It does not mean there will be no caliphate before Mehdi (like I said no one knows when Mehdi will appear) . Look at it from another PoV America has been a core state defending the cause of West. We need a powerful Muslim state which can play the role of negotiator between Muslim countries (if a problem arises) and which can defend the Muslim interests. Muslim problems throughout the world should be tackled between Muslims without calling any non-Muslim country for help.
Salafi vs Muslim Brotherhood
- Thread starter kalu_miah
- Start date
It does not mean there will be no caliphate before Mehdi (like I said no one knows when Mehdi will appear) . Look at it from another PoV America has been a core state defending the cause of West. We need a powerful Muslim state which can play the role of negotiator between Muslim countries (if a problem arises) and which can defend the Muslim interests. Muslim problems throughout the world should be tackled between Muslims without calling any non-Muslim country for help.
KingMamba
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- May 23, 2012
- Messages
- 12,546
- Reaction score
- 7
- Country
- Location
What state should be this core state in your opinion? Right now Muslim power blocks are just out to hurt one another.
al-Hasani
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2013
- Messages
- 14,060
- Reaction score
- 43
- Country
- Location
LOL. So what does Islam say about being a gay? Tell me.
What do you not understand. The people you falsely and arrogantly call Mullah's (we Sunnis do not even have that description of our scholars) are among the most respected clerics from families of a very respected descent and have done much more for Islam than most other clerics. In fact no other clerics have such a importance in the Islamic world whether you like it or not.
The same with our kings and Custodians of the Two Holy Mosques.
Read about the Al-Saud family. They enjoyed majority support and still do in all of KSA. Not my problem that you are one of the few against them in KSA.
You want Western democracy. Very Islamic indeed. KSA was ruled by rulers whom you are against for 1350 years. Since the time of the Four Rightly Guided Caliphs ended until today. Who are you kidding?
I am a Meccan Hashemite as you know did the people of Hejaz elect some of my ancestors or did they rule due to their ancestry, Islamic knowledge and respect? Did they ask every Hejazi at that time if they could rule as Sharif's?
Who elected the first Ottoman Caliph who was originally from Turkmenistan? No, he took the throne from the Arab Abbasid Caliphs but you have been brainwashed by anti-Arabs to cry about how we Arabs supposedly destroyed the Ottoman "Caliphate" while forgetting that the Sultans in Istanbul became very nationalistic (Turkish) and how they treated non-Turks and their contribution to our part of the world = nothing aside from banning books and science. Contrary to our Arab Caliphs before who founded the Islamic Golden Age. Or them destroying it themselves (young Turk movement, lack of reforms, sultanate etc.)
There is a reason why the 4 rightly Guided Caliphs have this name.
My point is that our rulers are not better or worse than all before them but we are certainly better off than most other Muslim countries. Shall we list all their un-Islamic acts? Do you want another Iran?
Also I do not care that much about our rulers. We the people are still the same.
You are maybe a Nadji I do not know. I already told you how it is in Hejaz.
But yes I support my country and our rulers and system because right now I fail to see anything better when I look in our region. And don't give me the democracy talk. Does not work here.
EDIT: Did you even read what I wrote to you in Arabic?
What do you not understand. The people you falsely and arrogantly call Mullah's (we Sunnis do not even have that description of our scholars) are among the most respected clerics from families of a very respected descent and have done much more for Islam than most other clerics. In fact no other clerics have such a importance in the Islamic world whether you like it or not.
The same with our kings and Custodians of the Two Holy Mosques.
Read about the Al-Saud family. They enjoyed majority support and still do in all of KSA. Not my problem that you are one of the few against them in KSA.
You want Western democracy. Very Islamic indeed. KSA was ruled by rulers whom you are against for 1350 years. Since the time of the Four Rightly Guided Caliphs ended until today. Who are you kidding?
I am a Meccan Hashemite as you know did the people of Hejaz elect some of my ancestors or did they rule due to their ancestry, Islamic knowledge and respect? Did they ask every Hejazi at that time if they could rule as Sharif's?
Who elected the first Ottoman Caliph who was originally from Turkmenistan? No, he took the throne from the Arab Abbasid Caliphs but you have been brainwashed by anti-Arabs to cry about how we Arabs supposedly destroyed the Ottoman "Caliphate" while forgetting that the Sultans in Istanbul became very nationalistic (Turkish) and how they treated non-Turks and their contribution to our part of the world = nothing aside from banning books and science. Contrary to our Arab Caliphs before who founded the Islamic Golden Age. Or them destroying it themselves (young Turk movement, lack of reforms, sultanate etc.)
There is a reason why the 4 rightly Guided Caliphs have this name.
My point is that our rulers are not better or worse than all before them but we are certainly better off than most other Muslim countries. Shall we list all their un-Islamic acts? Do you want another Iran?
Also I do not care that much about our rulers. We the people are still the same.
You are maybe a Nadji I do not know. I already told you how it is in Hejaz.
But yes I support my country and our rulers and system because right now I fail to see anything better when I look in our region. And don't give me the democracy talk. Does not work here.
EDIT: Did you even read what I wrote to you in Arabic?
What state should be this core state in your opinion? Right now Muslim power blocks are just out to hurt one another.
In the Golden days (before Army inc started) Pakistan had a good chance - now it will either be Turkey, Egypt or Indonesia. Egypt is out for a decade or so and Indonesia will take some time (but its the most likely candidate once it develops, most people don't consider it but it has a very good chance).
^^ That is why you see such interest of some Muslim countries in Palestine issue, it has become The Muslim cause for the time being. Any country which successfully addresses the issue will get a huge boost in its popularity.
KingMamba
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- May 23, 2012
- Messages
- 12,546
- Reaction score
- 7
- Country
- Location
Yes after the Rashidun all else were kings but that is precisely my point. Prophet Muhammad PBUH did not condemn kingship but he did say that the kingship to come in the Muslim world would go hand in hand with tyranny.
1.4 "There shall be Prophethood (nubuwwa) among you for as long as Allah wishes it to be among you. Then it shall be lifted up when Allah wishes to lift it up. Then there shall be successorship (khilâfa) on the pattern (minhâj) of Prophetship for as long as Allah wishes it to be. Then it
shall be lifted up when Allah wishes to lift it up. Then there shall be a trying kingship (mulkan 'âddan) for as long as Allah wishes it to be. Then it shall be lifted up when Allah wishes to lift it up. Then there shall be a tyrannical kingship (mulkan jabriyyatan) for as long as Allah wishes it to be. Then it shall be lifted up when Allah wishes to lift it up. Then there shall be successorship on the pattern of Prophetship." Narrated from Hudhayfa by Ahmad with a sound chain as stated by al-Zayn in the Musnad (14:163 #18319) and as indicated by al-Haythami (5:188-189): "Narrated by
Ahmad, al-Bazzar with a more complete wording, and al-Tabarani partly, in al-Awsat. The narrators in its chain are trustworthy." Also narrated from Abu 'Ubayda by al-Tabarani in al-Kabir (1:157) with the wording "Then there shall be kingship and tyranny" after the mention of successorship.
Kingship in itself is not bad many Prophets were given a kingdom in addition to Prophethood (Hazrat Dawud, Hazrat Suleiman PBU them both) but the current kingship we see occurring today is tyrannical. Be honest is tomorrow the Saudi king did something out of line would he tolerate calls for him to step down? The answer is no, just like Assad the current king of Syria (President in name) refused to step down, ghadaffi, etc you get my point. Not to mention the fitna between Muslims today is far worse than anytime in our collective history....
Anyway this is the Sunni version of what Islamic jurisdiction should look like ergo a Caliphate. In reference to your saying it was one and the same.
Electing or appointing a Caliph[edit]
Fred Donner, in his book The Early Islamic Conquests (1981), argues that the standard Arabian practice during the early Caliphates was for the prominent men of a kinship group, or tribe, to gather after a leader's death and elect a leader from amongst themselves, although there was no specified procedure for this shura, or consultative assembly. Candidates were usually from the same lineage as the deceased leader, but they were not necessarily his sons. Capable men who would lead well were preferred over an ineffectual direct heir, as there was no basis in the majority Sunni view that the head of state or governor should be chosen based on lineage alone.
This argument is advanced by Sunni Muslims that Muhammad's companion Abu Bakr was elected by the community, and this was the proper procedure. They further argue that a caliph is ideally chosen by election or community consensus. The caliphate became a hereditary office or the prize of the strongest general after the Rashidun caliphate. However, Sunni Muslims believe this was after the 'rightly guided' caliphate ended (Rashidun caliphate).
Abu Bakr Al-Baqillani has said that the leader of the Muslims simply should be from the majority. Abu Hanifa an-Numan also wrote that the leader must come from the majority.[23]
Sunni belief[edit]
Following the death of Muhammad, a meeting took place at Saqifah. At that meeting, Abu Bakr was elected caliph by the Muslim community. Sunni Muslims developed the belief that the caliph is a temporal political ruler, appointed to rule within the bounds of Islamic law (Sharia). The job of adjudicating orthodoxy and Islamic law was left to Islamic lawyers, judiciary, or specialists individually termed as Mujtahids and collectively named the Ulema. The first four caliphs are called the Rashidun, meaning the Rightly Guided Caliphs, because they are believed to have followed the Qur'an and the sunnah (example) of Muhammad in all things.
Majlis al-Shura: Parliament[edit]
See also: Shura, Majlis, Majlis-ash-Shura, and Islamic democracy
Traditional Sunni Islamic lawyers agree that shura, loosely translated as consultation of the people, is a function of the caliphate. The Majlis al-Shura advise the caliph. The importance of this is premised by the following verses of the Qur'an:
...those who answer the call of their Lord and establish the prayer, and who conduct their affairs by Shura. [are loved by God][42:38]
...consult them (the people) in their affairs. Then when you have taken a decision (from them), put your trust in Allah[3:159]
The majlis is also the means to elect a new caliph. Al-Mawardi has written that members of the majlis should satisfy three conditions: they must be just, they must have enough knowledge to distinguish a good caliph from a bad one, and must have sufficient wisdom and judgment to select the best caliph. Al-Mawardi also said in emergencies when there is no caliphate and no majlis, the people themselves should create a majlis, select a list of candidates for caliph, then the majlis should select from the list of candidates.[23]
Some modern interpretations of the role of the Majlis al-Shura include those by Islamist author Sayyid Qutb and by Taqiuddin al-Nabhani, the founder of a transnational political movement devoted to the revival of the Caliphate. In an analysis of the shura chapter of the Qur'an, Qutb argued Islam requires only that the ruler consult with at least some of the ruled (usually the elite), within the general context of God-made laws that the ruler must execute. Taqiuddin al-Nabhani, writes that Shura is important and part of "the ruling structure" of the Islamic caliphate, "but not one of its pillars," and may be neglected without the Caliphate's rule becoming unislamic. Non-Muslims may serve in the majlis, though they may not vote or serve as an official.
Accountability of rulers[edit]
Sunni Islamic lawyers have commented on when it is permissible to disobey, impeach or remove rulers in the Caliphate. This is usually when the rulers are not meeting public responsibilities obliged upon them under Islam.
Al-Mawardi said that if the rulers meet their Islamic responsibilities to the public, the people must obey their laws, but if they become either unjust or severely ineffective then the Caliph or ruler must be impeached via the Majlis al-Shura. Similarly Al-Baghdadi[clarification needed] believed that if the rulers do not uphold justice, the ummah via the majlis should give warning to them, and if unheeded then the Caliph can be impeached. Al-Juwayni argued that Islam is the goal of the ummah, so any ruler that deviates from this goal must be impeached. Al-Ghazali believed that oppression by a caliph is enough for impeachment. Rather than just relying on impeachment, Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani obliged rebellion upon the people if the caliph began to act with no regard for Islamic law. Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani said that to ignore such a situation is haraam, and those who cannot revolt inside the caliphate should launch a struggle from outside. Al-Asqalani used two ayahs from the Qur'an to justify this:
...And they (the sinners on qiyama) will say, 'Our Lord! We obeyed our leaders and our chiefs, and they misled us from the right path. Our Lord! Give them (the leaders) double the punishment you give us and curse them with a very great curse'...[33:6768]
Islamic lawyers commented that when the rulers refuse to step down via successful impeachment through the Majlis, becoming dictators through the support of a corrupt army, if the majority agree they have the option to launch a revolution against them. Many noted that this option is only exercised after factoring in the potential cost of life.[23]
This is what we should strive for as Muslims. This is the democracy that was apart of the very foundation of Islam from the beginning.
@Naifov
Last edited by a moderator:
al-Hasani
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2013
- Messages
- 14,060
- Reaction score
- 43
- Country
- Location
Naifov:
Lastly I already wrote many times that I do not agree with everything the Al-Saud does. Would their die-hard supporters even dare to criticize some of their members and their behavior as I did in this forum? Or what I wrote to you in Arabic? No, clearly not.
In fact I probably have the biggest reason to dislike the Al-Saud given that I am a Meccan Hashemite and that my family/tribe/branches of that were removed as rulers of Hejaz and for a short period even as Caliphs by the Al-Saud's. Besides having a very Hejazi upbringing and a family that cherished our ancient region, it's culture, traditions, history, Islamic ways, cuisine etc. Basically everything Hejazi.
But at the same time I don't live in the past. What do you want I do. Travel back in time and change it. Oh, don't worry I would have changed much more than that if it was up to me especially our Muslim world. The realities are clear for all.
You say all that nonsense in this time and age when you can see that everyone of our neighbors aside from those ruled by "evil kings/rulers and "Mullahs" as you say, are doing the best while all our other neighbors are burning or other Arab or Muslim countries. Look at all those republics. Every one is worse than us by a large margin in nearly everything. Even those rich in oil and gas or natural resources. Do you want a Iran? A Iraq?
I remember that you said that you have a hard time in terms of economy and I am truly sorry for that since I wish that all of our countrymen had no problems in a perfect world but at the same time you know about our achievements. I don't need to mention them as I do to ignorants and often foreigners because you know them too.
At the same time I have said to you many times that it is far from being perfect or anything and that there is still problems, corruption etc. Nothing is perfect besides Allah (swt).
Just think about what you wish for and write next time.
Regarding changes then they will come when people will be ready and the society. Don't worry. I think that some changes are needed and I believe that they will come.
On the other hand if the Al-Saud cannot deliver that then they will be gone like every other ruling family who committed mistakes. That is also just the reality.
But for now I stay loyal to my countrymen, people, rulers and system. You might not like it. That does not mean that I worship anyone (very provocative and stupid comment knowing that we only worship Allah (swt) or agree with every step taken.
There is a long way from what you wished for to what I want of changes.
If you think that Western styled democracy is Islamic then you have misunderstood something. I invite you to come to a Western country and see how much Islamic there is in their countries.
Also not every such controversial discussion does belong on such forum as this.
@KingMamba93
Well we are not contradicting each other if you notice. Just a little misunderstanding or what you call in English. But I have to say that there is nothing called democracy in Islam. If you mean the democracy understood by the West. I do not like the word being spoken of in a Islamic context.
Lastly I already wrote many times that I do not agree with everything the Al-Saud does. Would their die-hard supporters even dare to criticize some of their members and their behavior as I did in this forum? Or what I wrote to you in Arabic? No, clearly not.
In fact I probably have the biggest reason to dislike the Al-Saud given that I am a Meccan Hashemite and that my family/tribe/branches of that were removed as rulers of Hejaz and for a short period even as Caliphs by the Al-Saud's. Besides having a very Hejazi upbringing and a family that cherished our ancient region, it's culture, traditions, history, Islamic ways, cuisine etc. Basically everything Hejazi.
But at the same time I don't live in the past. What do you want I do. Travel back in time and change it. Oh, don't worry I would have changed much more than that if it was up to me especially our Muslim world. The realities are clear for all.
You say all that nonsense in this time and age when you can see that everyone of our neighbors aside from those ruled by "evil kings/rulers and "Mullahs" as you say, are doing the best while all our other neighbors are burning or other Arab or Muslim countries. Look at all those republics. Every one is worse than us by a large margin in nearly everything. Even those rich in oil and gas or natural resources. Do you want a Iran? A Iraq?
I remember that you said that you have a hard time in terms of economy and I am truly sorry for that since I wish that all of our countrymen had no problems in a perfect world but at the same time you know about our achievements. I don't need to mention them as I do to ignorants and often foreigners because you know them too.
At the same time I have said to you many times that it is far from being perfect or anything and that there is still problems, corruption etc. Nothing is perfect besides Allah (swt).
Just think about what you wish for and write next time.
Regarding changes then they will come when people will be ready and the society. Don't worry. I think that some changes are needed and I believe that they will come.
On the other hand if the Al-Saud cannot deliver that then they will be gone like every other ruling family who committed mistakes. That is also just the reality.
But for now I stay loyal to my countrymen, people, rulers and system. You might not like it. That does not mean that I worship anyone (very provocative and stupid comment knowing that we only worship Allah (swt) or agree with every step taken.
There is a long way from what you wished for to what I want of changes.
If you think that Western styled democracy is Islamic then you have misunderstood something. I invite you to come to a Western country and see how much Islamic there is in their countries.
Also not every such controversial discussion does belong on such forum as this.
@KingMamba93
Well we are not contradicting each other if you notice. Just a little misunderstanding or what you call in English. But I have to say that there is nothing called democracy in Islam. If you mean the democracy understood by the West. I do not like the word being spoken of in a Islamic context.
Last edited by a moderator:
Doritos11
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2013
- Messages
- 3,905
- Reaction score
- 0
- Country
- Location
Hasani
Iraq is not worse because it overthrew the king.
Iraq actually got better during its early days as a republic, Saddam was the fuckup who is loved by many Arabs who do not know any history of Iraq before Saddam.
Even though this is not really the topic, you keep saying this while it is totally wrong..
Iraq is not worse because it overthrew the king.
Iraq actually got better during its early days as a republic, Saddam was the fuckup who is loved by many Arabs who do not know any history of Iraq before Saddam.
Even though this is not really the topic, you keep saying this while it is totally wrong..
KingMamba
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- May 23, 2012
- Messages
- 12,546
- Reaction score
- 7
- Country
- Location
al-Hasani
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2013
- Messages
- 14,060
- Reaction score
- 43
- Country
- Location
What is this about? I am not discussing Iraq here. I am saying that all the so-called Republic are the worst governments in the Arab world and throughout history in our part of the world. Those republics are a new phenomena. Barely 80 years old. In reality they are dictatorships used under a so-called democratic false light are way worse off than so-called countries ruled by evil kings or Mullahs as Naifov falsely called it.
Just look at Syria. Yes, great Arab Republic. So-called elections that show 99% support and presidency posts inherited from father to son.
Iraq is not a Western democracy nor any other Muslim or Arab country. Anyone who claims that is a idiot - sorry for the strong words.
So-called "real" democracies are found in well-functioning Western countries such as Denmark, Netherlands, Sweden and other countries were corruption is nearly not existent. But there rules have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with Islam. Hence the hypocrisy.
I rather want Shari'ah law, albeit not 100% perfect or as in the time of the Rightly Four Guided Caliphs than so-called full democracy. Mixing them is impossible.
KingMamba
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- May 23, 2012
- Messages
- 12,546
- Reaction score
- 7
- Country
- Location
Actually I was surprised to know Indonesia has such a good economy you may just be right.
The nordic model is the most similar to the Islamic way of governance. They are social democrats in that they have socialistic tendencies to benefit their people. That is in essence what a Muslim state should strive to achieve for their subjects.
al-Hasani
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2013
- Messages
- 14,060
- Reaction score
- 43
- Country
- Location
I never said that a real Caliph equals a king, man. I said that all so-called Caliphs aside from the 4 Rightly Guided Caliphs were more kings/emirs/sultans etc. than real Caliphs. Why do I say that. Well, history has proven that. Their titles were inherited from father to son. The so-called Caliph in Istanbul was a Sultan at the same time and inherited his throne from father and gave to son or brother. Aside from the murderous frauds among them. Nor were they elected by the people.
Well, I support the least evil and most Islamic of the possibilities.
Last edited by a moderator:
Doritos11
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2013
- Messages
- 3,905
- Reaction score
- 0
- Country
- Location
Worse off has nothing to do with the state being a republic.
It is nowhere near the democracy of EU nations, as the democracy index classifies each country.
Though authoritarianism is way lover then in kingdoms, in Iraq you can get away criticizing, insulting the leaders while in kingdoms or the emir controlled countries..
al-Hasani
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2013
- Messages
- 14,060
- Reaction score
- 43
- Country
- Location
Actually I was surprised to know Indonesia has such a good economy you may just be right.
The nordic model is the most similar to the Islamic way of governance. They are social democrats in that they have socialistic tendencies to benefit their people. That is in essence what a Muslim state should strive to achieve for their subjects.
But nothing to do with Islam. Oh, and the reality is something totally different. Many poor people here, big differences between rich and poor, not equal opportunities for all always etc. Besides being completely secular or the 100's of un-Islamic rules. I would not take them as examples by any means.
Iraq is as much a democracy as KSA is a state similar to Denmark or Netherlands.
Doritos11
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2013
- Messages
- 3,905
- Reaction score
- 0
- Country
- Location
All these parliament sessions are not a show, if we had real dictatorship things would go much faster unlike now with all these democratic policies/routines that have to be followed.
Democracy Index - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Iraqi democracy can be compared to Egyptian democracy.
Monarchies of the ME are more authoritarian then these 2 ^^
In Morocco, Kuwait you can have your own political party and place in parliament but it does not make a difference, the Emir will always be the higher in power like Iran, the supreme leader rules.
Similar threads
