Let's start with the Quran:

JM has no Quranic backing for his assertion that the establishment of the Caliphate is obligatory. He only provides two citations. Not only that, but neither of them, on their face, say anything about the establishment of a Caliphate. So spurious are these two verses he cites that he immediately has to dabble into the exegesis of various scholars. When he cites verse 2:30, he immediately latches onto Qurtubi's INTERPRETATION of the verse. When he cites verse 4:59 he immediately latches onto Shafi Usmani's INTERPRETATION of the verse. This is not Quranic proof. If the Quran was clear on the establishment of the Caliphate, JM would have been able to point to just one verse that directly speaks to its requirement. There isn't one; thus the need to dabble into the interpretation of various exegetes. In fact, I suspected just as much given his previous (and ongoing) obsession with citing the 'ijma of the scholars and to expose the very lack of his Quranic argument did I engage in this debate at all. As I have repeated in numerous other posts, when someone sits there hammering you over the head with 'ijma this, 'ijma that, it usually means they are very weak on the first and primary source of Islam: the Quran. Yet again my observation has been verified.

Interestingly, the two verses JM cited are not even the only verses for the job. There are numerous other (but ultimately futile) verses that a pro-Caliphate polemicist can latch onto. These include: 3:103, 105; 6: 159; 23:52, 53; 30: 32; 42:13; 49:13. However, JM didn't cite any of them so I am not really going to address them.

Verse 2:30 reads:

"Indeed, man is made upon this earth a Khaleefah"

Simply because the verse contains the word "Khaleefah" does not mean this a directive -- an obligatory directive -- on Muslims to estalish the Caliphate.

As is pretty obvious to any reaosnable person, the plain interpretation of the verse simply means that the verse is describing the relationship of Humanity to this Earth as God's creation, not talking about political power. The fact that Imam Qurtubi opted to read it as a political dictate really means nothing since his reading is in such variance with the explicit text of the Quran.

Verse 4:59 reads:

"O You Who Believe! Obey Allah and His Messenger and Those in Authority Above You."

Again, on its face (since we must look at the facial meaning of the words before we move to what exegetes have said about it), this is nothing more than a general directive for Muslims ("O You Who Believe!") to obey Allah and the Prophet and Those in Authority Above You. On its face, the verse does not say a single thing about whether those in authority over us, is a reference to the government, or to people with more spiritual elan vitale. We have to make an inferential leap to get to the point that the reference is to the government. Then, after that, we have to make another leap to think that the form of goverment is a Sultanic monarchy. Then we have to make another leap to think that it is obligatory on Muslims to establish such a Sultanic monarchy.

There is another huge problem with JM's citations of these verses: they say nothing at all about the Shariah! His entire argument is premised on the fact that because Muslims must live under the Shariah, it therefore follows that the Caliphate is the proper way of bringing this about, and that is why establishment of the Caliphate is obligatory.

Yet the Quran never says that you need a Caliphate to follow the Shariah! Good luck finding that in there when you cannot even find the general prescription that we must establish the Caliphate.

The Sunnah:

JM's primary argument is that Muslims are obligated to establish a Shariah wielding Caliphate because that is what the Prophet SAW did (and since we Muslims are extolled to follow the Sunnah of the Prophet through the Quran we are therefore obligated).

Sounds like a simple enough argument. Is equally simplistic.

I do not dispute the fact that the Sunnah of the Prophet is obligatory upon Muslims. The Quran is replete with references (and it is part of the reason I am not a Quranist, even though I always go to the text of the Quran first and foremost) to follow the Sunnah of Muhammad.

The reason that JM's argument that the Prophet established an Islamic government and therefore so must we is so wrong is, quite ironically, due to the fact that jurists that JM himself cites, do not accept it! Remember Imam Qurtubi from above? Well, Qurtubi held the position that the actions of the Prophet were not all of the same "type." In some of his actions he behaved like a political leader; in some as a juridical leader; and in some as a theological leader; and in some in his personal capacity. JM is welcome to look up Sherman Jackson's article on Qurtubi to take this further. Ultimately, the point of the article is that some of the actions the Prophet took are timeless; some are not. There is no reason to accept that establishing an Islamic State is one of the timeless requirements, largely because it makes no logical sense and because the Prophet himself did not subscribe to it.

Logically, a Muslim is supposed to follow the Sunnah of the Prophet, right? Yet, if the Sunnah of the Prophet requires that creating a singular Islamic State is a timeless requirement (singular state because the Prophet only establshed one Islamic State), then it means that we here in America, or Muslims in other minority positions in other parts of the world, also have to establish a singular Islamic State. It would further mean that all Muslim people over the past 1400 years who did not establish a singular Islamic State were also violating the Sunnah, which would mean that every single scholar who has ever lived has violated the Sunnah because in the entire 1400 years of Islamic History there have been multiple Islamic States. All the scholars upon whom JM keeps relying, Ghazali, Khaldun, et al., lived in a political system where there were competing Caliphates and competing visions of how to apply the Shariah! Logically, JM's position makes everyone past and present a heretic.

Anyway, even if logic is not an acceptable mode of reasoning (for whatever reason JM wants to drudge up), then the fact remains the Prophet's actual practice also does not make the seeking out of an Islamic State obligatory. We know from history that the Prophet sent Muslims to live in Abyssinia with the explicit command to obey the local laws (which were Christian).

At this point JM can rebut by saying that he does not believe it obligatory upon Muslims in non-Muslim countries to agitate for an Islamic State, only that it is obligatory upon Muslims in Muslim majority countries to agitate for an Islamic State. Ok fine, but what is his Prophetic precedent for this? After all, if he wants to be consistent in his approach (which he really has not been), then in order to show that it is part of the Sunnah for Muslims in Muslim majority areas to agitate for the Islamic State, he needs to prove that the Prophet himself agitated for an Islamic State because he was located in a Muslim majority area. Yet we all know that was not why the Prophet set up an Islamic State. He set up an Islamic State because that was the Divine Commandment given to him (it had nothing to do with whether he was in a Muslim majority area or not).

In order to refute JM's argument from Sunnah, I have remained within the usul ul fiqh method of assuming that individual hadith narrations/events can tell us what is the Sunnah. Personally, I do not accept this conclusion. However, for purposes of this discussion I really don't need to even discuss my views of the Sunnah because even the usuli method militates against JM.

Conclusion:

What, finishing already? Aren't you going to talk about 'ijma? No. I'm not going to talk about 'ijma. There is no Quranic and very spurious Sunnah backing for JM's assertion that establishment of the Caliphate is a fard. Under usul ul fiqh, which is what JM claims to follow (but really doesn't) you cannot move to 'ijma unless and until the first two prongs of usul are satisfied. Here, they simply aren't. He can keep hitting me across the head about all the jurists who believed in the Caliphate and the simple response would be that their opinions on the Caliphate are time bound and contextual given that there is no timeless directive in the Quran or Sunnah to back them up.

Also, a good reader sent me a really great piece of research that really elimintes any need for me to do any further discussion with JM on the matter.

Directives about the establishment of the Khilafah

Clarification on the meaning of Khilafah and Imarah

Numerous Other Refutations of the entire Khilafah Obsession

Anyway, I'm finishing this khilafat discussion. It derails me from the mission of this site: supporting Muslim reformers around the world who fight against legislation which violates international human rights and islamic law. People are free to engage in it in the reader diary and comments but I won't promote anything or respond to anything. This is a fruitless exercise for me and even my promise to respond to this whole discussion was made in haste.

[1] I will be using the word "Caliphate", however, at times I may also use its Arabic equivalent, "Khilafat."

Update [2007-3-15 13:30:44 by Ali Eteraz]: A reader emails and takes JM's Quranic translation to task (although I've already made the point):

The translation is FALSE!

"Indeed, man is made upon this earth a Khaleefah" (2:30):

The verse says, "wa idh qaala rabbuka lil-malaa'ikati 'innee jaa'ilun alaa l-ardi khaleefatan'..." = "And when your Lord said to the angels 'Indeed I am making a vice-regent on the Earth'..."

This refers to the time before creation and the following verse talks about how God taught Adam the names of all things. Thus the verse refers to Adam as a human which is capable of rational thought, free choice and willful
administration of God's creation; Adam is the khlifah and by extension as Banu Adam (the children of Adam), the meaning is all of humanity. It DOES NOT refer to making an Islamic state nor does it have much, if any political connotation. Qurtubi was writing in a time where both the Andalusian and Abbasid caliphates were in steep decline and whose powers were basically non-existant except in name only. Thus, his emphasis and non-correct interpretation. However, I want to actually see Qurtubi's text, since if JM misquoted the Quran, perhaps his source about what Qurtubi said is mistaken as well. How proficient is JM in Classical Arabic, anyway??

Beware of those who will alter the Deen for politicizing the Muslims!