Is electing Shari' rulers haraam?

[Abu Hamzah]

Assalamu'Alaykum,

I've been thinking about this subject for awhile on how a Muslim ruler who rulers by the Shariah could be elected, I looked up the issue on IslamQA and I found this:

Islam Question and Answer - How the caliph of the Muslims is appointed

Relevant part:

He was chosen and elected by the decision makers (ahl al-hall wa’l-‘aqd). For example, Abu Bakr al-Siddeeq became caliph when he was elected by the decision makers, then the Sahaabah unanimously agreed with that and swore allegiance to him, and accepted him as caliph. ‘Uthmaan ibn ‘Affaan (may Allaah be pleased with him) became caliph in a similar manner, when ‘Umar ibn al-Khattaab (may Allaah be pleased with him) delegated the appointment of the caliph to come after him to a shoora council of six of the senior Sahaabah, who were to elect one of their number. ‘Abd al-Rahmaan ibn ‘Awf consulted the Muhaajireen and Ansaar, and when he saw that the people were all inclined towards ‘Uthmaan, he swore allegiance to him first, then the rest of the six swore allegiance to him, followed by the Muhaajireen and Ansaar, so he was elected as caliph by the decision makers. ‘Ali ibn Abi Taalib (may Allaah be pleased with him) became caliph in a similar manner, when he was elected by most of the decision makers.

How does one define who the ahl al-hall wa'l-'aqd are? Are they just tribal leaders and prominent people? Then dosent this mean that the early Islamic model was a form of an autocracy? Obviously that wouldnt have been a problem since all of the prominent peiople back then were the Sahabahs of the Prophet (Salla Allahu Alayhi Wa Salam) and they were the best generations to ever exist. But what about now? When all of the "autocrats" are liberals and secularists and while most of the normal people are Islamists (as was proven by the recent elections in Egypt, Tunisia and Morocco)..

Would it be permissible to now expand the definition of ahl al-hall wa'l-'aqd to include the entire Muslim Ummah? Or perhaps maybe we could just narrow it down to include only the Ulema, since the Sahabahs themselves were ulema on their own right?

Some people have a problem with allowing the layman to choose the khalifah since he might vote for a secularist, which means that he is voting to ruler with other than Allah's laws. But what if the system had the necessary safeguards to prevent that from happening? Like what they have in Turkey except the opposite, if the ruler starts to rule other than with Allah's law then the army steps in and deposes him.

What do you guys think?

[Ibn al-Iskandar]

Excellent question and interesting discussion.

According to the book by Dr. Abd Allah at-Tarifee 'Ahl al-Hall wal-`Aqd: Sifatahum wa Waza'ifahum, Ahl al-Hall Wal-‘Aqd must have the following characteristics:

1) Muslim

2) Responsible (Takleef)

3) Have Integrity (Adalah)

4) Have the Minimum Requisite Knowledge (Ilm adh-Dharuri)

5) Have Power (Shawkah)

6) Be Male

Their position is to choose who is best suited for Imamate or who is to be given Bay'ah, to command the good and prevent evil, and advise the entire Ummah.

As a condition of their agreement on a matter then obeying them becomes obligatory and it is not allowed to disagree with them or revolt against them.

They consist of 3 groups- the scholars, the Amirs, and the notables (Wujaha').

One thing that is pointed out as a Shadh or weak example is the participation of women in Ahl al-Hall wal-`Aqd.

Click on the link in the first mention of the title of the book to download the PDF and have a look at the rest of it. It is only 15 pages long.

[Abu Hamzah]

Excellent question and interesting discussion.

According to the book by Dr. Abd Allah at-Tarifee 'Ahl al-Hall wal-`Aqd: Sifatahum wa Waza'ifahum, Ahl al-Hall Wal-‘Aqd must have the following characteristics:

1) Muslim

2) Responsible (Takleef)

3) Have Integrity (Adalah)

4) Have the Minimum Requisite Knowledge (Ilm adh-Dharuri)

5) Have Power (Shawkah)

6) Be Male

Their position is to choose who is best suited for Imamate or who is to be given Bay'ah, to command the good and prevent evil, and advise the entire Ummah.

As a condition of their agreement on a matter then obeying them becomes obligatory and it is not allowed to disagree with them or revolt against them.

They consist of 3 groups- the scholars, the Amirs, and the notables (Wujaha').

One thing that is pointed out as a Shadh or weak example is the participation of women in Ahl al-Hall wal-`Aqd.

Click on the link in the first mention of the title of the book to download the PDF and have a look at the rest of it. It is only 15 pages long.

BarakAllah feek!

Also, did you by any chance read Ibn Taymiyyah's as-Siyasah ash-Shari'ah, if so did he make any mention of this topic? I havent read the book myself, so that's why I'm asking.

[Intoodeep]

Just because in the past, the rulers were given bayah by the Ahl al-Hall Wal-‘Aqd, Does not mean we have to follow the same procedure.

Many Islaamic movements are still autocratic. So in long term they will not survive. this is because initially they may be full of sincere people. but once in power than people can be easily corrupted.

This is why when a true islamic state is established, then we should allow the people to elect their rulers. In and OUT.

Otherwise we will end up sooner or later in depotism and monarchies again.

[AbuSumayyah]

Assalaamu alaikum,

What are the proofs from Shari'ah, if any, that the ruler must be chosen by Ahl Hall Wal-'Aqd?

As far as I understand, that was the method decided by the Sahabah, may Allah be pleased with them. But does that mean we MUST follow the same method?

[AbdulMatin]

if the issue of Ahlul halli wal aqd is investigated its reality is that they were that group of people who were considered to represent the views of the masses, ie were their leaders and their decisions would be accepted by the people who followed them

the origin is that the bay'a to the ruler is a contract between one man to be the Amir, and the ummah who will accept them as the Amir. Like any other Islamic contract - it is based upon offer and acceptance, with the condition of both sides being content with it. So the central point is that the Ummah's will as to who is best to rule them by Islam is represented. whether this is done through consultation of the tribal leaders, direct or indirect elections etc. is not important as these are simply was'il to reach the issue of knowing whom the Ummah wants.

ws

[AbdulMatin]

Just because in the past, the rulers were given bayah by the Ahl al-Hall Wal-‘Aqd, Does not mean we have to follow the same procedure.

Many Islaamic movements are still autocratic. So in long term they will not survive. this is because initially they may be full of sincere people. but once in power than people can be easily corrupted.

This is why when a true islamic state is established, then we should allow the people to elect their rulers. In and OUT.

Otherwise we will end up sooner or later in depotism and monarchies again.

salam - just to point out, we don't elect our rulers out. If they do something or implement something against Islam they are to be removed immediately, otherwise they are left on their contract with the ummah, which is to rule them by Islam and to have obedience from them.

this is actually - if implemented correctly - much more accountable than a system of periodic elections which has many issues (and is not in accordance with the Islamic evidences regarding how and when to get rid of an Amir)

ws

[wahhabi dissident]

brother i think you mean aristocracy not autocracy. autocracy means one man has unlimited power and this is not allowed because when the khalif does not rule with shariah he is replaced. the ummah can all vote if they have been properly educated but the secularists should be banned from running in elections so no one ends up choosing them. yes the military should be loyal to islam and replace the khalif if he goes out of bounds.

[gag order]

Some people have a problem with allowing the layman to choose the khalifah

laymen do not elect. their purpose is to obey those in authority. when an Islamic group seizes power they will elect amongst themselves and appoint a ruler and determine amongst themselves who is to be appointed to what position they do this via consultation and alliagence not via the ballot box.

[Intoodeep]

salam - just to point out, we don't elect our rulers out. If they do something or implement something against Islam they are to be removed immediately, otherwise they are left on their contract with the ummah, which is to rule them by Islam and to have obedience from them.

There is nothing from Quran and Sunnah forbidding us from only electing a caliph for a fixed term.

We Need to learn lessons from our history. We dont want the return of Kingships.

laymen do not elect. their purpose is to obey those in authority. when an Islamic group seizes power they will elect amongst themselves and appoint a ruler and determine amongst themselves who is to be appointed to what position they do this via consultation and alliagence not via the ballot box.

No, thats similar to how communists rule in china etc. Eventually all parties and groups become corrupt. esp if they rule and there are worldly benefits in joining them.

We need to set up multiple islamist parties, and fixed terms for governance. thats the only way in the modern world. Otherwise you wouldnt get any real accountancy and that would lead to tyranny and corruption.