Global Intifada

I recently made a series of posts on the Eteraz site that stirred up quite a lot of controversy.

The shot heard round the blogosphere started with the Firestorm post which called upon Muslim revolutionaries all over the world to work towards 8 common goals. Although most of the points were apolitical, the objective of reviving the khalifate caused the most controversy.

Eteraz then challenged me to prove that their was ijma on the ruling on the Khalifah, which I was more than happy to oblige in this post, entitled “On the Obligatory Nature of the Khalifah.” He then edited his “challenge” and required that I show proof from the Qur’an and Sunnah, which I had already addressed in the post.

Eteraz then wrote a response, claiming I hadn’t met the requirement to show that the ruling in the Khalifah was derived from the Qu’ran and Sunnah and attempted to utilize opinions by several ‘Ulema. For example, he attempted to cite Imam Qurtubi’s view that the Sunnah of the Prophet (sallahu alayhi wa sallam) could be divided into universal and time-specific aspects. However, I’m not sure how closely he read my post because I pre-emptively addressed this potential objection by stating that Islamic governance could not be construed as a temporal institution that was only for the Prophet (sallahu alayhi wa sallam) since the Sahabah (radhi allahu anhu) continued this practice and it was recognized by ijma as-sahabah. Later on, Eteraz attempted to argue that we aren’t bound by ijma of subsequent mujtahidoon. However, even if one were to accept this proposition, the fact of the matter is that all of the schools of law at all times have at the bare minimum have accepted that the ijma of the sahabah (radhi allahu anhu) to be a binding source of legislation. Thus, even though Dhahiris and Hanbalis rejected the claim of Shafi’is and Hanafis that their were levels of ijma beyond ijma as-sahaba was binding, they still recognized ijma as-sahabah. Even if Eteraz wanted to argue the Maliki position, that only the ijma of the sahabah of madinah (radhi allahu anhum) was a binding source of legislation, the decision to institute the Khalifah was made in Madinah. Thus, according to all the various semantical arguments one can make about statutory interpretation in Islam, the fact that their was ijma on the issue of the Khalifah was a very strong proof. Furthermore, even if one could accept Eteraz’s arguments concerning Imam Qurtubi’s position on the Sunnah and Ijma, he himself in his Tafseer al-Qurtubi stated that the proof for the obligatory nature of the Khalifah was from the Qur’an, an opinion which was further affirmed by Ibn Kathir and Mufti Muhammad Shafi Usmani in their respective works of Tafseer. If Eteraz wants to cite Imam Qurtubi as a proof, he must be consistent. He cannot use Imam Qurtubi to argue that the Sunnah was divided into universal and time-specific components and that the Khalifah was a temporary institution, but ignore Imam Qurtubi’s claim that the Khalifah was obligatory. Eteraz cannot have his cake and eat it too.

The next basic argument was that in Islamic history, the institution of the Khalifah was void because (1) there weren’t any people actually following it and (2) there were multiple figures claiming to be khalifah and (3) a lot of the claims to the khalifah were invented. However, even if these points were true, the scholars who lived during those eras still held the Khalifah to be obligatory. Even a “modernist” scholar such as Rashid Rida who recognized that the Ottoman’s had invented their claim to the Khalifah, still held the Khalifah to be a communal obligation. Given the sheer number of scholars who deemed the Khalifah to be a fardh kaffayah, Eteraz’s challenge for ijma was clearly met. I then counter-challenged him to show how the Khalifah was not obligatory by citing the opinions of any mujtahid or faqih who held it not to be fardh. His response was to cite to a so-called ’scholar’ who was not recognized by any other ‘Ulema as being either a mujtahid or a faqih. When I pointed this out, his response was to impose a moratorium on his website on the entire discussion of the Khalifah itself. Coincedentally, such a move was very convenient.

A little before the discussion was completely clamped down upon, several other bloggers made posts, arguing either that the Khalifah was not obligatory, or that it wasn’t a proper goal for the masses:
- Sidi Yursil wrote “The Traditional Understanding of Khalifate” which objected to the ambiguity in my call for Muslim revolutionaries towards establishing the Khalifah. (I largely agreed with this post and realized I should’ve re-worded my posts better.)
- Br. Asim of Qur’anic Reflections wrote “Return of the Khaleefa: Political Zionism in Islam” which gave a personal reflection on the Qur’anic evidences for the Khalifah independent of any analysis from any notable ‘Ulema.

Some of the progressives on the site freaked out and accused me of engaging in takfeer of those who rejected the khalifah, along with being a member of Hizb e Tehrir
This was clarified by Sidi Thabet in “About Jinnzaman’s Recent Diaries” as well as in my own comments in the “On Takfir” discussion where I cited Imam Ghazzali’s opinion that rejecting the obligatory nature of the Khalifah was not kufr.

The discussion on the interpretation of the sources of revelation triggered a tangential discussion on discerning the relationship between reason and revelation.

Lawrence of Arabia wrote “Open Letter to Jinnzaman: Reason and Revealation” along with “Falasafia and Kalam: Concerning Justice” where he questioned my assertion (derived from the Ashari/Maturidi schools) that Islamic law was essentially positivist by citing to non-traditional scholars such as Ibn Sina and al-Farabi.

InshaAllah, I’m going to write a response to this by the weekend.

The discussion continues. I’ll be adding links to different posts as they progress. If you’ve got any thoughts to share on this discussion, write it up on your blog and send me the link so I can add it here so people can hear both sides of the various arguments.

[Updates]

- 3/19/06 - Another discussion on the question apostasy erupted in an article by Br. Eteraz called “A Muslim of Conscience’s Bullet Point Attack on Apostasy” over questions of how crimes are to be deduced and what crimes warrant which punishments.

Share This