Who gets to be Caliph?

[darkinsky]

Caliph = Khalifa = King...
therefore
Caliph = King

Most people think it's some sacred title or something



An Islamic Caliphate would technically be a kingdom of all Muslim nations, and a King (Caliph in english-ized Arabic) would rule it. That King by the way has to be chosen by the people as well.

caliph is not a king, its chosen by able people who are considered most able to handle the empire situation and then the caliph is selected,

the old caliph gives recommendation and the council consisting of able people or officials decide another caliph, its pretty like a democracy only that the common voters arnt considered

king is a guy who inherits a crown from his father even though he might be incompetent enough

 

[King Solomon]

Mr or Ms S-19, your last sentence applies very well to you: "And there may be many others better than you."

Yes, applies to everyone, including you and me.

 

[Armstrong]

Exactly, these so-called scholars have been a menace of Islam since the beginning. God tells us that Quran "has been fulfilled in truth and justice" and is "easy to understand", yet we have sought these scholars. They have divided Islam into many sects and have instigated conflict between each.

In short, they have complicated the religion of Islam so much that Islam is considered to be a backward religion (and rightfully so, in these scholar's interpratation).

The truth is, Quran does not mention any "form of governance". It just advises us to "engage in mutual consultation".

What is that? That is democracy. The western style of democracy is the ideal model, to be honest. In the Muslim world, today Iran's model is the closest to that.

I wouldn't say that they've been a menace since the beginning because Muslims Scholars (at least the ones I've mentioned) and countless others in what could be thought of as the Golden Age of Islam and the preceding years did some really good work, if we can historically contextualize it, of course ! But tis true that Orthodoxy has mostly tried to stifle any dissenting opinion instead of critically analysing it and issuing counter arguments and then place the onus of acceptance or rejection on the People ! I believe the intellectual rot in the Muslim Community started when we, as Iqbal sees it, stopped engaging in Ijtihad (Human reasoning to form a legal opinion) to evolve our understanding of Islam over time in the light of changing dynamics and instead stuck with Taqlid (or Imitation) of Scholars from a time before ours with their interpretations and injunctions ill-suited to the much evolved position that we found ourselves in and over time that gulf between them and our time continued to widen till now we find ourselves in an age when we've given ourselves over to mindless imitation instead of logical reasoning ! My scrutiny of Muslim History, however incomplete it maybe, makes me think that this unfortunate habit of ours kicked in during the Safavid Empire where for political reasons the Rulers of the Time discouraged (and sometimes viscously) original thought and would much rather want a said curriculum of religious studies followed in the Madrasas of their Empire ! That curriculum, very much unlike previously, was completely devoid of philosophy (metaphysics in particular), grammar and literature to understand the nuances of faith and the Arabic language and instead focused solely on a regressive repetitive knowledge of state sponsored notion of fiqh or jurisprudence. All of this translated into : Take away their ability to think and polymaths and intellectual juggernauts of ages past will not be produced and consequently the people would be a lot more submissive and subservient in their thoughts and their deeds. I believe the final blow to any of our remaining 'critical thinking' came in the guise of the Mongols when they sacked Baghadad and the rest of our Centres of Learning and the fall of the Kingdom of Andalusia in the Iberian Peninsula ! And we've been suffering from its after effects till today !

Furthermore on the mode of governance, I believe that it is true that Islam only gives a general framework on what Good Governance is but it doesn't (as it is an evolving thing) stipulate a mechanism for that system of Governance and thats probably the reason why one hears things like 'Islamic Socialism' which is to say...we don't really need to reinvent the wheel and thats because all systems are conceived as an answer to certain needs of the time...who knows democracy in its present form may outlive its purpose in a couple of hundred years and we'd have something else just as Monarchy (or Enlightened Despotism in its best form) were well suited for ages past !

Just my two cents !

 

[King Solomon]

I wouldn't say that they've been a menace since the beginning because Muslims Scholars (at least the ones I've mentioned) and countless others in what could be thought of as the Golden Age of Islam and the preceding years did some really good work, if we can historically contextualize it, of course ! But tis true that Orthodoxy has mostly tried to stifle any dissenting opinion instead of critically analysing it and issuing counter arguments and then place the onus of acceptance or rejection on the People ! I believe the intellectual rot in the Muslim Community started when we, as Iqbal sees it, stopped engaging in Ijtihad (Human reasoning to form a legal opinion) to evolve our understanding of Islam over time in the light of changing dynamics and instead stuck with Taqlid (or Imitation) of Scholars from a time before ours with their interpretations and injunctions ill-suited to the much evolved position that we found ourselves in and over time that gulf between them and our time continued to widen till we find ourselves in an age when we've given ourselves over to mindless imitation instead of logical reasoning ! My scrutiny of Muslim History, however incomplete it maybe, makes me think that this unfortunate habit of ours kicked in during the Safavid Empire where for political reasons the Rulers of the Time discouraged (and sometimes viscously) original thought and would much rather want a said curriculum of religious studies followed in the Madrasas of their Empire ! That curriculum, very much unlike previously, was completely devoid of philosophy (metaphysics in particular), grammar and literature to understand the nuances of faith and the Arabic language and instead focused solely on a regressive repetitive knowledge of state sponsored notion of fiqh or jurisprudence. All of this translated into : Take away their ability to think and polymaths and intellectual juggernauts of ages past will not be produced and consequently the people would be a lot more submissive and subservient in their thoughts and their deeds. I believe the final blow to any of our remaining 'critical thinking' came in the guise of the Mongols when they sacked Baghadad and the rest of our Centres of Learning and the fall of the Kingdom of Andalusia in the Iberian Peninsula ! And we've been suffering from its after effects till today !

Furthermore on the mode of governance, I believe that it is true that Islam only gives a general framework on what Good Governance is but it doesn't (as it is an evolving thing) stipulate a mechanism for that system of Governance and thats probably the reason why one hears things like 'Islamic Socialism' which is to say...we don't really need to reinvent the wheel and that because all systems are conceived as an answer to certain needs of the time...who knows democracy in its present form may outlive its purpose in a couple of hundred years and we'd have something else just as Monarchy and Enlightened Despotism in its best form, were perfectly suited for ages past !

Just my two cents !

Wow, you do write very big posts!

I agree with pretty much everything you said. The sack of Baghdad was the nail in the coffin for Islam, practically. Till that time, Islamic society was the most advanced civilization in the world. Can you imagine so much books were thrown in river Tigris that it turned black? Who knows what knowledge got lost in that? Who knows, maybe our scientists were on their way to invent airplanes, steam engine and all kinds of technology at that time? I do not really know about Safavid but I intend to find out more!

I do not label all scholars are bad. But it is extremely difficult to find someone who is tolerant on others and at the same time acknowledges that what he/she says may not be right. Most scholars insist it is "only they who are right" and according to me, this thinking is completely contradictory to the primary principle of humbleness in Quran.

Its just me, but I find that if I study the quran myself i can understand islam better. Following any scholar blindly just does not suit me althouth other people may be comfortable. I hold these scholars responsible for dividing islam in historical context. I in no way want to be a part of sectarian conflict. Also, Quran encourages us to think for ourselves and condemns any form of blind priesthood.

Just my 2 cents too.

 

[MastanKhan]

It was the last Caliph who supported in the Treaty of Sevres the idea of Palestine as the Jewish National Home. What does that mean for those Muslims who cry out that Israel is somehow an "illegitimate" state?

Israel as a state for brown and black jews is fine---absolutely and totally welcome---because that is their homeland---but not for the rascist white jews---.

 

[The SC]

Wow, you do write very big posts!

I agree with pretty much everything you said. The sack of Baghdad was the nail in the coffin for Islam, practically. Till that time, Islamic society was the most advanced civilization in the world. Can you imagine so much books were thrown in river Tigris that it turned black? Who knows what knowledge got lost in that? Who knows, maybe our scientists were on their way to invent airplanes, steam engine and all kinds of technology at that time? I do not really know about Safavid but I intend to find out more!

I do not label all scholars are bad. But it is extremely difficult to find someone who is tolerant on others and at the same time acknowledges that what he/she says may not be right. Most scholars insist it is "only they who are right" and according to me, this thinking is completely contradictory to the primary principle of humbleness in Quran.

Its just me, but I find that if I study the quran myself i can understand islam better. Following any scholar blindly just does not suit me althouth other people may be comfortable. I hold these scholars responsible for dividing islam in historical context. I in no way want to be a part of sectarian conflict. Also, Quran encourages us to think for ourselves and condemns any form of blind priesthood.

Just my 2 cents too.

The need has been and is for Religious scholars to be polymaths too, that is the spirit of Islam, there is a tremendous emphasis on seeking scientific knowledge in the Koran for the common people, so the scholars should be very highly qualified in many endeavours.

 

[AUSTERLITZ]

Israel as a state for brown and black jews is fine---absolutely and totally welcome---because that is their homeland---but not for the rascist white jews---.

Not taking any sides but what do you consider the semitic people to be white or brown?

 

[p(-)0ENiX]

Not taking any sides but what do you consider the semitic people to be white or brown?

Semitic people are Caucasians; they come in different colors, for example Lebanese people are white or very fair skinned. Other Semitic people such as the Yemenis are darker or brown, although some of my Yemeni friends are white as well.

 

[Peregrine]

Caliph shouldn't be from Pakistan, as in that case he would be extremely corrupt.

 

[ashokdeiva]

the idea of a chalipha is out dated, one man can not make balanced decessions for the 2 billion muslims he is representing and those who wish to see a chalipha are people who do not do any thing to the betterment of the society and ask for some god's son to carry the burden of contributing to the society or just people who are impotent of being good and brave souls to the society but sheeps who wish a sheepard to drive them in every sphear of their life

 

[p(-)0ENiX]

Caliph shouldn't be from Pakistan, as in that case he would be extremely corrupt.

Lol, not all Pakistanis are corrupt man. I am definitely not corrupt, thank God!

 

[ali786]

Nice, agreed with that completely. Its just that the crux should stay the same: Submission to God and his book, Quran. After that it doesn't matter whether it is kingdom, nation state or caliphate or whatever.

Democracy, secularism, equal rights, science/technology, progress etc. are embedded in the Quran itself. Alas, how far are most 'Islamic' countries from the Quranic model! If only they followed the Quran.

The quran/hadith does not allow for democracy, secularism or 'equal rights' for men and women in the way that the west practices it.

In an Islamic state the government is not really elected by the people so it (by definition) is a dictatorship because they enforce onto the people the Islamic shariah - whether they like it or not.

in terms of secularism the state is not secular its islamic, non muslims are allowed to practice their faith and have other freedoms like not having to fight for the country e.c.t But this is still not secularism as you see in the west so i dont know what your going on about.

In terms of equal rights for men and women, Islam dosent really believe in 100% equal rights for men and women - instead men have rights over women in some cases and then women have rights over men in some circumstances.

A democratic government is the opposite of an Islamic state, so how are they comparable?

 

[BLACKEAGLE]

Caliph shouldn't be from Pakistan, as in that case he would be extremely corrupt.

I should be the next Caliph...

Who is with me!?

 

[FaujHistorian]

Caliph shouldn't be from Pakistan, as in that case he would be extremely corrupt.

Khalifas in Pakistan are already providing an improtant service in Pakistan. They cut hair. Yes we call our barbers "Khalifa Ji". So they are not available for any other service.

Seriously! Must we bring up this outdated outmoded topic again and again. Don't we know that One ruler for all Muslims is a concept that is dead on arrival?

Muslims as a group are not even loyal to themselves. How could they be loyal and subservient to an uber-right-hand-of God, aka God's rep on the whole wide earth?

It just boggles my mind that very sane Pakistanis let their faculties fly away as soon as they discuss an made up story about Islam.

Heck we are split in so many biradaris and tribes in Pakistan. Majority of them do not consider other biradaries and tribes as their equal. How on earth will you expect from them to accept on man show as their only show.

Then if that was not a hug handicap, Pakistani Sunnies do not use their head and look to Saudi for every little fat fat fatwa. Pakistani Shias do the same but their false qibla lies towards Ayatullahs who drive every religious thought among Pakistani Shias. Then Shias themselves are split between Sayyads and non-Sayyads and whatever that concept is called Ehlay bait.

Then we have Ahmadis. They already got their Khalifa. But the rest of pakistanis do not consider them to be Muslim. So here you go with any unity or common Khalifa bazi.

In this sectarian environment, even by 1 in a 2 billion chance a Khalifa does show up, that poor soul will be quickly killed and dispatched to Jannah in no time.

Nothing new. This is what happened to the 3 Khalifa-Rashideen. All three were murdered or assassinated.

So to sum it up, we are disloyal, pathetic bunch who are fighting among ourselves all the time. We can't keep our cities clean, our schools painted, and our criminals in check. And here we are singing Khalifa lullabies to everyone.

No wonder this is the most divisive, self-defeating, self-loathing concept of all Islamic concepts we talk about.

No offense intended to any religious firqah, sect etc. etc.

If we want to get a Khalifa, then we gotta be serious to ourselves first.

As individuals we must be known as the most truthful, honest, and tolerant. And if we can't be all the three at individual level, then we are just doing non-serious gup shup about Khalifa.

Thank you for your patience and your tolerance while reading this. Hope it will get us thinking a bit more than what we are doing right now.

 

[chitti]

Caliph = Khalifa = King...
therefore
Caliph = King

Most people think it's some sacred title or something



An Islamic Caliphate would technically be a kingdom of all Muslim nations, and a King (Caliph in english-ized Arabic) would rule it. That King by the way has to be chosen by the people as well.

then how is it different from a PM of a democracy. if you say this then this is contraary to islam