A Comment On The Khilafa Debate

A Comment On The Khilafa Debate

The following discussion took place between me and a brother who watched the Khilafa debate between Ustadh Abdul Rahman and Abu Baraa. The brother then contacted me and had a discussion with me in which he expressed his doubts after watching that debate.

The brother: Watch “The Khilafah Debate | Ustadh Abdur Rahman Hassan …” on YouTube… Have you watched it?

Me: Yes.

The brother: Fine….. And Ustadh Abdurrahman doesn’t make any sense for me.

Me: The Ustadh made mistakes with regards to Haakimiyyah. But that guy Abu Baraa was speaking non sense in the debate about the Khilafa. He mentioned some of the most absurd claims.

The brother: Like..?

Me: Like for example he was saying that since the Prophet (sallallhu alayhi wasallam) only spoke to a few leaders of Medina while taking Ba’yah from them, then that proves that you don’t need the support of the majority to be the ruler. This shows Abu Baraa’s ignorance because those leaders of the tribes in Medina with whom the Prophet spoke and took Ba’yah from were all accepted by their people and all the people knew them and they would accept their decisions but in the case of Abu Bakr al baghdadi, nobody accepts their decision or their leadership, and in fact nobody even knows who they really are and the majority of the Ummah are opposed to them and hate them and stand against them. So this shows that what happened during the time of the Prophet was completely different and opposed to that of abu bakr al baghdadi. And the followers of Baghdadi are not the Ummah exclusively rather they are those who have turned against the Ummah and are fighting the Ummah.
And moreover, Abu Baraa’s statement is one of the most foolish statements I ever heard on this subject… Because the authority of the Prophet comes from Allah. So Allah is the one who appointed him as the Prophet and the authority over the entire mankind. And the Prophet speaking to the leaders of Medina was only to defend and protect him. It does not affect his authority. (In fact the one who says that the authority of the Prophet comes from the people is actually following democracy, because by that he is saying that the authority for the Prophet and for Allah for ruling comes from the people and not the other way round…! So it is in fact a greater Kufr than even just democracy…! But this ignorant Abu Baraa did not realize this fact and that he was actually speaking words which would make one fall into the Kufr of democracy…What an ignorance from Abu Baraa…!)

Secondly, this incident is a proof AGAINST Abu Baraa… Because according to Abu baraa HIMSELF in that video, he mentioned that the Prophet at first spoke to several different tribes asking for protection. Many were willing to accept him but did not have the ability to protect him. So the Prophet then went to others who could protect him. So this shows that when a leader takes pledge from the people, protection should be given. So is that the case with Abu bakr baghdadi…? Can he protect the Ummah…? So how can he claim to be their leader and ask for Ba’yah?

The brother: Fine… But I felt his whole point was, how did we make a ‘condition’ that the majority is required. He was continuously asking for daleel and abdurrahman wasn’t having it.

Me: No…It is not like what you said…

The brother: Yes he can protect those within his boundaries. Where did we get that he need to have the ability to protect the whole Ummah in wherever they are?

Me: One of the proofs for the majority is the statement of Ibn Taymiyyah in which he said that if Umar and those with him gave pledge to Abu Bakr but the rest of the majority of the companions did not give him Ba’yah then Abu Bakr would not have become a Khalifa unless the majority of the companions gave him the Ba’yah.

The brother: But that’s what he responded as ‘majority of’ ahl halli wal aqd and not the majority of ummah. And he defined that.

Me: First of all he cannot protect those under him. When America came and made air strikes they could not protect anybody and they themselves went in hiding. So if the NATO force arrived they could easily destroy entire towns of theirs like they did in Afghanistan… So he can’t even protect his own people. But even if we agree for the sake of argument…then every Mujahid group in the world protect their own people. Tell me who protects the people in Afghanistan. Mullah Umar or baghdadi…? So who is their rightful leader…? And his statement regarding ahlul hal wal aqd is another weird argument.

The brother: That argument is valid.

Me: Which one?

The brother: Regarding the other groups holding the same potential… which you said… But not what you said about them being unable to defend themselves in the war… Coz it is a war and it has ups and downs.

Me: No… If it has ups and downs, then that proves that they are not in a state of Tamkeen but rather in a state of war. Because if the Kuffars are able to strike them anywhere in their territories and kill their people, then that means their land is Darul Harb (land of warfare) and not a land with Tamkeen, because you have Tamkeen only when you have security in your land. So them having ups and downs while they are in this defensive war shows that they are not in a stable condition which is one of the requirements for Tamkeen.

Moreover, according to baghdadi, all other groups in the world are invalid and cancelled by them… Did you know that?

The brother: Yes I know that.

Me: That is important. It is not about ups and downs in a war… There are two things to be noted…One is the definition of the Khalifa and does baghdadi fit that…? The second is the Ba’yah. Is it valid or not?

The brother: Go ahead.

Me: Do you know that the Ba’yah is a contract between the leader and the Ummah…? And every contract has it pillars without which it will be invalid… So do you know what this contract of Ba’yah is all about?

The brother: Okay, go ahead with the pillars of Ba’yah.

Me: One is that the Ba’yah is a contract between two parties. So no contract is valid until both the parties agree to it…

The brother: Okay

Me: So to be a leader for the Ummah means it is a contract between the leader and the Ummah.. So if the Ummah does not approve of it, this contract is invalid. Secondly…

The brother: Wait…. Before going to second…. Can u explain what Ummah means in our real world? Every Muslim, or notable Muslims or…?

Me: The entire Ummah or most importantly, its majority.

The brother: This is exactly which I’m trying to understand… From where we took that as a ‘sharth’ (condition), and its daleel for that? The statement of Ibn taymiyya does not prove that. Any more significant daleel?

Me: Akhi, I told you that the Ba’yah is a contract between two parties. The leader and the ummah. So how can this contract exist in reality if the ummah is not there…? If you say minority is sufficient, then where did you find in Fiqh that someone can make a contract on behalf of others without their permission…? Remember, if a few people gave Ba’yah to baghdadi, then it is a contract between him and those few… So he is a leader only for them alone just like every other group. But how does he become a leader for the Ummah because there is no contract made by them or their representatives..?

The brother: Yes. This is a point that I need to think upon.

(The discussion continued after that and more explanation was given to the brother which I hope to summarize at some point soon inshallah)


Justpaste Link: https://justpaste.it/khilafadebate1



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s