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:
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.
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)
ConclusionPeople 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)
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: