Salafi Research Institute SRI
When Did the Khilāfah Finish
Hizb ut-Tahrīr and Muhājirūn
Thumma “Qulu Bidatun-Dalālah”
‘And Every Innovation is Misguidance’
First Published 1999
Compiled, Translated and Annotated
Abū Ḥibbān & Abū Khuzaimah Anṣārī
A great majority of the the members, sympathisers and advocates of Hizb ut-Taḥrīr and al-Muhājirūn or whatever names they coin for themselves have always been under the delusion that the Khilāfah was destroyed in 1924. So when the aḥadīth regarding the period of Khilāfah are presented to them, they are shocked and astonished to the existence of such authentic aḥadīth.
Their responses after these aḥadīth presented to them vary, but almost every time they say, “Brother give us the reference, we will check it out” or “Brother we need to look at the chain of the ḥadīth because….” assuming the aḥadīth maybe weak and by this they try to avoid the real point of dispute.
These aḥadīth which clearly mention the time when the Khilāfah finished are thorns in the hearts of Hizb ut-Tahrīr and al-Muhajiroon as you will notice their dismay and disapproval when the aḥadīth are mentioned. These aḥadīth clearly elucidate the time when the khilāfah finished and when kingship would begin.
If we look at these aḥadīth from Hizb ut-Tahrīr and al-Muhājirūn’s position, we will acknowledge quickly that their CALL to the Khilāfah will be in vain hence the lack of knowledge regarding its existence. The ḥadīth is in different words but the meanings are the same.
Saʿīd bin Jamhān from Safīnah who said the Messenger of Allāh (Sallalahu alayhi wasalam) said,
“Khilāfah after me will be thirty (30) years.”
This ḥadīth is Ṣaḥīḥ
Ṭayālisī (no. 1107), Musnad Aḥmad (5/220-221), Faḍail as-Ṣahābah (nos. 789-790, 1027) of Imām Aḥmad, Kitāb as-Sunnah (2/573, 591-592 no’s 1348, 1402-1407) of ʿAbdullāh bin Aḥmad, Nasāʿī in Kubrā in the chapter of Manāqib as mentioned in Tuḥfatul-Ashrāf (4/22), Abū Dawūd in as-Sunnah (4/36 no.4646), Aʿun al-Maʿbūd Sharḥ Sunan Abī Dawūd (12/259-261 no.4633), Jām’e at-Tirmidhī (4/436 no.2226) Ṣaḥīḥ at-Tirmidhī (2/486 no.2226) of Allāmah Muḥammad Nāsir ud dīn al-Albānī, Kitāb as-Sunnah (p.557, no’s 1181, 1185) of Ibn Abī ʿĀsim, as-Sahābah (no. 108) of Khaithamah ibn Suleimān, Mushkil al-Āthār (4/313) of Ṭaḥāwī, al-Eḥsān Bi-Tartīb Ṣaḥīḥ Ibn Ḥibbān (8/227 no.6623, 9/48 no.6904 and no’s 1534-1535 – Mawārid az-Zamān), al-Kabīr (no’s 13, 136, 6442-6444) of Ṭabarānī, Mustadrak al-Hākim (3/156 no.4697), al-Mudkhil (6/2) of Baihaqī also in his al-Eʿtiqād (nos. 932, 934, 1047) Sharḥ us-Sunnah (14/74-75), Aqīdatus-Salaf Aṣhābul-Ḥadīth (p.86) of Imām Ṣabūnī, Silsilah Aḥadīth as-Ṣahīḥaḥ (no’s 459, 1534-1535), Tarīkh al-Khulafā (p.9) of Imām Suyūtī.
In Tirmidhī there is an addition to it; narrated Aḥmad bin Munīʿa who narrated from Suraij bin Nuʿmān who narrated from Hashraj bin Nubātah on the authority of Saʿīd bin Jamhān who said, Narrated Safīnah who said, the Messenger of Allāh (Sallalahu alayhi wasalam) said,
“The Khilāfah in my Ummah will be thirty (30) years, and then after it there will be kingship.” (Ṣaḥīḥ Sunan at-Tirmidhī (2/486 no.2226) Imām al-Albānī said, “Ṣaḥīḥ”.
Imām Tirmidhī adds,
“This ḥadīth is hasan, it is narrated by more than one person from Saʿīd bin Jamhān…” (Jāmʿe at-Tirmidhī (4/436), Auʿn al-Maʿbūd (12/260)
Imām Suyūtī said,
“Imām Aḥmad has bought from Ḥamād ibn Salamah, Saʿīd ibn Jamhān and Safīnah that they heard the Messenger of Allāh (Sallalahu alayhi wasalam) say, The Khilāfah in my Ummah will be thirty (30) years, and then after it there will be kingship.” the authors of the Sunans have mentioned this and Ibn Ḥibbān and others have authenticated it. It is the position of the majority of the scholars that the era of the four companions and including that of Imām Ḥasan (Radiallaah ta’ala anha) was a period of thirty (30) years.” (Tarīkh al-Khulafā (p.9-10), al-Alqamī reported the same from his teacher (Auʿn al-Maʿbūd (12/259), see also Fath al-Wadūd.
Imām Suyūtī further said,
“Imām Bazār has mentioned from Muḥammad bin Sakīn from Yaḥyā bin Ḥisān from Yaḥyā ibn Hamzah on the authority of Makhūl on the authority of Abu Thaʿlabah on the authority of Abū Ubaidah bin Jarrāh who said the Messenger of Allāh (Sallalahu alayhi wasalam) said, “The dīn began with prophethood and mercy, then there will be Khilāfah and mercy then there will be kingship and force. This ḥadīth is ḥasan.” (Tarīkh al-Khulafā (p.10)
Some of the narrators in the chains.
Sāʿīd bin Jamhān
Imām Yaḥyā Ibn Maʿīn and Abū Dawūd declared Saʿīd ibn Jamhān trustworthy, Truthful (Taqrīb at-Tahdhīb (1/312) another checking (p.375 no.2292) and (p.174 no.2279) of another checking, Tahdhīb at-Tahdhīb (4/14), Au’n al-Maʿbūd (12/260) of Imām Abu Ṭayyib Azīmabādī.
Hadhah bin Khālid al-Azdī
Trustworthy, devout. (Taqrīb at-Tahdhīb (2/315), Tahdhīb at-Tahdhīb (11/24), both Of Imām Ibn Ḥajr al-Asqalānī.
Safīnah – Kunyah Abū ʿAbdur Rahmān, the servant of the Prophet.
Famous. (Taqrīb at-Tahdhīb (1/312), (p.395 no.2471).
al-A’wām- Ibn Haushab
Trustworthy, firm, the learned. Taqrīb (2/89), Tahdhīb (8/163), Tahdhīb al-Kamāl (2/1064).
Aḥmad ibn Munīʿa
Trustworthy, Hāfiẓ (the memoriser). (Taqrīb at-Tahdhīb (p.25 no.114).
Hashraj bin Nubātah
Truthful. (Taqrīb at-Tahdhīb (p.109 no. 1363).
Suraij bin Nuʿmān
Trustworthy. (Taqrīb at-Tahdhīb (p.169 no.2218).
JazakAllāhu Khaira to our beloved brother Shehzad Anwar Sattar for his help
Khilafah is the shield of muslims
using general narrations does not amount to anything they need to be understood how the great scholars of the past understood it, and also let the hizb sympathisers learn the difference between khilafah and kingship
This is a rubbish article lol.
You make it out as if Hizb ul Tahrir has never heard of this Hadith before and it comes as a shock to them yet this Hadith is analysed and assessed in at least 7 or 8 times more detail in their books than your weak article discusses it.
Just think for 2 seconds before you go off posting this verbal diarrhea on your otherwise generally beneficial but highly partisan website.
If the Khilafah lasted only 30 years, then does that mean the ENTIRE 190 year period of the Salaf was them living in sin? Because Ibn Taymiyyah has said in his Al Siyasah al Shari’iyyah that the Khilafah is AL FARD UL AKBAR and necessary for the Deen!! Did the Salaf IGNORE ONE OF THE GREATEST FARA’ID FOR 190 YEARS!?
I seek refuge in Allah from the grave implications of your unthought about arguments upon our noble Aslaaf.
Did the Ummah abandon this extremely important Fard for 1300 years collectively?!
Akhi please, think and do some research before you post things
sorry brother that you never understood the article, it seems like your blind following of the Hizb has slapped your senses and brain out of its skull. you seem to be very confused you say beneficial but partisan website, make your mind up, the fact of the matter is you claim the Hizb know this hadith and yet to this day you have not presented a single viable and academic response other than hurling abuse just as you have done. as fr research i think you might need to learn the basics of what khalif is and when you have finished your verbal diarrhoea and find sometime to take your head out ignorance go and read upon what a khalif is before coming and ranting like am imbecile child. stop lying on the salad and misrepresenting them in your ignorant and innovator leader, nabahani
As Salamu Alaikum wa Rahmatullahi wa Barakatuhu.
Brother (Suwayd Ibn Abdul Wadood al Siddiqi) please refer to the Salafi Senior Scholars before JUMPING into any decision, bcoz as what reference u did provide of ibn Tahmiyyah’s (rahimahullah’s) DOES NOT CLARIFY your answer.
Look brother (Suwayd Ibn Abdul Wadood al Siddiqi) first of all we are just Layman, so we should also act as layman by NOT picking up any claims from Salafi scholars QUOTES & misinterpreting any a WRONG manner. This is exactly what the current Salafi Senior Scholars hv advised us (laymen) with, as follows:
What are the best methods in reading the books and writings of the Imams of the Da’wah?
Question:
“Ahsan Allahu ilayk. What are the best methods in reading the books and writings of the Imams of the Da’wah?”
Shaykh Saalih bin ‘Abdul-‘Azeez Aal ash-Shaykh, hafidhahullah,
Responded:
“All praise is due to Allah, the Lord of the Worlds. To continue…
Firstly, it is necessary to keep to the order which is indicated by the scholars. It is necessary to study the writings bit by bit, and to begin with the small writings, and then bigger and bigger, according to the situation. And thereby it is necessary that one takes from an ‘alim (scholar) who understands the words of the ‘ulamah of the da’wah-salafiyyah, and explains and clarifies them.
It is correct that the knowledge is present, and perhaps one can attain some understanding, but an ‘alim is necessary. And the best regarding this is the speech of (Imam) Ash-Shaatibee (رحمه الله), he said:
“The knowledge was in the hearts of men. Subsequently, it appeared on the inside of the books. But its keys remain in the hands of men.”
The knowledge is present in the books, but who makes you understand these books; this is not possible without a well-grounded ‘alim. And today you see many people who ascribe themselves to da’wah and they base themselves on the words of the ‘ulamah of the da’wah, and he is mistaken in this. Whether in takfir, or in rebelling against the leaders, or whether in the slandering of the madhaahib, or whether, or whether… He brings proof from the words he does not understand, does not know, and he did not study these books and writings of the da’wah with the ‘ulamah of the da’wah, who are known for that.
You see that he makes mistakes in his understanding and deviates and causes (others to) deviate. It is mandatory to take knowledge from its people; those who understand it. Because if in the Qur’an, there are Muhkam (clear) and Mutashaabih (ambiguous):
{It is He Who has sent down to you (Muhammad, صلى الله عليه و سلم) the Book (this Qur’an). In it are Verses that are entirely clear (muhkamaat), they are the foundations of the Book; and others not entirely clear (mutashaabihaat).} [Surah Aal-’Imraan 3:7]
Allah says to the people that the Qur’an has Muhkam and Mutashaabih.
The Khawaarij based themselves on what? The Qur’an! And they deviated because they didn’t take the Qur’an according to the understanding of the Sahaba (رضي الله عنهم). They didn’t ask the Sahaba; they understood it the way they wanted, with regards to the ayaat of kufr or the ayaat regarding al-Haakimiyyah, and such. And they based themselves on judgments from their own selves without returning back to the Sahaaba. This is taking the mutashaabih and leaving the muhkam verses, and leaving off returning to those who are grounded in knowledge. And also the Sunnah contains muhkam and mutashaabih. Likewise the words of the ‘ulamah contain muhkam and mutashaabih. The words of Shaykhul-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah contain muhkam and mutashaabih. The words of the Imams of the Da’wah contain muhkam and mutashaabih.
It is therefore not befitting that you take every statement and say that this is the understanding. The affair is not like this. It is necessary that you return back to the people of knowledge, so that they will show you the places where their words are clear and the places where their words are unclear. They bring the mutashaabih back to the muhkam and make them understand. The concern for the books of the ‘ulamah of the da’wah, the books of the da’wah Salafiyyah, in it there is light and guidance for the Muslim. However, it is necessary that this takes place with the ‘ulamah; they explain to you what you can take and they know the correct explanation of the words of the people of knowledge.
Trying to respond to “Suwayd Ibn Abdul Wadood al Siddiqi”, but clicking on ‘Reply’ didn’t work for me.
What he isn’t getting, is that the Salaf obviously WOULD not have lived in sin, and would have done what the HT propogate, if it were the right thing to do. But they didn’t.
He’s going backwards. He’s saying this is a sin – from himself. And then saying – how could the Salaf have done it. So THEREFORE this hadith is not meaning what it – does!