خلافت ریاست کے دستور، خلیفہ (24-41)
- زمرہ: خلیفہ (24-41)
دفعہ نمبر 30: خلیفہ کے طور پر جس شخص کی بیعت کی جارہی ہو اس کے اندرا نعقاد خلافت کی تمام شرائط کا ہونا لازمی ہے اگر چہ اس کے اندر افضلیت کے شرائط نہ ہوں کیونکہ اعتبار شروط انعقاد کا ہے ۔
Article 30: The only conditions for the one who is given the pledge to be the leader of the State is that he fulfils the contracting conditions of the contract, even if he does not fulfil the preference conditions, since what matters are the contracting conditions of the contract.
The proof for this is the evidences that were narrated regarding the characteristics of the Caliphate. In some oft the narrations regarding his characteristics the request is non-decisive, such as his words
«إِنَّ هَذَا الأَمْرَ فِي قُرَيْشٍ»
“The authority of ruling (Al-amr) is in Quraysh” (reported by Al-Bukhari from Mu’awiyah). This narration is informative, and it is in the informative form, and though it conveys the meaning of a request, it is not considered decisive as long as it is not accompanied by an indication that confirms its decisiveness, and there is no such indication from an authentic narration. As for what is transmitted in the narration,
«لاَ يُعَادِيهِمْ أَحَدٌ إِلاَّ كَبَّهُ اللَّهُ عَلَى وَجْهِهِ مَا أَقَامُوا الدِّينَ»
“Whoever bears hostility to them, Allah will destroy him as long as they abide by the laws of religion” – this is to do with showing enmity to them and not as a confirmation for hiswords
«إن هذا الأمر في قريش»
“The authority of ruling (Al-Amr) is in the Quraysh”. This is apart from the fact that the word “Quraysh” is a noun and not an adjective, and is called a Laqab (title) in Usul Al-Fiqh, and the understanding (Mafhum) of the noun, or Laqab is not acted upon since the noun or Laqab does not have a Mafhum. For that reason the text about the Quraysh does not mean that other than they cannot be appointed.
Based upon this, this narration indicates a preferred condition and not a condition of contracting due to the absence of an indication that would make the request decisive; rather there is an indication that makes it non-decisive. When the Messengeroffered himself to the tribe of ‘Amir Bin Sa’asa’a who asked
«أَيَكُونُ لَنَا الأَمْرُ مِنْ بَعْدِكَ» قال: «إِنَّ الأَمْرَ للَّهِ يَضَعُهُ حَيْثُ يَشَاءُ»
“Will the matter (authority of ruling) remain with us after you”, to which hesaid “The matter (authority of ruling) is in the Hand of Allah; He gives it to whoever He wills”, narrated by Ibn Ishaq from Al-Zuhri, then this indicates that the request was non-decisive since the reply of the Messengerindicates the permission for the order to be with them after him, and permitted to be with other than them, which indicates that the condition of being from Quraysh is a condition of preference.
As for the conditions of contracting, they are those that are related with a decisive request such that their absence leads to an absence of contracting (as is understood from the definition of what is a condition). In other words, the result of its absence would mean the invalidity of the Caliph for him if he was not from Quraysh. The reply of the Messengerto the tribe of ‘Amir takes the request away from being decisive, as opposed to what has been narrated in the texts for the conditions of contracting. For example, the condition of maturity comes from the fact that the Messengerrefused to take the pledge of allegiance from a child – when he refused to take allegiance from ‘Abd Allah b. Hisham – and the reason was due to his young age. Therefore, it is evidence that it is a condition for the Caliphate to be adult, since if the pledge is not correct from the child then by greater reasoning it would not be correct for the child to be the Caliphate.
Whatever characteristic has been mentioned by a decisive request is considered a condition for the contracting of the Caliph with him, and anything else is not made a condition for contracting even if there is a text which mentions it as long as the request was non-decisive.