Worldwide caliph

[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-stu...ur-rightly-guided-caliphs/#identifier_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?