Re: Khilafat-need to know more
That was the main issue which started their cult but that was not all that about them.
I might correct myself above by saying that their views on khilafat probably appear after Ali, and not during his time.
Re: Khilafat-need to know more
That was new and informative POV for me, can you share some references as well. (may be some online books on the topic)
Thanks in advane.
Re: Khilafat-need to know more
The basic mechanism of the appointment of a khalifah is two tiered:
-
For the existing authority/Khalif to appoint the successor
a) Finding a candidate
b) Seeking private consultation on his decision
c) Refining his decision if necessary
d) To make the decision public -
For a necessary declaration of those who are in positions of religious influence (shura) to swear allegiance to the successor
a) Shura to assemble
b) Honour the public decision of the previous Khaliph
In the case where a successor has not been appointed or when those in influence do not swear their allegiance to the nominated candidate - then we have trouble.
The shura would be created by the khaliph of the time - and he would prepare the shura himself … the criteria of the representation of the shura was observed as their piety, but in addition to that they were also people with good leadership qualities and commanded gravitas and keen strategic insight.
In time these two qualities became more and more rarefied in the same people … i.e. the pious would avoid positions of power and the people of power became less pious …
Here is a good study on this topic … The method for appointment has to be extracted from the historical record …
The Electoral Shura Under the Four Rightly-Guided Caliphs Part 2/3 - Iman Badawi
Re: Khilafat-need to know more
We have moved in to a new time - just as khoji rightly says that the method of the appointment has not been consistent ... what has been consistent is the universal idea behind it ...
"The best man for the job"
This has remained the consistent motive for the appointment of the Khaliph and should not translate to being the person who commands the most influence - because that influence can be obtained using fear or greed to their advantage. The influence must be charismatic ... Our new era demands from us to utilise yet another method for the appointment of the representative of the ummah.
One of the clues we have is that the person for leading should not be self declaring his own appointment. We have existing leaders in Muslim countries and they are the current leaders - like it or not they have valid authority as the status quo leaders, the ulema of those countries the ones who have been given the most authentic license from past scholars in the transmission chains are a solid group and need to form a group among themselves.
What happens after that is for better minds to decide.
Re: Khilafat-need to know more
There is a lot you need to correct from your previous post
For example The first Calipha was Prophet Adam Alaihis Salam!
The khawarij Motto was ‘no hukm except by Allah’ which was their ruling on Caliphate and Caliphs
The system of ruling that we Believe in and aspire to is on The Style of Prophet hood, The Personal Quality of the Caliph to be Guided
Also the circumstances of the time as Given By Allah Subhanahu wa Ta’ala plays an important part, which is not linked to the Guided status of The Ruling Calipha. Allah Subhanahu wa Ta’ala can test with trial whom He likes and When He likes
The validation for the selection of the Calipha is Bayah, and the strongest point of this is Bayah with Ijma. Ijma is Shariah for Ahlus Sunnah wal Jamaah
The Caliphates of Abu Bakr and Umar May Allah be pleased with both of them are approved with Ijma during their own times, a Blessed Time indeed. This is the Highest level of Validation/approval we can achieve
After Ijma is opinions, opinions in themselves can act like Bayah. Opinions can be diverse so anything which gained Ijma during the time or by Ahlus Sunnah wal Jamaah alone is considered zruriyat of Ahlus Sunnah as opposed to zruriyat of Deen
What Allah Ta’ala through His Prophet SallAllahu Alaihi wa Ahlihi wa Sallam left us with is need to keep unified, if it was not for this then we are not obliged to give bayah to a leader that rules over all of us, yet we were given the need to keep unified so we aspire to it and want it to happen
By Allah Subhanahu wa Ta’ala we were given tawheed but not unity, so in this aspect we are floundering and coming up short. This is part of our test and tribulations. There is no fairy tale in this regard for us except in the periods of unity two of which are the Caliphate in the Beginning and the Caliphate towards the end of times.
So none of these interpretations which I have expressed are particularly favorable to any group which ruled during the middle periods
The rule of thumb for Ahlus Sunnah wal jamaah which i have heard and has merit is whoever denies the Two Imams (Abu Bakr As-Siddique and Umar Al-Farooq May Allah be please with both of them) is Rafzi since their acceptance is with Ijma, and whoever refuses to take Al-Hassan Leader of Jannat and Hussein Leader of Jannat (May Allah be pleased with both of them) as Sardars is Nasibi
Both these points of Islam are what can be considered weak spots, ie spots that exist but but are only truly appreciable through sentiment, through correct sentiment, sentiment of belonging. Opposition to the first point seeks to split the Ummah from The Messenger SallAllahu Alaihi wa Ahlihi wa Sallam, and refusal of the second point seeks to Split the Message from The Messenger SallAllahu Alaihi wa Ahlihi wa Sahbihi wa Sallam
The correct position is accept the Reality of the Ijma of Muslims, rather then to make alternative suggestions which then throws into question the whole of what we have received from Allah Subhanahu wa Ta’ala. The correct position is also to love (for the sake of Love and as a Mercy to us) and take as Sardars (of the heart) whom Allah Subhanahu wa Ta’ala has given us to Love and made Sardars
The Religion of Ahlus Sunnah with regards to AhulBayt:
The Prince Of Jannah - Imam Adil Shahzad
Re: Khilafat-need to know more
you can have your bayahs and ijmahs and I see a lot of bloodshed. In Pakistan, TTP would be the first one to attempt bayahs as they would just suicide bomb everyone else…
Thanks but no thanks. I’d stick to the least evil system of democracy where the ballot decides the outcome.
PS Could you imagine a khalifa syedna zardari shaheed appointing someone? 
No wonder iqbal, that right wing worships, or Jinnah himself never pushed for caliphate when they stressed a lot on a riba free society.
Re: Khilafat-need to know more
There is a lot you need to correct from your previous post
No I don't have to correct anything else. Happy posting.
Re: Khilafat-need to know more
about khawarij? I thought it was quite well known. For example, the wiki page on khawarij quotes Maududi’s book saying this:
Khawarij - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
*They also believed that it is not a must for the caliph to be from the Quraysh. Any pious Muslim nominated by other Muslims could be an eligible caliph.[12] *
Re: Khilafat-need to know more
The Ottoman Empire-A True “Caliphate”?-Dr. Khalid Blankinship
Is An Islamic State Just a Form of Muslim Zionism? (Dr. Khalid Blankinship)
Re: Khilafat-need to know more
Actually if you read my previous links, you’ll be surprised to see that I am more in agreement with than you realise.
Re: Khilafat-need to know more
This is an interesting piece and seems to contradict the idea that Ottomans were Khalifs at all ...
But also suggests that if a Khalif is to be appointed according to original practices that it should be the current king of Morrocco.
At the same time, the Turks of Turkey used the titles of amîr al-mu’minîn and khalîfah occasionally before 905/1500, but their real title was sultân, just like the Saljûks, Ayyûbids, and Mamlûks before them. After that the title khalîfah was not used by them for several centuries, until it was rediscovered at the Treaty of Kuchuk Kanarjli in 1188/1774. At that time, in that treaty with the Russians, the Turkish sultân reserved the title of khalîfah for himself so that he could still be considered the spiritual leader of the Crimean Tatar Muslims who were surrendered at that time to the Russians. Thereafter, it was used very little except from 1293/1876, when the Ottoman ruler ‘Abd al-Hamîd II started calling himself the Sultân-khalîfah in order to threaten the British Empire and thus preserve his rule. In this he was strongly opposed by ‘Abd al-Rahmân al-Kawâkibî (d. 1321/1903), who pointed out that according to Sunnî law, the khalîfah had to be from Quraysh, and the Ottomans were not Qurashîs and had never claimed to be. Long after ‘Abd al-Hamîd was overthrown in 1326-1327/1908-1909, many Muslims started looking back on him as the ideal ruler and his time as the golden age, because his overthrow practically meant the end of the multinational Ottoman Turkish state, but they did not think so at the time. His successors Muhammad V Rashâd (1327-1336/1909-1918) and Muhammad VI Wahîd al-Dîn (1336-1341/1918-1922) continued to use the title, but they were under the control of military dictators. When Muhammad VI surrendered to the British in 1337/1918, he fell under the control of those colonialists, and none mourned his expulsion by the military dictator Mustafâ Kamâl in 1341/1922. Thereafter for two years, Muhammad VI’s cousin ‘Abd al-Majîd II had the title of khalîfah without being sultân, until that was terminated by Kamâl in 1342/1924. That was the end of one khilâfah, but hardly the end of THE khilâfah, because there was nothing legitimate about the Ottoman claim to be khalîfahs to begin with.
After that, various rulers tried to claim to be khalîfah, including the British puppet kings of Egypt and the Hâshimite ex-king of the Hijâz, but no agreeable candidate appeared. The Sa‘ûdî rulers never tried to claim it, maybe because they had fought the Ottoman Turks on and off for nearly two centuries and did not respect their claim to the title, so they did not see that any legitimate title had become vacant.
It would seem to me that any attempt to restore the khilâfah today would have to begin by asking why all Muslims should not swear allegiance to King Muhammad VI of Morocco, who certainly holds this claim and does so through an ancient and venerable lineage that goes back much earlier than the Ottoman claim and is much more authentic. Not that I hold the view that that is what is to be done, but it would seem that classical theory would require allegiance to the existing khalîfah rather than setting up another as rival. The Ottoman state did represent the largest surviving Muslim state in the center of the Muslim world in the thirteenth-fourteenth/nineteenth century, it is true, but it almost went under in 1247-1256/1831-1840 and was only saved by British intervention. Thus, for most of its last century it did not constitute a truly independent Muslim polity but depended on Britain for protection from Russia and from other enemies. Indeed, its destruction after the First World War occurred because it had transferred its poltical allegiance to Germany, so that Britain no longer wished to preserve it.
Re: Khilafat-need to know more
…maybe because his existing subjects are rushing to swear allegiance to King of Spain?
Re: Khilafat-need to know more
No i am asking was that mainstream muslims stance or not? what was their stance our khilafat.
PS:
Due to ramadan i will be bit late in responding to detailed posts although i will be reading all of them.
Re: Khilafat-need to know more
Economic asylum - different topic and they are not just the Moroccans but many people from Africa using Morocco as a via route in to Europe.
Re: Khilafat-need to know more
^ So, what is the point of making him Khalifa?
Anyways, I am not yet sure if anyone has made an effort to address the questions in OP. I would like to add:
- Why is there a need for Khilafat?
- Would the Khalifa be religious leader (like a pope) or political leader or both?
- In case there is a conflict between what the Khalifa says and what my government says, whom should I obey?
I have limited knowledge of religious affairs but from what I know there doesn't seem to be a prescription for a political government/political system in Quran. The institution of Khilafat was devised post Prophet Muhammad (PBUH)?
Re: Khilafat-need to know more
^ So, what is the point of making him Khalifa?
Anyways, I am not yet sure if anyone has made an effort to address the questions in OP. I would like to add:
- Why is there a need for Khilafat?
- Would the Khalifa be religious leader (like a pope) or political leader or both?
- In case there is a conflict between what the Khalifa says and what my government says, whom should I obey?
I have limited knowledge of religious affairs but from what I know there doesn't seem to be a prescription for a political government/political system in Quran. The institution of Khilafat was devised post Prophet Muhammad (PBUH)?
These have been addressed in my links - you are generally right ... Number 3. Is a modern problem for the higher ups to solve. The claim to legitimacy resides more with King of Morocco than anyone else due to the lineage and their power being the longest. But that is not the solution either ... The solution might actually be in something like democracy.
Re: Khilafat-need to know more
I do not think there is any ambiguity about concept of Khalafat but it seems some people always want to make concept as complicated as possible, as that is one way to misguide people.
Please let me explain how I see and understand ‘Khalifat’ and ‘Khalifa of Muslims’.
From Quran … the word Khalifa means vicegerent or viceroy … or in other words a person appointed as ‘authority’ or ‘guardian’ over resources (including humans) by Allah.
Quran Ayah 2:30 … Behold, thy Lord said to the angels: "I will create a vicegerent (Khalifa) on earth." They said: "Wilt Thou place therein one who will make mischief therein and shed blood?- whilst we do celebrate Thy praises and glorify Thy holy (name)?" He said: "I know what ye know not."
From above ayah it is clear that Khalifa is neither divine, neither holy, neither necessarily pious nor necessarily Muslim.
Allah decided to create humans and make him Khalifa on earth (authority or guardian of earth). Angels knowing what humans are like (devious, mischief maker, murderer, goon, Gullu Shareef, and whatever), so questioned Allah that why humans as Khalifa on earth, as these humans are mischief makers who would create fitna and fasad on earth … shedding blood of innocent people (like what happened on 17[SUP]th[/SUP] June in Lahore Model town) … whereas we (Angels) praise and glorify you (Allah).
But Allah told them that they know not what he knows (or why he is making humans as Khalifa on earth) … and according to a poet (I think Iqbal)
Darde-dil ke waste paida kyaa insaan ko
Warna itayet ke liyea kuch kam na the karobiyaan
Even though there were enough angles to obey and worship Allah, Allah still created humans as Khalifa on earth who are ‘dard-e-sar’ in every way.
In other words … Khalifa on earth or human who are given authority on earth by Allah as Khalifa over ‘other humans and earthly resources’ are not necessarily pious, obedient to Allah, religiously high personality, or whatever, but they could be … dard-e-sar.
From above it becomes clear that on earth, humans in various shapes and forms are all Khalifa. Some have very limited authority and some rule a nation with extended authority. Another thing is that, as humans have various spectrum of characters in them, some are very pious, honest being … and some compete with Shaitan in making mischief, so do rulers as Khalifa.
Now coming to word ‘Khalifa’ that Muslims have widely used over generations:
Almost every Sufi teacher of ‘tareeqat’ has appointed Khalifa who acts on his behalf. That means, Khalifa is not an exclusive word but an inclusive word that refers to any person who is given authority by someone to act on his behalf.
Highest authority in human hierarchy is held by ‘head of state’. In Islam, we believe that head of state should run a state on behalf of ‘Malikul-mulk’ (The owner of all sovereignty … The Ruler of all rulers … or Allah) … as no one in their own right could be ruler. So, a head of state can only be a vicegerent or viceroy of Allah (‘representing’ or ‘ruling on behalf of’ Allah). Nevertheless, humans would behave like humans and spectrum of human behaviour is wide. Some humans are honest and some are mischief makers. Obviously, as Angels said (mentioned in Quran), and that also when referring to Khalifa of Allah on earth is that, humans as Khalifa would be doing all sort of mischief … though as we know that some could be honest too.
Ruler over Muslims as Khalifa (or Khalifa-tul-Muslameen): A person who is Muslim and is ruler ‘over a section of population and land’ should know that whatever authority as ruler that person has, it is bestowed on him by Allah as caretaker … in other words, a Muslim ruler should know that he is not a true ruler but is just a representative of Allah. Now it depends on individual rulers, that how much Allah fearing that person is, ruling people with love and compassion what Allah wants … or is disciple of Shaitan and rule people like devil (Shaitan). He would be judged of what he does on judgment day, and his judgment would be severe.
As for how a Muslims should chose ruler (aka Khalifa) over them?
Obviously, there is no prescribed way as all who get to position of Khalifa-tul-Muslameen, by hook or crook, by ballet or bullet, by biyah or sword, by whatever means … in the end, the person gets to that position due to the will of Allah and his position is test for him, people around him, and people on whom he is made authority.
As Muslim, we should know that there is no such thing in Islam that Mr A or Mr B has any kind of right over Khalafat, rather it is an open position for all Muslims (at least in Sunni sense). So, one cannot debate much on how a person got to that position, but what that person is doing when that person got to the position of being ruler (Khalifa).
1: Is the ruler benevolent, helpful, and considerate?
2: Is masses under his rule getting justice, are happy and prosperous?
3: Is the ruler free from corruption, nepotism, personal promotion, family promotion, family bias, tribe bias, or guilty of power misuse?
4: Is the conduct and general behaviour of ruler appropriate and comply with rules of society he oversees and gives respect and try to follow those rules?
And so on ... Or
Is the ruler a Zalim, Jabir, Fasiq and a reflection of Iblees (Shaitan).
If ruler (Khalifa) is benevolent, helpful and desirable, than people should give him support but if ruler (Khalifa) is Shaitan-sifat then people should fight him as their duty (and that would be jihad).
It does not mean … how a person gets into the position to rule (became Khalifa) is meaningless, but that should be secondary thing for most Muslims.
It is human nature that they make someone who is in position of authority over them as their God or divine ... taking his words as words of GOD ... and that is what many Muslims have also done over years .... but that is nothing to do with Islam.
In Islam, humans are humans, no one is divine nor should be made divine ... One who is nearest to Allah could be a very obscure person in society and could have much more importance in the sight of Allah than Khalifa-tul-Waqt, that only very few may know. But unfortunately, people, under the influence of Shaitan, love and worship power and position
As far as I know, there is no place in Quran Allah has used word 'Khalifa' for someone who was ruler (even rulers who were Prophets) ... and even Prophet (SAW) did not used the word Khalifa for a ruler. But then, Muslims have used the word Khalifa for rulers since day one.
Anyhow, there are some hadith (in Sunan Abu Dawood and other books) where it says that to fight a Zalim, Jabir and Fasiq ruler is best form of Jihad. Shows that ... A khalifa could be good Muslims or could be Zalim, Jabir and Fasiq too ... else if Khalifa cannot be Zalim, Jabir or Fasiq, then how can there be hadith telling Muslims to fight such Khalifa (or ruler), declaring that fight such Khalifa (ruler) is highest form of Jihad.
Re: Khilafat-need to know more
[QUOTE]
It is human nature that they make someone who is in position of authority over them as their God or divine ... taking his words as words of GOD ... and that is what many Muslims have also done over years .... but that is nothing to do with Islam.
In Islam, humans are humans, no one is divine nor should be made divine ... One who is nearest to Allah could be a very obscure person in society and could have much more importance in the sight of Allah than Khalifa-tul-Waqt, that only very few may know. But unfortunately, people, under the influence of Shaitan, love and worship power and position
[/QUOTE]
good explanation Sa1eem!
Re: Khilafat-need to know more
ummat ki khair issi baat main hai ke log khud ko ilmo fikar ke saath wabasta karen. tanzeemo munazzam zindagi ki ehmiyat ko samjhen. kyunkeh jab tak insaanu main rabto tasalsul ka khayaal peda nahin ho ga us waqt tak log is ki ehmiyat ko nahin samjhen ge aur ummat din badin deen se door hoti jaaye gi jaise hopti rahee hai. mazhabi pasti main girna har qowm ki mowt hai. deene khudaa wandi main insaniyat ki aabroo hai aur izzat mandaana baqaa hai.
khud ko sir syed, farahi, iqbal aur parwez ki ilmi satah par laayen ta keh aap dore haazir ke taqaazun ko samajh saken aur ummat ko saheeh simt le jaane ki mil kar rah dhoond saken.
maddrasa aur university ki taleem aik had tak to bahot hi mofeed hai magar yeh deen ki taleeem nahin hai yeh mazhab aur secular bunyaadun par mabni hai aur is main insaaniyat ki khair ka bunyaadi ansar madhoom hai jis ko deene khudaa wandi kehte hen. is ka logoon ko ilm bhi nahin hai.
Urdu Books By Allama Ghulam Ahmad Parwez
Books and Articles on Quran, Islam, Hadith, Science, Economics, Culture, and Life
in baatun se jo in kitaaboon main likhi hen aur droos main batayee gayee hen aap ko yeh achhi tarah maloom ho jaaye ga islam kia kia nahin ho sakta. islam kia hai is ko aap ko apni koshish se khud hi talaash karna ho ga quran par ghoro fikar se. yahee baat sab se aham hai jisse ham log kaan katraate hen.
yun to molvi logoon ne beshumaar kitaaben likhi hen magar woh sab ki sab aik hi tarah ki hen bebunyaad aqeedun ki qaido band ki wajah se. is ki wajah yeh thi keh logoon main ilmi salahiyatun ko parwaan nahin charne diya gayaa aur ghoro fikar par pabandiyan lagaa di gayen kyunkeh ilmi ghoro fikar ko farogh dene se hukamraanu, sarmayadaarun aur mullaanu ke zaati mufadaat par zad padti thi. in logoon ne apne mufadaat ke peshe nazar ummah ko andhe kunwen main dakail diya.
aaj ke dor main mazhab ki qaido band main zinda rehna intahee mushkil balkeh aik had tak naamumkin ho chuka hai. zaroorat is baat ki hai ham log haqaaiq ko samjhen aur deen ko samajhne ki taraf tawajo den taa keh ham phir se izzat se zinda rehne ke qaabil ho saken.
jab tak aap apni ilmi satah ko buland nahin karen ge meri baatun ko bhi aap samajhne se qaasar rahen ge. aap ko chahiye jis bulandi par aap ko aap ke ehle ilmo fikar ne pohnchaaya hai aap usse aage raasta dhoonden. aap agar peechhe ki taraf jayen ge to tabahi aur barbaadi ke siwaa aap ko kuchh haath aane waala nahin.
aap ko to is baat ka ehsaas tak nahin keh sir syed ne ham ko toham parasti se kitni mushkalaat se guzar kar nikaala tha. aap ko is baat ka bhi ehsaas nahin farahi ne ham ko kia diya. iqbal ne ham ko kin kin museebatun se nikaala aur kaise.
issi tarah log parwez ke khilaaf zubaan daraaz kar ke apni pani jahaalat ka saboot khud faraham karte hen. sahibe ilm logoon ki tazleel se un logoon ka kuchh bhi nahin bigardta magar aisa karne waale log apni tabahi ka khud bandobast kar lete hen.
jo log apni apni jahaalat ki wajah se khudaa, us ki kitaabun aur us ke rasoolun par gaali galoch karte hen woh in ka kia bigaardte hen ulta khud apni jahaalat ki wajah se apna hi nuqsaan karte hen aur karte rahe ge jab tak baaz na aayen ge.
Re: Khilafat-need to know more
The khilaafah the quran is talking about is fully explained in the quran but why most of the muslims have no idea it is there?
It is because we are slave to mazhabi mindset, attitude and behaviour.
We have very, very wrong ideas about islam in our heads. We have no idea how to make sense of the quranic text in its proper context.
For example, when we say the quran is a book of guidance, we think the quran is a book of instructions that are complete ie we do not need to make sense of it rather we read its instructions and act on them as if one by one like a computer program instructions.
This is a very wrong idea because if the quran had complete list of instructions then why we need hadith and fiqh?
The very same mistake is repeated by people who think the quran and hadith together make a complete list of instruction so that is all we need for a complete set of instructions to execute.
This is obviously wrong because if the quran and the hadith have compete set of instructions for our execution then why do we need fiqh? The very need of fiqh explains to us that we are following the quran in a totally wrong way because if we accept the quran complete and yet incomplete it is a contradiction within itself. It is because how can something be complete yet incomplete? Something can be either complete or incomplete. It is this way of our thinking that is responsible for our confusion.
There is nothing wrong at all with the idea that we need quran, hadith, fiqh, ijma and qayaas but where is the context?
I have explained the context in my post in this forum, so one should read those posts.
My basic point is aqal is basis for making proper sense of the quran. Once all instructions are worked out to the minute detail by ummah by aqalo fikar then it is time to work on them ie to execute them.
This is why the quran is a book of goals set for mankind by Allah that are supposed to be achieved by mankind according to a set of guidelines to fulfil the plan of Allah through his given program.
This is why set of instructions in detail is to be worked out by people themselves in relation to set goals. This is why Allah has given mankind brains and senses to learn and do things in light of the quranic goals and guidelines. This is why the quran does not contain any complete set of instruction about anything at all ready to be carried out like programmed robots.
The quran contains complete set of goals and guidelines not complete set of instructions. This is why ummah needs to come together and work out each and everything by prioritising its goals and guidelines and work out which goal it has to fulfil and how it may be fulfilled in light of related guidelines and ground realities of real world that face the ummah.
This is why it is very easy to prove the fact that our molvi sahibaan have little idea as to what deen of islam is actually all about.
This is why people should not waste their lives by following their nonsense in form of baseless beliefs and invented rituals that actually take us away from deen of Allah.
What do you need to manage a factory? Will you be given the job by the factory owner if you have no clue how to manage a factory or a business? Likewise we cannot decide about khilaafah unless we first find out what khilaafah is all about in the proper context of the quran.
Khilaafah is not a one man show as mullahs, rulers and money lenders will have us believe. It is an undertaking by people as an ummah to begin with.
It is all about establishing an ummah and then a kingdom based upon guidance of Allah.
Mullahs wrote books to legitimise imperialism by leballing it khilaafah. This is obvious from posts people have posted here on this forum and even on this very thread.
Khilaafah is all about people living by the book as an organised and regulated proper human community. The administration is put in place by the ummah to serve all its people so that community life runs smoothly through fulfilment of all its needs and wants.
This is why a lot of so called hadith and historical accounts are false because they were included in there by people with ulterior motives to legitimise their rule, businesses and make beliefs in order to fool masses to use and abuse them in the name of Allah, his book and messenger.
These people are people who want to establish kaala raaj
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x20lmp0_who-is-responsible-for-all-this_news#from=embediframe
People should learn reality by watching documentaries and movies about social upheavals to get the idea about roles played by rulers, money lenders and mullahs throughout the world.
The quran is merely a guiding book and it is up to people to come together on basis of its goals and guidelines and work out the ways and means that can help them accomplish what it says.
The quran does not tell us to worship people but to see what they did and how they did it and learn from that and try to do the best for mankind in our time.
Remember always the standard is word of Allah alone and not a human being, not even a messenger of Allah. Note very carefully that each and every messenger of Allah is only told about because he tried his best to make sense of message of Allah and tried his best to act upon it. Even messengers of Allah made odd mistakes and were corrected by Allah. So if no messenger of Allah can be taken as a standard then who else is better in mindset, attitude and behaviour than these people? So it should be clear that king of tis universe is Allah alone and it is his rule alone that is legitimate and proper.
So all people are told clearly in the quran that they must live by rule based upon guidance of Allah alone.
So first work out from the quran what is meant by rule based upon guidance of Allah and then see from the quran how each and every messenger of Allah struggled to bring about an ummah and a kingdom based upon guidance of Allah and then see hadith books and fiqh books and history books to see which information in them is according to the quran therefore true.
No hadith book nor any fiqh book is any standard to live by unless any piece of information it contains is according to the quran. What is according to the quran and what is not can also be decided by understanding the proper context of the quranic text. It is not a case of any mullah saying this is verse of the quran and that is what it means and so this or that hadith is according to the quran and this and that hadis is not.
The interpretation of the quranic verses needs to be in context to begin with. This is why to understand the quran is fundamental for understanding deen of islam.
It is very important for those who claim to be muslims to know that deen of islam is absolutely clear and none can disagree on basis of knowledge about it.
Who can disagree that quran is about unity of mankind and that is why there is concept of ummah and brotherhood in the quran?
Who can disagree that deen of islam is about peaceful existence of mankind as told in the quran?
Who can disagree that deen of islam is about progress of mankind according to the quran? Can anyone ensure peace and unity without progress and development of humanity?
Who can disagree that deen of islam is about well being and prosperity of mankind?
Who can disagree that deen of islam gives people freedom from ruling each other and tells people not to oppress and suppress each other?
Who can disagree that deen of islam is about delivering justice and fairness to mankind and that it stops people from dealing with each other unjustly and unfairly?
Who can disagree that deen of islam is about dealing with each other on basis of compassion and brotherhood and it stops people from being cruel and enemies to each other?
This list can go on and on and none can disagree on that because truth is true and falsehood is false.
It is in this context one has to discuss what is meaning of words like SALAAH, ZAKAAH, HAJJ, SOWM, MALAAIKAH, JAANN, BAEE, TIJAARAH, RIBAA, KHILAAFAH, UMMAH, DEEN, MUSLIM, MUNAAFIQ, KAAFIR, ZAALIM, FAASIQ, MASJID, HARAAM, HALAAL, RABB, ILAAH and many many more.
All sects disagree over mazhabi concepts and that is because they have been invented by mullahs themselves by twisting words in the scriptures and they have no clue how to justify them. Why mullahs of bani israel were condemned? Because they twisted words of Allah and wrapped them up in packages of their own.
Instead of establishing the ummah and kingdom based upon guidance of Allah, they legitimised rule by individuals over each other and ended up destroyed because that is where rule by people over people leads to.
You live by house rules which you agree upon and that you make sure they are solid and can provide solid foundation then nothing can go wrong so long as you act upon them but as soon as you try to live by rules that are baseless you can never bring about an ummah that is free of conflicts based upon personal gains.
So concept of khilaafah is based upon solid foundation of the quran and not on any person. If foundation is solid and if a person has proper understanding of it and then acts upon it faithfully, can anything go wrong? Not at all.
Our hadith reports and historical accounts have been passed down to us through imperialism and that is why we need to be very careful when we take them as basis and start arguing against each other.
God is not going to send any more books and messengers to correect us so we are on our own in trying to make sense of these sources of information. We should not never discard these sources of information but we should never accept them 100% true accounts. The only 100% true source of deen of islam is quran and even that is only in text and its context has been muddled up by same forces who invented mazhabe islam in order to legitimise mazhab to replace deen of islam. They have succeeded so far but not far long because people in the ummah are beginning to wake up again to this conspiracy by rulers, mullahs and money lenders.
There is hopefully going to be a huge change in ummah in next generation or two.