Imam al-Mahdi is the Khalifah of Allah
- Anonymous (M)
- Mar 1
- 10 min read
Updated: Mar 26
One of the fundamental differences between Sunni and Shi’a concept of Khilafat and Imamate is that in the Shi’a thought it must be chosen and appointed by Allah (swt) while Sunnis endorse that that man is left to choose his own. However, this view opposes the dhahir (apparent) of what the Qur’an and Sunnah have transmitted, where the appointment of the leaders of the Islamic Ummah whose obedience is mandatory have always been chosen through divine appointment. Since the time of Adam (as) until the Holy Prophet (saw) we have always seen that the leaders of Ummah were always appointed by Allah (swt), and never has there been a case recorded in any sources of the Islamic corpus where Allah had informed the people to choose their own leader that will represent His religion.
Sunnis will argue that divine appointment ends at the Seal of Prophets (saw), and that after that there was no need for that anymore since God completed His message. However, this contradicts their belief in the Mahdi who is believed to be divinely appointed by Allah, which means that divine intervention in these affairs have not ended at the Prophet. He is, as the Hadiths have mentioned, a Khalifa of Allah, which means a divinely appointed representative of His religion. But if this is the case, then this puts into question the legitimacy of the former caliphs who were clearly not divinely appointed by Allah as even ‘Umar himself admits this in Jami’ at-Tirmidhi 2225:
It was said to 'Umar bin Al-Khattab: 'Perhaps you should endorse your successor.' He said: 'If I appoint a successor, then indeed Abu Bakr appointed a successor. And if I do not appoint a successor, the Messenger of Allah (saw) did not appoint a successor."'
Therefore, we would have a contradiction in the theological tenets of the Sunnis. On one hand, divine appointment stops at the Messenger of Allah (swt) but Imam al-Mahdi comes after him and is divinely appointed, or divine appointment continues after the Messenger of Allah and puts the rest of the proclaimed caliphs as void.
One objection to this argument, however, would be that Imam al-Mahdi’s position of caliphate is just like any position of the other caliphs. He is not divinely appointed like a Prophet of God is and shares any commonalities with them. However, the Hadiths of Rasulullah (saw) clearly identify the Mahdi as a “Khalifah of Allah” rendering this claim as void, for this stipulates divine mandate for no one decides who is a Khalifah of Allah except for Allah Himself, lest we give authority (Tashr’i) to others besides Him.
Credit to RevisitingTheSalaf (Bayat Al-Ghadeer) for this section.
It is recorded in a multitude of sources that the following is narrated by this chain:
عَنْ خَالِدٍ الْحَذَّاءِ عنْ أَبِي قِلَابَةَ عَنْ أَبِي أَسْمَاءَ، عَنْ ثَوْبَانَ قَالَ: قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه واله: إِذَا رَأَيْتُمُ الرَّايَاتَ السُّودَ خَرَجَتْ مِنْ قِبَلَ خُرَاسَانَ فَأْتُوهَا فَإِنَّ فِيهَا خَلِيفَةَ اللهِ الْمَهْدِيَّ.
Khalid al-Khadha, from Abu Qilabah, from Abu Asma, from Thawban, from the Prophet (saw):
“When you see the black banners coming from the direction of Khurasan, go to them, for among them is the Caliph of Allah, al-Mahdi.”
It is clear that the Prophet (saw) is referring to the Mahdi as a Khalifah of Allah, which means that he is divinely appointed. There are two pathways that go back to Khalid that he had narrated this.
Path 1: Via Sufyan al-Thawri
It was recorded in Sunan Ibn Majah 4084 with the chain to Khalid going through Sufyan. It was similarly narrated and authenticated in the following sources:
Mustadrak 'ala al-Sahihayn, Vol. 4, pg. 510, and al-Dhahabi authenticated it
Musnad al-Bazzar, Vol. 10, pg. 99 - 100, who authenticated the report himself.
Al-Bidayah wal-Nihayah, Vol. 19, pg. 61 - 62 by Ibn Kathir, who authenticated it.
Muqadimat Ibn Khaldun, pg. 399 - 400 who deemed it as authentic.
It is clear for this reason that the chain of Khalid from Sufyan al-Thawri is reliable, and scholars have only weakened this report because of Khalid which shall be mentioned momentarily.
Path 2: Abd al-Wahab b. Ata
It is also recorded that ‘Abd al-Wahab b. ‘Ata, who is Abu Nasr al-Khaffaf, narrated this report from Khalid as well. This was recorded in:
Mustadrak 'ala al-Sahihayn, Vol. 4, pg. 547 by al-Hakim
Kitab al-Fitan, Vol. 4, pg. 213 by al-Mawruzi
Sunnis will try to argue the hadith is mawquf (the chain stops at a companion), but due to corroboration from Sufyan’s report, it is evident that Thawban is narrating this from the Prophet (saw), even if in this particular chain it isn’t mentioned.
As for Abd al-Wahab’s reliability, this is affirmed by several scholars, such as Ibn Hibban, Ibn Khalfun, Ibn Shaheen, Ibn Sa’ad, Abu Hatim al-Razi, Ibn Udayy, al-Nasawi, al-Daraqutni, al-Saji, Yahya al-Qattan, Yahya b. Mo’een, al-Mizzi and several other scholars. This was all recorded in Tahdhib al-Tahdhib, vol. 4, pg. 292 - 294 by Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani and hence he concluded him as Saduq in his Taqrib.
Moreover, he narrated in Sahih Muslim 2808 and Sahih Muslim 2467.
Khalid al-Khadha & Abu Qilaba
There are two pathways from Khalid al-Khadha that Abu Qilaba narrated in this report. Thawban and Abu ‘Asma are both established reliable narrators in the Sunni corpus, so we need not to investigate them.
As for Khalid al-Kadha, the following scholars have endorsed his reliability: Ahmad b. Hanbal, Ibn Hibban, Ibn Khalfun, Ibn Shaheen, al-’Ijli, al-Mizzi, al-Nasa’i, Yahya b. Mo’een and many other scholars as recorded by Ibn Hajar in his Tahdhib al-Tahdhib, vol. 3, pg. pg. 295 - 297, hence he also concludes him as Thiqah in his Taqrib. Al-Dhahabi followed this opinion in his al-Kashif, vol. 2, pg. 353.
Additionally, corroboration can be established for Khalid as another narrator narrates from Abi Qilaba the same thing and that is Ali b. Zayd in Musnad Ahmad b. Hanbal, vol. 37, pg. 70 and other sources, where it is recorded that Waki’ narrated Sharik from Ali b. Zayd from Abi Qilaba directly. As for this chain, Shu’ayb al-Arna’ut weakens this chain even though many scholars regard these narrators as reliable, however he claims that Abu Qilaba did not hear from Abu Asma.
Abu Qilaba is also a well-established reliable narrator, however he has been accused of tadlis. But this is incorrect, because he heard from Abu Asma, and this was recorded by Abu Hatim al-Razi in Jarh wa-Ta'dil, vol. 5, Bio. 264 pg. 57 that he heard (sami’) from Abu Asma.
Moreover, Shu’ayb is contradicting himself here (as usual) because in another narration where Abu Qilaba narrates from Abu Asma and he authenticates the report (ref. Sunan Abi Dawood. Vol. 3, pg. # 543, H. # 2226). Al-Albani is also contradicting himself (yet again) because he also rejects this report in Silsilatul Ahadeeth Al-Da'eefa. Vol. 1, Pg. # 196 - 198 for the same reason, yet he authenticates another report with the same chain issue, being that Thawban narrates from Abu Asma with عن in Sunan Abu Dawud 2226. We can clearly see the deceit and double standards of the scholars of our opponents.
In fact, they endorse the reliability of Sahih Muslim and there are many chains where Abu Asma narrated from Abu Qilabah such as in: Sahih Muslim 2568, 994, 2889 and many more examples can be cited. The hypocrisy of these scholars is unsurprising to say the least.
Objection of Ibn Taymiyyah
Al-Albani further mentions in Silsilatul Ahadeeth Al-Da'eefa. Vol. 1, Pg. # 196 - 198
And this addition of "Caliph of Allah (swt)" has no stable chain and it is something that it is not proper to take a supportive narration for it, because it is Munkar, as it is understood from the aforementioned statement of Al-Dhahabi and the disliked thing in it is that in religion it is not allowed to say that so and so is the Caliph of Allah (swt), because it might attribute things to Allah (swt) that are not possible like deficiency and disability.
This is what Sheikh Al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah has explained in Al-Fatawi: "And some mistaken people like Ibn Arabi have imagined that the Caliph is the Caliph of Allah (swt), like the Representative of Allah (swt), but for Allah (swt) it is not allowed to attribute a Caliph, and that is why when it was said to Aboo Bakr: 'O Caliph of Allah (swt)!' He said: 'I am not Caliph of Allah (swt), I am rather Caliph of the Messenger of Allah (saw) and that is enough for me.' It is rather the Almighty who is the Caliph of the others, the Prophet (saw) said: 'O Allah (swt)! You are the companion on the journey, and the caretaker for the family, O Allah (swt)! Accompany us in our journey, and the successor over our families.'"
And that is because Allah (swt) is the Living, the Witness, the Watcher, the Self Subsistent, the Observer, the Protector and the Needless of the creation, there is no associates to Him and no supporter and no one intercedes before Him except with His permission and Caliph is someone who succeeds the person when he is not there, because of death, of absence and he needs a successor and it is called Caliph, because he takes his place and succeeds him and all these definitions are irrelevant for Allah Almighty and He is innocent of them, because He is the Living, the Witness and He does not die and is not absent. And it is not allowed for anyone to succeed Him and take His place, and someone should not be given that title and name, so whoever specifies a Caliph for Him, he is a polytheist.
We often find that whenever Ibn Taymiyyah and many other scholars of the Nawasib wish to refute their opponents, they accuse them of an opinion and then go on to refute that attributed opinion. In this case it is no different, Ibn Taymiyyah attempts to interpret, 'Caliph of Allah (swt)' as someone who succeeds Allah (swt) and takes His place and that it would mean Allah (swt) is absent and no longer 'exists.' But the reality is, that no sane person believes in such a Caliph. The attribution of, 'Caliph of Allah (swt)' is similar to when we say, 'House of Allah (swt).' It does not mean anything other than a Caliph being appointed by Allah (swt) Himself as in the case of the Ka'ba being the House of Allah (swt), and that it was built so that His servants can visit and remember Him at that specific, blessed location.
Allah Almighty says in the Holy Qur'aan:
وَإِذْ قَالَ رَبُّكَ لِلْمَلاَئِكَةِ إِنِّي جَاعِلٌ فِي الأَرْضِ خَلِيفَةً قَالُواْ أَتَجْعَلُ فِيهَا مَن يُفْسِدُ فِيهَا وَيَسْفِكُ الدِّمَاء وَنَحْنُ نُسَبِّحُ بِحَمْدِكَ وَنُقَدِّسُ لَكَ قَالَ إِنِّي أَعْلَمُ مَا لاَ تَعْلَمُونَ
"And when your Lord said to the angels, I am going to place in the earth a Caliph, they said: What! wilt Thou place in it such as shall make mischief in it and shed blood, and we celebrate Thy praise and extol Thy holiness? He said: “Surely I know what you do not know.” [2:30]
The following has been mentioned by the exegesis of Sunni scholars. We read in
والمعنى بالخليفة هنا- في قول ابن مسعود وابن عباس وجميع أهل التأويل- آدم عليه السلام، وهو خليفة الله في إمضاء أحكامه وأوامره، لأنه أول رسول إلى الأرض، كما في حديث أبي ذر، قال قلت: يا رسول الله انبئا كان مرسلا؟ قال: (نعم) الحديث ويقال: لمن كان رسولا ولم يكن في الأرض أحد؟ فيقال: كان رسولا إلى ولده…
And the one meant by “caliph” here—in the saying of Ibn Mas’ud, Ibn Abbas, and all the commentators—is Adam (as), who was Allah’s caliph in enforcing His rulings and commands. He was the first messenger to the earth, as mentioned in the hadith of Abu Dharr. He said: “I asked, O Messenger of Allah, was Adam a messenger?” He said: “Yes.” It is asked: “To whom was he a messenger when there was no one on earth?” It is said: “He was a messenger to his children…”.
والمراد بالخليفة هاهنا آدم سماه خليفة لأنه خلف الجن أي جاء بعدهم وقيل لأنه يخلفه غيره والصحيح أنه خليفة الله في أرضه لإقامة أحكامه وتنفيذ وصاياه
And by Caliph here Adam (a.s) is meant, He has called him Caliph, because he succeeded the Jinn, i.e. He came after them and it is also said: It is because others will succeed him, but the correct opinion is that he is Caliph of Allah (swt) on earth to establish his rulings and implement his orders.
والمراد بالخليفة هنا آدم عليه الصلاة والسلام لأنه خلف الجن وجاء بعدهم. وقيل لأنه يخلفه غيره والصحيح إنه إنما سمي خليفة لأنه خليفة الله في أرضه لإقامة حدوده وتنفيذ قضاياه
By Caliph is meant Adam (a.s), because he succeeded the Jinn and was created after them and it is said: It is because others succeed him, but the correct opinion is that he is called Caliph, because he is Caliph of Allah (swt) on earth to establish his decrees and implement his rulings.
والخليفة من يخلف غيره وينوب منابه والهاء فيه للمبالغة، والمراد به آدم عليه الصلاة والسلام لأنه كان خليفة الله في أرضه، وكذلك كل نبي استخلفهم الله في عمارة الأرض وسياسة الناس وتكميل نفوسهم وتنفيذ أمره فيهم، لا الحاجة به تعالى إلى من ينوبه، بل لقصور المستخلف عليه عن قبول فيضه، وتلقي أمره بغير وسط، ولذلك لم يستنبىء ملكاً كما قال الله تعالى : ولو جعلناه ملكاً لجعلناه رجلا
And Caliph is someone who succeeds someone else and represents him and the ending "H" is for emphasis and by that Adam (a.s) is meant, because he was Caliph of Allah (swt) on earth, and so every other Prophet that Allah (swt) chose to build the earth and guiding people and lead them towards their perfection and to implement His rulings among them, not because Allah Almighty is in need of someone to succeed Him, but because of the shortcoming of the servants in accepting His grace and taking His orders directly without intermediaries and that is why he did not appoint any Angel as a Prophet as Allah Almighty says: "And if We had made him an angel, We would certainly have made him a man." {6:9}.
And Allah (swt) also says for Prophet Dawood (as):
يَا دَاوُودُ إِنَّا جَعَلْنَاكَ خَلِيفَةً فِي الْأَرْضِ
"O Dawood! We did indeed make you a Caliph on earth [38:26]
As we see, the above-mentioned verses of the Holy Qur'an and the opinions of the companions and scholars of the so-called 'Ahl us Sunnah' refute the statements of Ibn Taymiyyah who considered the Caliph of Allah (swt) a false notion.
The conclusion is, that the Hadith which mentions Imam Al-Mahdi (ajf) as the Caliph of Allah (swt) means that his imamate and leadership is by the order of Allah (swt) and its chain and content are completely authentic and correct and there is nothing fishy about it except that it makes some of the Nawasib angry and bitter because it means that they must accept that their idols who usurped the Caliphate, confessed that their Caliphate was not through Allah (swt), but rather man-made, and that in actual fact, Allah (swt) has given this noble position to one of the descendants of those from whom the position was initially usurped.
Comments