WRITINGS AND SPEECHES
OF
SIR SYED AHMAD KHAN
Compiled and edited by
SHAN MOHAMMAD
Foreword by
RAM GOPAL
NACHIKETA
NACHIKETA PUBLICATIONS LIMITED
5 Kasturi Buildings, J. Tata Road,
Bombay 20
41
THE VIEWS OF SIR SYED ON THE CALIPHATE
The blessed person of the Prophet of God (the blessing and
peace of God be with him) was endowed with three attributes:
I. The Prophecy Le. the commandments of God were revealed
to him.
II. The Communication i.e. he communicated or announced to
the people what was revealed to him.
III.
Government of the country i.e. he ruled the country, enforced the revealed commandments and looked after their proper observance, protected the people of the country and repulsed
the enemy by force.
The first of these attributes being a characteristic of the Prophet ended at his death, and no one ever was or is or can be his
caliph or deputy, in this particular.
In the second attribute, all the Mohammedan lawyers, and
learned men and traditionists who inculcate the articles of
Mohammedan faith can be regarded as caliphs or deputies of the
Prophet and it is for this reason that some commentators of the
Holy Koran include in the words "those who are in authority
among you" which occur in the verse: "O true believers, obey
God, and obey the Apostle and those who are in authority among
you" (Koran Chapter IV—v. 59) the twelve Imams (peace be
with them) and the Mohammedan lawyers.
As regards the third attribute those who possess and govern a
country and have the power to enforce and keep alive the rules of
faith and can through their strength and resources defend the
country against its invaders, can be regarded as Caliphs or deputies of the Prophet; provided that they are gifted with the virtues
and manners of the Prophet and follow the dictates of the religion and possess external and internal holiness. And some commentators have also included in the words "those who are in
256
Writings and Speeches of Syed Ahmad Khan
authority among you" Mohammedan generals under whom are
large multitudes of people.
It is possible from this point of view that Mohammedan sovereigns of a country may regard themselves as Caliphs: but they
are Caliphs or Sultans of that country alone which they rule
and of those Moslems only who are their subjects. They are not
Caliphs or Sultans of that country or of those Mohammedans who
are neither their subjects nor are governed by them; because
it is necessary for a Caliph that he should be the ruler of
the country, able to give orders of punishment and retaliation
and to enforce them; that he should be the defender of the
faith and that he should protect the country and its people from
their enemies and maintain peace and order within. So that if a
Moslem sovereign does not possess such power and cannot exercise such authority in a particular country he cannot be and
cannot be called the Caliph over that country or its Mohammedan
inhabitants.
In deciding the question whether the Sultan of Turkey is the
Caliph or not, some people urge that he is not a Quresli; while
those who think him to be a Caliph do not believe in the correctness of the tradition which requires the Caliph to be the Quresh
descent.
Setting aside all these controversies and even taking for granted that the Sultan of Turkey is the Caliph, we say that if he is
the Caliph, he is the Caliph only in that country which he
governs and for those Mohammedans only who owe him allegiance; he is Caliph only in that country in which he can inflict
punishments of death or retaliation and maintain the laws of
religion; he is not Caliph in that country over which he does
not hold the supreme authority and control; in which he can
neither give orders for death or retaliation nor can he maintain the faith nor can he protect its Mohammedan inhabitants.
Not fulfilling the conditions necessary for the Caliph he cannot be the Caliph over that country or its Mohammedan inhabitants.
We, the Mohammedans of India, are the subjects of the British
Government under whose protection we live. The Government
has given us peace and allowed us all freedom in religious
matters. Although our English rulers profess the faith of Christ
yfet the Government presents no difficulties to a Christian who
Views of Sir Syed on the Caliphate
|S7
comes to Mohammedanism, as it doe& not prevent Mohammedans
becoming Christians. The Christian Missionaries have nothing to
do with the Government. As they are wandering about preaching
their religion so are hundreds of Mohammedans delivering
public sermons on Islam. If a Mohammedan becomes a Christian,
there is, on the other hand, always some Christian converted to
Islam. So that the English Government has given to us Mohammedans who live as subjects under their protection, enough
liberties in matters of faith. Over and above that, under the
English Government our lives and property are safe and we enjoy
all the rights concerning matrimony, divorce, inheritance and
wills, gifts and endowments which Mohammedan law allows us,
even when Christian Judges have to decide upon them;
because Christian Judges are obliged to decide according to the
law of Islam; so it is our religious duty to remain feithful to and
well-wi&hers of the English GoVferni&ent and not to do or say anything practically or theoretically inconsistent with 0ur toyalty
and goodwill tH that GoV€ilini€nt.
We are not the subjects of Sultan Abdul Hameed Khan nor
does he possess any authdiity over us or over our country. He ii
no doubt a Mohammedati sovereign and consequently we sympathise with him as Mohammedans^-happy for his happiness and
grieved at his troubles—but he is not our Caliph either according to Mohammedan law or Mohammedan religion. If he has
the rights of a Caliph he has them only in the country and over
the people that he is master of.
History also proves that whenever a Mohammedan sovereign
assumed the title of Caliph his Caliphate extended only to the
extent of his dominions and his subjects. A country beyond the
range of his government had nothing to do with his Caliphate,
Imamate and Sultanate. Herfe we give an account of the Caliphs
which will show that the authority as Caliph was confined within
the boundaries of their possessions.
The Caliph Abu Bakr who succeeded the Prdphet after his
death did no doubt like to be called the Caliph or deputy of the
Prophet. But when he (Abu Bakr) was succeeded by Omar, it
was undesirable for the latter to be called the Caliph of the
Caliph or deputy of the deputy of the Prophet. So instead of the
appellation of Caliph he took the title of Amir-ul Mominin or
258
Writings and Speeches of Syed Ahmad Khan
the commander of the faithful. This was the title of Omar,
Othman, Ali and of Hasan.
When Imam Hasan relinquished his right to the Caliphate
and Muawiah, son of Abu Sufian, took the reins of the Government and made Damascus his capital in 41 Hijra (corresponding
with 661 A.D.) he also was called Amir-ul Mominin (commander
of the faithful) and so it is known up to this day; but as the title
of Caliph involving the reference of succession to the Prophet
was regarded more sacred the Umayyads took from time to time
on their coronation the title of Caliph which in fact meant no
more than Sultan.
When Abbasids defeated Umayyads in 137 Hijra (corresponding with 754 A.D.) Suffa became the ruler. Then Al Mansur
took Baghdad for Damascus as his capital. All the Abbasids
assumed the title of Caliph from time to time. The Umayyad
Caliphs remained no longer and after them the Abbasid Caliphs
held the sway.
When the Abbasid Caliph Al Muktadir Billah reigned in
Baghdad, a Caliphate was established in Africa. In 297 Hijra
(corresponding with 909 A.D.) Abdullah Al Mahdi laid the
foundations of a Caliphate in Africa (Qirwan) and in 341 Hijra
(corresponding with 952 A.D.) Al Maaz Billah left Qirwan and
made his capital in Egypt. Abdullah Al Mahdi and his successors
were all Allyites and all assumed the title of Caliph. Now in the
Mohammedan world there were two Caliphs, permanent, with
power and authority. On the one side there were Abbasid
Caliphs of Baghdad and on the other the Allyite Caliphs of
Qirwan or Egypt.
In 138 Hijra (corresponding with 755 A.D.) Abdul Rahman
Al Dakhil entered Andalusia. For a time his successor did not
assume the title of Caliph; but when in the time of Al Muktadir
Billah the Caliph in Baghdad in 300 Hijra (corresponding with
912 A.D.) Abdul Rahman Nasir ascended the throne he took
the title of Caliph. His successors who had made Cardova their
capital also called themselves Caliphs.
Now, there were in the Mohammedan world three permanent,
independent and powerful Caliphs—the Abbasid Caliph in
Baghdad, the Allyite Caliph in Egypt and Abdul Rahman Nasir
and his successors in Andalusia. Each of these three Caliphs regarded himself the Caliph of the country which was under his
Views o\Sir Syed on the Caliphate
259
control In the court of each there were Kazis and Muftis &c.
who administered Mohammedan law under the orders and directions of their respective Caliphs in their own particular country.
In the Court of the Abbasid Caliphs of Baghdad the Hanafi law
was followed, and in the Fatimite Government of Egypt the
Ismailia law was in force-while in the courts of the Caliphs of
the Umayyad dynasty of Andalusia the Maliki Mohammedan law
was acted upon, The Kazis and Muftis regarded the claims
to Caliphate of every one of these Caliphs to be lawful within
their respective dominions. From these accounts it is clear that
Sultan Abdul Hameed Khan is not and cannot be the Caliph
for us Mohammedans who are the subjects of the British Government. It is no doubt true that he is the guardian of the two
sacred places; nay he is the guardian of more than two sacred
places i.e., of the Holy Kaaba, Madina and of Jerusalem—the last
named place being sacred alike for the Jews, the Christians and
the Mohammedans—but this guardianship has nothing to do with
his being a Caliph.
Some people say that it is necessary that the Imam or Caliph
in every age be one for the Mohammedans of the whole world
and therefore they regard the Sultan of Turkey such a Caliph for
the whole Mohammedan world. But they are quite mistaken in
holding such a view. Their assertion that for the whole world
there should be one Caliph is neither proved from the Holy
Koran nor from any tradition. None has ever ruled the whole
world and perhaps none will ever rule in future. The Mohammedans inhabit various portions of the globe and when they live
in a country where the Sovereign is not a Mohammedan then over
those Mohammedans there can be no Mohammedans as their
Caliph or the Imam of the time (the word Imam is taken to mean
the same thing as the word Caliph). Moreover their assertion contradicts the teaching of history. We have already stated that there
have been three Caliphs living at the same time who have been
looked upon as lawful Caliphs by the Kazis and Mufts then
inhabiting their respective territories.
The Mohammedans believe that near the day of judgment when
Christ will come down from the heavens and Imam Mahdi will
be born or reappear then the latter will be the Imam of the
whole world. Those who will be then living will see what will
happen; but in our opinion neither Christ is going to come
260
Writings and Speeches of Syed Ahmad Khan
down from the heavens nor is Imam Mahdi going to be born or
reappear; because none of the traditions concerning this point
is genuine but on the contrary many of them are apocryphal.
It has been argued on the authority of some traditions that it
is incumbent upon every Mohammedan to know and swear allegiance to the Imam of the age. Though these traditions also are
not genuine and trustworthy yet we do not dispute about this
matter and supposing them to be genuine we say that it is the
duty of every Mohammedan to know the Caliph under whose
Government he lives and to swear allegiance to him. By swearing
allegiance we mean to affirm loyalty and faithfulness and every
one should obey him whose subject he is. This does not require
that even those who do not reside in his dominion as his subjects
should own fealty. In short, no Mohammedan sovereign is Caliph
for those Mohammedans who do not live in his dominions.