Why the Khalīfah Must Be from Quraysh: A Response

﷽

The Prophet ﷺ said, “This matter will remain in Quraysh as long as two people remain” [Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim].¹

An article on this blog, Is Leadership Limited to Quraish?, argues that a non-Qurashī may be appointed khalīfah even when the people of authority choose freely. I hold that Qurashī lineage is a condition for appointing the khalīfah. The sunnah states it, the ṣaḥābah (rḍa) acted on it, and the consensus that followed is not broken by the evidence the article brings.

Two matters are agreed upon. The article accepts that most of these aḥādīth are authentic. It also accepts that a non-Qurashī who takes power by force is obeyed. The dispute is only over appointment by choice, and I answer the article’s arguments in its own order.

The Consensus Stands

Al-Qāḍī ʿIyāḍ (rḥ) wrote that the condition “is the position of all the scholars, and they counted it among the matters of consensus.”² Al-Nawawī (rḥ) adds that “on this the consensus was formed in the time of the ṣaḥābah, and likewise after them.”³ The article tries to weaken this consensus in three ways. None of them succeeds.

The Scholars Named as Dissenters Affirm the Condition

The article cites Imām al-Ḥaramayn al-Juwaynī (rḥ) from al-Irshād: “the possibility is open in my view.” In Ghiyāth al-Umam, his book devoted to the imāmah, al-Juwaynī states the ruling plainly: “The condition is that the imām be Qurashī. No one differed on the condition of lineage except Ḍirār ibn ʿAmr, and he is not one whose disagreement or agreement counts.”⁴

His hesitation was over the method of proof. He did not accept that the ḥadīth “the imāms are from Quraysh” reaches the level of tawātur (mass transmission), so he established the condition from the unbroken practice of the ummah instead: “This, then, is the way of establishing the condition of lineage.”⁵ A scholar who affirms the condition and only debates which proof yields certainty is not a dissenter.

The quote attributed to Abū Bakr al-Bāqillānī (rḥ) from al-Tamhīd is not found in the printed book. The editors of al-Mawsūʿah al-ʿAqadiyyah note that it reaches us through a modern editor’s note, and that the circulating edition of al-Tamhīd omits the book of imāmah. In al-Inṣāf, al-Bāqillānī lists being Qurashī among the conditions of the imām.⁶

Ibn Ḥajar (rḥ) also quotes Abū Bakr ibn al-Ṭayyib, which is al-Bāqillānī’s own name, rejecting the Khārijī view: “The Muslims did not turn to this view after the ḥadīth ‘the imāms are from Quraysh’ was established. The Muslims acted on it generation after generation, and the consensus on requiring it was formed before the disagreement occurred.”⁷ Ibn Khaldūn does report that al-Bāqillānī dropped the condition, and he gives the reason: al-Bāqillānī saw that the strength of Quraysh had vanished and that non-Arab kings ruled over the khulafā’.⁸ That is a response to the conditions of his time, and it is the non-ideal case the article itself sets aside.

The Report from ʿUmar (rḍa) About Muʿādh Is Disconnected

Ibn Ḥajar wrote that whoever reports the consensus must explain the report in which ʿUmar (rḍa) said he would appoint Muʿādh ibn Jabal (rḍa), and he described its chain as having reliable narrators.⁹ Reliable narrators do not make a connected chain. The narrators of this report, Shurayḥ ibn ʿUbayd and Rāshid ibn Saʿd, never met ʿUmar. Shuʿayb al-Arna’ūṭ grades it: “Its chain is weak because it is broken; Shurayḥ ibn ʿUbayd did not meet ʿUmar.” Al-Haythamī says the same. The other routes he lists are also broken: Shahr ibn Ḥawshab did not meet ʿUmar, and Thābit ibn al-Ḥajjāj says only “it reached me.”¹⁰ The article itself concedes the chain is ḥasan only “if it is connected.” It is not.

The editors of al-Mawsūʿah al-ʿAqadiyyah answer Ibn Ḥajar’s objection on this ground: an explanation is needed only if the report of ʿUmar contradicting the consensus is authentic, “but this report is weak because it is broken.”¹¹

The reports about Sālim, the freed slave of Abū Ḥudhayfah (rḍa), are weaker still. One rests on ʿAlī ibn Zayd ibn Judʿān, who is weak, and the rest are mursal (missing a link) from Shahr ibn Ḥawshab, al-Ḥasan al-Baṣrī, and ʿAbdullāh ibn Buraydah, none of whom heard from ʿUmar.¹² Weak reports that each miss the same link do not establish that ʿUmar held a view against the ṣaḥābah. Even if the Sālim report were authentic, Ibn Khaldūn explains that “the freed slave of a people is from them,” and that Sālim belonged to Quraysh through walā’ (clientage).¹³

What is authentic from ʿUmar is his act. When he was dying and the people asked him to appoint a successor, he named six men for the shūrā: ʿAlī, ʿUthmān, al-Zubayr, Ṭalḥah, Saʿd, and ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn ʿAwf (rḍa).¹⁴ All six are from Quraysh, and none of the Anṣār was placed among the candidates.

Consensus After Disagreement Within One Generation

The article argues that no consensus can form after the ṣaḥābah disagreed. The scholars of uṣūl separate two cases. When the people of one generation disagree and then agree, their agreement is a consensus and the earlier disagreement falls away. The disputed case is when a later generation agrees on one of two views held by an earlier one.

Abū al-Muẓaffar al-Samʿānī (rḥ) gives the Saqīfah as his very example of the first case: “the Anṣār said, ‘A leader from us and a leader from you.’ Then when Abū Bakr argued with them and informed them that the khilāfah is only valid in this clan of Quraysh, they returned to his view and the disagreement ended.”¹⁵ The objection about consensus after disagreement therefore applies to a different case.

The Dissent of Ḍirār and the Khawārij

The early dissenters were the Khawārij and some of the Muʿtazilah. Ibn Ḥajar records that Ḍirār ibn ʿAmr went so far as to say a non-Qurashī is better, “because he has a smaller clan, so if he disobeys, it is easier to depose him.”¹⁶ Al-Shahrastānī adds that even the Muʿtazilah who allowed a non-Qurashī rejected Ḍirār’s preference for him.¹⁷

This dissent came after the ṣaḥābah had agreed at the Saqīfah, as al-Bāqillānī stated above. Whichever definition of consensus one adopts, the agreement of the ṣaḥābah came first. Ibn Ḥajar also notes that the later Sunni rulers who took the title of khalīfah without Qurashī lineage, such as ʿAbd al-Mu’min in the Maghrib, “imitated the Khawārij in this.”¹⁸

The Saqīfah Establishes the Condition

In ʿUmar’s (rḍa) account, Abū Bakr (rḍa) said to the Anṣār, “This matter will not be recognized except for this clan of Quraysh. They are the most central of the Arabs in lineage and home.” Then all present, the Muhājirūn and then the Anṣār, gave him the pledge.¹⁹ In ʿĀ’ishah’s (rḍa) account, Abū Bakr said, “We are the rulers and you are the ministers.” Al-Ḥubāb ibn al-Mundhir (rḍa) answered, “No, by Allāh, we will not do that. A ruler from us and a ruler from you.” Abū Bakr replied, “No. We are the rulers and you are the ministers.”²⁰ Abū Bakr refused even a shared leadership. The Anṣār then gave him the pledge.

Abū Bakr’s Reason Is the Prophet’s ﷺ Reason

The article argues that Abū Bakr gave a worldly reason, so he did not believe in a religious ruling. The Prophet ﷺ himself grounded the ruling in the same fact: “The people are followers of Quraysh in this matter. Their Muslims follow their Muslims, and their disbelievers follow their disbelievers” [Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim].²¹ Al-Nawawī explains: Quraysh “were the chiefs of the Arabs in the Jāhiliyyah … and likewise in Islam they are the holders of the khilāfah and the people follow them.”²² Abū Bakr’s phrase “this matter … for this clan of Quraysh” is the wording of the aḥādīth: “This matter is in Quraysh.”

A ruling that has a stated wisdom is still a ruling. Ibn Khaldūn (rḥ) holds that every legal ruling has a purpose, and that the purpose of this one is the group strength of Quraysh, which kept the ummah united.²³ He goes on to reduce the condition to that strength, so that the ruler need only come from the dominant group of his age.²⁴ The Prophet ﷺ did not leave room for this. He tied the matter to Quraysh “until the Day of Judgement” and “as long as two people remain,” which reach far past the age of Qurashī strength. A wisdom explains a ruling. It does not replace the description the Lawgiver named. That Abū Bakr explained the wisdom to the Anṣār shows he understood the ruling, and it does not show that no ruling existed.

Reports in Which Abū Bakr Cites the Prophet ﷺ

The article dismisses the report of Ḥumayd ibn ʿAbd al-Raḥmān in Musnad Aḥmad, in which Abū Bakr reminds Saʿd ibn ʿUbādah (rḍa) that the Prophet ﷺ said in his presence, “Quraysh are the guardians of this matter,” and Saʿd answers, “You have spoken the truth. We are the ministers and you are the rulers.” The report is mursal, as the article says. Al-Arna’ūṭ still grades it: “Ṣaḥīḥ li-ghayrihi (authentic through supporting reports). Its narrators are reliable, narrators of the two Ṣaḥīḥs, and it is mursal.” He supports the prophetic wording with the ḥadīth of Abū Hurayrah (rḍa) in al-Bukhārī and Muslim.²⁵

Ibn Ḥajar adds a report from Ibn Isḥāq’s account of the Saqīfah, in which Abū Bakr said, “This matter is in Quraysh, as long as they obey Allāh and remain upright upon His command.”²⁶ ʿUmar’s sermon in al-Bukhārī is a summary told years later to warn against sudden pledges. That it does not quote a ḥadīth does not prove that none was mentioned, when other reports say one was.

Ibn Khaldūn sums up the outcome: Quraysh argued with the Anṣār, “and the Anṣār returned from their saying ‘a leader from us and a leader from you,’ and turned away from the pledge to Saʿd they had intended.”²⁷ The Anṣār held a view before Abū Bakr spoke and left it after he spoke. That is how a consensus forms after disagreement, as al-Samʿānī explained.

The Aḥādīth Carry a Ruling

Ibn Ḥajar gathered the routes of “the imāms are from Quraysh” from about forty Companions in a separate volume.²⁸ Al-Albānī (rḥ) reports that ʿAlī al-Qārī quoted Ibn Ḥajar calling it mutawātir.²⁹ The article reads all of these reports as prophecies. That reading fails for four reasons.

The Wording Restricts the Matter to Quraysh

Ibn al-Munayyir explains that the proof does not rest on Quraysh being mentioned. It rests on “this matter” being defined with the article of the genus, which restricts the whole matter to Quraysh: “It is as if he said: there is no rule except in Quraysh … and although the ḥadīth has the wording of a report, it has the meaning of a command, as if he said: take only Quraysh as your imāms.”³⁰ Al-Qurṭubī calls it “a report about what is legislated: the great imāmah is not contracted except for a Qurashī, as long as one of them is found.”³¹ The Qur’ān uses the same form: ⟪Divorced women remain in waiting for three periods⟫ is a report in wording and a command in meaning.³²

A Prophecy Reading Makes the Prophet’s ﷺ Words False

The report of one who is truthful cannot fail. Non-Qurashīs have claimed the khilāfah, from the Khawārij to ʿAbd al-Mu’min, and the ʿAbbāsid khilāfah has ended. Ibn Ḥajar notes that whoever reads the ḥadīth as a pure report must explain such events away, “because he understood it as a pure report, and the report of the truthful does not fail. As for one who takes it as a command, he does not need this explanation.”³³

The article meets this problem in the ḥadīth of ʿAmr ibn al-ʿĀṣ (rḍa): “Quraysh are the guardians of the people, in good and in evil, until the Day of Judgement.” Al-Tirmidhī grades it ḥasan gharīb ṣaḥīḥ.³⁴ The article calls this prophecy “false” and blames a narrator, Ḥabīb ibn al-Zubayr, whom it admits al-Nasā’ī and Abū Dāwūd declared reliable. A reading that requires rejecting an authentic ḥadīth is weaker than a reading that keeps it. Read as a ruling, the ḥadīth holds: the right to the khilāfah belongs to Quraysh until the Day of Judgement, whether people honor it or not. ʿAmr’s answer fits this. A man of Bakr ibn Wā’il threatened that the matter would be placed among other Arabs, and ʿAmr said, “You have lied.”

The ḥadīth of Ibn ʿUmar shows the same thing. “As long as two people remain” refers to the end of the world. Ibn Ḥajar explains that “the actual number is not meant. What is meant is to deny that the matter can be in anyone other than Quraysh.”³⁵ The article’s own preferred reading, that it meant “the current generation,” gives no meaning to a phrase that points to the last two people on earth.

The Aḥādīth Use the Language of Rights and Commands

In the ḥadīth of Anas (rḍa), the Prophet ﷺ said, “The imāms are from Quraysh. They have a right over you, and you have a like right over them, as long as they show mercy when mercy is sought, keep their covenants, and judge with justice.” Al-Arna’ūṭ grades it authentic through its routes and supporting reports.³⁶ A right owed to someone is a legal term. A prophecy does not create rights owed by the ummah.

The command is also stated directly: “Put Quraysh forward, and do not go ahead of them.” Al-Albānī grades it ṣaḥīḥ. The strongest route is the mursal of al-Zuhrī, whose narrators Nabīl al-Baṣārah describes as reliable in Anīs al-Sārī. Al-Albānī records that al-Bayhaqī called the mursal of Ibn Abī Ḥathmah “a good mursal.” The connected routes are individually weak, as he details there, so the ḥadīth rests on the mursal and its supporting routes.³⁷ Ibn Ḥajar cites this ḥadīth as the explicit command behind al-Qurṭubī’s reading.³⁸ The article asks why there is no clear command. This is one.

“As Long As They Establish the Religion” Is a Condition on Quraysh

Muʿāwiyah (rḍa) narrated, “This matter is in Quraysh. No one opposes them except that Allāh throws him on his face, as long as they establish the religion” [Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī].³⁹ Ibn Ḥajar lists three kinds of reports on this condition: Quraysh are cursed if they fail, they are threatened with someone set over them who harms them, and the matter leaves them.⁴⁰ All three are warnings addressed to Quraysh.

These reports describe what happens when Quraysh abandon the religion. They do not give the people of authority a choice to pass over a Qurashī who upholds it. This is al-Qurṭubī’s qualification: “as long as one of them is found.” The ruling and the condition work together. A Qurashī who establishes the religion is appointed, and a Qurashī who abandons it loses the protection the ḥadīth promises.

The Prophet ﷺ also said the twelve khulafā’ of this ummah would all be from Quraysh.⁴¹ Every text on the khilāfah points the same way.

The Remaining Objections

The Ethiopian Slave

The Prophet ﷺ said, “Listen and obey, even if an Ethiopian slave whose head is like a raisin is appointed over you” [Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī].⁴² The verb is ustuʿmila, “is appointed over you,” which describes a governor placed by someone above him. Ibn Khaldūn explains that it “came by way of example, and its purpose is emphasis in requiring listening and obedience.”⁴³ Ibn Ḥajar adds that the Prophet’s ﷺ appointment of Zayd ibn Ḥārithah, Usāmah, and others as commanders “has nothing to do with the great imāmah. Rather, it shows that the khalīfah may delegate to a non-Qurashī.”⁴⁴

The Man from Qaḥṭān

The article concedes this is not its strongest argument. The ḥadīth says, “The Hour will not be established until a man from Qaḥṭān comes out, driving the people with his stick” [Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī].⁴⁵ Ibn Ḥajar explains that al-Bukhārī placed it in the chapter on the change of times until idols are worshipped, which indicates that the Qaḥṭānī rules at the end of time, after the people of faith are taken, over “the worst of people, upon whom the Hour is established.”⁴⁶ A sign of the Hour’s corruption gives no permission to choose such a ruler.

Conclusion

In conclusion, Qurashī lineage is a condition for appointing the khalīfah when the people of authority choose freely. The Prophet ﷺ restricted “this matter” to Quraysh and gave them a right over the ummah. Abū Bakr (rḍa) refused even a shared leadership at the Saqīfah, the Anṣār accepted, and ʿUmar (rḍa) limited the shūrā to six Qurashīs. The reports that ʿUmar wished to appoint Muʿādh or Sālim are broken, and the scholars named as dissenters affirmed the condition in their own books. Reading these aḥādīth as prophecies forces one to call an authentic ḥadīth false. Read as a ruling, every text agrees.

The scholars agree on what follows from this. A non-Qurashī who rules by force is obeyed, and a Qurashī who abandons the religion loses the promise that protects him. Neither case changes the condition for a free appointment.

And Allāh ﷻ knows best.

---

1. Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim 1820, Book of Government. https://sunnah.com/muslim:1820 The Arabic is «لَا يَزَالُ هَذَا الْأَمْرُ فِي قُرَيْشٍ مَا بَقِيَ مِنَ النَّاسِ اثْنَانِ». Al-Bukhārī narrates it from the same teacher with «مَا بَقِيَ مِنْهُمُ اثْنَانِ», Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī 3501. https://sunnah.com/bukhari:3501 ↩︎
2. Sharḥ Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim by al-Nawawī 12/200 https://app.turath.io/book/1711?page=2766 «قال القاضي اشتراط كونه قرشيا هو مذهب العلماء كافة … قال القاضي وقد عدها العلماء في مسائل الإجماع ولم ينقل عن أحد من السلف فيها قول ولا فعل يخالف ما ذكرنا» ↩︎
3. Sharḥ Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim by al-Nawawī 12/200 https://app.turath.io/book/1711?page=2766 «هذه الأحاديث وأشباهها دليل ظاهر أن الخلافة مختصة بقريش لا يجوز عقدها لأحد من غيرهم وعلى هذا انعقد الإجماع في زمن الصحابة فكذلك بعدهم» ↩︎
4. Ghiyāth al-Umam by al-Juwaynī 1/79-80 https://app.turath.io/book/8323?page=76 https://app.turath.io/book/8323?page=77 «فالشرط أن يكون الإمام قرشيا، ولم يخالف في اشتراط النسب غير ضرار بن عمرو، وليس ممن يعتبر خلافه ووفاقه» ↩︎
5. Ghiyāth al-Umam by al-Juwaynī 1/80-81 https://app.turath.io/book/8323?page=77 https://app.turath.io/book/8323?page=78 «فإن نقلة هذا الحديث معدودون، لا يبلغون مبلغ عدد التواتر … فالوجه في إثبات ما نحاوله في ذلك أن الماضين ما زالوا بايحين باختصاص هذا المنصب بقريش … فهذا وجه إثبات شرط النسب» ↩︎
6. Al-Mawsūʿah al-ʿAqadiyyah 8/57 https://app.turath.io/book/38058?page=3565 It quotes al-Inṣāf: «ويجب أن يعلم أن الإمامة لا تصلح إلا لمن تجتمع فيه شرائط منها: أن يكون قرشيا», and on the Tamhīd quote: «ولم أقف على هذا الكلام في كتاب التمهيد لأن النسخة الموجودة المتداولة الآن … قد حذفوا كتاب الإمامة كاملا». ↩︎
7. Fatḥ al-Bārī by Ibn Ḥajar 13/118-119 https://app.turath.io/book/1673?page=7549 https://app.turath.io/book/1673?page=7550 «وقال أبو بكر بن الطيب: لم يعرج المسلمون على هذا القول بعد ثبوت حديث الأئمة من قريش، وعمل المسلمون به قرنا بعد قرن، وانعقد الإجماع على اعتبار ذلك قبل أن يقع الاختلاف» ↩︎
8. Tārīkh Ibn Khaldūn (al-Muqaddimah) 1/243 https://app.turath.io/book/12320?page=241 «ومن القائلين بنفي اشتراط القرشية القاضي أبو بكر الباقلاني لما أدرك عليه عصبية قريش من التلاشي والاضمحلال واستبداد ملوك العجم من الخلفاء فأسقط شرط القرشية» ↩︎
9. Fatḥ al-Bārī by Ibn Ḥajar 13/119 https://app.turath.io/book/1673?page=7550 «ويحتاج من نقل الإجماع إلى تأويل ما جاء عن عمر من ذلك، فقد أخرج أحمد عن عمر بسند رجاله ثقات … فيحتمل أن يقال: لعل الإجماع انعقد بعد عمر على اشتراط أن يكون الخليفة قرشيا، أو تغير اجتهاد عمر في ذلك» ↩︎
10. Musnad Aḥmad (al-Risālah ed.), Ḥadīth 108, with the notes of Shuʿayb al-Arna’ūṭ, 1/263-264 https://app.turath.io/book/25794?page=239 https://app.turath.io/book/25794?page=240 «إسناده ضعيف لانقطاعه، شريح بن عبيد لم يدرك عمر … وأورده الهيثمي في مجمع الزوائد ٩ / ٦٢ وقال: رواه الطبراني في الأوسط، ورجاله ثقات إلا أن شريح بن عبيد لم يدرك عمر» and on the other routes: «وهذا منقطع أيضا شهر بن حوشب لم يدرك عمر … قال: بلغني أن عمر بن الخطاب قال … وهذا منقطع أيضا». ↩︎
11. Al-Mawsūʿah al-ʿAqadiyyah 8/56 https://app.turath.io/book/38058?page=3564 «والواقع أنه لا يرجع إلى التأويل إلا إذا صح الخبر في مخالفة عمر للإجماع، ولكن هذا الأثر ضعيف لانقطاعه» ↩︎
12. Takhrīj Aḥādīth wa Āthār Kitāb fī Ẓilāl al-Qur’ān 1/497 https://app.turath.io/book/2615?page=494 «روى نحو هذا القول الإمام أحمد في المسند بإسناد فيه علي ابن زيد بن جدعان، وهو ضعيف. ورواه: عمر بن شبه في تاريخ المدينة، وأبو نعيم في الحلية؛ من مرسل شهر بن حوشب، وهو لم يدرك عمر … ورواه عمر بن شبه بإسنادين مرسلين أيضا عن الحسن البصري وعبد الله بن بريدة» ↩︎
13. Tārīkh Ibn Khaldūn (al-Muqaddimah) 1/243 https://app.turath.io/book/12320?page=241 «وأيضا فمولى القوم منهم وعصبية الولاء حاصلة لسالم في قريش وهي الفائدة في اشتراط النسب» ↩︎
14. Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī 3700, Book of the Companions. https://sunnah.com/bukhari:3700 ↩︎
15. Qawāṭiʿ al-Adillah fī al-Uṣūl by Abū al-Muẓaffar al-Samʿānī 2/28-29 https://app.turath.io/book/12049?page=542 https://app.turath.io/book/12049?page=543 «فالضرب الأول: أن يحدث الإجماع بعد تقدم الخلاف في عصر واحد كاختلاف الصحابة ثم إجماعهم بعد خلافهم فيصير الإجماع بهم منعقد وما تقدم من خلافهم ساقطا … وقد وجد في الصحابة من ذلك خلافهم في الصحبة حيث قالت الأنصار: منا أمير ومنكم أمير ثم أن أبا بكر ﵁ لما حاججهم وأخبر أن الخلافة لا تصلح إلا في هذا الحى من قريش رجعوا إلى قوله وزال الخلاف». He places agreement across two generations in a separate fourth category: «والضرب الرابع: أن يحدث الإجماع بعد تقدم الخلاف في عصرين». ↩︎
16. Fatḥ al-Bārī by Ibn Ḥajar 13/118 https://app.turath.io/book/1673?page=7549 «وقالت الخوارج وطائفة من المعتزلة: يجوز أن يكون الإمام غير قرشي … وبالغ ضرار بن عمرو فقال: تولية غير القرشي أولى لأنه يكون أقل عشيرة، فإذا عصى كان أمكن لخلعه» ↩︎
17. Al-Milal wa al-Niḥal by al-Shahrastānī 1/91 https://app.turath.io/book/11812?page=105 «والمعتزلة وإن جوزوا الإمامة في غير قريش؛ إلا أنهم لا يجوزون تقديم النبطي على القرشي» ↩︎
18. Fatḥ al-Bārī by Ibn Ḥajar 13/119 https://app.turath.io/book/1673?page=7550 «ثم تسمى بالخلافة من قام في قطر من الأقطار في وقت ما فتسمى بالخلافة وليس من قريش كبني عباد وغيرهم بالأندلس كعبد المؤمن وذريته ببلاد المغرب كلها، وهؤلاء ضاهوا الخوارج في هذا ولم يقولوا بأقوالهم» ↩︎
19. Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī 6830, Book of Ḥudūd. https://sunnah.com/bukhari:6830 «وَلَنْ يُعْرَفَ هَذَا الأَمْرُ إِلاَّ لِهَذَا الْحَىِّ مِنْ قُرَيْشٍ، هُمْ أَوْسَطُ الْعَرَبِ نَسَبًا وَدَارًا» ↩︎
20. Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī 3667-3668, Book of the Companions. https://sunnah.com/bukhari:3667 «نَحْنُ الأُمَرَاءُ وَأَنْتُمُ الْوُزَرَاءُ … فَقَالَ حُبَابُ بْنُ الْمُنْذِرِ لاَ وَاللَّهِ لاَ نَفْعَلُ، مِنَّا أَمِيرٌ وَمِنْكُمْ أَمِيرٌ … فَقَالَ أَبُو بَكْرٍ لاَ، وَلَكِنَّا الأُمَرَاءُ وَأَنْتُمُ الْوُزَرَاءُ» ↩︎
21. Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim 1818a, Book of Government. https://sunnah.com/muslim:1818a ↩︎
22. Sharḥ Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim by al-Nawawī 12/200 https://app.turath.io/book/1711?page=2766 «لأنهم كانوا في الجاهلية رؤساء العرب وأصحاب حرم الله وأهل حج بيت الله وكانت العرب تنظر إسلامهم … وكذلك في الإسلام هم أصحاب الخلافة والناس تبع لهم» ↩︎
23. Tārīkh Ibn Khaldūn (al-Muqaddimah) 1/244 https://app.turath.io/book/12320?page=242 «إن الأحكام الشرعية كلها لا بد لها من مقاصد وحكم تشتمل عليها وتشرع لأجلها … لم نجدها إلا اعتبار العصبية التي تكون بها الحماية والمطالبة ويرتفع الخلاف والفرقة بوجودها لصاحب المنصب» ↩︎
24. Tārīkh Ibn Khaldūn (al-Muqaddimah) 1/244-245 https://app.turath.io/book/12320?page=242 https://app.turath.io/book/12320?page=243 «فإذا ثبت أن اشتراط القرشية إنما هو لدفع التنازع بما كان لهم من العصبية والغلب وعلمنا أن الشارع لا يخص الأحكام بجيل ولا عصر ولا أمة علمنا أن ذلك إنما هو من الكفاية فرددناه إليها» ↩︎
25. Musnad Aḥmad (al-Risālah ed.), Ḥadīth 18, with the notes of Shuʿayb al-Arna’ūṭ, 1/199 https://app.turath.io/book/25794?page=175 «ولقد علمت يا سعد أن رسول الله ﷺ قال، وأنت قاعد: قريش ولاة هذا الأمر، فبر الناس تبع لبرهم، وفاجرهم تبع لفاجرهم. قال: فقال له سعد: صدقت، نحن الوزراء، وأنتم الأمراء» and the grading: «صحيح لغيره، رجاله ثقات رجال الشيخين، وهو مرسل … وقوله: قريش ولاة هذا الأمر … له شاهد من حديث أبي هريرة عند البخاري (٣٤٩٥) ومسلم (١٨١٨)». ↩︎
26. Fatḥ al-Bārī by Ibn Ḥajar 13/116 https://app.turath.io/book/1673?page=7547 «ذكره محمد بن إسحاق في الكتاب الكبير فذكر قصة سقيفة بني ساعدة وبيعة أبي بكر وفيها: فقال أبو بكر: وإن هذا الأمر في قريش ما أطاعوا الله واستقاموا على أمره» ↩︎
27. Tārīkh Ibn Khaldūn (al-Muqaddimah) 1/242 https://app.turath.io/book/12320?page=240 «وأما النسب القرشي فلإجماع الصحابة يوم السقيفة على ذلك … فحجوا الأنصار ورجعوا عن قولهم منا أمير ومنكم أمير وعدلوا عما كانوا هموا به من بيعة سعد لذلك» ↩︎
28. Fayḍ al-Qadīr by al-Munāwī 3/189 https://app.turath.io/book/21660?page=3120 «قال: وقد جمعت طرق خبر الأئمة من قريش في جزء ضخم عن نحو أربعين صحابيا» ↩︎
29. Irwā’ al-Ghalīl by al-Albānī 2/300 https://app.turath.io/book/22592?page=622 «قلت: وذكر العلامة القارى فى شرحه ل شرح النخبة أن الحافظ قال فى هذا الحديث إنه متواتر» ↩︎
30. Fatḥ al-Bārī by Ibn Ḥajar 13/118 https://app.turath.io/book/1673?page=7549 «فمقتضاه حصر جنس الأمر في قريش، فيصير كأنه قال: لا أمر إلا في قريش … والحديث وإن كان بلفظ الخبر فهو بمعنى الأمر كأنه قال: ائتموا بقريش خاصة، وبقية طرق الحديث تؤيد ذلك … وإلى هذا ذهب جمهور أهل العلم أن شرط الإمام أن يكون قرشيا» ↩︎
31. Fatḥ al-Bārī by Ibn Ḥajar 13/118 https://app.turath.io/book/1673?page=7549 «وقال القرطبي: هذا الحديث خبر عن المشروعية أي لا تنعقد الإمامة الكبرى إلا لقرشي مهما وجد منهم أحد، وكأنه جنح إلى أنه خبر بمعنى الأمر» ↩︎
32. Sūrah al-Baqarah, Āyah 228. Translation taken from Saheeh International https://quran.com/2/228?translations=20 ↩︎
33. Fatḥ al-Bārī by Ibn Ḥajar 13/119 https://app.turath.io/book/1673?page=7550 «قلت والذي حمل قائل هذا القول عليه أنه فهم منه الخبر المحض وخبر الصادق لا يتخلف، وأما من حمله على الأمر فلا يحتاج إلى هذا التأويل» ↩︎
34. Jāmiʿ al-Tirmidhī 2227, Book of Trials. https://sunnah.com/tirmidhi:2227 «قُرَيْشٌ وُلاَةُ النَّاسِ فِي الْخَيْرِ وَالشَّرِّ إِلَى يَوْمِ الْقِيَامَةِ … وَهَذَا حَدِيثٌ حَسَنٌ غَرِيبٌ صَحِيحٌ» ↩︎
35. Fatḥ al-Bārī by Ibn Ḥajar 13/117 https://app.turath.io/book/1673?page=7548 «وليس المراد حقيقة العدد، وإنما المراد به انتفاء أن يكون الأمر في غير قريش» ↩︎
36. Musnad Aḥmad (al-Risālah ed.), Ḥadīth 12307, with the notes of Shuʿayb al-Arna’ūṭ, 19/318 https://app.turath.io/book/25794?page=9543 «الأئمة من قريش إن لهم عليكم حقا، ولكم عليهم حقا مثل ذلك، ما إن استرحموا فرحموا، وإن عاهدوا وفوا، وإن حكموا عدلوا» and the grading: «حديث صحيح بطرقه وشواهده، وهذا إسناد ضعيف لجهالة بكير بن وهب الجزري». ↩︎
37. Irwā’ al-Ghalīl by al-Albānī 2/295-296 https://app.turath.io/book/22592?page=617 https://app.turath.io/book/22592?page=618 «(٥١٩) – (حديث: قدموا قريشا ولا تقدموها … صحيح. روى من حديث الزهرى مرسلا، ومن حديث عبد الله بن السائب وعلى بن أبى طالب وأنس بن مالك وجبير بن مطعم … ونقل ابن الملقن فى الخلاصة … عن البيهقى أنه قال: مرسل جيد». Anīs al-Sārī by Nabīl al-Baṣārah 5/3798-3799 https://app.turath.io/book/14317?page=3790 https://app.turath.io/book/14317?page=3791 grades the connected routes weak and says of al-Zuhrī’s mursal in Musnad al-Shāfiʿī*: «ورواته ثقات». ↩︎
38. Fatḥ al-Bārī by Ibn Ḥajar 13/118 https://app.turath.io/book/1673?page=7549 «وكأنه جنح إلى أنه خبر بمعنى الأمر، وقد ورد الأمر بذلك في حديث جبير بن مطعم رفعه: قدموا قريشا ولا تقدموها» ↩︎
39. Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī 3500, Book of Virtues. https://sunnah.com/bukhari:3500 ↩︎
40. Fatḥ al-Bārī by Ibn Ḥajar 13/116 https://app.turath.io/book/1673?page=7547 «وقد جاءت الأحاديث التي أشرت إليها على ثلاثة أنحاء: الأول: وعيدهم باللعن إذا لم يحافظوا على المأمور به … الثاني: وعيدهم بأن يسلط عليهم من يبالغ في أذيتهم … الثالث: الإذن في القيام عليهم وقتالهم والإيذان بخروج الأمر عنهم» ↩︎
41. Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim 1821a, Book of Government. https://sunnah.com/muslim:1821a «إِنَّ هَذَا الأَمْرَ لاَ يَنْقَضِي حَتَّى يَمْضِيَ فِيهِمُ اثْنَا عَشَرَ خَلِيفَةً … كُلُّهُمْ مِنْ قُرَيْشٍ» ↩︎
42. Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī 7142, Book of Judgments. https://sunnah.com/bukhari:7142 «اسْمَعُوا وَأَطِيعُوا وَإِنِ اسْتُعْمِلَ عَلَيْكُمْ عَبْدٌ حَبَشِيٌّ كَأَنَّ رَأْسَهُ زَبِيبَةٌ» ↩︎
43. Tārīkh Ibn Khaldūn (al-Muqaddimah) 1/243 https://app.turath.io/book/12320?page=241 «وهذا لا تقوم به حجة في ذلك فإنه خرج مخرج التمثيل والغرض للمبالغة في إيجاب السمع والطاعة» ↩︎
44. Fatḥ al-Bārī by Ibn Ḥajar 13/119 https://app.turath.io/book/1673?page=7550 «وأما ما احتج به من لم يعين الخلافة في قريش من تأمير عبد الله بن رواحة، وزيد بن حارثة، وأسامة وغيرهم في الحروب فليس من الإمامة العظمى في شيء، بل فيه أنه يجوز للخليفة استنابة غير القرشي في حياته» ↩︎
45. Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī 7117, Book of Trials, chapter “Time will change until idols are worshipped.” https://sunnah.com/bukhari:7117 Also Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī 3517. https://sunnah.com/bukhari:3517 ↩︎
46. Fatḥ al-Bārī by Ibn Ḥajar 13/115 https://app.turath.io/book/1673?page=7546 «وفي ذلك إشارة إلى أن ملك القحطاني يقع في آخر الزمان عند قبض أهل الإيمان ورجوع كثير ممن يبقى بعدهم إلى عبادة الأوثان، وهم المعبر عنهم بشرار الناس الذين تقوم عليهم الساعة» ↩︎