A modern day Caliphate - How realistic is it?

[AntiKarateKid]

For me the simple answer is:

A caliphate, like terrorism, is as real as the Ummah wants it to be. We can stand back and let terrorists distort Islam or we can wrench it back and clear our names. We can make a Caliphate but we'd need unity. And so far, Muslims are far from united these days. imsad

C'mon Mahdi! :enough!:

 

[Uthman]

"Hadhrat Huzaifa narrated that the Messenger of Allah said: Prophethood will remain among you as long as Allah wills. Then Caliphate (Khilafat) on the lines of Prophethood shall commence, and remain as long as Allah wills. Then corrupt/erosive monarchy would take place, and it will remain as long as Allah wills. After that, despotic kingship would emerge, and it will remain as long as Allah wills. Then, the Caliphate (Khilafat) shall come once again based on the precept of Prophethood."

Thus far, Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) seems to have given an accurate foretelling of future events, ay? I suppose we are at the stage of corrupt/erosive monarchy at the moment?

 

[nebula]

No that is no surprise. I am now trying to find reference as to how and why I came to under the impression that the next Caliph will be the Mehdi and there will no Caliphate until he comes.

i also think the next caliphate will be Mahdi.

 

[Pomak]

I consider the ottoman rule to be a monarchy, the sultan was not elected as Islam teaches us that the caliph need to be elected.
I dont think that the caliphate would work, but nonetheless we should try to realize it, or at least to have the intention

Careful, such statements are problematic in light of the hadiths about the conquest of Constantinople. And the general length of the Ottoman Dynasty.

If we are to believe such a thing, then we must engage in some historical revisionism about some of the things that existed under the Ottomans.

 

[alcurad]

the concept of caliphate is a flawed one, no one should assume the authority the prophet had, Abu Bakr and the people who supported him made a grave mistake in that regard, his misunderstanding should be repeated for the sake of itself.
rather what comes to mind when caliphate is said is some form of over simplified medieval political system that wouldn't be enough to rule a city let alone a pan continental-imaginary-entity called the Ummah.
dreams are nice 'm guessing, some are atleast, rather we should wake up and live in this world, this 'space-time' as it were.
the past is just that; past, that shouldn't be hard to figure out though.

 

[Pomak]

the concept of caliphate is a flawed one, no one should assume the authority the prophet had, Abu Bakr and the people who supported him made a grave mistake in that regard, his misunderstanding should be repeated for the sake of itself.
rather what comes to mind when caliphate is said is some form of over simplified medieval political system that wouldn't be enough to rule a city let alone a pan continental-imaginary-entity called the Ummah.
dreams are nice 'm guessing, some are atleast, rather we should wake up and live in this world, this 'space-time' as it were.
the past is just that; past, that shouldn't be hard to figure out though.

So we ignore a bunch of hadiths because they say things we don't like?

 

[burdenofbeing]

I consider the ottoman rule to be a monarchy, the sultan was not elected as Islam teaches us that the caliph need to be elected.
I dont think that the caliphate would work, but nonetheless we should try to realize it, or at least to have the intention

the election of the caliph and the matter of unity was stressed as early as the caliphate of عثمان and علي. Of course also continuously after that.

The system of having respected sheiks and scholars (which would act similar to parliementers) who would then decide on one person as a caliph ( without the need of the person nominating himself ) like the vatican would be both authentic to the real deal, and for the better.

Caliphate was taken down, because it let itself be taken down.
When the last caliph called for unity, the muslims chose nationality and other short term pragmatic matters over his words. The new Turkish parliement held the power of caliphate in itself for one term, and then it was terminated, as it proved more problems than solutions. at least for the purposes of Ataturk.

---

my opinion, is that a caliphate is realistic, and much needed. it's also a great chance to form a decisive power in this modern era, with modern communication tools, which can be a milestone in human history.

 

[alcurad]

So we ignore a bunch of hadiths because they say things we don't like?

which ones are being ignored?
did the prophet ever say he should be succeeded in position of prophet hood? changing what was not meant to be changed was what the most 'khulafa' did, simply browse our 'glorious' history and see for yourself what was done.
even the good ones came by by nothing more than a fluke, there was no system in place to insure a just ruler to begin with.

 

[alcurad]

The system of having respected sheiks and scholars (which would act similar to parliementers) who would then decide on one person as a caliph ( without the need of the person nominating himself ) like the vatican would be both authentic to the real deal, and for the better.

establishing churches is not part of our religion brother, and the ruler/s of any muslim country should be chosen by all muslims, not a few self styled scholars who most probably know next to nill when it comes politics and government.

 

[Pomak]

which ones are being ignored?
did the prophet ever say he should be succeeded in position of prophet hood? changing what was not meant to be changed was what the most 'khulafa' did, simply browse our 'glorious' history and see for yourself what was done.
even the good ones came by by nothing more than a fluke, there was no system in place to insure a just ruler to begin with.

Firstly only the first 4/5 khalifs ruled "in position of prophet hood".

I've had enough arguments with HT brothers to know my rightly guided khalifs from the rest.

It basically comes down to that the first 4 held political and religious authority. (And the HT people i've talked to seem to be under the delusion that this is a viable method with the crop of muslim leaders today)
All the ones after them held political authority while the scholars held the religious authority.

That being the major distinction between the papacy and the khalifate.

 

[burdenofbeing]

establishing churches is not part of our religion brother, and the ruler/s of any muslim country should be chosen by all muslims, not a few self styled scholars who most probably know next to nill when it comes politics and government.

Have I said we should establish churches? The people also know next to nil when it comes to politics and government; are you proposing some sort of aristocracy? Besides there seems to be a misunderstanding.

Proposing a modern caliphate that has both governing and religious power is not realistic. It would mean one united country of islam. How realistic do you think it would be in the current state of the world? A religious consensus power, similar to papacy, is a much more realistic possibility, and a priority over the other.

 

[Pomak]

Have I said we should establish churches? The people also know next to nil when it comes to politics and government; are you proposing some sort of aristocracy? Besides there seems to be a misunderstanding.

Proposing a modern caliphate that has both governing and religious power is not realistic. It would mean one united country of islam. How realistic do you think it would be in the current state of the world? A religious consensus power, similar to papacy, is a much more realistic possibility, and a priority over the other.

With the advocacy of something "similar to papacy", does that include the conformist tendencies that the Papacy is know for?

 

[alcurad]

brother pomak, what is an HT brother:?
anyway, even the first four committed mistakes, that system is no longer viable, it was enough for a tribal society, the complexity of government nowadays is unparalleled through history.
the muslim community as a whole decides who rules, not a few scholars, who appoints the scholars who choose the ruler in the first place? themselves? more scholars? it's simply not viable any other way.

brother burdenofbeing, still my statement stands, we don't create churches. any political system where decision making mainly involves the clergy is another Vatican, the Vatican is a church, where the clergy rule/d & appoint/ed governors. such is not allowed in Islam, since we should not have clergy-in our case they call themselves scholars/mullah etc-in the first place.

nota bene: the american or most European governments is/are more Islamic than our Islamic governments in many respects.

 

[Pomak]

brother pomak, what is an HT brother:?
anyway, even the first four committed mistakes, that system is no longer viable, it was enough for a tribal society, the complexity of government nowadays is unparalleled through history.
the muslim community as a whole decides who rules, not a few scholars, who appoints the scholars who choose the ruler in the first place? themselves? more scholars? it's simply not viable any other way.

brother burdenofbeing, still my statement stands, we don't create churches. any political system where decision making mainly involves the clergy is another Vatican, the Vatican is a church, where the clergy rule/d & appoint/ed governors. such is not allowed in Islam, since we should not have clergy-in our case they call themselves scholars/mullah etc-in the first place.

nota bene: the american or most European governments is/are more Islamic than our Islamic governments in many respects.

HT= Hizb ut Tahrir

My suggestion is look up history and some of the hadiths around muslim leadership.

Also are these comments of yours based on some scholar's work or just your opinions?

 

[burdenofbeing]

pomak, no. it would be the total opposite of what we expect to find in a caliphate. I would like to think we would also be able to "straighten them if they were to become crooked"

alcurad, the system I proposed would be for a religious body, not a government. A percentage of scholar/mullah parliementers would be picked by people, without having candidates. There are already many people who we think represent our stance in Islam best.

If, miraculously, somehow all muslim countries would merge together to form united states of islam, then I would like to have to different governmental bodies, one political, one religious.

at any rate, the most important position needed now, is a single organ to serve as the ear and mouth of muslim people.

 

[alcurad]

HT= Hizb ut Tahrir

My suggestion is look up history and some of the hadiths around muslim leadership.

Also are these comments of yours based on some scholar's work or just your opinions?

oh I see.
your suggestion is very good , now have you actually considered that I might already done my homework-so to speak on such matters?
it's a very vague one too, can you actually provide an example of some ahadeeth around muslim leadership that you don't think I agreed with thus ignored?

brother burdenofbeing, I see your point, but they should not have authority per their status as clergy. rather maybe they could serve as an advisory committee and so on.
I don't think memorizing ahadeeth and fiqh rulings is enough to run a government.

 

[جوري]

Have I said we should establish churches? The people also know next to nil when it comes to politics and government; are you proposing some sort of aristocracy? Besides there seems to be a misunderstanding.

Proposing a modern caliphate that has both governing and religious power is not realistic. It would mean one united country of islam. How realistic do you think it would be in the current state of the world? A religious consensus power, similar to papacy, is a much more realistic possibility, and a priority over the other.

The reason this works for Christianity though I have my doubts with the endless scandals and the velvet brocade smoke screen, is that Jesus didn't establish a political/economic system, he didn't actually linger around long enough to if anything enforce the laws of the OT, he came to a people who didn't want him. and Christianity is so deranged and steeped in pagan rituals and a million sect that it would be impossible for them to have it any other way, I mean we all saw what happened under 'Christendom' which is very unlike the case with Islam, we have a complete political/economic/ social structure/religious system that all that need be is implementation.. of course there is a fiqh to the deen (unchanging) and a fiqh to worldly affairs (needs ijtihad) The only thing standing in our way, is that it would spell absolute disaster for the west to have a Muslim umma.. it would be the dissolution of their being.. so they'll have us in a million wars, at odds with each other and we are already by nature very heated people-- as much corruption as there was under the last of the Ottomans it was still better than this current state we are in!

and Allah swt knows best

 

[burdenofbeing]

that's not the only thing standing in our way. even in thought, the muslims world is in disarray and discord right now. neither the muslims nor their countries would like to implement a program like EU, let alone an islamic united states or a united country. not today.

as I've said before, we need a single mouth to speak with the muslims and non-muslims. an islamic, religious representative body.

 

[Dawud_uk]

burdenofbeing

the muslim countries being united is not a prerequisite of the khilafa being re-established. one land could do it and the rest follow.

the proof of this is that in the past there was parts of the muslim lands which didnt acknowledge the authority of the khalif and the khilafa destroyed them but this didnt in itself bring down the khilafa.

so one land can go ahead first wherever the muslims get strong enough and then the rest will follow.

 

[burdenofbeing]

so, we destroy each other in the name of unity?
got it. brilliant plan.