The Dynamics of the Caliph at the Time of the Prophet's Companions and Its Relation to Democracy

The Dynamics of the Caliph at the Time of the Prophet's Companions and Its Relation to Democracy

In the history of early Islamic civilization, the title "Khalifah" refers to those who are believed to be the successors of the Prophet Muhammad in terms of managing the state (Medina) for the welfare of society. People who carry out the mandate as "Khalifah", thus, must refer to the traces of the wisdom of the Prophet Muhammad SAW.

Even so, the Caliph is different from the Prophet. While the Prophet was ma'shum and the inauguration was God, the caliph was closely tied to the social system. That is why the expression of the people's approval for a Caliph is manifested through bai'at .

Bai'at is a necessity for a caliph because the legitimacy of his power comes from the bai'at . Bai'at is performed by ahlul halli wal aqd which contains scholars and community leaders. Ahlul halli wal aqd itself is a representation of the interests of the people or society.

Instead, the power of the Caliph will continue to be monitored by the public and therefore must be prepared to receive input and criticism if there are policies that have the potential to harm the public interest. In short, a caliph cannot act arbitrarily.

To a certain extent, the people must also participate with the caliph in managing power. An expert on Islamic history named Yusuf al-Isy, for example, said that a caliph would usually choose several people from among the people who could be used as a place for consultation, deliberation, and even exchange of ideas. The credible people who were selected by the caliph were then gathered in a council or commonly called the Shura Council  for the caliphate institution. The assembly is the prerogative of the caliph and not the result of the people's choice.

So here the people are involved, both in granting power to the caliph through bai'at and in the process of monitoring the performance of the caliph if he is guilty in the Shura Council . This mechanism takes place within the framework of the 'democratic' caliphate system. Also, it takes place in a frame of authority where the caliph is the party who will 'knock the hammer', so that what he decides is what he obeys.

An example is what happened when a group of residents questioned Uthman bin Affan 's controversial policy in the Baitul Maal case . The chairman of the Baitul Maal Management Council , which at the time of Umar was managed and held by Abdullah bin Arqam, who was known to be very honest and credible in managing the Baitul Maal , was abolished during the Caliph Uthman. Furthermore, the management of Baitul Maal is handled directly by the caliph.

The policy was criticized by community leaders. The criticism arose because Abdullah bin Arqam was known as a very honest person and very disciplined in carrying out his duties. Not only that. The management of Baitul Maal which was directly handled by Uthman bin Affan experienced a setback from the institutional managerial side.

The power of the caliph in this case is not inherited and does not continue to certain people or groups. And this shows the democratic side, which is open to the people, and every people has the right to become a caliph, if indeed he has the credibility and capacity needed as a caliph.

It should be noted, a caliph has a very broad power. We will not be able to find the division of power and its limitations in the concept of Khulafaur Rasyidin , as we understand today that there are three kinds of powers, namely legislative, executive and judicial. At that time, the three powers were in the hands of the caliph.

However, he can delegate power to others, such as being able to represent judicial power to a qadhi . But the judge ( qadhi ) had to follow him, and a caliph had the right to replace him with someone else whenever the caliph wanted him. Likewise, legislative power which is also the right of the caliph's power, but at the limit of the Qur'an and Hadith. Executive power is also in the power of the caliph within the limits that have been set by syara' .

As for the ministerial position, which we usually understand in the current government system, it is not found in a caliphate state. However, the function as a caliph's assistant, in practice, was found because usually a caliph was assisted by experts from the companions. For example, Umar was a minister during the reign of Abu Bakr, and Uthman was a minister during the caliphate of Umar bin Khattab.

The Caliph gave full authority to his "ministers" to appoint several people who were trusted to carry out tasks and handle the affairs of those under him. For example, taking the obligations of zakat, shadaqah, taxes, and exercising judicial authority, development, defense (military) and the like. But still, the caliph is the head or leader in all matters, while others carry out the task with the caliph but do not have broad authority.

In another sense, the caliph has absolute power over the state and its people. However, of course we cannot view this "absolutism" as a negative thing because after all the four caliphs in the era of Khulafaur Rashidin were friends who had been guaranteed heaven by Allah. Therefore, the trias politica power distribution system which all refers to the authority of the caliph does not need to be debated anymore, because they certainly depart from the Qur'an and Hadith and their ijtihad in the capacity as companions of the Prophet.