do the prophets family have right to rule over the muslims

[sert]

from the little i have read about islamic history it seems muslims accepted that their leaders must be from the prophets family, is this true? what is legetimacy of rule in islam?

if it is by relations with the prophet then does that mean the ottomans where illgitimate?

[Curaezipirid]

alaikumassalam sert,

your statement is nonsensical because you use the word "must"
if it is a 'must' then there is no reason to ask
however since you also write that it only "seems like" in "must" be the case, that the prophets descendents rule,
you are disclosing to us that you are not yourself in belief that the prophet's descendents rule

Of course it is that we would all prefer for the Prophet's descendents to rule, Peace be with all among. But if you yourself have any information that could assist to cause such, then go ahead and spell out what it is that you really believe.

Are you wishing to find whether we are orienting to persons not in the correct line of descent? Your method of exposition in the specific words used gives such meaning to a person familiar with occultists preferred uses of English grammar.

Take care of yourself in expression.

mu'asalam

[QuranStudy]

The ruler of Muslims should be wise and caring, so yes.

[Kidman]

This is going to get into a sectarian issue. Might as well close it now. Shia's believe that the Prophet's descendents should've ruled, while Sunni's believe that they should choose who rules.

Since i don't want to give my own opinion that would lead to sectarian issue, I will leave it at that, you can do your own research, and believe what you believe to be deemed as correct.

Peace,

Kidman

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

[Curaezipirid]

Alaikumassalam

I had not known of that distinction
Yet it is my firm belief that in any time the leaders must be persons whom prove themself to the population independly of all forefathers.

I also am certain that there are non-believers actively preventing persons among the descends of Mohammed to lead Islam; but we all know that this situation of who is 'in power' changes, and that the events we live through we do not do, but that it happens that the conditions existant right now are not auspiciously favourable to Islam.

The Prophet Mohammed (Peace be with Him and all His descendents) advised us not to focus importance upon the personalities of the leaders of men. But rather we each must focus our attentions upon manifesting our own personal best; who falls to lead, leads.

mu'asalam

[Kidman]

ya, and that's why there are people like Bush leading America.

[Ghazi]

:sl:

I disagree, we can't give someone a position of authority based alone on who his daddy is. I could use the same logic and demand rule and say that my farther adam was a prophet.

[sert]

:sl:

I disagree, we can't give someone a position of authority based alone on who his daddy is. I could use the same logic and demand rule and say that my farther adam was a prophet.

but that makes u equal to everyone else,

[Ghazi]

but that makes u equal to everyone else,

Exactly Remember the prophets were the one's rightly guided just beacuse someone daddy is a prophet doesn't mean they're rightly guided to give them rule just who their daddy is is simply stupid, for example prophet Noah's son disobeyed him and died as a disbeliever, in short the prophets decendents don't have automatic cliam to rule over muslims.

[Kidman]

Exactly Remember the prophets were the one's rightly guided just beacuse someone daddy is a prophet doesn't mean they're rightly guided to give them rule just who their daddy is is simply stupid, for example prophet Noah's son disobeyed him and died as a disbeliever, in short the prophets decendents don't have automatic cliam to rule over muslims.

Ya but at the same time there are numerous Prophets that appointed their sons' to lead the believers.. because that is who lived with them and knows the religion the best... so it all comes down to if the family was appointed by the prophet or not.

Kidman

[BlissfullyJaded]

:sl:

from the little i have read about islamic history it seems muslims accepted that their leaders must be from the prophets family, is this true? what is legetimacy of rule in islam?

if it is by relations with the prophet then does that mean the ottomans where illgitimate?

If that really held weight, then the reigns of Abu Bakr, Umar, and Uthman (Radiallahu Anhum) were illigitamate. We can all safely agree their leadership were legitamate.

Khilafat is not based on being part of Sayyidina Rasulullah's (Salallahu Alayhi Wasallam) family, its based on whether the ruler is fit to rule. And of course the Khilafat will be revived by Imam Mahdi who is part of the Ahlul Bayt.

[Kidman]

:sl:

If that really held weight, then the reigns of Abu Bakr, Umar, and Uthman (Radiallahu Anhum) were illigitamate. We can all safely agree their leadership were legitamate.

Khilafat is not based on being part of Sayyidina Rasulullah's (Salallahu Alayhi Wasallam) family, its based on whether the ruler is fit to rule. And of course the Khilafat will be revived by Imam Mahdi who is part of the Ahlul Bayt.

Was it now?

Kavon