What is the Islamic caliphate and how does it differ from the Shia concept of the Imamate? This article examines the Sunni theory of leadership — from the definition of the caliphate to how a caliph is selected and what Muslims should do under a tyrannical ruler.
Definition and origin of the term caliphate
The word caliph means ‘successor’. In Sunnī political theory, the holder of the title is considered to be supreme leader of the Muslim community. The title Khalīfa (caliph) continued to be applied to the Muslim leader right up to the twentieth century. After the death of the fourth Caliph, the institution became a hereditary monarchy.
Origin of the term ‘Khalifa’
The provenance and the theological implications of the word ‘khalīfa’ is an issue of dispute amongst scholars. Sunnī believers and most modern Islamicists hold that the word khalīfa was first used by the Khulafā Rāshidūn in the sense of khalīfat rasūl Allah i.e. a successor to the Prophet with no intrinsic claim to religious authority. The designation of Abū Bakr as the first Caliph occurred through bay‘a (pledge of allegiance). This procedure was followed for subsequent Caliphs.
Sunnī and Shī‘i concept of leadership
Both Sunnīs and Shī‘īs agree on the absolute necessity of having a leader, that ultimate sovereignty belongs to God, and that the basis of the state is religious. However, the Sunnī concept of leadership/caliphate varies significantly from that of Shī‘īsm. This difference is summarised concisely by Ibn Taymiyya (d. 728/1328), in contradiction to the Shī‘a belief that leadership in Sunnī Islam is:
“an instrument to serve the faith” and not a fundamental of the faith.
Political Authority
In Sunnī theory, the Caliph was a political successor to the Prophet. His role was to apply the rules of the Sharī’a, and not to reinterpret it. The ruler (caliph) in Sunnī political thought was neither divinely appointed nor infallible. He could be chosen in a number of ways and was responsible for applying the Sharī’a, not interpreting it.
Religious Authority
Although Shī‘is hold that ultimate religious authority belongs to the Imām, the Sunnīs contend that ultimate religious authority belongs to the Sharī’a. Hence the Caliph is subservient to the Sharī’a, which in turn is interpreted by the ‘ulamā’. A corollary of this is that there is no division in Shī‘īsm between religious and political authority; both are invested in the Imām.
In Sunnīsm, political authority is invested in the Caliph, whereas religious authority is invested in the ‘ulamā’. When the ‘ulamā’ reached consensus (ijma‘) on a matter, then this represented the will of the community (the jamā’a). To oppose ijma‘ was tantamount to heresy.
The challenge by Ma’mum
Despite the fact that this view was accepted by both scholars and Caliphs over the course of political history, it was vigorously challenged by the Caliph Ma’mum (d. 218/833). The Mihna was an unsuccessful attempt by Ma’mūm to challenge the religious authority of the scholars and thereby claim this authority for himself. His Shī‘ī sympathies may have influenced this approach to the locus of authority.
However, as Zaman points out, this division of authority between scholars and the rulers should not be understood to mean a strict separation of state and religion. Although the Caliph and the ‘ulamā’ had separate functions, they were mutually dependent and often had to collaborate with each other.
Works on political theory
A plethora of historical works on Sunnī political theory discuss a multitude of issues. These include the qualifications and duties of the Caliph, his manner of selection, the legality of resisting authority and the issue of multiple claims to leadership. Most of these works were written in response to new political developments and crises facing the Islamic state, including the fragmentation of the ‘Abbāsid state, the rising power of the Turkish slave soldiers, the Fāṭimid Caliphate, and the destruction of the Caliphate by the Mongols. These works were, in the main, legalistic and pragmatic rather than idealistic. For example, both Ghazālī and Ibn Taymiyya validated the rule of whoever held power, irrespective of their official designation.
Next we discuss the necessity of having a leader, the methods by which he may be selected, and the problem of tyranical leaders.
Necessity of having a leader
A number of Sunnī scholars believe that the necessity to have a leader is proved by reason, whereas others point to the divine texts to proof its obligation. “Oh you who believe, obey Allah, and obey the Messenger and those in authority among you” (4:59). However, the process of choosing the Imam differs radically from the Shia. The Sunnis reject the concept of restricting leadership to ahl al-bayt. Nevertheless, they do state, based upon an authentic hadith, that the Imam should be from Quraysh. This point was made by Abu Bakr, after the Prophet’s death, when he replied to the Ansari suggestion that there should be two leaders. In other words, one from the Ansar, and one from the Muhajaroon. Abu Bakr replied that the Prophet (salalahu alaihi wa sallam) said, “Quraysh are the authorities of this matter.”.
Process of choosing a leader
The Sunnis, unlike the Shia are not prescriptive on the process of choosing an Imam. This is demonstrated in the discussions held Saqīfa Bani Sa’idah following the death of the Prophet (salalahu alaihi wa sallam). A number of suggestions were put forward and discussed, and a general consensus emerged that the leader should be from Quraysh. After mentioning some of Abu Bakr’s qualities, Umar and Zaid bin Thabit pledged allegiance to him and were followed by the rest of those present. The following day, the rest of the Muslims pledged allegiance.
This incident shows that Abu Bakr was chosen Caliph by a small group of Muslims. Those who were not present were not involved in the process. However, two senior Ansar and two senior Muhajaroon initiated the bay’ah. (Umar and Zaid ibn Thabit, then Abu Ubaidah ibn al Jarrah and Bashir ibn Nu’man) These four Sahaabah could be described as being ahl hall wal aqd (those having the power to bind and unbind). Hence power to elect was limited to a select, influential few.
The Sunnis also accept that the Caliph can be nominated, as opposed to being elected. This was the case with Umar, who was nominated by Abu Bakr to be Caliph. Uthman was also “elected” as Caliph by a group nominated by Umar. Again, this group can be described as being ahl hall wal aqd.
The ahl hall wal aqd.
Ali was nominated by those who were responsible for the murder of Uthman. Although Ali was completely free of their action, they were the ones who were in authority in Madina. Malik ibn Ashtar, having just instigated the murder of Uthman, was the first to pledge allegiance to Ali. He was followed by most, but not all, of the Companions in Madina. This process of electing Ali was not disputed, even by his adversaries, their main issue was that the murderers of Uthman should be brought to task.
This highlights another important belief of the Sunnis; that the Imam can be chosen by the ahl hall wal aqd, even if the latter are impious or tyrannical. Ahl hall wal aqd is defined as the “people who loosen and bind.” In other words, those members of the elite who play a role in the selection and removal of the ruler. The main criteria is that they have the power to choose the Imam.
Shias on the other hand, totally reject the concept of election, irrespective of the virtues or otherwise, of the electing party. The Imams, according to them, have already been nominated by Allah and His Messenger, and there is no room for human involvement in this issue.
In summary, the Sunnis hold that the Imam can be nominated by the previous Imam, or elected by the ahl hall wal aqd. One chosen, bay’ah should be made to him.
What defines a legitimate leader?
What if the Imam chosen is not the most suited for the position? An example can be taken from the nomination of Yazid I, and then after him, Muawaiya II. The majority of Sunnis hold that once a leader is chosen by those who hold power (ahl al-Shawkah), i.e. he is given a pledge of allegiance that confers upon him power and authority, he becomes the Imam. Hence Yazid I, according to the majority of Sunnis was a legitimate Imam, based upon the fact that he possessed authority.
Once a person obtains power and dominance and utilises this power to run the affairs of the state, then he becomes the Imam to whom obedience is due. This is irrespective of how he obtained the position. Whether his rule over them is due to their willing obedience or to compulsion is immaterial. They must obey him as long as his does not order disobedience to Allah. However this disobedience does not justify rebellion.
Proof for the Sunni view on legitimate leadership
The Sunni position can be justified by textual proof and by the intellect. As for textual proof, they are numerous, including the statement of the Prophet (salalahu alaihi wa sallam) “If anyone sees something in the leader that he disapproves of, he should remain patient
The Prophet (salalahu aliahi wa sallam) said: "There will appear after me rulers; they will not guide by my guidance, and they will not establish my Sunnah; there will be amongst them men whose hearts will be hearts of devils in the bodies of men!” He was asked: 'How should I behave, O Messenger of Allah, if I reach that time?' He replied, "Hear and obey the ruler, even if he beats your back and (illegally) takes your wealth – hear and obey!” (Sahih Muslim)
As for proof by the intellect, then history has demonstrated that the rebellions against the leaders has led to greater evil. For example, the oppressive killing of Husayn, civil wars in which Muslims are raising their swords against fellow Muslims, and the general anarchy that ensues in times of civil strife.
References
Abdullah Saeed, ‘Introduction. The context of development of Islamic political thought”, in Islamic Political Thought and Governance: Critical Concepts in Political Science (4 Vols), ed. by Abdullah Saeed (Routledge, 2011), pp. 1-12.
Hayrettin Yücesoy, ‘Justification of Political Authority in Medieval Sunni Thought’, in Islam, the State, and Political Authority: Medieval Issues and Modern Concerns, ed. by Asma Afsaruddin (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2010).
Kadi, Wadad, ‘Caliphate’, in The Princeton Encyclopaedia of Islamic Political Thought, ed. by Richard Bulliet and David Cook (Princeton University Press, 2012).
Lewinstein, Keith, ‘Kharijis’, The Princeton Encyclopedia of Islamic Political Thought, 2012 p. 294.
Ovamir Anjum, Politics, Law, and Community in Islamic Thought: The Taymiyyan Moment, (Cambridge University Press, 2012), pp. 45-7.
Qamaruddin Khan, Political Thought of Ibn Taymiyah, (Adam Publishers, 2005), p. 35.
Sourdel, D.; Lambton, A.K.S.; Jong, F. de; Holt, P.M.. “K̲h̲alīfa.” Encyclopaedia of Islam, Second Edition
