how about something even better than khilafah ...
UNITED NATIONS: the khilafah of "humanity" instead of "division of humanity into superior humans (muslims) and inferior humans (non-muslims)"
the system (UN) is there, it just needs more strength and respect from "both" sides
Sorry brother I would disagree with you, nothing is better and history has it that never ever came a system better than the Khilafah system. Let me clarify that the Khilafah system I speak of is the Khilafah of the Four rightly guided Caliphs of Islam.
In the Sharia' everyone has rights that are given and ordained by ALLAH. Unfortunately, we the humans are corrupt so much that we rather argue more of them, instead of implementing them as divine decree of the ALL MIGHTY.
Bro let me tell you the reality of the period of Khilafah of the Four rightly guided Caliphs of Islam:
Abu Bakr: deceased in office (no problem)
Umar: assassinated
Usman: assassinated
Ali: assassinated
This is the reality of your "nothing is better in history than this" where the assassination rate of the Head of State is 75% ... I'm not interested in that kind of system and there have definitely been systems in the world today where citizens enjoy equal or better human rights and the assassination rate of the Head of State is zero for many decades ... (and it also has a name for it, it's called GENUINE DEMOCRACY, not to be confused with the so-called crap democracy of you-know-which-country)
NOTE: I don't have a problem with Khilafah per se ... if majority of muslims want that, have at it ... I just think today's world issues have mostly to do with economics, human-rights, etc and very less to do with religion or idealogy ... and i think those who try to connect the two are living in la la land
how about something even better than khilafah ...
UNITED NATIONS: the khilafah of "humanity" instead of "division of humanity into superior humans (muslims) and inferior humans (non-muslims)"
the system (UN) is there, it just needs more strength and respect from "both" sides
Bro let me tell you the reality of the period of Khilafah of the Four rightly guided Caliphs of Islam:
Abu Bakr: deceased in office (no problem)
Umar: assassinated
Usman: assassinated
Ali: assassinated
This is the reality of your "nothing is better in history than this" where the assassination rate of the Head of State is 75% ... I'm not interested in that kind of system and there have definitely been systems in the world today where citizens enjoy equal or better human rights and the assassination rate of the Head of State is zero for many decades ... (and it also has a name for it, it's called GENUINE DEMOCRACY, not to be confused with the so-called crap democracy of you-know-which-country)
NOTE: I don't have a problem with Khilafah per se ... if majority of muslims want that, have at it ... I just think today's world issues have mostly to do with economics, human-rights, etc and very less to do with religion or idealogy ... and i think those who try to connect the two are living in la la land
I disagree with your statement. First, it should be noted that the concept of a so-called "Islamic State" in Quran does not occur. The Holy Quran lays down the guidelines for only one State, without mentioning religion. These guidelines are for all citizens equally, regardless of their religious affiliation.ALHAMDULLILAH THE VIDEO IS COMPLETE TO GUIDE SINCERE MUSLIMS...islam is a politcal system...,support khilafah even on expense on ur lives!!!!
this is a poor methodology to use as a way to make judgment of a system. The Caliphal system spans 12 hundred years thus marking down that 75 percent to about 3 percent, which is most likely less than the rate of assassinations held in democracies if you want to get technical, however i find it of poor academic use to utilize this as an issue to judge the basis of systems.
If you care to check the post to which I responded, he/she specifically pointed out 'the caliphate of the FOUR RIGHTLY GUIDED'
If you want me to consider there rest of the ~1200 tyrant years, in which Abbasids took out the corpses of dead Ummayyads and lashed them in public, and almost every new caliph tortured, maimed, killed, his enemies, if not rolling in a pool of public money and gold, and then the Ottomans caliphs would kill their brothers and fathers to consolidate their powers, and so on and so forth (the list is endless) ... I am more than happy to reveal the dirty laundry of those ~1200 years in public
That's why 99% muslims talking about Restoration of Khilafah don't wanna talk about any time period other than that of the 'FOUR RIGHTLY GUIDED' (and sometimes including the time of Umar bin Abdul Aziz, who by the way was also poisoned in office and that increases the assassination rate to 80% lolz) and that's where the 75% percent assassination rate comes into the picture.
So you make up your mind:
- take all ~1200 years as a model of Caliphate and get the thrashing from literally every other political system in the world
- take the time-period of only the four rightly guided as the Caliphate and accept the 75% assassination rate as the correct figure
As for the general objection of "assassination rate as a poor metric to judge a political system":
- First of all it's a very valid metric to see if a political system is workable or not. At 75% it's one of the most important metrics to judge the effectiveness of a political system. If democracy had produced 75% assassination rate, it would've been wiped out long ago from the face of the earth. The only valid objection is that this rate is calculated from only 4 data points (the four caliphs) and this many data points is statistically not enough to predict the success of the system. But my response to that is, now you wanna talk about statistics and accurately establishing the success/failure rate of the system? but when you wanna quote good bits out of that period, then '4 caliphs' is all it takes to conclude that it is the best system in the world. See the double standard?
- and second of all, Caliphate proponents (or propagandists I shall say) don't just consider that period as a "workable system", they call it "quite literally the perfect system in the world ever" (perfect as in from the "rightly guided" and therefore needs to be followed to the tee) ... the latter is a much stronger claim ... and you should know better that the stronger the claim is, the easier it is to point out flaws in it (and that's why assassination rate metric is more than enough to refute the claim). And that's the difference between the proponents of Caliphate and the proponents of Democracy. The proponents of Democracy don't make claims of such out-of-control grandeur. They only call it a "workable system that constantly needs monitoring and improvement". In fact, many call it "lesser of all evils" meaning it's still a very imperfect system. Once you admit you're dealing with an imperfect system and are willing to fix it if you see something wrong with it, it's very hard to beat that. But the problem with Caliphate proponents is that they can't afford to call it a "LESS THAN PERFECT" system cz otherwise it loses being the "RIGHTLY GUIDED" system.
P.S.: After watching the 5 minutes of the Tahir-ul-Qadri video posted below, I agree with him. It doesn't make any sense to talk of 'need to restore Caliphate' without first clearly defining what Caliphate is:
- If Caliphate is "safety and security and justice for every individual" then what's the difference b/w a working Democracy and Caliphate?
- If Caliphate is "selection instead of election" then the question is: was selection the reason for safety, security and justice in that era? are you sure election cannot do that? do you have any arguments to back up your claim?
- If Caliphate is "culture of that era: camels instead of cars, date-palm trees and mud-houses" then the discussion is over already
- If Caliphate is "following Quran and Prophets teachings" then again, you need democracy (i.e., willingness of the people) to put it into law, so again it's the democracy (will of the people) that would enable that, where is the caliphate then?
- If Caliphate is "all muslim countries unite", then first we already have OIC, what you're essentially asking is OIC should have more power over individual countries, right? even for that you need willingness of all participating countries, which is a form of democracy but at the level of the countries. And if any country's people (Turkey let's say) don't want to take dictation from OIC then you can't do anything about it. So again democracy wins. And also what is the point of uniting muslim countries? what is the need for that? (to stop drone attacks in Pakistan? which can easily be stopped if there is a genuine democracy in pakistan alone, no need for other muslim countries)
- If Caliphate is "the magic wand that would rid us of corrupt politicians, bureaucracy, courts, police, etc etc etc" then you're living in la la land ... magic wands don't exist in reality, the only thing that exists is "effort", "hard work", and "patience" to reach your goal. And by effort and hard work I mean trying to understanding the problem, educating yourself, non-violent activism for your rights, etc, essentially using your brain and your body instead of your emotions.
I disagree with your statement. First, it should be noted that the concept of a so-called "Islamic State" in Quran does not occur. The Holy Quran lays down the guidelines for only one State, without mentioning religion. These guidelines are for all citizens equally, regardless of their religious affiliation.
In this sense, also a Muslim country is basically a secular state, in the sense that the state constitution absolutely no difference between a Muslim and non-Muslim does in terms of the fundamental rights of citizens.
The top priority for every state, according to the teachings of Islam, is absolute righteousness.
Allah says in Quran: "O ye who believe! be steadfast in the cause of Allah, bearing witness in equity; and let not a people’s enmity incite you to act otherwise than with justice. Be always just, that is nearer to righteousness. And fear Allah. Surely, Allah is aware of what you do."(5:9)
At the time of Holy Prophet Muhammad(saw) religion and state were intertwined because of the prevailing conditions during a certain time together. But this is not a requirement. A unity of politics and religion, writes that Islam is not available. The Holy Quran says: " Verily, Allah commands you to make over the trusts to those entitled to them, and that, when you judge between men, you judge with justice. And surely excellent is that with which Allah admonishes you! Allah is All-Hearing, All-Seeing. O ye who believe! obey Allah, and obey His Messenger and those who are in authority among you. And if you differ in anything among yourselves, refer it to Allah and His Messenger if you are believers in Allah and the Last Day. That is best and most commendable in the end." (4:59-60)
According to these verses democracy is indeed a possible form of government. Specifically, it says "trusteeship" to hand over the business of government to those who are worthy. People should elect such people who can assure that Justice will prevail.
Khulfah e Rashida kae baad , harat Umar bin Abdul aziz r.a ke elwa , KITnAE KHULFA A GAE?
WE USUALLY CALL ALL THE MONARCHS/KINGS AS KHALIFAHs......
OTTOMAN EMPIRE KA LAST HEIR BHI CALIPAH THAE , POINT IS , THESE SCHOLARS WERE ALL OUT THERE , except few , LIKE Imam Abu Hanifah , HOW MANY WENT AGAINST KINGS TO DEPLOY CALIPHATE??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
ye na mullaon sa hona hae , na paid uprising sae ,
Hota wohi hae jo Allah ko manzoor hota ha ,
RAmember :
Hoti hae Mujahid KI Azan aur....................
© Copyrights 2008 - 2025 Siasat.pk - All Rights Reserved. Privacy Policy | Disclaimer|