Fath al-Rabbani

Benefits: … The details of the periods of caliphate of the Rightly Guided Caliphs are as follows:
Sayyiduna Abu Bakr al-Siddiq radi Allahu anhu: two years, three months, ten days
Sayyiduna Umar al-Faruq radi Allahu anhu: ten years, six months, eight days
Sayyiduna Uthman al-Ghani radi Allahu anhu: eleven years, eleven months, nine days
Sayyiduna Ali al-Murtada radi Allahu anhu: four years, nine months, seven days
Sayyiduna Hasan radi Allahu anhu: six months

The wording of the narration in Sunan Abi Dawud is as follows:
((KHILAFAH AL-NUBUWWAH THALATHUNA SANAH, THUMMA YU’TI ALLAHU AL-MULKA AW MALLAKAHU MAN YASHA’U.))
… The caliphate of Prophethood will remain for thirty years, then Allah, the Exalted, will grant His kingship to whomever He wills. Mulla Ali Qari said: The meaning of this hadith appears to be that the perfect caliphate will continue for thirty years, in which there will be no element of opposition or deviation from the truth, but after that, sometimes this quality will be present and sometimes absent. (Mirqat: 9/271)

Here, it is necessary to clarify that kingship in itself is not a blameworthy thing, such that the meaning of this hadith should be taken to start criticizing and reproaching the rule and kingship after the thirty-year period of caliphate. In Islam, that kingship is blameworthy which, in practice or in knowledge and practice, is unfamiliar with the commands of Allah, the Exalted, and His Messenger sallallahu alayhi wa sallam. Whether such a king is given the title of Amir al-Mu’minin or Khalifat al-Muslimin, this will not provide any support to his rule or caliphate. In Islam, titles are not considered; action and reality are what is considered valid. If the purpose of a king is the propagation of the true religion and its elevation, the implementation and promotion of Islamic civilization and culture, then he will be praiseworthy, even if he ascended the throne by inheritance after his father’s death. Nowadays, people have come to consider kingship itself as contrary to caliphate and prophethood, for which there is no Shari’ah basis. Allamah Ibn Khaldun writes: That kingship which is contrary and opposed to the concept of caliphate is tyranny (and rebellion), which Sayyiduna Umar radi Allahu anhu described as “Kisraiyyat” (Persian despotism) when he saw some of its outward signs in Sayyiduna Mu’awiyah radi Allahu anhu. But that kingship in which there is no coercion, domination, tribalism, or pomp, is neither contrary to caliphate nor to prophethood. Sulayman alayhis salam and Dawud alayhis salam were both prophets and kings, but despite this, both remained steadfast in obedience to Allah, the Exalted, and on the straight path in worldly affairs. The kingship of Mu’awiyah radi Allahu anhu was also of this kind; his purpose was not merely to attain kingship or to increase worldly honor and prestige. When the Muslims became dominant over most governments, due to natural tribalism, this sentiment arose in his heart; nevertheless, he was the caliph of the Muslims, and he guided the Muslim nation in the same way as kings guide their nations when national tribalism and royal temperament demand it.

Similarly, the condition of the pious caliphs who came after Sayyiduna Mu’awiyah radi Allahu anhu was the same. When needed, they also adopted royal manners and customs. When studying the conditions of these caliphs, it is necessary to rely only on authentic narrations, not on weak ones. The caliph whose actions are correct is the caliph of the Messenger, and the one who does not meet this standard is a king like the ordinary kings of the world, even if he is called a caliph. (Tarikh Ibn Khaldun: 2/142)

The reality is that in Islam, the true authority and lawgiver is Allah, the Exalted; the position of caliph is neither to legislate nor is every statement of his obligatory to obey. He is bound by the command of Allah and is the one who enforces it, and obedience to him is also conditional upon this. This concept of rulership was embedded in the hearts and minds of the first four caliphs with such intensity, but later this concept gradually faded, and this condition was described as kingship. Otherwise, in reality, kingship is not blameworthy in Islam. Sayyiduna Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz, in technical terms, was a king, i.e., he became caliph through the method of succession, but due to his style of governance, he left behind a good name. Similarly, in Islamic history, there have been many other kings whose illustrious achievements have adorned the pages of Islamic history, and whose personalities are praiseworthy and commendable in the eyes of all Muslims. Likewise, if someone insists on calling Sayyiduna Mu’awiyah radi Allahu anhu a king, then let him do so by all means. The entire history of the world cannot present a king as just, God-fearing, and accomplished in great deeds as he was. But if someone calls him a king from the perspective that he deviated from the Islamic system of governance, that his system of rule was not Islamic, and that he had no qualms about transgressing the limits of ethics and Shari’ah—as Mawlana Mawdudi has tried to make people believe in his book “Khilafat wa Mulukiyyat”—then this is sheer injustice, unfairness, an imbalanced way of thinking, and completely contrary to the facts. On this subject, the study of Hafiz Salahuddin Yusuf’s book “Khilafat wa Mulukiyyat ki Tarikhi wa Shar’i Hasiyat” will be very beneficial, insha Allah.