Question: It was mentioned in The Islamic Personality (Ash-Shakhsiyyah Al-Islamiyyah) Vol. 2, as well as in The Ruling System in Islam, regarding the conditions of the Khalifah, that Qurayshi lineage is a condition of preference (shart afdhaliyah). However, I have read in some books of fiqh that there are scholars who consider it a condition of validity (shart in’iqad). Could you please clarify this matter further so that the heart may be at peace regarding this Shari’ah rule?
قَالَ بَلَىٰ وَلَٰكِن لِّيَطْمَئِنَّ قَلْبِي
"He said, 'Yes, but [I ask] only that my heart may be satisfied.'" (Surah Al-Baqarah [2]: 260)
Answer: Although the primary issue for Muslims today is the establishment of the Khilafah rather than an extensive research into the lineage of the Khalifah, and despite the fact that what is mentioned in The Islamic Personality 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 rule related to this matter, by the will of Allah.
This is the answer:
First: Three events occurred in the presence of the Sahabah (Companions) of the Messenger of Allah (saw), which are established, authentic, well-known, and witnessed. They are sufficient to indicate that Qurayshi lineage is a condition of preference (shart afdhaliyah), not a condition of validity (shart in’iqad). These are:
- The Event of the Saqifah: The leaders of the Ansar gathered there to pledge allegiance (bay'ah) to a Khalifah for the Muslims. Abu Bakr and his companions heard of this, went to them, and discussed the matter. They mentioned the Hadith:
الأَئِمَّةُ مِنْ قُرَيْشٍ
"The Imams (leaders) are from Quraysh."
The people calmed down and said, "From us an amir and from you an amir." The discussion continued until the Ansar said, "You are the amirs and we are the wazirs (ministers)," or as Umar said in one narration: "We said to them: We are the amirs and you are the wazirs." Then they pledged allegiance to Abu Bakr (ra).
By examining this incident, we see that the Hadith «الأئمة من قريش» was understood by the Sahabah as a condition of preference and not that the Khilafah must exclusively be in Quraysh, based on the following evidence:
a. The Ansar are the supporters of Allah and His Messenger. They accompanied the Prophet (saw) in most situations; he loved them, sat with them frequently, and said:
لَوْ سَلَكَ الأَنْصَارُ وَادِيًا وَسَلَكَ النَّاسُ وَادِيًا لَسَلَكْتُ وَادِيَ الأَنْصَارِ
"If the Ansar were to take a path through a valley and the people were to take another path, I would take the path of the Ansar."
They accompanied him in his battles, in residence, and in travel. They heard many of his Hadiths and witnessed many of his actions. People of such standing gathered at the Saqifah of Bani Sa’idah to pledge allegiance to one of their own as Khalifah. Either they had not heard the mentioned Hadith of the Messenger (saw) despite their constant accompaniment of him, or they had heard it and knew it for what it was—a condition of preference. Which is more likely? Is it not more likely that they knew it rather than being ignorant of it? And that they knew it as a condition of preference rather than a condition of validity?
b. Abu Bakr (ra) explained the reasoning for the Hadith when mentioning it, saying: "This matter (the rule) will not be recognized except for this tribe of Quraysh; they are the best of the Arabs in lineage and status." In another narration, it was Umar who said: "The Arabs will not recognize this matter except for this tribe of Quraysh; they are the best of the Arabs in status and lineage." It is clear from the reasoning that «الأئمة من قريش» because they were then the leaders of the Arabs, and the Arabs would not submit their leadership except to them. The Arabs at that time constituted the majority of Muslims, if not all of them. Therefore, the majority of Arabs would nominate and elect a Khalifah for themselves from Quraysh and not from anyone else. This was a profound observation by Abu Bakr and Umar on the necessity that the Khalifah must obtain the consent of the majority of Muslims. If it were known that the majority of Muslims wanted a specific person, then the bay'ah would be given to him, regardless of the lineage of the one who attains their consent.
c. Umar (ra) feared that if the bay'ah was not concluded quickly, the Ansar would pledge allegiance to one of their own. This means that despite the discussion and the mention of the Hadith, he saw that the Ansar might still pledge allegiance to one of their own. This indicates that he understood that the Hadith signified preference and not validity. It cannot be thought that Umar (ra) believed the Ansar, despite their virtue and piety, knew the Hadith implied the obligation of the Khilafah being in Quraysh, yet if he did not hasten the bay'ah to Abu Bakr, the Ansar would return to pledging allegiance to one of their own—thereby contradicting a clear text regarding its obligation for Quraysh. This is not plausible regarding the Ansar. What the heart rests upon is that the Ansar and Umar viewed Qurayshi lineage as a preference; thus, the Ansar considered the Khilafah permissible for themselves, and Umar considered it permissible for them because he feared they would pledge to one of their own. If they had pledged to one of them, he saw that obedience to him would be obligatory, otherwise there would be fasad (mischief/chaos). Umar said: "We feared that if we left the people without a bay'ah being concluded, they might conclude a bay'ah after we left. Then we would either have to follow them in what we do not approve, or oppose them, and there would be fasad." The occurrence of fasad 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 bay'ah. What is more likely in understanding this incident: that Sa'd knew from the Hadith that the bay'ah is only valid for a Qurayshi, yet he remained insistent on his right to it? Or that Sa'd knew from the Hadith that Qurayshi lineage is only a condition of preference, and thus he remained insistent and allowed himself to seek the Khilafah because he saw that even if this condition of preference existed in others, he possessed other conditions of preference that surpassed them?
This does not contradict the Ansar's agreement to the bay'ah of Abu Bakr. 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 outweighed the position of the Muhajirun, so they gave their bay'ah. As for Sa'd, he saw that he had other conditions of preference that compensated for the preference of lineage (Qurayshi descent), so he remained insistent that he had a right to the Khilafah.
I will suffice with this regarding the event of Saqifah Bani Sa'idah and what it indicates—that Qurayshi lineage is a condition of preference.
- The words of Umar at the time of his death (ra): "If my time comes and Abu Ubaydah is dead, I would appoint Mu'adh bin Jabal as my successor." In another narration: "If Salim, the mawla (freed slave) of Abu Hudhayfah, were alive, I would have appointed him as my successor. If my Lord asked me, I would say: I heard Your Prophet say:
إِنَّ سَالِمًا كَانَ شَدِيدَ الْحُبِّ لِلَّهِ
'Salim was intense in his love for Allah.'"
Mu'adh and Salim were not from Quraysh. This incident is well-known and witnessed, just like the Saqifah, in the presence of a group of Sahabah. It constitutes a silent consensus (ijma’ sukuti), and no one objected to it. It is known that such a matter would be objected to if it were not correct. If the Khilafah were obligatory in Quraysh, how could the Sahabah reach a consensus on its permissibility for someone other than a Qurayshi? Should this event be understood as Umar (ra) understanding that the Hadith implies the obligation of the Khilafah being in Quraysh, yet he allowed it for others? Or do we understand that Umar (ra) understood from the Hadith that Qurayshi lineage is a condition of preference, and he saw that Salim had what compensated for this preference with another condition, which is the intensity of love for Allah? Is the latter not what the heart rests upon? Here, no one can say that Umar did not know the Hadith, for Umar was among those present at the Saqifah, a witness to it, and one of those who narrated this Hadith.
Additionally, Umar justified his nomination of the six individuals from whom the Khalifah was to be elected, saying: "Take these group of people whom the Messenger of Allah (saw) said are from the people of Jannah." In other narrations: "The Messenger of Allah (saw) died while he was pleased with them." He mentioned the reason for choosing them, and it was not because they were Qurayshis.
Thus, this second incident—Umar's nomination of the six—also indicates that the Sahabah understood "Qurayshi lineage" as a condition of preference, and they reached a consensus on that by their silence regarding the statement of Umar (ra).
- The Khutbah of Mu'awiyah reported by Al-Bukhari: This also occurred in the presence of a group of Muslims during the era of the Sahabah. It indicates that Abdullah bin Amr bin Al-Aas was narrating a Hadith that a Khalifah would be from Qahtan (i.e., not from Quraysh). Mu'awiyah became angry, spoke against Abdullah bin Amr, and labeled him as ignorant. Mu'awiyah was mistaken in labeling a Companion as ignorant. Al-Bukhari narrates: "Muhammad bin Jubayr bin Mut’im narrated that it reached Mu’awiyah, while he was with a delegation from Quraysh, that Abdullah bin Amr bin Al-Aas was narrating that there will 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 men among you are narrating reports that are not in the Book of Allah, nor are they transmitted from the Messenger of Allah (saw). Those are the ignorant among you...' until Mu’awiyah said: 'Indeed, this matter is in Quraysh...'"
Abdullah bin Amr was narrating that a king, meaning a Khalifah, would be from Qahtan. The word "king" (mulk) is applied to the Imam, the Sultan, or the Khalifah, and is not applied to anyone below them. Mu'awiyah understood this as a Hadith about a Khalifah from Qahtan, i.e., from other than Quraysh, 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 Khalifah will be from Qahtan, i.e., from other than Quraysh—or Mu'awiyah's denouncement of him? It is known that Abdullah bin Amr is a Companion whose companionship is not disputed, whereas Mu'awiyah's companionship (in the same sense) is subject to discussion. Therefore, the Hadith of Abdullah bin Amr is favored over Mu'awiyah's denouncement. Furthermore, does this not mean that the claim that the Sahabah reached a consensus that «الأئمة من قريش» is a condition of validity is incorrect? Note that the one who denounced Abdullah was Mu'awiyah, and no denouncement from anyone else was reported, even though the statement was made in public.
These are three incidents that took place in the presence of the Muslims and the Sahabah, and they indicate—with a clarity that the heart rests upon—that the Sahabah understood «الأئمة من قريش» as a condition of preference, and that the Khilafah can be among them and others.
Second: The Hadiths mentioned which some use as evidence that "Qurayshi lineage" is a condition of validity:
We know that all forms of command among the Arabs—whether a single word in its literal and implied meaning, or a compound sentence in its literal and implied meaning, of which linguists have gathered dozens—all signify a mere request and require a context (qarinah) to clarify the type of request, whether it is decisive (jazm), non-decisive, or optional.
By reviewing the narrated Hadiths, it is seen that they signify a request but lack a decisive qarinah, except for two Hadiths that carry a suspicion of this, which I will review here:
- The Hadith «الأئمة من قريش» and their argument that it is a mubtada (subject) and khabar (predicate), which implies the restriction (hasr) of the subject to the predicate. Consequently, the inverse implication (mafhoum al-mukhalafah) is applied, meaning it is not valid for the Imams to be from other than Quraysh. Upon scrutinizing this Hadith, we find that it does not signify the inverse for the following reasons:
a. Quraysh is a name for a tribe (laqab). The inverse implication is not applied to a rule attached to a name, whether it is a generic noun, a proper noun, or what falls under its ruling, such as a title (laqab) or a kunya. Therefore, if you say: "Quraysh is generous," it does not mean that other than Quraysh is not generous. Likewise, «الأئمة من قريش» does not mean that for other than Quraysh, the Imamate is not valid.
b. Compound and simple forms of restriction (hasr) do not all signify real restriction in usul (foundations)—meaning they do not have an inverse implication—except with qarinahs added to the form. If those added qarinahs are not found, the restriction is not "real" in the usul sense, and thus does not restrict all its members.
To my knowledge, two forms are excluded from this:
The first is a simple form using a tool of negation with a tool of exception, such as: (لـم) and (إلاّ). These two tools together signify restriction definitively and have an inverse implication, such as: "The Messenger of Allah (saw) did not place Zakat except in ten: camels, cattle, sheep, gold, silver, barley, wheat, dates, raisins, and sult (a type of barley)." Here, it signified restriction and has an inverse implication, meaning that items other than these are not subject to Zakat.
The second is derived from the structure, where a group of concrete nouns (asma’ jamidah) are specified, and a conditional rule is attached to each name by a common factor that unites them. Here, there is a restriction that has an inverse implication, such as: "Gold for gold, like for like; wheat for wheat, like for like... whoever increases or asks for an increase has dealt in riba." Here, there is a restriction for the mentioned cause and it has an inverse implication, meaning that things other than these do not fall under the rule.
As for anything else, it requires an added qarinah. For example:
"Indeed, riba is only in the nasi'ah (delay)." Although innama signifies restriction, it requires an added qarinah. Since it is not found, the inverse implication is not applied, and that is why there is riba al-fadl.
And like «الأئمة من قريش»; here we have a mubtada and khabar, and the mubtada is restricted to the khabar, and there is no added qarinah. Therefore, there is no inverse implication, so the Imams can be from Quraysh and from other than Quraysh.
This pertains to the Hadith «الأئمة من قريش» where nothing exists in the text of the Hadith other than the mubtada and khabar. If it had a completion with a suitable qarinah added to the restriction, then the inverse implication would be applied according to that qarinah, and the Imams would only be from Quraysh. This added qarinah is not present in the aforementioned Hadith.
- The Hadith:
إِنَّ هَذَا الأَمْرَ فِي قُرَيْشٍ لاَ يُعَادِيهِمْ أَحَدٌ إِلاَّ كَبَّهُ اللَّهُ عَلَى وَجْهِهِ مَا أَقَامُوا الدِّينَ
"Indeed, this matter is in Quraysh; no one shows enmity towards them except that Allah will cast him down on his face, as long as they establish the Deen."
This Hadith has two parts: "Indeed, this matter is in Quraysh," and this does not signify that the matter cannot be in other than Quraysh. The restriction of the mubtada to the khabar requires an added qarinah, and what was said about the previous Hadith applies here.
If the completion "no one shows enmity towards them except that Allah will cast him down on his face" were an added qarinah to the first part—meaning that (لا) was a conjunction ('atifah) connecting the two parts—then the restriction would become an usuli one having an inverse implication, and the matter would be restricted and obligatory in Quraysh.
So, what is the reality of (لا) here?
(لا) here is a particle of negation accompanying the tool of exception (إلاّ), and together they form a complete restriction. That is, they restrict the "casting down on the face" to those who show enmity towards them. Consequently, the punishment is restricted to the enmity of Quraysh and has no connection to the first part.
It is not correct for (لا) here to be a conjunction ('atifah) because one of the conditions for (لا) to be a conjunction, as per the linguists, is that the coordinated element must be a single word, not a sentence or a semi-sentence. Since what is mentioned here is a sentence ("no one shows enmity... on his face"), the speech here consists of two separate parts: the first is the matter being in Quraysh, and the second is the punishment for showing enmity to Quraysh. Thus, the correct understanding is that it specifies two separate matters: that the matter is in Quraysh, and the prohibition of showing enmity towards them. Therefore, this is not a qarinah that signifies decisiveness for the first part of the Hadith because (لا) is not a conjunction.
Accordingly, the claim that this Hadith signifies the obligation of the Khilafah being in Quraysh—meaning it is a condition of validity—is refuted, and it remains, as demonstrated, a condition of preference.
As for Hadiths other than these two, they are not accompanied by any qarinah that signifies decisiveness.
Third: One point remains that I see as necessary to mention for complete peace of mind: there are those who say that the glad tidings of the return of the final Khilafah on the Method of Prophethood means it must be like the first Khilafah on the Method of Prophethood. Since the first Khilafah’s caliphs were from Quraysh, then the second must also have caliphs from Quraysh.
The weakness of this point becomes clear when it is realized that the "Method" (Minhaj) is not based on the lineage of individuals; rather, the path and way taken by these individuals is the basis of it.
It is stated in the dictionary Al-Qamus:
"The Nahj: The clear path, like the Manhaj and the Minhaj. Nahaja like mana’a: it became clear. Nahaja al-tareeq: he followed it. Istan-haja fulan sabil fulan: he followed his path."
Therefore, the Minhaj is the path upon which the Messenger of Allah (saw) was. Thus, the coming Khilafah on the Method of Prophethood, by Allah's will, is like the first Khilafah; meaning it is Rashidah (Rightly Guided), adhering to the Book of Allah (swt) and the Sunnah of His Messenger (saw) and what they guided toward, just as the Rightly Guided Caliphs were. This means there will be in the coming one 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 Qurayshi or not, because the consideration is the Minhaj they are upon.
We ask Allah (swt) to honor us with His victory, to hasten for us His relief and bounty, and to make us successors on earth 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.
August 27, 2003 CE