3.2 The Institution of Khalifah
The Holy Prophet died in 632 A.D. and the question of a successor (Khalifah) arose on his death because, pragmatically speaking, a young socio-political organism like the early Muslim state required a directing head. Therefore originally the "Khilafah" as an institution came into being because the conditions had so demanded. Immediately after the death, the companions rushed to a meeting in the saqifah of banu Sada, a place where they used to gather for discussing mutual affairs. Following a brief deliberation and after Umar and Abu Ubaida had sworn allegiance to Abu Bakr, the conferee in al- Saqifa decided to follow suit as also the others did. When swearing allegiance, Umar stated that "Abu Bakr is the most virtuous among the muhajirin; the second of the two, (the first being the prophet) when the two were in the cave and the deputy of the prophet in prayer., and prayer is the most important meritorious act in the religion of the Muslims" (tarikh al-tabari vol 3 p. 219)
On the next day the Muslims gathered in the mosque of the prophet and the general oath of allegiance was given to Abu Bakr by which he was chosen the caliph of the Muslims and the head of the Islamic state. The first oath of allegiance which took place in al-Saqifa Bani Sa'ida is considered to be a nomination of Abu Bakr by the Muslim leaders to take charge of the affairs of the state; and the general oath of allegiance given to Abu Bakr in the second day is considered a referendum on the nomination by which the Muslims expressed their view in choosing the head of the state. The choice of Abu Bakr as the first of the rightly guide caliphs by all Muslims averted any kind of dispute between the Ummah. This choice came into being on the basis of Consensus of the Companions (Ijma') in response to the demand of times.
The Ijma' of the Companions of the Prophet is the priority, which must be given to the appointment of a Caliph for Muslims. The Sunnah of the Prophet (PBUH) informs us that the dead must be buried quickly and it is...
3.2 The Institution of Khalifah
...forbidden for those responsible for the burial to delay the burial on account of other things. Yet when the prophet (PBUH) died, the companions delayed his burial until after they had selected a Caliph from among themselves. None of the Companions objected to the delay of the burial. The unanimous agreement of the Companions is an evidence for us about the importance of appointing the Caliph for Muslims, even more vital than the burial of the Prophet (PBUH) himself.
It is worthy mentioning that Umar's appointment of six Companions to consult among them to nominate a Caliph after him was not based on al-Maslah al-Mursala the Maslaha is what Umar was hoping to obtain as an outcome of his action and its evidence. Umar's action was supported by the consensus of Companions . This can be deduced from the statement of Umar when the Muslims asked him to nominate a successor. He said: "The prophet (PBUH) did not nominate a casliph, while Abu Bakr did nominate (and not appoint) his (in the presence of the Companions); either one of these two choices is legal." The question then should be: what makes the nomination of the succeeding Caliph legal since the prophet did not do it? The answer to that is the consensus of Companions who were present when Abu Bakr, upon the request of the Ummah and after consulting the Companions, nominated Umarand they did not object to it. The consensus of the Companions was also Umar's evidence when he, based on the Ummah's consent, nominated six individuals to choose one person from among them as a Caliph.
The word "Khalifah" is derived from "Khalafa"(kh.l.f ) which means to succeed, to be followed or to leave behind. That is the reason why some Muslim jurists argue that Khalifah can only be that of the Holy Prophet who was mortal, as only mortals leave successors behind. However, the term "Khalifah" also occurs in the...
3.2 The Institution of Khalifah
...Qur'an, although there is no indication which directly connects it with the political implications of the term i.e., the Head of the State in Islam. In surah 38: verse 27 God appointed David as a "Khalifah" in his land. In surah 6: verse 166 it is stated:"It is He (God) who has made you "Khulafa' " (plural of Khalifah) on the Earth, and He raises some of you above others by (various) grades in order that He may test you by His gifts". But in the Qur'anic sense probably the word is to be interpreted as man being vicegerent of God.
It is a generally accepted principle that great men make history. The four Rightly Guided Caliphs, who laid down the foundations of the Islamic Caliphate, were certainly the greatest men Islam has produced after the Holy Prophet. But great men make history only if they have the support and co-operation of the people united behind them. The efforts of the Rightly Guided Caliphs for spreading Islam and carrying its message to other nations was extremely successful. The Islamic state expanded and many people from other nations lived in peaceful coexistence side by side with the Muslims. Under the banner of Islam. The Muslims under the institution of the Islamic caliphate established one of the greatest civilizations that the world has ever witnessed.
The institution of the caliphate continued in one form or another from that time until the twentieth century when Mustafa Kamal Ataturk announced the termination of the Ottoman Caliphate and instituted a secular state in Turkey. In this connection, it is a categorical error to compare the Islamic State and its need for a Muslim head with the secular state where it is need for a Muslim head with the secular state where it is, theoretically, conceivable to have a head of state who may belong to a minority group. The comparison is fallacious and misleading for several reasons. First, it assumes that Secularism, however superficial, is sounder than the...
3.2 The Institution of Khalifah
...Islamic ideology. Such an assumption or premise is pretentious. Secondly, the duties and rights of the a head of a state under Islam are quite different from those of his counterpart in a secular order, as outlined above. Thirdly, the modern secular spirit is for the most part a redemptive, apologetic restitution, a case which does not apply to Islam. Moreover, a head of a secular state, if there can be a real one, may belong to a racial, ethnic, or religious minority. But he almost invariably has to join a majority party. What this does in fact is to substitute a political majority for a religious one, which is hardly an improvement of the minority status as such. Furthermore, the whole secular argument presupposes that the state headship is a right or privilege that may be conferred upon or denied to the individual. The Islamic position is radically different. In Islam, the state headship is first and foremost an obligation, a trying commitment, an awesome responsibility. It would be inequitable, therefore, if Islam were to impose such responsibilities upon non-Muslims.