Every child in India learns about the Caliphate from the Khilafat movement which undeniably is an integral part of freedom struggles in subcontinent. Mr. Gandhi's decision to undertake and to integrate both non-cooperation movement and Khilafat movement in the 1920, had enemies and friends from the day one onwards. Khilafat movement was essentially a political protest campaign launched with the aim of influencing the British government to protect the Caliphate of Istanbul from the repercussions of World War I.
Caliphate as an institution began with Muhammad’s disciple Abu Bakr. Khalifa was supposed to be the head of the entire community of Muslim faithful (the ummah). Over the centuries, from Abu Bakr till 20th century, the title of Caliph passed through different head, empires and dynasties. The Ottoman rulers began to claim Caliphal authority only after the Ottoman Empire defeated the Mamluk Sultanate in 1517 and took control of most Arab lands, during the reign of Selim I.[1] The last Abbasid Caliph at Cairo, al-Mutawakkil III, was taken into custody and was transported to Constantinople, where he reportedly delivered the symbols of Caliphate to Selim I.[2] A brief overview of historical caliphal authority asserts the fact that it remained with those who had courage and capability to claim it. Ottoman caliphate was one in this list.
It was to protect this Ottoman caliphate that Mohammad Ali and Maulana Shaukat Ali (Known as Ali brothers) with other prominent Muslim league leader joined together to form the All India Khilafat Committee. They aimed to build political unity amongst Muslims and use their influence to protect the caliphate. In 1920, they published the Khilafat Manifesto, which called upon the British to protect the caliphate and for Indian Muslims to unite and hold the British accountable for this purpose.[3] While this endeavour is justified as a genuine attempt to protect the head of the Ummah by the members of it. It chooses to ignore a unique position of Muslims in India, to be accurate, those who were the subjects of erstwhile Mughal empire. To understand this unique position one should start from an important document formulated during the reign of Mughal emperor Akbar The Great.
In 1579 under Akbar's rule, Abul Fazal engineered a document called theologians declaration (mazhar) which declared 'Abu'l – Fath Jalal Al-Din Muhammad Akbar' as Padshah-i-Islam and Sultan-i-Adil, providing him authority over Mujtahid (person qualified to exercise Ijtihad) and over Ijtihad (providing legal interpretation on Islam). This unique endeavour made Akbar theologically capable of selecting among the ijtihad, one which benefits the world (essentially one which benefits him) and make decisions and interpretations based on his rational thought without coming in conflict with scripture. It was interesting at the moment, as this went against some of the prominent systems of thoughts in Islam (such as that of Al-Ghazali) which understood 'gates of ijtihad' as being closed, i.e. no one could engage in this act any more. Thus Akbar placed himself as Khalifa and above even Khalifa in certain aspects.
While these are theological, the practical implications were, it made Akbar and his subjects free from the theological authority of the Khalifa. making the Mughal emperors Khalifas for their Muslim subjects. Thus the identification of Ottoman Caliphate as the head of Muslims community in subcontinent would be theoretically wrong position to take up. If Muslims in India had to protect their caliphate (one they belonged to) they should have had a Khilafat movement when last Mughal emperor Bahadur Shah II was exiled to Burma by the British. Khilafat movement obviously did not take into account these issue while making an attempt to unite the Muslims in the name of ummah. Most probably they were unaware of this position established by Akbar and held by Mughal emperors. Looking back guided with these documents, Khilafat Movement, in it's theoretical base, appears to be shaky and misguided.
Caliphate as an institution began with Muhammad’s disciple Abu Bakr. Khalifa was supposed to be the head of the entire community of Muslim faithful (the ummah). Over the centuries, from Abu Bakr till 20th century, the title of Caliph passed through different head, empires and dynasties. The Ottoman rulers began to claim Caliphal authority only after the Ottoman Empire defeated the Mamluk Sultanate in 1517 and took control of most Arab lands, during the reign of Selim I.[1] The last Abbasid Caliph at Cairo, al-Mutawakkil III, was taken into custody and was transported to Constantinople, where he reportedly delivered the symbols of Caliphate to Selim I.[2] A brief overview of historical caliphal authority asserts the fact that it remained with those who had courage and capability to claim it. Ottoman caliphate was one in this list.
It was to protect this Ottoman caliphate that Mohammad Ali and Maulana Shaukat Ali (Known as Ali brothers) with other prominent Muslim league leader joined together to form the All India Khilafat Committee. They aimed to build political unity amongst Muslims and use their influence to protect the caliphate. In 1920, they published the Khilafat Manifesto, which called upon the British to protect the caliphate and for Indian Muslims to unite and hold the British accountable for this purpose.[3] While this endeavour is justified as a genuine attempt to protect the head of the Ummah by the members of it. It chooses to ignore a unique position of Muslims in India, to be accurate, those who were the subjects of erstwhile Mughal empire. To understand this unique position one should start from an important document formulated during the reign of Mughal emperor Akbar The Great.
In 1579 under Akbar's rule, Abul Fazal engineered a document called theologians declaration (mazhar) which declared 'Abu'l – Fath Jalal Al-Din Muhammad Akbar' as Padshah-i-Islam and Sultan-i-Adil, providing him authority over Mujtahid (person qualified to exercise Ijtihad) and over Ijtihad (providing legal interpretation on Islam). This unique endeavour made Akbar theologically capable of selecting among the ijtihad, one which benefits the world (essentially one which benefits him) and make decisions and interpretations based on his rational thought without coming in conflict with scripture. It was interesting at the moment, as this went against some of the prominent systems of thoughts in Islam (such as that of Al-Ghazali) which understood 'gates of ijtihad' as being closed, i.e. no one could engage in this act any more. Thus Akbar placed himself as Khalifa and above even Khalifa in certain aspects.
While these are theological, the practical implications were, it made Akbar and his subjects free from the theological authority of the Khalifa. making the Mughal emperors Khalifas for their Muslim subjects. Thus the identification of Ottoman Caliphate as the head of Muslims community in subcontinent would be theoretically wrong position to take up. If Muslims in India had to protect their caliphate (one they belonged to) they should have had a Khilafat movement when last Mughal emperor Bahadur Shah II was exiled to Burma by the British. Khilafat movement obviously did not take into account these issue while making an attempt to unite the Muslims in the name of ummah. Most probably they were unaware of this position established by Akbar and held by Mughal emperors. Looking back guided with these documents, Khilafat Movement, in it's theoretical base, appears to be shaky and misguided.
References
[1] Thompson, J (2008) A History of Egypt, AUC Press.
[2] M. Pitman, Paul (1987). The Rise of the Turks and the Ottoman Empire (Excerpted from Turkey: A Country Study). Sam Houston State University. Retrieved 14 December 2013.
[3] Minault, Gail
(1982) The Khilafat Movement: Religious Symbolism and Political
Mobilization in India. Columbia University Press.
No comments:
Post a Comment