Introduction
Bismillah.
Many people who study Islamic law and politics learn that the khalifah must be from Quraish. This has been the general view of Muslim scholars for many centuries, and it is written in most fiqh manuals.
Despite its widespread nature, this view is not based on strong evidence, and the evidence is either weak from the perspective of authenticity or from the perspective of interpretation.
Many scholars said a non-Quraishi who takes power by force is to obeyed. They said the obligation of appointing a Quraishi refers to when the people of authority are picking the khalifah in ideal situations, not when a non-Quraishi has taken power by force and it would require a rebellion to remove him.
This article is not about this opinion about non-ideal situations. This article argues that a non-Quraishi can be appointed as khalifah even in ideal situations.
To cover the topic properly, I will first discuss the claim of consensus about appointing Quraishi khalifahs. Then, I will discuss the evidence that the Sahabah did not believe appointing Quraishi khalifahs was obligatory. Lastly, I will discuss in detail the narrations used by those who claim appointing Quraishi khalifahs is obligatory, and I will show why those narrations are, despite many being authentic, weak as evidence to prove the obligation of Quraishi khalifahs.
Consensus
Firstly, many scholars claimed ijma that the khalifah must be Quraishi. Among those scholars: Abu Mansur al-Baghdadi (d. 429), Ibn Battal (d. 449), Mawardi (d. 450), Qadhi Iyadh (d. 544), and many other major scholars.
Secondly, claims of consensus are not themselves proofs of consensus. It is possible and common for scholars to claim consensus about something while their claim of consensus is proven wrong after investigation.
Thirdly, a claim of consensus can be weakened in three ways:
- Showing someone who had a different view, and that disagreeing person invalidates the consensus
- Showing a scholar who doubted the existence of consensus
- Showing that the scholar claiming consensus did not follow the ‘correct’ conditions of consensus
Those Who Disagreed
As for the first way, there were some Sunni scholars in history who doubted the requirement of the khalifah being Quraishi.
Imam al-Haramayn al-Juwayni said, in Al-Irshad, about the requirement of the khalifah being Quraishi, “This is something some people have disagreed about, and the possibility is open in my view.”
A similar view is attributed to Abu Bakr al-Baqillani. He said, in Tamheed, “The apparent of the report(s) doesn’t require [the khalifah] to be Quraishi, and the intellect does not necessitate it either.” In other books, Baqillani appears to support the condition of being Quraishi.
It is possible for the one claiming consensus to say the agreement was established before or after Juwayni and Baqillani or that their disagreement was not clear, so weakening the consensus through their possible disagreement is problematic.
Those Who Doubted the Consensus
As for the second way, some scholars doubted the consensus about the khalifah being Quraishi, among them Ibn Hajr. He said:
Anyone who claims ijma needs to have an interpretation for what has been transmitted from Umar about this. Because Imam Ahmad recorded a report from Umar (RA) with a chain whose narrators are reliable, that he said, “If death comes to me, and Abu Ubaidah is alive, I would make him my successor. If death comes to me, and Abu Ubaidah had died, I would make Muaz ibn Jabal my successor.”
Muaz ibn Jabal was Ansari and had no lineage to Quraish.
It is possible to say: Maybe the ijma formed after Umar (RA) that the khalifah must be Quraishi or Umar (RA)’s ijtihad changed about this.
Fath al-Bari
Ibn Hajr, although he did not explicitly deny ijma, clearly doubted how strong the claim was, especially because of contradicting evidence. There is more contradicting evidence I will highlight in the coming sections.
Failed Conditions of Consensus
As for the third way of weakening the consensus, there are two points of disagreement about the definition of consensus:
- Can there be a consensus after a previous generation disagreed? Can there be consensus after the Sahabah disagreed?
- Can there be a consensus if the Mutazilah or other non-Sunni (but still Muslim) sects disagreed? Or is consensus established with the sole agreement of Sunni scholars?
If any of the two questions gets answered in the negative, the claim of consensus about the khalifah being Quraishi collapses.
As for the first question, there is much evidence to indicate the Sahabah and the Salaf disagreed about whether the khalifah must be Quraishi. We will discuss this more in the next section. Many prominent scholars held the view that there could be no ijma after disagreement, including Ibn Qudamah, Ibn Taymiyyah, Qadhi Abu Yala, Ghazali, and many others.
As for the second question, that is because the Mutazilah and other non-Sunni groups said the khalifah can be non-Quraishi. So, if you are of the view that consensus cannot be established without their agreement, you cannot claim a consensus. Many prominent Usuli scholars held this view, including Al-Ghazali, Al-Amidi, and Ibn al-Hajib.
Those are three reasons the claimed ijma about the khalifah being Quraishi is not as airtight as it first seems.
Disagreement of the Sahabah
In my view, the main problem with the claim of consensus is that the Sahabah disagreed about the obligation of appointing a Quraishi as khalifah. So, I will present the evidence for this disagreement in this section.
Election At the Saqifah
Many people who claimed ijma, including Abu Mansur al-Baghdadi, Ibn Qudamah, and others, said the companions themselves agreed on the requirement of the imam being Quraishi because they chose Abu Bakr (RA) to be khalifah and did not let the Ansar choose their own man as khalifah.
However, this argument is weak and unproven, because preferring a Quraishi for khalifah could have been for a contingent, circumstantial reason rather than for a religious reason. So, the simple act of choosing or preferring a Quraishi at that time cannot prove an ijma among the companions that the khalifah must be Quraishi all the time as a religious obligation.
In fact, reading the Sahih hadith about Abu Bakr (RA)’s election actually proves the opposite: The Sahabah (or many of them) did not believe being Quraishi was a requirement for the khalifah.
Umar (RA) said narrated:
When we reached the saqifah of Banu Saaidah, there was a man wrapped in blankets [in the gathering]. We asked, “Who is this?”
They said, “This is Saad ibn Ubadah.”
We asked, “What is wrong with him?”
They said, “He is sick.”
One of the Ansar then got up and spoke about the good qualities of the Ansar and why the khalifah should be from them.
Then, Abu Bakr (RA) got up and spoke to them until he said, “As for the good qualities you mentioned about yourself, you certainly have those qualities. But, the Arabs will not recognize anyone for this matter (i.e. leadership) except this tribe of Quraish. They are the noblest of the Arabs in lineage and house, so I have chosen for you two men; you can choose either one you want.”
He took the hands of Abu Ubaidah ibn al-Jarrah and me (Umar).
A man from the Ansar said, “I will solve the problem: there can be one leader from us, and one leader from you, the Quraishis.”
Then, voices started being raised.
I feared that there would be disunity, so I took Abu Bakr’s hand and gave him bayah. Then, the muhajirun gave him bayah. Then, the Ansar gave him bayah.
So, we defeated Saad ibn Ubadah. One of the Ansar said, “You have killed Saad ibn Ubadah (by making this decision)!”
Umar (RA) responded, “Allah killed Saad ibn Ubadah (a form of insult).”
Sahih Bukhari, Musnad Ahmad
This hadith was narrated by Zuhri from Ubaidullah ibn Abdullah from Ibn Abbas from Umar (RA). It is a strongly Sahih hadith.
There are three ways this proves (many of) the Sahabah believed a non-Quraishi khalifah was possible:
1. The Ansar Attempting to Choose Their Own Khalifah
It is explicit in the hadith that the Ansar were about to choose their own khalifah before Abu Bakr and Umar (RA) came to them. If they believed the khalifah must be Quraishi or if they had heard a hadith from the Prophet (SAW) obligating them to only follow Quraishi khalifahs, they would not have attempted to choose an Ansari khalifah.
Someone might say: The fact that they decided to elect Abu Bakr (RA) proves they left their view.
The answer is: Their eventual agreement to Abu Bakr (RA) does not negate the belief that a non-Quraishi could be khalifah. After all, the permissibility of non-Quraishis being khalifah does not mean a Quraishi cannot be a khalifah or that a Quraishi could not be a better choice in the circumstances.
The hadith only mentions that they relented after Abu Bakr (RA)’s argument that the Arabs would not accept a non-Quraishi leader and when Umar (RA) decided to take the lead and give bayah to Abu Bakr (RA) in the moment.
So, until proven the Ansar stopped believing in the religious permissibility of a non-Quraishi khalifah with clear and authentic evidence, we have no reason to believe at least some of the Sahabah did not continue to believe a non-Quraishi khalifah was possible.
2. Abu Bakr (RA)’s Circumstantial Argument
When Abu Bakr (RA) made a case for the khalifah being Quraishi, he did not mention a hadith from the Prophet (SAW). He only said, “The Arabs will not recognize anyone for this matter (i.e. leadership) except this tribe of Quraish. They are the noblest of the Arabs in lineage and house.”
If there was a hadith from the Prophet (SAW) on this subject, who cares what the Arabs would recognize or not recognize? The fact that he mentioned this argument proves his preference for a Quraishi khalifah was not a religious obligation but something circumstantial. He knew a non-Quraishi khalifah would cause much more disunity among the Arabs than a Quraishi one, and he wanted to prevent the breaking apart of the Muslim Ummah.
Someone might say: Maybe they discussed the hadith but Umar (RA) simply did not mention that in the story in Sahih Bukhari.
There are three responses. Firstly, it does not make sense for Umar (RA) or any of the narrators to omit such an important aspect of the discussion.
Secondly, if they had in fact discussed the hadith of the Prophet (SAW), Abu Bakr (RA) would not need to provide a worldly justification. The Sahabah obeyed the Prophet (SAW) immediately, and these were the leaders of the Muhajirun and the Ansar. So, why would Abu Bakr (RA) mention the Arabs not accepting any leader other than Quraish? Who cares what the Arabs would accept if Allah and the Messenger only accepted Quraishi leaders?
Thirdly, if they had been informed of the hadith, the Ansar would not continue to debate the issue or propose one leader from the Ansar and one leader from Quraish.
In conclusion, it is quite unlikely that the people who chose Abu Bakr (RA) to be khalifah discussed any hadith from the Prophet (SAW) mandating a Quraishi khalifah.
Someone might say: Abu Bakr (RA) did mention the hadith of the Prophet (SAW) because of another version of the hadith in Musnad Ahmad.
Humaid ibn Abd al-Rahman narrated a long story about the day after the Prophet (SAW) passed away. A part of the story says:
A man came to Abu Bakr and Umar and told them that the Ansar are about to pledge allegiance to a man among them at the saqifah of Banu Saaidah, and they are saying, “One leader can be from us, and one leader can be from you.”
Abu Bakr and Umar hurried to the saqifah of Banu Saaidah. There, Abu Bakr (RA) spoke, praising the Ansar. He said, “You know that the Messenger of Allah said, ‘If the people took an alley, and the Ansar took a valley, I would take the valley of the Ansar.’ And you know Saad that you were sitting with us when the Prophet (SAW) said, ‘Quraish are the leaders of this matter. Good people are followers of the good people from them. Sinful people are followers of the sinful from them.'”
Saad said, “You spoke the truth. We are the advisors, and you are the leaders.”
Then, Umar (RA) said, “Take out your hand Abu Bakr, so we can give you the bayah.”
Abu Bakr (RA) said, “Rather, you, Umar, take out your hand, because you are stronger than me.
But, Umar gave Abu Bakr bayah first, and people followed him in doing so.
Musnad Ahmad
Firstly, Humaid ibn Abd al-Rahman never met Umar, nor did he witness these events, so the chain is disconnected and not authentic.
Secondly, this account of what happend at the saqifah is riddled with so many contradictions to the authentic story in Sahih Bukhari, that I am amazed anyone thinks it can be authentic enough to use as evidence. One simply has to compare between this narrative and the one in Sahih Bukhari to see all its errors.
For example, this hadith claims the Ansar were saying “One leader from you and one leader from us” from the beginning instead of only in response to Abu Bakr (RA) saying the leader should be Quraishi due to the Arabs’ respect for Quraish.
Also, this hadith claims Saad accepted and was content with the argument the khalifah should be Quraishi, even though the authentic hadith of Sahih Bukhari says the opposite.
Also, this hadith implies Abu Bakr (RA) quoted a hadith of the Prophet (SAW) to prove Quraish’s right to rule, but the hadith of Sahih Bukhari only says he mentioned the respect of the Arabs for Quraish. We already explained above why the hadith of Sahih Bukhari only mentioning the worldly argument is strong evidence there was no religious argument.
No one can take this hadith seriously as evidence Abu Bakr (RA) genuinely quoted a hadith of the Prophet (SAW). It is clearly a mixed-up account combining different narratives and hadith into one place.
3. Saad ibn Ubadah (RA) and the Ansar Being Unconvinced
Even after Abu Bakr (RA)’s speech and argument for a Quraishi khalifah:
- One of the Ansar proposed one leader from the Ansar and one leader from Quraish
- Voices started being raised
- Saad ibn Ubadah remained discontent, and Umar (RA) spoke to him with severe words
All of this proves the Ansar (or some of them) continued to believe in the permissibility of a non-Quraishi khalifah. The election of Abu Bakr (RA) only proves that they agreed to Abu Bakr (RA) as khalifah and perhaps many of them were convinced by his argument that the Arabs would not accept a non-Quraishi khalifah, not that they negated their opinion that a non-Quraishi is allowed to be khalifah in Islam.
Someone might say: The Sahabah continuing to choose Quraishi khalifahs, Abu Bakr, then Umar, then Uthman, then Ali ibn Abi Talib (RA) proves that they believed being Quraishi was a requirement for khilafah.
There are two responses to this.
Firstly, choosing a Quraishi khalifah could be for reasons other than religious evidence, reasons like Abu Bakr (RA) mentioned above.
Secondly, Sunnis generally believe Abu Bakr was the greatest and most qualified companion after the Prophet (SAW), then it was Umar (RA) after Abu Bakr, then Uthman and Ali (RA) after them.
You cannot believe the Sahabah’s choices prove a limitation to Quraishi khalifahs unless you provide evidence there was a non-Quraishi just as qualified or more qualified that they passed over due to this limitation to Quraishis.
If you believe there was no Quraishi or non-Quraishi rivaling Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman, Ali, and the ten promised Paradise (RA), then the reason the Sahabah chose them may simply have to do with their merits, and at that time, the most qualified people happened to be Quraishi. There would be no proof in their choices that they were limited to Quraishis as a religious obligation, unless there is evidence of a non-Quraishi they passed over despite him being more qualified in principle.
Umar (RA)’s Wished Appointments
A common argument mentioned for appointing non-Quraishi khalifahs is that Umar (RA) apparently said he would have appointed Salim mawla Abi Huzaifah or Muaz ibn Jabal (RA) as his successors if they were alive when he passed away.
Both Salim and Muaz were not Quraishi, so this disproves the idea that Umar (RA) thought the khalifah must be Quraishi.
There is no single Sahih chain for this report, but there are many Hasan or disconnected early reports, such that it may rise to the level of Sahih or at least prove many of the Salaf believed this to be possible.
One narration:
Umar (RA) said, “If my death comes to me and Abu Ubaidah ibn al-Jarrah is alive, I would appoint him as my successor. […]”
People responded, “But, what about the higher sub-tribes of Quraish?” (Abu Ubaidah was of a lower sub-tribe of Quraish.)
Umar (RA) then said, “If my death comes and Abu Ubaidah had passed away, I would appoint Muaz ibn Jabal.”
Musnad Ahmad
Safwan ibn Amr narrated it from Shuraih, Rashid, and others from Umar (RA). This chain is hasan if it is connected from Shuraih and Rashid to Umar (RA).
Another narration:
Umar (RA) said, “If two people had been alive today and I gave them this matter (i.e. khilafah), I would have been confident in it: Salim mawla Abi Huzaifah and Abu Ubaidah ibn al-Jarrah.”
Musnad Ahmad
Ali ibn Zaid narrated this from Abu Rafi’ from Umar ibn al-Khattab (RA), but Ali ibn Zaid (d. 131) was a weak narrator.
Another narration:
Umar (RA) said:
If I appointed Salim mawla Abi Huzaifah, and my Lord asked me, “What made you do that?”
I would have said, “I heard the Messenger of Allah (SAW) say that he loves Allah with his heart.”
If I appointed Muaz ibn Jabal and my Lord asked me, “What made you do that?” […]
Fadhail al-Sahabah by Imam Ahmad
Shahr ibn Hawshab (d. 100) narrated this hadith from Umar (RA), but Shahr never met Umar. So, the hadith is disconnected.
There are a few other transmissions of this hadith, but they are all similar in weakness. Someone could argue combining the chains makes the report Hasan or Sahih.
Even if the report is not authentic to Umar (RA), its transmission and spread shows that at least some of the Salaf believed in the possibility of appointing a non-Quraishi khalifah.
Leader From Qahtan
Abu Hurairah (RA) narrated from the Prophet (SAW), “The Hour shall not be established until a man from Qahtan will drive people with a stick.” (Sahih Bukhari)
Abdullah ibn Amr (RA) used to say there would be a future king from Qahtan. (Sahih Bukhari)
The Arabs had two major tribes: Adnanis and Qahtanis. Quraish was a sub-branch of the Adnanis.
I do not say this is the strongest argument.
Someone can say: This hadith only talks about a future ruler from Qahtan, but it does not specifically say he will be khalifah, nor does it say it is permissible to appoint Qahtanis.
Hadith Evidence For Quraish
There are four hadith used to argue we are obligated to appoint Quraishi khalifahs. None of them are clear evidence of obligation and all have better interpretations.
Quraish Are the Leaders As Long As They…
There is a genre of hadith where the Prophet (SAW) said, “Leaders are from Quraish, as long as [they are just].”
All these hadith are clearly prophecies, not commands. The Prophet (SAW) simply predicted the fact that Quraish would generally remain in power as khalifahs and leaders long after him, as long as they established justice. This prophecy came true as we all know.
No part of this prophecy entails an obligation for Muslims to appoint Quraish for khalifahs even after they lost power.
Many scholars of fiqh quoted the first phrase of the hadith “Leaders are from Quraish” as if that entails an obligation without noting that all authentic versions of this hadith have a clear limitation and are meant as prophecies.
Muhammad ibn Jubair ibn Mutim said: It reached Muawiyah (RA) that Abdullah ibn Amr ibn al-Aas used to say that there will be a king from Qahtan (another branch of the Arabs) in the future. Muawiyah (RA) bcame angry at this, so he stood up, praised Allah, then said, “It has reached me that some people are saying things that are neither in the Book of Allah nor transmitted from the Prophet (SAW). Those are ignorant people. I heard the Messenger of Allah say, ‘This matter is in Quraish–anyone who opposes them will be humiliated by Allah–as long as they establish the deen.'” (Sahih Bukhari)
Abu Barzah (RA) narrated: The Prophet (SAW) said, “Leaders are from Quraish, leaders are from Quraish, leaders are from Quraish, as long as they do three things: 1) rule with justice, 2) give mercy when asked, and 3) fulfill their promises. Whoever does not do that from them has the curse of Allah, the angels, and mankind.” (Musnad Ahmad)
Sukain ibn Abd al-Aziz was a hasan narrator. Few people considered him thiqah. Abu Hatim al-Razi and others said, “There is no problem with him,” implying he was mediocre, neither strong nor weak. So, the hadith can only be Hasan, not Sahih.
A similar hadith has been narrated from Anas (RA), Ibn Masud (in one transmission: Abu Masud) (RA), and Abu Hurairah (RA).
The hadith of Ibn Masud (RA) says: “When you [fail the responsibility], Allah will send the worst of his creation over you, and they will strip you bare, like a branch is stripped of its bark.”
This hadith is clearly a prophecy, since it is time-limited. The Prophet (SAW) said the leaders are from Quraish as long as they do some things. When they fail that, Allah will replace them.
Someone might say: Why shouldn’t we consider it a command, that we should appoint Quraishi leaders as long as they are pious?
The answer is: There is no proof or reason for us to take this as a command for all time, when the words of the hadith are clearly and explicitly limited.
In fact, some transmissions of the hadith mention that the Prophet (SAW) said this statement to a group of Quraish. As such, it was meant as advice of how to rule for Quraish, not as a command to the rest of the Muslims that they are somehow limited to appointing Quraishi leaders.
People Are Followers of Quraish
Abu Hurairah (RA) narrated: The Prophet (SAW) said, “The people are followers (taba’) of Quraish in this affair. Their Muslims are followers of [Quraish’s] Muslims. Their disbelievers are followers of [Quraish’s] disbelievers.” (Sahih Bukhari and Muslim)
Jabir (RA) narrated: The Prophet (SAW) said, “The people are followers of Quraish in good and evil.” (Sahih Muslim)
This hadith is the Prophet (SAW) remarking about the reality that the Arabs followed Quraish and took them as their leaders due to the nobility of their tribe and lineage. The Muslims (of the Arabs) looked up to Muslim Quraishis. The disbelievers of the Arabs looked up to the disbelievers of Quraish.
In this interpretation, “the people” is specific and refers to the Arabs in the Prophet (SAW)’s time. This is also why the Prophet (SAW) said, “their Muslims,” rather than “Muslims.” If the hadith was talking about humanity, there would not need to be any specification “their Muslims or “their disbelievers.”
Ibn Hajr mentioned this view, although he did not prefer it:
It has been said: It is upon its apparent (i.e. a prediction), and the meaning of “the people” is some of the people i.e. the rest of the Arabs.
Fath al-Bari
Another reasonable interpretation of the hadith: The first to believe were people from Quraish (like Khadijah, Abu Bakr, Ali, etc. RA). The first to hear the Prophet (SAW)’s message and reject it were also from Quraish (like Abu Lahab, Abu Jahal, etc.). So, those who believe follow after those who believed from Quraish, and those who disbelieve follow after those who disbelieved from Quraish.
Al-Tibi said, quoting Qadhi Iyadh:
‘This affair’ means the religion. The meaning is that the Muslims of Quraish are examples followed by other Muslims, because they preceded others in accepting the truth and were foremost in faith. Their unbelievers are examples followed by other unbelievers, because they were the first to reject the call, disbelieve in the Messenger, and turn away from the signs.”
Sharh al-Mishkaat
Someone might say: Why not interpret “Their Muslims are followers of [Quraish’s] Muslims” as a command, “Muslims should follow them”?
The answer: Many scholars did interpret this sentence like that, and they claimed the hadith is evidence for appointing Quraishi khalifahs.
However, this interpretation is problematic because the hadith also says the disbelievers are followers of the disbelievers of Quraish, and clearly, the Prophet (SAW) was not commanding disbelievers to follow Quraish!
Someone might say: Why not say the part about Muslims is a command but the part about disbelievers is simply informational? Maybe it means they are factually leaders of the non-Muslims?
I would say: There are three reasons this does not work.
Firstly, Quraish were clearly not the leaders of non-Muslims in general in the Prophet (SAW)’s time (Romans and Persians did not follow Quraish after all), nor are they leaders of non-Muslims today. So, you would be forced to say “the people” in the hadith refers to the Arabs of the Prophet (SAW)’s time.
If you concede “the people” is limited, the hadith is limited and not general. It cannot establish any obligation for the rest of mankind.
Secondly, the hadith of Jabir (RA) has a combined sentence with the two together “The people are followers of Quraish in good and evil” (either it is a command or not for both).
The hadith of Abu Hurairah (RA) mentions the Muslims being followers and disbelievers being followers using a parallel sentence with the exact same construction.
An ideal interpretation should interpret both sentences in a similar way. It does not make sense to say one is a command and the other is not a command.
Thirdly, the hadith never specifies khilafah or political leadership. If the hadith is interpreted as a command and taken to its logical end, it becomes obligatory for Muslims to follow Quraish even in religious matters, like preferring Quraishi scholars over non-Quraishi scholars. That would violate the consensus of the Muslim Ummah. So, an interpretation that avoids falling into this problem and making arbitrary exceptions is better.
Quraish Are the Leaders Until the Day of Judgement
Abdullah ibn Abi al-Huzail narrated:
Some people said, “Either Quraish stops (their evil actions and injustice) or Allah will place this matter (i.e. khilafah) in the rest of the Arabs outside them.”
Amr ibn al-Aas (RA) said, “You have lied, because I heard the Prophet (SAW) say, ‘Quraish are the leaders of the people in good and evil until the Day of Judgement.'”
Sunan Tirmidhi, Musnad Ahmad
Shu’bah, an imam of hadith, narrated this from Habib ibn al-Zubair from Abdullah ibn Abi al-Huzail.
Habib ibn al-Zubair was deemed reliable by several scholars, including Nasai and Abu Dawud. Abu Hatim said he was honest and salih al-hadith (ok in hadith) and that his hadith are mustaqeem (authentic). Ali ibn al-Madini said Habib was unknown. A wholistic conclusion would be to call him an acceptable or hasan narrator, and hasan narrators can make mistakes.
Ibn Abi al-Huzail was likewise generally known as reliable.
This hadith, specifically the part saying “until the Day of Judgement” must be mistaken for three reasons:
- The other hadith on the subject say Quraish will be the leaders as long as they establish Islam and justice. This hadith contradicts those hadith which are more Sahih
- This hadith adds a phrase “until the Day of Judgement” to the hadith of Jabir and Abu Hurairah (RA) that people are followers of Quraish in good and evil.
- This hadith is phrased as a prophecy, and the prophecy is false.
Someone might say: Why don’t you say the hadith is a command “Quraish should be the leaders of people in good and evil until the Day of Judgement”?
The answer is: There are multiple reasons.
Firstly, The internal logic of the narration negates this meaning for the hadith. The story implies Amr ibn al-Aas (RA) believed the hadith was a prophecy since he used it to negate people saying it is possible Allah may replace Quraish if they are not just in their rule. He did not interpret it as a command, since a command doesn’t disprove those people’s statement. Muslims could be commanded to appoint Quraish and yet Allah may replace Quraish when they fail (and this is what happened in our history).
Secondly, there would be no point to adding “until the Day of Judgement” for a command. That is clearly meant as a prophecy.
Someone might say: Perhaps Amr ibn al-Aas misunderstood the meaning of the hadith. It still remains a hadith of the Prophet (SAW).
I would say: More likely than the conclusion a Sahabi misunderstood his own hadith is that one of the narrators made a mistake, most likely Habib. The mistake could have been the addition of the phrase “until the Day of Judgement.”
As Long As Two People Remain
Ibn Umar (RA) narrated: The Prophet (SAW) said, “This matter will continue to be within Quraish, as long as two of the people (or: two people) remain.” (Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim)
Aasim ibn Muhammad narrated this hadith from his father Muhammad ibn Zaid from his grandfather Abdullah ibn Umar (RA), and it is a Sahih chain.
The wording in Sahih Bukhari is “as long as two of them remain.” The wording of Sahih Muslim is “as long as two of the people (or: two people) remain.” The second is more well-attested from the students of Aasim. In fact, Muslim narrated the hadith from the same teacher as Bukhari and said “two of the people”!
I believe “two of the people” is clearly the correct wording. It is possible Bukhari’s wording can be blamed on one of the manuscript writers or transmitters of Sahih Bukhari.
There are four interpretations I prefer for this hadith.
The first is: This hadith, although it seems unrestricted, is actually implicitly restricted by the hadith of Muawiyah (RA) and others. So, the rule of Quraish until two people remain in this hadith is conditional on them establishing Islam and justice, and when they fail to do so, they lose leadership that Allah gave them.
The second is: Khilafah will continue to be within Quraish as long as the current generation remains alive. So, “the people” is limited to the Arabs of that time, like in the hadith of Abu Hurairah and Jabir (RA). This is a prophecy that has been fulfilled.
The third is: Rulership in general (not specifically khilafah) will remain within Quraish until the Day of Judgement, meaning they will at least be kings or governors in some places, even if not the khalifah.
The fourth is: “This matter” refers to Islam, so the Prophet (SAW) said that Islam (or faith) will continue to be within Quraish (i.e. there will continue to be Quraishi Muslims) as long as two people remain in this world i.e. until the Day of Judgement. This is also a prophecy that has so far come true.
The first three interpretations all have precedent from scholars of the past, however, I did not find explicit precedent for the fourth interpretation.
Abu Hasan al-Sindi said:
‘This matter will continue’: meaning rulership. This may be a command to appoint khalifahs from among them, or it may be a report that the khilafah will remain among them. On the second interpretation, either their having rulership and leadership in some region suffices for its truth—and the world is never devoid of that—or it may be said that this is conditional on their justice, as some narrations on this subject indicate. Allah knows best.
Hashiyah al-Sindi
Ibn Hajr said:
It is possible the meaning is that Quraish’s leadership remains in parts of the land even if not others.
Fath al-Bari
Mulla Ali Qari said:
It has been said: It is upon its apparent (i.e. a prediction), and the meaning of “the people” is some of the people i.e. the rest of the Arabs.
Marqaat al-Mafateeh
Ibn Hajr mentioned the above interpretation for the hadith of “People are followers of Quraish,” so it is natural to extend it here, and Allah knows best.
Someone might say: Why don’t you interpret the hadith as a command? Couldn’t it mean “Khilafah should remain in Quraish as long as two people remain alive”?
The answer is: There are many indications that this hadith is meant as a prophecy rather than a command.
Firstly, the hadith uses laa yazal (it will continue to be) which is typically used for predictions, not for commands.
Secondly, the hadith says, “as long as two remain,” which implies a prediction about the future. There would be no reason to limit a command with this. If someone said, “You should make Quraishis your khalifahs,” he wouldn’t need to add, “until two people remain.”
Thirdly, a command would call for using a conditional “even if two people remain,” but this hadith uses “as long as two people remain,” which indicates a prediction.
Fourthly, the hadith says “remain within Quraish” rather than “remain for Quraish” as would be expected if the hadith was about eligibility rather than a prediction about what iwll happen.
Fifthly, the many hadith that clearly mention the leadership of Quraish as a prophecy about the future limited by their good behavior motivates us to interpret this hadith also as a prophecy instead of a command. The hadith of Muawiyah (RA) says, for instance, “This matter is in Quraish […] as long as they establish the deen.”
Taken together, the predictive reading of this hadith is more likely to be correct. The command reading, although plausible, is not strong enough to rival the possibility of the predictive reading combined with the previously mentioned evidence for appointing non-Quraishi khalifahs.
Even if we granted that both interpretations of the hadith are similar or equivalent in strength, the fact that scholars throughout time, even after the collapse of the Abbasid khilafah, continued to see the predictive interpretation as viable and valid means that the hadith is not clear evidence to prove an obligation. An obligation must be proven with clear evidence, not with possibilities.
Conclusion From the Hadith
A central question you should have when reading all the hadith on this subject is: Why no clear command? Why are all hadith on the subject phrased like prophecies or statements of fact?
Although it is true Islamic law does not just depend on clear commands, the absence of clear commands in this subject should be a question when we have contrary evidence that the Sahabah believed a non-Quraishi khalifah was possible.
The absence of clear commands should also be evidence against those who disbelieve in hadith. If these hadith were generally fabricated to ensure Quraish’s position, why would the fabricators not make them clear commands? Why vague prophecies, especially those limited by Quraish’s good behaviour?
It is clear then that the Prophet (SAW) did prophecy about the leadership of Quraish. In fact, some scholars have even argued it is mutawatir considering the number of narrations on this topic. None of these hadith were fabricated, even if some might contain minor mistakes.
The prophecy was true, and it was fulfilled. Quraish ruled the Muslim Ummah from Abu Bakr (RA) till the fall of the Abbasids.
However, it is also clear is that prophecies do not make a binding obligation for Muslims to follow. That was the rule Allah gave Quraish, and many of them did good and many of them did evil. After that, Allah took rule away from them. There is no obligation upon the Muslims to return rule to them.
Allah says ⟪Say, “O Allah, Owner of Sovereignty, You give sovereignty to whom You will and You take sovereignty away from whom You will. You honor whom You will and You humble whom You will. In Your hand is [all] good. Indeed, You are over all things competent.”⟫ (3:26)
