Imam Ghazali’s Movement for the Unification of the Ummah & Caliphate

I recently addressed a particular detractor of the Islamic obligation for Muslims be politically united under a Caliphate.

‘Mufti Abu Layth’ [or ‘MAL’ for brevity] preaches that belief in the Caliphate is a ‘cancerous ideology’, an ‘erroneous view’, and is even a form of ‘hate speech’. As part of a supposed “#CallEmOut” and “#ReclaimIslam” campaign, he urged his readers to, in effect, with-hunt anyone who holds this belief.

He justified this by arguing that the belief in a Caliphate is one also held by terrorists. (I’ll come back to the fallacy of guilt-by-association fallacy below.)

The obligation of a Caliphate, throughout history, has been a belief of near complete consensus in Islamic scholarship. So, describing the belief in a Caliphate as an ‘erroneous view’ raises serious red flags.

MAL isn’t alone in arguing this; Secularists (or ‘reformists’) have been known to advocate a cynical view of Muslim history in an attempt to claim that the Islamic concept of a Caliphate that unites Muslims, implements Sharia and pursues Islamic interests, is somehow a ‘modern concept’(!) not practiced or believed by Muslims throughout history.

I had responded^[1] (here) by pointing to simple and clear evidences from one of the most regarded classical Islamic scholars – Imam Ghazali. MAL then wrote an article^[2] claiming that Imam Ghazali had been ‘hijacked’ and did not intend the obvious meaning of his statements in the quotes.

Claim: Muslim lands had no overall leader during Ghazali’s time

MAL tries to describe the context around the quotes I used from Ghazali’s book, Mustazhiri, by portraying the Muslim world as having no overall leader: ‘since within the first century after the Prophets lifetime, Muslims have never had one leader and always had different kingdoms led by dynasts and kings, with countless people all calling themselves Caliph’.

Reality: During Ghazali’s time, Muslim lands from ‘Portugal’ to ‘Pakistan’ were under the Banner of the Abbasid Caliphate

At the time of Ghazali writing the book Mustazhiri, the Abbasid Caliph al-Mustazhir was appointed as Imam/Caliph in 1094, and with the exception of Egypt (controlled by the rebel Fatimid faction), a Muslim could travel from Lisbon to Lahore (or Kashgar in China) and never leave the lands under the banner of the Abbasid Caliphate.

MAL also claimed: ‘The medieval world, this era knew only Dynasts, kings and Tyrants. There were no such things as governments, public representation, democratic voices, not even a police system. It was a time when ‘Might is Right’ ruled the show’

The claim that there was no police force in Imam Ghazali’s time is not only misinformed, but would be startling news to Mujahid al-Din Bihruz, who as Baghdad’s chief of police around the time of Ghazali’s life, would no doubt be surprised to hear that his job didn’t exist! Since the time of Ali (ra) the Islamic Caliphate had long instituted the shurtat al khamis, who was tasked with keeping order in cities, investigating crimes prior to trial, and discharging the orders of the Islamic court system^[3].

Unfortunately it seems as if MAL is unaware of the Republic of San Marino, the Republic of Amalfi, the Republic of Venice, the Icelandic commonwealth, Republic of Florence, and the Republic of Genoa, all governments that existed in the world at the time of Imam Ghazali life, who were officially republics (or communes) with elected officials and varying degrees of public ‘representation’ (whatever that means) – but this error is a small issue.

MAL’s portrayal of the medieval european and Muslim world is simply inaccurate and unfortunately closer to hollywood than actual history.

The Islamic concept of Caliphate was one where a Caliph ruled and implemented Sharia. For practical reasons, each region had a governor and judges appointed by the Caliph, who acted as his deputies in both executive roles and judicial roles respectively.

In Ghazali’s time, each regional governor, despite being called ‘malik’ (king) or ‘sultan’ (leader) were, officially by Islamic law, still considered a ‘deputy of the Abbasid Caliph’ whose legitimacy relied upon the formal appointment by the Abbasid Caliph (called ‘investiture’) and whose lands were considered to be one land, with no borders between the different governor jurisdictions. As will be seen below, Ghazali certainly views of the Muslim world as described.

Claim: Ghazali did not advocate one Imam for the Muslim world

MAL claims that Ghazali only ever called on the Abbasid King’s subjects to pledge allegiance the Caliph Al-Mustazhir:

’Imam ghazali concludes [i.e. in his book ‘Mustazhiri’] that therefore AlMustazhir is the true Caliph which all people must give an allegiance to. It would be absurd to assume by all people he was calling all the people in the World at the time in Muslim Europe, Africa and Asia etc since that would be only a fantasy! He however was simply addressing the people who were the Abbasid Kings subjects’.

Reality: Ghazali ferociously advocated that only one Imam could be valid for all Muslims

In the cited book ‘Al-Muztazhiri’^[4], Ghazali writes a refutation of the Fatimids (who he calls the ‘batiniyyah’, lit. the esotericists, who he claimed denied the literal meanings in the Quran e.g. like heaven and hell being real and the rejection many Islamic legal rulings in the Quran and Sunnah). Therein, Ghazali makes the following ‘fantastical’ points:

[Abbasid] Caliph Mustazhir is ‘the leader of the Ummah’ ^[5] and ‘Amir ul Mumineen’ ^[6](leader of the believers), ‘the true Imam’^[7], and ‘the Imam of our time’^[8] – not ‘a true Imam’, or ‘Imam of our region’
The judge’s (Qadi) jurisdiction is a town, whereas the jurisdiction of the Imam is ‘the totality of the world’ ^[9]
Without the Imamate, all the rulings by judges (Qadis) ‘in the regions of the earth’ would be invalidated and all regional rulers/governors become invalid^[10]
The Fatimids argue that their leader is the ‘true Imam’ and therefore they call for everyone in the world to obey him (instead of Mustazhiri)^[11]
If the Fatimid claim that their ruler in Egypt holds the Imamate is true, the claim of Caliph Mustazhir to the Imamate is invalidated ^[12]
The Abbasid ruler and the Fatimid ruler (despite being in two different regions) are contenders for the (singlar) Imamate position, and if we prove the claim of one them is false, then the other’s entitlement to the Imamate is proven^[13]
Even if the so-called Fatimid ‘Caliph’ was fit for the position of Imamate, he still cannot be the true Imam, because Imamate is by choice of the people and – except for the Fatimids – the Imamate of Caliph Mustazhir is affirmed by ‘the leaders and ulema of the age and by all the masses of men in the farthest East and West’ and ‘obedience and submission to him is embraced by all’. Therefore the Fatimids are only a minority faction and outnumbered 10/1 amongst the Ummah, and must choose the Imamate of Mustazhir as ‘the true Imam’ (over the Fatimid leader)^[14]
Caliph Mustazhiri is ‘the true Imam’ because no one else is qualified for the position^[15]
Therefore the Fatimids are ‘dissenters’ and ‘unjust’ to claim the Imam/Caliph is anyone but Caliph Mustazhir^[16]

If every region can have a Caliph/Imam, as MAL suggests, why does Ghazali argue that the Fatimid leader in Egypt is not the true Imam because the majority of Muslims (worldwide) support the Abbasid Caliph?

Why were the Fatimids and Abbasids fighting each other, while denouncing each other’s leaders as ‘not the true Imam’ if Ghazali understood that each region could have their own Imam?

The reason is, as it becomes painfully clear to the reader of the book, that Ghazali undoubtedly believed Caliph Mustazhir to be Imam of all the Muslims and leader of all Muslim lands.

Therefore, when Ghazali writes ‘the Imam charged with the truth whom all Men are bound to obey in this age of ours is the Imam al-Mustazhir billah’ and ‘all the ulema of the time must give the legal decision that men are definitely and positively bound to obey him…and that he is the Caliph of God over men, and that obedience to him is a duty incumbent on all men’, we would do well to take him at his word.

Perhaps MAL was honestly misinformed about this matter and will concede the error, as it would be hard to imagine that anyone could persist in denying as ‘fantasy’ the obvious intent of Imam Ghazali’s words about this matter without, I fear, requiring levels of mental gymnastics perhaps worthy of entry into the Olympics.

I’m sure Ghazali would appreciate the irony that Muslims after him, who wish to deny the Islamic hukm (rule) regarding Imamate, would reject the literal meaning of his book, when that book was written to refute the Batiniyyah – the very people who reject the literal meaning of the Quran and Sunnah because they wish to deny Islamic rulings (akham). Plus ça change.

Claim: Ghazali was apathetic to the division of Muslims in his time

MAL claims that ‘any trying to hijack alGhazali as the voice for a global Islamic State should know that..the Imam never rallied mankind to a Caliphate’

Reality: Ghazali wrote books and fatwas rallying Muslims under one Caliph

What, if anything, does MAL believe the purpose of writing these books was? Ghazali wrote ‘Al Mustazhiri’ evidently with the intention for it to be copied and disseminated amongst the Muslims of his time in order to not just refute the Fatimid propaganda against the Abbasid Caliph, but to ultimately bring the Fatimid peoples to under the Abbasid Caliph as the only true Imamate for the Ummah. This safely meets the dictionary definition of ‘rallying’^[17].

MAL also appears to be unaware of the fatwa (ruling) that Ghazali wrote at the request of Yusuf bin Tashfin al Lamtuni (the founder of the Al Murabitun) to the Muslims of Al Andalus:

‘Proclaiming the banner of the rule of [Caliph] Mustazhir (May Allah protect those put under His shade)’, is the duty upon all leaders [muluk] ruling over any region of the Muslim lands either in the East or the West, to make their pulpits decorated with supplications for the true Imam…They must listen and obey and firmly believe that obedience to the Abbasi Caliph is considered obedience to the imam …And whoever rebels and disobeys the imam, the verdict applied to him is that of the baaghi [rebel]…and compliance to the command of Allāh is to recognise the just sultan – the one who pledges loyalty of the true imam, of the Abbasid Caliphate’. Ghazali then concludes the fatwa, ‘This is the judgment for any just Amir in any part of the earth’^[18]

Ghazali also detailed how he actively lobbied for support for Yusuf bin Tashfin’s cause, both at the Caliph’s court, and throughout the Muslim lands^[19].

MAL rhetorically asked, ‘if Ghazali believed that Muslims should be united and under one Caliph, then why did he not set-up a movement to achieve that?’

Well, there already was a group that was successfully uniting the Muslim world – the Seljuks.

The Seljuks proclaimed that they were working to unite the Ummah under the Abbasid Caliph^[20] and Ghazali was one of their key advisers, remaining in the court of of the great Seljuk Sultan Malik Shah and his famous wazir, Nizam ul Mulk, for at least six years. Ghazali proclaimed that the Abbasid Caliph’s ability to wage war and defend Islam was supplied by the Seljuks: ‘the requisites for the Imamate exists in Mustazhir billah…through the power [Shauka] of the Turks’^[21].

Moreover, Ghazali (and Imam Turtusi) famously supported Yusuf bin Tashfin of Al-Murabitun (‘Almoravids’). Tashfin was a Berber leader who publicly declared his allegiance to the Abbasid Caliph, and conquered parts of West Africa, Morocco and the Taifa states of Al-Andalus.

Ghazali’s ‘movements’ for re-unification were, quite simply, the Seljuks and the Al-Murabitun – who he and other scholars actively supported. In his ‘Mustazhiri’, as already mentioned, Ghazali proudly called the Abbasid Caliphate ‘our conquering state’^[22].

Claim: Ghazali never called anyone to take up arms and fight

MAL claims that Ghazali: ‘never rallied people to ever take up arms. in fact one of criticisms put to Imam Ghazali by academic critics in the last few centuries has been that even when Jerusalem collapsed to the crusaders in the year 492H, Imam Ghazali did not get involved nor rally people to take up arms…he was never known to call to a jihad’

Reality: Ghazali described fighting rebels and the crusaders [of the Spanish kingdoms] as ‘one of the greatest forms of worship’

Imam Ghazali actually praised Yusuf bin Tashfin as the ‘defender of the deen’ who ‘ordered the Jihad and cutting off the aspirations of the depraved’ ^[23], concluding ‘Al Hamdulillah, [Allah] rewarded him with the eradication of the [invading Crusader] Christians, retreating from the Muslim lands. And Allāh bestows victory and establishment’^[24]

Ghazali, in his fatwa, commanded the Muslims of al-Andalus to fight the Muslim (rebel) Taifa states who refused to submit to the Abbasid Caliph and his deputy Yusuf bin Tashfin^[25], arguing that ‘one of the greatest forms of worship is to fight them’^[26], until they return to obedience to the Caliph. However, with the Spanish Crusader kingdoms he did not advocate giving them the same reprieve as the rebels^[27].

Of course, this is not the only occasion where Ghazali issues rulings on taking up arms. Going back to his book ‘Al Mustazhiri’, Ghazali prescribes war against the followers of the Fatimids^[28] .

So, to say that Ghazali never advocated, ruled or praised the taking up of arms, is plainly false. Ghazali believed in the Abbasid Caliphate enough to advocate for the defence of its territorial integrity and declare anyone who rejected or resisted it as rebels to be fought.

Claim: Ghazali is an advocate for Secular government

Unfortunately, presumably attempting to portray Ghazali as advocating only Secular government, MAL claims that in his book Ghazali considers that it is Islamically permissible for Muslim lands to be governed devoid of Allah’s (swt) sharia or Islam: ‘Imam Ghazali clearly writes in his book Naseeha tul Muluk The Prophet’s Teaching “a Kingdom/Rule can remain with Kufr[disbelief] but it cannot remain with Zhulm [tyranny]’..Such an ethic clearly shows that the most important thing is justice and its not about ruling over kuffar’. (Really not sure what MAL means to presume by the last three words)

Reality: Ghazali never envisioned any government devoid of the laws or purposes of Islam

MAL seems to be misleading his audience toward a meaning not in the text. Imam Ghazali clearly did not say it is Islamically permitted for Muslims to be ruled over by unIslamic law. The text simply makes an historical observation. Namely, if a government is consistent in applying its laws to all its citizens, the people will not accuse it of being unfair, and therefore they will not rise up in revolution (regardless of whether the culture or its creed is unIslamic or morally corrupt). This is consistent with the Prophet’s (saaw) teaching of previous nations being destroyed because if a rich man committed a crime, they would release him, but if a poor man committed a crime, they would punish him.

Ghazali, was simply advising that the (Islamic) Sultan’s administration would not last long if he was not applying the Shariah consistently upon all his people – and if you read the full quote, Ghazali uses the example of the ‘Majus’^[29] (i.e. the Persian Empire) who he argued had prevented revolutions by the rulers being fair in the application of their ‘Majusi’ law.

Crucially, what MAL seems to leave out telling his audience is that justice is just one aspect of the desired government Islam wants, and that in the same book, Imam Ghazali demanded the need for other ‘ingredients’ to government, specifically ruling the people by Islamic law derived from revelation, and championing the interests of Islam:

‘The quality which rulers [muluk] most need is correct Deen, because al-deen wa’l dawlah [state/regime] are like brothers…He must be diligent in matters of Deen, performing the duties at the proper times, avoiding eccentric desires [hawa] and heretical innovations in religion [bida], and shunning unjust and immoral actions. If he hears that any person in his territory is suspect as regards Deen, he must summon him and interrogate him until he repents, or else punish him or exile him from the territory; in this way the dominion will be purged of eccentric desires and [heretical] innovation, and Islam will be strong. He must…strive to increase the power of Islam, and keep the Prophet’s Sunnah fresh (and vigourous)’^[30]

Ghazali reported the advice given to Caliph Harun al Rashid by a famous man of knowledge, that if he didn’t feed the poor or implement the Islamic hudood punishments upon ‘those who disobeyed Allah’s commands’, Allah (swt) would replace him with another ruler, and put him in hell^[31]

In the book, Ghazali writes that Islamic ruler cannot breach the Sharia, and must command obedience to Allah (swt) and enforce prohibitions^[32], he must discipline the people to obey God and practice virtue^[33]and people seeking claims against the ruler, must have the case referred to Islamic court^[34].

Imam Ghazali says in the book that the mission of the Prophet (saaw) included political goals: ‘God on High sent the Prophet to transform the abode/lands [Dar] of Kufr into the abode/lands [Dar] of Islam through his barakah, and to bring development and prosperity to the world through justice and equitable (rule)’^[35]

It remains a mystery as to why MAL did not see fit to mention these words of Ghazali to his readers that were in the same book MAL selectively quoted from.

MAL selectively quoting to his readers only one of Ghazali’s ‘ingredients’ (e.g. ‘justice’) for a good government over Muslims , but not mentioning the others, is like someone claiming that a cake can be made from just butter without adding any flour, eggs or sugar. Unfortunately, what you get is not a cake, just butter – at best, melted butter.

Furthermore, Imam Ghazali wrote in ‘Iqtisad’ that a Muslim government must be based upon the Deen of Islam or it will collapse^[36]. Imam Ghazali does not just expect Islamic government to simply bring order and prevent civil strife, but also to prepare people for the hereafter too^[37]

It remains for readers to ask themselves whether any of these teachings by Imam Ghazali sound even remotely like a Secular government.

Claim: There is no obligation in Islam for a Caliphate

MAL wrote: ‘there is categorically NO obligation in Islam to setup or work towards setting up an Islamic State/Caliphate. There is not a single clear mention in the Quran of this or for that matter in The Sunnah of the Prophet’

Reality: The obligation for a Caliphate comes from the Quran, Sunnah and Ijma of the Sahabah

The famous Maliki scholar, Imam al-Qurtubi (d.1273) said in his tafsir of Quran 2:30: ‘When your Lord said to the angels, “I am putting a Caliph on the earth”’

‘This ayat is sound evidence for having an Imam and khalif who is obeyed so that his word will unify [the Ummah], and the rulings of the Caliphate will carried out. None of the Imams of the Ummah disagree about the obligatory nature of having such a leader…When Abu Bakr died, he delegated the task of being Caliph to ‘Umar and no one said that it was not mandatory. Its obligatory nature indicates that it is one of the pillars of the deen which support the Muslims. Praise be to Allah, the Lord of the worlds’^[38].
Notice how Qurtubi argues that it being obligatory is an evidence for it being one of the pillars of Deen that supports the Muslims, rather than the other way round (i.e. he does not argue that the Caliphate is an invented obligation due to being seen as a useful utility for order).

Imam Ghazali wrote in his nasihat ul Muluk: ‘Abu Qilabah came to Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz who asked him for counsel. He replied: ‘From Adam’s time till today, no Caliph has endured except you’^[39]

Furthermore, MAL wrote: ‘leadership is necessary but not because its a ritual like wudu or a worship per se but because its instrumental…Hence Imam Taftazani writes in his commentary on the Aqa’id, that the greater the reach of a King/Dynast is, the greater the prosperity because it is less likely for him to be a soft target for rival kings/opportunists’

If MAL alleges that Imam Taftazani did not believe the Caliphate was an obligation based upon revelation, then he seems to be unaware that Imam Taftazani wrote: ‘There is (scholarly) consensus on the appointment of an imam being obligatory…it is obligatory upon man by the [Islamic] text, due to his [i.e. the Prophet (saaw)] saying, ‘Whosoever dies not knowing the Imam of his time dies the death of jahilliyah’, and because the Ummah (the companions) made the appointing of the Imam the most concerning of important matters after the death of the Prophet [saaw] to the extent that they gave it priority over the burial; similarly after the death of every imam, and also because many of the other shari’a obligations depend upon it.’^[40]

Aby Layth wrote: ‘Imam Ghazali wrote his book ‘Mustazhari’…in this work that Imam Ghazali is arguing the necessities of having an imam. He begins his argument by highlighting not that its a religious ritual rather it offers stability’

Firstly, no one claims that Ghazali considers a Caliphate to be a ‘religious ritual’. Strawman aside, what Imam Ghazali does start out saying, is that it is an Islamic obligation to have a Caliph (Imam) in every age^[41] – not just only in his time or the first century after the Prophet [saaw].

Ghazali then proceeds to mention the two main reasons^[42]: the first being the ijma of the Sahabah (consensus of the Prophet’s companions), and the second being that the Caliphate implements the societal laws of Islam in Quran and Sunnah, validating the officers in charge of implementing those Islamic laws, and ‘defends the Deen’ by uniting the strength of the Muslims in mutual defence.

For the first reason, Imam Ghazali argues that the Sahabahs considered the obligation of Caliphate to be more important than a religious ritual – which was the burial of the Prophet Muhammed [saaw] no less!

Imam Ghazali writes in his book ‘Iqtiqad’, a chapter titled‘On Showing that appointing an Imam is obligatory’, that ‘We should not think that this obligation derives from the intellect’, where he highlights the ‘the consensus of the Muslim Ummah’ and ‘the basis of this consensus’.^[43]

Ghazali cites a hadith of the Prophet (saaw)^[44] to demonstrate that only the Imam of the Muslims, or his deputies, can legally apply the Islamic laws and rules. Therefore, Ghazali argues that without a Caliphate, the laws of Islam are inoperative, and no one would possess any legitimacy to implement them, or rule (including all political governors of all the regions)^[45]. He also repeats this argument in his book ‘Iqtisad’^[46] with the addition that all Muslims will be in sin(!).

Imam Ghazali therefore writes: ‘the obligation of appointing an imam is among the essential requirements of the sharia [law] – a requirement that by no means can be ignored’^[47].

For more detailed arguments about the obligation of the Caliphate derived from the Quran and Sunnah, these can be read from Ghazali’s predecessor, Imam Mawardi, in his famous book ‘Akham ul Sultaniyyah’^[48].

Since Imam Ghazali believed in the Islamic obligation of the Caliphate in every age, it remains to be wondered how MAL could confidently claim that ‘there is categorically NO obligation in Islam to setup or work towards setting up an Islamic State/Caliphate’.

Claim: The scholars of Islam claim that the Prophet’s teachings clearly show no obligation for one leader of the Muslim world

The critic wrote: ‘Countless scholars including Imam Qalsadi, ibn Arafa, Juwayni, Shawkani, Sana’ani etc clearly highlight that any hadith regarding Caliphs/Imams was simply referring to a community, region or province and not speaking about one Caliph for the whole world’

Reality: The Scholars of Islam all understood that Prophet’s teachings clearly highlight that the Muslim Ummah can only have one leader

It is mysterious why MAL would claim Juwayni did not believe it was obligatory for the Muslim Ummah to be under one leader, since it would appear that Imam al-Juwayni ‘didn’t get the memo’. Juwayni wrote an entire chapter in his book ‘Ghiyath’ called ‘The prohibition of setting up two Imams’, in which he clearly writes:

‘When it is possible to appoint one Imam who will oversee the entire lands of Islam, and his sovereignty will encompass all the world, despite the variation of its positions in the eastern and western regions, it is necessary to appoint [him], and it is impermissible, when the situation is such, to appoint two Imams. This is agreed upon, and no disagreement on this is found.’^[49]

The famous Maliki scholar, Imam Qurtubi [d1273] ‘clearly highlights’ the general understanding of the hadith that Muslims should have only have one ruler: ‘[The Prophet is narrated to have said]: “Whoever comes to you whilst your affairs are unified under a single person, seeking to undermine your unity or divide your ranks, execute him”…This is the strongest evidence prohibiting the establishment of two leaders. For this will lead to hypocrisy, dissension, schisms, civil strife and the removal of blessings’^[50].

Qurtubi even related the opinion of Imam Malik, that the starting of Ramadan due to moon sightings in all the Muslim regions inhabited by the Ummah can be overridden by the moon sighting date declared by the Amir ul Mumineen (i.e. Caliph)^[51]

In fact, Juwayni was careful to mention that only in extreme cases of distant lands that are cut off from the central Caliph, could there be a possible exception to the clear rule established by the Prophet Muhammed (saaw), and a second ‘Imam’ be appointed in a distant region. But he carefully and explicitly caveats that this second ‘Imam’ is not the supreme Imam of the Muslims^[52]. This exception-to-rule provesthe general rule is mandatory outside of exceptional circumstances.

The other scholars mentioned (but noticeably not quoted) by MAL, like Ibn Arafa (d.1401) ,Qalasadi (d. 1485), Sana’ani (d.1768), and Shawkani (d.1834) – do not dispute the general rule.

For example, Ibn Arafa, who MAL chooses to invoke, says: “If the position of the Imam is such that he can’t enforce his rule in distant areas, then it is permissible to install others [in those distant areas]”^[53] and Shawkani holds the same sentiment^[54].

Shawkani, also invoked by MAL, further reminds Muslims that the Muslim Ummah and its lands cannot be divided: ‘It is known from Islam by necessity that Islam has forbidden division amongst Muslims and the segregation of their land’^[55].

Despite those who believe an exception-to-the-rule is possible, Juwayni admits^[56] that the mainstream opinion of the scholars is that even if lands are impractically cut-off from the Caliph, even then that’s still no excuse to go against the explicit command of the Prophet’s hadith. Famous examples of this mainstream that rejected the exception-to-the rule are Mawardi ^[57], Nawawi ^[58], Sha’rani^[59] and Ibn Khaldun (see below).

Ibn Khaldun explains his opinion and summarises the opinions of the Muslim scholars succinctly:

‘It is not possible to appoint two men to the position (of imam) at the same time. The scholars generally are of this opinion, on the basis of certain hadith. Those hadith are found in the book, ‘On Leadership’ in the Sahih by Muslim ^[60]. They clearly indicate that this is so. Others hold that (the prohibition against two imams) applies only to two imams in one area, or where they would be close to each other. When there are great distances and the imam is unable to control the farther region, it is permissible to set up another imam there to take care of public interests’.

Importantly, concerning Ghazali’s opinion, what we should note from above, is that even in with the medieval transportation and communication methods of 1094, Ghazali noticeably did not consider Egypt or Al Andalus to be beyond the reach of the Abbasid Caliphate, which explains why he calls some of them rebels for not pledging allegiance to the Abbasid Caliph!

Of course, with modern technology and transport (e.g. 16 hour plane trip from Lisbon to Jakarta), there would be no longer any room today to argue an exception to the general rule established by the hadith. What remains mysterious is why MAL would allege the scholars had opinions that were completely the opposite of their actual opinions. Perhaps he was (somehow) just honestly mistaken again.

Claim: Ghazali would not argue that states today are invalid without a Caliphate

MAL claimed: ‘Its important to clarify that Islam unquestionably promotes Unity…This however is nothing like preaching that all these modern states are illegitimate and invalid, have zero authority’

Reality: Ghazali argued that all forms of political institutions, court systems and even private religious contracts are invalid without a Caliphate

As mentioned already, Ghazali in his book Mustazhiri^[61], as well as his later book Iqtiqad ^[62], argued quietly explicitly that all governors throughout all world the regions would become invalid without a Caliph. Considering that during the time of Ghazali, the regional governors were called ‘malik’ or ‘sultan’ had there own independent armies and administration systems, unlike the claims of MAL in his article^[63], ‘might does make right’ for Ghazali, but religious authority.

About the topic of a Caliphate, MAL strangely recommended to his readers to refer to a video by Dr Jonathan Brown, MAL said: “Islam does not ask for a Caliphate…for greater knowledge of this I would like to recommend you to…a lecture done by ustadh Jonathan Brown on the ‘myth of Universal Islamic state’, I’d to refer you to that, that’s already been done in great detail” ^[64].

This is quite strange, considering that in the video, Dr Jonathan Brown confirms the claims MAL had been denying(!):

‘The role of the caliph as a conveyor of some kind of legitimacy or religious leadership’ Brown highlights that ‘scholars I know, Ghazali who died in 1111, there’s certain scholars like him who believed that if there’s no caliph, nothing in Islamic law is valid, your marriages aren’t valid, nothing is valid, you need the caliph to exist, even if he has no power, the Caliph is the source from which the entire system of the sharia and Muslim religious life flows…Imam Ghazali has this notion that you have to have this formal office of the Caliphate or else nothing Muslims do is valid’^[65]

We can only speculate as to why MAL would recommend a video of a lecture that contradicts his narrative about Ghazali. Perhaps the fact that the video is mis-titled^[66], may be a reason.

The Political Context of Criticism against belief in an Islamic Caliphate

MAL’s use of the label ‘extremist’ against people who peacefully believe in the mainstream Islamic concept of a Caliphate, eerily parallels the same rhetoric^[67] used by former-Conservative Prime Minister David Cameron.

MAL’s arguments also strangely parallel a section within a report^[68] commissioned by the notorious neo-conservative Henry Jackson Society (of whom Douglas Murray was a Director), which attacked the Islamic concept of the Caliphate with similar claims to MAL.

Furthermore, Sara Khan, a Secular feminist in the UK involved in ‘counter-extremism’, who has worked closely with the then Home Secretary, MP Theresa May^[69] on promoting ‘British values’ also had praised^[70] MAL’s ‘CallEmOut’ campaign.

Anyone who questions whether Ghazali’s position merely the result of his political context (and not Islamic tradition), should therefore have to ask the same questions of the ‘political context’ of those rejecting the Islamic concept of the Caliphate too.

Claim: People who believe a Caliphate is an obligation in Islam, are extremist

Despite MAL writes that ‘to setup an obligatory Global Islamic State with one Caliph’ is part of an ‘extremist ideology‘, continuing ‘there is categorically NO obligation in Islam to setup or work towards setting up an Islamic State/Caliphate’

Reality: Ghazali would consider to be people who denied the Islamic obligation of a Caliphate, to be extremist

Shockingly, Ghazali actually condemns MAL’s position: ‘[the Mutazilite] Ibn Al-Kaysan had entirely rejected the obligation of establishing Imamate…their position is extreme’^[71].

Furthermore the great Maliki scholar, Imam Qurtubi called Ibn Kaysan deserving of the epithet, ‘the deaf’ [al Assam] for declaring the Caliphate not an obligation in Islam [see quote]^[72]

Therefore the belief that an Islamic Caliphate is not an obligation in Islam, is not only recent, it is extremist. As Muslims, our duty must be to denounce this extremism and #CallEmOut.

The Response to Those Who Attack Muslims for Believing in an Islamic Caliphate – Final Thoughts from Dr Jonathan Brown

To finish this article, I’d like to quote the final thought from that very same video MAL unwittingly recommends his readers to watch(!) about the topic of Caliphate, where Dr Jonathan Brown finishes his lecture with a pertinent response that eloquently rebuts any campaign against Muslims who advocate the Islamic concept of the Caliphate:

‘People shouldn’t be limited in their right to political ideology…That really plays into the hand of groups like ISIS. The key thing that leads people to support groups like that, is because that those groups call out hypocrisy of global systems, or of western dominated systems, so there’s the European countries that get together and say ‘we want the european union’, you can have NAFTA, you can have Irish americans who identify as Irish in someway and support Irish causes, and jewish americans who can support Israel, so everybody has an acknowledged right to some kind the notion of ‘confere-ity’ [i.e fraternity] with others who they identify with across nations, who they identify with, you even have the right to supra-national unions of various sorts, and in fact there is already the organisation of Islamic co-operation. Why is it that in great Britain, the UK, believing in a Caliphate is something that would get you put on a list as an Islamic extremist? Where, it technically, for the majority of Muslim scholars throughout history, they will tell you that Muslims are required to believe in the Caliphate, as we just discussed that could mean a lot of things. It could mean that somewhere way off there is some guy who happens to be called the Caliph who has no role in my life, but he exists and he legitimises my religious contracts. That’s very different from saying I’m going to respond to Abu Bakr Baghdadi’s call and kill someone in the street, those are two totally different phenomena. I think it is important…that people be allowed to identify with supra-national organisations. Otherwise, you’re basically saying Muslims don’t have that right, but everybody else does’^[73]

By Abdullah al Andalusi

Source

^[1] https://abdullahalandalusi.com/2017/06/16/imam-ghazalis-obligation-of-caliphate-response-to-a-critic/

^[2] ‘Mufti Abu Layth’, ‘When Ghazali is hijacked for an Islamic State’, 17th June 2017

^[3] ‘The police (shurta) as an urban force responsible for suppression of crime evolved from a military formation referred to as shurtat al-khamis, which apparently existed in Kufa during the rule of ‘Ali (656–660). The association between the shurta and the military continued during the Umayyad and early ‘Abbasid period…However, during the twelfth century the term shurta disappeared from the sources and was replaced by a new urban official: the shihna, who combined in his hands the authority of an urban prefect and a military governor’ [Medieval Islamic Civilisation: An Encyclopedia, volume 1, Josef W Meri, Routledge]

^[4] [Imam Ghazali, ‘Al-Mustazhiri’ (Fadiah al-Batinyah wa Fadail al-Mustazhariyah of al-Ghazzali)]

^[5] ‘The leader of our Ummah and the glory of our deen and originating in the delight of the nations, the Amir ul Mumineen [leader of the believers], obedience to whom is enjoined by the Creator of Creatures and the Lord of the Worlds, for Allah the Most High has said “Obey God, and obey the Prophet and those in authority amongst you”’ [Imam Ghazali, ‘Al-Mustazhiri’ (Fadiah al-Batinyah wa Fadail al-Mustazhariyah of al-Ghazzali)]

^[6] op cit.

^[7] ‘We claim that the Imam al-Mustazhir Billah is the true Imam who must be obeyed’ , [Imam Ghazali, ‘Al-Mustazhiri’ (Fadiah al-Batinyah wa Fadail al-Mustazhariyah of al-Ghazzali)]

^[8] ‘The Imam…in this age of ours is Imam al-Mustazhir Billah- God guard his authority’, [ibid]

^[9] In Ghazali’s argument against the Batiniyyah, he argues that the Imam need not be a source of infallible truth, since people can access knowledge and tradition themselves. Ghazali then anticipates the Batiniyyah response that accuses him of arguing that the Imam is being unnecessary:

‘[The Batiniyah make the] objection: Why, then do we need the Imam, if he can be dispensed with? .[I then] answer: And why is there need of a Qadi [Judge] in every town? Does the need of him prove that he must be infallible? They say: He is needed for practical reasons such as warding off disputes, effecting harmony, etc. [We say]: And the totality of the world to the Imam is like one [town] regarding the Qadi. Just as the Qadi need not be infallible, but his office is needed, so the Imam need not be infallible, but his is necessary for general administrative reasons such as defending Islam, etc.’, [ibid]

^[10] ‘without anyone exercising [the Imamate]…it would call for the declaration of the invalidity of all governors and the unsoundness of the rulings by the Qadis [judges]…and the pronouncement of invalidity of marriages issuing from Qadis in [all] the regions of the earth and the remaining rights of Allah (swt) in the care of creatures’ [ibid]

^[11] ‘Their ultimate claim is that he who knows the [true] realities of things is the one occupying the post of Caliph in Egypt, and that it is incumbent on all creatures to obey him…he is the true Imam’, [ibid]

^[12] ‘Question: How do you repudiate one who challenges the..premise that only al-Mustazhir is fit for the Imamate? For the Batiniyyah summon men to another’, [ibid]

^[13] ‘We do not deny that some claim the Imamate undeservedly. But we say: If the Batiniyyah’s claims is false, the Imamate is specified for him [Mustazhir] who claims it and our aim is achieved. For if, by agreement, there must be an Imam, and if it is certain that the Imamate is not outside of two persons, and if it is certain that the Imamate of one of them is false, then there remains no doubt about it being certain of the other’…the falseness of the Imamate claimed by the Batiniyyah are innumerable’ [ibid]

^[14] ‘Even if we concede, for the sake of argument and gratuitously, that the master of the Batiniyya [i.e. the Fatimid ‘Caliph’] is fit for Imamate…still the Imamate we claim is something agreed upon by all the leaders and Ulema of the age and by all the masses of men in the farthest East and West, so that obedience and submission to him [Caliph Mustazhir] are embraced by all save the little gang of Batiniyya [i.e. the Fatimids] who all together do not equal the number of the followers of the Abbasid Imamate in a single township, much less those of a district or province! Could an impartial man doubt that the Batiniyya extremists do not equal a tenth of those who support this conquering State [i.e. the Abbasid Caliphate]. If the Imamate is determined by [who has the most] power, and power is by mutual help and the plurality of followers, then this is a most powerful argument for preferring our [Abbasid] Imamate!’, [ibid]

^[15] ‘…only he is qualified for the office, therefore he is the rightful Imam’, [ibid]

^[16] ‘Hence it is clear that whenever there is agreement, anyone who ambitions the Imamate for himself is unjust-and the overwhelming majority is for our Imamate-the dissenters are a mere drop in the sea’, [ibid]

^[17] ‘Rally: Bring or come together in order to support a person or cause’. Oxford English Dictionary

^[18] ‘this Emir [Yusuf B. Tashfin], he has acted truthfully in proclaiming the banner of the rule of [Caliph] Mustazhir (May Allah protect those put under His shade). And this is the duty upon all leaders [muluk] ruling over any region of the Muslim lands either in the East or the West, to make their pulpits decorated with supplications for the true Imam. Even if the investiture [taqleed] of the Imam had not reached them or it was delayed because of some hindrance, when the king calls to the banner of the Abbasid Caliph, then obedience to them is a duty upon all the leaders and their people. They must listen and obey and firmly believe that obedience to the Abbasi Caliph is considered the obedience to the imam and his disobedience is considered the disobedience to the imam. And whoever rebels and disobeys the imam, the verdict applied to him is that of the baaghi [rebel]…This is the judgment for any just Amir in any part of the earth’

[Imam Ghazali’s letter to Al Andalus, source: Tarikh fi Al-Maghrib Wa Al-Andalus, 1986, Ahmed mukhtar al Abbadi]

^[19] ‘This A’lim [Ibn Al Arabi] drafted a consultation when requested for a fatwa [istifta], which I have fulfilled according to the demand for the truth and [that which is] required by the deen. I had, with urgency, put myself on the way towards the Hijaz, and I left him [Ibn Arabi] to work in his endeavours to spread the noble manifesto emanating from the khalifa’s court, containing words of gratitude for the actions of the Emir, the defender of the deen, [Yusuf b. Tashfin], his help at the Muslim border lands [Andalus], and expressed that all the territories of the Maghrib be delivered [Taslim] to his [person], so that he becomes his governor [ra’is] [governing] his subjects and [that] they submit to him, so those who go against his [Ibn Tashfin’s] orders, go against the Emir Al Mu’mineen, a descendant of [Al Abbas] [who was] the uncle of the Prophet, and so, it is obvious that all Muslims should fight him…’ [Imam Ghazali’s letter to Yusuf bin Tashfin, translation of source: Maria Vigueras, ‘Las Cartas De Al-Gazali y Al-Turtosi Al Soberano Almoravid Yosuf B. Tasufin’]

^[20] Marilyn R. Waldman, Professor of History and Comparative Studies, Ohio State University, Columbus and Author of ‘Toward a Theory of Historical Narrative: A Case Study in Perso-Islamicate Historiography’, neatly sums this up: ‘The Seljuqs derived their legitimacy from investiture by the caliph, and from “helping” him reunite the ummah’

https://www.britannica.com/topic/Islamic-world/Migration-and-renewal-1041-1405#toc26916

^[21] [Imam Ghazali, ‘Al-Mustazhiri’ (Fadiah al-Batinyah wa Fadail al-Mustazhariyah of al-Ghazzali)]

^[22] [Imam Ghazali, ‘Al-Mustazhiri’ (Fadiah al-Batinyah wa Fadail al-Mustazhariyah of al-Ghazzali)]

^[23] ‘we were informed of the power of the Emir [Yusuf b. Tashfin], the defender of deen, and how he defeated the Christian party, they [Muluk Al Tawaif] asked to be rid of taxes on the Muslims, [meaning] those taxes that [Christians] had imposed them, forcing them to pay a poll tax [jizya] which was to be delivered to them, pretending to maintain his [Yusuf b. Tashfin’s] authority, and turned to favor the Christians, bringing warnings [intelligence] of the state of the Emir [Yusuf b. Tasufin] and encouraging them [Christians] to attack [Yusuf B. Tashfin]. When those [who were] sure of what they knew, many of them along with [good] Muslims, asked them to expel those [King] rebels there, restoring the country to the Muslims who had it before the spreading corruption. He did so, and when he took over, removed the unfair tax [mazalim], made apparent the signs of the religion, dispersed the corrupt, bringing in their place, righteous people, ordered jihad and cut off the aspirations of the depraved’

[Imam Ghazali’s letter to Yusuf bin Tashfin, translation of source: Maria Vigueras, ‘Las Cartas De Al-Gazali y Al-Turtosi Al Soberano Almoravid Yosuf B. Tasufin’]

^[24] ibid

^[25] ‘And compliance of the command of Allāh is to recognize [deferring to] the just sultan- the one who pledges loyalty of the true imam, associated with the Abbasid Caliphate. Anyone who rebels against the truth, he will be repelled by the sword to the truth. So it is compulsory on the Emir and his party to fight those who are rebellious…one of the greatest forms of worship is to fight them until they return to the obedience of the just Emir who steadfastly obeys the Abbasid Caliphate…Overall, the verdict of being disobedient to the amir who is obeying the caliph—the one who has the authority of the pulpits and the land— is the verdict is of the baghi [rebel] against the deputy imam’

[Imam Ghazali’s letter to Al Andalus, source: Tarikh fi Al-Maghrib Wa Al-Andalus, 1986, Ahmed mukhtar al Abbadi]

^[26] it is compulsory on the Emir and his party to fight those who are rebellious. More importantly they turn to their Christian mushrikeen allies [awliyaa] for aid- and they are the enemies of Allāh against the Muslims, who are the awliyaa of Allāh and one of the greatest forms of worship is to fight them until they return to the obedience of the just Emir who steadfastly obeys the Abbasid khilafa.

[Imam Ghazali’s letter to Al Andalus, source: Tarikh fi Al-Maghrib Wa Al-Andalus, 1986, Ahmed mukhtar al Abbadi]

^[27] ‘As long as they desist from disobedience [to the Imam] it is incumbent [upon] you to restrain from [fighting] them. If they fight [you], it is not allowed to pursue [them when] they take flight [flee the battle], nor to harm their wounded. But whenever their prowess declines and they are defeated then it is necessary to stop fighting them, and by that I mean the Muslims among them. This does not apply to the Christians who do not retain a covenant [from the Muslims]. The Muslims should not be preoccupied with fighting the Muslims’.

[Imam Ghazali’s letter to Al Andalus, source: Tarikh fi Al-Maghrib Wa Al-Andalus, 1986, Ahmed mukhtar al Abbadi]

^[28] Ghazali describes two categories of Fatimid to be dealt with. The first category, are those whose theology is not renegade to the Islamic creed, and Ghazali argues they are only to be fought if they actively resist Abbasid armies by fighting alongside ‘the unjust [i.e. rebels – he also used this term for the taifa rebels in his letters to Al Andalus]

‘The first grade [of Batiniyyah]- which necessitates charging with error and deviation and innovation- is that we meet a common man who believes that the entitlement to the Imamate is on the principle of the House [i.e. The Prophet’s (saaw) family], and that the one now entitled to it is the one of them who [currently] undertakes the office [i.e. the Fatimid ‘Caliph’]…such a man’s blood is not licit [to be taken], nor is he to be charged with [being] renegade against the truth because of such views, and he is to be warned away from his error and [heretical] innovation…but [if] they join in battle alongside the unjust – the unjust is to be killed even if he is a Muslim – but not pursued if he flees [from battle], nor killed if he is wounded’’

The second category of Fatimid in Ghazali’s estimation, are those he considers have theologies that make them renegades of Islam. To them, he rules

’on the legal status of Batiniyyah [i.e. the Fatimids] guilty of turning renegade against the truth…killing him and ridding the world of him…the allowability of killing them is not peculiar to their state of fighting’

[Imam Ghazali, ‘Al-Mustazhiri’ (Fadiah al-Batinyah wa Fadail al-Mustazhariyah of al-Ghazzali)],

^[29] ‘The Sultan in reality is he who awards justice, and does not perpetrate injusitce and wickedness, among God’s servants; for the unjust Sultan is ill-fated and will have no endurance, because the Prophet stated that ‘sovereignty endures even when there is kufr, but will not endure when there is injustice’…for well nigh four thousand years the rule [amara] was held by the Majus and the kingdom remained in their family. This endured because they maintained justice among their subjects’