Worldwide caliph

[Bornagain]

Much has been said, on various websites, about Muslims desire for a world wide caliphate under which all would necessarily convert to Islam or be dhimmis and live as 2nd class citizens under protective treaties that may or may not be honored. (Or at the worst, convert or die) There is known persecution of Christians in Muslim countries. Articles are available that tell of torture, imprisonment and death for Christians who refuse to convert or for those who convert to Christianity from Islam. How is it said then that Islam is a peaceful religion which honors human life? (Someone said that on another thread)

[جوري]

I am not sure you've learned anything from either threads you started and if it weren't obvious before that you're a troll it's certainly obvious now. It's unfortunate for folks to have labored so much to teach you something and you insist on being this dense all throughout- I hope no one bothers to dignify your incessantly vitriolic nonsensical threads with a response from this point on!
You're a poster child for the bible thumping bumpkins that spring out of the belt!
Good luck learning anything that doesn't conform with your mangod religion

[Aprender]

Answer these first, please: Are you serious? Or are you trying to start trouble?

If you're serious I will proceed to answer the question, in shaa Allah but only after I get an answer from you.

Thank you.

[Mustafa2012]

Much has been said, on various websites, about Muslims desire for a world wide caliphate under which all would necessarily convert to Islam or be dhimmis and live as 2nd class citizens under protective treaties that may or may not be honored. (Or at the worst, convert or die) There is known persecution of Christians in Muslim countries. Articles are available that tell of torture, imprisonment and death for Christians who refuse to convert or for those who convert to Christianity from Islam. How is it said then that Islam is a peaceful religion which honors human life? (Someone said that on another thread)

Firstly I don't know who you've been speaking to or what websites you've been visiting but going on the assumptions you've made in the other thread "Why the violence?" it seems that you've got a very negative image of Islaam?

If anyone is forcing people to convert or oppressing them due to their choice of religion that is clearly wrong and unacceptable. Whoever is doing this is committing oppression and doing it out of a wrong understanding of Islam.

If you look into the history of Islam you will find many incidents where Jews and Christians were allowed to live in Muslim countries under peace and protection.

Unfortunately the media is quick to find stories of oppression against non Muslims and make big news of it and try to make it sound like it is the norm when it isn't.

They are also very slow to report many stories of oppression against Muslims by non Muslims which is a bit sad and disappointing.

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

[جوري]

Why are we making excuses for this broad? Lol - unfortunately I still have no net access power/ water etc. but someone should YouTube for this chick all the evangelizing crusaders let loose in the Muslim world and especially in Afghanistan or even here the pedophile creeps taunting little Muslim boys trying to force convert them? Are we forcing a caliphate or they their own brand of 'democracy' by force.
Someone should ban this bot she's starting to get on my nerves!

[Eric H]

Greetings and peace be with you Bornagain; we are Christian guests on an Islamic forum,

The greatest thing that Jesus commanded us to do was to love God and to love our neighbours as we love ourselves. If we do anything less than these commandments means we are not doing a greatest good

In the spirit of praying for a greater interfaith tolerance and friendship,

Eric

[Perseveranze]

"I've come on these forums to hear Muslims side of the story, because my infallible best friend and Church Priest said Islam is evil. I wanted to ask, why do Muslims kill and try to force people to convert to Islam?"

*Ignores "Muslim side of the story"

"why do Muslims kill and try to force people to convert to Islam?"

Something like that lol

[Hulk]

Wow you used the word "dhimmi". You must know all about it.

[Scimitar]

\pre-crusade Jerusalem... nuff said. !!!!

[M.I.A.]

the way i see it, persecution works at an individual level way before governmental level.

we do it each and every day simply to survive.

maybe we dont know we are doing it but the majority do.


thats the pivot of the question, unless a person can work out how persecution works.. how can you expect them to set rules and guidlines to protect individual freedoms.

and sometimes they need saving from themselves.. so some of the laws seem extremely prohibitive.


as for persecution of other religions, its easily done from the top. but you would expect more from people that came from the bottom.

live and learn.

a case in point is the jews.

they experienced the holocaust first hand (recent history, although it is a common theme)

and yet they do the same to palestinians.

i know its a case of safegaurding there own and to stop persecution of the jews.. but at the same time overlooking all the errors in judgement along the way.


in conclusion.

a caliphate of just rule should be established on firm foundations.. the pillars of faith should not be forgotten in the pursuit of building a united kingdom.

otherwise they will always collapse under the pressure.



in my personal opinion, the wicked west is the most free in terms of practising religion, freedom of speech and personal liberty.

sure it allows for behaviour condemned in islam and allows for those views to be aired.


but if anybody ever had a chance to be heard it is in the west rather than the east. if you cant make it work in the west then there is no hope of getting it right anywhere else.

actually trying to do anything about it will lead you to a very detailed understanding of persecution.


...i have said before that islam did not start of as a government but a movement, encountering much persecution.

i guess you learn the most when you dont have the upper hand.

[- Qatada -]

\pre-crusade Jerusalem... nuff said. !!!!

Salahuddin, or Saladin :)

Bornagain, read about him here:
http://www.islamicboard.com/islamic-...in-al-din.html


Extract:

The non-Muslims of Jerusalem asked for mercy and he gave it. Every man, woman and child was allowed to ransom themselves for a paltry price. He kept order in every street and refused to allow the People of the Book to be verbally abused, much less molested. What a far cry from the victorious Christians of 1099 (and the 1980s) who killed, tortured, shot in cold blood and burnt defenceless Muslims in the streets of Al-Aqsa. “Fortunate were the merciless because they obtained mercy at the hands of the Muslim Sultan,” said Lane.

[Scimitar]

You know what I really think is a fail about forums? any tom dick and herbert schmuck face will ask troll questions without seeking to find answers themselves first.

Just because this is a Muslim forum, it doesn't mean we're all historians now does it? Nor does it mean anything else. All a forum is really is a message board - and not some kind of resource site. Sure, there will be links to resources - but will trolls ever use the "search" function? no.

M.O noted, I ask you all to be ready to fire back with questions which expose their all too obvious M.O and lack of research on questions they seek answers to.

@Qatada, bro, you on the ball as always.

[Bornagain]

Wow. I'm a "troll broad", a "tom dick and herbert schmuck face" and what else? Vitriol is very easily produced here it seems. What I've heard so far is defensive, angry and hateful retorts to my posts. And a great deal about how everyone picks on the Muslims, how "unfair" and onesided it all is. It is exactly what I hear from other groups that have the same martyr attitudes. Now, it may be that Muslims are and have been mistreated. I don't know. As someone here has said, "we" are not historians. Well, neither am I. I've heard repeatedly here and other places about the terrible Crusaders and their violence and murders and on and on. Things that happened so long ago seem to be very much a presence in some people's thinking. And the blurring of edges between Christians and military actions by the US and other countries is also becoming clear. It is almost as if the US and other countries military is made up of Christians, which I can assure you in the case of the US, at least, is most definitely NOT true.

I don't know exactly what produced such vitriolic reactions to my posts but one thing is also becoming clear and that is that I'm not getting answers to the questions but mainly rebukes, sometimes worded in very rude, hateful ways, sometimes in cautionary ways. I've heard a Muslim speaker say that there is no freedom of speech in Islam. Though I think it was intended to say there is not freedom to speak against Mohammed or the god of Islam, it does seem to be part of the thinking on this forum. I don't intend to stop posting, so fire away, you brave mud slingers. Just btw, I have gone to some of the sites mentioned to me. And read from them. (Just so you know, Scimitar.)

[جوري]

Glad you enjoyed the word I used to describe your posts enough to use it repeatedly in yours!
What you think and write is utterly irrelevant and inconsequential otherwise a desperate plea for attention after repeated & petty attempts at a drive by shooting!
Ugh

[Samiun]

Why is this guy/girl not banned again? He/she is probablt wanting to see us to react in a hateful manner, but I'm sure u guys knew that this is a troll lol..

edit: It's kinda ironic that you say that the US army isn't made up of Christians but you treat a different way about Muslims that you see on T.V.. If you are genuine with your question, then start answering the posts by other members and not just trash talk about Islam

[Aprender]

I was trying to give her a chance to show her sincerity but I guess not. Didn't get my questions answered. You know, I was a Christian on this forum for a while too and I had questions but I never framed them in such a hateful and dishonest way like this person has. And if I did I apologized beforehand out of my own ignorance.

It is almost as if the US and other countries military is made up of Christians, which I can assure you in the case of the US,

You know what, a few people you're talking to on this forum right now are Americans so don't try to act like we Muslims know nothing about the U.S. We are everywhere. We have a few Muslims and a Hindu holding seats in Congress. That's another part of your attitude that I don't like. Thinking we're all far off in some foreign land and don't know anything about the U.S. It's patronizing. I get it, we sometimes want to look for understanding and commonality to better ourselves and change our outlook but you cannot do what you're doing then expect Muslims here to not advise you to change your method of inquiry.

You can't talk to people with preconceived notions about who they are and about our religion repeating lies and hateful thinking you've heard from others and expect us to take you seriously. You just can't. And now you're right here saying there is no freedom of speech in Islam due to your own intellectual faults and bias. That's why you got the reactions you got.

Since you couldn't take the time to answer my questions I will have to respectfully decline to answer yours. Have a wonderful day and I do hope that you gain some sincerity in your heart some day and want to learn the truth about Islam.

Peace.

[Scimitar]

Wow. I'm a "troll broad", a "tom dick and herbert schmuck face"

Your name is herbert? thought you was a woman... funny ole world isn't it?

and what else? Vitriol is very easily produced here it seems. What I've heard so far is defensive, angry and hateful retorts to my posts. And a great deal about how everyone picks on the Muslims, how "unfair" and onesided it all is. It is exactly what I hear from other groups that have the same martyr attitudes.

Martyr attitudes. pfft. This is a message board, not Afghanistan. Post in context of the place you visit, and not the bias you harbour in your heart.

Now, it may be that Muslims are and have been mistreated. I don't know. As someone here has said, "we" are not historians. Well, neither am I. I've heard repeatedly here and other places about the terrible Crusaders and their violence and murders and on and on. Things that happened so long ago seem to be very much a presence in some people's thinking. And the blurring of edges between Christians and military actions by the US and other countries is also becoming clear. It is almost as if the US and other countries military is made up of Christians, which I can assure you in the case of the US, at least, is most definitely NOT true.

Actually it is true. Most of America is Christian - maybe you conveniently forgot that. You've got problems on your own shores - especially with that Westboro Church, who are coincidentally - Americas biggest terrorists. Must I remind you that they bomb abortion clinics in your country? I've got stats that will make you raise an eyebrow and think twice about throwing allegations around.

As for the crusader era reference I made, the shame is that you failed to realise the relevance of the post. Maybe you didn't know that when Muslims ruled over Jerusalem, the Dhimmi's were actually better off than the Muslims - even financially. They also enjoyed the same freedoms that Muslims did, and fought together - Muslims, Christians and Jews, against a common enemy - the Crusaders. in some places, knee deep in blood. Why would they do that? I ask you to think.

I don't know exactly what produced such vitriolic reactions to my posts but one thing is also becoming clear and that is that I'm not getting answers to the questions but mainly rebukes, sometimes worded in very rude, hateful ways, sometimes in cautionary ways. I've heard a Muslim speaker say that there is no freedom of speech in Islam. Though I think it was intended to say there is not freedom to speak against Mohammed or the god of Islam, it does seem to be part of the thinking on this forum. I don't intend to stop posting, so fire away, you brave mud slingers. Just btw, I have gone to some of the sites mentioned to me. And read from them. (Just so you know, Scimitar.)

Nice rant. I'll attempt to indulge you a little.

People here have answered your questions, in that other thread - yet you have largely ignored their answers and decided to open this thread instead. No doubt, if I went to a Christian forum and started griping on about the inconsistencies in the bible, and got responses which I ignored - then created a thread which repeated the same M.O, the Christians would surely be annoyed. Especially since they took the time to post so you can get some answers.

With regard to FREE SPEECH, we do actually have it in Islam. Infact, any normal lay person has the right to accuse the khaliph of not fulfilling his duties to the Ummah (Muslim Nations). We don't have a khlaiph atm, simply because the Ottomon empire was engineered to collapse by the Brits, with the help of the House of Saud - it finally fell in the year 1924.

Since then, FREE SPEECH has been engineered to be curbed in the Muslim nations, the fear of getting shot dead for speaking up against the puppet powers that be is apparently too much for simple folk. But all that is changing now - since 2011 we have seen rebellions rising up all over the Muslim nations. Seems we've finally had enough.

I want to add that FREE SPEECH is a joke in America, your first amendment is a complete joke. A contradiction of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It's become such an issue that even the BBC had to address it recently. You shoulda seen the complaints profile that resulted from the programme.

See, in the USA, FREE SPEECH is supporting HATE SPEECH.

here, check this out: http://vigilantcitizen.com/vcboards/...hp?f=7&t=17719 you might come to understand that there are some good hearted Christians who know that the first amendment contradicts their very own faith. You may even learn from them, and not the trolls who posted in that thread.

As for speaking against the Prophet Muhammad pbuh or Allah, who is your God and my God - with a CAPITAL "G", I may add - do what you will.

Do you know what happens when people try to belittle Islam in the west? I give you one example. Recall that pastor who held the burn a Quran day. His congregation consisted of 30 people, mostly members of his own family... his stunt attracted the media the world over. People from his own town decided to know about Islam, what it was and why it was so "bad" and "evil". Guess what? In total - more than 30 people from his very own locality came to embrace Islam - more than his entire congregation. So really - we're not that worried. Only those poor, uneducated, teens who have too many hormones and not enough sense go all awol and decide to kill ambassadors - an act that is abhorred by the Muslim community at large.



I'm pleased you went to the sites some have mentioned to you.

I also sympathise with you a little actually. We do have some rather gung ho members here. And some who are very mild mannered too - it seems that the gung ho ones have managed to paint us all with the same brush.

Also, when I made that Tom Dick and Herbert comment, I wasn't aiming it at you, it was more of a generalisation due to past experiences on the forum. We've had trolls aplenty here, sister BornAgain.

Now that I know you aren't a one post wonder who will disappear, I will endeavour to indulge your curiosities. I'm pleased you posted back, maybe now we can open a proper rapport between us. You will find that we aren't that different. We have much in common.

Scimi

[Bornagain]

Why is this guy/girl not banned again? He/she is probablt wanting to see us to react in a hateful manner, but I'm sure u guys knew that this is a troll lol..

edit: It's kinda ironic that you say that the US army isn't made up of Christians but you treat a different way about Muslims that you see on T.V.. If you are genuine with your question, then start answering the posts by other members and not just trash talk about Islam

How would you like me to answer, Samiun? And where am I "trash talking" about Islam? The reactions on this forum to my posts is very revealing of the mind set of some on here who are apparently Muslim. "Wanting to see "us" react in a hateful manner"? Did I have to wait at all for that to show up? As far as "not answering questions", so far as I can see there are none for me to answer, just mine that don't get answered.

[جوري]

Take a lesson 'BornAgain' of how questions should be posed and what a fair exchange looks like from this thread:
http://www.islamicboard.com/comparat...ism-islam.html

it doesn't take a genius to see what you're doing here as if your two previous threads weren't a strong indication already as is.
You've already posed an answered your own Q's so what exactly is your purpose on this forum? for us to work really really hard at dispersing myths you've already convinced yourself of?
No thanks, that is an absolute waste of everyone's time. If you don't like Muslims and don't like it here then don't be a member here!


best,

[IslamicRevival]

Much has been said, on various websites, about Muslims desire for a world wide caliphate under which all would necessarily convert to Islam or be dhimmis and live as 2nd class citizens under protective treaties that may or may not be honored. (Or at the worst, convert or die) There is known persecution of Christians in Muslim countries. Articles are available that tell of torture, imprisonment and death for Christians who refuse to convert or for those who convert to Christianity from Islam. How is it said then that Islam is a peaceful religion which honors human life? (Someone said that on another thread)

With all due respect, you are insulting your own intelligence by posting such a question as it isnt very wise to jugde a nation of 1.5 billion + Muslims based on hearsay off the internet. Muslims do not live in the virtual world and if you want to judge Islam, judge it by the teachings of our beloved Prophet (Infinite peace and blessings be upon him), not by what the average joe says on the internet.

Islam is a beautiful religion, a religion which promotes peace but unfortunately not all Muslims (A minority) are peaceful. I could say the same about most religions but i'd be foolish to demonize an entire community based on the actions of a few loose cannons.

Peace out

[Mustafa2012]

Wow. I'm a "troll broad", a "tom dick and herbert schmuck face" and what else? Vitriol is very easily produced here it seems. What I've heard so far is defensive, angry and hateful retorts to my posts. And a great deal about how everyone picks on the Muslims, how "unfair" and onesided it all is. It is exactly what I hear from other groups that have the same martyr attitudes. Now, it may be that Muslims are and have been mistreated. I don't know. As someone here has said, "we" are not historians. Well, neither am I. I've heard repeatedly here and other places about the terrible Crusaders and their violence and murders and on and on. Things that happened so long ago seem to be very much a presence in some people's thinking. And the blurring of edges between Christians and military actions by the US and other countries is also becoming clear. It is almost as if the US and other countries military is made up of Christians, which I can assure you in the case of the US, at least, is most definitely NOT true.

I don't know exactly what produced such vitriolic reactions to my posts but one thing is also becoming clear and that is that I'm not getting answers to the questions but mainly rebukes, sometimes worded in very rude, hateful ways, sometimes in cautionary ways. I've heard a Muslim speaker say that there is no freedom of speech in Islam. Though I think it was intended to say there is not freedom to speak against Mohammed or the god of Islam, it does seem to be part of the thinking on this forum. I don't intend to stop posting, so fire away, you brave mud slingers. Just btw, I have gone to some of the sites mentioned to me. And read from them. (Just so you know, Scimitar.)

Our responses are defensive because this post of yours was the second thread you started where you asked questions in a very assumptive and disrespectful way, without first checking from sources that are easily as available to you as this forum.

The previous thread "Why the violence" that you started is the one that upset many people because of how wrongly it was phrased.

Now, as you've found out, your assumptions are totally wrong apart from some exceptions which we don't consider to be the status quo or the norm.

Re: this statement of yours...

It is almost as if the US and other countries military is made up of Christians, which I can assure you in the case of the US, at least, is most definitely NOT true.

Why do you find it so difficult to hear us refer to the U.S and U.K. as majority Christian countries who perpetrated acts of mass genocide in Iraq and Afghanistan and are standing by watching Israel occupy and murder Palestinians for so many years.

Maybe you fail to remember Bush referring to the war on Iraq as a Christian Crusade. Since he was the one who brought religion into the war we are simply pointing that out. David Cameron also referred to the U.K. as a majority Christian country.

If you don't like to wear the label assumed by your former President then don't go painting Muslims by a similar label which a few minority extremists use and which the media is capitalising on and distorting.

If you compare the hundreds and thousands of casualties in the recent illegal wars on terror against the no. of casualties actually caused by muslim extremists (not the ones that have no evidence to support them like the 9/11 attack) you will find that the no. of casualties left by Muslim attacks pale into insignificance by the ones by your fellow countrymen.

In the future, please try to be a bit more respectful in the way you phrase your questions so that people don't take you the wrong way and respond in the way they've done so far.

[Hulk]

BornAgain.. anyone reading your posts can see that you only see what you want to see. First you talk about how muslims want world domination, how muslims force conversion on people, physically abuse non-muslims. Then when you get responses you say that muslims are angry, hateful, don't like free speech.

If your objective is to delude yourself in the first place then please do it elsewhere as I don't think people are interested in contributing to such goals.

If however your objective is to truely, sincerely learn. Then you need to realise that the key to knowledge is in the question, and then look back at your question. A question based on stupidity would not likely make the questioner any smarter even if the questions are properly answered.

The stupidity in your question? Well basically you skipped a whole bunch of important questions which I suppose you decided that you already know.

1) DO Muslims want world domination?
2) How are non-muslims treated according to Sharia?
3) DO muslims force people into converting?

These are questions that you answered yourself in your post. So you see why people are annoyed? I'm annoyed at having to explain this, but I'm doing it with hopes that perhaps you are actually sincere in wanting to learn and genuinely made a mistake.

[glo]

Wow. I'm a "troll broad", a "tom dick and herbert schmuck face" and what else? Vitriol is very easily produced here it seems. What I've heard so far is defensive, angry and hateful retorts to my posts.

Okay, whatever we are making of this new member, there is really no need to use offensive language. And - if I am not mistaken - it is against forum rules too.

I suggest we refrain from using insulting language (especially since it may add to giving Islam a bad name) and leave it to the mods to deal with this new member fairly.

Bornagain, you might want to spend a little time reading already existing forum posts and getting the feel for this forum, if you want to remain a member. You are certainly not giving the impression of somebody who is genuinely interested is building a fair and open picture of Islam ...

Right so, now I am reporting my own post for the attention of our mods. Salaam :thankyou:

[sister herb]

Peace with you

Bornagain; now calm a little please. In this forum are severeal non-muslims, have been years and non of them never felt we muslims try to convert them by force. So calm down there. We have nothing against you. Muslims are very peaceful persons.

[Samiun]

How would you like me to answer, Samiun? And where am I "trash talking" about Islam? The reactions on this forum to my posts is very revealing of the mind set of some on here who are apparently Muslim. "Wanting to see "us" react in a hateful manner"? Did I have to wait at all for that to show up? As far as "not answering questions", so far as I can see there are none for me to answer, just mine that don't get answered.

This is where you trash talked about Islam:

Much has been said, on various websites, about Muslims desire for a world wide caliphate under which all would necessarily convert to Islam or be dhimmis and live as 2nd class citizens under protective treaties that may or may not be honored. (Or at the worst, convert or die) There is known persecution of Christians in Muslim countries. Articles are available that tell of torture, imprisonment and death for Christians who refuse to convert or for those who convert to Christianity from Islam.

You make it sound like Muslims are the worse people on Earth that would kill someone(which is not true, it is not allowed it our religion doing so is against our Islamic beliefs) if they don't convert. Read-up on the constitution of Madinah and see how Muslims really rule over a country you can find it here http://www.constitutionofmadina.com/...n-63-articles/

Some excerpt directly from Wiki:

Rights of non-Muslims
The non-Muslims included in the ummah had the following rights:[22]

The security of God is equal for all groups,[23]
Non-Muslim members have equal political and cultural rights as Muslims. They will have autonomy and freedom of religion.[24]
Non-Muslims will take up arms against the enemy of the Ummah and share the cost of war. There is to be no treachery between the two.[25]
Non-Muslims will not be obliged to take part in religious wars of the Muslims.[26]

This is where you didn't respond to some of the member's questions:

Answer these first, please: Are you serious? Or are you trying to start trouble?

If you're serious I will proceed to answer the question, in shaa Allah but only after I get an answer from you.

Thank you.

Firstly I don't know who you've been speaking to or what websites you've been visiting but going on the assumptions you've made in the other thread "Why the violence?" it seems that you've got a very negative image of Islaam?

If anyone is forcing people to convert or oppressing them due to their choice of religion that is clearly wrong and unacceptable. Whoever is doing this is committing oppression and doing it out of a wrong understanding of Islam.

If you look into the history of Islam you will find many incidents where Jews and Christians were allowed to live in Muslim countries under peace and protection.

Unfortunately the media is quick to find stories of oppression against non Muslims and make big news of it and try to make it sound like it is the norm when it isn't.

They are also very slow to report many stories of oppression against Muslims by non Muslims which is a bit sad and disappointing.

[Cabdullahi]

Why do some westerners force 'western secular democracy' upon those who want to do things their own way, in the their own back yard, and when those people implement their own system why do some westerners get angry and say that place is doomed? why does it matter what they choose?

Why do some westerners champion 'western secular democracy' but are the best of buddies with the worst of dictators and sell arms to them to suppress and eventually kill their own people?

[glo]

In this forum are several non-Muslims, have been years and non of them never felt we Muslims try to convert them by force.

Yep, I can bear witness to that.

Apart from that time when I was held hostage for three months on only dry bread and water ... and forced to listen to Qu'ranic recitations for hours every day ... and only escaped by craftily hiding behind a niqab ... nobody has ever tried to forcibly convert me to Islam! ;D

[sister herb]

To glo

[glo]

Much has been said, on various websites, about Muslims desire for a world wide caliphate under which all would necessarily convert to Islam or be dhimmis and live as 2nd class citizens under protective treaties that may or may not be honored. (Or at the worst, convert or die) There is known persecution of Christians in Muslim countries. Articles are available that tell of torture, imprisonment and death for Christians who refuse to convert or for those who convert to Christianity from Islam. How is it said then that Islam is a peaceful religion which honors human life? (Someone said that on another thread)

Bornagain, I may have been a bit flippant in my previous post, but I have given your post some thought.

No doubt there are Muslims who hope for or even work towards a world wide caliphate. Some Muslims I have spoken to feel that this would be a fairer and more tolerant society, in which Muslims and non-Muslims could live peacefully and harmoniously side by side.
I don't think forcing anybody to accept Islam comes into that - so any Muslims which hold to the principle of forcing non-Muslims to become Muslim would be in the minority.
Indeed, Islam teaches that we are free to choose our religion, that Allah guides whom he wills and that one should only accept Islam for ONE reason - namely that one believes it to be the truth!

Now, that's not to say that there are not cases across the world where people have been and are forced to convert to Islam … but it you listen carefully to the Muslim world, you will see that such practices are not condoned and are spoken out against.

Equally you hear stories of non-Muslim (even Christian) families who kill any family members who have converted to Islam … and call it honour killing! imsad

Some Christians also use very unpleasant methods to coerce non-Christians to Christianity …
After all, do not some Christians believe that we have to make converts of all nations before Jesus returns again?
Did you know that the relationships between (mostly Coptic) Christians and Muslims in some Middle Eastern countries are severely compromised and put under threat, because Western Christians have come and used such heavy-handed conversion methods, that the longstanding harmony between the two faiths is threatened?

I am saying all this because I want to make the point that in their zeal and passion for their beliefs, people in both our faiths make bad mistakes and cause serious damage.

What can we do about it?
I suggest that both Muslims and Christians work together and agree to fight for justice and religious freedom in their own faith communities.
Rather than point the finger at the other religion and complain and judge, perhaps we should scrutinise our own behaviours first?

God's blessings to you.

[Abz2000]

My question is, why do some evangelists and Mossad trolls have to lie and constantly deceive in order to subvert the masses?
We had one called burning light who came and pretended he was interested in learning, and everyone did their very best to answer his questions, then began to show his true intentions, I only stopped responding to him after one of the mods told me he had been banned under a different account.

For the information of any visitor who may visit this thread (I won't bother to humour you),
I want to see a worldwide caliphate where justice is done and God - not bush, Cheney or Obama - is the lawgiver (ruler/king, and caliph means caretaker/someone who takes responsibility on another's behalf/ successor/ the next in command.

And I want it even more because I read about it in the Bible, yes :) that's right, the new testament,
Let us all clasp our hands together and pray, (we don't call God father because it's meaningless as he needs no spouse or kids - so i'll rephrase it :)
In this manner Let us pray:

Our Lord who art in heaven,
Hallowed be thy name,
THY KINGDOME COME
THY WILL BE DONE ON EARTH
EVEN AS IT IS IN HEAVEN
.....
FOR YOURS IS THE KINGDOM, and the power and the glory forever,
Ameen.

And btw, im not going to bother answering your RHETORICAL "question" about freedom of religion, the bible tells you to break all the idols and kill all the cattle and women and children,
how come you feel you're even in a position to ask us about freedom of religion?

['Abd-al Latif]

I've breezed through this thread and I have a message for the original poster: there are etiquettes to a discussion which you need to observe if you are to get anywhere. If you want to learn about Islam then learn Islam through Muslims: the people who actually believe in and practise Islam. It doesn't make sense to learn Islam through someone who isn't a Muslim but still insists upon telling you all sorts of rubbish.

If you genuinely seek answers then there are many on this board who will answer your questions. If however you're seeking an argument then you'll be shown the door. From that point none will be blamed but you so you are advised to speak and discuss respectfully. You've been given a chance so don't raise any complaints later about unfair treatment if you get banned.

For the Muslim members I advise you with the saying of the Messenger :saws:: "It is not befitting that a believer curses."

Furthermore, Allah describes those who will inherit al-firdaws as those who do not speak "al-laghw" (i.e no foul speech will be heard of them – ever).


Behave.

[Independent]

I have a few questions relating to this. As I understand it, the last Caliphate was disbanded in 1924 by Kemal Ataturk. What's to stop it being reinstated, in Turkey or elsewhere? Also, by what process would a Caliph be chosen? Is it a single person? How is it decided which countries would be included within the Caliphate? Does it have to just one Caliphate or is it permitted to have a number? And if such an international institution were to be created today, how would it interact with current governments? Which powers would be held by the Caliph, and which by national governments?

[جوري]

Ideally if a caliphate is established in shaa Allah- It should be modeled after Ar'rashudoon. Read a bit about Umar Ibn Ilkhtaab and it will give you a clue on how it is supposed be..

[Abz2000]

This is what the enemy of Allah, Cheney said:

MARK COLVIN: The United States Vice President, Dick Cheney, says Australia has a duty to stay on in Iraq to protect its own long-term security.

This afternoon he met the Labor leader Kevin Rudd who has the opposite view. He argues that Australia needs its troops closer to its own regional trouble spots.

But Dick Cheney says if the US and its allies are defeated in Baghdad, the consequences would be a victory for jihadists who would spread out to the rest of Iraq and then to Afghanistan.

The Vice President says terrorists aim to create a caliphate stretching from Spain, across North Africa, through the Middle East and South Asia, to Indonesia and beyond. ....


Thereby proving that their war is against the foundations of Islam and not the lies and different excuses they use every time they come under criticism.
You caaually said that it can just be done again, bypassing the fact that attaturk was just a puppet.
It is a fact that Muslims the world over are working to re-establish it and the US government fears loss of its pretended authority, like Pharaoh feared that God might take over his "kingdom".

All countries under the caliphate would be run by governors and those beneath them, with the governor answerable to the caliph and the caliph answerable to God, if the caliph oversteps his authority and assumes a tyranny, the people's duty is to pull him down.

The caliphate would be obliged to respond to humiliation of Muslims in any land unless that Muslim refused to join the believers and live under the rule of God, and purposefully remained in a non Muslim land with no good excuse.

If a single Muslim sister's honour is attacked, the whole nation may be mobilised to ensure justice is done and to prevent a future repeat, as it was with Banu Qainuqa and caliph mu'tasim billah,
My parents' motherland Sylhet was liberated in a similar fashion (google shah jalal al Yemeni)

Also under the caliphate, every child received a stipend from the day he/she was born.
this was while Europe was still unfamiliar with the idea of a weekly bath, let alone a daily one lol.
Peace

[Independent]

You casually said that it can just be done again, bypassing the fact that attaturk was just a puppet.

No, I genuinely don't know anything about the practicalities of how this works. How can anyone judge if it's a good or a bad thing if they don't know what it is?

Anyway, i will follow the link posted above later today, when i Have some time.

[Bornagain]

I've breezed through this thread and I have a message for the original poster: there are etiquettes to a discussion which you need to observe if you are to get anywhere. If you want to learn about Islam then learn Islam through Muslims: the people who actually believe in and practise Islam. It doesn't make sense to learn Islam through someone who isn't a Muslim but still insists upon telling you all sorts of rubbish.

If you genuinely seek answers then there are many on this board who will answer your questions. If however you're seeking an argument then you'll be shown the door. From that point none will be blamed but you so you are advised to speak and discuss respectfully. You've been given a chance so don't raise any complaints later about unfair treatment if you get banned.

For the Muslim members I advise you with the saying of the Messenger :saws:: "It is not befitting that a believer curses."

Furthermore, Allah describes those who will inherit al-firdaws as those who do not speak "al-laghw" (i.e no foul speech will be heard of them – ever).


Behave.

If you are addressing me (the original poster of this thread please tell me where I've been "disrespectful". I've asked questions that are, at least to my mind as a non-Muslim, vital to understanding why Muslims believe as they do. In my very first post, I said that I came here to get a more balanced view of Islam than what I am seeing/hearing on tv and other media. I have been met with accusations, vilification and taunts. I do not see anything disrespectful in my posts so please, enlighten me. I have more than once been threatened or had it asked that I be banned. For what? If the questions I've asked are not answered how can I know anything but what I've already heard/read in other sources? I've also been told through posts that this thread is not the place to have the questions answered, yet the name of the thread certainly gives the impression that it is. I am not apologetic for my questions. I am not bent on "making trouble". I do not understand why that is even thought of my posts. So there you have it.

[Hulk]

Amazing..


May I ask, why you didn't ask these question but instead answered them on your own?

1) DO Muslims want world domination?
2) How are non-muslims treated according to Sharia?
3) DO muslims force people into converting?

[جوري]

1) DO Muslims want world domination?
2) How are non-muslims treated according to Sharia?
3) DO muslims force people into converting?

It isn't loaded enough to elicit the desired reaction. Be that as it may I had unsubscribed from this debacle but found your simple and to the point post refreshing I had to comment with a kudos..

:w:

[Tyrion]

I see little reason to doubt the sincerity of the OP. Sure, she could be a troll, but such questions and beliefs are held by many people, no matter how incorrect we know them to be. Assume she is asking honest questions, and give honest answers. Some people have only ever heard of Islam through anti Islamic sources, usually through little fault of their own. By responding with attacks and insults we only drive them away from actually learning and reinforce negative stereotypes of Muslims. This forum probably isn't the place for this though, as the OP has probably already realized.

The short answer to your questions would have to be that Islam promotes peace, but it's the Muslims who fail to follow it. It's a generic answer, but also one that I think holds a lot of truth. The same phenomena can be seen in other religions throughout history, where violence, prejudice, and even attempts at world domination are all done in the name of God. Christianity, as I'm sure you're aware, was no different. We just happen to live in a time where the spotlight is on Islam, and where many Muslims live in impoverished lands, under oppressive rule and occupation, and lack education. If you do some searching, you'll find that most Muslims don't want world domination, and that they're fair and amiable to people of all faiths.That's my simplistic take on it anyway.

EDIT: Also, to those who are getting upset... Keep in mind that many Muslims, even those here, only know of other religions through Islamic sources, which typically don't do a great job describing what believers actually believe. For example, there are tons of instances here where Muslims insist on telling our Christian members what they believe, making no effort to actually understand their religion... It's probably a better idea to be more forgiving when it comes to people's misconceptions.

[Futuwwa]

If you are addressing me (the original poster of this thread please tell me where I've been "disrespectful". I've asked questions that are, at least to my mind as a non-Muslim, vital to understanding why Muslims believe as they do. In my very first post, I said that I came here to get a more balanced view of Islam than what I am seeing/hearing on tv and other media. I have been met with accusations, vilification and taunts. I do not see anything disrespectful in my posts so please, enlighten me. I have more than once been threatened or had it asked that I be banned. For what? If the questions I've asked are not answered how can I know anything but what I've already heard/read in other sources? I've also been told through posts that this thread is not the place to have the questions answered, yet the name of the thread certainly gives the impression that it is. I am not apologetic for my questions. I am not bent on "making trouble". I do not understand why that is even thought of my posts. So there you have it.

If you truly want to understand, you should not premise the entire thread on a bunch of assumptions about what we Muslims believe. Nor ask people to answer for the worst things some Muslims do.

[Bornagain]

If you truly want to understand, you should not premise the entire thread on a bunch of assumptions about what we Muslims believe. Nor ask people to answer for the worst things some Muslims do.

I don't know why I continue to post here, God knows. The questions I asked were FIRST of all NOT assumptions but QUESTIONS and this is my last effort at explaining my reasons for asking them. The questions were intended to get answers. The questions were based on what I've heard, read, and seen on the media which I believe does NO ONE justice. The question of whether part of the tenets of Islam is to rule the world is a reasonable question for a non-Muslim to want to know. That question was actually answered in part in one post. Someone replied with a "sweet" msg that the dhimmis would be "allowed" to live and to continue in their own faiths under a caliphate rule. I don't understand AT ALL why that is considered acceptable. Muslims in America are not just "allowed" but encouraged to keep their faith and practice their religion as they will. That is NOT the same as being "allowed" to live under the dictatorship of a religion that rules over them. Some one else said that most Americans are Christian. That can only be thought by someone who has no concept of what Christian means. Though many Americans might say they are Christians, the proof is, as they say, in the pudding. If anyone either living in or viewing America from another country cannot see that America is NOT "primarily" Christian in the true sense, then that one is blind and subject to the media biases as much as I am about Islam.

[Bornagain]

I see little reason to doubt the sincerity of the OP. Sure, she could be a troll, but such questions and beliefs are held by many people, no matter how incorrect we know them to be. Assume she is asking honest questions, and give honest answers. Some people have only ever heard of Islam through anti Islamic sources, usually through little fault of their own. By responding with attacks and insults we only drive them away from actually learning and reinforce negative stereotypes of Muslims. This forum probably isn't the place for this though, as the OP has probably already realized.

The short answer to your questions would have to be that Islam promotes peace, but it's the Muslims who fail to follow it. It's a generic answer, but also one that I think holds a lot of truth. The same phenomena can be seen in other religions throughout history, where violence, prejudice, and even attempts at world domination are all done in the name of God. Christianity, as I'm sure you're aware, was no different. We just happen to live in a time where the spotlight is on Islam, and where many Muslims live in impoverished lands, under oppressive rule and occupation, and lack education. If you do some searching, you'll find that most Muslims don't want world domination, and that they're fair and amiable to people of all faiths.That's my simplistic take on it anyway.

EDIT: Also, to those who are getting upset... Keep in mind that many Muslims, even those here, only know of other religions through Islamic sources, which typically don't do a great job describing what believers actually believe. For example, there are tons of instances here where Muslims insist on telling our Christian members what they believe, making no effort to actually understand their religion... It's probably a better idea to be more forgiving when it comes to people's misconceptions.

Thank you for this post. Your balanced statements are appreciated.

[Roasted Cashew]

Caliphate is the least of your worries...for at least another 100 years or so. What I am about to tell you might not go down well even with fellow Muslims over here and might even be politically incorrect. Nationalism, patriotism and racism is so prevalent among Muslims that I don't see them agreeing to a single ruler anytime soon. Many Pakistanis(South Asians in general) tell tales of being treated like third class citizens when they return from Umrah or Hajj from Saudi Arabia and therefore hold a deep grudge against the Arabs. Blatant generalization on the part of these South Asians but this feeling is very common place unfortunately. The Arabs most likely will not accept a non-Arab candidate as a Caliphate and vice versa. Unless Mahdi returns(search it up in forums)...I don't see a a chance even as small as an ant for the formation of the Caliphate.

[Futuwwa]

I have a few questions relating to this. As I understand it, the last Caliphate was disbanded in 1924 by Kemal Ataturk. What's to stop it being reinstated, in Turkey or elsewhere? Also, by what process would a Caliph be chosen? Is it a single person? How is it decided which countries would be included within the Caliphate? Does it have to just one Caliphate or is it permitted to have a number? And if such an international institution were to be created today, how would it interact with current governments? Which powers would be held by the Caliph, and which by national governments?

As much as many Muslims would like to imagine differently, there is no one, true, genuine way a caliphate should be. The Prophet Muhammed never told us to establish a caliphate. He gave absolutely no instructions for succession, despite knowing well enough that he was about to die. He was far more concerned with the preservation of Islam. The whole caliphate thing was made up when the early Muslim community was left wondering who should lead them.

[Independent]

As much as many Muslims would like to imagine differently, there is no one, true, genuine way a caliphate should be.

Yes, that's how it seems to me. The history of this strongly reminds me of the parallel problem for Christianity - how to create a lasting organisation once its founder was no longer present. For the Catholic Church this led to the notion of the papacy, with authority being passed down in a line through St Peter (chief disciple). However, in Christianity there is a separation between Church and State so the issue was purely about church organisation, not how to run a country.

For Islam, similarly, it went to a key follower - Abu Bakr. But the days of direct association are long gone. For the Caliphate to be resurrected in a modern context, surely it would need some kind of agreed structure.

[Muhammad]

:salamext:

As much as many Muslims would like to imagine differently, there is no one, true, genuine way a caliphate should be. The Prophet Muhammed never told us to establish a caliphate. He gave absolutely no instructions for succession, despite knowing well enough that he was about to die. He was far more concerned with the preservation of Islam. The whole caliphate thing was made up when the early Muslim community was left wondering who should lead them.

Dear brother, we must be very careful of making statements about Islam or the Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) which are not true. The caliphate-based system of rule is well established as the correct and legal system of governance in the Muslim nation. It is through the office of the caliphate that the affairs of the nation are managed and the needs of the people are addressed.

If we survey the life of the Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam), we will find many examples of how he prepared Companions for future leadership roles. He also gave guidance as to how leaders should be selected and there are hadeeth speaking of leaders coming after him.

The action of the Companions after the death of the Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) is highly noteworthy. So much did they perceive the urgency of choosing a leader that they met in the courtyard of Banu Saa'idah to decide the matter, before they even had time to bury the just deceased Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam). Had there been no immediate need for appointing a leader, Abu Bakr would not have accepted the nomination. The only reason he did so was out of fear that if no leader was chosen at that time, widespread confusion, trials and tribulations would result. All of this proves that the Companions agreed that the Muslim nation had to have a leader - that, in fact, it was not permissible for them to unnecessarily delay the process of choosing one.

It is also worth noting that the process of choosing a leader was not one that was characterised by haphazardness or an arbitrary set of rules; instead, it was based on divinely revealed texts and mutual consultation. Because such a process was followed, everyone was satisfied in the end, and not a single person from the Ansar was left with any doubt in his mind about Quraish's - and in this case, Abu Bakr's - right to the caliphate. Although the Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) did not explicitly name the first Caliph of the Muslim nation, he did imply on various occasions that Abu Bakr was the most suitable person for the role, and there is wisdom in why he did not issue a direct command.

And Allaah (swt) knows best.

[Bornagain]

Caliphate is the least of your worries...for at least another 100 years or so. What I am about to tell you might not go down well even with fellow Muslims over here and might even be politically incorrect. Nationalism, patriotism and racism is so prevalent among Muslims that I don't see them agreeing to a single ruler anytime soon. Many Pakistanis(South Asians in general) tell tales of being treated like third class citizens when they return from Umrah or Hajj from Saudi Arabia and therefore hold a deep grudge against the Arabs. Blatant generalization on the part of these South Asians but this feeling is very common place unfortunately. The Arabs most likely will not accept a non-Arab candidate as a Caliphate and vice versa. Unless Mahdi returns(search it up in forums)...I don't see a a chance even as small as an ant for the formation of the Caliphate.

I understand what you are saying but why is it the "least" of my worries? Other than being a rhetorical statement, are you saying there are other "worries" involving Islam that I, as a non-Muslim, should be worried about?

[Futuwwa]

:salamext:

Dear brother, we must be very careful of making statements about Islam or the Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) which are not true. The caliphate-based system of rule is well established as the correct and legal system of governance in the Muslim nation. It is through the office of the caliphate that the affairs of the nation are managed and the needs of the people are addressed.

If we survey the life of the Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam), we will find many examples of how he prepared Companions for future leadership roles. He also gave guidance as to how leaders should be selected and there are hadeeth speaking of leaders coming after him.

The action of the Companions after the death of the Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) is highly noteworthy. So much did they perceive the urgency of choosing a leader that they met in the courtyard of Banu Saa'idah to decide the matter, before they even had time to bury the just deceased Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam). Had there been no immediate need for appointing a leader, Abu Bakr would not have accepted the nomination. The only reason he did so was out of fear that if no leader was chosen at that time, widespread confusion, trials and tribulations would result. All of this proves that the Companions agreed that the Muslim nation had to have a leader - that, in fact, it was not permissible for them to unnecessarily delay the process of choosing one.

It is also worth noting that the process of choosing a leader was not one that was characterised by haphazardness or an arbitrary set of rules; instead, it was based on divinely revealed texts and mutual consultation. Because such a process was followed, everyone was satisfied in the end, and not a single person from the Ansar was left with any doubt in his mind about Quraish's - and in this case, Abu Bakr's - right to the caliphate. Although the Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) did not explicitly name the first Caliph of the Muslim nation, he did imply on various occasions that Abu Bakr was the most suitable person for the role, and there is wisdom in why he did not issue a direct command.

And Allaah (swt) knows best.

Indeed, we should be careful when making statements about Islam, especially when making definite statements about some particular social paradigm being *the* authentically Islamic one. Which is what you are doing, not me.

If the Prophet would have intended us to have a caliphate, he would have said so. Not just left behind scattered scraps and clues regarding leadership.

[Hulk]

If the Prophet would have intended us to have a caliphate, he would have said so. Not just left behind scattered scraps and clues regarding leadership.

Bro, the caliph is merely someone who takes over from that which was previously there. That is it's definition.

[Muhammad]

:salamext:

Indeed, we should be careful when making statements about Islam, especially when making definite statements about some particular social paradigm being *the* authentically Islamic one.

I agree. But if something is supported by the Qur'an, Sunnah and understanding of the Companions, then it clearly has more weight than statements that have no basis.

If the Prophet would have intended us to have a caliphate, he would have said so. Not just left behind scattered scraps and clues regarding leadership.

If you say the Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) had no intention or vision regarding future leadership, how do you understand the following hadeeth:

On the authority of Abu Najeeh al-'Irbaad ibn Saariyah (radiAllaahu anhu) who said :

The Messenger of Allaah (sallAllaahu alayhi wa sallam) gave us a sermon by which our hearts were filled with fear and tears came to our eyes. So we said : "O Messenger of Allaah ! It is as though this is a farewell sermon, so counsel us".

He said :

I counsel you to have taqwaa (fear) of Allaah, and to listen and obey [your leader], even if a slave were to become your Ameer. Verily he among you who lives long will see great controversy, so you must keep to my Sunnah and to the Sunnah of the Khulafaa' ar-Raashideen (the Rightly Guided Caliphs), those who guide to the right way. Cling to it stubbornly [literally: with your molar teeth]. Beware of newly invented matters [in the religion], for verily every bid'ah (innovation) is misguidance.

It was related by Abu Dawood and at-Tirmidhee, who said that it was a good and sound Hadeeth.

Perhaps people have different things in mind regarding Caliphate, so there may be confusion stemming from that. In my posts, I'm not referring to the sinister picture of worldwide domination mentioned earlier in this thread, but rather leadership of the Ummah.

[Independent]

Although I can find information about the ideal Caliph of the past, I can't find a clear process for appointing a Caliph today. Is there an agreed process or is this in dispute? Also, presumably one man can't be expected to do everything alone, so what system of government does he have underneath him and how is it appointed? The modern state is vastly more complicated than in the seventh century and requires a much larger machinery of government and civil service. Also, if a Caliph turned out to be inadequate or tyrannical, how would he be removed?

[M.I.A.]

its like having a watch.

you cant expect to have the correct time unless all the cogs are turning.



so its easy to select leaders, especially if you actually know what the cogs do...

[Muhammad]

Greetings Independent,

Although I can find information about the ideal Caliph of the past, I can't find a clear process for appointing a Caliph today. Is there an agreed process or is this in dispute? Also, presumably one man can't be expected to do everything alone, so what system of government does he have underneath him and how is it appointed? The modern state is vastly more complicated than in the seventh century and requires a much larger machinery of government and civil service. Also, if a Caliph turned out to be inadequate or tyrannical, how would he be removed?

I don't know the answers to your questions. It would seem that the blueprint left by the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) and the rightly guided Caliphs after him provide many answers in terms of establishing a Caliphate today, and thus a deep study and understanding of Islamic history is of paramount importance. For example, we learn from the nomination of Abu Bakr that a leader should be chosen through the process of mutual consultation, a process that is promoted in the verses of the Qur'an, that was exemplified through the methodology of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), and that was then applied by the Companions.

I found an article that talks about this in more detail: http://www.suhaibwebb.com/islam-stud...tifier_6_20405

It is possible that leadership be established through other means also.

And Allaah (swt) knows best.

[Independent]

I don't know the answers to your questions.

Thank you for your reply Muhammad, and also the link. I really liked the attitude and approach of this website.

From what i read it seems that the concept was not written down but evolved to fit the changing situation in the years immediately succeeding the foundation of Islam. Each of the first four Caliphs was appointed in a somewhat different way. There is even an argument about whether 'democracy' was an element in the process! (Although the writer rejects it.)

In today's world there is no equivalent to the tribal leaders who could form a natural shura. So it's very hard to see how you could simply emulate the hsistorical process.

I am surprised that there isn't a more concrete notion of how this could be approached - seeing as so many people have been calling for a return to this institution.

[Muhammad]

Greetings,

I haven't read much else on that website I linked to, so I don't know much about it.

I am surprised that there isn't a more concrete notion of how this could be approached - seeing as so many people have been calling for a return to this institution.

The average Muslim is unlikely to know the details of how a Caliphate is to be appointed and the Islamic State set up, as their priorities are first to gain an understanding of the basics of Islam. Yet they can still appreciate that it would be a system of justice and harmony, as this is the outcome of establishing Shariah, a law based upon divine wisdom. Amongst the people of knowledge I am sure you will find a clearer explanation of the details.

[Futuwwa]

:salamext:

I agree. But if something is supported by the Qur'an, Sunnah and understanding of the Companions, then it clearly has more weight than statements that have no basis.

If you say the Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) had no intention or vision regarding future leadership, how do you understand the following hadeeth:

On the authority of Abu Najeeh al-'Irbaad ibn Saariyah (radiAllaahu anhu) who said :

The Messenger of Allaah (sallAllaahu alayhi wa sallam) gave us a sermon by which our hearts were filled with fear and tears came to our eyes. So we said : "O Messenger of Allaah ! It is as though this is a farewell sermon, so counsel us".

He said :

I counsel you to have taqwaa (fear) of Allaah, and to listen and obey [your leader], even if a slave were to become your Ameer. Verily he among you who lives long will see great controversy, so you must keep to my Sunnah and to the Sunnah of the Khulafaa' ar-Raashideen (the Rightly Guided Caliphs), those who guide to the right way. Cling to it stubbornly [literally: with your molar teeth]. Beware of newly invented matters [in the religion], for verily every bid'ah (innovation) is misguidance.

It was related by Abu Dawood and at-Tirmidhee, who said that it was a good and sound Hadeeth.

Perhaps people have different things in mind regarding Caliphate, so there may be confusion stemming from that. In my posts, I'm not referring to the sinister picture of worldwide domination mentioned earlier in this thread, but rather leadership of the Ummah.

First of all, I don't put much stock in individual hadiths unless they are of Bukhari.

Second, the word "Khulafaa ar-Rashideen" does not necessarily have to mean the same thing here as the word came to mean later. It might simply mean what it actually meant at the time, "righteous successors", i.e. an affirmation that certain individuals were good role models to follow in religious matters. That the concept later on came to have another meaning (as in, the Rashidun Caliphate) does in no way retroactively make that statement by the Prophet refer to it.

[جوري]

First of all, I don't put much stock in individual hadiths unless they are of Bukhari.

Let's see your doctorate in Uloom Al-Hadith so your 'stock' would hold more weightiness!


best,

[Futuwwa]

Let's see your doctorate in Christian theology, otherwise you are utterly unqualified to reject it ^o)

[جوري]

Let's see your doctorate in Christian theology, otherwise you are utterly unqualified to reject it ^o)

That has no relevance to the premise. I reject christian theology based on the basic tenet the 'man god dying for our sins' all other little details are irrelevant therefrom!
You're supposedly Muslim, discussing basic tenets of Islam, not a Muslim discussing Judaism. Try to stick to a concept and see it through, the above isn't a reply, if you're going to make a statement see it through don't bring some other subject into the matter and in the form of a question!

best,

[Muhammad]

First of all, I don't put much stock in individual hadiths unless they are of Bukhari.

Then this is where the problem is. We have to first agree on the sources we use for Islam, before differing on the understanding of an issue. Incidentally, this hadeeth is from the collection of Imam An-Nawawi's forty, which is a very famous collection of hadeeth that has been the focus of a large number of commentaries, and considered to consist of some of the most important and comprehensive hadeeth for the individual Muslim.

Second, the word "Khulafaa ar-Rashideen" does not necessarily have to mean the same thing here as the word came to mean later. It might simply mean what it actually meant at the time, "righteous successors", i.e. an affirmation that certain individuals were good role models to follow in religious matters. That the concept later on came to have another meaning (as in, the Rashidun Caliphate) does in no way retroactively make that statement by the Prophet refer to it.

Even if, for the sake of argument, that is true, what about the beginning of the hadeeth, does it not make clear reference to leadership? There are yet many other hadeeth (some of them in Bukhari), as well as verses in the Qur'an, all pointing to the concept of leadership - either its obligation or advice regarding it. There is also the practice of the Companions, mentioned above, which reflects their understanding of this issue. If the Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) never intended there to be leadership of the Ummah, why are there so many teachings regarding it?

[M.I.A.]

That has no relevance to the premise. I reject christian theology based on the basic tenet the 'man god dying for our sins' all other little details are irrelevant therefrom!
You're supposedly Muslim, discussing basic tenets of Islam, not a Muslim discussing Judaism. Try to stick to a concept and see it through, the above isn't a reply, if you're going to make a statement see it through don't bring some other subject into the matter and in the form of a question!

best,

my sister in law caught my youngest daughter saying jesus..

she shouted at her and i heard through an open door.


she said we dont say that in this house.

i wandered over and said..

your right.. we say alayhis salam.


i know you have your own way. but i think your missing the point.

[جوري]

my sister in law caught my youngest daughter saying jesus..

she shouted at her and i heard through an open door.


she said we dont say that in this house.

i wandered over and said..

your right.. we say alayhis salam.


i know you have your own way. but i think your missing the point.

what's the point? including of the above about your niece and sis?

[M.I.A.]

well your in a thread discussing worldwide caliphate..

and your at the throats of other muslims.

the irony does not escape me.


like i always say.. when the people are ready, it will happen.

otherwise its like water over stones.


and maybe thats how it will be.. by the time you have any biblical figure turn up.. he will probably already have passed you by.

your imam mahdi wont be found until hajj...


and the only one that will visit all of us is the one you dont want.


...then jesus AS.


like i said. the irony of the situation is farcical.



but i guess thats the hadith bit for you, if you cant make the links then its just words on a page.

if you forget one verse in exchange for another then its just posts on a internet forum.

maybe a few likes and reputation points.. a few infringements if the mods particularly like you.



i guess the point is until your willing to learn...

there is no point. its all for nothing.


i guess it would be so much easier if there was proof of god.

*heads over to the athiesm thread*


...no im not apostating.

[جوري]

Again, you lost me, won't you please take the plane in for a landing?

also as a side note, we don't call upon Jesus (PBUH) anymore than we call on Mohammed if you were trying to make a side point with that one, all of them are lost on me and have no relevance to the topic!
Also I don't care if you desire to apostate or not!

best,

[M.I.A.]

a names a name right?

people name drop all the time.


...they just dont notice.


i guess if there are any intercessors they are with allah swt..

i dont expect much.

and i probably deserve even less.


i dont know about you but my mosques friday khutba's have reoccurring names.. its almost an ongoing theme.


but under your caliphate rule how would you accommodate the christians and jews?

especially if they didnt like you... or vise versa.


maybe if we had interfaith schools?

[جوري]

I am sorry you lost me again, what are you trying to say?

[M.I.A.]

i give up?

what do you want me to say?


...please dont let that be the answer your looking for.



there, now you should really be lost.



never mind, hows the whole egyption revolution going?


also i never say anything..

but you can understand why, english is actually my first language.

[Futuwwa]

That has no relevance to the premise. I reject christian theology based on the basic tenet the 'man god dying for our sins' all other little details are irrelevant therefrom!
You're supposedly Muslim, discussing basic tenets of Islam, not a Muslim discussing Judaism. Try to stick to a concept and see it through, the above isn't a reply, if you're going to make a statement see it through don't bring some other subject into the matter and in the form of a question!

best,

Well, you were playing the old "Go get an academic degree in Islam, then you are qualified to disagree with me" card, a talking point most frequently used to silence dissent. If we're supposed to deal with our absence of scholarly degree by shutting up and accepting whatever those who have the degree say, well, we better convert to Christianity in no time. Certainly there are scholars of Christian theology who are better qualified than we to judge whether Jesus is God, so let's follow them, hey ^o)

[Futuwwa]

Then this is where the problem is. We have to first agree on the sources we use for Islam, before differing on the understanding of an issue. Incidentally, this hadeeth is from the collection of Imam An-Nawawi's forty, which is a very famous collection of hadeeth that has been the focus of a large number of commentaries, and considered to consist of some of the most important and comprehensive hadeeth for the individual Muslim.

Only accepting Bukhari (and possibly Muslim) hadiths as being self-sufficient is hardly a far-off heresy.

Even if, for the sake of argument, that is true, what about the beginning of the hadeeth, does it not make clear reference to leadership? There are yet many other hadeeth (some of them in Bukhari), as well as verses in the Qur'an, all pointing to the concept of leadership - either its obligation or advice regarding it. There is also the practice of the Companions, mentioned above, which reflects their understanding of this issue. If the Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) never intended there to be leadership of the Ummah, why are there so many teachings regarding it?

There's quite a large logic gap between "these are the characteristics of a good leader" and "this is the one, true political system sanctioned by Allah".

[جوري]

Well, you were playing the old "Go get an academic degree in Islam, then you are qualified to disagree with me" card, a talking point most frequently used to silence dissent. If we're supposed to deal with our absence of scholarly degree by shutting up and accepting whatever those who have the degree say, well, we better convert to Christianity in no time. Certainly there are scholars of Christian theology who are better qualified than we to judge whether Jesus is God, so let's follow them, hey ^o)

Your statement is still nonsensical!
This isn't a question of logic (the one that usually leads folks to be atheists or theists or choose a particular brand of religion), it is a question of knowledge, and you've already acted like an authority giving a final verdict in the matter, so the request stays. If you're going to tell us which ahadiths to take and which to forgo. That Khilafah Rashida means one thing and not the other. I expect some scholarship on the matter!
Muhammad is better qualified than you and this is what he had to say:

I don't know the answers to your questions.

a deep study and understanding of Islamic history is of paramount importance.

Don't write statements of assertion without the desire to be
1- challenged
2- prove what you say factual.
I think that's fair!

best,

[Futuwwa]

well your in a thread discussing worldwide caliphate..

and your at the throats of other muslims.

the irony does not escape me.


like i always say.. when the people are ready, it will happen.

otherwise its like water over stones.

And when will we "be ready"?

When some person with a narrow, specific, exclusive idea of what Islamic unity should be like manages to convince the entire Ummah that he is right and that everyone should follow him? ^o)

I'm not holding my breath waiting for that to happen. Indeed, I have noticed that those who complain the hardest about the disunity of the Ummah are often among the worst causes of that disunity.

[Futuwwa]

Don't write statements of assertion without the desire to be
1- challenged
2- prove what you say factual.
I think that's fair!

best,

I haven't asserted anything. I said that I am not convinced about the authenticity of that hadith. That is not an assertion of anything.

[M.I.A.]

And when will we "be ready"?

When some person with a narrow, specific, exclusive idea of what Islamic unity should be like manages to convince the entire Ummah that he is right and that everyone should follow him? ^o)

I'm not holding my breath waiting for that to happen. Indeed, I have noticed that those who complain the hardest about the disunity of the Ummah are often among the worst causes of that disunity.

...i dont know?

its gonna take something special thats for sure.

i mean countless countries of muslim population have undergone war and genocides and the rest of us have looked on.

persecution is rife and yet muslims all over the world cannot do anything about it.


muslim nations and there governments are just as corrupt as those that oppose them.


..i guess only allah swt can change the people.


for those that complain about disunity, live your lives according to your own laws..

and that is the point of it.

even if you were all strangers your actions are still part of a bigger picture.


be part of a caliphate that does not exist? i mean you already have the rule book, what you make of it and what is made of you is a reflection of the muslim ummah.

mfw still believes in a god.

[Insaanah]

:sl:

First of all, I don't put much stock in individual hadiths unless they are of Bukhari.

Only accepting Bukhari (and possibly Muslim) hadiths as being self-sufficient is hardly a far-off heresy.

It is actually a very serious matter.

Believing the Prophet :saws: in some matters and belying him in other matters, while one knows those statements came from him, strikes at the foundations of one's entire Islam and imaan, and can take one onto disbelief.

If one does not deny the hadeeth knowing they are authentic, but doubts the authenticity of a hadeeth, then they should know that judging the authenticity of a hadeeth is the job of hadeeth experts. A non-scholar or non-specialist is not free to make his own judgement about hadeeth. There are many many ahaadeeth outside of Bukhari and Muslim, which are unanimously accepted as authentic and saheeh. To deny those, when one knows that there is unanimous agreement from hadeeth experts and scholars that they are authentic, is to deny something that came from the Prophet :saws:, to deny that he :saws: said it, and is to deny part of your deen. Which is very serious indeed.

A new revert may be excused if he/she has only ever been exposed to those that deny the sunnah or hadeeth, but once they have been shown the proofs and evidences and it has been explained to them why we must follow the hadeeth and how they are an integral part of our deen, then they are no longer excused.

Allah alone knows the many reasons why someone may be pulled into denying the sunnah or specific hadeeth of the Prophet :saws: - especially in this day and age wherein the sunnah has been under attack by both non-Muslims, and sadly, Muslims themselves. It could have been the case that a Muslim never had the fortune of reading in detail about the place of the sunnah and the preservation/methodology of the hadeeth. It could also have been the case that a Muslim was surrounded by those who refused to follow the sunnah or submit to its authority in Islam. Whatever the case may be, repenting to Allah and having a strong will and intention to adhere to the sunnah may wipe away what one did in the past, and lead to the path of Allahs pleasure.

Abridged and adapted from The Authority and Importance of the Sunnah, by Jamaal al-Din M. Zarabozo.

There are some very good links on the subject of hadeeth here:

http://www.islamicboard.com/clarific...ml#post1542902

[Futuwwa]

A new revert may be excused if he/she has only ever been exposed to those that deny the sunnah or hadeeth, but once they have been shown the proofs and evidences and it has been explained to them why we must follow the hadeeth and how they are an integral part of our deen, then they are no longer excused.

So we're allowed to ask for proof, but we are obliged to accept any "proof" offered as valid and final, and fall in line? ^o)

Nope. Not going to do it :)

Also, I have learned to be wary of people who claim that their opinion is a matter of scholarly consensus.

[Muhammad]

:salamext: Futuwwa,

I haven't asserted anything. I said that I am not convinced about the authenticity of that hadith. That is not an assertion of anything.

You made a very big assertion when you said, 'The Prophet Muhammed never told us to establish a caliphate. He gave absolutely no instructions for succession... The whole caliphate thing was made up when the early Muslim community was left wondering who should lead them'.

There's quite a large logic gap between "these are the characteristics of a good leader" and "this is the one, true political system sanctioned by Allah".

What I find to be lacking in logic and coherence is making the above claims when you have not even decided which sayings of the Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) are acceptable in your view. We cannot really have a discussion without first clarifying what is and isn't acceptable evidence. Is it the case that any hadith not matching your views will automatically be doubted in its authenticity, even if numerous hadeeth scholars graded it authentic? Or will you search for an interpretation of those texts that best suits you?

May I also remind us that when a Muslim gives the greeting of salaam, it is his right to be responded to. This is something clear from the Qur'an as well as hadeeth:

Al-Bukhaari (1240) and Muslim (2162) narrated that Abu Hurayrah (may Allah be pleased with him) said: I heard the Messenger of Allah (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) say: “The rights of one Muslim over another are five: returning the greeting of salaam, visiting the sick, attending funerals, accepting invitations, and saying yarhamuk Allah (may Allah have mercy on you) to one who sneezes.”

[Futuwwa]

:salamext: Futuwwa,

You made a very big assertion when you said, 'The Prophet Muhammed never told us to establish a caliphate. He gave absolutely no instructions for succession... The whole caliphate thing was made up when the early Muslim community was left wondering who should lead them'.

And that's an assertion I have backed up. It should be obvious from the context that I was talking about hadithology.

What I find to be lacking in logic and coherence is making the above claims when you have not even decided which sayings of the Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) are acceptable in your view. We cannot really have a discussion without first clarifying what is and isn't acceptable evidence. Is it the case that any hadith not matching your views will automatically be doubted in its authenticity, even if numerous hadeeth scholars graded it authentic? Or will you search for an interpretation of those texts that best suits you?

A rhetorical question like that is an accusation of insincerity. The next thing that will happen is that you will acknowledge, without reservations, that I am completely sincere. That disagreement with you, or even disaggreement with scholarly orthodoxy for that matter, is not an implication of being insincere and picking and choosing according to one's nafs.

May I also remind us that when a Muslim gives the greeting of salaam, it is his right to be responded to. This is something clear from the Qur'an as well as hadeeth:

Al-Bukhaari (1240) and Muslim (2162) narrated that Abu Hurayrah (may Allah be pleased with him) said: I heard the Messenger of Allah (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) say: “The rights of one Muslim over another are five: returning the greeting of salaam, visiting the sick, attending funerals, accepting invitations, and saying yarhamuk Allah (may Allah have mercy on you) to one who sneezes.”

And the thing that will happen after the first thing, is that you will stop trying to pass off insults and denigration as righteous admonition. Doing so is the worst form of hypocrisy.

[Insaanah]

:sl: Br Futuwwa

If there is a hadeeth in a recognised hadeeth collection outside of Bukhari and Muslim, that has a sound and strong chain of narration, that all the hadeeth scholars of earlier generations and later generations have unanimously accepted as being authentic and saheeh, will you accept it?

If not, why not? Which criteria are you using to accept a hadeeth as being true, and from which sources and scholars do you derive your criteria from?

[Muhammad]

:salamext:

And that's an assertion I have backed up. It should be obvious from the context that I was talking about hadithology.

I find it strange for someone to say, 'if the Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) intended x, he would have said so', yet disregard the hadeeth. If a person rejects most of the hadeeth, then on what basis does he know what the Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) did or did not say? Moreover, I am not sure how you would back up a negative assertion such as 'the Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) never told us to do x' or 'gave no instructions for y', as it implies having checked the vast amount of verses of Qur'an and authentic narrations to definitively arrive at such a conclusion. So I cannot see where you have backed up your assertion. When I provided reasons to support a different view, such as the action of the Companions in choosing a leader, you've totally disregarded this.

A rhetorical question like that is an accusation of insincerity. The next thing that will happen is that you will acknowledge, without reservations, that I am completely sincere. That disagreement with you, or even disaggreement with scholarly orthodoxy for that matter, is not an implication of being insincere and picking and choosing according to one's nafs.

I agree that disagreement on its own is not an implication of being insincere. But on what basis do you disagree - on what grounds do you doubt the authenticity of the hadeeth when it is in one of the most popular collections of hadeeth and graded authentic by many scholars, and on what basis do you determine its correct meaning?

And the thing that will happen after the first thing, is that you will stop trying to pass off insults and denigration as righteous admonition. Doing so is the worst form of hypocrisy.

My dear brother, how does reminding one of a hadeeth and a basic teaching in Islam equate to insults and denigration? If you'd prefer I said it in private, then I'm sorry. But to liken it to hypocrisy is unfair, especially when a moment ago you complained I accused you of insincerity.

May Allaah (swt) forgive us for our faults, Aameen.

[جوري]

still take a 'world' wide Islamic caliphate over a christian one!


best,