A scholar's reponse to the issue of Khilafah...

This is now just getting plain annoying…

Have the brothers who want this idea of Khilafah even read my replies?

I have asked you very simply to give me a straight answer. Whats all this fancy talk?You say you have alredy answered it.

Where? I don’t see it.

Give me one commandment from the Qur’an or the Sunnah where it categorically and unambiguously says that to establish Khilafah is fard upon the muslims.

This is not an issue of Khilafah being one entity. We are not talking about that here. We are talking about something completely diferent. Look again. This is what I want a straight answer to:

Give me one commandment from the Qur’an or the Sunnah where it categorically and unambiguously says that to establish Khilafah is fard upon the muslims.

Brother stunned is corect.If you provide solid proof of this evidence then I have no choice but to accept it.

So why don’t you make it easy for me? Answer the question please.

jalal-ud-deen thinks there are misconceptions here. Not really. I say there seems to be some communication problem that I can’t pin down for some reason. The problem is that my question is simply not being given a straight, solid, reliable answer.

So why don’t you make it easy for me? Answer the question please.

http://www3.pak.org/gupshup/smilies/smile.gif


They shoot partypoopers, don’t they?

Cooldude… thanx for helping me out here…

http://www3.pak.org/gupshup/smilies/smile.gif


They shoot partypoopers, don’t they?

jalal-ud-deen, musalman,

where are you? Are you busy? Decided not to reply?


They shoot partypoopers, don't they?

Brother PartyPooper,
Why don’t you first tell us What do YOU think “Khilaafah” is? Then may be we will tailor our answer to your understanding of “Khilaafah”.

Musalman, have you even read my most recent reply? Okay, I will quote myself for you…

http://www3.pak.org/gupshup/smilies/smile.gif

Give me one commandment from the Qur’an or the Sunnah where it categorically and unambiguously says that to establish Khilafah is fard upon the muslims.

If you provide it, then I have no choice but to accept your position.

So why not make it easy for me? Remember that I am ignorant and I need answers. So please answer the question.

http://www3.pak.org/gupshup/smilies/smile.gif

Thank you kindly.

http://www3.pak.org/gupshup/smilies/smile.gif


They shoot partypoopers, don’t they?

Brother we don’t know what you think "Khilaafah" is? You have to give us your meaning of "Khilaafah" before we can proceed with this any more. We are trying to explain "Khilaafah" in terms of Apples, that makes Khilaafah RED in color because Apples are red. But in your mind "Khilaafah" is Orange. So, your repeated answer is Khilaafah is not RED, it is Orange, then you tell us to show you where does it say that Oranges are red. Obviously Oranges are not red they are orange. You are thinking of Khilaafah in different terms. I do not know your current understanding of the meaning of the terminology "KHILAAFAH". We have to agree on what does Khilaafah mean first, that will give us a common platform to proceed with this subject. So why don’t you answer your understanding of the following:
1. Meaning of Khilaafah, and 2. Essence of Khilaafah.
Then I will write down my understanding of the meaning and essence of the word Khilaafah.

Remember two words brother, 1. Meaning and 2. Essence

You may also express your meaning of Kalifah or similar words if you want. Remember we are on the same side so do not get annoyed, as annoyance and frustration will not get us anywhere. Our goal is to seek the TRUTH. May ALLAH help us.

The definition of Khilafah according to the scholars of Islam.

Ibn Khaldoon defined it as:
A representation, of the one who has the right to adopt the divine rules, aimed at protecting the Deen and ruling the world (Dunia) with it.

Al-Mawirdi defined it as: Succession of the Prophethood aimed at protecting the Deen and ruling the world (Dunia).

Taqiudine al-Nabhani, defined it as: A total leadership for all the Muslims aimed at implementing the Shariah of Islam and carrying the Message of Islam to the world.

...more to follow soon...

Thanks jalal_ud_deen,
lets do some more research on this topic.

Why are you deliberately avoiding my question? Why are you trying to change the subject? I have been asking you to provide an answer to this question since the beginning of this thread. It has already been over 25 replies and you still are not answering my question.

This is a very simple issue. Whats with all this meaning and essence rubbish? I am asking you to look at the Qur'an and the Sunnah. Why will you not do that?

I only remember two words brother: 1. Qur'an and 2. Sunnah.

You say that we should proceed from a common platform. But we are already at a common platform. It's called the Qur'an and Sunnah. My personal opinion carries no weight here. A person like me can and should only make judgements on Islam according based on the Qur'an and Sunnah.

So answer my question. You yourself have said we should look to the Qur'an and Sunnah on this matter. If you agree then you should have no problem answering my question.

Give me one commandment from the Qur'an or the Sunnah where it categorically and unambiguously says that to establish Khilafah is fard upon the muslims.

I demand an answer to this question!


They shoot partypoopers, don't they?

[This message has been edited by Mr Partypooper (edited November 21, 2000).]

[quote]
Originally posted by jalal_ud_deen:
**The definition of Khilafah according to the scholars of Islam.

Ibn Khaldoon defined it as:
A representation, of the one who has the right to adopt the divine rules, aimed at protecting the Deen and ruling the world (Dunia) with it.

Al-Mawirdi defined it as: Succession of the Prophethood aimed at protecting the Deen and ruling the world (Dunia).

Taqiudine al-Nabhani, defined it as: A total leadership for all the Muslims aimed at implementing the Shariah of Islam and carrying the Message of Islam to the world.

...more to follow soon...
**
[/quote]

Jazakallah for your response. As I said before, we need to live under Allah's laws.

Partypooper may be getting a little agitated but he does have a point. Brother Jalad-ud-deen has explained what scholars say khilafah is.

Can you then tell us if it is fard upon muslims to work for the establishment of khilafah??

One further point. lets not confuse living under Shariah with the Khilafah. To live under Shariah you do need to have a Khilafah state.

Jazakallah

** The Clear cut and Unambiguous Proof**

Brothers, you asked for certain clear cut evidences, but i doubt that you really understand what you are asking for.

Insha-Allah here follows the explanation leading up to what you need, in terms of these proofs:

What does Clear Cut mean.

If one looks at all the Ayahs in the Qur'an or the Hadiths of the Prophet(saw) then one would find that these Ayahs and Hadiths [texts] would all into two categories in terms of their dalalah[meanings]

Dalalah is a property which every text has, inherent in the property of the Arabic language. The Dalalah of any text is of two types:

Type 1 : conclusive.
Type 2 : Inconclusive.

Conclusive means that the text has no room for interpretation, that the text is unambiguous and clear.

Whereas inconclusive means that the text is not clear and has room for interpretation and difference of opinion.

So examples of conclusive texts would be :
**
"those who accuse chaste woman of zinna(adultery) and fail to bring four witnesses (to prove it) flog them eighty stripes" (An Nur: 4)


"Whosoever lies about me (Prophet Muhammad(saw)) deliberately, let him take his place in the Hell Fire"
(hadith)**

And examples of inconclusive texts would be :

In Surah Maidah Ayah 6, Allah(swt) says that if you la mastum a woman it breaks the wudu. The word la mastum has been interpreted as having two meanings:

a) Touching
b) Sexual Intercourse

Hence followed the difference between the great Imams Abu Hanifa and Shafi.

So when we talk about wanting a clear evidence we talk about a text which is conclusive in its dalalah(meaning) and hence no real scholar would differ in its meaning.
This is because differing with a text that is conclusive would mean differing with a clear command of Allah(swt) and this would tkae someone outside the fold of Islam.

**
EVIDENCES FOR ESTABLISHING THE KHILAFAH ARE CONCLUSIVE IN MEANING.**
**
"As for the thief, male or female, cut off his or her hand." [T.M.Q. Al-Maidah 5 : 38 ]
He (SWT) says:

"The woman and the man guilty of fornication lash each of them a hundred lashes."[T.M.Q An-Nur 24:2]
Allah (SWT) says:

"They wish to go for judgment to Taghut (False judges etc.) while they have been ordered to reject them..."** [T.M.Q. An-Nisa 4 : 60]
Allah (SWT) also says:**
"But no, by your Lord, they can have no faith until they make you judge in all disputes between them." **[T.M.Q. An-Nisa 4:65]

The evidence that the appointment of a Khaleefah is obligatory upon all Muslims is in the Sunnah and the Ijma‘a (consensus) of the Sahabah. As for the Sunnah, Nafi‘a reported saying:** “ ‘Umar said to me that he heard the Prophet (saw) saying: Whoso takes off his hand from allegiance to Allah (swt) will meet Him (swt) on the Day of Resurrection without having any proof for him, and whoso dies whilst there was no bay‘ah (allegiance or a pledge) on his neck (to a Khaleefah), he dies a death of jahilliyah.” **So the Prophet (saw) made it compulsory upon every Muslim to have a bay‘ah on his neck, and described whoever dies without a bay‘ah on his neck that he dies a death of jahilliyah. The bay‘ah cannot be for anyone except the Khaleefah, and the Prophet (saw) made it obligatory upon every Muslim to have on his neck a bay‘ah to a Khaleefah.

Hisham ibn ‘Urwa reported on the authority of Abu Saleh on the authority of Abu Hurairah that the Prophet (saw) said:** “Leaders will take charge of you after me, where the pious (one) will lead you with his piety and the impious (one) with his impiety, so listen to them and obey them in everything which conforms with the truth. If they act rightly it is for your credit, and if they acted wrongly it is counted for you and against them.”** Muslim narrated on the authority of al-A’araj, on the authority of Abu Hurairah, that the Prophet (saw) said: “Behold, the Imam is but a shield from behind whom the people fight and by whom they protect themselves.” Muslim reported on the authority of Abu Hazim, who said: *“I accompanied Abu Hurairah for five years and heard him talking of the Prophet’s saying: The Prophets ruled over the children of Israel, whenever a Prophet died another Prophet succeeded him, but there will be no Prophet after me. There will be Khulafa’a and they will number many. They asked: What then do you order us? He said: Fulfil the bay‘ah to them one after the other and give them their due. Surely Allah will ask them about what He entrusted them with.” **Ibn ‘Abbas narrated that the Prophet (saw) said: *“If anyone sees in his amir something that displeases him let him remain patient, for behold, he who separates himself from the sultan (authority of Islam) by even so much as a hand span and dies thereupon, has died a death of the days of jahilliyah”. **

In these ahadith, the Prophet (saw) informs us that leaders will run the affairs of Muslims, and the ahadith include the description of the Khaleefah as a shield, i.e. a protection. So the description of the Imam as a shield is informative of the benefits of the presence of the Imam, thus it is a command for action, because if the information conveyed by Allah (swt) and the Prophet (saw) contained rebuke then it is a command of prohibition, and if it contained praise then it is a command for action. If the ordered action is necessary to implement a hukm shari‘i (divine law), or by its negligence a hukm shari‘i will be neglected, then this command is decisive. In these ahadith there is information also that those who run the affairs of Muslims are Khulafa’a, which indicates an order to appoint them. They also include a prohibition for Muslims to separate from the authority, which indicates the obligation upon Muslims to appoint an authority for themselves, i.e. ruling. Moreover, the Prophet (saw) ordered the Muslims to obey the Khaleefah and to fight those who dispute his authority as Khaleefah, which indicates an order to appoint a Khaleefah and to protect his Khilafah by fighting against whosoever disputes with him. Muslim reported that the Prophet (saw) said: **“He who pledged allegiance to an Imam giving him the clasp of his hand and the fruit of his heart shall obey him as long as he can, and if another comes to dispute with him you have to strike the neck of that man.” **So the command to obey the Imam is an order to establish him, and the command to fight those who dispute with him is an evidence that this command is decisive in maintaining the presence of one Khaleefah.

In regard with the Ijma‘a of the Sahabah they all agreed upon the necessity to establish a successor or Khaleefah to the Prophet (saw) after his death, and they all agreed to appoint a successor to Abu Bakr, then to ‘Umar, then to ‘Uthman, after the death of each one of them. The Ijma‘a of the Sahabah to establish a Khaleefah manifested itself emphatically when they delayed the burial of the Prophet (saw) after his death whilst engaged in appointing a successor to him, despite the fact that the burial of the dead person is fard, and that it is haram upon those who are supposed to prepare for his burial to engage themselves in anything else until they complete the burial. The Sahabah were obliged to engage themselves in preparing the burial of the Prophet (saw), instead some of them engaged themselves in appointing a Khaleefah rather than carrying out the burial, and some others kept silent on this engagement and participated in delaying the burial for two nights despite their ability to deny the delay and their ability to bury the Prophet (saw). So this was an Ijma‘a to engage themselves in appointing a Khaleefah rather than to bury the dead. This could not be legitimate unless the appointment of a Khaleefah is more obligatory than the burial of the dead. Also, all the Sahabah agreed throughout their lives upon the obligation of appointing a Khaleefah. Although they disagreed upon the person to elect as a Khaleefah, they never disagreed upon the appointment of a Khaleefah, neither when the Prophet (saw) died, nor when any of the Khulafa’a ar-Rashidun died. Therefore the Ijma‘a of the Sahabah is a clear and strong evidence that the appointment of a Khaleefah is obligatory.

However, the establishment of Islam and the implementation of the Shari‘ah rules in all walks of life is compulsory on Muslims through definitely proven evidences. This duty cannot be achieved unless there is a ruler who has an authority. The divine principle states** ‘what is necessary to accomplish a wajib (duty) is itself a wajib’. **So the establishment of a Khaleefah is also compulsory according to this divine principle.

Moreover, Allah (swt) has ordered the Prophet (saw) to rule between Muslims by that which He (swt) revealed to him, and the order of Allah (swt) to him was in a decisive manner. Allah (swt) addressed the Prophet (saw) saying:
**
“And rule between them by that which Allah revealed to you, and do not follow their vain desires away from the truth which came to you”. [TMQ 5:48] **

And He (swt) said:
**
“And rule between them by that which Allah revealed to you and do not follow their whims, and beware (be on the alert) that they may deviate you away from even some part of what Allah revealed to you”. [TMQ 5:49]
**
The speech of Allah (swt) to the Prophet (saw) is a speech to his Ummah unless there is an evidence which limits the speech to him. In this case there is no such evidence, so the aforementioned verses order all Muslims to establish the rule. The establishment of the Khaleefah does not mean other than the establishment of the rule and the authority. On the other hand, Allah (swt) made it obligatory upon Muslims to obey those in authority, i.e. the ruler, which indicates that the existence of the ruler is obligatory upon Muslims. Allah (swt) said:
**
“O you who believe obey Allah and obey the Messenger and those in authority amongst you”. [TMQ 4:59]
**
Allah (swt) does not order obedience to those who do not exist. This indicates that the existence of the ruler is obligatory. When Allah (swt) orders obedience to those in authority it is an order to establish them. The implementation of the Shari‘ah depends upon the existence of the ruler, thus, the establishment of the ruler becomes obligatory as its absence will result in the sin of neglecting the Shari‘ah.

Therefore, it is clear from these evidences that the establishment of the rule and the authority amongst Muslims is fard, and it is also clear that the appointment of a Khaleefah who takes the charge of the rule and the authority is compulsory upon Muslims in order to implement the Shari‘ah laws; and not for the sake of rule and authority only. The Prophet (saw) said: “The best of your Imams (leaders) are those whom you love and they love you, who pray for you and you pray for them; and the worst of your Imams are those whom you hate and they hate you and you curse them and they curse you.” The Messenger of Allah (saw) was asked: “Would we not declare war on them (face them with the swords)?” He said: “No, as long as they establish salah (meaning Islam) among you.” This hadith is clear in informing about the good and bad leaders, and clear in prohibiting the challenge of their authority as long as they establish the prayer, which in this context indicates upholding of Islam, and establishing its rule.
So the obligation upon Muslims to appoint the Khaleefah who establishes the laws of Islam and conveys its call is a matter which has no doubt with regard to its certainty in the sound texts of Shari‘ah. Moreover, it is an obligatory duty due to the fact that Allah (swt) made it fard upon Muslims to establish the authority of Islam and to protect the honour of Muslims. However, this duty is a collective one, so if some people of the Ummah accomplished it, the fard is fulfilled and thus responsibility drops from the rest of the Ummah. And if part of the Ummah was unable to achieve the fard, though they carried out the actions which establish it, then the responsibility remains upon all the Muslims, and the fard remains upon every Muslim as long as Muslims are without a Khaleefah.

To refrain from establishing a Khaleefah for the Muslims is a great sin because it is abstaining from carrying out a very important fard of Islam, upon which the implementation of the divine laws depends, even upon which the presence of Islam in the battlefield of life depends as well. So Muslims as a whole commit a great sin by refraining from establishing a Khaleefah for all Muslims. And if they agreed to remain without a Khaleefah the sin would befall all Muslims in the entire world. If some of the Muslims embarked on working to establish a Khaleefah and the others did not, the sin will drop from the shoulders of those who started to work to establish the Khaleefah, while the fard remains on them until the Khaleefah is appointed. This is so because the involvement in establishing the fard removes the sin for the delay of its fulfilment in its time, and for its non-fulfilment despite one’s engagement in the work for establishing it, and despite his hatred of that which prevents him from accomplishing it.

As for those who were not engaged in the work for establishing the fard, the sin will remain on them as soon as the three days period has passed, from the departure of the Khaleefah until the appointment of a new Khaleefah, because Allah (swt) has entrusted them with a fard, which they did not carry out nor engage themselves in the work which is required for its completion. Therefore, they are sinful and deserve the punishment and shame from Allah (swt) in this life and the hereafter. They are sinful due to their refrain from establishing the Khaleefah or from the actions which (according to Shari‘ah) establish the Khaleefah. It is clear and obvious that a Muslim deserves the punishment of Allah (swt) when he ignores any of the duties enjoined upon him, particularly the duty by which the other duties are implemented and the Shari‘ah rules are established and the matter of Islam is brought aloft and the word of Allah (swt) is exalted in the Muslim and the rest of the world.

Accordingly, no Muslim on the face of this earth has an excuse to abandon the duty of establishing the deen which Allah (swt) has ordered, that is, the establishment of a Khaleefah for Muslims, when there is no Khilafah on the earth, and no one to implement the hudood (limits) of Allah (swt) to protect the sanctities of Allah (swt), and no one to implement the laws of the deen and unify the Muslim community under the banner of La ilaha illa Allah, Muhammad ur-Rasul Allah. There is no permission in Islam to abandon the work for this duty until it is indeed completed.

[This message has been edited by jalal_ud_deen (edited November 21, 2000).]

JazakAllah brother jalal_ud_deen , it is very clear that "Establishing the Khilafah is Fard Al-Kifaya upon Muslims". I am also preparing an answer Inshallah I will have it very soon.

May Allah guide all of us to the righteous path.

[This message has been edited by Musalman (edited November 21, 2000).]

Jazakallah for your post Jalad-ud-deen

http://www3.pak.org/gupshup/smilies/smile.gif

I agree with your post 100%. You have stated that we need to live under Shariah Law.

Are you saying then that it is ok for there to be several Islamic States, each with it’s own khalif - and living under Shariah?

This is what has happened for the last 1400 years, all the different dynasties have had many khalifs implementing Shariah at the same time.

I don’t disagree with the fact that we need shariah rule. In fact we need more rulers who rule by Islam. But why a unified Islamic state?

When was the last time there was one?

Also, what can anyone do to help this cause?

jazakallah

[quote]
Originally posted by jalal_ud_deen:
** The Clear cut and Unambiguous Proof

Brothers, you asked for certain clear cut evidences, but i doubt that you really understand what you are asking for.
**
[/quote]

And what's that supposed to mean? That's rather convenient for you to say isn't it? You contradict yourself. If your proof is so "clear cut" then why should stupid people like me not understand it? You doubt that I will not understand? That's right actually. I don't understand because you haven't answered my question. If you can't do such a simple thing then I'm afraid that your claim that Khilafah is fard has no credibility at all.

[quote]
Originally posted by jalal_ud_deen:
*The evidence about the obligation of working towards the establishment of the Islamic State is conclusive in text (the Qur'an and the Sunnah) and in meaning; hence, whoever denies this Fard is a Kafir. *
[/quote]

So you are calling me a Kafir?. At long last have you people no decency? That's a lousy scare tactic. In fact that is really disgusting. First of all, if it is conclusive in the Qur'an and Sunnah that the Khilafah is fard then why are you trying to avoid my question? Why can't you give me a straight answer? Secondly, you have no right to call any body Kafir if you cannot provide at least one commandment which categorically and unambiguously states that Khilafah is fard. Your statement is extremely presumptious and betrays your thoughts. You are obviously insecure in your belief that Khilafah is fard. That's why you have to resort to these scare tactics.

[quote]
Originally posted by Musalman:
*JazakAllah brother jalal_ud_deen , it is very clear that "Establishing the Khilafah is Fard Al-Kifaya upon Muslims".
*

[/quote]

Where? How is it clear? I have read everything in his post but I must have missed it. Do you think you can cook up a false concept by trying to use inapropriate analogies from the Qur'an?

I don't want to see any misleading analogies. I want to see some proper and rigorous analysis. Remember that analysis and analogy are two completely different concepts.

And the proper way to conduct good analysis is by referring to the analysis in the Qur'an and Sunnah. Not analogies.

Your viewpoint is only credible to the rest of the world if you can just find only one verse in the Qur'an or a tradition in the Sunnah where it categorically and unambiguously states that to establish the Khilafah is fard upon the Muslims.

Where does the Qur'an and Sunnah say categorically and unambiguously that establishing Khilafah is fard upon every Muslim?

I would appreciate it if you could answer this above question please.

[quote]
Originally posted by Musalman:
*Brother PartyPooper,
Why don’t you first tell us What do YOU think “Khilaafah” is? Then may be we will tailor our answer to your understanding of “Khilaafah”. *

[/quote]

Oh I see. So you're saying that you are going to tailor the Qur'an and Sunnah in order for your own desires. You say you are going to change the Qur'an and Sunnah in order to prove your point? That is disgusting. May I say something? The only basis of any answer on this issue of Khilafah being fard is the Qur'an and Sunnah. Your opinion carries no weight. But you cannot "tailor" the Qur'an and Sunnah. This just shows that the basis of your belief that Khilafah is fard is not based upon the Qur'an and the Sunnah.

Again, I ask you that:

Where does the Qur'an and Sunnah say categorically and unambiguously that establishing Khilafah is fard upon every Muslim?


They shoot partypoopers, don't they?

[This message has been edited by Mr Partypooper (edited November 22, 2000).]

Well? Can I have a straight answer to my question?

Where does the Qur'an and Sunnah say categorically and unambiguously that establishing Khilafah is fard upon every Muslim?


They shoot partypoopers, don't they?

So finally the misconceptions of Mr PartyPooper are coming out.

It is for some reason assumed by Mr. PartyPooper that Allah(swt) will have to directly say in the exact phrase "Khilafah is an obligation upon all Muslims" , and only then Khilafah will be an obligation.

Sub-ha nallah, even someone with basic knowlegde of Islam should be able to see that this is in fact manifestly wrong.

If any person has a slight knowlegde about the Usul al Fiqh then they would see that this error can only be made by someone who is completely ignorant of the rules of Usul-al-Fiqh, and also has no knowlegde of the Arabic language.

For example, Allah(swt) says:
**
Let there arise from amongst you group(s) who call to Islam, enjoin the good and forbid the munkar. Those are the ones who are successful[Al-Imran:104]**

And clearly the verse does not say :

"Group doing this and this is FARD"

Now someone with hardly any knowlegde of Islam, would say to Surah Al-Imran verse 104, that from that it is not an obligation, since the word group was not mentioned and that the word Fard was not mentioned.he would also go wrong on a number of issues related to this Ayah.-And how ignorant and wrong would this be.

The presence of more than one group, established on the terms stipulated in the Ayah, is permitted. It is not allowed to forbid the presence of more than one group because this is equivalent to preventing the undertaking of a Fard. Furthermore, the word 'Ummah' mentioned in the Ayah i.e. group, is a generic noun which does not yield any confinement or restriction to one group. This is like the saying of the Prophet's (saw): "whosoever sees an evil (Munkar)". What is intended is the generic Munkar and not one particular Munkar only.

And that this Ayah commands an obligation since the subject of the Ayah is an obligation hence the Ayah also becomes an obligation.

So as another example, the Prophet(saw) said:

"He who lies about me intentionally, let him take his place in the Hell Fire"

Here the Prophet of Allah (saw) did not say [in this particular way]

"It is haram to lie about me intentionally"

No Muslim can say that since the word haram was not mentioned, therefore it is not clear. But rather from the above hadith*"He who lies about me intentionally, let him take his place in the Hell Fire"*
Any scholar would conclude that it is haram to lie about the Prophet(saw) intentionally.

As another example, Allah(swt) says

"And no, by your Lord, they would never believe until they refer to you in the issues and disputes that are between them"

Someone can't say that Allah(swt) didn't say that 'It is Fard to refer to me' [in these exact words] therefore we don't refer to Allah(swt) since it is not an obligation.

NO, NO, NO!!!!!

The Ayah makes it an obligation upon us to refer to Allah(swt) in every single action.

As another example, The Messenger(saw) said:
"He who cheats is not one of us"

No scholar or any slightly knowlegable Muslim will say that he wants the words 'Cheating is Haram' to appear in the Quran/Sunnah before he stops cheating.

These examples demonstrate the fact that as Muslims we should not have to look for a specific wording in a Ayah/Hadith to make it an obligation or prophibition, but rather that Allah(swt) can convey this prohibition or obligation in different wordings, all of which can be very clear, unambiguous, and lead to NO difference of opinion.

Accepting no other answer, except that particular wording reminds me of some of the Kuffar who I argue with, they say that they will only accept the actual 'SEEING' of God as decisive proof that God really exists. But we know that Allah(swt) existence can be proven in many ways.

May Allah(swt) guide us all.
[Now read my last message]
Ameen.

[quote]
Originally posted by jalal_ud_deen:
*So finally the misconceptions of Mr PartyPooper are coming out.
*

[/quote]

Finally? What planet have you been for all this time? What have you been doing for the last 35 replies in this forum? What do you think I've been trying to ask all along?

[quote]
Originally posted by jalal_ud_deen:
**
It is for some reason assumed by Mr. PartyPooper that Allah(swt) will have to directly say in the exact phrase "Khilafah is an obligation upon all Muslims" , and only then Khilafah will be an obligation.

Sub-ha nallah, even someone with basic knowlegde of Islam should be able to see that this is in fact manifestly wrong.
**
[/quote]

Ok so who gave you the authority to give interpretations of the statements that Allah (swt) has made? Or are you saying that He should have said it is fard?

Just because you cannot answer my simple question you have to resort to rationalising your premature beliefs. Now you are literally abusing the Qur'an. If you think that you can get away with that, you have another thing coming.

[quote]
Originally posted by jalal_ud_deen:
**
If any person has a slight knowlegde about the Usul al Fiqh then they would see that this error can only be made by someone who is completely ignorant of the rules of Usul-al-Fiqh, and also has no knowlegde of the Arabic language.
**
[/quote]

Hmmm... I see. According to you, the only way this error can have been made is that the person was completely ignorant of the understanding of Fiqh and Arabic. So the scholar who I went to consult at the beginning of this post is ignorant? Are you saying that he has suddenly no knowledge of Fiqh? Are you saying that he has no knowledge at all of Arabic? So you are saying that he is utterly useless just because he disagrees with your silly little claim that Khilafah is fard upon the Muslims?

Get a life.

Is that the best you can come up with? Just because his opinion is far too inconvenient to handle for you. As far as Islam is concerned, the only person who is qualified to give fatwas is a Qazi. The scholar above is one such person. Not you. Your fatwas or opinions carry no weight. You can yell and shout all you want about Khilafah but at the end of the day your opinion carries no weight in Islam. You are simply not qualified to make those judgements. I suggest that you stand well back otherwise the big boys who really know their stuff will embarass you yet again.

[quote]
Originally posted by jalal_ud_deen:
**
For example, Allah(swt) says:

Let there arise from amongst you group(s) who call to Islam, enjoin the good and forbid the munkar. Those are the ones who are successful[Al-Imran:104]

And clearly the verse does not say :

"Group doing this and this is FARD"

Now someone with hardly any knowlegde of Islam, would say to Surah Al-Imran verse 104, that from that it is not an obligation, since the word group was not mentioned and that the word Fard was not mentioned.he would also go wrong on a number of issues related to this Ayah.-And how ignorant and wrong would this be.
**
[/quote]

Really? Lets bring back the big boys again shall we? Lets see what the above scholar says about that verse.


Question:

Whose Duty is 'Enjoining Good and Forbidding Evil'?

(Aal-Imran, V104): It is a daleel for the obligation of establishing a Hizb (party or group), calling for good (Islam), enjoining what is right and forbidding what is evil. Is this obligation Fard-al-`ayn or Fard-al-kifayah?

Reply:

*The directive of enjoining good and forbidding evil is given at a number of instances. At some of these places the directive is addressed to individuals, for instance, in Al-Taubah 9: 71 the believing men and women are praised for their various qualities, one of which is enjoining good and forbidding from evil (same is the case in Aal Imran 3: 110 and Al-Taubah 9: 112). Then again in Luqman 31: 17, Luqman is praised for the sincere advice he gave to his son. His advice included “enjoining good and forbidding evil”. On the other hand, in Al-Hajj 22: 41 one of the responsibilities of the Muslim collectivity, besides a few others, is to enjoin good and forbid from evil. Then again in Aal Imran 3: 104 the Muslim collectivity (state) is advised to form a group from amongst them, bestowed with state authority, whose prime duty should be to enjoin good and forbid evil.

In view of the above explanation, it should be quite clear that the directive of “enjoining good and forbiding evil” is addressed to individuals as well as the Muslim collectivity.

Another aspect that needs to be clearly understood is the practical nature of the particular directive regarding “enjoining good” and “forbidding evil”. The practical implications of carrying out this directive shall vary with a variation in the position of the person concerned. Under normal circumstances, it should be restricted to a sincere counsel, a soft word of advice or admonition (as mentioned in Al-`asr 103: 3). On the other hand, in a person’s or group’s sphere of legal authority, one may use and exert authority to enjoin good and forbid evil. For instance, when a person becomes a father, a guardian or a head of a state etc, he may use his authority over his children, over those who have been put in his care or over the citizens of his state to promote good and to discourage people from any thing that is wrong. Thus, it should be obvious from this explanation that enjoining good and forbidding from evil does not inherently imply the use of force. Force can only be used for the purpose where a person has the legal authority to use such force. In all other cases, use of force shall not be allowed and the directive of enjoining good and forbidding from evil shall be carried out by a word of advice and admonition alone.

Now coming to your specific question, it should be clear from the above explanation that the directive in Aal Imran 3: 104 is addressed to the Muslim state. In this verse, the state or the Muslim collectivity is directed to arrange for a separate state department, like that of the police department or that civil defense department, which should be assigned the duty of enjoining good and forbidding from evil, on behalf of the Islamic state.

It should also be clearly understood that all such directives of the Qur’an which are addressed to the Muslim state can be carried out only by the state itself. No one besides the state can and should carry out these directives. Thus, the question of whether it is “Fard-al-`ayn or Fard-al-kifayah” does not arise.

I hope this helps. In case any aspect of my answer remains unclear, please feel free to write back to me at your convenience.

Regards

The Learner*


On the same site he has also stated that:

*"The first thing that should be remembered is that a group may hold the creation/establishment or ‘re-establishment’ of an Islamic state or “Khilafah” (as some insist upon using) as its basic objective or purpose and an individual may agree with such a group, as well. Nevertheless, the important thing is that the establishment/re-establishment of an Islamic state is neither the basic objective of Islamic teachings nor is it based on Islamic teachings. In other words, there is no clear directive of the Qur’an or one ascribed to the Prophet (pbuh), in which it is said that the creation/establishment/re-establishment of an Islamic state is obligatory upon Muslims or a requirement of Islam. It is the responsibility of those who consider the creation/establishment/re-establishment of an Islamic state to be obligatory upon all Muslims to provide clear directive from the Qur’an and the Sunnah to the stated effect.

"As far as the directive of “promoting good” and “forbidding evil” is concerned, once again, compliance with this directive does not necessitate joining or forming a group for this purpose (though it would not be prohibited to so). An individual is required to comply with this directive in his individual capacity; an informal collectivity, like a group of Muslims may comply with this directive (informally) in their informal collective capacity; while, a formal collectivity of Muslims, like an Islamic state, is required to comply with this directive (formally) in its formal collective capacity. Thus, the directive of “Promoting Good” and “Forbidding Evil”, per se, does not necessitate joining or establishing a group for the stated purpose."*

And so you have managed to extract completely the wrong context of that ayah. Tsk, tsk. You can't even prove that Khilafah is fard. Because nowhere in the Qur'an and Sunnah does it give such a statement. Yet you have to rationalise your way by mis-translation, mis-quotation and quoting the Qur'an and Sunnah completely out of context.

And the rest of your analysis does not make even sense because you are violating those very rules. You are simply not qualified to give a running commentary on the Qur'an.

[quote]
Originally posted by jalal_ud_deen:
**
So as another example, the Prophet(saw) said:

"He who lies about me intentionally, let him take his place in the Hell Fire"

Here the Prophet of Allah (saw) did not say [in this particular way]

"It is haram to lie about me intentionally"

No Muslim can say that since the word haram was not mentioned, therefore it is not clear. But rather from the above hadith*"He who lies about me intentionally, let him take his place in the Hell Fire"
Any scholar would conclude that it is haram to lie about the Prophet(saw) intentionally.
*

[/quote]

You can't even provide references for that Hadith. Even so there might be other places in the Qur'an and Sunnah where it may say that it is fard not to lie about the our Beloved Prophet (pbuh). Your individual questionable hadith (because you have provided no sources) does not necessarily apply to the whole case. It's called a fallacy of composition brother. Answer my question:

Where does the Qur'an and Sunnah say categorically and unambiguously that establishing Khilafah is fard upon every Muslim?

You cannot answer this question it seems. Why? If you cannot answer this question because you are lying about the issue of Khilafah, then by your own belief in the above hadith you would be in trouble. Because that belief would apply to you. Did you just not say it is haram to lie about the Prophet (pbuh)?

If you want to make sure that the above hadith does not apply to you, then you should make every effort in answering my question:

Where does the Qur'an and Sunnah say categorically and unambiguously that establishing Khilafah is fard upon every Muslim?

Otherwise you will be guilty of committing something which is haram because you willfully pursued a premature belief on which you could not be bothered to check the
ruling on which Islam provided.

Your other examples suffer from the same problems from those you provided above. You have been trying to wriggle and squirm your way out of answering my question simply because the stance of Islam on this issue is different to that of your own beliefs. You are simply not qualified to give a running commentary on the Qur'an.

[quote]
Originally posted by jalal_ud_deen:
**
These examples demonstrate the fact that as Muslims we should not have to look for a specific wording in a Ayah/Hadith to make it an obligation or prophibition, but rather that Allah(swt) can convey this prohibition or obligation in different wordings, all of which can be very clear, unambiguous, and lead to NO difference of opinion.
**
[/quote]

Then why do you disagree with the majority of qualified scholars on this issue? Do you honestly think you can twist the words of Allah(swt)? For your own political desires?

[quote]
Originally posted by jalal_ud_deen:
**
Accepting no other answer, except that particular wording reminds me of some of the Kuffar who I argue with, they say that they will only accept the actual 'SEEING' of God as decisive proof that God really exists. But we know that Allah(swt) existence can be proven in many ways.

May Allah(swt) guide us all.
[Now read my last message]
Ameen.
**
[/quote]

And what the hell does this example to do with anything? You are like a child who tries to study the world by making analogies of one issue to another. There is no real rigorous analysis here! Qualified scholars like the one above practise according to the rules of the Qur'an and Sunnah. Not misleading analogies. I have a word of advice for you.

Grow up.

And answer my question. Your reluctance to this only betrays the lack of basic understanding that you have for Islam. Unless you can answer this question then your belief has no credibility at all:

Where does the Qur'an and Sunnah say categorically and unambiguously that establishing Khilafah is fard upon every Muslim?


They shoot partypoopers, don't they?

[This message has been edited by Mr Partypooper (edited November 23, 2000).]

This is a further point that the scholar raised. The link to his material has been provided in the first post in this thread.

My dear brother, it should be kept in mind that declaring something to be obligatory is not the jurisdiction of the scholars and students of Islam. It is the sole authority of the Almighty. Declaring something to be obligatory, without the authority of the Qur’an and the Sunnah, is a great transgression and a person guilty of such transgression shall be accountable for it on the Day of Judgment. It is for this reason that I would generally have no objections on what a movement plans to do, as long as its actions are morally and legally justifiable. However, when a movement declares something to be Haraam (prohibited) or Fardh (obligatory) or even a nafl (supererogatory), it is my duty to ask for the basis of such declaration in the Qur’an or the Sunnah of the Prophet (pbuh), as without such basis, all such declarations are a condemnable invention in the body of Islam.

Another point which he has raised is the following:

Whoever claims that it is ‘Fardh’ (i.e. obligatory) for a Muslim to join any given group, has either to provide his basis of holding such an activity as “Fardh” from the clear directives of the Qur’an and the Sunnah or to openly declare that he is a prophet of God. For no one, besides a prophet of God, has the right to declare anything to be ‘Fardh’ or ‘Haraam’ in God’s religion.

I hope you can now appreciate my position.

http://www3.pak.org/gupshup/smilies/smile.gif

So please answer the following question:

Where does the Qur’an and Sunnah say categorically and unambiguously that establishing Khilafah is fard upon every Muslim?


They shoot partypoopers, don’t they?

from reading both sides of the argument - it has left me with the conclusion

  1. It is not 'fard' on a muslim to create a 'Khilafah' - once the muslims are on the right path the so much sought after Khilafah will happen by itself however much anyone tries to stop it.

  2. It is not wrong to strive and work for the implementation of shariah under which muslims can live - but it is not obligatory.

  3. If creating a 'Khilafa' was obligatory on muslims it would have said so in clear cut wa in Quran - as it says that not to eat the meat of a pig. If creating a 'khilafa' was more important than not eating pork - it would have had a whole sura devoted to it and not leave it to the interpretation of humans. (to err is human)

  4. a muslim who terms another muslim a kafir is a kafir himself (i dont have the reference, but it was something tought to me by my parents - I would welcome confirmation of this with source)

  5. If being ruled by shariah is what is sought.. then you need look no further than India - where on matters of muslims they are tried under the shariah - although I am not aware of punishments being carried out.

People - if we live our lives as prescribed in Islam - we will have an Islamic rule, because it will automatically happen.

I seek forgiveness of Allah if I am misguided - but I have not been convinced as yet that it is fard on me to work for creation of 'Khilafa'. I may get rewarded if I work for it.. but that is about it.

Salam Everyone!

What an interesting discussion that is going on between Brother Jalal and Brother PartyPooper. I myself have studied certain parts of Islam for a number of years, so have a little knowlegde about these issues.

I am also acquanted with the understanding -islam website, and have read the various articles that the 'Learner' or Moiz Amjad and othes print in those sections.

Brother Mioz, comments about a specific set of evidences[about unity] and uses them to say that they do not prove that Khilafah is an obligation. This may be true. But it is not these evidences that are used by the scholars on this issue.

These evidences relate to a slightly linked but different topic-which is tha topic of unity of Muslims.

If anybody, is serious about wanting to find out about the Khilafah, then they should refer to the Classical scholars of Islam, before the decline in the Ummah took place and most the muqallideen began calling themselves scholars, and check their opinions out.

Here is a selection of a few:

**Imam Ali(ra) a well known sahabi, the forth caliph, and a very good scholar said in his book Nahj-ul-Balagha(part1 page 91):
"People must have an amir, either just, or a tyrant(not tyrants of today) where the believer works under his Imara(rule) and under which the unbeliever would also benefit, until his rule ended by the end of his life(ajal), the booty would be gathered, the nemey would be fought, th routes would be mae safe, the strong one will return what he took from the weak till the tyrant would be contained, and would not bother anyone."

Al-Imam Al-Mawardi in his book Al-Ahkam AL Sultaniyah, page 9 states : "It is forbidden for the Ummah to have two Imam at the same time".

Al-Imam Al Joziri in his book Al-Fiqh alal-Mathahib Al-Arba'a(the fiqh of the four schools of thought), volume 5 page 16, says:
"The Imams of the four schools of thought-may Allah be pleased with them, agree that the Imama(Khilafah) is an obligation, and that the Muslims appoint an Imam who would implement the deen's rites, and give the opressed justice against the opressors. It is forbidden for Muslims to have two Imams in the world whether in agreement or in discord"
**
Numerous other classical scholars say that establishing/having a Khilafah is an obligation:
[below i qoute the references]
**
Al-Fasil-fil Milal by Ibnu Hazim
Tarikh of Al-Tabari
Al-Akd Al Farid of Al-Waqidi
Al-Sirah of Ibnu Kathir
Al-Sunan Al-Kubra of Bayhaqi
Sirah ibn Hisham
Al Imam Nawaai in his book Mughni Al-Muhtaj, Vol4, page 132
Al-Imam al Qalqashandi in his book Subhul Al-Asha Vol 9 page 277
Al-Imam Ibnu Hazm in his book Al-Muhalla Vol 9, page 360
Al-Imam Al Sharani in his book Al-Mizan Vol 2, p157
Al-Imam Al Qadhi Abdul Jabbar in his book Al-Mughni fi Abwab Al-Tawheed
Al-Iamam Abu Ya'ala in Al-Ahkam Al Al Sultaniyah page 9 and page 25
Al-Fasil fil Milal Vol4 page 62
The book of Matalib Ulil-Amr
The book of Maqalat Al-Islamiyyin Vol 2, Page 134
The book of Al-Moghni Fi Abwab Al-Tawheed.
**
This is just some of the major scholars of Islam. In fact I have never come across any scholar{classical} who has not agreed with the Khilafah not being an obligation. No scholar has ever said that it is not an obligation.

Secondly I would ask Brother PartyPooper to properly read the messages of Jalal. Brother PartyPooper you sometimes contradict yourself.

Brother Jalal said that establishing a group to call to the Khair is an obligation, and then brother PartyPooper tries to refute this, but in the extract he quotes, that it is an Fard al-Kifaya

And about the issue of individuals, groups and state, is concerned, all of them are obliged to enjoin the good and forbid the evil, and the state being the only one which has the physical authority to rule by Islam eg apply the hudood.

I can see brother Jalals argument, he is saying that the phrase used in the Quran deosn't have to be "this is an obligation" for something to be an obligation. This is true. What i find surprising is that Brother PartyPooper seems to disagree with this, yet he quotes obligations and Ayahs which do not follow this logic.

eg forbidding evil and enjoining good is obligation upon the state.
eg forbidding evil and enjoining good is obligation upon the group.
eg forbidding evil and enjoining good is obligation upon the individual.

Brother PartyPooper is asking for evidence of the form "Khilafah is obligation", whereas brother Jalal is saying that the evidence does not have to be in that form, and can be in other forms.

As far as the texts are concerned, the evidence does not have to be in this form to make something an obligation. This is something new in Islam, and none of the classical scholars ever said such a thing-If Moiz Khan/The Learner is saying so then he still has alot to learn about Islam, never mind being a scholar.

Moving on to the evidences...qouted by Jalal!!
**
"As for the thief, male or female, cut off his or her hand." [T.M.Q. Al-Maidah 5 : 38 ]
**

This command is clear. It is a command to all the Muslims, and it is their collective duty to accomplish this obligation. So Allah(swt) has made the cutting of the hand of the theif and obligation, the cutting of the hand of the thief, canoot be done by individuals going around with a machette , but rather, is done by the Qadi, who is appointed by the Khaleef.

**
"The woman and the man guilty of fornication lash each of them a hundred lashes."[T.M.Q An-Nur 24:2]
**
This command is also clear, again this can only be done by the Qadi, appointed by the Khaleef, the way the Prophet of Allah demonstrated to us.

**
"They wish to go for judgment to Taghut (False judges etc.) while they have been ordered to reject them..." [T.M.Q. An-Nisa 4 : 60]
**
Here the Muslims have been categorically ordered to judge their affairs by the orders of Allah(swt), and this refers to the people in the position of judgement. The rule liguistically means the judgement. The poeple in the position of ruling are the Khaleef, the walis and the judges, and these judge over society.
There are other verses which are linked to this:
**
"Obey Allah, Obey the Messenger, and those who are in aythority from amongst you..."[4:59]
"If they had only referred it to the Messenger and those among them with authority..."[4:83]
**

Jalal also qouted a number of other evidences, which i will insha-Allah go through now:

**
Nafi‘a reported saying: “ ‘Umar said to me that he heard the Prophet (saw) saying: Whoso takes off his hand from allegiance to Allah (swt) will meet Him (swt) on the Day of Resurrection without having any proof for him, and whoso dies whilst there was no bay‘ah (allegiance or a pledge) on his neck (to a Khaleefah), he dies a death of jahilliyah.”
**

Jalal said that this evidence makes it an obligation for us to have a Khaleef. Jalal did not make it clear, whether he was saying that whether it is an obligation to give Bayah to a Khaleef physically, or enough just to have the Khaleef there, under whom one submits, without actally having to give the Bayah. The correct position is the latter case. ie that their must be a Khaleef there, who rules by Islam and only Islam.

The above commands of Allah(swt) cannot be achieved unless one removes the current authorities in the Muslim countries, and replaces them with an authority that rules by Islam ie a Khilafah.
Even this removal of authorities, and replacing them with the one that rules by Islam, or correcting the authorities that rule by Kufr, is an obligation upon the Ummah. The evidence for this are many Ayahs and Hadiths.

This is why the scholars of Islam - the classical scholars, called the Khilafah the Fard Al-Assasi(the fard upon which other fards depend upon)

My advice to brother PartyPooper, as a sincere muslim, would be: to be careful to quote one source[especially a modern one], on a particular issue, without consulting the Classical scholars from the classical age.

I would like to end with the fact that the above arguments that I have presented are in no way mine, I do not have the ability to do Ijtihad, and am in no way a scholar os Islam. All the above arguments are those that have been used by the true/classical scholars, who were around in the Golden Age of Islam. I hope this has been beneficial to both Brother PartyPooper and to Jalal. Please don't argue with each other in a ridiculing way. You should keep in mind that the both of you are here to please Allah(swt) and arrive at the truth.

[This message has been edited by abdul_kareem (edited November 23, 2000).]

[This message has been edited by abdul_kareem (edited November 23, 2000).]