Question: It was stated in Ash-Shakhsiyyah Vol. 2, as well as in The Ruling System in Islam, regarding the conditions of the Caliph (Khalifah), that Quraishi lineage is a condition of preference (shart afdhaliyah). However, I have read in some books of fiqh that there are jurists who consider it a condition of contracting (shart in'iqad). Could you further clarify this matter so that my heart may be at rest regarding this Shari'ah rule?
قَالَ بَلَىٰ وَلَٰكِن لِّيَطْمَئِنَّ قَلْبِي
"He said, 'Yes, but (I ask) in order that my heart may be at rest.'" (Surah Al-Baqarah 2:260)
Answer: Although the primary issue for Muslims is the establishment of the Khilafah, rather than an exhaustive research into the lineage of the Caliph, and although what is mentioned in Ash-Shakhsiyyah Vol. 2 and The Ruling System is sufficient on this matter, I will attempt in the following answer to clarify the issue further to provide peace of mind regarding the Shari'ah ruling related to this matter, Allah willing.
This is the answer:
First: Three events took place in the presence of the Sahaba (Companions) of the Messenger of Allah ﷺ—which are established, authentic, well-known, and witnessed—that are sufficient to indicate that Quraishi lineage is a condition of preference, not a condition of contracting. They are:
1 - The matter of the Saqifah: The leaders of the Ansar gathered there to pledge allegiance (bay'ah) to a Caliph for the Muslims. Abu Bakr and his companions heard of this, went to them, and discussed the matter with them. They mentioned the Hadith:
الأَئِمَّةُ مِنْ قُرَيْشٍ
"The leaders are from Quraish." (Reported by Ahmad)
The people then calmed down and said, "From us a leader, and from you a leader." The discussion continued until the Ansar said, "You are the leaders (amirs) and we are the assistants (wazirs)," or as Umar said in one narration, "We said to them: We are the leaders and you are the assistants." Then they pledged allegiance to Abu Bakr (ra).
By examining this incident, we see that the Hadith "The leaders are from Quraish" was understood by the Sahaba as a condition of preference and not that the Khilafah is exclusively mandatory for Quraish, based on the following evidence:
a) The Ansar were the supporters of Allah and His Messenger; they accompanied the Messenger ﷺ in most situations. He ﷺ loved them, sat with them frequently, and said:
لَوْ سَلَكَ الأَنْصَارُ وَادِيًا، وَسَلَكَ النَّاسُ وَادِيًا، لَسَلَكْتُ وَادِيَ الأَنْصَارِ
"If the Ansar were to walk through a valley, and the people were to walk through another valley, I would walk through the valley of the Ansar." (Reported by Al-Bukhari)
They accompanied him in his battles, his residency, and his travels. They heard many of his Hadiths and witnessed many of his actions. These people, being of such a standing, called for a meeting at the Saqifah of Bani Sa'idah to pledge allegiance to one of their own as Caliph. Either they had not heard the aforementioned Hadith of the Messenger ﷺ despite their close companionship with him, or they heard it and understood it correctly as a condition of preference. What would a student of this issue find more likely? Is it not more likely that they knew it rather than being ignorant of it? And that they knew it was a condition of preference, not a condition of contracting?
b) Abu Bakr (ra) explained the reasoning ('illah) behind the Hadith when he mentioned it, saying: "This matter will only be recognized for this tribe of Quraish; they are the best of the Arabs in lineage and home." In another narration, the one who said it was Umar: "The Arabs only recognize this matter for this tribe of Quraish; they are the best of the Arabs in home and lineage." It is clear from the reasoning that "The leaders are from Quraish" because they were the leaders of the Arabs at that time, and the Arabs would only submit to their leadership. The Arabs at that time were the majority of Muslims, if not all of them. The majority of Arabs would nominate and elect a Caliph from Quraish and not from others. This was a profound insight from Abu Bakr and Umar on the necessity of the Caliph gaining the consent of the majority of Muslims. If it were known that the majority of Muslims wanted a specific person, then he is the one to be pledged allegiance to, regardless of the lineage of the one who holds their consent.
c) Umar (ra) feared that if the pledge was not completed quickly, the Ansar would pledge allegiance to one of their own. That is, despite the discussion and the mention of the Hadith, he saw that the Ansar might pledge allegiance to one of themselves. This means he realized the Hadith indicated preference, not validity. It cannot be thought that Umar (ra) believed the Ansar—given their virtue and piety—knew the Hadith implied the necessity of the Khilafah being in Quraish, yet if he did not hasten the pledge to Abu Bakr, they would return to pledging allegiance to one of their own. That would mean they would be contradicting a clear text regarding its necessity for Quraish, which is not something that can be attributed to the Ansar. What brings rest to the soul is that the Ansar and Umar saw Quraishi descent as a preference. Therefore, it was permissible for the Ansar to seek the Khilafah, and it was permissible for Umar to fear they would pledge to one of their own; had they done so, he would have seen the obligation of obeying him, otherwise there would be corruption (fasad). Umar said, "We feared that if we left the people without a pledge, they might conclude a pledge after we left. Then we would either have to follow them in what we do not approve of, or oppose them and there would be corruption." The occurrence of corruption is an indication of the obligation of obedience.
d) After the Ansar pledged allegiance to Abu Bakr, Sa'd bin Ubadah (ra) remained insistent on not giving the pledge. What is most likely in understanding this incident: should we say that Sa'd knew from the Hadith—when it was mentioned—that the pledge is only valid for a Quraishi, yet he remained insistent on not pledging and on his own right to it? Or should we say that Sa'd knew from the Hadith that being Quraishi is only a condition of preference, and thus he remained insistent and allowed himself to seek the Khilafah because he believed that while this condition of preference might exist in another, he possessed other conditions of preference that outweighed others?
This does not contradict the Ansar's agreement to Abu Bakr's pledge. The majority of the Ansar, through discussion, the mention of the Hadith, and the reasoning of Abu Bakr and Umar, were convinced that this condition of preference tilted the scales in favor of the Muhajireen, so they pledged. As for Sa'd, he saw that he had other conditions of preference that compensated for the preference of lineage (Quraishi descent), so he remained insistent that he had a right to the Khilafah.
I will suffice with this regarding the matter of the Saqifah of Bani Sa'idah and what it indicates about being Quraishi being a condition of preference.
2 - What was said by Umar at the time of his death (ra): "If my time comes and Abu Ubaidah has died, I would appoint Mu'adh bin Jabal as successor." In another narration: "If Salim, the freed slave of Abu Hudhayfah, were alive, I would have appointed him as successor. If my Lord asked me, I would say: I heard Your Prophet say: Salim was intense in his love for Allah." Mu'adh and Salim were not from Quraish.
This incident is well-known and witnessed, just like the Saqifah of Bani Sa'idah, in the presence of the Sahaba. It constitutes a silent consensus (ijma' sukuti), and no one denounced him, knowing that such a matter would be denounced if it were incorrect. If the Khilafah were mandatory in Quraish, how could the Sahaba reach a consensus on its permissibility for others? Is this event understood as Umar (ra) understanding that the Hadith implied the necessity of the Khilafah being in Quraish yet allowing it for others, or do we understand that Umar (ra) understood from the Hadith that being Quraishi is a condition of preference, and he saw that Salim had what compensated for this preference with another condition, which was the intensity of his love for Allah? Is not the latter what brings rest to the soul? Here, no one can say that Umar did not know the Hadith, for Umar was among those at the Saqifah, a witness to it, and one of those who transmitted this Hadith.
In addition, Umar explained his reasoning for nominating the six from whom the Caliph was to be elected, saying: "Go to this group whom the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said are from the people of Paradise." In other narrations: "The Messenger of Allah ﷺ died while he was pleased with them." So he mentioned the reason for choosing them, and not because they were Quraishis.
Thus, this second incident—namely Umar’s nomination of the six—also indicates that the Sahaba understood "Quraishi descent" as a condition of preference, and they reached consensus on that through their silence regarding the statement of Umar (ra).
3 - The sermon of Mu'awiyah reported by Al-Bukhari, which was also in the presence of the Muslims and during the era of the Sahaba, as their era had not yet ended. It indicates that Abdullah bin Amr bin al-As was narrating a Hadith that a Caliph would be from Qahtan (meaning not from Quraish). Mu'awiyah became angry and spoke against Abdullah bin Amr and called him ignorant—and Mu'awiyah erred in calling a Companion ignorant. Al-Bukhari narrates: "Muhammad bin Jubayr bin Mut'im used to narrate that it reached Mu'awiyah while he was with a delegation from Quraish that Abdullah bin Amr bin al-As narrated that there would be a king from Qahtan. Mu'awiyah became angry, stood up, praised Allah as He deserves, then said: 'To proceed: It has reached me that some men among you are narrating Hadiths that are not in the Book of Allah, nor are they transmitted from the Messenger of Allah ﷺ; those are your ignorant ones...' until Mu'awiyah said: 'Indeed, this matter is in Quraish...'"
Abdullah bin Amr was narrating that a king—meaning a Caliph—would be from Qahtan. The word "king" (malik) is applied to the Imam, the Sultan, or the Khalifah, and is not applied to those below them. Mu'awiyah understood that the Hadith was about a Caliph from Qahtan—meaning from other than Quraish—so he denounced Abdullah bin Amr and described him as ignorant.
In studying this incident, do we favor what was narrated by Abdullah bin Amr—that a Caliph would be from Qahtan, meaning from other than Quraish—or Mu'awiyah's denunciation of him? It is known that Abdullah bin Amr is a Companion whose companionship is not disputed, whereas Mu'awiyah's companionship is a subject of discussion; therefore, the Hadith of Abdullah bin Amr is favored over Mu'awiyah's denunciation of him. Furthermore, does this not mean that the claim that the Sahaba are in consensus that "The leaders are from Quraish" is a condition of contracting is incorrect? Note that the one who denounced Abdullah was Mu'awiyah, and no denunciation from others was narrated, even though the statement was made in public.
These are three incidents that took place in public among the Muslims and the Sahaba. They provide evidence that brings rest to the heart that the Sahaba understood "The leaders are from Quraish" as a condition of preference, and that the Khilafah can be among them and among others.
Second: The narrated Hadiths that some use to argue that being Quraishi is a condition of contracting:
We know that all forms of command among the Arabs—whether single in wording and meaning, or compound sentences in wording and meaning, of which the linguists have gathered dozens—all indicate a mere request and require an indicator (qarinah) to clarify the type of request, whether it is decisive (jazm), non-decisive, or optional.
Reviewing the narrated Hadiths, it is seen that they indicate a request but lack a decisive indicator, except for two Hadiths where there is a semblance of that, which I will review here:
1 - The Hadith الأئمة من قريش and their statement that it is mubtada’ and khabar, which implies the restriction of the mubtada’ to the khabar, and consequently the concept of opposite implication (mafhum al-mukhalafah) is applied—meaning it is not valid for the leaders to be from other than Quraish. By scrutinizing this Hadith, we find that it does not imply opposite implication for the following reasons:
a) Quraish is a name of a tribe (ism laqab). The concept of opposite implication is not applied to a ruling linked to a name, whether it is a generic noun, a proper noun, or what is in its ruling like a title (laqab) or a kunya. Accordingly, if you say: "Quraish is generous," it does not mean that other than Quraish is not generous. Similarly, الأئمة من قريش does not mean that for other than Quraish, the leadership is not valid.
b) Compound and simple forms of restriction (hasr) do not all indicate real restriction in the usool (principles)—meaning having an opposite implication—unless indicators are added to the form. If those added indicators are not present, then the restriction is not real in the technical sense of usool, and thus it does not restrict all its members.
To my knowledge, two forms are excluded from this:
The first is a simple form, which is the use of a negative tool with a tool of exception, such as: (لم and إلا). These two tools together definitively indicate restriction and have an opposite implication, such as: "The Messenger of Allah ﷺ did not place Sadaqah except in ten: camels, cows, sheep, gold, silver, barley, wheat, dates, raisins, and sult (a type of barley)." Here, it indicated restriction and has an opposite implication, meaning that other than these types, there is no Zakat on them.
The second is derived from the structure, which is the explicit mention of a group of concrete nouns and linking a conditional ruling to each name through a common factor, such as:
الذَّهَبُ بِالذَّهَبِ مِثْلاً بِمِثْلٍ، وَالْبُرُّ بِالْبُرِّ مِثْلاً بِمِثْلٍ... فَمَنْ زَادَ أَوِ ازْدَادَ فَقَدْ أَرْبَى
"Gold for gold, like for like, and wheat for wheat, like for like... so whoever increases or asks for an increase, has dealt in Riba." (Reported by Muslim)
Here, there is a restriction for the mentioned reason and it has an opposite implication, meaning that other than these things, the ruling does not apply to them.
As for other than that, it requires an added indicator, for example:
إِنَّمَا الرِّبَا فِي النَّسِيئَةِ
"Indeed, Riba is only in credit (An-Nasi’ah)." (Reported by Al-Bukhari)
Here, although إنما indicates restriction, it requires an added indicator; since none exists, the opposite implication is not applied, and therefore there is Riba al-Fadl (usury of excess).
Similarly, الأئمة من قريش. Here, we have mubtada’ and khabar, and the mubtada’ is restricted to the khabar and there is no added indicator. Accordingly, there is no opposite implication, so the leadership can be from Quraish and other than Quraish.
This is regarding the Hadith الأئمة من قريش where there is nothing in the text of the Hadith other than the mubtada’ and the khabar. If it had a completion with a suitable indicator added to the restriction, then the opposite implication would be applied according to the indicator, and the leadership would only be in Quraish. In the previous Hadith we mentioned, the added indicator is non-existent.
2 - The Hadith إن هذا الأمر في قريش لا يعاديهم أحد إلا كبه الله على وجهه ما أقاموا الدين. This Hadith has two parts: إن هذا الأمر في قريش. This does not imply that the matter cannot be in other than Quraish; the restriction of the mubtada’ to the khabar needs an added indicator, and what was said about the previous Hadith applies to it.
If the completion لا يعاديهم أحد إلا كبه الله على وجهه was an added indicator to the first part—meaning if (لا) was a conjunction ('atifah) connecting the two parts together—then the restriction would become technical (usoooly), having an opposite implication, and the matter would be restricted and mandatory for Quraish.
What is the reality of لا here? لا here is a particle of negation (harf nafy) accompanying the tool of exception (إلاّ), and together they form a complete restriction—meaning they restrict "casting down on the face" to those who oppose them. Consequently, the "casting down" is restricted to the enmity of Quraish, and it has no connection to the first part.
It is not correct for لا here to be a conjunction because among the conditions for لا to be a conjunction, as per the linguists, is that the linked word must be a single word, not a sentence or a semi-sentence. Since what is mentioned here is a sentence (لا يعاديهم... وجهه), the speech here consists of two separate parts: the first is that the matter is in Quraish, and the second is the punishment for opposing Quraish. Thus, the correct understanding is that it explicitly states two separate matters: that the matter is in Quraish, and the prohibition of opposing them. Therefore, this is not an indicator that implies a decisive command for the first part of the Hadith, because لا is not a conjunction.
Thus, the claim that this Hadith indicates the necessity of the Khilafah being in Quraish—in the sense that it is a condition of contracting—is negated, and it remains, as explained, a condition of preference.
As for other than these two Hadiths, they are not accompanied by any indicator that implies a decisive command.
Third: There remains a point that I believe must be mentioned to achieve complete reassurance: there are those who say that the glad tidings of the return of the final Khilafah on the method of Prophethood (Minhaj an-Nubuwwah) means it must be like the first Khilafah on the method of Prophethood. Since the Caliphs of the first Khilafah were from Quraish, then the second must have Caliphs from Quraish.
The weakness of this point becomes clear when it is understood that the Manhaj (method) is not based on the lineage of individuals; rather, the path and way followed by these individuals is the basis of it.
It says in the dictionary: (An-Nahj: the clear path, like al-Manhaj and al-Minhaj; and nahaja, like mana'a, means it became clear; and nahaja al-tariq means he followed it; and so-and-so followed the path (istanhaja) of so-and-so means he took his way.)
The Minhaj, therefore, is the path upon which the Messenger of Allah ﷺ stood. Thus, the coming Khilafah, by the permission of Allah, on the method of Prophethood, is like the first Khilafah—meaning it is Rightly Guided (Rashidah), adhering to the Book of Allah (swt), the Sunnah of His Messenger ﷺ, and what they guided toward, just as the Rightly Guided Caliphs were. This means that in the coming one, there will be Rightly Guided Caliphs whose method resembles the method of the Rightly Guided Caliphs in their just and upright commitment to Islam, whether their lineage is Quraishi or not, because the consideration is for the Minhaj they follow.
We ask Allah (swt) to honor us with His victory, to hasten for us His relief and grace, and to make us successors on earth just as He made those before us successors, so that the Rightly Guided Khilafah on the method of Prophethood returns. Indeed, He is the All-Hearing, the Responder.
On August 27, 2003 CE