَكُونُ خِلَافَةٌ عَلَى مِنْهَاجِ النُّبُوَّةِ

“Then there will be a khilafah on the way of prophethood” which is the khilafah of mercy, justice, safety and security.

Written by Yasin Bin Ali

See Also:

Rebutting the Imaginary Foundations of “Baghdadi’s” Alleged Khilafah (Part 1)

Leave a Comment