[actifadepette]

Assalam-O-Alaikum!

Wy don't Ulema/Mufti/Sheikh of each country just go to their country's president/head to say that we must think over Caliphate because it's the only governmental system suggested by Islam.
We must unite ...

[hansen384cbh]

Assalam-O-Alaikum!

Wy don't Ulema/Mufti/Sheikh of each country just go to their country's president/head to say that we must think over Caliphate because it's the only governmental system suggested by Islam.
We must unite ...

Only if things were that simple. sigh.

[ViaplyVuple]

Assalam-O-Alaikum!

Wy don't Ulema/Mufti/Sheikh of each country just go to their country's president/head to say that we must think over Caliphate because it's the only governmental system suggested by Islam.
We must unite ...

Many did and still do and they are imprisoned or executed.

[Allbrunette]

Assalam-O-Alaikum!

Wy don't Ulema/Mufti/Sheikh of each country just go to their country's president/head to say that we must think over Caliphate because it's the only governmental system suggested by Islam.
We must unite ...

The thing is, what is meant by "Caliphate system"? Its not just about titles. I think the more accurate term would be Al Shoora, which is pretty much democracy, but with Islamic guidelines.

I think many get caught up on the term Caliphate, but if you ask people what it means, you'd get different answers. Was the Abbasid Caliphate, an Islamic system? Whats the difference between Caliphs at the time, and kings? They were practically kings, ruling for the most part by Islam. The idea Islamic system was the one of the four rightly guided Caliphs, Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman, Ali, which is pretty much Shoora. "And those who have responded to their lord and established prayer and whose affair is [determined by] consultation among themselves, and from what We have provided them, they spend." (42:38).

Even what Shoura would look like, is not discussed enough, and people just focus on the "label" Caliphate.

Even here in Saudi, the Islamic laws in the end, are what the Islamic-law learned judge decides. But many judges have different opinions on many detailed issues. This makes it hard for lawyers to do their job properly, except in issues of procedures, formalities, and agreed upon principles. Judges do refer to a book on Hanbali Fiqh, which was codified, but they arent forced to rule by it.

The only codified books on Islamic law, are one in Hanafi fiqh for the most part, used right before the fall of the Ottoman Empire, and this book on Hanbali Fiqh used in Saudi. Their names are "Majallat Al Ahkaam Al Adliyyah" and "Majallat Al Ahkaam Al Shar'iyaah". In Saudi theres much debate on codifying the law, as it would not only make things clear and organized, but the law would serve as an example, and would be easily transferred to other countries, who simply adapted French (or other) laws, except in matters related to inheritance, marriage, divorce etc. The "experiment" of the Ottoman Empire didnt last long, and practically ended before it started. I think this was just a couple of years or more, before the empire fell and everything related to Islam changed with the anti Islam government that came afterwards.

This issue I think is the core of all issues, and its not simply about the title "Caliphate" which many get emotional about, but without looking into the details that should logically be the next step.

[Sapremolz]

I heard of a saudi shaykh who went to the king and said that he as the leader of KSA needs to pledge to Mullah Umar... the shaykh was imprisoned.

[actifadepette]

I am talking about the restoration of Rashidun Caliphate.
You know, when there was the Khilafah, there were not that much problem. But by demolishing the Khilafah they have destroyed each & every principle. I am really very disapponted by seeing that even after 87 years of demolishion people are still thinking of that which governmental system should we choose, whether parliament or dictatorship or anything else.
As Egyptian will gonna decide who would be their new leader, y dont they adopt the system of caliphate, i mean what is wrong with that.
But they are fooled by US (NATO). Their elections would be held under the supervision of NATO so this means leader would on the basic principles of USA. Sad

[Larisochka]

I am talking about the restoration of Rashidun Caliphate.
You know, when there was the Khilafah, there were not that much problem. But by demolishing the Khilafah they have destroyed each & every principle. I am really very disapponted by seeing that even after 87 years of demolishion people are still thinking of that which governmental system should we choose, whether parliament or dictatorship or anything else.
As Egyptian will gonna decide who would be their new leader, y dont they adopt the system of caliphate, i mean what is wrong with that.
But they are fooled by US (NATO). Their elections would be held under the supervision of NATO so this means leader would on the basic principles of USA. Sad

Why do you think they attacked the Islamic Emirates of Afghanistan? for 9/11?

[actifadepette]

Why do you think they attacked the Islamic Emirates of Afghanistan? for 9/11?

Because of Opium ... It counts a lot $$$

[Allbrunette]

I am talking about the restoration of Rashidun Caliphate.
You know, when there was the Khilafah, there were not that much problem. But by demolishing the Khilafah they have destroyed each & every principle. I am really very disapponted by seeing that even after 87 years of demolishion people are still thinking of that which governmental system should we choose, whether parliament or dictatorship or anything else.
As Egyptian will gonna decide who would be their new leader, y dont they adopt the system of caliphate, i mean what is wrong with that.
But they are fooled by US (NATO). Their elections would be held under the supervision of NATO so this means leader would on the basic principles of USA. Sad

Even the Rashidun Caliphate if taken as a model (which would revolve around shoora basically) would still require much legal and political reasearch that hasnt been done. The Caliphs ruled for life, would this be a proper way nowadays where individuals are nowhere near the piety and knowledge of the four Caliphs? Theres so many questions so im just mentioning some here and there as examples, and not to say that these are the big questions.

I think Muslims underestimate the value of codifying sharia laws. Many Muslims even are afraid of anyone talking about Caliphate, including myself to be honest! Why? Because theres no clear definition and research regarding it. Any group here or there with tons of emotions and little education (and no legal background) would talk about Caliphate sometimes, and you dont know what is their understanding of it? Some imply in their speech that Islam is only about Hudood punishments, related to crimes like murder, stealing etc, and laws regarding apostasy the way THEY understand it. And they clearly do not have a clear image of Islam, let alone being qualified to lead a whole civilization. (Some, not all)

Even when it is said "we go by the laws of Islam", having a simple line in the constitution stating that any law that is proven to be unislamic is not to be legal. Whos to say its unislamic or not? Individuals, who may naturally disagree on many issues.

If things are codified, everyone will know what is it we are talking about. And points of disagreement would be easily discussed. Not only that things will be clear, but a legal system can be adapted elsewhere.

Its extremly important, as many, many issues fall under it, which dont have consensus. Everyone wants Islam, but thats general. The concept of citizenship is unclear, especially when theres non Muslim citizens in the country. Also the concept of apostasy, and its relation to citizenship. Personally I agree with what many sheikhs have said, which is that at the time, the leader was the prophet, and there were many hypocrites, and polytheists at war with Muslims, so leaving Islam would pretty much mean treason and joining the enemy.

Also, the concept of ahl al dhimma (Dhimmis, which some thing is a negative thing, which is totally inaccurate, rather theres emphasis on protecting the rights of non Muslims, usually connected to paying Jizyah, while Muslims pay Zakat. But what are these rights? Also, another point of potential disagreement.

Freedom of expression, what are its limits? How are they determined? Many would give their own ijtihaad on this, but again, another point of potential disagreement that hasnt been studied in detail.

Also, what would shoora really mean? It literally means consultation, but how would it be applied? Can a parliment be a Shoora council? I see many saying oh democracy is wrong etc, but we have a similar concept concept in Islam, but unfortunatly we never got into the details.

Also, what is the Islamic economic system? What system would the "Caliph" adapt? Besides Riba being haram and other concepts against monopolies etc, Muslims are free to decide what is best for them under those guidelines. And now Islamic economics is booming faster than ever. Although theres trillions involved now, we are still taking babysteps, and theres great research being done, but still, theres no complete system. Theres still no studies on monetary tools that would replace interest, which is an important tool to counter inflation. We only have guidelines, and the rest is up to us.

So the important issues that need to be studied in detail are countless. I remember a Saudi shiekh who was a judge at an Islamic court (who now works with a law firm) saying something so accurate.

He said we Muslims know what we dont want, but we dont know what we want. Of course everyone wants Islam and justice and "good", but those are only goals, and we've really fell behind on studying how to achieve them, and theres tremendous room for improvement. More room is given also because of two rules in Islam.

1- Everything is halal, unless mentioned otherwise.

2- Except for specific Hudood, inheritance, and family laws, and some prohibited things related to usary (Riba), monopoly etc, most laws are very general, and are about not causing harm to one another etc.

This leaves us with the responsibility to get into the details. Its best if those with great and deep knowledge of Sharea AND other legal systems, to develop what we really want.

Therefore I think instead of talking about goals, we should talk more about methods on how to achieve them. It will take a long time, and trying different models. But maybe since theres so many Muslim countries we can have different models at the same time, and can eventually, choose the best? Or the best from each?

This cannot be done overnight, and will take years because its a process. Those who say "We want sharea" are saying something every Muslim wants, but the question is how, and nobody talks about that, and thats why we're falling behind in my opinion. Caliphate system based on Shoora, is not something with details clear to anyone. Once we face this, then we can start solving it. Otherwise we'd just be talking about general beautiful ideas with no idea how to apply them.

Blaming the west for our shortcomings only makes us weaker if it makes us not discuss our real problems throwing everything on them. Yes theres oppression, and injustice, but we have lots of shortcomings too that we dont really admit. Islam is perfect, but we arent. If we do our own homework, our own research, nobody in the world can stop it.

The only faster alternative to this would be having a "good" and "just" dictator who would establish a model, but would people call him a Caliph? Would he really be one? How would the one after him be chosen? Would he actually establish rules related to that?

That said, simplifying issues in my opinion, would make us look like a child with a square block, trying to put it in an opening made for a triangle, and when it doesnt fit in, he/she would just push harder, and wonder why its not working since his intentions are noble.

The president of the Libyan government now, has a legal background, and an Islamic one too. He seems to be smart, mature, and reasonable. I hope he can help in establishing a good Islamic model we can all learn from.

[Allbrunette]

Even the Rashidun Caliphate if taken as a model (which would revolve around shoora basically) would still require much legal and political reasearch that hasnt been done. The Caliphs ruled for life, would this be a proper way nowadays where individuals are nowhere near the piety and knowledge of the four Caliphs? Theres so many questions so im just mentioning some here and there as examples, and not to say that these are the big questions.

I think Muslims underestimate the value of codifying sharia laws. Many Muslims even are afraid of anyone talking about Caliphate, including myself to be honest! Why? Because theres no clear definition and research regarding it. Any group here or there with tons of emotions and little education (and no legal background) would talk about Caliphate sometimes, and you dont know what is their understanding of it? Some imply in their speech that Islam is only about Hudood punishments, related to crimes like murder, stealing etc, and laws regarding apostasy the way THEY understand it. And they clearly do not have a clear image of Islam, let alone being qualified to lead a whole civilization. (Some, not all)

Even when it is said "we go by the laws of Islam", having a simple line in the constitution stating that any law that is proven to be unislamic is not to be legal. Whos to say its unislamic or not? Individuals, who may naturally disagree on many issues.

If things are codified, everyone will know what is it we are talking about. And points of disagreement would be easily discussed. Not only that things will be clear, but a legal system can be adapted elsewhere.

Its extremly important, as many, many issues fall under it, which dont have consensus. Everyone wants Islam, but thats general. The concept of citizenship is unclear, especially when theres non Muslim citizens in the country. Also the concept of apostasy, and its relation to citizenship. Personally I agree with what many sheikhs have said, which is that at the time, the leader was the prophet, and there were many hypocrites, and polytheists at war with Muslims, so leaving Islam would pretty much mean treason and joining the enemy.

Also, the concept of ahl al dhimma (Dhimmis, which some thing is a negative thing, which is totally inaccurate, rather theres emphasis on protecting the rights of non Muslims, usually connected to paying Jizyah, while Muslims pay Zakat. But what are these rights? Also, another point of potential disagreement.

Freedom of expression, what are its limits? How are they determined? Many would give their own ijtihaad on this, but again, another point of potential disagreement that hasnt been studied in detail.

Also, what would shoora really mean? It literally means consultation, but how would it be applied? Can a parliment be a Shoora council? I see many saying oh democracy is wrong etc, but we have a similar concept concept in Islam, but unfortunatly we never got into the details.

Also, what is the Islamic economic system? What system would the "Caliph" adapt? Besides Riba being haram and other concepts against monopolies etc, Muslims are free to decide what is best for them under those guidelines. And now Islamic economics is booming faster than ever. Although theres trillions involved now, we are still taking babysteps, and theres great research being done, but still, theres no complete system. Theres still no studies on monetary tools that would replace interest, which is an important tool to counter inflation. We only have guidelines, and the rest is up to us.

So the important issues that need to be studied in detail are countless. I remember a Saudi shiekh who was a judge at an Islamic court (who now works with a law firm) saying something so accurate.

He said we Muslims know what we dont want, but we dont know what we want. Of course everyone wants Islam and justice and "good", but those are only goals, and we've really fell behind on studying how to achieve them, and theres tremendous room for improvement. More room is given also because of two rules in Islam.

1- Everything is halal, unless mentioned otherwise.

2- Except for specific Hudood, inheritance, and family laws, and some prohibited things related to usary (Riba), monopoly etc, most laws are very general, and are about not causing harm to one another etc.

This leaves us with the responsibility to get into the details. Its best if those with great and deep knowledge of Sharea AND other legal systems, to develop what we really want.

Therefore I think instead of talking about goals, we should talk more about methods on how to achieve them. It will take a long time, and trying different models. But maybe since theres so many Muslim countries we can have different models at the same time, and can eventually, choose the best? Or the best from each?

This cannot be done overnight, and will take years because its a process. Those who say "We want sharea" are saying something every Muslim wants, but the question is how, and nobody talks about that, and thats why we're falling behind in my opinion. Caliphate system based on Shoora, is not something with details clear to anyone. Once we face this, then we can start solving it. Otherwise we'd just be talking about general beautiful ideas with no idea how to apply them.

Blaming the west for our shortcomings only makes us weaker if it makes us not discuss our real problems throwing everything on them. Yes theres oppression, and injustice, but we have lots of shortcomings too that we dont really admit. Islam is perfect, but we arent. If we do our own homework, our own research, nobody in the world can stop it.

The only faster alternative to this would be having a "good" and "just" dictator who would establish a model, but would people call him a Caliph? Would he really be one? How would the one after him be chosen? Would he actually establish rules related to that?

That said, simplifying issues in my opinion, would make us look like a child with a square block, trying to put it in an opening made for a triangle, and when it doesnt fit in, he/she would just push harder, and wonder why its not working since his intentions are noble.

The president of the Libyan government now, has a legal background, and an Islamic one too. He seems to be smart, mature, and reasonable. I hope he can help in establishing a good Islamic model we can all learn from.

Also, id like to add, is the Islamic model a theocracy? No! Iran is a theocracy, the catholic church rule was a theocracy as well. Thats why secularism was developed. Because absoloute power corrupts, period! And the leader of Iran, the real one, Khamen'i (not Najaad), is supposedly a "substitute" of an infallible Imam. The Catholic Church as well considered the head of it infallible, which made some christians rebel when they did riduclous things in the name of God. So they had to seperate between religion and state.

Islam however, doesnt have this issue. The early four Caliphs would all preach the same thing, which is correcting them if they make mistakes, despite them being the best of Muslims ever, after the prophet peace be upon him himself. So we dont have a central authority to begin with to ask for seperating between religion and state. Its already seperated (meaning that no Muslim ruler claims hes a representative of Allah, or is infallible). So we really have perfect guidelines, and we're not working with them like we should.

A big part of us falling behind on such issues was dictatorships who were terrified by the thought of having ideas that dont actually fit them. However, they can ban practicing maybe, but can they really prevent thinkers and intellectuals from thinking, studying, and learning? Scholars have a great responsibility here, and instead of talking about broad general concepts, its about time we get into details, and the best ones qualified for this are Shiekhs and scholars who have perfect (well, nobody is perfect) knowledge of Fiqh, Aqeedah, Usool Al Fiqh etc, AND law, legal systems etc.

We have a few in Saudi like this, who have Phds in law from the Sorbonne, and Harvard, most are in the administrative court (the most advanced court here), where many ideas around codifying islamic laws are becoming more popular. So if this is studied by similar people from all Muslim countries, along with the great boom in Islamic economics, I can see light at the end of the tunner. So our main tool should be education, and emotional talk regarding very general concepts will not help much. This doesnt mean people shouldnt be emotionally attached to Islam or its laws etc, but there must be Sabr (patience), and knowledge to reach our goals.

As some say, dont work hard, work smart.

[Allbrunette]

I know that Malaysia has been somewhat innovative (in a good way) regarding islamic laws especially ones dealing with economics. I hear Pakistan has an Islamic court system as well, but Is there any codification of it, even if partial? Or are things left to judges and their interpretations?

[Allbrunette]

Only if things were that simple. sigh.

LOL, I agree! And not only because simply asking wont work!

[Qdkczrdi]

Even the Rashidun Caliphate if taken as a model (which would revolve around shoora basically) would still require much legal and political reasearch that hasnt been done. The Caliphs ruled for life, would this be a proper way nowadays where individuals are nowhere near the piety and knowledge of the four Caliphs? Theres so many questions so im just mentioning some here and there as examples, and not to say that these are the big questions.

I think Muslims underestimate the value of codifying sharia laws. Many Muslims even are afraid of anyone talking about Caliphate, including myself to be honest! Why? Because theres no clear definition and research regarding it. Any group here or there with tons of emotions and little education (and no legal background) would talk about Caliphate sometimes, and you dont know what is their understanding of it? Some imply in their speech that Islam is only about Hudood punishments, related to crimes like murder, stealing etc, and laws regarding apostasy the way THEY understand it. And they clearly do not have a clear image of Islam, let alone being qualified to lead a whole civilization. (Some, not all)

Even when it is said "we go by the laws of Islam", having a simple line in the constitution stating that any law that is proven to be unislamic is not to be legal. Whos to say its unislamic or not? Individuals, who may naturally disagree on many issues.

If things are codified, everyone will know what is it we are talking about. And points of disagreement would be easily discussed. Not only that things will be clear, but a legal system can be adapted elsewhere.

Its extremly important, as many, many issues fall under it, which dont have consensus. Everyone wants Islam, but thats general. The concept of citizenship is unclear, especially when theres non Muslim citizens in the country. Also the concept of apostasy, and its relation to citizenship. Personally I agree with what many sheikhs have said, which is that at the time, the leader was the prophet, and there were many hypocrites, and polytheists at war with Muslims, so leaving Islam would pretty much mean treason and joining the enemy.

Also, the concept of ahl al dhimma (Dhimmis, which some thing is a negative thing, which is totally inaccurate, rather theres emphasis on protecting the rights of non Muslims, usually connected to paying Jizyah, while Muslims pay Zakat. But what are these rights? Also, another point of potential disagreement.

Freedom of expression, what are its limits? How are they determined? Many would give their own ijtihaad on this, but again, another point of potential disagreement that hasnt been studied in detail.

Also, what would shoora really mean? It literally means consultation, but how would it be applied? Can a parliment be a Shoora council? I see many saying oh democracy is wrong etc, but we have a similar concept concept in Islam, but unfortunatly we never got into the details.

Also, what is the Islamic economic system? What system would the "Caliph" adapt? Besides Riba being haram and other concepts against monopolies etc, Muslims are free to decide what is best for them under those guidelines. And now Islamic economics is booming faster than ever. Although theres trillions involved now, we are still taking babysteps, and theres great research being done, but still, theres no complete system. Theres still no studies on monetary tools that would replace interest, which is an important tool to counter inflation. We only have guidelines, and the rest is up to us.

So the important issues that need to be studied in detail are countless. I remember a Saudi shiekh who was a judge at an Islamic court (who now works with a law firm) saying something so accurate.

He said we Muslims know what we dont want, but we dont know what we want. Of course everyone wants Islam and justice and "good", but those are only goals, and we've really fell behind on studying how to achieve them, and theres tremendous room for improvement. More room is given also because of two rules in Islam.

1- Everything is halal, unless mentioned otherwise.

2- Except for specific Hudood, inheritance, and family laws, and some prohibited things related to usary (Riba), monopoly etc, most laws are very general, and are about not causing harm to one another etc.

This leaves us with the responsibility to get into the details. Its best if those with great and deep knowledge of Sharea AND other legal systems, to develop what we really want.

Therefore I think instead of talking about goals, we should talk more about methods on how to achieve them. It will take a long time, and trying different models. But maybe since theres so many Muslim countries we can have different models at the same time, and can eventually, choose the best? Or the best from each?

This cannot be done overnight, and will take years because its a process. Those who say "We want sharea" are saying something every Muslim wants, but the question is how, and nobody talks about that, and thats why we're falling behind in my opinion. Caliphate system based on Shoora, is not something with details clear to anyone. Once we face this, then we can start solving it. Otherwise we'd just be talking about general beautiful ideas with no idea how to apply them.

Blaming the west for our shortcomings only makes us weaker if it makes us not discuss our real problems throwing everything on them. Yes theres oppression, and injustice, but we have lots of shortcomings too that we dont really admit. Islam is perfect, but we arent. If we do our own homework, our own research, nobody in the world can stop it.

The only faster alternative to this would be having a "good" and "just" dictator who would establish a model, but would people call him a Caliph? Would he really be one? How would the one after him be chosen? Would he actually establish rules related to that?

That said, simplifying issues in my opinion, would make us look like a child with a square block, trying to put it in an opening made for a triangle, and when it doesnt fit in, he/she would just push harder, and wonder why its not working since his intentions are noble.

The president of the Libyan government now, has a legal background, and an Islamic one too. He seems to be smart, mature, and reasonable. I hope he can help in establishing a good Islamic model we can all learn from.

well one thing is for sure the Khilafat is coming very soon , but we will have to strive hard to implement the Islamic Sharia Law all over the world we cannot sit idle , but the problem today is that we are under the infulence of kuffar so when somebody talks about Caliphate and Sharia we label him as terrorist and radical and blah blah which is wrong , we should not believe what the kuffar media says ,

[QEoMi752]

Even the Rashidun Caliphate if taken as a model (which would revolve around shoora basically) would still require much legal and political reasearch that hasnt been done. I strongly agree with a lot of what brother Straightpath has mentioned. Things aren't as simple as we think. The important thing is to adapt the shariah to work today, not to have the mindset that all the work is already done for us. Only the guidelines are there. And this is something that can't come overnight (there has to be a transitional phase) yet at the same time we don't have an environment where its development can be fostered for years. What a lot of us fail to realize is that old institutions / administrative methods won't work today. You need a different style of governing, older Muslim empires were unable to adapt to the changing styles of governing. Also, we would need to take a moderate approach and a lot of cooperation from all sides- something that's hard to find in Muslim societies today.

Also, what is the Islamic economic system? What system would the "Caliph" adapt? Besides Riba being haram and other concepts against monopolies etc, Muslims are free to decide what is best for them under those guidelines. And now Islamic economics is booming faster than ever. Although theres trillions involved now, we are still taking babysteps, and theres great research being done, but still, theres no complete system. Theres still no studies on monetary tools that would replace interest, which is an important tool to counter inflation. We only have guidelines, and the rest is up to us. This is another thing. Look at all the places where the shariah is enforced immediately without thinking about the economic impacts and look what happens to the people. The Ottomans had plenty of scholars but apparently they were unable to come up with a proper economic system to rival the modern one because they had to resort to bringing in economic advisers from Europe and borrow tons of money from Europe. We need to have economists that thing along the lines of the shariah and how a practical model can be devised from it and to implement all of the regulations, etc. that are already present in the shariah.

Blaming the west for our shortcomings only makes us weaker if it makes us not discuss our real problems throwing everything on them. This is another extremely important point. First each of us needs to see if we'd be willing to accept the injunctions of the shariah. Look at the social ills that are rampant in muslim societies. Before we even begin thinking of an Islamic govt we should be trying to fix ourselves first (myself included). Go to the masjid 5 times a day, respect other Muslims (look at the rampant crime / racism in muslim countries), be willing to accept the commandments of Allah and give up what's required of us without any questions "سَمِعۡنَا وَأَطَعۡنَا*ۖ".

[Larisochka]

Because of Opium ... It counts a lot $$$

Seriously? Are you for real or on to something?

Dear brother, it was because they couldn't see Muslims from all over the world joining at one place under the flag of Islam. They knew that if such a government stabilizes, all their claims and reasons to make the Muslims kill each other would end up in vain.

[Peapeuddedbaw]

well one thing is for sure the Khilafat is coming very soon , but we will have to strive hard to implement the Islamic Sharia Law all over the world we cannot sit idle , but the problem today is that we are under the infulence of kuffar so when somebody talks about Caliphate and Sharia we label him as terrorist and radical and blah blah which is wrong , we should not believe what the kuffar media says ,

this is a big problem within the ummah.

many ummatis pander to the kuffar and try to gain their acceptance and turn against their own people in doing so.

but then they will later realise that once divided, they will also become a target for the kuffar.

we have examples of this today.......

many tablighis spoke against the taliban and mujahideen and some do this even today. but now tabligh jamaat is also being targeted by the media as a terrorist organisation that helps recruit soldiers for jihad. give it time and the kuffar will turn against tabligh jamaat and persecute it the same way that they persecute the mujahideen

when the niqab wars started in europe there were many muslims who jumped on the bandwagon and started speaking out against niqaab saying that it has no place in islam. a time will come when the kuffar will target the hijab as well (prob have started in some places). what will those anti-niqaabi muslims do? will they also turn against the hijab or turn against the kuffar?

no matter how much the muslims try to appease the kuffar, there will always be a point where these supporters of the kuffar will find their own beliefs being attacked and will have to make a choice whether to turn against their masters or to hear and obey the command of their masters eventually leading them into kuffar.

instead of running to the kuffar and seeking their acceptance when they attack certain beliefs and traditions of islam, we should unite with our fellow muslims and give each other strength and support......even if it is on an issue that we do not agree on.....for example the niqab issue. even if you think the niqab is not part of islam then that is not a reason to side with the kuffar on this, because in reality it is not about the niqab. it is about the whole of islam. they are just using issues such as the niqab to divide and weaken us. when we are attacked by the kuffar then we should close ranks and stand strong. we can argue out the hukm of niqab amongst our ownselves over a cup of tea and a biscuit if it is such a big issue. but when the kuffar interfere then our attitude should be that you worry about your religion and let me worry about mine.

[NikkitaZ]

THE Indian Ulema of All India Muslim Personal Law Board HAS PUBLISHED 'Majmua-e-Qawaneen Islami'
This publication contains a codified version of Islamic Shariah injunction regarding personal laws arranged in section-wise dealing with marriage, divorce, guardianship, custody, Khula, Zihar, Li'an, Ila, Iddat, etc. The book has been published in Urdu entitled "Majmua-e-Qawaneen Islami." Its English version has been entitled "Compendium of Islamic Laws."

[actifadepette]

Seriously? Are you for real or on to something?

Dear brother, it was because they couldn't see Muslims from all over the world joining at one place under the flag of Islam. They knew that if such a government stabilizes, all their claims and reasons to make the Muslims kill each other would end up in vain.

That is called a hidden job. NATO has lot many soldier infact weapons & arms, so would gonna pay their high scale bills ....

[QEoMi752]

The only codified books on Islamic law, are one in Hanafi fiqh for the most part, used right before the fall of the Ottoman Empire, and this book on Hanbali Fiqh used in Saudi. Their names are "Majallat Al Ahkaam Al Adliyyah" and "Majallat Al Ahkaam Al Shar'iyaah". In Saudi theres much debate on codifying the law, as it would not only make things clear and organized, but the law would serve as an example, and would be easily transferred to other countries, who simply adapted French (or other) laws, except in matters related to inheritance, marriage, divorce etc. The "experiment" of the Ottoman Empire didnt last long, and practically ended before it started. I think this was just a couple of years or more, before the empire fell and everything related to Islam changed with the anti Islam government that came afterwards. Don't forget Fatawa e Alamghiri which was compiled by Aurangzeb Alamghir. Mufti Zar Wali Khan mentioned he recruited 100 scholars from the Hejaz, 100 from Iraq and 300 from the subcontinent to compile it.

[Allbrunette]

THE Indian Ulema of All India Muslim Personal Law Board HAS PUBLISHED 'Majmua-e-Qawaneen Islami'
This publication contains a codified version of Islamic Shariah injunction regarding personal laws arranged in section-wise dealing with marriage, divorce, guardianship, custody, Khula, Zihar, Li'an, Ila, Iddat, etc. The book has been published in Urdu entitled "Majmua-e-Qawaneen Islami." Its English version has been entitled "Compendium of Islamic Laws."

Don't forget Fatawa e Alamghiri which was compiled by Aurangzeb Alamghir. Mufti Zar Wali Khan mentioned he recruited 100 scholars from the Hejaz, 100 from Iraq and 300 from the subcontinent to compile it.

Jazakom Allah Khair. Interesting.