The Question of Deposition and Election for a Fixed Term; as well as the Difference between Religious and Secular Rulers

The question as to whether an Amīr or Khalīfah may be elected for a specific term in office or not and whether an individual may be dismissed from office after being elected as the Amīr or Khalīfah due to a shortcoming or weakness, is one which requires extensive analysis. In this respect, Islām has made a distinction between religious and secular rulers. Religious rulers infer those leaders who possess religious government or a mixture of both religious and secular government. Secular rulers imply such leaders who merely administer a secular government. With regards to the first category of rulers, Allāh the Exalted states in the Holy Qur’ān:

“O ye who believe! Allāh has promised to those among you who instill within them a high level of faith, and perform good works of a high order, that He will surely appoint them as Successors in the earth, as he made Successors from among those who were before them; and that Allāh will grant strength and power to the religion He has chosen for the Khulafā’ through their persons; and that He will give them in exchange security and peace after their fear. These people shall always worship me, and they will not associate anything with Me. Those who do not obey these Khalīfahs, shall be among the treacherous and rebellious.”1

It is ascertained from this verse of the Holy Qur’ān that the Khilāfat of religious Khulafā’ is established by the special Power and Will of God the Exalted. They receive special succour from Allāh the Exalted and their purpose is to grant power and strength to the religious system of government. It is for this reason that a person who does not render obedience to such people is considered to be among the disobedient and rebellious. A practical example of this is narrated in a Ḥadīth:

“Ḥaḍrat ‘Ā’ishah(ra) relates that in the start of his terminal illness, the Holy Prophet(sa) said to me, ‘I had intended to call upon your father and brother, and leave behind a will with regards to the Khilāfat of Abū Bakr, so that someone else does not stand up in the desire for Khilāfat and does not claim that he is more worthy of Khilāfat than Abū Bakr. However, then I abandoned this intention with the thought that the community of the believers would never agree upon the Khilāfat of another person, nor would God allow for the Khilāfat of another person to be established.”2

This Ḥadīth evidently establishes that although the election of religious Khulafā’ apparently takes place through the consultation of people, in actuality, it is the hidden hand of God that guides the election process, and this is the true philosophy of the Islāmic Khilāfat. Apparently, the believers hold an election, but in truth, it is the Power of God which manifests itself. In other words, just as in the case of a Messenger or divinely appointed individual, although God does not physically reveal Himself, His hidden cords pull the hearts of people to the individual who is most worthy of Khilāfat.3 In these circumstances, with relation to religious Khulafā’, even though their election apparently takes place through a system of consultation, an appointment for a fixed term, or deposition after an election is absolutely out of the question. It is for this reason that Allāh has declared those people who do not render obedience to such Khulafā’ or disobey them after having sworn allegiance to them as being rebellious. Even if a person contemplates in terms of rationality, the appointment of a religious Khalīfah cannot be limited to a fixed-term, nor should the question of his deposition arise after an election, because the foundation of a religious relationship is based on faith and loyalty. A religious Khalīfah holds the position of an Imām, and though he is bound by the commandments of the Sharī‘at, and is not entitled to the right of alteration in any respect, but the task of its elaboration and implementation is entrusted to him. The task of religious governance is solely in his hand, and as far as actions are concerned, he is considered to be an example for the community. Therefore, to declare this spiritual relationship as being limited to a fixed-term or to make it lawful for people to severe a relationship of this nature is completely in contradiction with the spirit of religion. As a result of this, the fundamental purpose of spiritual relation, and the Bai‘at and company of righteous saints is lost completely. In this manner, the door to unreasonable freedom in religion is opened, the final result of which is nothing other than disbelief and irreligion.

However, in contrast to this, the issue of secular rulers is completely different. The basis of one’s relation to them is not on faith and sincerity; rather, it is based merely on political wisdoms, and nor do any religious disorders arise directly as a result of their election to a term in office or deposition. Therefore, with respect to merely political leaders, Islām has not prescribed any restriction in particular. Instead, people have been left free to limit the elections of their political leaders to a fixed-term if they deem it necessary, or strive to dismiss them in an appropriate manner if they feel it is necessary in extreme circumstances.