What's new

Ataturk's Legacy vs Caliphate and implications for Pakistan

based on the fact that Muslim countries are dis-united and in a period of dissaray.

2 influential Islamic countries are at eachother's throats and using Yemen, Lebanon, Falasteen and even to some extent our own country --to settle their stupid scores.
You are using the situation as your reference point. The Prophets and Messengers were sent to nations and people who were on the wrong path, so do you think Prophets/Messengers used the situation as the reference point for their views? Did the Prophet SLAWS condone the burrying of live infant girls? No. What you're advocating is not the solution of the problem, but the perpetuation of problems.

The mistakes of the Ummah cannot be your reference point, Quran and Sunnah are your reference point.
so --assuming you are correct, how do we go about bringing about this khilafah. What are the steps?
We follow the method of the Prophet SLAWS during the time of Makkah - which revolves around changing our ideological concepts through intellectual discourse. The ideas and concepts must be accepted by both the general populace and elite on an intellectual basis, but peacefully. So yes, the Taliban, Al Qaeda, etc, are not using the correct methodologies to establish Shariah. However, while we maintain intellectual and political discourse, we do not take part in the Kufr political systems - such as running for seats. This is again, from the method of the Prophet SLAWS.
not everybody is the same, or shares the same beliefs
Yes, but as Muslims were are obliged to obey Allah SWT. The Aus and Khazraj gave authority of Madina to the Prophet SLAWS, even though the city contained significant Jewish and Mushriq populations.
How does that answer what I said?
I edited the post.
 
Last edited:
why shouldnt i use the Iran-Saudi rivalry as a reference point....they are both "Islamic" nations -- and both quite influential

both ideologically opposed, even though they both follow the Quran (or so we are told)
 
When Prophet Muhammad came....
There was only one kind of Islam
Than where did Sunni, Shia, Ahmadi, Bralvi and the list goes on came from.....

It is a bloody history with traitors and foreign interests who destroyed true Islamic concept

On the other hand it HAD to happen….




If Mod allows us than we can start a new thread about Islam...
I will tell you the structure which Mullah made of you and the Islam which they practiced..
Either you will call them Kafirs or you will call yourself a Kafir..
In short we are way behind to be called Muslims specifically Islam....
 
For those who insist that establishing an utopian Islamic "caliphate" is required by Islam...
Islam does not hold the Gaining of Political Power as a Muslims main Objective | CPS International

Contrary to common belief, gaining political power is not the main objective of Muslims. This is a misconception.

When the Quran says, “And religion is wholly for God” it portrays the most important aspect of the change of times. This change has reduced the status of political power to the point where it is no longer necessary for believers to wage a war for its acquisition, as it is no longer needed to secure the desired benefits. Non-political institutions serve this purpose equally well.

In modern time those nations who have understood this have achieved success even without having political power. Some have become established and excelled in the field of education, while others have set up empires in industry, communications or finance. The last in the list of these non-governmental empires is that of computers. This has given man the opportunity to keep his finger on the pulse of human activity not only at the national level, but also at the international level.

This mission was undertaken and brought to a successful conclusion at the internal level within Arabia during the life of the Prophet. Later, during the pious caliphate, the Sassanid and Byzantine empires were dismantled with special divine succour. Consequently, intellectual oppression at the international level was replaced by intellectual freedom.

In this connection those traditions are worth noting which are enshrined in Sahih al-Bukhari. When, after the fourth Caliph Ali ibn Abi Talib, political conflict ensued between Abdullah ibn Zubayr and the Umayyads, Abdullah ibn Umar, one of the senior-most companions of the Prophet, held himself aloof from the battle. People approached him and, quoting the verse of qital-al-fitna, asked him why he was not joining in the battle. Abdullah ibn Umar replied that ‘fitna’ as mentioned in the Qur’an did not refer to political infighting, but rather to the religious coercive system, that had already been put an end to by them. (Fathul Bari, 8/60)

From this we learn that the war against fitna was a war of limited duration, temporary in nature, meant to be engaged in only until its specific purpose had been served.

Invoking the Qur’anic exhortation to do battle against fitna in order to validate acts of war, which had quite other aims, is highly improper. This verse could be cited only if the same state of affairs as existed at the time of its revelation, were to prevail once again.

The biographers of the Prophet Muhammad have put the number of ghazwah (battle) at more than 80. This gives the impression that the Prophet Muhammad pbuh in his 23-year prophetic career waged about four battles in a year. But this impression is entirely baseless. The truth is that the Prophet Muhammad in his entire prophetic life, engaged in war only on three occasions. All the other incidents described as ghazwat were in actual fact examples of avoidance of war and not instances of involvement in battle.

For instance, in the books of Seerah, the incident of Al-Ahzab is called a ghazwah (battle), whereas the truth is that on this occasion the armed tribes of Arabia, twelve thousand in number, reached the borders of Madinah with all intentions of waging war, but the Prophet and his companions dug a deep trench between them, thus successfully preventing a battle from taking place. The same is the case with all the other incidents called ghazwah. The opponents of the Prophet repeatedly tried to embroil him in war, but on all such occasions, he managed to resort to some such strategy as averted the war, thus defusing the situation.

There were only three instances of Muslims really entering the field of battle—Badr, Uhud and Hunayn. But on all these occasions, war had become inevitable, so that the Prophet was compelled to encounter the aggressors in self-defence. Furthermore, these battles lasted only for half a day, each beginning at noon and ending with the setting of the sun. Thus it would be proper to say that the Prophet in his entire life span had actively engaged in war for a total of a day and a half. That is to say, the Prophet had observed the principle of non-violence throughout his 23-year prophetic career, except for one and a half days.

The Islamic method, being based totally on the principle of non-violence, makes it unlawful for believers to initiate hostilities. Except in cases where self-defence has become inevitable, the Qur’an in no circumstance gives permission for violence.
 
Last edited:
why shouldnt i use the Iran-Saudi rivalry as a reference point....they are both "Islamic" nations -- and both quite influential

both ideologically opposed, even though they both follow the Quran (or so we are told)
They're not Islamic States. The fact that they ascribe to a tribe (Saudi) or to an ethnic group as a major political identity is enough - bar the other transgressions - to establish that they're not Islamic. Though if you're still curious, Saudi Arabia participates in the global capitalist system, full with interest, unfair trading agreements, etc. Furthermore, the oil - in which Prophet SLAWS said fire/energy belongs to the Ummah - is siphoned by an elite. All of this injustice = not Islamic = must be replaced.
 
Last edited:
For those who insist that establishing an utopian Islamic "caliphate" is required by Islam...
Islam does not hold the Gaining of Political Power as a Muslims main Objective | CPS International

Contrary to common belief, gaining political power is not the main objective of Muslims. This is a misconception.

When the Quran says, “And religion is wholly for God” it portrays the most important aspect of the change of times. This change has reduced the status of political power to the point where it is no longer necessary for believers to wage a war for its acquisition, as it is no longer needed to secure the desired benefits. Non-political institutions serve this purpose equally well.

In modern time those nations who have understood this have achieved success even without having political power. Some have become established and excelled in the field of education, while others have set up empires in industry, communications or finance. The last in the list of these non-governmental empires is that of computers. This has given man the opportunity to keep his finger on the pulse of human activity not only at the national level, but also at the international level.

This mission was undertaken and brought to a successful conclusion at the internal level within Arabia during the life of the Prophet. Later, during the pious caliphate, the Sassanid and Byzantine empires were dismantled with special divine succour. Consequently, intellectual oppression at the international level was replaced by intellectual freedom.

In this connection those traditions are worth noting which are enshrined in Sahih al-Bukhari. When, after the fourth Caliph Ali ibn Abi Talib, political conflict ensued between Abdullah ibn Zubayr and the Umayyads, Abdullah ibn Umar, one of the senior-most companions of the Prophet, held himself aloof from the battle. People approached him and, quoting the verse of qital-al-fitna, asked him why he was not joining in the battle. Abdullah ibn Umar replied that ‘fitna’ as mentioned in the Qur’an did not refer to political infighting, but rather to the religious coercive system, that had already been put an end to by them. (Fathul Bari, 8/60)

From this we learn that the war against fitna was a war of limited duration, temporary in nature, meant to be engaged in only until its specific purpose had been served.

Invoking the Qur’anic exhortation to do battle against fitna in order to validate acts of war, which had quite other aims, is highly improper. This verse could be cited only if the same state of affairs as existed at the time of its revelation, were to prevail once again.

The biographers of the Prophet Muhammad have put the number of ghazwah (battle) at more than 80. This gives the impression that the Prophet Muhammad pbuh in his 23-year prophetic career waged about four battles in a year. But this impression is entirely baseless. The truth is that the Prophet Muhammad in his entire prophetic life, engaged in war only on three occasions. All the other incidents described as ghazwat were in actual fact examples of avoidance of war and not instances of involvement in battle.

For instance, in the books of Seerah, the incident of Al-Ahzab is called a ghazwah (battle), whereas the truth is that on this occasion the armed tribes of Arabia, twelve thousand in number, reached the borders of Madinah with all intentions of waging war, but the Prophet and his companions dug a deep trench between them, thus successfully preventing a battle from taking place. The same is the case with all the other incidents called ghazwah. The opponents of the Prophet repeatedly tried to embroil him in war, but on all such occasions, he managed to resort to some such strategy as averted the war, thus defusing the situation.

There were only three instances of Muslims really entering the field of battle—Badr, Uhud and Hunayn. But on all these occasions, war had become inevitable, so that the Prophet was compelled to encounter the aggressors in self-defence. Furthermore, these battles lasted only for half a day, each beginning at noon and ending with the setting of the sun. Thus it would be proper to say that the Prophet in his entire life span had actively engaged in war for a total of a day and a half. That is to say, the Prophet had observed the principle of non-violence throughout his 23-year prophetic career, except for one and a half days.

The Islamic method, being based totally on the principle of non-violence, makes it unlawful for believers to initiate hostilities. Except in cases where self-defence has become inevitable, the Qur’an in no circumstance gives permission for violence.
1. We refer to evidences from Quran and Sunnah in all matters.

2. The above article still doesn't discount the fact that the Prophet SLAWS undertook political initiatives - on the method of Islam of course - to establish Madina, organize an army and towards the end of his life, expand territory across Arabia. The Sahabba, whom Allah SWT Himself testified of their loyalty to Islam, continued with expeditions and opening of lands to Islam.
 
They're not Islamic States. The fact that they ascribe to a tribe (Saudi) or to an ethnic group as a major political identity is enough - bar the other transgressions - to establish that they're not Islamic. Though if you're still curious, Saudi Arabia participates in the global capitalist system, full with interest, unfair trading agreements, etc. Furthermore, the oil - in which Prophet SLAWS said fire/energy belongs to the Ummah - is siphoned by an elite. All of this injustice = not Islamic = must be replaced.


Agreed

Nice one
 
??? Dear Mark Sien, what you write above shows that you have understand nothing about Ataturk.

People tend to think about Ataturk as anti Islamic because he abolished the Caliphate and brought secularism. If you just look at the surface you get that picture but in fact Ataturk did the best for Islam in Turkey.

Many people turn a blind eye to the fact that Islam is hostage in the hands of radicals, self declared mullahs, talibans etc. What Ataturk did in Turkey was putting our religion free from the yoke of these hostage takers. I want to remind you that Turkey is secular yet it is a country having the most mosques in the entire world. There is no single village in Turkey without a mosque. People should enjoy their religion, not the teachings of self declared radicals and talibans.

old thread but couldnt resist replying to such a ridiculously blind patriotic remark. According to Turkish words, if a mosque is being invaded by criminals then just simply remove the criminals and destroy the mosque and build a club house so no criminals come to mosque anymore.
Ataturk can not be associated with a good cause for Islam because every single of his actions were to please his western masters. And just for your knowledge their were NO radicals and talibans in Otoman empire and those mullahs and leaders of otoman empire of that time were no more then party animals. Even if such people did exist then their is no justification of abolishing a system that is supposed to be rulled according to what allah has revealed and instead should have restored revived the system of khilafa.
 
old thread but couldnt resist replying to such a ridiculously blind patriotic remark. According to Turkish words, if a mosque is being invaded by criminals then just simply remove the criminals and destroy the mosque and build a club house so no criminals come to mosque anymore.
Ataturk can not be associated with a good cause for Islam because every single of his actions were to please his western masters. And just for your knowledge their were NO radicals and talibans in Otoman empire and those mullahs and leaders of otoman empire of that time were no more then party animals. Even if such people did exist then their is no justification of abolishing a system that is supposed to be rulled according to what allah has revealed and instead should have restored revived the system of khilafa.

How can you revive the khalifa when your muslim brothers betrayed you?
 
What ever the circumstances, their is no justification of abolishing a important aspect of Islam from the land of Muslims.

Well his abolition of a lot of stuff resulted in Turkey becoming a regional power today with marvelous economic growth and a role model to the rest of the Islamic countries in terms of rational thinking, logic, science and other factors that affect the well-being of any country.

In fact, Turkey should be a role model for Pakistan.
 
Well his abolition of a lot of stuff resulted in Turkey becoming a regional power today with marvelous economic growth and a role model to the rest of the Islamic countries in terms of rational thinking, logic, science and other factors that affect the well-being of any country.

In fact, Turkey should be a role model for Pakistan.


Tell me the achievements of Turkish State in the twentieth century? and compare it with 21st century achievements under AKP rule. Who is in process of repealing the ban and abolition, Mustafa Kemal and later Kemalist imposed on the society.
 
Back
Top Bottom