[Ccddfergt]

Since the hadith talks about kingship, rule by force, etc coming after khilafah, then to me this means khilafah cannot be a rule by force or a rule by kingship. Definition by negation.

[twinaircant]

aoa
bro some paragraphs would be appropriate here no?

Denying me the opportunity to rant?
(Just kidding.)
Let me see if I can do the points again, IA.

[Eujacwta]

Democracy isn't one rigid system of government. The democratic government of UK is different to that of the USA, both of which are different to that of Germany.

Islamic also has a different form of democracy. Doesn't mean fodder for the shias as the system they propose is that of a kind of monarchy whereas as demonstrated the Islamic system is democracy, well atleast before yazeed it was.

Was Imam Hussain not fighting for Democracy (i.e. right for the ummah to choose) or was he(RA) fighting for his own kingship? I think the former myself.

salam

Assalamu Alaikum

A lot of Muslims do believe in Democracy, but I think at the end of the day the difference between an 'Islamic' Democracy and an 'un-Islamic' Democracy is that in an Islamic Democracy we would still accept the sovereignty belongs to Allah and rule accordingly, although rulers would still be chosen according to some form of electoral process.

Monarchy is obviously not an Islamic system as such, but it is a system associated to traditionalism and Muslim monarchs (imperfect as they often were) have usually (but not always) supported Islam in Muslim countries,

this is unlike Democracy which has become very much historically associated with secular fundamentalism and the war against Islam in Muslim countries.

Maybe we will see some interesting forms of Democratic government develop in future that are more accommodating towards Islam or which exist as actual functional 'Islamic Democracies' where the constitution is based upon the Holy Qur'an and the Sunnah InshaAllah.

All that said - it is still possible to argue very strongly for Amirate and direct personal rule of a Caliph chosen by the same system as that which chose the four rightly guided Caliphs (which was essentially nomination by the wise elders of Islam), however the Muslim Ummah is far bigger than it was in those days and choosing who could have a say today could be more difficult than then.

[Eujacwta]

Since the hadith talks about kingship, rule by force, etc coming after khilafah, then to me this means khilafah cannot be a rule by force or a rule by kingship. Definition by negation.

Assalamu Alaikum

I think if you ask the scholars they will tell you that this use of 'khilafah' refers to true Caliphate.

They would mostly still tell you to obey the Muslim ruler who calls himself Caliph but rules by force - like was the case with the Ummayads, Abbasids and Ottomans, so long as he is already established, supports Islam to at least the minimum extent that he must as ruler of a Muslim country and has taken the oath of allegiance from the Muslim masses.

They were Caliphs of a sort (but apart from a few like Umar Ibn Abdul Aziz (ra) they were not rightly guided Caliphs and their rule was essentially that of kingship not that of khilafat, yet with most of these Caliph-Kings (so long as they claimed to support Ahlus Sunnah) the Ulema generally gave them support in their continued rule and in Sunni mosques of east and west they were prayed for at Juma.

[Eujacwta]

Since the hadith talks about kingship, rule by force, etc coming after khilafah, then to me this means khilafah cannot be a rule by force or a rule by kingship. Definition by negation.

also if you look at the rightly guided Caliphs they were not afraid to use force if necessary, so for example Abu Bakr (raa) declared the nominally Muslim tribes who refused to pay the zakaat apostates and fought them until they repented on this etc..

yet the rightly guided Caliphs rule was not tyrannical and you find them consulting the people and even making statement that the ruler is not to be obeyed if he rules contrary to what Allah has ordained.

[interbaoui]

The khilafah was given to Umar because Abu Bakr selected him. The khilafah was given to Uthman because a small group of sahaba that were selected by Umar decided upon him and pledged their allegiance to him. Khilafah was also given to Abu Bakr in a similar manner.

We don't see the democratic process here. We also don't see nepotism inherent in monarchies. In fact, Umar didn't select anyone from his family on purpose when he was selecting the members of the small shoora. The shoora he selected was composed of the remaining 'ashara mubashsharah except for one (Sa'eed ibn Zayd ) because he was his son-in-law.

[Ccddfergt]

That's why I stuck with that negative definition since even if you say that this and that force was applied, the hadith seperates it from kingship,tyranny and force. That requires that we define what islamically is kingship, tyranny and rule by force meant in this hadith and negate such from our understanding of what ideal khilafah is. Allah has also negated tyranny from Himself in the Quran. So a tyranny can never be categorised as Islamic.

Moreover, I find it troubling that tthose who call for shariah government or khilafah do not have a ideal model in place on what they want tto achieve as an example. They just pic from here and there based on whims from 1400yrs ffor Islamic history. Many of them use the islamic Spain and some other such examples to show what khilafat rule would be yet they at the same time do not agree in accepting the very aspects like openness and diversity and other aspects of Islamic Spain which made Islamic spain a history to boast about today.

[arrasleds]

Monarchy is more Islamic than Democracy. Democracies and voting are just random patterns designed to put someone in power, anyone...so long as they do not remain in power for life. It is argued that life time leaders are tyrants but voting allows the ruled to remove the ruler. But voting actually places the same type of people in charge and they can be bought and promoted by the money elite. Usually monarchs can protect themselves and their people by keeping it balanced. Ibn Khaldun says monarchy is the natural government of humanity.

[kHy87gPC]

Monarchy is more Islamic than Democracy. Democracies and voting are just random patterns designed to put someone in power.............

Firstly,
I don't blame you, this actually is what many muslims around the world think. They look at the many muslim countries and see absolute monarchies and absolute presidencies and assume this must be the islamic way, how else would it come to being.

Monarchy means the son (most times) of the current king will be the next ruler and according to democracies, the one supported by the people will be the leader. So keeping that in mind, did a member of the prophet's(PBUH) family succeed him(pbuh) or someone accepted by the people?

random voting.....so in democracies people go out to the polling booths and randomly put X against a candidate randomly, post their vote and walk out, or do people (try to) look at the policies/pledges/manifestos being made and vote according to that. Brother Abu Zaki, have you ever voted in a general/national election?

Politics and political systems are hard to explain even for the experts but here i will try to clarify my position of the system of Islam being democracy.

Democracy isn't one rigid system, it has many variations. The concept of "shura" can be explained in the modern sense by comparing it to a one party system democracy, this would be akin to comparing how individual parties function in multi-party sytems. Leaders are chosen by a small group of people rather than the lay man. the people vote for the party (although a good leader is a BIG plus) but the party can decide who the leader will be. e.g. when Tony Blair resigned as PM, Gordon brown followed him as PM without a new General election. In affect Gordon Brown and Tony Blair were both viable candidates as party leaders in 1997 election, but Gordon Brown gave his "Bayah" to Tony Blair.

question is who chooses the shura, and who qualifies to be in the shura. This can only be decided by the ummah as a whole in the modern day.

This is a complicated yopic and I don't wish to write long posts, so i would appreciate if someone could point out a question or direction for me to tackle and expand on this discussion.

Jazakallah

[venediene]

The truth is, the vast majority of people couldn't care less how the leader is selected, as long as he's a good leader. As long as (in addition to shariah) there's relative peace and stability, people's rights and liberties are respected, and the economy is doing all right, I don't care if the government was a dictatorship installed by a military coup.

[kHy87gPC]

The truth is, the vast majority of people couldn't care less how the leader is selected........ The method of selection will ultimately lead to the extent to which the leader is accepted by the ummah.

As long as (in addition to shariah) there's relative peace and stability.... Even if it involves aggressively stopping rioter/people unhappy with regime by bombing/killing them, until they cease or until they cease to exist?

people's rights and liberties are respected rights according to who? western liberty or muslim "liberty"?

I don't care if the government was a dictatorship installed by a military coup If it is a dictator ship they will emphasis their own brand of what they perceive sharia/islam to be. Imagine if the coup is done by the qaddiyanis!

Only Allah and his messenger know better

[Eujacwta]

One big reason why (truly) Islamic democracy is more suitable nowadays than many other systems is because many, many people like Saqqib are in love with the idea of democracy and will always see a king or any other hereditary ruler as being corrupt or wrong, no matter how good a service he delivers. Its just something in the air.

[Qxsumehj]

Even if it involves aggressively stopping rioter/people unhappy with regime by bombing/killing them, until they cease or until they cease to exist?
rights according to who? western liberty or muslim "liberty"?
If it is a dictator ship they will emphasis their own brand of what they perceive sharia/islam to be. Imagine if the coup is done by the qaddiyanis!

Only Allah and his messenger know better

One example of democracy, pakistan is a good example of why it doesn't work. You now have an elite of shia/murtad politicians who skillfully manipulate the dumb masses with grand promises of food, work and entertainment. And the masses are all duped into following them, any concerns for following allah's law and making it paramount, don't really come into consideration, except to be used as another tool to manipulate people into voting for these same corrupt politicians. This doesnt work, democracy only encourages this kind of pandering which leads directly to corrupt leaders. Even in the west, its basically taken for granted that politicians in a democracy are corrupt by default (so why change?).

You need a system where the leader isn't beholden to the masses, monarchy is infinitely superior in this regard. A religious monarchy is very stable and has higher sanction, as opposed to a democracy where sanction only comes from the whims and desires of the masses, making it inherently unstable. This is why we muslims shouldn't rebel against their monarchs in the middle east, because the alternative is far worse.

There seems to be this underlying assumption that if muslims adopt the political system of parliamentary democacy from westerners, muslims will some how become modern, rich, peaceful and progress. This is a false assumption. You won't be rich like white people by becoming democratic, whites won't allow it since they control the world economy, for you to become rich would be to their detriment. And you won't be free either, you'll be ruled by corrupt demagogues like Zardari. Modernism is nothing but following them down the lizards hole, as the hadith says.

The method of selection will ultimately lead to the extent to which the leader is accepted by the ummah. False. You have no basis to say that a democracy will lead to a leader who wants religion to prevail being elected. History shows it is just the opposite. It will lead to the selection of the leader who is the most charismatic and promises people the most 'stuff'. Just like in America or Australia, people vote for the guy who they'd like the have a beer with. It will be the same. Religious considerations may hover around at the start, but eventually they will be pushed aside in favour of the nafs of the mob. The vast majority of people are easily swayed by promises of worldly gain, indeed, its what most people care about first and foremost, in fact if there is a leader that will promise them all this, and 'appear' religious then so much the better, for him. Muslims these days don't care enough about their religion, or know enough about it, to be trusted to elect a 'good man'. I can't think of any country in the muslim world that could be, ever. Because such a selection process inevitably tends towards the lowest common denominator, it causes decay over time, til you get to the point where they are in Europe and america, where religion has no part in 'daily life' and people are even hostile to it being in public.

Anyone know anything about the french revolution? Their motto was liberty, equality and fraternity. Look how well that turned out. It destroyed the old order, religion, everything good and sacred in favor of what? Mass killings, poverty, chaos. This is the product of democracy. Don't be fooled by europe's current stablity. Muslim countries aren't capable of that level of stablity with a democracy, since its all predicated on prosperity, which you don't and won't have. You'll be like pakistan, chaotic, violent, corrupt. Or libya, which we never hear of now. It's gone from something civilised to a war torn somalia. And the rebels were dumb enough to sign over the control over the offshore oilfields in return for NATO air support. The war wasn't even over yet, and french and british special forces were on the ground securing oil supplies, and tankers were sighted off short taking oil.

But muslims these days wont listen to this, they want their nafs satisfied, so they will rebel against their legitimate rulers and install 'democracies' and descend into chaos.

[Qxsumehj]

One big reason why (truly) Islamic democracy is more suitable nowadays than many other systems is because many, many people like Saqqib are in love with the idea of democracy and will always see a king or any other hereditary ruler as being corrupt or wrong, no matter how good a service he delivers. Its just something in the air.

That doesn't make it right, in fact it's a downright foolish thing to say. Monarchies ruled the arab lands for a long time, and were inherently more stable than any modern democracy. Though I doubt you read much history for that fact to sink in.

Democracy is only popular because the majority of muslims these days are nafs followers, one example of that in europe, muslims have become basically 'foot soldiers of the multicult', because they want to satisfy their desires for food sex and entertainment, so they support multiculturalism.

Only in a monarchy can people be free, since the will of a monarch suppresses the lower base desires of the mob from creating chaos and disorder.

[kHy87gPC]

One example of democracy, pakistan..........

i'm not going to comment on this because positive comments about Pakistan leads to deletion of posts and even whole threads.


But muslims these days wont listen to this, they want their nafs satisfied, so they will rebel against their legitimate rulers and install 'democracies' and descend into chaos. legitimate rulers????? What made them legitimate?? because they had the biggest armies? the bigger stick? favoured/supplied by the kuffar west?

Did the forefathers of these "legitimate rulers" not themselves fight others who could be described as the legitimate rulers of their own lands, which these rulers conquered or were given.

People like zardari and other leaders are first chosen by their own peers i.e. politicians, most of the time decomcracies don't vote for the immediate leader rather they choose the party to vote e.g. conservative or labour in UK. If david cameron (current uk PM) resigns now, there will be no national election for next PM, rather the conservative party will decide their next leader and s/he will become next PM.

In an Islamic democracy it will be a one party system, so people like zardari don't have a chance.

People will vote for members of the shura, who will then go on to choose the khalifa.
The khalifa will have an unlimited term BUT is free to resign if he wants.
Khalifa can also nominate a few people into the shura e.g. 1/10, who will help choose the successor.
Khalifa is not allowed to choose a successor upon death or resignation.
etc...

I've briefly outlined the basic concepts that might be in place


salam

[Qxsumehj]

i'm not going to comment on this because positive comments about Pakistan leads to deletion of posts and even whole threads.




legitimate rulers????? What made them legitimate?? because they had the biggest armies? the bigger stick? favoured/supplied by the kuffar west?

Did the forefathers of these "legitimate rulers" not themselves fight others who could be described as the legitimate rulers of their own lands, which these rulers conquered or were given.

People like zardari and other leaders are first chosen by their own peers i.e. politicians, most of the time decomcracies don't vote for the immediate leader rather they choose the party to vote e.g. conservative or labour in UK. If david cameron (current uk PM) resigns now, there will be no national election for next PM, rather the conservative party will decide their next leader and s/he will become next PM.

In an Islamic democracy it will be a one party system, so people like zardari don't have a chance.

salam

They are legitimate because they have power. It's stated right there in aqida tahawiyya, the most basic text of aqida, that it is categorically HARAM to rebel against the ruler. There are countless wisdoms for this being the case.

The fact remains that the arab monarchies are still more 'religious' or at least traditional, than any muslim democracy, like egypt or pakistan, where modern moral and social corruption is widespread.

[kHy87gPC]

They are legitimate because they have power.

so......we shouldn't resist the western kuffar because..................they have the real power.

Could you tell me what would the ummayads have done to any islamic scholar who said that all the muslims are free to rebel against rulers?

On this very topic, What is the example of the Grandson(RA) of the prophet(pbuh) of islam? namely Hussain (RA)?

Should I follow Hussain(RA)'s example or should I stick to scholars terrorised by ummayads?

Was Hussain(RA) in the wrong at karbala and deserved to be BEHEADED and have his HEAD PRESENTED in the court of the great Yazeed?

I guess Yazeed was only trying to establish stability, right?

May Allah guide you in your views

This Hussain is the same person who as a child played in the lap of our prophet(pbuh) and who the prophet loved immensely.

Salam

[Qxsumehj]

so......we shouldn't resist the western kuffar because..................they have the real power.

You don't seem to understand. I was referring to muslim leaders.

I don't see a point continuing this exchange since you are rejecting ijma.

[kHy87gPC]

You don't seem to understand. I was referring to muslim leaders.

I don't see a point continuing this exchange since you are rejecting ijma.

Yes Yes, by Allah, the smoke is slightly clearing,

muslim leaders huh?

Yazeed....he was muslim right?

so, Was Hussain(RA) in the wrong at karbala and deserved to be BEHEADED and have his HEAD PRESENTED in the court of the great Yazeed, who was a MUSLIM LEADER?

Answer this please if you are sincere. Answer this before you go.

Glory is only to Allah not to the one carrying the biggest stick.

Allegence is to Allah and not to the one carrying the biggest stick.

read history and find out how these current day "muslim" royals got their "power".

salam

[Qxsumehj]

Yes Yes, by Allah, the smoke is slightly clearing,

muslim leaders huh?

Yazeed....he was muslim right?

so, Was Hussain(RA) in the wrong at karbala and deserved to be BEHEADED and have his HEAD PRESENTED in the court of the great Yazeed, who was a MUSLIM LEADER?

Answer this please if you are sincere. Answer this before you go.

Glory is only to Allah not to the one carrying the biggest stick.

Allegence is to Allah and not to the one carrying the biggest stick.

read history and find out how these current day "muslim" royals got their "power".

salam

You sound like a shia. Hussain and yazeed are irrelevant here.

Ijma of the ulema is that rebellion is forbidden. Go learn your religion.