format_quote Originally Posted by
Eddy
Sure, and you do know who is responsible for that, don't you?
I guess you're right, that is an important statistic.
I was just blinded with all the other statistics, like income per capita, education, health care, etc.
I tend to forget about the last big immigration wave.
My bad.
Apparently you think that having a better worldly life is an indication of being on the right path? And you also seem to believe one should follow the mob mentality ( Democracy)? Correct me again if these are wrong assumptions, because all of your responses leads to these conclusions.
format_quote Originally Posted by
Eddy
Thank you for the link about how to elect a caliph.
I'm not going to deny it, I was a bit stunned with the option #3
format_quote Originally Posted by
Eddy
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 did exactly what I thought you would ( take a passage out which fits your narrative and ignore the rest). Let me copy and past the parts of the article and explain:
First let's see what was the question in that article?
How
did the Islamic state organize its affairs? How
did the government rule in the
earliest period?.
Its past tense and clearly asking about how affairs of government were carried out in early Islam. If you want to compare apple to apple, go back and look how Europe was being ruled at that time.
Now lets look at the answer to specific question, how was Caliph appointed?
The article says:
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:
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:
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:
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:
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:
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:
- To have one ruler (Caliphate) for entire Ummah. This units the Muslims. One of the reason why Muslims we today are suffering are lack of one authority. There are roughly 50 Muslim majority countries and many of them don't support each other because power has been distributed. Everyone looks at the benefit of their own country and not the benefit of Ummah at large. The Umayyad and ‘Abbasid caliphs are good examples - even though they came to power by force but they helped to expand the Muslim empire and still enforced the Shariah law.
- Second reason is to eliminate chaos and to establish security in the land. The main objective of the Caliph is to implement Shariah and to unite/protect the Muslims. If the one who seizes power by force is capable to do so then obeying him is better than fights against each other. History tells us that it only resulted in chaos and killing of other Muslims. That's exactly what the non-Muslims want. And that's the reason, majority of the scholars consider protests non-Islamic way to create chaos in the country. In modern day, one can look at Libya, Egypt and Iraq. The protests against rulers have created more chaos in the society and these countries are now in the worse state than a decade ago. I understand you may not agree with this. Some Muslims influenced by Western ways also don't agree with what I said. But we are not to follow our own desires and whims. We are supposed to follow Sharia law and that puts greater emphasis on the unity and security of the Muslims.
- Most importantly, the ruler shall rule in accordance to shariah law. If someone takes power by force by is implementing shariah law it is better than an elected leader who does not implement shariah law.
format_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?
Bookmarks