Please someone correct me if I am wrong, but it seems that if the kuffar take over some part of the Muslim lands, it makes the appointing of a khalifa MORE urgent, rather than providing an excuse to delay the obligation of khilafa indefinitely.

If we say that in order...

/1

...for a khalifa to be legitimate, he must be accepted by the entire ummah, this means that if the kuffar invade the Muslim lands, control a portion of them, and the khalifa dies, then we would need to delay appointing a new khalifa until we recapture the lost territory...

/2

...where many Muslims are still living. This is very problematic, because the likelihood of reconquering that territory would seem to be much less if the Muslims break into a bunch of diverse factions, each with their own leader, and each operating according to their...

/3

...own views about what the best strategy is.

I have done some research into the views of the scholars on this topic, and there are some scholars that held the opinion that the khalifa becomes valid when he is given bay'ah by a majority of the Muslims, but this was...

/4

...very clearly in relation to an established khilafa in which a khalifa dies and another one is replacing him.

I don't see how these fatawa can be applicable to a situation where there is no unified body of the Muslims living free from domination by the kuffar.

/5

Even if it was applicable, I found that the view that a majority consent is required is only one opinion. There are other opinions that say the khalifa can be elected by five people, as was the case with both Abu Bakr and Umar (radhi Allahu anhum) while other scholars...

/6

...were of the view that the khalifa could be elected by two people, with one person contracting leadership with the agreement of two witnesses, in the same way a contract of marriage is made by a wali and two witnesses. Another view states that contracting leadership...

/7

...requires only one person, and the evidence is that Ibn Abbas asked Ali (radhi Allahu anhum) to reach out his hand to give allegiance to him, and in this way began Ali's tenure as khalifa.

I also did not see any strong rejection of the different views by the scholars.

/8

I mean, there was no emphasis that "this view is wrong and this one is right." So I don't know how someone could declare a khalifa appointed according to one of these views could be declared as invalid because someone follows another one of the views. The only rejection...

/9

...of one of these views I saw was the view that the entire ummah should be involved in the election of the khalifa, on the basis that it would contradict the election of Abu Bakr.

So maybe someone has researched this issue more deeply, or is more familiar with source...

/10

...texts on this topic, and can clarify the issue? Because it seems we have a lot of Muslims who may be denying an obligation based on a narrow or incomplete understanding of this matter.

Also, a general question about fiqh - when it comes to a fardh kifaya, wouldn't...

/11

...it be the case that if a Muslim fulfills a fardh kifaya, we accept that from them, unless we have an evidence that is not filled? For example, to have a number of hufadh who have memorized the whole Quran. Isn't it from husn al dhun (to think good) to assume that...

/12

...a Muslim who claims to have memorize the Quran has really done so? I mean, assuming those who claim to have memorize the Quran are not fasiqin, we accept their words at face value, as all Muslims should be regarded as innocent until proven guilty. Thus, the obligation...

/13

...is lifted until it comes to light that our memorizers were lying about having memorized the whole Quran.

Likewise, it seems to me that if a group of Muslims establishes a khilafa in a time where the obligation is unfulfilled, that we must assume it is valid unless...

/14

...we have a clear evidence that it is invalid. The more I read into the history of Islam, the more clear it becomes that total consent of the whole ummah was never regarded as a condition for the validity khilafa. I have seen nothing that suggests controlling territory...

/15

...is a condition of khilafa. I have seen nothing that suggests that losing control of a land due to military defeats renders a khilafa invalid. I have seen nothing that suggests even that unjust killing of Muslims (let alone kuffar) renders a khilafa invalid, though it...

/16

...might make it permissible to remove an individual khalifa in certain situations. That is to say, the khilafa is an institution which is bigger than individual khulafa.

So please, can someone clarify my understanding on this matter, because it seems very clear...

/17

...but maybe I am missing some important details or nuance. Maybe my misunderstanding can be rectified by more in depth reference to the scholarship on this topic of which I am still unaware.

Jazakum Allahu khair

/18