How is sharia to be implemented, in Muslim countries?

I mean, what if an evil person who claims, in fitna to be caliph, and uses Islam for their own interests, claiming to follow Islam, etc. But actually doesnt?

I mean, obv. Ruling by Shariah, is good. But what if some evil person with ill intentions by force took over?? Are we to obey? I know Islamic shariah is only good. But man is not. :-/

Astaghfirullah if I said anything kufr.

format_quote Originally Posted by Scimitar

except the one I was referring to was you pushing a link, from IslamQA - the same Serenity has raised in question as I have.

It's neither clear nor ambiguous - but confusing - as I mentioned, it seems the scholars should all be for ISIS by that definition and I quote:

This method is contrary to sharee’ah, because it is seized by force. But 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 Allaah.

Which is basically what ISIS have claimed they have done. So why not go join them if this is the narrative the scholars are pushing?

explain to me and others please - how the view copy pasted from IslamQA is not reflective of ISIS propaganda?

Scimi

That question should be addressed to the scholar who said it, and you can do that from here:

https://islamqa.info/en/

Click the "Send A Question" button.

You can write the question in English; he's got a team of translators who translate all of the questions (from any language) into Arabic. Takes a few days to get a response (due to the large amount of questions daily), so be patient.

Was-Salaam.

format_quote Originally Posted by Serinity

I mean, what if an evil person who claims, in fitna to be caliph, and uses Islam for their own interests, claiming to follow Islam, etc. But actually doesnt?

I mean, obv. Ruling by Shariah, is good. But what if some evil person with ill intentions by force took over?? Are we to obey? I know Islamic shariah is only good. But man is not. :-/

Astaghfirullah if I said anything kufr.

There are two scenarios:

1) A good person seizes power by force, in order to implement the Sharee`ah and rule in accordance with the Qur'aan and the Sunnah, and bring justice to the lands and to the inhabitants. A person who rules in accordance to how Rasoolullaah صلى الله عليه وسلم and the Khulafaa-e-Raashideen had done. A person who is devoid of any kind of tyranny or injustice; rather, his Akhlaaq is based on that of Rasoolullaah صلى الله عليه وسلم.

2) An evil person seizes power by force; however, he is a tyrant, a Zhaalim, he oppresses people, he spreads Fitnah in the land, he murders people, he ill-treats everyone under him.

With regards to scenario #2, there are two views among the A'immah:

1) The view of the Shaafi`i, Hanbali and Maaliki Madhaahib, which is that as long as he has not committed Kufr, it's not permissible to revolt against him.

2) The view of the Hanafi Madh-hab, which is that people Should revolt against him, kick him out and a proper ruler should be brought in. The view of the Ahnaaf is based on the Aayah:

لا ينال عهدي الظالمين

{"My Covenant does not include the Zhaalimeen."}

If you look at the context of that Aayah, it is about a conversation that took place between Nabi Ibraaheem عليه السلام and Allaah Ta`aalaa. Allaah Ta`aalaa tells Nabi Ibraaheem عليه السلام that, "I am going to make you an Imaam (leader) for the people." He asks Allaah: "And from my progeny?" Allaah Ta`aalaa responds: "My Covenant does not include the Zhaalimeen (the wrong-doers; oppressors; tyrants)." Meaning, Allaah Ta`aalaa would make Imaams (leaders) from the progeny of Nabi Ibraaheem عليه السلام, except those of them who are Zhaalimeen. So based on this Aayah, the Ahnaaf say (and there is Nass from Imaam Abu Haneefah himself on this matter) that if a ruler becomes evil and corrupt, and tyrannical and oppressive, then he is no longer the ruler, according to this Aayah, and thus he should be fought and removed, and a proper ruler must take his place.

So, the four Madhaahib are unanimous that if a Muslim ruler forcefully installs himself as the Khaleefah, he must be obeyed, provided he thereafter rules in accordance with the Sharee`ah, with the Qur'aan and the Sunnah. Where they disagree is with regards to how he acts After becoming the ruler. Like we mentioned above, the Maaliki, Shaafi`i and Hanbali Madhaahib say that rebellion against him is not allowed unless he commits an act of clear-cut Kufr, whereas the Hanafi Madh-hab says that if he is a Zhaalim, rebellion against him is not just allowed, it's the right thing to do.

والله تعالى أعلم

والسلام

Well there you have it mustafa16 shariah is as flexible as bamboo, and as diverse as it too.

format_quote Originally Posted by Huzaifah ibn Adam

That question should be addressed to the scholar who said it,

I was under the impression we were having a conversation, you just deflected after your claim to authority. You clearly sponsor the same opinion, you should be able to answer it.

I ask again.

What of ISIS? Do they not fit in the descriptions given under these examples the Ulema have categorised. They took the land by force, while it had no proper governance, and installed Shariah, by force, according to their own naratives - where do they fit in this whole kerfuffle?

Scimi

Can anyone just claim Khalifah?? That sounds very unlikely.. tbh.

What is to prevent 2-4 people going out and claiming Khalifah?? I mean there must be a system.. Just claiming Khalifah and BAM you are.. Even a hypocrite could do that.

Has there ever been a case where an evil one took Khalifah position?

I'd have no objections against someone who is founded on The Prophet's Akhlaqq, etc. But an evil tyrant, ignorant or hypocrite (i.e. a kafir), I do.

So if Khawariji went out and claimed Khalifah status, would we obey them? Or does the ruling that killing them is best, override that?

Correct me if I am wrong, but to be a Khalifah, isn't one supposed to know Shariah Law, AND have Islamic Character?

format_quote Originally Posted by Scimitar

Well there you have it mustafa16 shariah is as flexible as bamboo, and as diverse as it too.



I was under the impression we were having a conversation, you just deflected after your claim to authority. You clearly sponsor the same opinion, you should be able to answer it.

I ask again.

What of ISIS? Do they not fit in the descriptions given under these examples the Ulema have categorised. They took the land by force, while it had no proper governance, and installed Shariah, by force, according to their own naratives - where do they fit in this whole kerfuffle?

Scimi

The rules of this forum does not allow discussions regarding Jihaad groups; it results in deletion of the thread and banning of the member(s) involved, and that decision made by the staff is done due to the security risks involved (as was witnessed in the past on forums like Islamic Awakening, when numerous members ended up getting arrested). So, questions pertaining to such matters will not be answered. In fact, political questions in general. People who want to know about those things can do their own research. After all, those are contemporary issues.

What we post is simply the rulings from the Qur'aan and the Sunnah. We do not discuss or comment on modern day groups and movements.

Research, ask people on the ground, people involved.

Was-Salaam.

format_quote Originally Posted by Serinity

Can anyone just claim Khalifah?? That sounds very unlikely.. tbh.

What is to prevent 2-4 people going out and claiming Khalifah?? I mean there must be a system.. Just claiming Khalifah and BAM you are.. Even a hypocrite could do that.

Has there ever been a case where an evil one took Khalifah position?

I'd have no objections against someone who is founded on The Prophet's Akhlaqq, etc. But an evil tyrant, ignorant or hypocrite (i.e. a kafir), I do.

So if Khawariji went out and claimed Khalifah status, would we obey them? Or does the ruling that killing them is best, override that?

Correct me if I am wrong, but to be a Khalifah, isn't one supposed to know Shariah Law, AND have Islamic Character?

To be a Khalifah in today's world, you have to have the support of the west as well as a lot of weapons to cause chaos and destruction to your own people. It's also important to hire Hollywood rated production companies to produce all your kill videos to distribute them all over the internet.

I mean, that has Islam written all over it! Cmon guys!

format_quote Originally Posted by keiv

To be a Khalifah in today's world, you have to have the support of the west as well as a lot of weapons to cause chaos and destruction to your own people.

True. Allah protect us and forgive us. Ameen.

@huzaifa h ibn Adam Does Quran and Hadith teach for a world conquest?

format_quote Originally Posted by Serinity

Can anyone just claim Khalifah?? That sounds very unlikely.. tbh.

No. The Fuqahaa of the different Madhaahib have laid down certain Shuroot (conditions) in order for a person to become a Khaleefah. One of the conditions which the Maaliki, Shaafi`i, and Hanbali Madhaahib have is that the person must be from the tribe of Quraysh.

So no, not just anyone can become a Khaleefah. Some other conditions are being Baaligh, sane, having sufficient `Ilm of Deen, being just, being capable of fulfilling the role of Khaleefah (both physical and mental capability), etc.

format_quote Originally Posted by Serinity

What is to prevent 2-4 people going out and claiming Khalifah?? I mean there must be a system.. Just claiming Khalifah and BAM you are.. Even a hypocrite could do that.

There are three ways of becoming a Khaleefah:

1. Being chosen by the Ahl-ul-Halli wal-`Aqd (the people of authority).
2. Being chosen by the previous Khaleefah.
3. Taking power by force.

In the case of Hadhrat Abu Bakr رضي الله عنه, he became Khaleefah through being selected by the Ahl-ul-Halli wal-`Aqd. In the case of Hadhrat `Umar ibn al-Khattaab رضي الله عنه, he became Khaleefah through being chosen by Hadhrat Abu Bakr رضي الله عنه. In the cases of Hadhrat `Uthmaan ibn `Affaan and Hadhrat `Ali ibn Abi Taalib رضي الله عنهما, they became Khaleefah through being selected by the Ahl-ul-Halli wal-`Aqd.

format_quote Originally Posted by Serinity

Has there ever been a case where an evil one took Khalifah position?

Yes. Many of the Abbasid rulers were evil. Some from the Umayyads as well.

format_quote Originally Posted by Serinity

I'd have no objections against someone who is founded on The Prophet's Akhlaqq, etc. But an evil tyrant, ignorant or hypocrite (i.e. a kafir), I do.

According to the view of Imaam Abu Haneefah, which is the relied upon view of the Hanafi Madh-hab according to Imaam Abu Bakr al-Jassaas as explained in his "Ahkaam al-Qur'aan", in the case of a tyrant who oppresses the Muslims, he will be fought and a proper Khaleefah will take his place.

format_quote Originally Posted by Serinity

So if Khawariji went out and claimed Khalifah status, would we obey them? Or does the ruling that killing them is best, override that?

The Khawaarij - according to some `Ulamaa - are Kaafir, and thus they cannot become the Khaleefah.

format_quote Originally Posted by Serinity

Correct me if I am wrong, but to be a Khalifah, isn't one supposed to know Shariah Law, AND have Islamic Character?

That is correct. A person has to have a certain level of `Ilm in order to be the Khaleefah.

والله تعالى أعلم

والسلام

format_quote Originally Posted by Mustafa16

I'm so glad I'm surrounded by Gulenists and don't have to worry about this extremism, Islamism, and "restoration of the caliphate" nonsense....as well as my scholars, as brother Huzaifah ibn Adam just did, advocating for ISIS, one of the most barbaric organizations in history. Yet I still have to be associated with this extremist nonsense, and get labeled because of my islam

Gulenists or Erdogan supporters both the same. As both give the mask of Islam but the body of nationalism as well as the clear Kemalists. The modern day Turkey and the Turkey of the last 90 years was and to this day ..all in the interest of the west.

From NATO to Bilderberg involvement to the philosophy of nationalism which came from the west and still is their philosophy. By dividing land in to countries of the Middle East as how it is right now you create disunity among people. This simple concept and hidden agenda of the west many Turks sadly don't understand and refuse to understand if they themselves are not aware of.

"Islamism"? You mean, "Islaam"? You don't have to worry about Islaam? Because in Turkey, those groups ensure that the true Islaam never takes root and that they put this spineless, homosexual, watered down religion they have invented in its place, this religion that orders them to worship America and lick their boots.

They use "extremism" to mean "The original Islaam which Rasoolullaah صلى الله عليه وسلم" brought. "The Qur'aan and the Sunnah". This, according to them, is extremism. The Sharee`ah of Islaam is "extremism". Anything other than bowing down to America and its allies is "extremism". They are a joke.

format_quote Originally Posted by TDWT

On the point of a kalifa, I was wondering, so let's say, there's a muslim caliphate right? There's no other war and muslim nations are at peace and there are non muslim states. Is the caliphate supposed to go and start a war with the non muslim states or something?

His duty as the Khaleefah is to despatch an army of Mujaahideen who will go to the Kaafir nation and present them with three options: 1) Accept Islaam, or 2) Surrender, pay Jizyah, keep your religions, but this land will be ruled by the Sharee`ah of Islaam, or 3) Get ready to fight.

According to the books of Fiqh, he should do it at least once or twice a year. The Maqsad is to have the Divine Laws of Allaah Ta`aalaa rule every land on earth; because those lands belong to Allaah, not to people, so it is only right that His Laws be implemented, not man-made laws.

but first he..they..would have to unite their own country.

whats civil war like?

...maybe ask the saudis?

if hitler never existed, he probably would have got further.


weeell...pretty sure i didnt mean to say that lol..

as far as analogies go thats a bad one.

some people would eat you alive if you said the wrong thing..

to what end i dont know.


....what are we doing today brain?

....same thing we do every day pinky.



...

with respect to the above post, the letters of the prophet pbuh thread is amazing..

might go some way to shedding light on mannerisms.


...honestly, most of these voices bear no resemblance to my god.