(Series of Answers by the Scholar Ata bin Khalil Abu al-Rashtah, Emir of Hizb ut-Tahrir, to the Questions of the Visitors to his Facebook Page)
Answer to a Question: Regarding the Time Limit Given to Muslims to Establish the Khilafah
To Muafa Abu Haura
Question:
May Allah reward you for your response... Is it possible for discussions to be open so that Muslims may benefit from their content and recognize the sincerity of Hizb ut-Tahrir and its Emir in accepting the truth after the weakness of an opinion has become apparent?
The first idea we want to discuss is the time limit given to Muslims to establish the Khilafah.
A brother of mine named Aang Yulius wrote this article:
Is the narration cited by Hizb ut-Tahrir regarding the determination of the time limit given to Muslims to establish the Khilafah authentic?
Among the adopted ideas of Hizb ut-Tahrir is the appointment of a Khalifah for all Muslims. They stated that it is not permissible for Muslims to be without a Khalifah for more than three days. If three days pass and no Khalifah has been appointed for the Muslims, they become sinful. Since the collapse of the Ottoman Khilafah until today, Muslims have lived for more than eighty years without a bay'ah (pledge of allegiance) on their necks.
Consequently, everyone who does not participate in the attempt to establish the Khilafah becomes a sinner. Hizb ut-Tahrir cited the Ijma’ as-Sahaba (Consensus of the Companions) as evidence for the three-day time limit, specifically the famous narration regarding the words of Umar bin al-Khattab (ra). It was narrated that after he was stabbed and was on the brink of death, he nominated six of the senior Companions to be his successor through shura (consultation) among them. He gave them a threatening instruction to kill anyone among them who opposed their command by the end of the third day. He ordered fifty of the Companions to carry out this instruction. The senior Companions knew of this instruction, and none of them denounced it, even though it is something that would typically be denounced [if it were wrong]. This indicates their consensus on limiting the maximum period for establishing the Khilafah to three days. The origin of this idea is what was narrated in Tarikh al-Tabari, which states:
"If five agree and are pleased with one man, and one refuses, then strike his head or hit his head with the sword. And if four agree and are pleased with a man among them, and two refuse, then strike their heads..." This is an official idea of Hizb ut-Tahrir, written in its adopted books and published by the youth in the name of the Party or their own names. This idea is written in the book The Institutions of the Khilafah State, in the chapter "The Time Limit Given to Muslims to Appoint a Khalifah," p. 53, and in the book The Ruling System in Islam, in the chapter "The Method of Appointing the Khalifah," and others.
The problem is the weakness of the narration because its chain of transmission includes Abu Mikhnaf, who was a Rafidi Shi’ite. Ibn Ma'in described him as "not thiqah (trustworthy)."...
The chain also contains unknown (majhul) narrators... and it contains narrators who practiced tadlis (obfuscation) and narrated using the form of an’anah (indirect transmission)...
There is another narration with the same meaning as Tabari’s, but it is also weak due to a break in the chain (inqita’). Ibn Sa’d narrated a similar report in Al-Tabaqat al-Kubra which includes Simak bin Harb al-Dhuhli al-Bakri, whom the memorizers (huffaz) described as "saduq (truthful) but he changed [in memory]." He could not have met Umar, so the chain is broken.
Regarding the meaning, we find things that cannot be believed in Tabari’s narration and similar reports because they contradict authentic narrations. Let us consider the following points: How could Umar order the killing of the senior Companions... and how could Umar (ra) say this when he knew they were the elite of the Messenger of Allah’s ﷺ companions...
Based on this, it has become clear that this narration is weak... Therefore, the evidence used to claim that the time limit for Muslims to establish the Khilafah is three days falls away. The claim of those who glorify the Khilafah by saying, "Umar ordered the killing of those who refuse to appoint a Khalifah," is also invalidated.
What is your opinion? We await a satisfying answer.
Answer:
Several matters at the beginning of your question caught my attention, which I will point out before answering:
A- The question is in the name of (Muafa Abu Haura), but the article you used in the question is in the name of (Aang Yulius)!
B- You say, "Is it possible for discussions to be open... after the weakness of the opinion has become apparent?" How can you request a discussion while already deciding that "the weakness of the opinion has become apparent"? Should you not wait for the end of the discussion to see the weakness or strength of the opinion? It is not appropriate to declare the weakness of an opinion until after the discussion has concluded, as long as you seek a discussion, is it not?
C- You did not greet us; you did not say As-salamu alaykum. Nevertheless, you made a prayer... and we do not know if it is a prayer for us or against us, as you said, "May Allah reward you for your response..." and did not specify the type of reward—whether it be good or evil! You ended the prayer with dots, leaving the intent known only to the author!
Despite all this, I will assume good intentions in interpreting the previous points and answer your friend's article. With Allah is success:
Hizb ut-Tahrir and its Emir do not reject purposeful discussion aimed at clarifying the truth for the sake of following it and acting upon it to resume the Islamic way of life by establishing the Righteous Khilafah. This is a great obligation, and it is not permissible for Muslims to refrain from establishing a Khalifah after the post becomes vacant for more than three days; otherwise, everyone capable of working for it but failing to do so becomes sinful.
The author of the article addressed the narration of Al-Tabari, which includes "Abu Mikhnaf," and cited that he is "not thiqah." He then mentioned men in the narration he claimed were unknown and others who narrated using an’anah...
He then mentioned one of the narrations in Tabaqat Ibn Sa’d and mentioned that its chain includes "Simak bin Harb," saying that he is "saduq but changed" and that he did not meet Umar (ra)...
The author of the article addressed an important issue but from one single narration, even though this matter of "the three-day limit and killing the dissenter" was not a secret; rather, it took place in the presence of the Companions, and there are several narrations regarding it. Furthermore, his claim that some men in the narration are unknown is not proof if he is ignorant of them while others with stronger memory than him know them! Similarly, his objection to the narration based on an’anah is evidence of ignorance of the science of Hadith terminology (mustalah al-hadith), as an’anah narrations are accepted as long as they meet the conditions of the chain.
Accepting or rejecting a Hadith requires knowledge, jurisprudence, and an understanding of the sciences of Hadith terminology, its principles, and branches. I will mention some of this before responding to your friend's article, so that perhaps he may remember if he is among the people of this knowledge:
There are narrators considered thiqah by some scholars and not thiqah by others, or considered unknown by some and well-known by others. There are Hadiths that are not authentic through one path but are authentic through another. There are paths not considered authentic by some but considered authentic by others. There are Hadiths not recognized by some Hadith scholars who criticized them, yet other scholars recognized and cited them as evidence. There are Hadiths criticized by some people of Hadith but accepted and cited by the general body of jurists (fuqaha). Therefore, forcing people to consider a Hadith sahih (authentic) or hasan (good) based on one opinion or all opinions is incorrect and contrary to the reality of Hadiths... Anyone who looks into the ijtihad of the recognized jurists will find one citing a Hadith that another does not accept because it was authentic to the first and not to the second. You see this among the Hanafis, Malikis, Shafi'is, Hanbalis, and others... One must be patient and think carefully about a Hadith before rushing to criticize or reject it. Anyone who tracks narrators and Hadiths will find much disagreement among Hadith scholars in this regard, and examples of this are very numerous:
For example: Abu Dawud narrated from Amr bin Shu’ayb, from his father, from his grandfather, who said: The Messenger of Allah ﷺ said:
الْمُسْلِمُونَ تَتَكَافَأُ دِمَاؤُهُمْ. يَسْعَى بِذِمَّتِهِمْ أَدْنَاهُمْ، وَيُجِيرُ عَلَيْهِمْ أَقْصَاهُمْ، وَهُمْ يَدٌ عَلَى مَنْ سِوَاهُمْ يَرُدُّ مُشِدُّهُمْ عَلَى مُضْعِفِهِمْ، وَمُتَسَرِّيهِمْ عَلَى قَاعِدِهِمْ... "The blood of Muslims is equal. The protection given by the lowest among them is binding upon them, and the furthest of them may grant protection on their behalf. They are one hand against others. Their strong return [spoils] to their weak, and those on expedition to those sitting..."
The narrator of this Hadith is Amr bin Shu’ayb. Amr bin Shu’ayb, from his father, from his grandfather, is the subject of a famous debate; nevertheless, many have cited his Hadith while others rejected it...
Another example: in Al-Daraqutni from Al-Hasan from Ubadah and Anas bin Malik that the Prophet ﷺ said:
مَا وُزِنَ مِثْلٌ بِمِثْلٍ إِذَا كَانَ نَوْعًا وَاحِدًا وَمَا كَيْلَ فَمِثْلُ ذَلِكَ، فَإِذَا اخْتَلَفَ النَّوْعَانِ فَلَا بَأْسَ بِهِ "What is weighed is like for like if it is of one type, and what is measured is likewise. If the two types differ, then there is no harm in it."
In its chain is Al-Rabi’ bin Sabih; Abu Zur’ah declared him thiqah, while a group declared him weak... If someone cites this Hadith or a Hadith with Al-Rabi’ bin Sabih in its chain, they have cited a legitimate Shar'i evidence...
Another example: Ahmad narrated, saying: Ibn Numayr told us, Malik bin Anas told us, Abdullah bin Yazid, the freed slave of Al-Aswad bin Sufyan, told us, from Abu Ayyash, from Sa’d bin Abi Waqqas, who said: The Messenger of Allah ﷺ was asked about [trading] fresh dates for dry dates, and he said: "Do fresh dates decrease when they dry?" They said: "Yes." "Then he disliked it." Abu Dawud narrated it with the wording: Abdullah bin Maslamah told us, from Malik, from Abdullah bin Yazid, that Zayd Abu Ayyash informed him that Sa’d bin Abi Waqqas said: I heard the Messenger of Allah ﷺ being asked about buying dry dates for fresh dates, and the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said:
أَيَنْقُصُ الرُّطَبُ إِذَا يَبِسَ؟ قَالُوا نَعَمْ، فَنَهَاهُ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ عَنْ ذَلِكَ "Do fresh dates decrease when they dry?" They said: "Yes." So the Messenger of Allah ﷺ forbade that.
Al-Tirmidhi declared this Hadith authentic, but a group—including Al-Tahawi, Al-Tabari, Ibn Hazm, and Abdul-Haqq—criticized it because its chain contains Zayd Abu Ayyash, who is unknown. It is stated in Al-Talkhis that the response is that Al-Daraqutni said he is a reliable, firm narrator (referring to Zayd Abu Ayyash), and Al-Mundhiri said: "Two reliable narrators have narrated from him, and Malik relied on him despite his strict criticism." If someone makes this Hadith a Shar'i evidence or cites a Hadith containing Zayd Abu Ayyash, he has cited a legitimate Shar'i evidence.
Accordingly, the derivation of a ruling does not come from a single narration ignoring others, and it is not enough to look at jarh wa ta’dil (criticism and praise) from one perspective without considering different sides; rather, the issue must be studied from all its aspects...
- Now, I will discuss some aspects that the author of the article was ignorant of or ignored:
In his comment on Al-Tabari’s narration, he focused on Abu Mikhnaf but left out Abu Mikhnaf’s partner in the chain. Al-Tabari’s narration says:
"Umar bin Shabbah told me, saying: Ali bin Muhammad told us, from Waki’, from Al-A'mash, from Ibrahim and Muhammad bin Abdullah al-Ansari, from Ibn Abi Arubah, from Qatadah, from 'Shahr bin Hawshab and Abu Mikhnaf', from Yusuf bin Yazid, from Abbas bin Sahl and Mubarak bin Fadalah, from Ubaydullah bin Umar and Yunus bin Abi Ishaq, from Amr bin Maymun al-Awdi, that when Umar bin al-Khattab was stabbed... he said..." (End)
The author of the article focused on Abu Mikhnaf and mentioned he is weak, but he left out Shahr bin Hawshab, who shared the narration from Yusuf bin Yazid with Abu Mikhnaf. Qatadah narrated from (Abu Mikhnaf and Shahr bin Hawshab), and both narrated from Yusuf bin Yazid. However, he only mentioned Abu Mikhnaf because Shahr bin Hawshab was declared thiqah by a group:
Al-’Ijli (d. 261 AH) said in his book Al-Thiqat: (Shahr bin Hawshab: "Syrian," a Follower (Tabi'i), thiqah.)
Al-Haythami (d. 807 AH) said about Shahr bin Hawshab in Majma’ al-Zawa’id wa Manba’ al-Fawa’id in more than one place:
(Shahr bin Hawshab, and he has been declared thiqah), (Shahr bin Hawshab, and they differed regarding him, but Ahmad, Ibn Ma'in, Abu Zur’ah, and Yaqub bin Shaybah declared him thiqah), (Shahr bin Hawshab, and there is some speech about him but more than one scholar declared him thiqah), (Shahr bin Hawshab, and there is speech about him and a group declared him thiqah).
Ibn Shahin (d. 385 AH) said in his book Tarikh Asma’ al-Thiqat: (Yahya said Shahr bin Hawshab is firm, and in another narration from him: a Syrian who settled in Basra, he was from the Ash’aris themselves, and he is thiqah).
Therefore, Qatadah narrated from Abu Mikhnaf and Shahr bin Hawshab, and not only from Abu Mikhnaf. However, the author of the article ignored Shahr bin Hawshab because he was declared thiqah by more than one person.
This concerns Al-Tabari’s narration.
• Regarding the narration of Ibn Sa’d in Al-Tabaqat:
The author mentioned one of the narrations from Al-Tabaqat which contains Simak. This is the chain of that narration:
"He said: Abdullah bin Bakr al-Sahmi informed us, saying: Hatim bin Abi Saghirah informed us from Simak that when Umar bin al-Khattab was dying, he said: 'If I appoint a successor, it is a sunnah, and if I do not appoint a successor, it is a sunnah. The Messenger of Allah ﷺ died and did not appoint a successor, and Abu Bakr died and he did appoint a successor...'" The author mentioned that Simak, who was described as "saduq but changed," could not have met Umar...
However, it is mentioned in the book Al-Thiqat by Ibn Hibban (d. 354 AH) about Simak bin Harb the following:
(Simak bin Harb al-Bakri, from the people of Kufa... Al-Thawri and Shu’bah narrated from him. Hammad bin Salamah used to say: I heard Simak bin Harb saying: I met eighty of the Companions of the Prophet ﷺ. He died at the end of the governorship of Hisham bin Abdul-Malik when he appointed Yusuf bin Umar over Iraq. He is Simak bin Harb bin Aws bin Khalid bin Nizar bin Muawiyah bin Amir bin Dhuhl).
Similarly, it is mentioned in the book Tarikh Asma’ al-Thiqat by Ibn Shahin:
(He said Simak bin Harb is thiqah. Abdullah bin Muhammad al-Baghawi told us, Muhammad bin Ghaylan told us, Mu’ammil told us from Hammad bin Salamah from Simak bin Harb who said: I met eighty of the Companions of the Prophet ﷺ).
This indicates that Simak met eighty of the Companions of the Prophet ﷺ, which is a considerable number that makes it highly likely that even if he did not meet Umar, he met a Companion who narrated from Umar. The omission of the Companion's name does not affect the authenticity of the chain [in this context of historical reports].
• Nevertheless, Ibn Sa’d cited other narrations regarding the matter that do not contain Simak, including:
- He said: Ubaydullah bin Musa informed us: Isra’il bin Yunus informed us from Abu Ishaq from Amr bin Maymun who said: I witnessed Umar the day he was stabbed... Then he said: Call Ali, Uthman, Talhah, al-Zubayr, Abdur-Rahman bin Awf, and Sa’d for me... Then he said: Call Suhayb for me. He was called and he said: Lead the people in prayer for three [days], and let these people gather in a house. If they agree on a man, then whoever opposes them, strike his head...
Amr bin Maymun al-Awdi had embraced Islam during the time of the Prophet ﷺ and performed the Hajj a hundred times, and it was said: seventy times. He paid his zakat to the Prophet ﷺ... as mentioned in Usd al-Ghabah. Therefore, he witnessed Umar (ra) the day he was stabbed.
He said: Muhammad bin Umar informed us, saying: Muhammad bin Musa told me from Ishaq bin Abdullah bin Abi Talhah from Anas bin Malik who said: Umar bin al-Khattab sent for Abu Talhah al-Ansari an hour before he died and said: "O Abu Talhah, be among fifty of your people from the Ansar with these men of the Shura committee, for I think they will gather in the house of one of them. Stand at that door with your companions and do not let anyone enter upon them, and do not let the third day pass until they have appointed one of them as their leader. O Allah, You are my successor over them."
He said: Muhammad bin Umar informed us, saying: Musa bin Yaqub told me from Abu al-Huwayrith who said: Umar said in what he instructed: If I die, then Suhayb should lead you in prayer for three [days]. Then settle your matter and give your bay’ah to one of you...
It is clear that Ibn Sa’d has more than one narration, but the author of the article clung to a doubt he found in a single narration containing Simak and ignored the others. This indicates that he is not investigating to reach the truth but rather wants to cause confusion for the people of truth—and how could he achieve that!
• Furthermore, there are other narrations recorded by Ibn Shabbah in his book Tarikh al-Madinah, and I will quote three narrations here:
Abu Bakr al-Ulaymi told us, saying: Al-Nadr bin Shumayl told us, saying: Ibn al-Mubarak told us, saying: A freed slave of the family of Ibn Affan told me: That Umar (ra) ordered Suhayb to lead the people in prayer for three [days], and he said: "Let not a third [day] come upon you, or let not a third [day] pass without you having given your bay’ah to one of you—meaning the people of the Shura committee—then fear Allah and settle your differences, and do not split or dispute, and obey Allah, His Messenger, and the Emir"...
Habban bin Bishr told us, saying: Yahya bin Adam told us, saying: Ibn Idris told us from Talhah bin Yahya bin Talhah from Isa bin Talhah and Urwah bin al-Zubayr, both of whom said: Umar (ra) said when he was stabbed: "Let Suhayb lead you in prayer for three days, and wait for Talhah; if he comes by then [it is well], otherwise look into your matter, for the Ummah of Muhammad ﷺ is not left for more than three days without a head (sudā)."
Muhammad told us, saying: Musa bin Uqbah told us, saying: Nafi’ told us that Abdullah bin Umar (ra) informed him: that Umar (ra) was washed, shrouded, and prayed over, and he was a martyr. Umar (ra) said: "When I die, wait for three days, and Suhayb should lead the people in prayer, and let not the fourth day come without having an Emir from among you over you. Abdullah bin Umar should attend as a consultant, but he has no part in the matter. Talhah is your partner in the matter; if he arrives within the three days, then include him in your matter, and if the three days pass before his arrival, then conclude your matter..." ... He said to Al-Miqdad bin al-Aswad: "When you have placed me in my grave, gather this group in a house until they choose a man from among them." And he said to Suhayb: "Lead the people in prayer for three days, and bring in Ali, Uthman, al-Zubayr, Sa’d, Abdur-Rahman bin Awf, and Talhah if he arrives, and bring Abdullah bin Umar—though he has no part in the matter—and stand over their heads. If five agree and are pleased with a man and one refuses, then strike his head or hit his head with the sword. And if four agree and are pleased with a man among them and two refuse, then strike their heads. If three are pleased with one man and three are pleased with another, then let Abdullah bin Umar arbitrate. Whichever group he judges for, let them choose a man from among them. If they are not pleased with the judgment of Abdullah bin Umar, then be with the side that includes Abdur-Rahman bin Awf and kill the rest if they refuse what the people have agreed upon."
• Furthermore, the three-day limit is mentioned in the narrations in a general sense without mentioning the killing of the dissenter, such as "Lead the people in prayer for three," "Let not a third [day] come upon you," "Let not a third [day] pass without you giving your bay’ah to one of you," "Let Suhayb lead you in prayer for three," "Do not let the third day pass until they have appointed one of them," "Let Suhayb lead you in prayer for three, then settle your matter and give your bay’ah to one of you"... And there are narrations that are detailed regarding the killing of the dissenter: "Lead the people in prayer for three... and if they agree on a man, then whoever opposes them, strike his head"... and so on.
Meaning, the period of three days is mentioned in the narrations generally without mentioning the details of the action taken against the dissenter, and it is mentioned in other narrations with the detailed action against the dissenter, which is killing him. Why did the author of the article focus on the narrations of killing the dissenter and ignore the narrations of the three-day limit that do not mention killing? He wanted to highlight the issue of killing to gain emotional acceptance for his opinion, even though Umar’s statement in the presence of the people to kill the dissenter is evidence that the three days is a matter of extreme importance.
• Consequently, the author of the article and those like him and his followers seemingly do not intend to seek the truth as much as they intend to cause confusion for the people of truth and find justifications for their sitting back and cowardice from performing this great obligation, which the Companions prioritized over the burial of the Messenger of Allah ﷺ.
As for what the author mentioned at the end of his article by saying: "How could Umar order the killing of the senior Companions... and how could Umar (ra) say this when he knew they were the elite of the Messenger of Allah’s companions..." (End)
Shar’i rulings are taken from their evidence; they are not taken by whims and assumptions...
Thus, whoever reflects on what we have presented, understands it, and grasps it, will be guided to the truth by Allah’s permission. As for him who is overtaken by arrogance in sin and wrote his article while insisting on not understanding, no answer will benefit him; rather, his matter is with Allah the Almighty, for He is the Guide to the Straight Path.
Your brother, Ata bin Khalil Abu al-Rashtah
Link to the answer from the Emir's Facebook page
Link to the answer from the Emir's website
Link to the answer from the Emir's Google Plus page