How The Ummah Can Unite

Society Religion & Philosophy
1

Assalam-u-alaikum to al my brothers and sisters.

The calamities that have continuously been befaaling upon this noble ummah, has raised concerns for the muslims. Everyone looks at the problems and says, ‘If we were united then we could overcome all problems’

So lets look at what is disunity and how we can achieve Unity.

Whenever a muslim country is attacked, the sole person who is looked at for the response in order to deal with the problem is the ruler of that country. So when Iraq was attacked by the crusading armies, Sadaam was solely responsible for preparing the armies, in order to fight.
This is where the problem is, why dont all the rulers of the muslims respond by sending in the armies, to retaliate the aggression?

So, the muslim lands are divided into 55 countries, hence the organisation of the problems are also divided into 55 governments.
However if all the muslims were under one gevernment, then the west would have to deal with an army of 60million soldiers!!! Rather than 250,000 soldiers here and 400,000 there, we would scare them off just by our numbers. Ontop of that where would they attack us from.

In the case of Iraq, where there were 10,000 fedayeen and maybe 150,000 normal soldiers, and the corrupt rulers of the muslims, gave bases to the west in order for attack to take place, under the united muslim government, this would not be allowed, and on top of that, we would have a tremendous army, ready to attack.

So we can see how unity is dispelled by having one ruler for the entire muslims, but now the question should arise, ‘What will he rule by?’
The answer to this is simple, since we are muslims, we have to go no further than our Kitab (al-Qur’an-al-karim) and we have the Shari’ah for us that lays down for us the laws on how to govern the people.

So we muslims should call for the removal of these rulers, and the unity of the ummah under one Ruler, who implements the Laws of Allah(SWT).

Was-salaam

2

JazakAllah!

3

I agree with your call to unite all Muslims but Khalifah under 1 government will not work out. It is better to have an organization like European Union that has membership for muslim states.

4

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by google: *
I agree with your call to unite all Muslims but Khalifah under 1 government will not work out.

[/QUOTE]

Why not? It worked pretty well in the past. One person responsible for leading all Muslims, with local provincial governments owing loyalty to him.

More centralized control than before would be needed, to ensure a common foreign, military and economic policy, but the idea is essentially still feasible.

From the experience of Pakistan, a common religion is sufficient to hold a country together (so long as one group of people is not excluded from positions of power, as occured in East Pakistan). The 4 provinces of Pakistan, 50 years ago, had only a common religion, with different cultures and languages. The are still coherent right now, with no danger of splitting apart. Part of the reason for this success of the provincial government system. Each region is (normally) run by the locals.

5

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by mAd_ScIeNtIsT: *
Why not? It worked pretty well in the past. One person responsible for leading all Muslims, with local provincial governments owing loyalty to him....
[/QUOTE]

The old way of "khilafat" will not work. It worked only for short span of time and then later on turned into kingship, the family keeps ruling. If there is no check and balance in power only dictators will emerge quashing the minority (be it geographical minority or religious minority).

This brother "Khilafah1422" keeps posting about Khilafah Khilafah, removing current rulers and all that. The way of approach is nothing but of "revolutionary" style. They don't last long, unless the masses are educated and in agreement.

6

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Changez_like: *The old way of "khilafat" will not work. It worked only for short span of time and then later on turned into kingship, the family keeps ruling. If there is no check and balance in power only dictators will emerge quashing the minority (be it geographical minority or religious minority).
[/QUOTE]

Well I didn't address the issue of succession and replacement. I'm focusing more on the issue of whether an EU style organization is needed. I think that a state stretching from West Africa to Malaysia (with interruptions in mainland asia) can be run with a single central government, but the sheer scale will necessitate a decentralisation of power to local regional governments as happened during earlier times. Foreign relations, Defence and macroeconomic power could be maintained by the central government, with the day-to-day running of provinces (whose boundaries could be redrawn to reflect pre-colonial provincial organisation) being in the hands of regional governers.

The single biggest benefit would be the creation of a vast internal common market, which should significantly drive economic growth and thus national power.

7

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by mAd_ScIeNtIsT: *
...
I'm focusing more on the issue of whether an EU style organization is needed. I think that a state stretching from West Africa to Malaysia (with interruptions in mainland asia) can be run with a single central government, but the sheer scale will necessitate a decentralisation of power to local regional governments as happened during earlier times. Foreign relations, Defence and macroeconomic power could be maintained by the central government, with the day-to-day running of provinces (whose boundaries could be redrawn to reflect pre-colonial provincial organisation) being in the hands of regional governers.
...
[/QUOTE]

That is all very good and welcome, but that is not going to happen with current format of governments, rulers, kings. In order to make that happen, current rulers will have to cut their nose short, be able to "listen", "agree", "compromise" and above all "obey command(s)"none of which they do now .

8

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Changez_like: *

That is all very good and welcome, but that is not going to happen with current format of governments, rulers, kings. In order to make that happen, current rulers will have to cut their nose short, be able to "listen", "agree", "compromise" and above all "obey command(s)"none of which they do now .
[/QUOTE]

The current rulers will almost all have to go. They're part of the problem, not the solution. Besides which, the majority of the Muslim world and is ruled by strongly nationalist factions, whereas the creation of an Islamic super-state would require the complete surrender of the pillars of national sovereignty to a central authority - Foreign policy, defence, and macroeconomic policy.

But as you mentioned in the other thread, the majority of Muslim society is not Islamic in nature.

You end up with the chicken-and-egg issue:

Does:
An Islamic state come first, that then implements an Islamic social order
Or
Does an Islamic social order come first, that then implements an Islamic state

I personally agree with the views of the ideologues of the Ikhwan-ul-Muslimeen and the Jamaat-i-Islaam, who maintain the view that an Islamic state can only be created when society becomes Islamic in nature.

But others on this forum follow the viewpoint that Islamic society cannot be achieved unless the state is Islamic first.

9

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by mAd_ScIeNtIsT: *
....
But others on this forum follow the viewpoint that Islamic society cannot be achieved unless the state is Islamic first.
[/QUOTE]

There are two reasons I think why people think Islamic state first will work:
Its an observation made that the ruled class starts copying the ruling class in manners, behaviors, attitudes etc. By having "Muslim" rulers, the mass will follow the trend.
The other reason is that once most of the "illegal", "haram" will be enforced for Muslims it won't be easy for the unIslamic Muslims to divert. Justice will be served properly which will make lives easy for common and difficult for criminals of all kind which is one big reason for the society in disarray.

But then there are points against above two reasons. I believe the people have to be educated and good followers first.

Also, according to one hadith, people get rulers as the people themselves are i.e. corrupt people get governed by corrupt rulers.

10

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by google: *
I agree with your call to unite all Muslims but Khalifah under 1 government will not work out. It is better to have an organization like European Union that has membership for muslim states.
[/QUOTE]

Assalaam-u-alaikum
if we continue to have multiple rulers then if they disagree, how can we unite under one stance.
If we choose to take the majority route then we will end up abandoning the qur'an and the sunnah, because if the majority agree to disobey Allah(SWT) then thats what goes.
So we have to pick either we obey Allah and His Messenger(SAW), and re-establish the khilafah, and become united under one man, or we disobey Allah, prepare to face His(SWT) wrath, and end up in further disunity, because it is impossible for 55 rulers to agree on one point.

Abu Bakr rejected the idea of choosing one khalifah, from the ansar and one from the muhajireen, he said 'they will dispute and the sunnah will become abandoned'

was-salaam

11

I agree with the scientist. We surely can have European Union style system. There can be :

1 capital (maybe Madinah)

1 currency (meaning one Central bank)

1 head of state (but at the same time the current Muslim states can be like provinces having their own local governments)

The foreign policy, education system, defence can be in the hands of the Center

It is very much possible. Just as when we thought about creating Pakistan, people said it cannot be. Where there is a will there is a way!

Secondly it is very much according to what the Quran tells us:

"And hold fast all together to the rope of Allah and not be divided amongst yourselves"

12

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Changez_like: *

The old way of "khilafat" will not work. It worked only for short span of time and then later on turned into kingship, the family keeps ruling. If there is no check and balance in power only dictators will emerge quashing the minority (be it geographical minority or religious minority).

This brother "Khilafah1422" keeps posting about Khilafah Khilafah, removing current rulers and all that. The way of approach is nothing but of "revolutionary" style. They don't last long, unless the masses are educated and in agreement.
[/QUOTE]

as-salaam-u-alaikum

the old khilafah style is the rule of Allah(SWT) that is still applicable today. we must understand the the khilafah is a state where islam is applied internally and externally.
with regards to your point of khalifahs turning to dictators, this can be overcome by the ummah being able to account the ruler, if he deviates from implementing islam. in the islamic system there is the mechanism of the 'court of unjust rulers'(Qadi mudhalim) where any unjust acts perpetrated by the khalifah can be accounted. so the ummah will have a mechanism to keep the state implementing islam.
a dictatorship is the rule of a man who enforces his laws on the people without their will. In an islamic system this is not the case, becuase the khalifah has to implements islam, and if he does not then he is forced to return to the implementation of islam, via the states mechanism of accounting.

with regards to your point on educating the ummah: firstly what do you wish to educate the ummah on,how would this lead to revival of the ummah(i.e. the re-establishment of the Islamic Khilafah) and how do you wish to achieve the education of 1.5billion muslims without a state?
keeping in mind that the current dictators would not want to spend money educating the ummah, for the sake of sacrificing getting the money for themselves.

if you could reply, insha-Allah.
was-salaam

13

<>

Hopefully not in a madrassah. Well if you look around. The Kids in schools in the west are doing a great job educating themselves. It is your muddled politics and self-loathing that is keeping people down

14

reply to changez like

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Changez_like: *

The old way of "khilafat" will not work. It worked only for short span of time and then later on turned into kingship, the family keeps ruling. If there is no check and balance in power only dictators will emerge quashing the minority (be it geographical minority or religious minority).

This brother "Khilafah1422" keeps posting about Khilafah Khilafah, removing current rulers and all that. The way of approach is nothing but of "revolutionary" style. They don't last long, unless the masses are educated and in agreement.
[/QUOTE]

as-salaam-u-alaikum.

if you think that having independently organised countries is going to bring unity, then can you please show me what motivation would a rich state have to help a poorer state. Why would France or Germany want to help out Estonia or Hungary?

The muslims need to unite under the islamic leadership, where each regional area is managed by a provincial governer(Wali), who is responsible infront of the amir of the muslims, the khalifah. This way the muslims would not be independent states, like today, and countries experiencing war, or any other problem such as famine, would be helped by any other country. Under the independent staes scenario, who are united as separate states, there is no obligation upon any state to help out any other state, as their sole responsibility is to control their own affairs.

if you could reply, insha-Allah
was-salaam

15

reply to changez like

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Changez_like: *

That is all very good and welcome, but that is not going to happen with current format of governments, rulers, kings. In order to make that happen, current rulers will have to cut their nose short, be able to "listen", "agree", "compromise" and above all "obey command(s)"none of which they do now .
[/QUOTE]

as-salaam-u-alaikum

i think there are 2 points that need to be discussed:
1) what is your view with regarding how the unity of the muslims is going to be achieved?

2) when we understand how to achieve this are we going to sit and watch each country go through problems after problems, or we going to undertake the necessary actions to make a change.

was-salaam

16

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Matsui: *
<>

Hopefully not in a madrassah. Well if you look around. The Kids in schools in the west are doing a great job educating themselves. It is your muddled politics and self-loathing that is keeping people down
[/QUOTE]

1)are u muslim?
2) we are talking about the unity of the muslims and the muslims who are being educated in the west, how does this help the unification of the muslim ummah?

17

reply to the scientist

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by mAd_ScIeNtIsT: *

The current rulers will almost all have to go. They're part of the problem, not the solution. Besides which, the majority of the Muslim world and is ruled by strongly nationalist factions, whereas the creation of an Islamic super-state would require the complete surrender of the pillars of national sovereignty to a central authority - Foreign policy, defence, and macroeconomic policy.

But as you mentioned in the other thread, the majority of Muslim society is not Islamic in nature.

You end up with the chicken-and-egg issue:

Does:
An Islamic state come first, that then implements an Islamic social order
Or
Does an Islamic social order come first, that then implements an Islamic state

I personally agree with the views of the ideologues of the Ikhwan-ul-Muslimeen and the Jamaat-i-Islaam, who maintain the view that an Islamic state can only be created when society becomes Islamic in nature.

But others on this forum follow the viewpoint that Islamic society cannot be achieved unless the state is Islamic first.
[/QUOTE]

salaam.

how do we expect to get the whole of the muslim ummah to become islamic, whilst there is western culture influencing the muslims and an education cirriculum designed by the west or influenced by the west, which regards islam as five pillars, ontop of this the laws that allow the muslims to live their lives as they please and not in accordance to what Allah(SWT) has revealed. It is impossible to do this, whilst we have rulers ontop of us who are slaves to the west and disregard the ummah and ontop of this they keep the ummah further away from islam, and educate them, influence them with the western culture of freedom.

however if we muslims understand the need of the Islamic State, then when can get to the stage of implementing the system, that organises the affairs of the muslims in accordance to islam, where the media, the education, the laws would be based on islam, and this would refine the muslims into islamic personalities.

was-salaam

18

[quote]
...where the media, the education, the laws would be based on islam, and this would refine the muslims into islamic personalities.
[/quote]
That sounds like brainwashing. A true relationship with God does not require state indoctrination -- sprituality and morality cannot be forced. God only accepts homage that is freely given.

Religous freedom is the most basic of our fundamental rights as humans, it is not up to a government to dictate their vision of the "true word". It is up to the individual to discover their individual spritual destiny, not because of where they were born, raised or dictated by the state. This isn't Star Trek and the Khilafah is not the Borg.

Information and education of all thoughts and philosophies should be taught to all children. Only education and free thinking will help people become closer to God and their ideal spiritual fate -- not state/religous assimilation through media, education and laws.

19

"Whenever a muslim country is attacked, the sole person who is looked at for the response in order to deal with the problem is the ruler of that country."

You may be missing the entire point. Closing ranks and defending a leader as brutal and evil as Saddam is travesty against Islam. It is an embarrassment. Perhaps your question should be, "When a leader of a country kills it's people, steals it's riches, creates war with it's neighbors, creates instability in the region, and is an infidel hiding behind the cloak of Islam, then how do we, the ummah, remove this blight on our religion?"

If you endeavor to clean your own house, then others will not clean it for you. Only a few countries were brave enough to call for Saddam to step down to avoid the death and destruction of a war. And they were made to look like traitors, not leaders. Rallying millions of fighters sounds like a macho use for the ummah, but if this is necessary, then the ummah has already failed. Currently the concept of Islamic brotherhood prevents criticism of even the worst of leaders. It is the exact opposite of what is needed.

You say that the current leaders of Islamic countries are slaves to the west. I say they are slaves to power and money. So long as you place blame on the west you will be avoiding the self examination that allows your countries to be responsible for their own determination, and ultimately to form into a larger ummah. Let's face it, the leaders of 50 countries are not going to throw away the power they have to your higher authority, unless the ideals, and the practical implementation are clearly to the advantage to the daily lives of people.

In his speech on the Mideast, Bush accurately pointed out that the combined GDP of the Mideast is smaller than that of Spain. Were it not for the oil wealth of the Mid-east, this would be on par with the poorest of third world countries. While the Ummah may hold the advantages of religious richness, there must be a system of economic advantages that lifts the people of the ummah out of poverty. The suggestions that an EU style consortium be founded, can create a path toward an ummah. Most of those that I have heard speak of an ummah expect it to happen suddenly, and this is patently unreasonable. The only path that I have heard discussed is 55 leaders simultaneously having the revelation that the Ummah is correct, and absolving thier leadership. The Ummah must be compelling in all regards so that the people in each country demand of thier leaders that they become part of it, and eventually one with it.

Until a practical and realworld path to the Ummah is spelled out, it will remain nothing more than a pipe dream.

20

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Ohioguy: *
"Whenever a muslim country is attacked, the sole person who is looked at for the response in order to deal with the problem is the ruler of that country."

You may be missing the entire point. Closing ranks and defending a leader as brutal and evil as Saddam is travesty against Islam. It is an embarrassment. Perhaps your question should be, "When a leader of a country kills it's people, steals it's riches, creates war with it's neighbors, creates instability in the region, and is an infidel hiding behind the cloak of Islam, then how do we, the ummah, remove this blight on our religion?"

If you endeavor to clean your own house, then others will not clean it for you. Only a few countries were brave enough to call for Saddam to step down to avoid the death and destruction of a war. And they were made to look like traitors, not leaders. Rallying millions of fighters sounds like a macho use for the ummah, but if this is necessary, then the ummah has already failed. Currently the concept of Islamic brotherhood prevents criticism of even the worst of leaders. It is the exact opposite of what is needed.

You say that the current leaders of Islamic countries are slaves to the west. I say they are slaves to power and money. So long as you place blame on the west you will be avoiding the self examination that allows your countries to be responsible for their own determination, and ultimately to form into a larger ummah. Let's face it, the leaders of 50 countries are not going to throw away the power they have to your higher authority, unless the ideals, and the practical implementation are clearly to the advantage to the daily lives of people.

In his speech on the Mideast, Bush accurately pointed out that the combined GDP of the Mideast is smaller than that of Spain. Were it not for the oil wealth of the Mid-east, this would be on par with the poorest of third world countries. While the Ummah may hold the advantages of religious richness, there must be a system of economic advantages that lifts the people of the ummah out of poverty. The suggestions that an EU style consortium be founded, can create a path toward an ummah. Most of those that I have heard speak of an ummah expect it to happen suddenly, and this is patently unreasonable. The only path that I have heard discussed is 55 leaders simultaneously having the revelation that the Ummah is correct, and absolving thier leadership. The Ummah must be compelling in all regards so that the people in each country demand of thier leaders that they become part of it, and eventually one with it.

Until a practical and realworld path to the Ummah is spelled out, it will remain nothing more than a pipe dream.
[/QUOTE]

Proof of muslims rulers being slaves to the West are that they were put in power by the West, the muslim ummah never gave them authority. Rather the West give them legitmacy, it was the West who brought Saddam into power & supported him, it was the West who brought Mushraff into power, it was the West who gave the land of al-hijaz to the saudi family, it was the west who craved up the lands of syria,jordan, libya etc and appointed leaders over them, it was the West who appointed leaders over malaysia,indosia...the list is endless.

As for USA takin a stance against a dictator, Saddam has alwayz be a a ruthless leader including the time when he was the West friends,it was the West who supplied the chemical weapons and while he was killing poeple they proudly did business with him. And if the west cares so much about ruthal leaders then why do they support Sharon,Islam Karimov who has violated all human rights laws??? fact of the matter is the West are captlist nations they only thing they care about is their own selfish benefit/intrests and hence if that means supporting dictators then be it so, if it means killings people to get acces to oil,gas then let it be so.