A case against Khilafat
Many of the people around have put forth the idea of returning to the system of hey-days of khilafat as cure to all our ills. For them, reverting back to that era and its ideals is the silver bullet we require for werewolf of our state of insignificance and misery.
One can hardly blame the ordinary Muslims for it. For over the centuries, they have been bombarded with a constant and continuous propaganda of "Hail Khilafat", just when at the core of it lie the vested interests of religious clergy and the subsequent monarchies that labeled themselves as Khilafats. And even to this modern age, religious clergy sees it as the most potent tool in its bid to absolute power in the proposed theocratic state they envision. Even today organizations like Islami Tehrik, Hizb-ul-tehrir, Taliban and AlQaeeda declare establishment of a Khilafat as there prime objective.
The intensity of the propaganda has been such that in the Sunni World, Khilafat has become as holy as Oneness of Allah or Prophet-hood of Muhammad (PBUH). In this atmosphere it is almost impossible to have a rational discussion on the role and essence of Khilafat as a political system. This writing is an attempt to analyze Khilafat in a rational and logical way. The idea is to present the other side of the picture in a heavily biased one-sided horizon of Pro-Khilafat.
First and foremost, Khilafat as a concept and having a head of communal affairs for life time has always been an age old custom in tribes all across the world. This was the prevalent system in Arab world before Islam and it just translated into Khilafat after the death of Prophet. Secondly, Khilafat was not an established system in the first place. Any stable and established political system has to have clear criterion for succession as well as selection of the leader(s). In Khilafat, all four caliphs came through different selection/assumption processes. First caliph was declared caliph by a handful and the rest endorsed him. The second caliph was picked by the first one. The third was selected by a council of elders comprising 6 notables and the last one was picked up by a group of Muslims just when another group remained opposed to his accession. How can this system be a model system that we can adopt in 21st century or for that matter at any point in history? Stability remains the cornerstone of effectiveness of any political system and with such selection/assumption criterion any system is bound to fail.
In fact that system did fail even then. For Islamic world was in turmoil and chaos in last years of third caliph and entire term of the forth. And it was not until Muawiya introduced monarchy and then his son effectively eliminated all vocal opposition to the new system (monarchy) that the polity got stability. Any common sense analysis will consider it as the failure of Khilafat system. If Khilafat was a divine system, divinity cannot fail.
Another issue with Khilafat that is more based on theology of Fiqas than practicality is that a Caliph can only be from Quresh (though when Ottoman's rose to power, the clergy clinging to the law of necessity milded the clause a bit - references to the insistence on Quresh can be found in the early literature of all these Fiqas). Now in a religion which was based on equality of humans, this seems absurd (why could the so called Imams insist on this in the presences of sermons to the extent that if a Negro becomes your leader, follow him).
An last but certainly not the least, the linking of Khilafat to the rise of Muslims. We miss a point that the society then had undergone a great revolution brought by the Prophet and it was effectively the current of that revolution that made Muslims rise and conquer the world. The rise of Muslims as the major power cannot be attributed to Khilafat but effectively to the message that the Prophet brought. It was for that message that the dominance continued not only during Khilafat but also afterwards under Ummayad monarchy.
Also, all the talk of accountability and sense of responsibility of Omer or justice of Ali and all other goods of the system, they were personal traits and consequence of the character of great individuals. They would have been equally effective and prominent in any other system. In fact, just when in Khilafat these traits hinge solely on the character of individuals, the system of modern liberal democracy provides an effective mechanism to institutionalize these virtues to a greater extent. Even modern liberal democracy is not perfect, but it certainly is more effective than Khilafat on this issue and many others. Creating an effective system of checks and balances, not left to the whims of man at top (talk of Ummayad nepotism during 3rd Caliph - Ref. Mr. Maududi's Khilafat ya Malukiyat), that can effectively hold anyone and everyone accountable in a more institutional way. To me this is the biggest injustice we do to ourselves to fall for an ever-nonexistent utopia of Khilafat, just when we need to craft or adopt a vibrant, stable and modern political system for us.
Writer is a Sunni born Muslim who believes that all Fiqas and sects have maligned the divine message.
One can hardly blame the ordinary Muslims for it. For over the centuries, they have been bombarded with a constant and continuous propaganda of "Hail Khilafat", just when at the core of it lie the vested interests of religious clergy and the subsequent monarchies that labeled themselves as Khilafats. And even to this modern age, religious clergy sees it as the most potent tool in its bid to absolute power in the proposed theocratic state they envision. Even today organizations like Islami Tehrik, Hizb-ul-tehrir, Taliban and AlQaeeda declare establishment of a Khilafat as there prime objective.
The intensity of the propaganda has been such that in the Sunni World, Khilafat has become as holy as Oneness of Allah or Prophet-hood of Muhammad (PBUH). In this atmosphere it is almost impossible to have a rational discussion on the role and essence of Khilafat as a political system. This writing is an attempt to analyze Khilafat in a rational and logical way. The idea is to present the other side of the picture in a heavily biased one-sided horizon of Pro-Khilafat.
First and foremost, Khilafat as a concept and having a head of communal affairs for life time has always been an age old custom in tribes all across the world. This was the prevalent system in Arab world before Islam and it just translated into Khilafat after the death of Prophet. Secondly, Khilafat was not an established system in the first place. Any stable and established political system has to have clear criterion for succession as well as selection of the leader(s). In Khilafat, all four caliphs came through different selection/assumption processes. First caliph was declared caliph by a handful and the rest endorsed him. The second caliph was picked by the first one. The third was selected by a council of elders comprising 6 notables and the last one was picked up by a group of Muslims just when another group remained opposed to his accession. How can this system be a model system that we can adopt in 21st century or for that matter at any point in history? Stability remains the cornerstone of effectiveness of any political system and with such selection/assumption criterion any system is bound to fail.
In fact that system did fail even then. For Islamic world was in turmoil and chaos in last years of third caliph and entire term of the forth. And it was not until Muawiya introduced monarchy and then his son effectively eliminated all vocal opposition to the new system (monarchy) that the polity got stability. Any common sense analysis will consider it as the failure of Khilafat system. If Khilafat was a divine system, divinity cannot fail.
Another issue with Khilafat that is more based on theology of Fiqas than practicality is that a Caliph can only be from Quresh (though when Ottoman's rose to power, the clergy clinging to the law of necessity milded the clause a bit - references to the insistence on Quresh can be found in the early literature of all these Fiqas). Now in a religion which was based on equality of humans, this seems absurd (why could the so called Imams insist on this in the presences of sermons to the extent that if a Negro becomes your leader, follow him).
An last but certainly not the least, the linking of Khilafat to the rise of Muslims. We miss a point that the society then had undergone a great revolution brought by the Prophet and it was effectively the current of that revolution that made Muslims rise and conquer the world. The rise of Muslims as the major power cannot be attributed to Khilafat but effectively to the message that the Prophet brought. It was for that message that the dominance continued not only during Khilafat but also afterwards under Ummayad monarchy.
Also, all the talk of accountability and sense of responsibility of Omer or justice of Ali and all other goods of the system, they were personal traits and consequence of the character of great individuals. They would have been equally effective and prominent in any other system. In fact, just when in Khilafat these traits hinge solely on the character of individuals, the system of modern liberal democracy provides an effective mechanism to institutionalize these virtues to a greater extent. Even modern liberal democracy is not perfect, but it certainly is more effective than Khilafat on this issue and many others. Creating an effective system of checks and balances, not left to the whims of man at top (talk of Ummayad nepotism during 3rd Caliph - Ref. Mr. Maududi's Khilafat ya Malukiyat), that can effectively hold anyone and everyone accountable in a more institutional way. To me this is the biggest injustice we do to ourselves to fall for an ever-nonexistent utopia of Khilafat, just when we need to craft or adopt a vibrant, stable and modern political system for us.
Writer is a Sunni born Muslim who believes that all Fiqas and sects have maligned the divine message.
Comments