Quote:
The imam (ruler) or caliph was appointed to lead the Islamic state by one of three methods:
Once again this is the past tense, discussing how early Muslims choose their Caliphs.
According to Islamqa first method was:
Quote:
He was chosen and elected by the decision makers (ahl al-hall wa’l-‘aqd). For example, Abu Bakr al-Siddeeq became caliph when he was elected by the decision makers, then the Sahaabah unanimously agreed with that and swore allegiance to him, and accepted him as caliph.
‘Uthmaan ibn ‘Affaan (may Allaah be pleased with him) became caliph in a similar manner, when ‘Umar ibn al-Khattaab (may Allaah be pleased with him) delegated the appointment of the caliph to come after him to a shoora council of six of the senior Sahaabah, who were to elect one of their number. ‘Abd al-Rahmaan ibn ‘Awf consulted the Muhaajireen and Ansaar, and when he saw that the people were all inclined towards ‘Uthmaan, he swore allegiance to him first, then the rest of the six swore allegiance to him, followed by the Muhaajireen and Ansaar, so he was elected as caliph by the decision makers.
‘Ali ibn Abi Taalib (may Allaah be pleased with him) became caliph in a similar manner, when he was elected by most of the decision makers.
Here we see that three out of four Caliphs were selected by Senior companions.
Majority of the Muslim scholars today believe this is one of the right ways to select the Caliph.
Let's look what was the second method:
Quote:
Appointment to the position by the previous caliph, when one caliph passes on the position to a particular person who is to succeed him after he dies. For example, ‘Umar ibn al-Khattaab became caliph when the position was passed on to him by Abu Bakr al-Siddeeq (may Allaah be pleased with him).
Muslims follow the Sunnah of Prophet (peace be upon him) and four rightly guided Caliphs, so there is nothing wrong in appointing a Caliph by previous Caliph provided both follow Shariah law and strive to unite and protect the Muslims.
This brings us to the third method which shocked you, and I don't blame you for this. You have been brought up in a culture where these things are strange for you. Even many Muslims living in the West would object to this third method.
So below is what you copy and pasted from the third method:
Quote:
By means of force and prevailing over others. When a man becomes caliph by prevailing over the people by the sword, and he establishes his authority and takes full control, then it becomes obligatory to obey him and he becomes the leader of the Muslims.
You on purpose did not copy and pasted the next part, which I will quote below:
Quote:
Examples of that include some of the Umayyad and ‘Abbasid caliphs, and those who came after them. This method is contrary to sharee’ah, because it is seized by force.
It clearly says that the third method is contrary to Shariah, because power is seized by force. So that the first part to acknowledge.
Second, why and under what conditions it becomes obligatory to obey such leader: Let me quote from the same article:
Quote:
Because great interests are served by having a ruler who rules the ummah, and because a great deal of mischief may result from chaos and loss of security in the land, the one who seizes authority by means of the sword should be obeyed if he seizes power by force but he rules in accordance with the laws of Allah.
Three very powerful reason are given:
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Eddy
I guess some people still think this is better than democracy. There are a few groups that are really big fans of this option.
Yes you are right that this option is not the opinion of all Muslims. There is difference of opinion and this difference was from the time of companions, some of them actually fought against those who took power by force. But I personally agree with the 3rd opinion because it is based on lessons learned through history.
The Umayyad and ‘Abbasid caliphs did seize power by force but they also helped Muslim to expand Islam. The golden Era of Muslims was during the 'Abbasid period. So we can see the good they brought in to the Ummah.
Is it possible to seize power by force in today's Muslim world? The answer is no, because Muslims don't have one Caliphate.
Should Muslims of today obey a ruler who may come into power by force? Yes only if the ruler is practicing Muslim and implements sharia.
Is Democracy better than the ways Muslim elect Caliph? The key difference is not how you select the ruler, it is who legislates the law and who is the Supreme power. If supreme power is "Allah" and "sharia Law" is enforced then it does not matter how one selects the ruler. On the other hand if people legislate the moral laws then we have a huge issue. I guess you will only understand this if you have some moral values and you see how those are compromised by legislation through people's power. Legalization of same sex marriage would be a good example. Do you believe it should be legalized?