:k: Good reply Clubber Lang!
[QUOTE]
Originally posted by ak47: *
Monarchy is where the king makes rules for himself and does thing as he pleases. The khalifhs always implemented shariah as there source not there own whims and desires.
[/quote]
*
In khilafah form of government, a 'khalifa' is allowed to kill those who do not approve of him as "khalifa"? Is persecution allowed in Islam of those people? wether it be right opposition or wrong?
Remember why Hazrat Hussain RA was martyred? There are several other instances of killing/martyring by order of "khalifa" of those who didn't approve their "khilafah"?
Anyway, I don't think that there existed "khilafa" after Hazrat Ali RA. Hazrat Hasan RA's must've been, and others mentioned by one other bro here, but rest of them were "kings".
Do you know when Hazrat Muwaiya RA nominated his own son to be next khalifah what was lifestyle of Yazeed? Yazeed was not considered a good Muslim.... but still "nominated" for next khalifa!!?? Thats what the "kingship" is about, ain't it?
[quote]
**In the history of islam from muhammad(Saw) to the end of the islamic state in 19th century the leaders have all been legitimate and been given the bayah.
Why was Hazrat Hussain RA martyred? Hazrat Abdullah bin Ibn-e-Zubair was martyred in Mecca, in Haram-shareef!!? why?
[quote]
Only one incident in the entire 1400 years was the leadership questionable and that was at time of Yazid where Muawiyah forced the bayah to be accepted for his son and this is not allowed.
[/quote]
**
But if I look at the "family" tree of the rest of "khalifas" they all happen to be from one/two families? Howcome no one outside these families was more righteous, more capable, better leader??
[quote]
Even umar bin khattab was going to allow his son to be next kahlifh but then did'nt let him because he was competent enough. Indictaing if Umars son was competent he could also have become khalifh would people then say oh the *islamic state leadership is based on nepotism! *
[/quote]
So he was against the idea of nominating his own son, right?
Isn’t the Ottoman Empire like.. extinct? How the heck r we supposed to know what it really was - were we alive then?
:lost:
*this is what happens when u have cereals with OJ… eeeek *
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by khan_sahib: *
so, what's the problem? **
no problemo amigo
*man u don't like it if it's kingdomship and u complain if it's like democratic elections. :) *
Not at all, I am just hinting that the selection of a khalifah in modern day and age will have to be elections. which is s good thing.
*there is no problem if there are elections to choose a khalifa but it's just that things have been made complicated so much so that people don't know what Khalifa stands for. *
agreed 100%. people want their own power and they see khilafah as their way to get power.
Ana
There are usually large buildings known as “libraries”. and they have these little things called “books” now some of these “books” relate to “history” i.e. accounts of what happened in the past.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Gadha: *
Just to sum up for the original question that was asked, let us make our authority Rasoolullah (SAW) himself... Is there any thing to say after what he (SAW) said it for the matter being discussed?
The Prophet sallallaahu `alayhi wa sallam said:
"The Caliphate will remain in my nation after me for thirty years. Then, it will be a monarchy after that."
[Ahmad, Tirmidhi and others, Sahih Al-Jami` ' As-Saghir no. 3341].
[/QUOTE]
Thank you, so the Khilafah was not destroyed in 1929 but a corrupt, dying empire. Thank you for providing this information
Originally posted by ak47: *
**Monarchy is where the king makes rules for himself and does thing as he pleases. The khalifhs always implemented shariah as there source not there own whims and desires. *
Always?? hmmm
are you suggesting that every "khalifah" made all his rulings and rules based on shariah? Please confirm if that is indeed what you mean.
*In the history of islam from muhammad(Saw) to the end of the islamic state in 19th century the leaders have all been legitimate and been given the bayah. *
So they basically met the requirements to be the khalifah and were freely pikced by ppl. Amazing how the son of one Sultan for some odd reason was always the best person to lead.
and yes the bayya to sultans came after they had taken the thgrone, not the other way round.
*Only one incident in the entire 1400 years was the leadership questionable and that was at time of Yazid where Muawiyah forced the bayah to be accepted for his son and this is not allowed. *
okay then. are you suggesting that every other khalifah or "sultan" had the empire ran just the way you envision a khilafah to be.
now in theose times that there were 2 different khilafahs that existed.which khalifah was the legitimate khalifah. please elaborate on that as well.
[quote]
There are usually large buildings known as "libraries". and they have these little things called "books" now some of these "books" relate to "history" i.e. accounts of what happened in the past.
[/quote]
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
:wide-eyed:
Fraudia
how about reading islamic history instead of sitting in that armchair and complaining!
Your hero Bush is not even american president its AL gore but nobody question is America capitalist state, with capitalism laws and capitalist economy.
So if in the Islamic state there where mistakes and there was does not mean it was not islamic state because it is human state and naturally mistakes occurred because its not state of angels.
Even time of muhammad(saw) there where mistakes and problems.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by ak47: *
Fraudia
how about reading islamic history instead of sitting in that armchair and complaining! **
dude why so jealous of my armchair. as far as reading history i suggest you do the same because the ottoman Sultans were not Kaliphs.
once younunderstand the kanun and what kanun-e_Osmani was then we will talk.
Khilafah was not destroyed by the "west" but by our own people, what was destroyed in 1929 was a decaying empire..
*Your hero Bush is not even american president its AL gore but nobody question is America capitalist state, with capitalism laws and capitalist economy. *
dude quit going on tangents we are talkign about whether Ottoman Sultans were kalhifahs and whether the empire was a khilafah. So please stop using your trump card of capitalism this capitlaism thatnand stick to the topic.
*So if in the Islamic state there where mistakes and there was does not mean it was not islamic state because it is human state and naturally mistakes occurred because its not state of angels. *
By that token any state is an islamic state, because mistakes happen since we're no angels. Right.
*Even time of muhammad(saw) there where mistakes and problems. *
Mistakes are one thing, monarchy is another.
here is info on one of your beloved sultans. Nice kHalifah eh? lemme know when you want to know more about the ottomon sultans.
*In the decline of the Ottoman Empire, Selim II (1566-1574) was the son of Süleyman I. It's clear that Selim was the first disinterested Sultan among the Ottomans. Addicted to sexual and alcholic pleasures, passing most of his time in the harem, Selim, known in the history as "Selim the Drunk", retired almost completely from the decision- making and administrative apparatus of the Ottoman state. *
Fraudi
What is this in the history of islam 1400 year you pick out certain mistakes and dimiss the entire history of islam as a monarchy what nonsense.
Monarchys do not last for 1400 years for your information.
As ak pointed out bush or al gore who is president does'nt matter the american state is still a capitalist state no one doubts that. The analogy applies also the islamic state is an islamic state depite if there where mistakes because people know it implemtns the system of islam on them.
this ottoman khilafah is the same ottoman khilafah that opened much of europe to islam.
*Originally posted by Saif1924: *
**Fraudi
What is this in the history of islam 1400 year you pick out certain mistakes and dimiss the entire history of islam as a monarchy what nonsense. **
chanda, read the topic heading, I am talking specifically about the Ottoman empire. Ottoman empire btw had its starts in 1299 A.D.
*Monarchys do not last for 1400 years for your information. *
Please refer to my previous point :)
*The analogy applies also the islamic state is an islamic state depite if there where mistakes because people know it implemtns the system of islam on them. *
A khalifah is chosen by people based on his piety as well as leadership. It is not supposed to be a dynasty, which the Ottomans were.
*this ottoman khilafah is the same ottoman khilafah that opened much of europe to islam. *
Because he is the son of Suleyman the magnificent, who set the stage for all that, btw also look up the "kanun" system started by Suleyman which finally resulted in Kanun-e-Osmania i.e ottoman laws, and find out how many of those necessarily were sharia based.
If you want me to start talkign about the fatimid and ummayad dynasties I can do that as well.
But dont claim khilfah was destroyed in 1929. It was an empire that was destroyed, and the Empire was once great but had been crumbling at the core due to the the industrial revolution which it missed, as well as Wars internally and externally. Not to mention the corruption among the bureaucracy.
Was Ottoman Empire a great empire, definitely, especially during the time of Suleyman the Magnificent, but it was not a khilafah.
you can quote western orientalist history all you want. Facts are islam had history of 1400 years and all the leaders had the bayah.
this in turn means they are khalifhs.
Secondly your assuption that every khalifh needs support of every citizen is not binding it is recommended if you look at history of khalifhs including the khilafah rashideen you will see the selection process of khalifh was different in each case but all permissable
the islamic state was destoyed in 1924 to say it was destroyed after first 4 khalifhs is just laughable and straight out of SOAS!
and finally maybe you should say chanda to your father not me!
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Saif1924: *
**you can quote western orientalist history all you want. Facts are islam had history of 1400 years and all the leaders had the bayah.
this in turn means they are khalifhs. **
so as long as someone has the bayah he is the kaliph. no matter how crooked he is and how he runs his harem or how drunk he is? kewl...can u mail me an application form?
I have solved the problem, Musharraf is the new Khalifah since the referendum was a form of Bayah, and well he dinn need approval of all muslims or anything, so Mushy is ameer ul momineen and khalifah :)
*Secondly your assuption that every khalifh needs support of every citizen is not binding it is recommended if you look at history of khalifhs including the khilafah rashideen you will see the selection process of khalifh was different in each case but all permissable *
but its not a birthright, which the ottoman monarchy was.
*the islamic state was destoyed in 1924 to say it was destroyed after first 4 khalifhs is just laughable and straight out of SOAS! *
The Ottoman Empire was destroyed, not the islamic state. as I said the laws of the Ottoman Empire, i.e. kanun-e-Osmani were seprate from teh Sahriah anyways :)
Hows this, you explain what a khilafah is..dinn you talk that its diff from democracy and that it has divine laws to rule and not man made laws? how do kanun-e-Osmania fit in there :)
Go ponder, think, talk to your HT secret circle buddies and then let me know.
If a khalifh is crooked he needs to be accounted. If he is not accounted then that is weakness of people doing the accounting.
The ottoman khilafah no doubt had weakness and islam was not fully implemented one problem was absence of arabic language new problems could not be solved without the method of ijtihad which requires arabic as a prerequisite.
The ottoman khilafah was a khilafah because the contract of khilafah was fulfilled with the bayah. If you want to question certain policies or action that is different issue.
If your going to resort to insults and comparing islamic groups to freemasons then its obvious you have more free time than me and i will let you contine with you childish remarks.
The Usmanis --may Allah have mercy on them all!--were great sultans, generally very pious and god-fearing Sunni Muslims (despite Orientalist propoganda) who did a great deal for Islam and the Muslims and the fall of the Usmanli State was a great loss to this Ummah BUT strictly speaking, just in strict Shar'iah terms they were NOT khalifahs as one of the conditions for Caliphate in Islam is that the Caliph MUST be from the Quraysh tribe and the Usmanlis obviously weren't.
Asif
that hadith i think which you are using to say the khalifahs must be from quraysh tribe is not binding it is recommended.
i.e hadith indictating if khalifah from quraysh tribe then good if not then it not haram either.
I am quoting from memory regarding the hadith here so may allah forgive me for any mistake i may have made.