Is the Right of Leadership Specific to the Quraish?

In the discussion relevant to the rules of Islāmic governance, another question which arises is whether in light of Islāmic teachings, it is necessary for a Khalīfah or Amīr to be from a specific group of people. This question arises in particular due to various Aḥādīth where it is related that the Khulafā’ would be from the Quraish. Some people have understood this to infer that it is necessary for a Khalīfah or Amīr to be from the Quraish. However, this notion is absolutely incorrect and baseless. The first argument which repudiates this notion is that in principle, Islām does not accept a distinction in nation and race as far as religious or political rights are concerned. In other words, Islām does not accept that there are different castes which are entitled certain rights above others. Rather, Islām only accepts different casts and nations as being a means of introduction and identity amongst one another, nothing more, nothing less. As such, Allāh the Exalted states in the Holy Qur’ān:

“O ye Muslims! It is not permissible for one people to flaunt their superiority over another, or consider them to be inferior. For you know not who is more worthy in the sight of Allāh.......The purpose behind dividing you into different nations and tribes in this world, is only so that you may be facilitated in recognizing and distinguishing one another. The purpose is not so that you may flaunt your superiority or claim special rights on the basis of this differentiation. For in the sight of God, only he is superior who is greater in his obedience to divine law, irrespective of who he may be.”1

In addition to this clear and explicit fundamental teaching, even with respect to Khilāfat and leadership in particular, the Holy Qur’ān rejects the idea of a right by nation and family. Hence, Allāh the Exalted states in the Holy Qur’ān:

“God the Exalted orders you to hand over the reigns of government to such people who are worthy (irrespective of who they may be); and those who are elected as Amīrs should administer their government with equity and justice.”2

In this verse, the only condition which has been stipulated for a Khalīfah or Amīr is that he should be worthy of office. No other condition has been set, which is a categorical argument that there is no other condition for the election of a Khalīfah or Amīr in Islām except for capability. Similarly, the Holy Prophet(sa) states in a Ḥadīth:

“Ḥaḍrat Anas bin Mālik(ra) relates that the Holy Prophet(sa) would say, ‘O ye Muslims! Even if an Abyssinian slave is appointed as your Amīr, it is compulsory upon you to obey him.”3

In Islām, if it had been necessary for an Amīr to be from among the Quraish, this statement of the Holy Prophet(sa) would be empty of meaning. Instead, the Holy Prophet(sa) should have said, ‘Obey every Amīr from among the Quraish, irrespective of how he may be.’ Therefore, whether it be in terms of principle or specification, it is completely incorrect and baseless that government and Khilāfat has been made specific to a particular nation. The spirit of the Islāmic teachings repels such a notion from afar.

Now remains the question as to what is inferred by these Aḥādīth where it has been stated that Khulafā’ and Imāms would be from the Quraish. Even minor contemplation is sufficient to substantiate that this was a prophecy, not a general order or recommendation. In other words, just as Allāh the Exalted revealed many things that were to take place in the future by way of the Holy Prophet(sa), so too, he was informed that the Khulafā’ who were to be appointed after his demise would be from the tribe of the Quraish. If this is understood as a prophecy, absolutely no room for objection remains, because in any case, the Khulafā’ were bound to be from a certain people; or from one tribe or another. Moreover, in light of the circumstances of that era, if all of them were from the Quraish, no objection can be raised in this respect. In addition to this, it should also be remembered that in accordance with the era under discussion, it was the tribe of the Quraish that was most worthy of leadership. Firstly, it was the tribe of the Holy Prophet(sa), due to which it naturally possessed a deserved honour among the Muslims, and the people accepted its influence. Secondly, the tribe of the Quraish resided in the most central city of Arabia and it was also the guardian of the Ka‘bah, due to which it was looked upon with special regard and reverence throughout the land even in the era of the Jahiliyyah. The other tribes generally looked towards the Quraish in every matter and accepted their leadership. Thirdly, due to the administration which Qusayy bin Kilāb, their paramount forefather had instituted in Makkah, the people of the Quraish were well acquainted with the administration and method of governance. Except for them, no other tribe was so experienced in matters of administration. Fourthly, since the foremost pioneers of Islām were all from the Quraish, and they had received more opportunity than anyone else to live with the Holy Prophet(sa) and assimilate his teachings within themselves, they possessed much more capability than others in the Islāmic system of governance as well. On the basis of these reasons, the Quraish possessed a true and undeniable superiority over the other Arabian tribes of that era. If they had been excluded and the reigns of government had gone into the hands of the other tribes, this would have proven to be extremely detrimental for the country. Most definitely, no other tribe would have been able to run the administration of government with such skill and merit, as was done by the early Khulafā’ of Islām after the demise of the Holy Prophet(sa). However, this does not mean that Islām had given a monopoly of leadership to the Quraish forever. Hence, if on the one hand the statement that, “After me Khulafā’ and Islāmic rulers would be from the Quraish,” has been recorded, on the other hand, the Holy Prophet(sa) has also stated that ultimately, the Quraish would lose their ability to rule and would become a means of destroying the Islāmic government. To this affect, there is a Ḥadīth:

“Abū Hurairah(ra) relates that the Holy Prophet(sa) would state, ‘My community would ultimately be destroyed by the young men of the Quraish.’”4

In other words, when the state of the Quraish would deteriorate, and they would no longer be worthy of government, it would be a source of evil instead of being a source of mercy for leadership to remain in their hands; ultimately, the Islāmic government would crumble at the hands of the Quraish. Therefore, this is what actually occurred. Then, there are various narrations where the Holy Prophet(sa) has also mentioned that the leadership of the Quraish would continue until the resurrection. This also implies that the Quraish would remain in government until the downfall5 of the Islāmic community. Finally, the seed of destruction would be sown by their very own hands, and then, a new era would dawn upon Islām. In summary, a collective study of the Qur’ān and Aḥādīth evidently proves that the statement of the Holy Prophet(sa) regarding the leadership and Khilāfat of the Quraish merely alluded to a prophecy. This did not imply an order or recommendation. Moreover, this prophecy was limited to a specific time frame, in that it particularly referred to the first era of Islām. The intent of the Holy Prophet(sa) was that since the Quraish were most worthy of leadership at the time, for this reason, it was they who would continue to rule and stay in power. However, after the passage of time, they would lose this ability and the community of the Holy Prophet(sa) would undergo a revolution, after which the landmarks of a new era would be chalked out. Hence, it is not correct to assert that Islām has limited the right of leadership to a specific dynasty or people. Rather, the truth is that in Islām, leadership is established by election, and in this election, the door has been left open for every individual.

This is a brief outline of the method of governance presented by Islām. Every sensible and unprejudiced individual can appreciate that this is the best possible guidance which could have been given in this respect. Aside from being perfect in terms of political philosophy, this teaching is so comprehensive that it can serve as a lamp of guidance for every era and nation despite a reasonable variance in details. Furthermore, even the politicians of the advanced western countries of this day and age have been unable to present the world with a more successful system in political philosophy. It is obvious that the fundamental principles of politics are four in number. Firstly, that the appointment of an Amīr or Head of State should be based on some principle, whether it be due to a right of inheritance, a hereditary right, by the vote of a few people in particular, or by the consultation of the majority or masses. Secondly, when a person takes charge of his position as leader, what method of governance should be employed? Should the system be autocratic and dictatorial, or based on the opinion and consultation of the people in accordance with some law? Thirdly, how should people deal with their Amīr? Should they follow a course of cooperation and obedience to the furthest extent, or oppose him in everything which is against their own view, and create hindrances for him, and stand up against him with a large clamor on their own accord whenever they feel a threat to their rights, or consider an action of the Amīr to be worthy of objection? Fourthly, if the conduct of an Amīr is actually unlawful, worthy of objection, he reaches an extreme state which becomes difficult to bear, and insists upon his cruel practice, then what course of action should be employed in such a case? As far as these four principle issues are concerned, Islām has presented a such teaching which is the essence of the best form of politics. For the welfare of humanity, and peace and harmony of the world, such a foundation has been established by this teaching, that if one follows it, the relationship between a leader and his people cannot deteriorate in the first place. If, ever, they do happen to deteriorate, the country remains secure from its dangerous and detrimental results. This teaching was given by the Holy Prophet(sa) in a time when hereditary and dictatorial rule was primarily prevalent in the world and most countries were oblivious to even the thought of cooperation and consultation.