I don't believe in Democracy.

[Proudpakistaniguy]

Here is ur answer- Democracy is haram in islam. Democracy says man made law, islam says allah is law maker, Riba is haram, but democracy made it halla. i can give u 101 references. look the picture carefully, hope u will get it .

Read question again as you did not gave answer

How and who will appoint this calipha if not people?

 

[Major d1]

The Muslim ruler must appoint people who are qualified to hold positions of high office in the state, and he must also hold consultations with people of knowledge and those who are specialized in various fields. That should not be left to the common folk or the masses for everyone to elect his relative or a member of his party, or to elect the one who will pay the most.
Official positions that are lower than that of caliph or ruler: Appointing people to these positions was the job of the caliph or ruler. He had the authority to select for them people who were competent and had integrity.


Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning): “Verily, Allaah commands that you should render back the trusts to those, to whom they are due; and that when you judge between men, you judge with justice” [al-Nisa’ 4:58].

The imam (ruler) or caliph was appointed to lead the Islamic state by one of three methods:

1-He was chosen and elected by the decision makers (ahl al-hall wa’l-‘aqd). For example, Abu Bakr al-Siddeeq became caliph when he was elected by the decision makers, then the Sahaabah unanimously agreed with that and swore allegiance to him, and accepted him as caliph.

‘Uthmaan ibn ‘Affaan (may Allaah be pleased with him) became caliph in a similar manner, when ‘Umar ibn al-Khattaab (may Allaah be pleased with him) delegated the appointment of the caliph to come after him to a shoora council of six of the senior Sahaabah, who were to elect one of their number. ‘Abd al-Rahmaan ibn ‘Awf consulted the Muhaajireen and Ansaar, and when he saw that the people were all inclined towards ‘Uthmaan, he swore allegiance to him first, then the rest of the six swore allegiance to him, followed by the Muhaajireen and Ansaar, so he was elected as caliph by the decision makers.

‘Ali ibn Abi Taalib (may Allaah be pleased with him) became caliph in a similar manner, when he was elected by most of the decision makers.

2-Appointment to the position by the previous caliph, when one caliph passes on the position to a particular person who is to succeed him after he dies. For example, ‘Umar ibn al-Khattaab became caliph when the position was passed on to him by Abu Bakr al-Siddeeq (may Allaah be pleased with him).

3-By means of force and prevailing over others. When a man becomes caliph by prevailing over the people by the sword, and he establishes his authority and takes full control, then it becomes obligatory to obey him and he becomes the leader of the Muslims. Examples of that include some of the Umayyad and ‘Abbasid caliphs, and those who came after them. This method is contrary to sharee’ah, because it is seized by force. But because great interests are served by having a ruler who rules the ummah, and because a great deal of mischief may result from chaos and loss of security in the land, the one who seizes authority by means of the sword should be obeyed if he seizes power by force but he rules in accordance with the laws of Allaah.

Shaykh Muhammad ibn Saalih al-‘Uthaymeen (may Allaah have mercy on him) said:

If a man rebels and seizes power, the people must obey him, even if he seizes power by force and without their consent, because he has seized power.

The reason for that is that if his rule is contested, it will lead to a great deal of evil, and this is what happened during the Umayyad period when some of them seized power by means of force and gained the title of caliph, and people obeyed them in obedience to the command of Allaah. End quote.

 

[Proudpakistaniguy]

Are you really such dumb?

I am asking who should appoint Muslim ruler/calipha and how they will appoint it?

say there are two/three candidate who want to be claipha of islamic state then how you are going to decide who will rule over Muslims living in Islamic sate or country?

 

[Major d1]

1-Are you really such dumb?

Answer- I have already gave u the answer. may be u didn't get my point. whatever.

2- I am asking who should appoint Muslim ruler/calipha and how they will appoint it?

Answer- Ummah Council will be adviser and consulats will approve to appoint khalifh. and they appoint the leader such as abu-bakar(ra) appointed, umar (ra) appointed, osman, ali (Ra) appointed.

3-say there are two/three candidate who want to be claipha of islamic state then how you are going to decide who will rule over Muslims living in Islamic sate or country?

If their is 100 candidates arive, no problem. according to the process khalish will be appointed. everyman can be khalifh but the person has to capable for being a khalifh. If their is 3 candidates, consults will judge who is preferable for the job, then ummah council will give advise .

 

[Khanate]

The fiercest and harshest of wars between Islam and Kufr and between the Muslim and the Kuffar armies broke out in successive battles. Victory in all these wars was to the Muslims. Although the Muslims were defeated in some of the battles, they however always won the war, and they did not lose a war for six centuries, rather remaining victorious in all of their wars during that time. The Islamic State remained the leading nation throughout the whole of that period. Apart from the Muslims, this has never happened to mankind, rather it has been exclusive to the Islamic State. However the disbelievers, especially the European states, had been mindful of Islam, for they wanted to attack it, and they had been mindful of the Muslims, for they wanted to destroy their entity. They attempted to attack or conspire against the Muslims whenever the opportunity arose. Between the end of the sixth century Hijri (eleventh century CE) and the beginning of the seventh century Hijri (twelfth century CE), the European countries sensed the condition that the ruling system in the Islamic State had reached regarding the fragmentation of the Wilayahs (provinces) from the body of the state, and the independence of some Walis (governors) in key areas concerning the internal policy such as the armed forces, finance, authority and the like. In fact, they had become more like a federation of states rather than a single united state. The Khaleefah’s authority had been reduced in some Wilayahs to the supplication for him on the pulpits, minting coins bearing his name and sending him an amount of money from the Kharaj. The European states had sensed this, hence they dispatched the crusades against the Muslims, and war broke out. The Muslims were defeated in this war and the Kuffar captured the whole of Al-Sham : Palestine, Lebanon and Syria. They occupied these territories for decades, even keeping some areas such as Tripoli for a hundred years. Although the battles which took place between the crusaders and the Muslims were continuous throughout the hundred years, and although the Muslims’ attempts at recapturing the lands over which the crusaders defeated them did not subside, these wars did however unsettle the Islamic Ummah, and they lowered the status of the Islamic State. The Muslims The Final Version-How the Khilafah was Destroyed.p65 2 09/08/00, 19:25 3 lost the war and they were defeated by the Kuffar. Victory in the war was to the Kuffar against the Muslims. Although the victory of Kufr against Islam never materialised, neither intellectually nor spiritually, the shame and humiliation which befell the Muslims was beyond imagination. Thus, the era of the crusades, is considered an era of defeat for the Muslims, for despite their victory in the end against the crusaders with their expulsion from Al-Sham, they did not pursue the conquests and the wars with the disbelievers. No sooner had the crusades ended, the Mongols arrived, and the massacre of Baghdad took place. This setback was followed by the fall of Damascus at the hands of the Mongols in the same year, (656 AH, 1258 CE). Then came the battle of Ayn Jaloot on 3rd September 1260 where the Mongols were destroyed. In the wake of the destruction of the Mongols, the emotions of Jihad were aroused in the souls of the Muslims, and they sensed the need for a resumption of carrying the Da’awah to the world. Hence, the Muslim conquests of the Kuffar began once again, and Jihad against the Byzantines was resumed. Battles broke out and successive victories followed. It was around the seventh century of Hijrah (the 13th century CE) when the Islamic Ummah resumed the conquests. The wars continued and several successive battles took place, and the Muslims always emerged as the victorious, for although the Muslims were beaten in some battles, they used to win the wars and conquer the lands. The Islamic State was the leading nation and she continued to occupy the premier position for four centuries, until the mid 12th century AH (the 18th century CE). Then the industrial revolution in Europe emerged in a remarkable manner that had a profound impact on the states’ powers. Muslims stood idle and confused by this revolution, hence the balance of power in the world changed and the Islamic state began her slide from the leading spot gradually, until eventually she became the coveted object of the greedy. Hence, she started evacuating the lands she had conquered and the lands which had been previously under her authority. The disbelieving countries started usurping from her the land of Islam piece by piece, and this marked the start of the ebb and the end of the tide for the Muslims. Since then, the European countries started to The struggle between Islam and Kufr The Final Version-How the Khilafah was Destroyed.p65 3 09/08/00, 19:25 How the Khilafah was destroyed 4 focus upon the removal of the Islamic State from the international scene, and upon the complete removal of Islam from life’s affairs and from the relationships between people. In other words, they started thinking about a new campaign of crusades. However unlike the first crusades, the new crusades were to be more than just a military invasion to defeat the Muslims and vanquish the Islamic State. The new crusades were more horrific and had more profound consequences. They were designed to uproot the Islamic State so that no trace of it would be left, and so that not one single root would be able to grow again. They were designed also to uproot Islam from the souls of the Muslims so that nothing could remain except a host of clerical rites and spiritual rituals.

The conspiracies of the European countries against the Islamic State Despite the differences amongst the Kuffar over the division of the Muslims’ lands, they were in full agreement of the idea to destroy Islam. They pursued several methods for this purpose. Initially, they aroused the feelings of nationalism and independence in the European countries. They incited people against the Islamic State and they supplied them with weapons and money in order to revolt against it, as was the case in Serbia and Greece. In this way, the European countries tried to stab the Islamic State in the back. France invaded Egypt and occupied it in July 1798, then marched onto Palestine and occupied it. France wanted to occupy the rest of Al-Sham in order to deal the Islamic State the fatal blow, but was however defeated, later being forced to leave Egypt and surrender the lands she had occupied back to the Islamic State. The birth of the Wahhabis and the Saudi rule Britain had attempted through her agent Abdul-Aziz ibn Muhammad ibn Saud to strike the Islamic State from within. The Wahhabis by then had managed to establish an entity within the Islamic State, led by Muhammad ibn Saud and later by his son Abdul-Aziz. Britain supplied them with weapons and money and they moved on a sectarian basis to seize the Islamic lands which were under the authority of the Khilafah. They took up arms against the Khaleefah and fought the Islamic armed The conspiracies of the European countries against the Islamic State The Final Version-How the Khilafah was Destroyed.p65 5 09/08/00, 19:26 How the Khilafah was destroyed 6 forces (the army of the Amir ul-Mu’mineen), all the time goaded and supplied by the British. The Wahhabis wanted to seize the lands ruled by the Khaleefah in order to rule these lands according to their Math’hab (school of thought), and suppress all the other Islamic Mathahib that differed from theirs by force. Hence, they raided Kuwait and occupied it in 1788, then marched northwards until they besieged Baghdad. They wanted to seize Karbalaa’ and the tomb of Al-Hussein (may Allah be pleased with him) to destroy it and ban the visiting of it. Then in 1803, they launched an attack on Makkah and occupied it. In the spring of 1804, Madinah fell under their control. They destroyed the huge domes which used to shade the grave of the Messenger of Allah (saw) and stripped them of all the gems and precious ornaments. Having completed their seizure of the whole of Al-Hijaz, they marched on towards Al-Sham. Nearing Hims in 1810 they attacked Damascus for a second time and they also attacked Al-Najaf. Damascus defended itself bravely and gloriously. However while besieging Damascus, the Wahhabis moved at the same time to the north and spread their authority over most of the Syrian lands as far as Aleppo. It was a well known fact that this Wahhabi campaign was instigated by the British, for Al Saud were British agents. They exploited the Wahhabi Math’hab, which was Islamic and whose founder was a Mujtahid, in political activities with the aim of fighting the Islamic State and clashing with the other Mathahib, in order to incite sectarian wars within the Ottoman state. The followers of this Math’hab were unaware of this, but the Saudi Amir and the Saudis were fully aware. This is because the relationship was not between the British and Muhammad ibn Abdul-Wahhab, but between the British and Abdul-Aziz ibn Muhammad ibn Saud and then with his son Saud. Muhammad ibn Abdul-Wahhab, whose Math’hab had been Hanbali, made Ijtihad in a host of matters and deemed that the Muslims who followed other Mathahib differed with his opinion in such matters. Hence, he set about calling for his opinions, working towards implementing them and attacking the other Islamic opinions fiercely. He faced a barrage of The Final Version-How the Khilafah was Destroyed.p65 6 09/08/00, 19:26 7 opposition and rejection from the various scholars, Amirs and prominent figures, who considered that his opinions differed from what they had understood from the Book of Allah and His Messenger. For instance, he used to say that visiting the grave of the Messenger Muhammad (saw) is Haram and a sinful act. He even went as far as to say that whoever set off in a journey to visit the grave of the Messenger of Allah (saw), would not be allowed to shorten his prayer while travelling, since the purpose of the journey would be to commit a sinful act. He made reference to the Hadith in which the Messenger of Allah (saw) is reported to have said: "Journeys should only be made to three mosques: This Mosque of mine, the Sacred Mosque and Al-Aqsa Mosque." Muhammad ibn Abdul-Wahhab understood from this Hadith that the Messenger of Allah (saw) had forbidden travelling to other than the three mosques. Hence, if one were to travel to visit the grave of the Messenger of Allah (saw), he would be travelling to other than the three mosques, hence, it would be Haram, and a sinful act. Other Mathahib deemed the visiting of the grave of the Messenger of Allah (saw) as being Sunnah and a Mandub action that yields a reward, because the Messenger of Allah (saw) said: "I had in the past forbidden you from visiting the graves, but you may now visit them." By greater reason the grave of the Messenger of Allah (saw) should be included in this Hadith, in addition to other Ahadith which they quoted. They said that the Hadith which Muhammad ibn AbdulWahhab used as an evidence, was specific to mosques. Therefore, its subject is related to travelling to mosques and does not exceed it. The Hadith is not general, but rather specific and related to a certain subject: "Journeys should only be made to three mosques." Hence, it would be forbidden for a Muslim to specifically visit the Aya Sofia mosque in Istanbul, or the Ommayyad mosque in Damascus, because the Messenger of Allah (saw) has confined the travel of mosques to three mosques and no more. It would be forbidden to travel to other than these three mosques. Apart from this, it is permitted to travel on business, to visit family and friends, on sightseeing and tourism amongst other reasons. Hence, the Hadith does not categorically forbid travelling and restrict it to these three mosques, The conspiracies of the European countries against the Islamic State The Final Version-How the Khilafah was Destroyed.p65 7 09/08/00, 19:26 How the Khilafah was destroyed 8 it rather forbids travelling with the intent to visit mosques other than the three mosques it mentioned. Likewise, the followers of other Mathahib deemed his opinions as being wrong and contradictory to what they had understood from the Book and the Sunnah. Soon, the difference between him and them intensified and he was banished from the country. In 1740, he sought refuge with Muhammad ibn Saud, the Sheikh of the tribe of Anzah, who was at odds with the Sheikh of Uyaynah and who lived in Al-Dir’iyyah, which was only six hours away from Uyaynah. Muhammad ibn Abdul-Wahhab was made welcome and was met with hospitality. He started spreading his opinions and thoughts amongst people in Al-Dir’iyyah and the surrounding areas. After a period of time his thoughts and opinions gained some helpers and supporters. Amir Muhammad ibn Saud inclined towards these thoughts and opinions and started approaching the Sheikh (Muhammad ibn Abdul-Wahhab). In 1747, Amir Muhammad declared his approval and acceptance of the opinions and thoughts of Muhammad ibn Abdul-Wahhab. He also pledged his support to the Sheikh (Muhammad ibn Abdul-Wahhab) and to these thoughts and opinions. With this alliance the Wahhabi movement was established and it came into being in the shape of a Da’awah and in the shape of a rule, for Muhammad ibn Abdul-Wahhab used to call for it and teach people its rules, whilst Muhammad ibn Saud used to implement its rules upon the people who were under his command and authority. The Wahhabi movement started to spread to the areas and tribes neighbouring Al-Dir’iyyah in both aspects, the Da’awah and the rule. The Imara of Muhammad ibn Saud started to spread as well until he succeeded in ten years to make an area of 30 square miles submit to his authority and to the new Math’hab. However, it was an expansion achieved through Da’awah and the authority of the Sheikh of Anzah. No person challenged him and no person opposed him, even the Amir of Al-Ihsaa’ who had expelled Muhammad ibn Abdul-Wahhab from Uyaynah did not oppose The Final Version-How the Khilafah was Destroyed.p65 8 09/08/00, 19:26 9 his foe in this expansion and he did not amass his troops to fight him until 1757. However, he was defeated, and Muhammad ibn Saud seized his Imara. Consequently, the authority of Anzah, represented by the authority of Muhammad ibn Saud and the authority of the new Math’hab became the ruling authority of Al-Dir’iyyah and its surroundings, as well as AlIhsaa’. In this way the Wahhabi Math’hab was implemented over these lands by the force of the authority. However, in the wake of its clash with the Amir of Al-Ihsaa and the conquest of his land, the Wahhabi movement stopped there. Little became known of whether it expanded further or carried out any activities. It rather remained confined to that area. Muhammad ibn Saud stopped at that point and the Wahhabi Math’hab stopped at the borders of this area and the movement fell into a slumber and stagnated. In 1765 Muhammad ibn Saud died. He was succeeded to the Sheikhdom of Anzah by his son Abdul-Aziz. His son followed in his fathers footsteps and ruled the area under his control. However, he did not carry out any activities for the movement, nor any expansion into the surrounding areas. Hence, the movement remained asleep and was characterised by stagnation. Hardly anything was heard of this movement and none of its neighbours used to mention it or fear its invasion. However, 41 years after the start of the Wahhabi movement, from 1747 till 1788, and 31 years after its stoppage and the stagnation of its movement, (from 1757 till 1787), its activity suddenly started again. The movement adopted a new method in spreading the Math’hab and it became widely and highly publicised beyond its borders and all throughout the Islamic State as well as to the other superpowers. This movement started to cause its neighbours disquiet and concern and even started to cause disquiet and concern to the whole of the Islamic State




Requested to see this doc-

read a story bro- Hope ur confusion will go throw-


The Egyptian presidency announced the names of the commission of fifty whom were selected to carry out the task of amending the 2012 constitution which has been inactivated since the military overthrew President Muhammad Morsi after popular protests [BBC Sunday 1-9-2013 CE].



Commenting on this, we say: On July 3 the 2012 constitution was temporarily suspended, and afterwards a commission was put together made up of ten members to amend this constitution, and in turn this commission made amendments to 130 articles out of 236, abolishing the Consultative Council, and abolishing the proportion of workers and farmers in any election, and abolishing political isolation whether for the Muslim Brotherhood or the National Democratic Party, and recommending the prohibition of establishing political parties based on religion, and repealing the article that explains the Islamic Shariah, and cancelling the previous monitoring of the Constitutional Court on laws. The new preamble was void of any reference to the January 25 Revolution, and there had also been a change to the article concerning the armed forces with the omission of the sentence “Neutral and does not interfere in political affairs” and instead a malleable statement was placed saying “Our armed forces are the protective shield of the country that protect the borders of the state and defend our national security”. Likewise, there was a change to the police institution in a manner no less serious, as in the 2012 constitution preamble stated: “There is no justice without protection, and there is no protection without security institutions that respect human dignity and the rule of law”, and “human dignity and the rule of law” disappeared from the paragraph, and it read as such: “for there is no justice without protection, and no economy without security, and no community development or stability under loose security”,erasing the reference at this critical point to the respect of human dignity and the rule of law!!

The amendments of the –appointed- ten will be presented to the –appointed- commission of fifty to be studied and edited, and afterwards approved and put to a national referendum within sixty days. The presidency of the republic announced the names of the commission of fifty, and the representatives of the Islamic current were Dr. Zarqa and Dr. Helbawi; the former the representative of the Nour Party who joined the putschists in their coup, and the second a dissident of the Muslim Brotherhood who bitterly resents them.

We did not see any good in the 2012 Constitution; in fact we saw it as an extension of the 71 Constitution, despite that those who oversaw its development were the Muslim Brotherhood and the so-called Islamic current, but they were not forming an Islamic state by raising it as a slogan at that time. Instead secularism was consecrated by the hand of the Islamists themselves, for they agreed that sovereignty is for the people and not for the Shari’, and that Egypt is a state with the republic system and not the Khilafah system, and they agreed upon the Western freedoms and other Western values instead of the Ummah and its culture. So if the 2012 Constitution was put in place by Islamists, it is far from Islam, what about a constitution overseen by the secularists themselves and with “Islamists” participating as false witnesses?! Undoubtedly its filth will be more severe and crass!

We do not regret that the 2012 Constitution was thrown in the waste bin, as such we are not bothered much by the coming 2013 Constitution that will sanctify the coup for the putschists and re-instate the 71 Constitution to the people without “humanitarian strokes” or amendments. This is because we know that there is only one way for change, and change cannot come by placing a constitution on paper that does not reflect the Ummah; the Ummah whose life and civilization and true aspirations are formed from the Islamic Aqeedah. Change comes about by creating public opinion emanating from general awareness amongst the public about Islam as an idea and method, and crystallized in their overwhelming demand for its implementation in the Khilafah state, with them not accepting any substitute, and parallel to that the work to create strong support for this state among the people of power in the military, so that the military will stand with the demand of the people and protect them, and be the spearhead to whisk away the corrupt current regime and establish the Khilafah state, instead of being a tool to suppress the Muslims and sanctify the secular Kaffir regime.

This constitution that is being prepared will not be the last, as was with the past ones, and it will not stop the sincere from taking the path of fundamental change that will return for the Ummah its state, the Khilafah state, under which the Ummah lived long centuries; as one Ummah distinct from other people; a feared Ummah that has a standing on the international stage. An Ummah that lives prosperity as a true reality, not a slogan raised and not achieved at all. An Ummah cared for by a state of genuine patronage and not a levy state. An Ummah that understands the real meaning of freedom, that it is to not succumb to the subjection and slavery of any human, instead to worship Allah سبحانه وتعالى along, and this is its greatest description! An Ummah whose constitution, laws and legislations are derived solely from the Quran and Sunnah, and Islam guides all their affairs.

The end of this constitution will be like that of the previous ones: in the waste bin of history! And the Ummah will return to its true place that Allah سبحانه وتعالى wants for it – the best Ummah raised for mankind, and it will be ruled by the constitution of the Khilafah state that is based on Allah’s سبحانه وتعالى Quran and the Sunnah of his Messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم.

وَلَوْ أَنَّ أَهْلَ الْقُرَى آَمَنُوا وَاتَّقَوْا لَفَتَحْنَا عَلَيْهِمْ بَرَكَاتٍ مِنَ السَّمَاءِ وَالْأَرْضِ وَلَكِنْ كَذَّبُوا فَأَخَذْنَاهُمْ بِمَا كَانُوا يَكْسِبُونَ

“If only the people of the cities had had iman and taqwa, We would have opened up to them blessings from heaven and earth. But they denied the truth so We seized them for what they earned.”

(Al-Araaf, 7:96)

You copy pasted this from: A Constitution Comes and a Constitution Goes – but Islam is the Eternal Constitution

The essay is focused on Egypt, a country that was ruled by Hosni Mubarak for 43 years and is now ruled by al-Sisi. Egypt is not an Islamic republic. Why would you equate Pakistan to Egypt?

My critique to your proposed system of governance is that its not all that different from what we have in Pakistan, an Islamic republic. Brother, part IX, article 227 of Pakistan's constitution says, "All existing laws shall be brought in conformity with the Injunctions of Islam as laid down in the Quran and Sunnah, in this Part referred to as the Injunctions of Islam, and no law shall be enacted which is repugnant to such Injunctions."

So can you explain how your proposed system and our concept of Islamic republic differs? Simply because you label an upper citizen body like Senate "Council of Ummah" doesn't mean you brought up new ideas.

Please don't copy/paste stuff again, otherwise I won't reply. A conversation is two-way street.

 

[Major d1]

Okay.. point by point ask me the question.

 

[Proudpakistaniguy]

Answer- Ummah Council will be adviser and consulats will approve to appoint khalifh. and they appoint the leader such as abu-bakar(ra) appointed, umar (ra) appointed, osman, ali (Ra) appointed


If their is 100 candidates arive, no problem. according to the process khalish will be appointed. everyman can be khalifh but the person has to capable for being a khalifh. If their is 3 candidates, consults will judge who is preferable for the job, then ummah council will give advise .

You are talking about past and i am talking about present. Who will appoint Ummah council now when you dont have any relatives or close companion of Prophet Muhammad(PBUH) left? Who will appoint those consultants who will recommend the names of those people who have got this ability of leadership? Calipha was representative of people as even in the past every person had to give their allegiance to calipha

 

[Major d1]

what is khilafah bro ?

Nice question-

For this u need a platform . Without a hizb( Party) you can't make any council. Those party, thhose who working for the re-establishment for khilafah according to the method of prophet (PBUH). Our Prophet (PBUH) left but his(PBUH) rulling system contained 1400 years . U know hope so, sutan abdul hamid 2nd was last khalifh. now who will make ummah council. Ummah council will make after coming khilafah. 1stly bringing back khilafah is obligation. those who will working for khilafah they will make consulates , other scholars also can join. First agenda is bringing back khilafah. Then automatically everything will be set up.

 

[Indus Pakistan]

what is khilafah bro ?

Remind me what happened with the formative "khalifah"? You know where they killed each within few decades of the prophet (PBUH)?

 

[Khanate]

Okay.. point by point ask me the question.

I've already asked you the question, "Can you explain how your proposed system and our concept of Islamic republic differs?"

You're proposing that citizens 'vote' to elect their representative. This is what a republican system is, you may call it Khilafah but its the same principle. Furthermore, our constitution states in part IX, article 227, "All existing laws shall be brought in conformity with the Injunctions of Islam as laid down in the Quran and Sunnah, in this Part referred to as the Injunctions of Islam, and no law shall be enacted which is repugnant to such Injunctions."

Do you reject this? And how is this different from your proposed system of Khilafah?

Please answer these two questions.

 

[Indus Pakistan]

what do you believe in

He believes in the rule of this. The bigger the better.

With plenty of this to bend him over - sorry rule him over.

 

[Major d1]

1- Republic means power to the people, people will do as their wish but in khilafah this is not possible, what khalifah says, people bond to maintain it.


2- The Khaleefah is the head of state in the Khilafah. He is not a king or dictator but an elected leader whose authority to rule must be given willingly by the Muslims through a special ruling contact called baya. Without this baya he cannot be the head of state. This is completely opposite to a king or dictator who imposes his authority through coercion and force. The tyrant kings and dictators in the Muslim world are ample examples of this, imprisoning and torturing the Muslims and stealing their wealth and resources.

He believes in the rule of this. The bigger the better.

With plenty of this to bend him over - sorry rule him over.

May be ur machine is damaged.

 

[Khanate]

1- Republic means power to the people, people will do as their wish but in khilafah this is not possible, what khalifah says, people bond to maintain it.

Brother, you cannot create your own definition. Here's the definition of republic.

Republic:
An organized form of governance in which power resides in elected individuals representing the citizen body and government leaders exercise power according to the rule of law.

In your own proposed system of Khilafah, you suggest people 'vote' essentially you're electing people to form a 'citizen body', or Parliament (In Pakistan, we call our parliament Majlis-e-Shoora) who govern according to the rule of law. This rule of law can be Shariah. The issue then becomes which form of Shariah do you follow, Hanafi school of law is more progressive and fundamentalists don't like it. Majority of Pakistanis follow Hanafi school of thought so its natural we will govern as such.

2- The Khaleefah is the head of state in the Khilafah. He is not a king or dictator but an elected leader whose authority to rule must be given willingly by the Muslims through a special ruling contact called baya. Without this baya he cannot be the head of state. This is completely opposite to a king or dictator who imposes his authority through coercion and force. The tyrant kings and dictators in the Muslim world are ample examples of this, imprisoning and torturing the Muslims and stealing their wealth and resources.

Again, labels.

You can call the head of state Khalifah or Prime Minister or President or as we in Urdu call it, "Sadr-e-Mumlikat" (President) or "Wazir-e Aẓam" (Prime Minister).

As for "baya", is this tradition based in Quran? No.

 

[AKD]

yah. khilafah state. global khilafah.

Not ISIS khilafah

The whole world or just muslim countries??

 

[Major d1]

first united muslim nations. Then whole over the world. As half of the world including India was also under the authority of khilafah state.

Brother, you cannot create your own definition. Here's the definition of republic.

Republic:
An organized form of governance in which power resides in elected individuals representing the citizen body and government leaders exercise power according to the rule of law.

In your own proposed system of Khilafah, you suggest people 'vote' essentially you're electing people to form a 'citizen body', or Parliament (In Pakistan, we call our parliament Majlis-e-Shoora) who govern according to the rule of law. This rule of law can be Shariah. The issue then becomes which form of Shariah do you follow, Hanafi school of law is more progressive and fundamentalists don't like it. Majority of Pakistanis follow Hanafi school of thought so its natural we will govern as such.

Again, labels.

You can call the head of state Khalifah or Prime Minister or President or as we in Urdu call it, "Sadr-e-Mumlikat" (President) or "Wazir-e Aẓam" (Prime Minister).

As for "baya", is this tradition based in Quran? No.

Republic means wish of the people. But Khilafah is not republic, the main reason is what khilafah will declare people have to bound to do so.

Pakistan and Iran is a republic country . But we can't say pplz of PK and iran living under khilafah state.