IDEA 33
Trafficking in Trust
Abu Bakr, may AL-LAH be pleased with him, began to speak at his inauguration, praising AL-LAH as He deserves and saying, “As for what follows: O people, I have been put in authority over you, and I am not the best among you. So if I act rightly, then help me, and if I act wrongly, then correct me. Truthfulness is a sacred trust, and lying is a betrayal. The weak among you are strong with me until I deliver them their right, if AL-LAH wills. The strong among you are weak with me until I take what is due from them, if AL-LAH wills. No people abandon jihad in the way of AL-LAH but that AL-LAH strikes them with disgrace. Foulness never spreads among people but that AL-LAH afflicts them with trials. Obey me as long as I obey AL-LAH and His Messenger, but if I disobey AL-LAH and His Messenger, then you are not obliged to obey me. Now, stand for your prayer, and may AL-LAH have mercy upon you.” [As-Sīratun-Nabawīyah 2/661]
We have here the original understanding between the first leader after the death of the Prophet (may GOD bless him and give him peace) and the Muslim ummah. Notice the disclaimer — “I am not the best of you” — and the conditionality of his authority, as in the use of “If” and “as long as.” The unquestionable authority of the Prophet had lapsed, and what remained was this mutual obligation of doing right on the one hand and the obligation to “help” and “obey” on the other.
Now compare this with how the bai’ah has subsequently been framed.
Ibn Khaldun says, “It should be known that the bay’ah is a contract to render obedience. It is as though the person who renders the oath of allegiance made a contract with his Ameer, to the effect that he surrenders supervision of his own affairs and those of the Muslims to him and that he will not contest his authority and that he will obey him by (executing) all the duties with which he might be charged, whether agreeable or disagreeable. [islamciv.com/2022/12/03/what-is-the-bayah]
It is worthy of note that in connection with the Caliphate bay’a became a necessary formality in the later centuries without which caliphate was never considered to have legally been instituted. It became the concern of the Muslim community at large regardless of one’s social status. Hence it was obligatory and universal. During the later centuries when social and political crises endangered the integrity and solidarity of the Umma and the state, Muslim jurists and theologians stressed unconditional bay’a to rulers whoever they might have been. [Bay’a and its Political Role in the Early Islamic State. Muhammad Nazeer Ka Ka Khel, Islamic Studies, Vol. 20, No. 3 (Autumn 1981), pp. 227-238]
We see from these latter two quotations how the bai’ah has had its character altered from a contract of mutual obligation to one wherein the Muslim “surrenders … his own affairs,” “will not contest” the leader’s authority, and falls under an “obligatory and universal” state of total compliance.
If we begin with the Muslim dividual’s highest obligation, namely to GOD, we may be surprised to learn that this is framed as a bargain — a two-way street. Truly GOD has bought from those with faith their lives and property in that the Garden is for them; they fight upon the path of GOD to kill and to be killed. A promise binding on Him in the Taurah, the Injil, and the Qur’an — and who is better in performing what he promises than GOD? Rejoice, then, in the bargain you have made. And that is the tremendous victory. (Q9:111)
The pledges given to the Prophet (may GOD bless him and give him peace) were comprehensive in that they included both this promise from GOD, conveyed through Muhammad as His Messenger, and an understanding that he would deliver the justice to which they were entitled as Muslims. There was an element of conditionality introduced at this point, for several ahadith expressed the Prophet’s reservation that he could only judge based on the testimony given him, even if that evidence turned out to be false, and he is quoted as saying (in the Musnad of Ahmad) that “I verily would wish to meet AL-LAH, The Mighty, The Glorious, without anyone making a claim on me for an act of injustice I had committed against him, be it blood or money.”
In his inaugural address, therefore, Abu Bakr is reflecting a mutuality of obligation in the promise given by AL-LAH to believers, that the reward for faith in Him, and particularly for authentic jihad, was Paradise, and in the honest commitment of the Prophet (may GOD bless him and give him peace) to ensure justice. Abu Bakr’s authority was conditional, recognizing the people’s right to correct his mistakes and disobey his commands when his disobedience to AL-LAH negated his right to rule.
Compare this with the current oath of allegiance used in Canada:
I, [name], do swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to His Majesty King Charles the Third, King of Canada, his heirs and successors. So help me God.
Notice here that there is no mutuality expressed or implied — no recognition of what Canada or King Charles owes to the oath-taker in return for his/her allegiance. No word from the recipient is expressed, no hand extended, no nod of thanks observed.
This is what the bai’ah in Islam has become — a one-way street. What are its justifications, and what have been the results?
Download the PDF version for free at Ideas Inspired by the Qur’ān – Mont Redmond complete version, or purchase a hard copy at Ideas Inspired by the Qur’an: Redmond, Mont: 9781738842506: Books – Amazon.ca.
Photo by Sam Kolder
