This is a re-post of an article by Raziq first posted in January 2010
****
Islamist groups such as Hizb ut-Tahrir, Al-Muhajiroun and the Muslim Brotherhood claim that Muslims were ruled by a single political leadership which started from the time of the Prophet Muhammad in the 6th century and lasted until the last days of the Ottoman Empire in 1924. According to Islamists, this political leadership looked after the interests of all Muslims worldwide. The central aim of Islamist groups today is to recreate this leadership by uniting the 52 or so Muslim-majority countries in the world into a single state ruled by a single ruler (Caliph). They refer to this totalitarian system as the Khilafah (or the caliphate).
A basic study of Muslim history tells us that various Muslim empires existed in various parts of the world at the same time. In the 10th century, for example, there were three different Muslim empires in the world; the Umayyads in Spain, the Abbasids in Baghdad and the Fatimids in Egypt. Each of these Empires had their own Caliphs and they were independent of each other. Again in the 17th century, three different Muslim empires existed; the Ottomans in Central Asia, the Safavids in Persia and the Mughals in the Indian sub-continent. As well as these empires many parts of the Muslim world were not ruled by any of these empires at all, i.e. South East Asia, Sub-Saharan Africa and parts of central Asia.
The Mughals considered themselves even more worthy Caliphs than the Ottomans because they were descendants of Tamerlane (Timur). In the 14th century Tamerlane had defeated the Ottoman army and imprisoned their Sultan Bayezid in a cage. He later had him tortured, beaten and starved to death. However Islamists groups have totally ignored the Mughal claim to the caliphate. Furthermore, many of these empires were often at war with one another, the Ottomans and Safavids fought many wars and eventually agreed on a border.
India was conquered by the first Mughal Emperor Babur in 1526 but the Mughal claim to the Caliphate began with the Emperor Akbar in 1556:
The Mughal Emperors, from the reign of Akbar onwards, called their domains ‘Dar ul Khilafat’ (the abode of caliphate). In Akbar’s reign gold coins were minted that bore the inscription ‘the great Sultan, the exalted khilafah’ (The Mughal Emperors, catalogue of Indian Gold Coins in the British Museum, by S. Lane-Poole, p.159).
In official correspondence with the Ottomans, the Mughals made clear their claim to be the true Caliphate:
In the reign of Mughal Emperor Shah Jahan … his minister wrote a letter to a Turkish ambassador. In the letter he describes Shah Jahan as ‘his exalted majesty, who occupies the dignity of caliphate, the khaqan of the world, the shahinshah of the Sultans of the whole earth, the shadow of god’ (Dastur ul-Insha, Abdi Sari Effendi, National Bibliothek, Vienna, pg 161).
Most of the Mughal emperors saw themselves as Caliphs of India. The Mughal Emperor Shah Alam 11 (1759-1806) is also called ‘Khalifah and Shadow of God’ by his biographer. (Shah Alam Nameh, p.16 – Calcutta, 1912)
So the Islamist assertion of there only being one caliphate which united all Muslims across the world under a single ruler is utterly false. It is a misrepresentation of history inspired by the Arab nationalist movements of the 1930s and 40s. The aim of constructing such a myth is to inspire confidence in their insane totalitarian project which attempts to apply medieval political paradigms to a modern globalised world. Let’s hope they don’t intend on replacing SUVs with diesel driven camels.
21 Comments
Or camel-driven SUV’s.
Islamists ignore the Mughals because they were mainly Sufi’s and they don’t consider them puritanical enough. What they don’t realise is that the Ottoman’s were also Sufi’s and actually fought against Wahabis and others.
The Islamist fanciful romanticised version of Muslim history is a myth and stuff of pipe dreams.
Er .. didnt Mughal rulers like Aurangzeb send money to the Ottomans on
the basis that they recognised them as the Caliph of all the Muslims ?
If you want to argue that having more than one caliph at a time is
legitamate fair enough. But to argue that Khilafah itself isnt part of
Islam is a baseless argument.
Did they ‘me’? Have you evidence? I don’t think anyone is arguing that ‘Khilafah’ (however you want to define) isn’t an Islamic concept.
Me – Can you provide evidence for your claim that Aurangzeb sent money to the Ottomans on the understanding he recognised them as caliphs? That’s another Islamist myth.
Timur (Baburs great grandfather) actually beat up and imprisoned the Ottoman Sultan Bayezid!
The Mughals always saw themselves as superior to the Ottomans and never recognised their authority.
If the Mughal or Ottoman empires were still around today, the first people they would execute would be Islamist twits such as Ht and Al-muhaj.
Saiful,
Forget the Ottomans and the Mughals, I would personally like to behead some of these virile and unauthenticated Muslims such as HT but esp Al Muhajiroon. Our fathers came to this land with an air of dignity, they worked tirelessly to support families and were well respected by many indigenous Brits, unfortunately these fools have trashed the legacy of their fathers.
They’ve caused us more damage than the far right.
As salaam alaykum wa rahmatullah wa barakatahu,
With all due respect, I find this article to be riddled with historical inaccuracies.
The author attempts to de-legitimize the concept of a single, politically united Islamic Khilafah (Caliphate) saying that, historically, the Mughals were a separate entity from the Uthmanis (Ottomans). The user entitled “me” pointed out instances such as when Aurangzeb sent money to the Uthmanis as a means of signifying his recognition of Ottoman authority over the Muslim World. He was subsequently told to bring evidence, with Raziq going even going as far as to say that the the above historical fact was an “Islamist myth”.
However, having recently written an article on the history of Islam and the Caliphate, I have found that, in fact, the statement of “me” is actually correct. Furthermore, there are even more recorded incidents of more Mughal rulers then just Aurangzeb recognizing Uthmani authority, as shown by the following quote: “Muhammad Shah Bahamani III (1463-82), paid tributes to the Ottoman Sultan Muhammad II as the one deserving to be the Khalifah. The kingdom of Bijapur adopted the Turkish (Uthmani) symbol as its royal emblem. Malik Ayaz, one of he leading nobles of Gujarat addressed Sultan Salim I as ‘Khalifah on earth’. Subtle evidences of the great esteem in which Mughal rulers held the Sultan of Turkey can also be gleaned from the few correspondences that flew between Delhi and Istanbul…In a letter to Sultan Suleiman, Humayun (ruler of India) addressed him as the ‘Khalifah of the highest qualities’ and prayed for eternal perpetuation of his caliphate. He quotes a Quranic verse to indicate to the Sultan that ‘He (God) has sent thee as the Khalifah on the earth’…Sultan Ibrahim sent a letter to Shahjahan in which he proclaimed himself as the ‘Refuge and asylum of the monarchs of the world’ who has been bestowed the good fortune to occupy the throne of Khilafat. Ahmad Aqa, the Turkish envoy brought a missive from his Sultan to the court of Aurangzeb in 1690 which was thick with Quranic quotations and references to the Sultan as the Khalifah of Islam. In 1723, Muhammad Shah (1719-1748) resumed Mughal correspondence with the Porte in Istanbul. In his letter, Muhammad Shah styles the Sultan ‘the asylum of the greatest Sultans’, ‘the protector of the most honoured kings’, the ‘adorner of the exalted throne of Khilafat’, and the ‘spreader of the precepts of shariat’”. [Shashi S. Sharma, Caliphs and Sultans – Religious ideology and political praxis, pg. 248-249]
Shahi S. Sharma also remarks that the political authorities over the Indian subcontinent before the Mughals also accepted the legitimacy of the Abbasid state, which was the holder of the legitimate Khilafah before the Uthmanis. This is shown in the following passage: “Throughout its existence the Delhi Sultanate (1205-1526), remained a legal part of the worldwide Muslim empire functioning under the de jure suzerainty of the Abbasid caliphs. Sultans considered themselves the deputies of the caliph and derived their validity of their administrative and legal authority only on the basis of delegation. Since the supreme authority of the community legally remained with the caliph, every king and potentate claimed to exercise governmental power for, and on behalf of the Imam of Islam.” [Shashi S. Sharma, Caliphs and Sultans – Religious ideology and political praxis, pg. 247]
However, asides from historical debate, there is a more fundamental issue. Which is what Islam has mandated in terms of there being only one ruler. Even if the Mughals were a separate entity, there is no changing what Islam had mandated on the matter. Allah SWT said: “Behold, thy Lord said to the angels: “I will create a vicegerent on earth.” They said: “Wilt Thou place therein one who will make mischief therein and shed blood?- whilst we do celebrate Thy praises and glorify Thy holy (name)?” He said: “I know what ye know not.” (al Qur’an, Surah al Baqarah, Ayah 30) Ibn Kathir (ra), when giving a commentary on this Ayah, said: “Al-Qurtubi, as well as other scholars, said that this Ayah (2:30) proves the obligation of appointing a Khalifah to pass judgments on matters of dispute between people, to aid the oppressed against the oppressor, to implement the Islamic penal code and to forbid evil. There are many other tasks that can only be fulfilled by appointing the Imam, and what is necessary in performing an obligation, is an obligation itself.” (Tafsir Ibn Kathir, Vol.1, pg. 185)
The Prophet PBUH said: “If the Bay’ah has been taken for two Khulafaa’ kill the latter of them.” (Narrated by Imam Muslim) The Prophet PBUH, while usually being so gentle and kind, was uncompromising and strict on the matter of having only one appointed political leader. This is also proven by classical Islamic scholarship:
Imam Abu Hanifah, the great Alim and founder of the Hanafi Madhhab, was recorded as having been brought before the second Abbassid Caliph, al Mansur. When al Mansur was asked Abu Hanifah about what he thought about as-Saffah, the previous Caliph appointing al Mansur without seeking the consent of the people. Abu Hanifah replied. Abu Hanifah responded by confronting al Mansur, telling him how the Caliph should be chosen.:
“The man who sincerely seeks the right path to guide himself eschews wrath. If you consult your conscience you will see that you have not invited us for the sake of God but to make us say, out of dread, something that suits you and that should reach the people. The truth is, you have become a Caliph without even a couple
of men from amongst those whose opinion is respected as authoritative and agreeing to it, whereas a Caliph should be chosen with the conference and concurrence of Muslims.”
(Al-Kardawi’s Managib al-Imam al-A’zam, volume 2 pg 15-16)
Imam Shafi`i has reported that the Muslims have been in unanimity that the caliph is a single individual. [Shafi`i, "Ar-Risalah" translated into English by Majid Khadduri, Islamic Texts Society, 2nd Ed., 1987; p. 260]
“Ash Shafi’i believed that there must be a ruler under whose auspices the believer acts, enemies are fought, roads are made safe, and who takes from the strong for the weak, so that the pious are relieved and there is rest from the corrupt, as ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib stated.” (Muhammad Abu Zahra, The Four Imams, Their Lives, Works, and Schools of Thought p. 337, Dar al Taqwa Ltd.)
“It is permitted to have only one Imam in the whole world.” [Ibn Hazm, "Al-Muhalla", (9/360).]
“It is not allowed to appoint two independent Imams at the same
time.” [Tuftazani, "Sharh al-`Aqa'id an-Nasafiyyah", p. 185.]
“The Imams [of fiqh] have agreed that Imamate is an obligation, and that the Muslims must have an Imam . . . and that it is not permissible that there be two Imams [ruling] over the Muslims at one time in all the world, whether they are in agreement or in discord.” [Jaziri, "Al-Fiqh `ala l-Madhahib al-Arba`ah", Dar al-Kutub al-`Ilmiyyah, Beirut, 1988/1409, (5/416).]
Scholars from the Indian Subcontinent also echoed the same opinion, also saying that the Uthmanis were the legitimate Islamic political authority:
From 1919 – 1924, the Muslims in India rallied in support for the Uthmani Khilafah under the banner of the Khilafat Movement. The founders ans leaders of this group, Maulana Shaukat Ali, Maulana Muhammad Ali, Maulana Abdul Kalam Azad, Dr. Mukhtar Ahmed Ansari, and Hasrat Mohani.
The meeting of the Anjuman Moid-ul-Islam held under the aegis of the Firangi Mahal at Lucknow on January 26, 1919 resolved: “That this meeting of the Ulemas of Firangi Mahel, while expressing its firm and sincere devotion to Sultan Mohammed VI, emphatically declares that according to the true doctrines of Islam, none but the present Sultan of Turkey is the rightful Caliph and that Islam never allows the interference of non-Muslims in deciding the question of Caliphate”.
Maulana Muhammed Ali in a speech delivered by him in Paris in 1920: “The Khilafat is the most essential institution of the Muslim community throughout the world. A vast majority of the Muslims in the world recognize the Sultan of Turkey to be the Commander of the Faithful, and the successor of the Khalifa of their prophet. It is an essential part of this doctrine that the Khalifa, the Commander of the Faithfull, should have adequate territories, adequate military and naval resources, adequate financial resources”.
Maulana Mohammad Ali Johar also stated: “The ruler of Turkey was the Khalifah or successor of the Prophet and Amir -ul- Mu’mineen or chief of the believers and the Khilafah is as essentially our religious concern as the Quran or the Sunnah of the Prophet.” [My Life a Fragment, Mohammed Ali Johar, pg.41]
For any objective person, this should be more than enough to establish that Islam has mandated one ruler, and that the Khilafah must be upheld. Also, it should be clear that the Mughals were politically united with the Ottomans, and that even in it’s last days, the Uthmani Khilafah enjoyed mass support from the Muslims of India.
Shehroz – You haven’t answered the question!
Where is your evidence to suggest Aurangzeb recognised the authority of te Ottoman Sultans over the Mughals?
Keep in mind, I’m not saying the Ottomans never claimed to be Khalifahs, they did and so did the Mughals.
The points you have mentioned in your article have already been posted and refuted on this and other forums. Now please answer the specific question.
Shehroz – It seems your just copying and pasting what people have already said and discussed on forums. No new research their I’m afraid.
You never answered the question and instead are trying to divert the discussion. You’ve raised many other points (e.g. theological discussion on Khilafah) which we can discuss but please answer the first question Raziq raised above!
You write well Shehroz,
‘Furthermore, there are even more recorded incidents of more Mughal rulers then just Aurangzeb recognizing Uthmani authority, as shown by the following quote: “Muhammad Shah Bahamani III (1463-82), paid tributes to the Ottoman Sultan Muhammad II as the one deserving to be the Khalifah’
According to my father Shah Bahamani was one of my ancestors, but he wasn’t part of the Mughal Empire, what history are you reading. Babur was the first heir apparent to the Mughal throne and he established his rule after the 1526 battle of panipat.
‘In his letter, Muhammad Shah styles the Sultan ‘the asylum of the greatest Sultans’, ‘the protector of the most honoured kings’, the ‘adorner of the exalted throne of Khilafat’
It was common for Mughal rulers to exalt their fellow rulers, Bahadur Shah is also known to have heralded the last Sikh Guru, Gobind with the title of Pir-e- Hind, exaltation was the language of the rulers.
The idea of a fair Khilafat sounds an excellent idea, but with the state of modern day Muslims it would be a failed state.
We have more important matters to contend with, ourselves.
Even if Mughal rulers showed praises on the Ottoman sultan the fact is the ottoman sultan had no political control over territories outside of the Ottoman Empire which didn’t extent further than Iraq in the east.
Raziq – The question you posed is whether or not the Mughals were a separate entity or not. The issue does not concern any one ruler, be he Aurangzeb or anyone else, though the quote does mention him. The question is whether or not Indian rulers accepted the authority of the main Islamic political entity over the Muslim world. I have provided evidence that the Indian rulers recognized the political authority of the Abbasids and the Uthmanis. Even a Non-Muslim historian such as Shashi S. Sharma has accepted and stated this.
As for your saying that all my points have been refuted, please show me the refutation of all of them, including the concept of one ruler over one Khilafah, as espoused by Islamic sources and scholars.
Abhiman – I can assure you that the research did not revolve around the use of forums. You are saying that I have gone off the point, but I would say the same to you and Raziq. The question Raziq raised in his article was whether or not the position of those who say that the Khilafah was one entity is valid. As I said in my response, those who raise Raziq’s line of inquiry are missing the fundamental issue. They are truly diverting the discussion from the more important questions, which is what Islam has stated regarding the need for one ruler and one state. My quoting ayahs, hadiths and scholars was to show that, regardless of one’s historical view, Islam has made the matter clear on the subject of there being only one ruler over one Khilafah. Consequently, the whole point of this article is irrelevant, whatever historical view one takes. You cannot de-legitimize the Islamic concept of one ruler and one state by bringing up side issues and historical debates. From an Islamic legal perspective, the facts are clear.
Wazir Akbar – My mistake, you’re correct, he wasn’t. Though I would say that the quote has a double effect in that it shows that “pre-Mughal” rulers also accepted Ottoman authority in addition to the Mughal rulers such as Humayun, Shah Jahan, Aurangzeb and Muhammad Shah.
Also, you argue that Mughal rulers venerated Sikh Gurus, which may well be true. However, this diverges off the point. I am not aware of any instant wherein a Mughal ruler venerated any Sikh Guru with titles that signify Islamic political authority, such as “Khalifah of the highest qualities” , “Khalifah on earth”, “the asylum of the greatest Sultans”, “the protector of the most honored kings”, the “adorner of the exalted throne of Khilafat”, or “spreader of the precepts of shariat”. These are titles which Mughal rulers bestowed upon Uthmani Sultans, and it shows us that they not only accepted their greatness, but also their authority.
Abu Wannabe Arab – From your comment I gather that you support Raziq’s position of the invalidity of a historically unified Khilafah as espoused by HT, AM and the MB. However, the HT response to to your comment is that the Mughals were given Wilayat Amma or “General Governorship”, and that while Uthmani rulers were negligent towards the the Indian subcontinent, the fact remains that they accepted whoever held authority over the region, and so the Mughals were validated by the Uthmanis. This is stated by Abu Ismael al-Beirawi in his article: “The Khilafah and the Indian Subcontinent”. This is a fiqhi idea espoused by (never mind if you don’t like them) Shaykh Taqiuddin an Nabhani and Shaykh Abdul Qadeem Zalloum.
The idea of a Khilafah that can be united yet de-centralized, also appeared in the works of classical Scholars. Shah Waliullah talks about a commonwealth which, while sharing a loose political bond, still comes together for common political aims and objectives. This is very similar (though admittedly not identical to what Shaykh Nabhani and Shaykh Zalloum say about Wilayat al Ammah.
This, in addition to trade relations (such as when Babur traded with the Uthmanis and sought their military equipment), an intermingling of Islamic sufi scholars and ideas, a consistent implementation of Islamic law (be it a more “liberal” or “conservative” understanding) all show us that the Mughals were in sync with the Uthmanis. Just because western historians and Orientalists have a reading of history, doesn’t make it true.
Shehroz – I take it you are not a regular here since these issues have been debated before many times. With regards to the issue of Muslim unity in a historical sense, please read this:
http://www.chowk.com/articles/8535
With regards to whether or not Islam mandates such unity read this:
http://www.spittoon.org/archives/1845
Thanks for the material! You’re correct, I’m not a regular at this blog, though I had a feeling you would post Rashad Ali’s article. I will look at the material you posted later.
I can post one by another person saying the same thing if you like since it is a widely held view outside of Islamist circles.
Thanks, please do.
Shehroz,
Many ulema agree that the Ottoman State wasn’t a ‘Khilafah’. One such person was a Sunni Hanafi scholar from the Indian Sub-continent ‘Imam Ahmad Reza Khan’:
“It was clear to all that the Uthmaniyya Sultanate (Ottoman Empire), of Turkey due to her misconduct, was no more than a stain on the name of Khilafat. Then, suddenly, it was widley rumoured (by the contriving Hindu’s), that the Sulatn of Turkey is the Khilafah of Islam and to end his rule and Khilafat is equal to assaulting Islam’.
(Imam Ahmad Riza Khan – A versatile personality, Pg 14, Published by Jamaa’at e Ahle Sunnat UK Publications)
Another reason why many scholars rejected the Ottomans claim to the khilafah was because the Ottomans were loyal allies of the British. The British actually propped up the Ottoman State during the last 100 years of its existence for their own interests.
The idea that the Ottoman Sultan was Caliph over all Muslims was a relatively recent development. The Mughals & the Safavids never submitted to the overlordship of the Ottoman Sultan. It was actually during colonial rule in India that, with full British encouragement and support, the idea of accepting the Ottoman Sultan as the Universal Caliph was propagated amongst Indian Muslims. The British realised the value of having the Ottoman Sultan proclaimed the Caliph of all Muslims, this could be used to control Indian Muslims. The British welcomed and encouraged propaganda on behalf of the Ottoman Sultan as Caliph. In return the Ottomans would serve the British interests in India well.
One example is in 1798 the Ottoman Caliph sent a letter to Tipu Sultan, telling him that the British were his friends and asking him to refrain from hostile action against them. The letter was sent to Tipu not directly but through Lord Wellesly who was leading the British forces against Tipu Sultan! Another example is when the Ottoman Caliph came out in support of the British during ‘The Indian Mutiny’. The Ottoman Sultan Abdul Majid condemned the ‘mutineers’ and called upon Indian Muslims to remain loyal to the British. The British, he said, were ‘Defenders of Islam’.
The Ottomans eventually sided with the Germans during WW1, the Britsh then turned to the Arabs, who had always been hostile to Ottoman rule, and got them to fight against them. Important point here is that most Arabs were against Ottoman rule, as soon as they got the chance they liberated themselves.
Look at the whole picture.
Allamah Iqbal the great Muslim thinker and poet of the Sub-continent had this to say about the British allied Ottoman state:
“Are you not aware of history,
For khilafat, you have started to beg,
That we do not buy with our blood,
A sovereignity as such, for Muslims is shameful to accept”
(Poetry of Iqbal -Collection, Taj company, Lahore, Pakistan)
i’d just like to say i’m finding this terribly interesting.
b’shalom
bananabrain
Good points Raziq, also worth reading ‘Islam and the Secular State’ by Abdullah An Naim.
Political unity between 1.5 billion Muslims spread over many countries is technically impossible and does not have a historical precedent. Even unity within states like Yemen, Pakistan, Indonesia, Afghanistan and Iraq is difficult to achieve and the next few decades will see further autonomy being granted to various ethnic groups. Pipe dreams such as this inspired by mythical readings of history and de-contextualised readings of scripture are the cause of much suffering and bloodshed in the world today. Islamic political theorists have accepted modern political realities and embraced them, however, we are now being held back by Islamists who wish to ‘chase a mirage’ to use Tareq Fatah’s term.