The System of Ruling
Article 16
The system of ruling is a unitary system and not a federal system.
The only correct
system for ruling is the unitary system and nothing else is acceptable. This is
because the Shari’ah evidence brought it alone and prohibited anything
else; it was narrated by ‘Abd Allah b. ‘Amru b. Al-‘As that he heard the
Messenger of Allah
say “whoever
pledges allegiance to an Imam, giving him the grasp of his hand and the fruits
of his heart, and then another comes to contend with him over the leadership
then strike the neck of the latter” (reported
by Muslim). And it is narrated by Abu Sa‘id al-Khudri that the Messenger of
Allah
said, “If the
pledge of allegiance is given to two Khalifahs, then kill the second of them” (reported by
Muslim). The angle of deduction from these two narrations is that the
first narration explains that in the scenario that the Imamate, in other words
the Khilafah, is given to someone, then it is obligatory to obey him and
if someone comes to dispute with him over this Khilafah it would be
obligatory to fight him and to kill him if he did not give up his contention.
So the narration clarifies that whoever contends the leadership of the Khalifah
in the Khilafah must be fought. And this is an allusion to indicate
the prohibition of the division of the state, encouragement not to permit its
division and prohibiting any separation from it even through the use of force
to maintain its unity. As for the second narration, it is regarding the
scenario when the state does not have a head, in other words a Khalifah,
and the leadership of the state, in other words the Khilafah, was given
to two people and so the second of them should be killed, and by greater
reasoning if it was given to more than two. And this is an allusion to indicate
the prohibition of the division of the state. This means the prohibition of
making the state into multiple states and it being obligatory that the state is
one. Consequently the system of ruling in Islam is a unitary system and not a
federal system and anything other than the unitary system is conclusively
prohibited, and for this reason the article was drafted.
Article 17
The ruling is centralised and the administration is decentralised.
This article was drafted in order to separate between the rule and the
administration. The difference between the two of them is apparent from two
angles: from the reality of each of them and from the actions of the Messenger
of Allah
in the appointment of the governors (Wali) and the assignment of
civil employees. As for the reality of each of them, the rule (hukm),
power (mulk) and the authority (sultan) have the same meaning,
and that is the authority which implements the laws. It is mentioned in the
al-Muheet dictionary that “…al-mulk is greatness and sultan”,
and in another place “al-sultan is the proof and the capability
of mulk”, and in a third place “al-hukm: the decree…and al-haakim
is the one who implements the hukm”. And this means that the rule
linguistically means the decree and the haakim (ruler) linguistically is
the implementer of the rule, and what is intended by the rule in this article
is the terminological meaning; the implementation of the laws, in other words
the power, the authority and the capability of rule. Or by another expression,
the action of leadership which the Shari’ah obligated upon the Muslims
with the words of the Messenger
“It is not permitted for three people in any
open space on the Earth not to appoint one of them as their leader” reported by Ahmad through ‘Abd Allah Bin ‘Amru, and the action of leadership is the authority which is used to prevent
injustice and to settle disputes, or by another expression the rule is the
guardianship of the authority mentioned in His (swt) words “Obey Allah and Obey the Messenger and the people of
authority amongst you” (TMQ 4:59) and His (swt) words “And if only they had
referred it to the Messenger or to those charged with authority among them” (TMQ 4:83), which is the undertaking of
practically governing matters. This is the reality of the rule. Based upon
that, the guardianship of the authority, the leadership and the power are the
rule, and anything else is considered to be administration. Consequently, what
the Khalifah and the leaders from the governors and workers do in terms of managing the affairs
of people by implementing the Shari’ah rules and the legal judgments is
considered to be the rule; anything else from what they or others do from those
who were appointed from the people or by the Khalifah is considered to
be administration. Accordingly the difference between the ruling and administration
has become obvious.
The Shari’ah gave the rule as described to the Khalifah who
was elected by the Ummah, or the Amir
chosen by them, so by the Ummah’s choice for the Amir or by her pledge of allegiance to the Khalifah, the Khalifah
or the Amir then becomes the one who
has the right to the rule, or the rule is for the Khalifah or the Amir. No one else can take the rule
unless it was given to them by him, and in this manner the rule is centralised.
In other words, the rule is for the Ummah to give to a person, Khalifah
or Amir, and by giving them the rule
by the pledge of allegiance or by selection or elections, the rule becomes his,
and at that time he gives the right to rule to whomever he wishes and no one
else has the right to rule unless he gives it to them. Accordingly, it becomes
apparent that centralisation of the rule is the restriction of the right to the
rule with the one whom the Ummah has selected, where he is entitled to
the rule automatically. No one else is entitled to the rule automatically;
rather they gain it through being granted it by someone else, and are limited
with respect to this permission by time, place and situation, and in that case
the reality of the ruling indicates that it is centralised and its
centralisation is necessary.
As for the actions of the Messenger of Allah
, he used to send governors to the districts and order them to implement
the Shari’ah rules upon the people. He also used to appoint civil
employees in order to carry out the functions not to implement the laws. So for
example he appointed governors and gave them the right to implement the laws
and did not restrict the means and styles of implementation but rather left
that to them. Some of them would be written letters which would include the Shari’ah
rules but not the means or style of their implementation and others would be
ordered to implement the Shari’ah of Allah (swt); so he appointed ‘Amru
Bin Hazm as governor and wrote him a letter and he appointed Mu’adh Bin Jabal
and he asked him how he would rule, and then he confirmed the correctness of
his view. He also appointed ‘Itab b. Usayd as a governor in order to implement
the Shari’ah of Allah (swt), and he used to appoint people as governors
based upon the view of their suitability to execute; it is narrated “’Imran Bin Husayn was employed over the collection of
charity and when he returned he was asked: “Where is the money?”. He replied
“You sent me for the sake of money? We took it from where we used to take it at
the time of the Prophet
and give it where we used to give it” (reported by Ibn Maja and al-Hakim that authenticated it).
This is different to the civil employees, since their roles are limited
and they do what is requested of them. For example, the Messenger of Allah
appointed ‘Abd Allah Bin Rawaha as an estimator who would estimate for
the Jews; in other words estimate the yield of crops prior to harvest. It is
reported by Ahmad with a Sahih chain from Jabir Bin ‘Abd Allah who said “Allah gave Khaybar to the Messenger of Allah as
booty. The Messenger of Allah confirmed their status as they were and made it
as an agreement between them, and so he sent ‘Abd Allah b. Rawaha who would
estimate the yield then say to them: O gathering of Jews, you are the most
hated people to me, you killed the Prophets of Allah, and you lied upon Allah,
but this hatred does not carry me to do any injustice to you. I have estimated
twenty thousand loads of dates so if you want they are for you, and if you
didn’t then they are for me. So they said: It is with this that the heavens and
the earth established and so we took it, so leave us”. He
also used to send collectors for
the Zakat who would collect and deliver it to him, and he would pay them
their wages, as narrated by Bishr Bin Sa‘id Bin al-Sa’adi al-Maaliki who said “Umar employed me over the charity, so when I
completed it and gave it to him he ordered me to take wages, so I said “I only did
it for the sake of Allah (swt)”. He replied “Take what I have given you since
at the time of the Messenger of Allah
I did what you did and so he paid me, so I
said similar to what you have said, and so he
said to me “If you are given something without asking
then eat it and give it in charity”
(reported by Muslim).
So ‘Imran b. Husayn disapproved of the ruler requesting the Zakat
that he had gathered from him, since he had implemented the law of Allah (saw)
and given it to those who had right over it in the same way he used to at the
time he was appointed by the Messenger of Allah (saw), but Bishr[s1] b. Sa‘id was an employee who did what he was
assigned to do with respect to collecting the Zakat but he did not
undertake the implementation of the Shari’ah rules. Accordingly the
difference between the actions of the ruler and the actions of the civil
employee has been made clear. So the actions of the ruler are the
implementation of the Shari’ah, in other words the rule, power and
authority, and the actions of the civil employees are to undertake the actions
and not the implementation of the laws, and so they are not from the rule but
rather they are only part of the administration.
In addition, the difference between the actions of the ruler himself have
become clear, since amongst them is the rule which is the implementation of the
Shari’ah rules and the implementation of the judgements, and no one has
the right to do these actions except for the one who is appointed with the
right to rule according to the position given. And amongst the actions of the
ruler are the styles and means used in order to achieve the implementation, and
these are part of the administration, and these do not have to be defined for
the ruler and he does not need to refer back to those who appointed him. Rather
his appointment as a ruler gives him the right to use the means that he
considers and the styles that he wants as long as those who appointed him did
not specify specific styles and means for him, in which case he would be
obliged by what was specified for him. In other words his appointment as a
ruler gives him the right to carry out the administrative actions as long as
there are not administrative systems in place originating from those who gave
him the right to rule, in which case he would follow those systems.
Consequently it is clear that the meaning of centralised rule is the
carrying out of the authority, in other words of the implementation of the Shari’ah,
and no one possesses that authority unless he was given it by the Ummah
and so it is restricted to him and is exercised by whoever he gives it to. The
meaning of decentralised administration is that the ruler who has been
appointed does not have to refer to those who appointed him in the issues of
administration; rather he carries them out according to his opinion. And that
is established from the reality of the rule as has been mentioned in the Shari’ah
texts, and from the actions of the Messenger
in appointing the rulers.
This is the evidence for this article.
Article 18
There are four types of rulers:
the Khalifah, the delegated assistant, the governor, and the worker (’amil),
and whoever falls under the same rule. As for anyone else, they are not
considered rulers, but rather employees.
The ruler in the article is the one holding authority who is responsible
for governing the affairs, irrespective of whether the governance was for the
whole State or for a part of it. Through deduction from the Shari’ah
rules, the ones who are made responsible for governing the affairs,
establishing the laws and are to be obeyed with respect to their implementation
of the laws are these four: the Khalifah, the assistant (delegate
minister), the governor, and the Amil; and they are to be obeyed due to
their position of rule.
With regards to the Khalifah, he is the man who is given the
pledge by the Ummah (nation) to establish the Deen (religion)as their representative, and so he establishes the hudud,
implements the laws, and carries out the Jihad, and he is owed
obedience: “Whoever gives the pledge of
allegiance to the Imam giving him the grasp of his hand and the fruit of his
heart should obey him if possible, and if another comes to dispute with him
(over authority) strike the neck of the latter” (reported by Muslim through ‘Abd Allah b.
‘Amru b. al-‘As).
As for the delegate minister, he is the assistant who assists the Khalifah
in running the governing of the affairs; in other words the general, continuous
binding governorship. The evidence for this is that he is the one in a position
of rule who must be obeyed in the issues that the Khalifah charged him
with or requested him to assist him in carrying out the affairs. Ahmad reported
with a good chain from Aaisha (ra) that she said: the Messenger of Allah
said “Whoever
Allah (swt) places in a position of responsibility in any issue from the
affairs of the Muslims, while wanting good for him will give him an honest
minister, such that if he forgets he will remind him, and if he remembers he
will assist him”
As for the governor, he
is the man who the Khalifah gives authority to over one of the
governorates of the State. The evidence that he is in a position of ruling who
must be obeyed is what is reported by Muslim from Auf Bin Malik al-Ashja’i who
said that he heard the Messenger of Allah
say “…whoever
has a governor appointed over him whom he sees doing something from the sins
against Allah, then hate what he does in terms of sins, but should not remove
his hand from obedience”. In
another narration by Muslim the Messenger of Allah
said “if
you see something from your governors that you hate, and then hate his action,
and do not remove your hand from obedience”.
As for the ‘Amil he is the one who the
Khalifah puts in charge of, or his representative, a village, town or
part of a governorate. His work is like that of the governor except that he is
ruling over a part of the governorate and not the whole of it and
accordingly he is a ruler who must be obeyed like the governor, because he is a
leader coming either from the Khalifah or the governor. Al-Bukhari reported
from Anas b. Malik who said that the Messenger of Allah
said “Listen
and obey even if a black slave whose head is like a raisin is placed in
authority over you”. Muslim reported from Umm al-Husayn who said that
she heard the Prophet
give a
sermon in the farewell pilgrimage where he said “and even if a slave is
appointed over you, who leads you by the Book of Allah, then listen to him and
obey”.
With respect to the expression “and whoever
falls under the same rule”, this means the Madhalim judge and
the judge of judges if he is given the authority to appoint and remove the Madhalim
judge, as well as the powers of the judges in Madhalim, since the judge
of Madhalim is from the rule as is the subject of article 78.
Article 19
It is not permitted for anyone to be in charge of ruling or any action
considered to be from the ruling unless they are male, free, adult, sane, just,
capable of carrying out the responsibility, and it is not permitted for anyone
other than a Muslim.
Allah (swt) has decisively prohibited for a disbeliever to be a ruler
over the Muslims, as Allah (swt) says “Allah will never
grant to the disbelievers a way over the believers.” (TMQ 4:141), and to make the disbeliever a ruler over the
Muslims is to grant him a way over them, and Allah (swt) categorically forbade
that through His (swt) use of the letter “never” which is an indication that
the prohibition of the disbeliever having a way over the Muslims, in other
words for the disbeliever to be a ruler over them, is a decisive prohibition
and so it conveys that it has been made haram. Additionally, Allah (swt)
made it a condition that the witness for the return to one’s wife after divorce
has to be Muslim; Allah (swt) says “Then
when they are about to attain their term appointed, either take them back in a
good manner or part with them in a good manner. And take as witness two just
persons from among you” (TMQ 65:2), and the understanding taken is not to take
from other than among you. Also, the witness in debts has to be a Muslim; Allah
(swt) says “And get
two witnesses out of your own men” (TMQ 2:282); in other words not from men
other than yours. So if a condition for witness in these two issues is that
they must be Muslim, then by greater reasoning it is a condition for the ruler
to be Muslim. Also, ruling is the
implementation of the Shari’ah rules and the judgments of the
judiciary, and they are ordered to judge according to the Shari’ah, so
accordingly it is a condition that they are Muslim. The rulers are those who
are charged with authority, and when Allah (swt) ordered the obedience to them
and that issues related to security and fear be referred to them, it is made a
condition that those charged with authority must be Muslims; Allah (swt) says “Obey Allah
and obey the
Messenger and those in authority from you” (TMQ 4:59) and “When
there comes to them some matter touching (public) safety or fear, they make it
known (among the people); if only they had referred it to the Messenger or to
those charged with authority among them” (TMQ 4:83). He (swt) said “from you” in other words not from other
than you, and “among them” in other words not from other than them. These
verses indicate that it is a prerequisite that the one who has authority must
be Muslim.
The fact that the
Quran did not mention the one in authority except that it was accompanied with
a mention that they were Muslims confirms that it is a prerequisite for the ruler to be
Muslim. Also, the ruler has complete obedience from the Muslims and the Muslim is not charged
with obeying the disbeliever, since he is commanded by the text only to obey
the Muslim who holds the authority; Allah (swt) says “Obey
Allah and obey the
Messenger and those in authority from you” (TMQ 4:59), so the fact that it was ordered to obey those
in authority from the Muslims and not other than them is another indication
that it is not obligatory to obey the disbeliever who has authority and there is no ruler without
obedience. It cannot be argued that the Muslim is charged with obeying the
department manager if they were a disbeliever, since he is not a person of
authority but rather he is a
civil employee, so obedience to him is due to the command of the person of
authority to obey the department manager, and the discussion is about the obedience to one of authority and not the employee.
Due to this it would not be correct for someone to be in authority over the
Muslims unless he is Muslim, and it is not correct for him to be a disbeliever,
so accordingly it is absolutely not permitted for the ruler to be a
disbeliever.
As for the
condition that the ruler be male, it is due to what was narrated by Abu Bakrah
saying “When
the Messenger of Allah
was informed that
the daughter of Kisra had been given the reign over the Persians he said “A
people who appoint a woman over their command will never succeed”” (reported by al-Bukhari). The notification of the
Prophet
of the negation of success for whoever
commissions a woman in authority over them is a prohibition of her assignment, since
it is from the forms of request. And the fact that this notification came as a
censure is an indication that the prohibition is decisive, and accordingly
commissioning a woman to the ruling is haram (forbidden) and it is from this evidence that this condition of
ruling is derived.
As for the
condition that the ruler be just, this is because Allah (swt) made it a
prerequisite that the witness be just; Allah (swt) says “And
take as witness two just persons from among you” (TMQ 65:2), and so the one who is more significant than the witness, such as the
ruler, must by greater reasoning also be just. That is because if the just
character has been made a condition for the witness then for it to be a
condition for the ruler is of a higher priority.
As for the condition of being free, that is because the slave does not
possess the independence of conduct for himself, so how can he undertake the
governing of other peoples’ affairs. Also, the issue of being enslaved means
that the time of the slave belongs to his master.
As for the condition of being an adult, this is because it is not
permitted for the ruler to be a child, due to what was reported by Abu Dawud
from ‘Ali Bin Abi Talib (ra) who said that the Messenger of Allah
said “The
pen has been raised from three: from the child until they come of age, from the
one asleep until they awake and from the insane until they recover”,
and it come with another wording “The pen has been raised from three:
from the insane whose rationality is gone until he revives, from the one asleep
until he awakes and from the child until he attains puberty”. And the
pen being raised means that it is not correct that he acts independently in his
affairs, and he is not responsible according to the Shari’ah, and so
accordingly it is not correct that he could be the Khalifah or anything
else below him from the positions of ruling since he does not possess the right
to act independently. Another evidence for the absence of permission for a child
to be the Khalifah is what has been reported in al-Bukhari “from
Abi Aqil Zuhra Bin Ma’bad, from his grandfather ‘Abd Allah Bin Hisham, and he
was in the era of the Prophet
. His mother Zainab bint Hamid took him to
the Messenger of Allah and said: O Messenger of Allah! Take the pledge of
allegiance from him, and so the Prophet
said
He is small, and stroked his head and prayed for him”. Therefore if the
pledge of a child is not necessary and he
is not obliged to give the pledge to the Khalifah, then by greater reasoning it is not permitted for him to
be the Khalifah.
With respect to the condition of being sane,
this is because it is not correct for him to be insane, due to the words of the
Messenger of Allah
“The
pen has been raised from three” in which he mentioned “the insane
whose rationality is gone until he revives”. From the meaning of the
raising of the pen is that he is not responsible, since rationality is the
focus of responsibility and a condition for the correctness of any
transactions. The actions of the Khalifah are
with regards to the law and implementing the Shari’ah injunctions, and so
it would not be correct for him to be insane since it is not correct for the
insane person to act independently with regards to his own affairs, so therefore
by greater reasoning it stands that it would not be correct for him to have
authority over the people’s affairs.
As for the condition
that he should be capable of carrying out the responsibility, this is from what
is necessitated from the pledge with respect to the Khalifah and
necessitated from the contract of appointment of anyone other than the Khalifah
from the assistants and governors and workers (‘Ummal), since the
one who is incapable is not capable of upholding the affairs of the subjects by
the Book and the Sunnah which he had given the pledge upon or agreed
upon according to the contract of appointment.
From the various
evidences to prove this:
1 – Muslim reported
from Abu Dharr who said “I said: O Messenger of Allah, will you not
appoint me? So he put his hand on my shoulder and he said: O Abu Dharr, you are weak, and it is an amanah (trust),
and on the Day of Judgement it will be a disgrace and a regret except (for
those) who take it by its right and perform its duties correctly”
So this explains the issue by taking it by
its right and performing what is upon him from it;
in other words to be capable of it, and the indication which is decisive is
that the Messenger
said
who takes it and is not capable – “and on the Day of Judgement it will be a disgrace and a regret except (for those)
who take it”.
2 – Al-Bukhari reported from Abu Hurayrah
that the Messenger
said "If the trust is
betrayed and neglected, then expect the coming of the Hour". The man
further asked about the trust and how it can be wasted or betrayed. The
Messenger of Allah
said: "When the matter is
entrusted to those who are unqualified to implement its duties, and then wait
for the Hour"
So this narration indicates the decisive
prohibition for the responsibility to be placed with those who are incapable.
The decisive indication (qarina)
is wasting the
trust and it is from the signs of the Day of Judgement; all this to
indicate the great sin for the responsibility to be
entrusted to whoever is not capable to fulfil it.
As for how the capability should be defined,
this requires examination since it could be connected to bodily or mental
illness etc., and for that reason it is left undefined for the Madhalim
court to confirm that, for example, the candidates for the Khalifah fulfil
the necessary requirements.
Article 20
Accounting of the rulers by Muslims is one of their rights and an
obligation of sufficiency upon them. The non-Muslim subjects have the right to
voice complaint regarding the ruler’s injustice towards them or misapplication
of the rules of Islam upon them.
When the ruler is
appointed upon the people in order to rule them he has only been appointed to
govern their affairs, so if he falls short in this governing then accounting
him becomes necessary. Although his accounting lies with Allah (swt) and the
recompense of his fault or negligence is punishment (from Allah (swt)), Allah (swt) gave the Muslims
the right to account the ruler and made this accounting an obligation of
sufficiency upon them, giving the Ummah the guardianship over the
ruler’s execution of his responsibilities. It has been made binding upon the Ummah
to rebuke the ruler if he is faulty in these responsibilities or displays evil
conduct; Muslim narrated from Umm Salamah that the Messenger of Allah
said “There will be rulers, so you will know and
rebuke, so whoever knows is
innocent, and whoever rebukes is safe, but the one who is pleased with them and
follows them”; in other words the one who
knows the evil and so he changes it and whoever is not capable of changing it
rejects it in his heart and so he is safe. Accordingly, it is obligatory upon
the Muslims to account the ruler in order to change what he is upon and they
would be sinful if they were content with and followed the actions of the ruler
that are blameworthy.
As for the non-Muslims, they have the right to raise complaints regarding
oppression of the ruler due to the narrations about the absolute prohibition of
oppression irrespective of whether it was upon the Muslims or non-Muslims and
due to the narrations regarding the prohibition of harming the people of Dhimma;
the Messenger of Allah
said “Whoever oppresses
someone with a covenant, or punishes him, or charges him with more than he can
bear, or takes something from him against his will, then I will be his
supporter on the Day of Judgement” (Reported by Abu Dawud and al-‘Iraqi said the
chain was good). This is a definitive prohibition on harming the one with a covenant and
by greater reasoning this applies to the people of Dhimmah. Also due to the prohibition of specific
types of harm and similar to them are all harms; Abu Dawud narrated through Ibn
‘Abbas from the Prophet
in the narration regarding the
agreement with the people of Najran, “their churches would
not be destroyed, and no priest of theirs is banished and they would not be
coerced away from their faith”. If a Dhimmi
is oppressed or afflicted by harm from the ruler, he has the right to raise his
complaints until the oppression is lifted from him and the one who oppressed
him is punished. The complaint from him is heard in every case irrespective of
whether he was justified in his complaint or not.
In the book al-Amwal by Ibn Abi ’l-Dunya with a Sahih chain
to Sa’id Ibn al-Musayyib, as also said by al-Hafiz in the introduction of al-fath,
when Abu Bakr (ra) spoke to a Jew known as Fenhaas[s2] inviting him to Islam, Fenhaas replied to
him saying “By Allah O Abu
Bakr, we have no need of Allah and He is needy of us, and we do not implore Him
the way He implores us, and we are not in need of Him and He is not able to
dispense with us, and if He was not poor then He would not have asked for a
loan of our wealth as your companion claims, forbidding you from interest and
giving it to us, and if He was not in need of us then He would not have given
it to us”. So Fenhaas
was alluding to His (swt) words “Who is
he that will lend to Allah a goodly loan so that He may multiply it to him many
times?” (TMQ 2:245), but Abu Bakr was unable to have
patience over this reply and so became angry and hit Fenhaas in the face with a
powerful strike, and said “By the One who my soul is in His Hand, if there was not
a covenant between us and you I would have struck your head O enemy of Allah”. So Fenhaas then complained
about Abu Bakr (ra) to the Messenger
of Allah
, and the Prophet
listened to his complaint and asked Abu Bakr (ra), and so Abu Bakr (ra) told him what was
said to him. When Fenhaas was asked about this he denied what he had said to
Abu Bakr about Allah (swt), and so His (swt) words “Indeed, Allah has heard the statement of
those who say: ‘Truly, Allah is poor and we are rich!’ We shall record what
they have said and their killing of the Prophets unjustly, and We shall say:
‘Taste you the torment of the burning (Fire)’” (TMQ 3:181) were revealed. The cause for the revelation of this
verse is mentioned by Ibn Abi Hatim and Ibn al-Munthir with a good chain from
Ibn Abbas as mentioned by al-Hafiz in al-fath. And it is well known that
Abu Bakr (ra) was a Wazir (minister)
of the Messenger
, in other words an
assistant, and so he was a ruler, and Fenhaas was a covenanter, and the
Messenger
heard the complaint from the covenanter, and
so by greater reasoning it must be heard from the Dhimmi, and on top of that he has been given the covenant of Dhimmah.
As for complaints
regarding the misapplication of the implementation of the rules of Islam upon
them, then this is from the rights of the Muslims and non-Muslims; some Muslims
complained to the Messenger
about Mu’ath Bin Jabal lengthening the
recitation in prayer – al-Bukhari reported from Jabir Bin ‘Abd Allah who said “A man
was coming with his water buckets as night fell, and he saw Mu’adh praying so
he left his container and joined the prayer. Mu’adh recited the chapter of the
cow (al-baqarah), or the women (al-nisa’), and so the man left – and then he
heard that Mu’adh maligned him – and so he went to the Prophet and complained
about Mu’adh. The Messenger repeated to him three times O Mu’adh are you a fattan
(someone sowing discord), if you led the prayer recit ‘Sabbih isma Rabbi ka ’l-A’la’ (Al-A’la – The
Most High 87), Wash-shamsi wad-duha-ha’ (Ash-Shams – The Sun: 91) or wa’
l-layli idha yaghsha (Al-Layli – The Night: 92), since when you lead the prayer,
amongst those who pray with you are the old, the weak, and those who have needs
to attend to”. And so the Messenger
listened to the complaint about Mu’adh and chastised him such
that he even said to him “Are you fattan? (someone
sowing discord)” three times, and Mu’ath was the governor over Yemen
and was the Imam of his people. This
event has a number of narrations so irrespective of whether the complaint was
regarding him and he was in Yemen or he was the Imam of his people, it is a complaint regarding someone who had
been appointed by the Messenger
, so it is a
complaint about the ruler, and regarding the implementation of the Shari’ah rules,
since the Shari’ah rule is that the Imam
should lighten the prayer due to the words of the Messenger
“Whoever leads the people (in prayer) then he should make
it light” (agreed upon with
this wording from Muslim). So it was a complaint about
the poor application of the rules of Islam.
In the same way
that a complaint from the Muslim regarding prayer is listened to, any complaint
regarding all other rules are also listened to and not prayer alone, since the
misapplication of the Shari’ah rules is considered to be an act of
injustice. Accordingly the complaint is a right for the Muslim and Dhimmi, since the Messenger
said “I wish to meet Allah (swt) and no one is requesting me due to an
injustice” (reported by Al-Tirmidhi who said the narration is Hasan
Sahih). The word “one” in
the narration encompasses the Muslim and the Dhimmi, since he did not say “and no Muslim is requesting me”, but rather he said “and no
one is requesting me”.
All of this is the
evidence for the article.
কোন মন্তব্য নেই:
একটি মন্তব্য পোস্ট করুন