The new Islamic empire from Turkey to Pakistan.

[A.Rahman]

You pick out a few examples from history and try to dismiss the idea of a united islamic states.

Right now, its impossible to get united Islamic Ideal ummah, when we having trouble in keeping our own people united. The next alternative might be some thing like EU or NATO.

You don't have to be colored green on atlas to make a nation, economic, military & political cooperation can play a big hand too.

Secularism would be the total wrong way for the muslims to go along,a system that has killed millions is not for the muslims.

Secularism and Talibanism are both extreme cases, one is totally leftist and other 100% rightest.

We need something in between the two, like being moderate.

I think that Islam as a set of norms and ideals that emphasizes the equality of people, the accountability of leaders to community, and the respect of diversity and other faiths, is fully compatible with democracy. I don't see how it could be compatible with a government that would take away those values

Since the Prophet Muhammed, true Muslims have always brought with them an atmosphere of freedom and tolerance wherever they have gone. They have enabled people whose religions, languages and cultures are completely different from one another to live together in peace and harmony under one roof, and provided peace and harmony for its own members. One of the most important reasons for the centuries-long existence of the Ottoman Empire, which spread over an enormous region, was the atmosphere of tolerance and understanding that Islam brought with it. Within this multi-national structure, all ethnic and religious groups have been free to live according to their own religions, and their own rules.

The europeans where at war against each other for hundreds of years but its okay for them to get together and recreate the western roman empire,are they not a threat to the muslims nations?
When the muslims turn away from there faith that is when they are the most intolerant.

so true, I do agree that when Muslims turn away from their faith, its their down fall. [ see the above post]

 

[niaz]

It is amazing to think that no matter what a lot of people have the misconception that if you form a state with Sharia laws and a Khalifa, all problems will disappear. Do people live in different world than I do or they read a different version of History. One Hon member has quoted what good things Khilafat did from Wikepeida. Most of what is mentioned has nothing to do with khilafat. It is the leaders whether Khalifa or not who did the deeds. It is convenienlty ignored that majority of Khalifas ( except the Rashideens) were debauched. Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal was persecuted and flogged by the Abbassi Khalifa Almamun. I ask those who hanker after Khilafat, whom do you follow, the Al Amr ( Kahlifatul Waqt) or the Faqih such as Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal??

At its greatest extent the Ottoman Empire's boundaries were: in Europe as far north as Hungary and part of southern Russia; North Iran including the city of Tabriz; the Palestinian coastline; Egypt; North Africa and Arabian penisula. From the 1600s the empire was in decline and by the end of 19th century it was the sickman of Europe. We had a khalifa in place until 1924, why the decline and didnot continue as before? How come nearly all the muslims Arab countries ( From North Africa to Arabian peninsula and Iraq) preferred the infidel English rule than governed by Turkish Khalifat ul Muslimeen??

Reason being; that a system of government and set of laws are ony meant to form a guideline, if the people dont want to abide by it, or apply it on a selective basis, what would a law do on its own?

I have mentioned before that muslims only pay lip service to the laws and simply ignore what they dont like. For example ; when it comes to marriage, people in Pakistan will largely limit it to within their tribe/brotherhood. Kashmiries will marry with Kashmiries, Jats within jats etc. Even today this is largely so, though most people who practice this are otherwise very strict muslims. Why do they bar other muslims marrying their daughters? Will Khilafat make it any different?

When it comes to inheritence of the female children, very devout muslims simply ignore Sharia laws. Whereas I have seen it applied for exclusion of grandson ( if father dies when grand father was still alive). I have also seen very devout muslims to lie without blinking when it suits them. I personally came across an Al Haj ( one who has performed many Haj) and a Hafiz Quran as well, who was Esso's dealer and caught cheating and buying stolen petrol. Thus people follow Islam when it suits them and often ignore Islamic principles of truth and justice because these are inconvenient.

All of the above are not isolated examples but quite common in Pakistan culture. When educated and rational muslims dream of a khalifat or a muslim universal ummah it is sad. If you want a change, you need to change the attitude of the people which can only be achieved thru education. We should therefore put all of our resources into educating the masses, doing good for the humanity ( Abdus Sattar Edhi is an excellent example) and providing health care and social justice to the common man. What difference does it make if the government is secular or Islamic??. In India personal and family laws for muslims are according to their own fiqah. How will Islam be in jeopardy if the same is applied in Pakistan??

Also why an Islamic empire from Turkey to Pakistan. Why ignore all the Arab world. Are they not muslims?? Why dont we include them as well?.

Dear compatriots and muslim brothers; what is needed is justice for all, equal opportunities for all nationals and achievement of eductional and technical experties. As long as there is no law which stops you from offering prayers, reading Quran or peforming Haj, you dont need any Khalifa or Sharia law.

 

[alamgir]

we know all the true khalafit was only khalafit-e-rashada,bano-ummyiah,bano-abbas,and ottman are muslim dynasties and they use khalafit for unity of muslims, or to safe thier rule. this term alway remind us our origon and if it remain up to today it may be use as tool for muslim unity

 

[dabong1]

Right now, its impossible to get united Islamic Ideal ummah, when we having trouble in keeping our own people united. The next alternative might be some thing like EU or NATO

You don't have to be colored green on atlas to make a nation, economic, military & political cooperation can play a big hand too.]

The the EU was formed is the way the muslims need to go along,a gradual process lasting decades where we try to acheive unity on say something like education first and then move on into industury ect.
In 1950 the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC)was formed,the first soild foundation to a future unified europe. The aim of the ECSC was to integrate the markets for the industrial resources necessary for reconstruction of Europe.
As education is the most important issue concerning the muslims,this is where we should start.
Belgium, Netherlands and Luxembourg France, Italy and West Germany where the founding members of the EU.
We need a small number of muslims countries to start the process the way europe did.

Secularism and Talibanism are both extreme cases, one is totally leftist and other 100% rightest.

We need something in between the two, like being moderate.

I think that Islam as a set of norms and ideals that emphasizes the equality of people, the accountability of leaders to community, and the respect of diversity and other faiths, is fully compatible with democracy. I don't see how it could be compatible with a government that would take away those values.

Why would an islamic govt take away the very foundations it is based on,representative govt,accountability,religious freedom ect?
The notion that the taliban or al qaeda is some sort of pinnicle that the muslims are trying to achieve is totally wrong and unfair.

Since the Prophet Muhammed, true Muslims have always brought with them an atmosphere of freedom and tolerance wherever they have gone. They have enabled people whose religions, languages and cultures are completely different from one another to live together in peace and harmony under one roof, and provided peace and harmony for its own members. One of the most important reasons for the centuries-long existence of the Ottoman Empire, which spread over an enormous region, was the atmosphere of tolerance and understanding that Islam brought with it. Within this multi-national structure, all ethnic and religious groups have been free to live according to their own religions, and their own rules.

so true, I do agree that when Muslims turn away from their faith, its their down fall. [ see the above post]

The connection between intolerance of other peoples languages,faith and cultures to islam is totally unjust and has no historicial backing.
Where are the historic muslim communties of spain,sicily,portugal,italy?
There are plenty of christians from a thousand years ago that are still living in muslim lands,if we where that intolerant as some accuse us there would be no christians in muslim lands.

“A politician thinks of the next election. A statesman, of the next generation.”
James Freeman Clarke

We need a few more statesman in the muslim lands.

 

[AlpErTunga]

As my dot; the unity of Islam or the unity of any religion is nothing but dream and rubbish. Now you will talk about the EU but even it has economical ground. And even if so-called unity of Islam will establish; don't mention about joining of Turkiye. Because that would be a dream in a dream.

 

[dabong1]

As my dot; the unity of Islam or the unity of any religion is nothing but dream and rubbish. Now you will talk about the EU but even it has economical ground. And even if so-called unity of Islam will establish; don't mention about joining of Turkiye. Because that would be a dream in a dream.

"Dream and rubbish" that was the same thing that was said about a united europe after the second world war but europe united.
The dream in a dream is turkey getting full EU membership.

 

[AlpErTunga]

"Dream and rubbish" that was the same thing that was said about a united europe after the second world war but europe united.
The dream in a dream is turkey getting full EU membership.

I am totally agree with your ideas about Turkiye's EU membership and I am not the biggest fun of that membership.

My point is that a religional ground would not be a concrete base of the union. I support a possible union which will be founded in Eurasia. It is not a dream. But a religional empire would be a fairy tale.

A union which will get together Turkic and ex-colonies in Eurasia, would be the most logical and most useful step for balance of global politics. Because this union would have very important sources of energy, raw material as well as take control of back gardens of current superpowers.

But this union have to be secular and rationalist.

 

[Ababeel]

Dream never remain dreams. It will become a reality one day, Insha Allah
View attachment 289

 

[salahuldin786]

if it is a dream then insha allah the dream will come true maybe not in are life time but surely one day it will come true, and imam mehdi will bring the khalifah back insha alla.

if the people want it they can get it, the muslim's need to wake up from there slumber because more then ever we need the khalifah right now.

 

[dabong1]

My point is that a religional ground would not be a concrete base of the union. I support a possible union which will be founded in Eurasia. It is not a dream. But a religional empire would be a fairy tale.

If i am correct the only thing the turks have in common with Eurasia is faith,so if religion is not the unifing power then what is it?

A union which will get together Turkic and ex-colonies in Eurasia, would be the most logical and most useful step for balance of global politics. Because this union would have very important sources of energy, raw material as well as take control of back gardens of current superpowers..

I think that a union between turkey,iran and pakistan should be the secondary aim after a turkic union.

But this union have to be secular and rationalist.

Like the AK party?

 

[Scorpius]

Some kind of political union between Muslim countries may be a good idea, however it shouldn't meddle with issues of faith. I'll clarify what I mean. Such a union shouldn't go around declaring that you should worship in this way or adopt a x length beard.

It should concern itself with matters that are of practical benefit to the countries.

 

[dabong1]

Some kind of political union between Muslim countries may be a good idea, however it shouldn't meddle with issues of faith. I'll clarify what I mean. Such a union shouldn't go around declaring that you should worship in this way or adopt a x length beard.

It should concern itself with matters that are of practical benefit to the countries.

When was the last time you thought about how long a beard should be?

 

[Scorpius]

When was the last time you thought about how long a beard should be?

Because I live in England not taliban controlled Afghanistan it's not something I have to worry about, although recently I have thought about adopting a beard (for personal reasons).

 

[dabong1]

Because I live in England not taliban controlled Afghanistan it's not something I have to worry about, although recently I have thought about adopting a beard (for personal reasons).

i live in england also and i recall just a couple of months ago when jack straw wanted muslim woman not to wear the veil,where they not talking about passing a law to ban the wearing of the veil.
In france the headscarf has been banned in public office and now is being repeated across europe.
My point is if the western nations can pass laws on islamic attire and its accepted as not being prejudice then what is so wrong with the taliban passing similiar laws on growing beards and music.
The same way the hijab/nikab dilutes democracy and secularism according to the west,the taliban say the same thing about not growing beards and listining to music dilutes islamic principles.
Both the taliban and the western govt are wrong on there respective issues but do you understand the logic?

 

[Scorpius]

i live in england also and i recall just a couple of months ago when jack straw wanted muslim woman not to wear the veil,where they not talking about passing a law to ban the wearing of the veil.
In france the headscarf has been banned in public office and now is being repeated across europe.
My point is if the western nations can pass laws on islamic attire and its accepted as not being prejudice then what is so wrong with the taliban passing similiar laws on growing beards and music.
The same way the hijab/nikab dilutes democracy and secularism according to the west,the taliban say the same thing about not growing beards and listining to music dilutes islamic principles.
Both the taliban and the western govt are wrong on there respective issues but do you understand the logic?

You do have a point dabong. However the key difference is that here in England and other european nations there is a process of democracy and even though such things are done (it is wrong to ban the hijab I believe) elected officials are the ones to do them.

Whereas in Afghanistan the taliban did not seek the opinion of the populace (nor were they elected) they did it because they believed it was there Islamic duty to do so and enforced there personal beliefs on the whole population.

If the majority of the populace in Europe has problems with laws then they can show their contempt for said laws by demonstrating, mass rallies, boycotts, etc. And often they can get there way. In Afghanistan and other countries sadly this is not the case.


I want a free Afghanistan that is ruled by elected officials not by bandits or criminals professing to be religious.

At the moment I believe the government in Afghanistan has problems and is not perfect, however to be realistic this is to be expected when the nation does not have a history of democracy (facing armed resistance makes it more difficult)