Title: A Further Exchange on the Meaning of 'Khilaafah' & 'Imaarah' Question/Comments: I may not have explained myself properly before. The principle of 'Whatever leads to a wajib is wajib ' is used in the issue of Khilafah by many scholars. The issue is that the implementation of Allah (swt) laws by the Muslims is an obligation. Allah (swt) has commanded the Muslims to implement his laws in numerous verses of the Qur'an. Now the Shari`ah , as well as commanding us to implement Allah (swt) laws has given us a specific way [method] of implementing these as well, so when Allah (swt) says "Establish the Prayer", The Muslim is obliged to follow the way we have been shown to pray. In the same way, the Shari`ah has commanded the Muslims to establish Allah (swt) laws, this also means that we must use the Method given to us by the Messenger of Allah (saw) to implement these laws. Hence, to rule by these laws, or carry out these directives, the establishment of a Khilafah is necessary. Below, give me the opportunity to quote an extract from a web page: The evidence that the appointment of a Khaleefah is obligatory upon all Muslims is in the Sunnah and the Ijma'a (consensus) of the Sahabah . As for the Sunnah , Nafi'a reported saying: " 'Umar said to me that he heard the Prophet saying: Whoso takes off his hand from allegiance to Allah (swt) will meet Him (swt) on the Day of Resurrection without having any proof for him, and whoso dies whilst there was no bay'ah (allegiance or a pledge) on his neck (to a Khaleefah ), he dies a death of jahilliyah ." Therefore, the Prophet made it compulsory upon every Muslim to have a bay'ah on his neck, and described whoever dies without a bay'ah on his neck that he dies a death of jahilliyah . The bay'ah cannot be for anyone except the Khaleefah , and the Prophet made it obligatory upon every Muslim to have on his neck a bay'ah to a Khaleefah . Yet, he did not make it an obligation upon every Muslim to give bay'ah to a Khaleefah . The duty is the existence of a bay'ah on the neck of every eligible Muslim, i.e. the existence of a Khaleefah who accordingly deserves a bay'ah upon the neck of every Muslim. So it is the presence of the Khaleefah , which places a bay'ah on the neck of every Muslim, whether the Muslim gave a bay'ah to him in person or not. Therefore, this Hadith of the Prophet is an evidence that the appointment of the Khaleefah is an obligation and not a proof that giving the bay'ah is obligatory. This is so because the Prophet rebuked the Muslim who has not a bay'ah on his neck until he dies, not the one who did not give bay'ah . Hisham ibn 'Urwa reported on the authority of Abu Saleh on the authority of Abu Hurairah that the Prophet said: "Leaders will take charge of you after me, where the pious (one) will lead you with his piety and the impious (one) with his impiety, so listen to them and obey them in everything which conforms with the truth. If they act rightly it is for your credit, and if they acted wrongly it is counted for you and against them." Muslim narrated on the authority of al-A'araj , on the authority of Abu Hurairah , that the Prophet said: "Behold, the Imam is but a shield from behind whom the people fight and by whom they protect themselves." Muslim reported on the authority of Abu Hazim , who said: "I accompanied Abu Hurairah for five years and heard him talking of the Prophet's saying: The Prophets ruled over the children of Israel, whenever a Prophet died another Prophet succeeded him, but there will be no Prophet after me. There will be Khulafa'a and they will number many. They asked: What then do you order us? He said: Fulfil the bay'ah to them one after the other and give them their due. Surely Allah will ask them about what He entrusted them with." Ibn 'Abbas narrated that the Prophet said: "If anyone sees in his amir something that displeases him let him remain patient, for behold, he who separates himself from the sultan (authority of Islam) by even so much as a hand span and dies thereupon, has died a death of the days of jahilliyah ". In these ahadith , the Prophet informs us that leaders will run the affairs of Muslims, and the ahadith include the description of the Khaleefah as a shield, i.e. a protection. So the description of the Imam as a shield is informative of the benefits of the presence of the Imam, thus it is a command for action, because if the information conveyed by Allah (swt) and the Prophet contained rebuke then it is a command of prohibition, and if it contained praise then it is a command for action. If the ordered action is necessary to implement a hukm shari'i (divine law), or by its negligence a hukm shari'i will be neglected, then this command is decisive. In these ahadith there is information also that those who run the affairs of Muslims are Khulafa'a , which indicates an order to appoint them. They also include a prohibition for Muslims to separate from the authority, which indicates the obligation upon Muslims to appoint an authority for themselves, i.e. ruling. Moreover, the Prophet ordered the Muslims to obey the Khaleefah and to fight those who dispute his authority as Khaleefah , which indicates an order to appoint a Khaleefah and to protect his Khilafah by fighting against whosoever disputes with him. Muslim reported that the Prophet said: "He who pledged allegiance to an Imam giving him the clasp of his hand and the fruit of his heart shall obey him as long as he can, and if another comes to dispute with him you have to strike the neck of that man." So the command to obey the Imam is an order to establish him, and the command to fight those who dispute with him is an evidence that this command is decisive in maintaining the presence of one Khaleefah . In regard with the Ijma'a of the Sahabah they all agreed upon the necessity to establish a successor or Khaleefah to the Prophet after his death, and they all agreed to appoint a successor to Abu Bakr, then to 'Umar, then to 'Uthman, after the death of each one of them. The Ijma'a of the Sahabah to establish a Khaleefah manifested itself emphatically when they delayed the burial of the Prophet after his death whilst engaged in appointing a successor to him, despite the fact that the burial of the dead person is fard , and that it is haram upon those who are supposed to prepare for his burial to engage themselves in anything else until they complete the burial. The Sahabah were obliged to engage themselves in preparing the burial of the Prophet, instead some of them engaged themselves in appointing a Khaleefah rather than carrying out the burial, and some others kept silent on this engagement and participated in delaying the burial for two nights despite their ability to deny the delay and their ability to bury the Prophet . So this was an Ijma'a to engage themselves in appointing a Khaleefah rather than to bury the dead. This could not be legitimate unless the appointment of a Khaleefah is more obligatory than the burial of the dead. Also, all the Sahabah agreed throughout their lives upon the obligation of appointing a Khaleefah . Although they disagreed upon the person to elect as a Khaleefah, they never disagreed upon the appointment of a Khaleefah , neither when the Prophet died, nor when any of the Khulafa'a ar-Rashidun died. Therefore, the Ijma'a of the Sahabah is a clear and strong evidence that the appointment of a Khaleefah is obligatory. However, the establishment of Islam and the implementation of the Shari'ah rules in all walks of life is compulsory on Muslims through definitely proven evidences. This duty cannot be achieved unless there is a ruler who has an authority. The divine principle states 'what is necessary to accomplish a wajib (duty) is itself a wajib '. So the establishment of a Khaleefah is also compulsory according to this divine principle. Moreover, Allah (swt) has ordered the Prophet to rule between Muslims by that which He (swt) revealed to him, and the order of Allah (swt) to him was in a decisive manner. Allah (swt) addressed the Prophet saying: "And rule between them by that which Allah revealed to you, and do not follow their vain desires away from the truth which came to you". [TMQ 5:48] And He (swt) said: "And rule between them by that which Allah revealed to you and do not follow their whims, and beware (be on the alert) that they may deviate you away from even some part of what Allah revealed to you". [TMQ 5:49] The speech of Allah (swt) to the Prophet is a speech to his Ummah unless there is an evidence which limits the speech to him. In this case there is no such evidence, so the aforementioned verses order all Muslims to establish the rule. The establishment of the Khaleefah does not mean other than the establishment of the rule and the authority. On the other hand, Allah (swt) made it obligatory upon Muslims to obey those in authority, i.e. the ruler, which indicates that the existence of the ruler is obligatory upon Muslims. Allah (swt) said: "O you who believe obey Allah and obey the Messenger and those in authority amongst you". [TMQ 4:59] Allah (swt) does not order obedience to those who do not exist. This indicates that the existence of the ruler is obligatory. When Allah (swt) orders obedience to those in authority it is an order to establish them. The implementation of the Shari'ah depends upon the existence of the ruler, thus, the establishment of the ruler becomes obligatory as its absence will result in the sin of neglecting the Shari'ah . Therefore, it is clear from these evidences that the establishment of the rule and the authority amongst Muslims is fard, and it is also clear that the appointment of a Khaleefah who takes the charge of the rule and the authority is compulsory upon Muslims in order to implement the Shari'ah laws; and not for the sake of rule and authority only. Reflect upon what the Prophet said: "The best of your Imams (leaders) are those whom you love and they love you, who pray for you and you pray for them; and the worst of your Imams are those whom you hate and they hate you and you curse them and they curse you." The Messenger of Allah was asked: "Would we not declare war on them (face them with the swords)?" He said: "No, as long as they establish salat (meaning Islam) among you." This hadith is clear in informing about the good and bad leaders, and clear in prohibiting the challenge of their authority as long as they establish the prayer, which in this context indicates upholding of Islam, and establishing its rule. So, the obligation upon Muslims to appoint the Khaleefah who establishes the laws of Islam and conveys its call is a matter which has no doubt with regard to its certainty in the sound texts of Shari'ah . Moreover, it is an obligatory duty due to the fact that Allah (swt) made it fard upon Muslims to establish the authority of Islam and to protect the honor of Muslims. However, this duty is a collective one, so if some people of the Ummah accomplished it, the fard is fulfilled and thus responsibility drops from the rest of the Ummah . And if part of the Ummah was unable to achieve the fard , though they carried out the actions, which establish it, then the responsibility remains upon all the Muslims, and the fard remains upon every Muslim as long as Muslims are without a Khaleefah . What do you think about the arguments given above? Answer: You write: The issue is that the implementation of Allah (swt) laws by the Muslims is an obligation. Allah (swt) has commanded the Muslims to implement his laws in numerous verses of the Qur'an. It is important to understand that the promulgation and implementation of collective laws, as for instance that of punishing the guilty of a society - as stipulated in the Shari`ah - are the obligation not of the common Muslims but of their rulers. The Shari`ah directs a Muslim ruler to implement certain laws. No responsibility is placed on the shoulders of a common Muslim in such matters. Thus, the argument: Because it is obligatory upon Muslims to implement certain laws, which can only be implemented through a certain kind of ruler (which you prefer to call 'Khaleefah'), as a result, the establishment of the particular kind of rule (which you prefer to call 'Khilaafah') is also obligatory is completely invalid. In fact, I cannot think of any obligation of a common Muslim, which is dependant on the establishment of a particular kind of rule. To understand the stated point that the implementation of the Islamic laws relating to the collectivity of Muslims is the responsibility of the rulers and not of the common Muslims, it is important to appreciate that there are certain responsibilities that the Shari`ah imposes upon individuals only when and if the individual in question attains a certain position with reference to others (whether a group or an individual). Consider the following points: If a person's parents are alive, the Shari`ah directs the person to deal with them in the best of manners; If a person's wealth exceeds a certain limit, the Shari`ah directs the person to pay a certain percentage of that wealth as Zaka'h ; If a person lives in a neighborhood of others, his presence must not be a source of disturbance for others; If a person gets married and has children, he becomes responsible for the moral, physical and spiritual well being of his family; and If a person is made in charge of the affairs of a Muslim collectivity, the Shari`ah directs him to judge among people with justice and to implement certain laws for the purification of the said collectivity. In each of the above cases, the directive of the Shari`ah is conditional upon the situation and circumstances of the individual. In each of these cases, the directive is not an obligation upon any individual unless the respective condition is satisfied. Moreover, it would not be indicative of a person's good sensibility and understanding, if he were to say that for all such directives of the Shari`ah , which are conditional upon a person's circumstances, the efforts to fulfill the specified conditions are also obligatory upon the person, thus: Because the Shari`ah has directed us to deal with our parents in the best of manners, therefore a person must try to keep his parents alive; Because the Shari`ah has directed us to pay a certain percentage of wealth as Zaka'h only after the wealth exceeds a certain limit, therefore a person must try to earn wealth in excess of the specified limit; Because the Shari`ah has directed us to be good to our neighbors, if we are living in a neighborhood, therefore every person must live in a neighborhood; Because the Shari`ah has directed a person to arrange for the moral, spiritual and physical well being of his family after he gets married, therefore, every person must get married; and Because the Shari`ah has directed us to judge among people with justice and to implement certain laws in the society, if we are made in charge of the affairs of the society, therefore, we must try to take the charge of the affairs of a society. Furthermore, it would be equally incorrect to say that if a person, who even after fulfilling the specified conditions, does not fulfill the respective obligations stipulated by the Shari`ah , then he is morally or legally disqualified from even fulfilling the conditions. Thus, it would incorrect to say: A person, who is not considerate toward his parents, is no longer their child; A person, who does not pay Zaka'h , is no longer the owner of his wealth; A person, who is not good toward his neighbors, no longer deserves to be called a neighbor; A person, who does not look after the well being of his family, is no longer their father/husband; and A person, who does not judge among people with justice and implement the laws stipulated by the Shari`ah , is no longer their ruler. The foregoing discussion should clarify that, according to the Shari`ah , the implementation of any specific laws are not an obligation upon the common Muslims. They are an obligation upon the Muslim rulers. If the Muslim rulers do not implement the laws specified by the Shari`ah , they shall be held accountable for their avoidance of doing so, in the hereafter. Nevertheless, such an avoidance on the part of the rulers does not place any responsibility on the common Muslims. In fact, I cannot think of any obligations imposed by the Shari`ah , upon the common man, which the common man cannot fulfill, irrespective of the kind of rule that he is living under. You write: ... to rule by these laws, or carry out these directives, the establishment of a Khilafah is necessary. This is precisely the point of difference between us. For a better understanding of this difference, I would suggest that you compare each of the corresponding points given below: Your understanding is: The Shari`ah entails laws for Muslims in their individual as well as their collective capacity; Just as in the case of the laws relating to their individual capacity, Muslims are also responsible for the implementation of the laws of the Shari`ah relating to the collectivity; Just as in the case of the laws relating to their individual capacities, the promulgation and implementation of the laws relating to the collectivity is also obligatory upon the Muslims; The promulgation and implementation of the laws relating to the collectivity requires political organization of the collectivity (which you prefer to call "Khilaafah" ); Thus, the establishment of the political organization, for the purpose of the promulgation and implementation of the laws relating to the collectivity is obligatory upon all the Muslims. Hence, according to the principle: "Whatever leads to a 'Waajib' is a Waajib' ", the establishment of the desired political organization (which you prefer to call "Khilaafah" ) is obligatory upon the Muslims. While my understanding, on each of these points is: The Shari`ah entails laws for Muslims in their individual as well as their collective capacity; Contrary to the laws relating to their individual capacity, the laws relating to the collective capacity are conditional upon the political circumstances of a particular Muslim collectivity; Contrary to the laws relating to their individual capacity, the obligation of promulgating and implementing the laws relating to their collective capacity lies on the rulers of the Muslim community; The promulgation and implementation of the laws relating to the collectivity is obligatory upon the Muslim rulers, subject to existence of a political organization of the collectivity; Thus, the promulgation and implementation of collective laws is conditional upon the existence of a political organization of the collectivity and even in case of the existence of such a political organization of the collectivity, it is the responsibility of the Muslim rulers. Hence, because the promulgation and implementation of the laws relating to the collectivity is not an obligation of the common Muslim, therefore, the establishment of a political organization of the collectivity (which you prefer to call "Khilaafah" ) is not even related to the principle of "Whatever leads to a 'Waajib' , is a 'Waajib' ". Furthermore, the sequence of events in the life of the Prophet (pbuh) as well as the sequence of the revelation of the Qur'anic directives also shows that the objective of the establishment of the first Muslim state (at Medinah) was not to promulgate and implement any given laws; on the contrary, the Shari`ah made it an obligation of those in charge of the affairs of the Muslims to promulgate and implement certain laws, only after a political organization of the Muslim collectivity was established. You have cited: The evidence that the appointment of a Khaleefah is obligatory upon all Muslims is in the Sunnah and the Ijma'a (consensus) of the Sahabah . As for the Sunnah , Nafi'a reported saying: " 'Umar said to me that he heard the Prophet saying: Whoso takes off his hand from allegiance to Allah (swt) will meet Him (swt) on the Day of Resurrection without having any proof for him, and whoso dies whilst there was no bay'ah (allegiance or a pledge) on his neck (to a Khaleefah ), he dies a death of jahilliyah ." Therefore, the Prophet made it compulsory upon every Muslim to have a bay'ah on his neck, and described whoever dies without a bay'ah on his neck that he dies a death of jahilliyah . The author, on the basis of a few narratives ascribed to the Prophet (pbuh) has derived that because the Prophet (pbuh) has made it obligatory for a person to live a life of allegiance, therefore, it is obligatory for Muslims to put someone in charge of their affairs (who, according the author must only be called 'Khaleefah' ) and then live a life of allegiance to him. The reasoning stated above, in my opinion, is quite ridiculous. The implication of the stated saying ascribed to the Prophet (pbuh) is quite straightforward and simple. It simply means that when a rule is established for any given Muslim collectivity, the Muslims belonging to that collectivity must live a life of obedience toward that rule. The saying of the Prophet (pbuh), as explained earlier, explains an obligation, which is conditional upon the establishment of rule (which the author likes to call 'Khilaafah' ). It does not say: Establish Khilaafah so that you may live a life of allegiance toward it. On the contrary, it says: 'If a Khilaafah is established, live a life of allegiance toward it.' This meaning of the narrative is supported by all the other narratives on this topic. Moreover, in the writings of almost all the classical Muslim Jurists and commentators of Hadith , these (and related) narratives have, generally, been placed in chapters relating to mutiny against the state and to the punishment of the mutineers. This clearly signifies that all these Muslim Jurists and commentators of Hadith have interpreted the referred narratives to imply exactly the same meaning as I have explained above. All these narratives, in fact, entail a directive of complete obedience toward and compliance with the rulers. Most of the commentators of Hadith and Muslims jurists have interpreted these narratives to imply the stated meaning. Just to cite a few examples, Ibn Taymiyyah , on the basis of the referred (and related narratives), writes: The scholars and the noble adherents of Islam do not give any exception in what God has forbidden relating to disobedience toward the rulers, of defrauding them or of mutiny against them, for whatever reason it may be. As is authenticated by the practice of the followers of Sunnah and the followers of Islam - of all times - as well as by the lives of others besides them. Ibrahim ibn Ali Al-Shiraaziy writes in his commentary of "Al-Muhaazzab" : Rebellion against the ruler is prohibited, as has been reported by Ibn Umar (ra) that the Prophet (pbuh) said: 'Whoever refuses obedience toward his ruler, he shall be brought (to the God) on the Day of Judgment in a state that he shall have no excuse for his actions; And whoever dies in a state of destabilizing his collective organization, he dies a death of Jahiliyyah' . And, as has been reported by Abu Hurairah (ra), that the Prophet (pbuh) said: 'Whoever raises a sword against us [implying the Muslim collectivity], is not from among us'. Al-San`aaniy writes in Subul Al-Salaam : The saying that he should not refuse obedience implies obedience toward the leader, who has been appointed as the leader by the collectivity. Over here, leader means the leader of any of the various countries, because since the time of the Abbasids people have not agreed upon any one leader for the whole of the Muslim population, but, on the contrary, the residents of each country have appointed their own independent leader. The author of 'Ai`tiqaad Ahl al-Sunnah' writes: And [one of the essentials of the followers of Sunnah is) listening to and obeying the rulers and the leader of the Muslims, whether he be pious or impious. [It includes those] who take charge of the collective affairs and people accept him as their ruler; and also who has overpowered them [i.e. the Muslims] through the sword to become their leader and is subsequently called the ruler of the Muslims. And fighting is to be undertaken till the Day of Judgment, only with the leaders - whether pious or impious - it shall not be forsaken. And the distribution of war booty and the implementation of punishments is also the duty of the leaders. It is not allowed for anyone to slander against them or to dispute with them. And it is allowable as well as recommended to remit Zaka'h to them. Whoever pays his Zaka'h to them, fulfills his obligation - whether the ruler be pious or impious. And the Jum`ah prayers are to be offered in his leadership or in that of anyone appointed by him. Whoever thinks that Jum`ah prayers cannot be offered behind him and should therefore be repeated is propounding an innovation in religion, ignoring the narratives in this respect, and going against the Sunnah of the Prophet (pbuh). He would not be benefited, in the least, because he does not consider prayers offered in the leadership of the rulers to suffice - whether the leader be pious or impious. The Sunnah in this respect is to pray two Rak`ah with them, thus whoever repeats these Rak`ah is propounding an innovation in religion and the correct belief is that they suffice [when offered behind the ruler] and there should be no doubt about it, in the person's heart. And whoever raises mutiny against the leader of the Muslims, for whatever reason it may be - while people accept him as their leader, irrespective of whether the people accept him with the willingness of their hearts or because of his overpowering them - the mutineer is guilty of weakening the collectivity of the Muslims. A number of narratives report the Prophet (pbuh) as having said that if the mutineer dies in such a state [of raising mutiny against the Muslim leader], he shall die a death of Jahiliyyah . No one is allowed to raise a sword against the ruler nor to propose mutiny against him. Whoever does so, propounds an innovation in religion and ignores the Sunnah of the Prophet (pbuh) and the path recommended for the pious. The author writes: The bay'ah cannot be for anyone except the Khaleefah , and the Prophet made it obligatory upon every Muslim to have on his neck a bay'ah to a Khaleefah . As I have established in one of my earlier responses to a question, the Arabic word 'Khaleefah' means ruler. Taken in that meaning, I agree with the author's statement, in the light of my previous stipulations. The author writes: In regard with the Ijma'a of the Sahabah they all agreed upon the necessity to establish a successor or Khaleefah to the Prophet after his death, and they all agreed to appoint a successor to Abu Bakr , then to 'Umar , then to ' Uthman , after the death of each one of them. I am quite surprised to read the kind of reasoning presented above. Please keep in mind that we are referring to an organized collectivity of people. Before the death of the Prophet (pbuh), the companions of the Prophet (pbuh) were all living in an organized manner under his rule. What does the author expect from an organized collectivity to do, when its leader dies? Obviously, appoint/select/elect another leader. This is precisely what the companions of the Prophet (pbuh) did. This is precisely what each one of the Muslim states of the present day does at such times of emergency. This is precisely what even the non-Muslim or the secular states do at such times. The King is dead. Long live the King! I really cannot understand how can the author take such incidents from the lives of the Sahabah to propose that the establishment of "Khilaafah" is obligatory upon all Muslims. The referred incident, as anyone can see, is not an evidence of the establishment of 'Khilaafah' , but is one of perpetuation of rule after the death of one ruler. This, as everybody will agree, is a natural requirement for the perpetuation of the organized collectivity itself. Disregarding this aspect of the perpetuation of rule would necessarily translate into the discontinuation of the organized collectivity itself. When the head of a state dies, another one has to be appointed to safeguard against anarchy in the state and, thereby, to secure perpetuation of the state itself. The reader should be reminded here that the point, which the author wants to prove, is that the establishment of the 'Khilaafah' is obligatory upon all Muslims. However, the incident from which the author is trying to get support for his claim is not even remotely related to the stated point. I would suggest that the author should point out the efforts of the Prophet (pbuh) and his companions of creating the so-called "Khilaafah" , when it was non-existent rather than prove the obligation of creating the 'Khilaafah' from incidents, which only support its logical and natural continuation through the appointment of a new leader at the death of the previous leader. I would request the author to consider the following points: Why did the Prophet (pbuh) and his companions not make any efforts of creating the so-called 'Khilaafah' during the first thirteen years of the Prophet's ministry, while the Muslims were living in extreme oppression? In case there were any steps taken in this regard, what were these steps? Why did the Prophet (pbuh) (or the Qur'an) not direct those of the Prophet's followers, who migrated to Habshah that because they were going into a land of non-Muslim rule, therefore, they should try their utmost to establish the so-called 'Khilaafah' in that land? Why, throughout his life, did the Prophet (pbuh) (or the Qur'an) not mention the great obligation of establishing the so-called 'Khilaafah' to his followers? Why did the Prophet (pbuh) (or the Qur'an) never mention the efforts for the establishment of 'Khilaafah' to be one of the essential elements of being a Muslim - We know about the 'Five Pillars of Islam', why are these not 'six' rather than 'five' pillars? The list of these points can go on and on, but would it be of any avail? The author writes: The Ijma'a of the Sahabah to establish a Khaleefah manifested itself emphatically when they delayed the burial of the Prophet after his death whilst engaged in appointing a successor to him, despite the fact that the burial of the dead person is fard , and that it is haram upon those who are supposed to prepare for his burial to engage themselves in anything else until they complete the burial. The Sahabah were obliged to engage themselves in preparing the burial of the Prophet, instead some of them engaged themselves in appointing a Khaleefah rather than carrying out the burial, and some others kept silent on this engagement and participated in delaying the burial for two nights despite their ability to deny the delay and their ability to bury the Prophet . So this was an Ijma'a to engage themselves in appointing a Khaleefah rather than to bury the dead. This could not be legitimate unless the appointment of a Khaleefah is more obligatory than the burial of the dead. The above point can only be raised by a person, who does not realize the significance of the potential differences that were about to materialize within the Muslim community. It was because of these potential differences that the leaders of the Muslim community had to decide about the new head of their state, without any delay, at the Saqeefah [1] . The author writes: However, the establishment of Islam and the implementation of the Shari'ah rules in all walks of life is compulsory on Muslims through definitely proven evidences. This duty cannot be achieved unless there is a ruler who has an authority. The divine principle states 'what is necessary to accomplish a wajib (duty) is itself a wajib '. So the establishment of a Khaleefah is also compulsory according to this divine principle. This point has already been covered in the initial part of this response. The author writes: Moreover, Allah (swt) has ordered the Prophet to rule between Muslims by that which He (swt) revealed to him, and the order of Allah (swt) to him was in a decisive manner. Allah (swt) addressed the Prophet saying: "And rule between them by that which Allah revealed to you, and do not follow their vain desires away from the truth which came to you". [TMQ 5:48] And He (swt) said: "And rule between them by that which Allah revealed to you and do not follow their whims, and beware (be on the alert) that they may deviate you away from even some part of what Allah revealed to you". [TMQ 5:49] The speech of Allah (swt) to the Prophet is a speech to his Ummah unless there is an evidence which limits the speech to him. Even though I do not fully ascribe to the view of the author that 'The speech of Allah (swt) to the Prophet is a speech to his Ummah ...', yet even if it is accepted to be true, it is clear that in the referred verses, the Prophet (pbuh) is addressed in his capacity of being the head of the Muslim state. Thus, this address can - at the most - be generalized for those in charge of affairs, not the common Muslims. The author writes: The establishment of the Khaleefah does not mean other than the establishment of the rule and the authority. On the other hand, Allah (swt) made it obligatory upon Muslims to obey those in authority, i.e. the ruler, which indicates that the existence of the ruler is obligatory upon Muslims. Allah (swt) said: "O you who believe obey Allah and obey the Messenger and those in authority amongst you". [TMQ 4:59] Allah (swt) does not order obedience to those who do not exist. This indicates that the existence of the ruler is obligatory. When Allah (swt) orders obedience to those in authority, it is an order to establish them. I fully agree with the opening statement regarding the meaning of Khaleefah . In fact, this is precisely the point that I have been trying to convey to those who take a very qualified meaning of the word. I do not agree with the rest of the author's stipulations. The point that 'when Allah orders obedience to those in authority, it is an order to establish them' is quite absurd. It is as if to say: Because the Qur'an has directed to free slaves, therefore, slaves must exist in the society so that they could be freed; or Because the Qur'an has ordered us to be good towards our parents, therefore, one's parents must always remain alive so that he could be good towards them; or Because the Prophet (pbuh) has directed us to pay Zaka'h , therefore, we must try to increase our wealth over that limit so that we could pay Zaka'h . The fact is that all these directives of the Shari`ah are, in fact, conditional upon circumstances. Thus, these directives, in fact, are: If slavery exists in the society, the Qur'an has directed us to free slaves; If one's parents are alive, the Qur'an has directed us to be good toward them; If our wealth exceeds a certain limit, the Prophet (pbuh) has directed us to pay Zaka'h ; and If we are living in an organized collectivity, the Qur'an has directed us to obey those in authority. In all the above cases, the fulfillment of the conditions is not an obligation upon the Muslims. On the contrary, it is only that IF such and such conditions are fulfilled, the Shari`ah requires the Muslims to behave in a specific manner. The author writes: The implementation of the Shari'ah depends upon the existence of the ruler, thus, the establishment of the ruler becomes obligatory as its absence will result in the sin of neglecting the Shari'ah . The above statement is not correct. It is not that because the implementation of the (collective aspect of the) Shari`ah is dependant upon the existence of the ruler, therefore, in the absence of a ruler, the Muslims will be guilty of neglecting the Shari`ah . On the contrary, the fact is that the implementation of the (collective aspect of the) Shari`ah is subject to or conditional upon the existence of a Muslim ruler, therefore, in the absence of a Muslim ruler or a Muslim rule, the common Muslims (in their individual capacities) are not responsible for the implementation of the collective aspects of the Shari`ah . The remaining part of the author's writing stipulates the results that the author has derived from the foregoing arguments. I really do not consider it necessary to comment on it. February 7, 2001 [1] The reader should also refer to one of my other responses to a question titled: ' Why was there an Unusual Delay in the Burial of the Prophet (pbuh) '.