Meaning of the Hadith regarding rulers being from Quraysh

saif

Junior Member
Prologue

The immediate reason for this thread is the emphasis of the proclaimed khaleefa Albaghdadi on him being a qurayshi. But apart from that, it is our moral duty to review the prevailing Interpretation of the above mentioned Hadith, because it is ascribing something to our beloved Prophet, which is hard to digest, choosing the politest words I can think of.

There are several ahadith on that subject with almost the same content. I will choose the following Hadith as the basis of our further discussion:

اَلْأَئِمَّةُ مِنْ قُرَيْش
The rulers shall be from the Quraysh. (Nasa’i, No: 5942)

Prevailing Interpretation

Most of the jurists conclude from the above hadith, that, whenever the muslims will choose their ruler, they are bound to choose him from the People of Quraysh. This understanding is reflected in the following Fatwa:

http://islamqa.info/en/11747
Since it is a short one, I will chopy the whole Fatwa here:

11747: Reconciling the fact that the khaleefah should be from Quraysh with the hadeeth about obeying an Abyssinian slave
Question: What is the understanding pertaining to the statement in the "Aqeedah " that the Khalifat belongs to the Quraish, how does the Hadith pertain to "Obey the Amir even if he be an Abysinnian with a head like a raisin", could you pls help us to reconcile this and may Allah guide us to accept the truth?

Answer:
Praise be to Allaah.
The hadeeth about the rulers being from Quraysh is a saheeh hadeeth which was narrated through many isnaads. The basic principle is that the leader should be from Quraysh. But in the case where the khaleefah has seized power by force and is ruling the people by force, the people have to obey him and it is haraam to rebel against him, even if he is an Abyssinian slave as it says in the hadeeth.
Shaykh ‘Abd al-Kareem al-Khudayr.

Critique of the Prevailing Interpretation

On the basis of the following narrative attributed to the Prophet (sws), it is generally believed that a Muslim ruler must belong to the Quraysh, which is the tribe of the Prophet (sws).1

اَلْأَئِمَّةُ مِنْ قُرَيْش
The rulers shall be from the Quraysh. (Nasa’i, No: 5942)

If this is correct, then it would mean that there is no difference between Islam and Brahmanism in which only a specific tribe has the prerogative to rule.
It needs to be appreciated that each narrative must be interpreted in the light of the Qur’an. According to the Qur’anic verse (42: 38) أَمْرُهُمْ شُورَى بَيْنَهُمْ (their system is based on their consultation, (42:38)) in the absence of a consensus, the majority opinion should decide affairs of the Muslims. Thus in the light of this directive, a tradition was established from the time of the Prophet (sws) that the tribe who held the confidence of the majority would be granted the reigns of power. Since in the time of the Prophet (sws), this status was occupied by the Quraysh, the Prophet (sws) merely following this Qur’anic injunction and fearing that leaders of the minority groups might stake a claim to power clarified that the rulers shall be from the Quraysh. While citing the reason for this, he is reported to have said:
النَّاسُ تَبَعٌ لِقُرَيْشٍ فِي هَذَا الشَّأْنِ مُسْلِمُهُمْ لِمُسْلِمِهِمْ وَكَافِرُهُمْ لِكَافِرِهِمْ
People in this matter follow the Quraysh. The believers of Arabia are the followers of their believers and the disbelievers of Arabia are the followers of their disbelievers. (Muslim, No: 1818)
In other words, the Prophet (sws) made it very clear that since the majority of the Arabian Muslims professed confidence in the Quraysh, they were solely entitled to take charge as the rulers of Arabia in the light of the Qur’anic directiveأَمْرُهُمْ شُورَى بَيْنَهُمْ (Their system is based on their consultation), and that they would be passed on the political authority not because of any racial precedence or superiority, but only by virtue of this position.
It follows from this that Quraysh were entitled to rule after the Prophet (sws) as long as they enjoyed the confidence of the majority and once they lost this confidence, they were not entitled to rule.
(source: http://www.al-mawrid.org/pages/articles_english_detail.php?rid=550&cid=66)
Conclusion

Since I am convinced by the above Interpretation without any doubt left, I would recommend my brothers and sisters in Islam to give it a serious thought. May Allah forgive those who are unknowingly ascribing this filth of racism to our beloved Prophet.
 
Last edited:

MehmetHilmi

Junior Member
Selamun Aleykum,

Thanks for this information. I like how you explain these topics. But I have a few questions. If a true Caliphate were to be formed, would it be like the papacy where there would be candidates chosen from among a council, or would it be based on the majority vote of the populace? You know, since the role has been passed from father to son for like hundreds of years. Also would the Caliph be a spiritual or political leader? The Ottoman Caliphs were mostly political while the religious affairs were left to the Seyh-ul Islam.

Other than that, I always wondered why people always held the view that the Quraysh could only rule. The last time an Arab Caliphate existed was looooong time ago. Also, is it true that Arabs are in general superior to non-Arabs? I saw a thread on a different Islamic forum saying so. They even backed up their view using hadiths.
 

Aapa

Mirajmom
No......How can the deen of Allah,swt, the Creator of Mankind, who shows us His, swt, Glory by making variety to demonstrate to us His Unity of Purpose make one man superior to another based on physical attributes.

The hadith is in Bukari and Muslim. No man is superior to another even if his head is similar to a raisin.

Where did you get the idea that people held the view that the Quraysh could rule. NO. Please read history. It is recorded. When the Prophet, swas, died they held meetings while his son in law made the body ready for burial. Read and seek knowledge. A meeting was held in the house of one of the wives of Abu Bakr, may Allah be pleased with him.

The Quran is the source to back up hadith. Islam is the religion for mankind. The Prophet, swas, was sent to the Arabs because they were the most ignorant of peoples. The acts they committed were wrong.

Islam is not limited to the Arabs, Alhumdullila. We would be in big trouble if they ruled. Heaven forbid.

Islam is the key to freedom. It is the great equalizer.

Please PM me the name of the forum so I can give them a little lecture. Fools.

Do people not understand that they will be questioned on the Day of Judgement? Fools. Utter and Absolute Fools.!!!!!
 

saif

Junior Member
Assalamu alaikum dear brother Mehmet,

Let us recall that list of questions, where we have started the discussion, I had raised as question no. 4 the following question:

4. Where in Qur'an and Sunnah, the muslims are devised to have one and only one Khalifah. Is Khilafah a religious Institution? If yes, How should a Khalifah be elected/selected. How much of those rules (if there are any) have been acted upon by ISIS?

Since your questions are almost in the same direction, I will inshaAllah write an answer to this question together with questions here. I also have a few more things to add to Aapa' post about the "arabs". But that I will do in a separate post.

Meaning of Khilafah

The way how muslims understand Khilafah is the personified unification of political and religious leadership. However, in Quran and Sunnah the word is used either as a vicegerent or a ruler. For example in verses, where believers are promised to get khilafah of earth, it means the rule and the political power. Also in Ahadith the word is used in its general meaning, which is the ruler. But even if you take the same meaning, as we understand it now, no where in ahadith it says, Muslims must have one and only one Khalifah. This is not even practicable. The first separation from the central rule of Banu Umayyah were the Moors in Spain and we are all proud of them. And now that we have a big number of muslim states, no scholar is of the opinion, that muslims should revolt against their governments to form one big islamic state under one ruler.

So the nations and states will form themselves by whatever mechanisms, it is not the topic of Shariah. But when a state is formed and the muslims are running its affairs, then there are some laws, which they have to follow, if they are true believers. We will not discuss here the rights and duties of the muslim rulers and muslim public. We will only discuss the Quran and Sunnah's directives regarding election/selection of the rulers.

The following part is copied from the Ustaaz Javed Ahmed Ghamidi's Book Mizan. It will also discuss that hadith again and I am sorry for the repetition, but you will benefit a lot by reading these 3 pages. If it is too tedious, you can go directly to conclusion.

The State System


42_38.png


And those who have responded to their lord and established prayer and whose affair is [determined by] consultation among themselves, and from what We have provided them, they spend.
(42:38)

upload_2014-9-2_23-11-34.png

upload_2014-9-2_23-12-52.png

upload_2014-9-2_23-14-16.png

Conclusion
In the light of the above interpretation of the verse amruhum shura baynamhum, we can say for sure, that according to Shariah, a ruler must get confidence of his people. The exact mechanisms of shura are not he part of shariah, so it can change with time and place. For a trible society, like in the time of the Prophet, the best solution was the internal consultation of the trible elders of Quraysh. Now we may choose another mechanism, like democratic elections.

So coming back to your original question, a majority vote of the populace is certainly a valid way to implement shura in the question of electing a ruler. And if the caliphs were always transfering the rule to their sons, then they were clearly not following the shariah in this regard, as far I understand Ustaaz Javed Ahmed Ghamidi. However, the following Fatwa from the famous Sheikh "QA" suggests, that even nomination by a caliph is a valid method and quotes the nomination of Umar ra by Abou Bakar ra as an argument. We can discuss that at some other occasion. You may want to look into that Fatwa here:
(How the Caliph of the muslims is appointed)
http://islamqa.info/en/111836

Again, if you follow the above Fatwa, there is hardly anything wrong in Khalifa al Baghdadi's Caliphate.

Until now we have been talking about political leadership only. The spiritual leadership is passed on to all scholars of the ummah collectively after the Prophet. There is no single authority. Their main objective is to do indhaar on the ummah. We will come back to this topic, when we will discuss Shariah of Da'wah.

I hope it answered the first part of your question.

Wassalamu alaikum
 

saif

Junior Member
Assalamu alaikum,

I have avoided the discussion about Democracy and why it is not supported by some scholars. We will InshaAllah get back to this topic at some other occasion.

Wassalamu alaikum
 

Aapa

Mirajmom
Brother,

I believe the book Reliance of the Traveler is one of the definitive texts and should be used in any discussion.
 

saif

Junior Member
Brother,

I believe the book Reliance of the Traveler is one of the definitive texts and should be used in any discussion.

Aapa jee,
Assalamu alaikum

You are welcome to enlighten us with the quotes from the proposed book. I haven't read it.

Wassalamu alaikum
 

Aapa

Mirajmom
Brother,

The text was compiled by a Shaifi jurist. Ahmad Ibn Naqib al- Misiri.

In reading the qualifications of a caliph it mentions according to a sound hadith attributed to Nasai that if a Qurash is available, next the Kinana tribe, and so forth. Included in the list and broken down for comprehension are that he be male, possessed of legal responsibility; know intihad;courageous, upright etc.

The qualifications are of such a nature a mere man would be scared to fulfill the obligations.

I am not a scholar. This text is an explanation of scared law.

This is a serious issue.

For simple believers like me the words of the Prophet, swas, comfort me:

In a hadith by Abu Hurayra:

" Leaders shall rule you after me, the godfearing of them ruling you with godfearingness and the profligate ruling you with wickedness. So listen to them and obey them in everything that is right; for if they do well, it will count for you and for them, and if they do badly, it will count for you and against them.

If the ruler is an unbeliever it is suggested that they rise and remove him before leaving the country.


( that won't leave many Muslims in Muslim countries would it!!!)
 

saif

Junior Member
Brother,

The text was compiled by a Shaifi jurist. Ahmad Ibn Naqib al- Misiri.

In reading the qualifications of a caliph it mentions according to a sound hadith attributed to Nasai that if a Qurash is available, next the Kinana tribe, and so forth. Included in the list and broken down for comprehension are that he be male, possessed of legal responsibility; know intihad;courageous, upright etc.

The qualifications are of such a nature a mere man would be scared to fulfill the obligations.

I am not a scholar. This text is an explanation of scared law.

This is a serious issue.

For simple believers like me the words of the Prophet, swas, comfort me:

In a hadith by Abu Hurayra:

" Leaders shall rule you after me, the godfearing of them ruling you with godfearingness and the profligate ruling you with wickedness. So listen to them and obey them in everything that is right; for if they do well, it will count for you and for them, and if they do badly, it will count for you and against them.

If the ruler is an unbeliever it is suggested that they rise and remove him before leaving the country.


( that won't leave many Muslims in Muslim countries would it!!!)

Assalamu alaikum Aapa jee,

I hope, somebody else with more knowledge will comment on that book. Since it is a book of classical fiqh, I personally avoid to draw direct conclusions from such books for the following reasons: Muslim jurists have historically mixed up the direct injunctions of Quran and Sunnah with the secondary or derived opinions of themselves. It has the advantage, that the information is well compiled. It has the disadvantage, that you don't understand, which part is timeless, because it is directly from Quran and Sunnah and which part can be reviewed, because the imaam had derived his opinion in a certain time and place. So we may want to review that part and derive our opnion for our time and place. So for me, being a nobody in the ocean of knowledge, such books are not a source of direct conclusions.

Since we could find an interpretation of that hadith, which was inline with Quran, I would like to stick to that interpretation, so that I don't ascribe something to the Prophet, which we know today as racism.

The rest, that the ruler should be God-fearing etc. is understandable and should be seen as a guidline for those, who are directly or indirectly involved in his selection/election.

Wassalamu alaikum
 

saif

Junior Member

Aapa

Mirajmom
Brother,

I would not dare try to interpret hadith. The book I mentioned is a classic text.

I am a simple practitioner of the faith. Yet, as one poster wrote he read the hadits on forums. This gives us a reason as to why.

The Arabs were ignorant. It is in the Quran that they did not know until Allah swt revealed the Quran.

How could the Prophet of Allah be a racist. His son Ibrahim, who died when he was two, was the son of an Ethiopian woman.

Common sense tells us that a righteous leader is just that a righteous leader. He does not have to emerge from a particular tribe. Or else that tribe would be the righteous tribe. ( kinda, sorta like the Jews today, being the chosen tribe). They selected themselves above others...Sura Fathia...those who incur the wrath of Allah,swt.

How much Allah, swt, loves simpletons like me. He, swt, gave us the simple sura and let me know..don't get too bold and think you are special. There is no special tribe...that is a spiritual oxymoron.
 

MehmetHilmi

Junior Member
After surfing through Islamic forums and websites it became clear to me that Muslims are actually in disagreement over many things. I mean even right after the prophet (saw) died, there was a split in the Ummah. So how can we expect absolute unity now. We Muslims haven't been in disunity for only 100 years, but rather for around 1400 years. The monarchy Caliphates of the old days, although legitimate, did not do much to bring Muslims together. In fact if we look at all the wars and injustices committed during those times we can see that they created division and at times oppressed the populace. Even though today we have no Caliph, we are living in better conditions than before. So before anything we should get the romanticized view of Muslim unity and peace during the Caliphate out of our head. There was no such thing. Considering the failures of our previous Caliphates I think it is high time that we embrace democracy.
 

Aapa

Mirajmom
No. Democracy is a system of governance that is not based on the Laws of Allah, swt. As it is man-made it is by nature not suited for the needs of mankind. Simple case in point. In some countries a murderer is out in three years. A life term in the UK is very lenient; in the US it can mean a lifetime behind bars.

We have the Laws of Allah, swt, clearly given to us. We do not implement them. We do not honor the words of Allah, swt. Our collective history is one of intrigue and corruption. Men who put personal gains above their covenant with Allah, swt.

It is exactly because of our human limitations and refusal to obey Allah,swt, we find ourselves with poverty and moral bankruptcy. We are riddled with nepotism.

Our communities are reflective of our moral decadence. We are so confused by the glitz and glitter of this world we follow Shytan with open arms. Kissing the leaders of democratic giants to have easy access to weapons of mass destruction to use on innocent human beings so you can kiss the leaders again.

We have managed to buy our spiritual leaders to reflect the wants and desires of our communities. Our political leaders are not necessarily men of knowledge.

As to the nonsense of the place of women. We have managed to go backwards, bowing to the systems of idol worshipers.

We have become stingy and closed our hearts.

Sura Baqara ayats 1-19 describe our condition to the tee. And Sura Al-Ahzab uses an excellent word to describe us. Ayat 19.
Our failures of the past simply reflect our inability to keep our pact with Allah, swt. We have time still.
 

MehmetHilmi

Junior Member
Sister Aapa democracy is not against any Islamic system. I see that in your post you really haven't made a valid point arguing against democracy, rathe you just stated that in some so called democratic nations murderers get a short jail time.

Obviously we see that all the people who are against democracy and implementing a strict Sharia are very well off (heavy sarcasm).
 

Aapa

Mirajmom
Brother,

I apologize for my poor skills. Why would any Believer want a man-made system based on the society of idol worshipers. Lets not forget witch lovers, throw in some pagan worshipers, and those who believe it is nice to have a democratic system as long as they can have different laws for the landed gentry, so to speak.


Let me ask this fundamental question. What is wrong with Sharia if and only if you are a Believer? What is wrong with what Allah, swt, has told us He, swt, wants.

I do not understand your sarcasm. I am not against democracy. It is simply not the the Laws of Allah. If and only if we Believe in our deen do we wish for the implementation of the laws of equality and fairness.

But, understand I am closer to death thus I see the beauty of Islam. I have a need for Islam. ( no, I am not dying..I am just old).

In the end it will be the Words of Allah, swt, that prevail.
 
Top