Caliphate

[greenhill]

Salaams!

We know that Caliphate system that ended with the Ottoman Empire was not Islam at its proudest moment. My question is, would we be better off in a corrupt Caliphate system or the way things are now with secularism?

Just a hypothetical question. Not talking about possibility here.


Peace to all.

[truthseeker63]

WS in my opinion Muslims need the Caliphate.

[Ahmad H]

Hypothetically, Muslims are better off with secularism than a corrupt Caliphate. The Ottomans killed a large number of Armenians and committed genocide against them under the orders of the corrupt Caliphate. Now Muslims are blamed for having a corrupt Caliphate and it has tarnished the beauty of Islam because of what happened.

A corrupt Caliphate also forces some Muslims to become corrupt as well because the corrupt influence spreads to them. At least in secularism Muslims can follow Islam in peace without a corrupting influence who poses to follow Islam. Muslims are better off in secularism in this hypothetical situation then.

[greenhill]

I guess, it is an impossible question. But can't help wondering though...

Br. Ahmad H, on what you said, corrupt and violent is too much. Just corrupt? Not Ottoman justice.

Thruthseeker63, I feel so too.

[YusufNoor]

i would say the Caliphate ended after Ali ibn Abi Talib, with a brief respite under Umr ibn Abdul Aziz. most of the early scholars refused to serve the corrupt Caliphs. (maybe some justice around and just before Salah ud din.)

hard to really answer the question, though...

ma salaama

[Jedi_Mindset]

i would say the Caliphate ended after Ali ibn Abi Talib, with a brief respite under Umr ibn Abdul Aziz. most of the early scholars refused to serve the corrupt Caliphs. (maybe some justice around and just before Salah ud din.)

hard to really answer the question, though...

ma salaama

Well still they were caliphates however a monarchial form of govt in the name of caliphate came and under the ottoman caliphate it became more and more corrupt with for example one family rulling the caliphate and passing the throng from father to son which isnt allowed islamically, hence i think this is the reason why it got destroyed - because of our own fault, the corruptness et cetera.

The next caliphate, the coming one, will be based on the method of prophethood, which means it will be the same as under the 4 righteous predecessors insha'Allah.

Will it come without troubles and hardship? ofcourse it wouldnt, i believe it will come at the time when people scream that there is no mahdi or whatever. Now we have to much people expecting things thinking things will change in their lifetimes, if they want to change, why not themselves first? Their communities?Their families? If you want change, start with yourself and dont wait on others.

And that is our problem here, we expect too much, wont change ourselves for the good, we do not our best to curb our desires and the nafs so we can do good deeds. One of the best good deeds is your behaviour, how you treat others, how you help others. And ofcourse - knowledge, read books like stories of the prophets by ibn kathir(Ra).


Surah 13. Ar-Ra'd, Ayah 11

لَهُ مُعَقِّبَاتٌ مِنْ بَيْنِ يَدَيْهِ وَمِنْ خَلْفِهِ يَحْفَظُونَهُ مِنْ أَمْرِ اللَّهِ ۗ إِنَّ اللَّهَ لَا يُغَيِّرُ مَا بِقَوْمٍ حَتَّىٰ يُغَيِّرُوا مَا بِأَنْفُسِهِمْ ۗ وَإِذَا أَرَادَ اللَّهُ بِقَوْمٍ سُوءًا فَلَا مَرَدَّ لَهُ ۚ وَمَا لَهُمْ مِنْ دُونِهِ مِنْ وَالٍ [thinking that] he has hosts of helpers - both such as can be perceived by him and such as are hidden from him 24 - that could preserve him from whatever God may have willed. 25 Verily, God does not change men's condition unless they change their inner selves; 26 and when God wills people to suffer evil [in consequence of their own evil deeds], there is none who could avert it: for they have none who could protect them from Him.

Tafseer of Surah ar-Ra’ad, Ayah 11



Allah (swt) has decreed:

"InnAllaha laa yoghayyiru maa bi Qawmin hattaa yoghayyiroo maa bi anfusihim"
(TMQ ar-Ra’ad 13:11)

“Allah will not change what is in any nation, until they all collectively make a change occur in what is in themselves.” (TMQ ar-Ra’ad 13:11)

Many from amongst the sincere, and insincere, Muslims utilise this Ayah in an attempt to justify not working for the Khilafah by reviving the Ummah in a collective way. Instead, they claim, that one should perfect what is within oneself first, and only then look to the ills of the society. Thus, they emphasise the perfection of the individual as Allah (swt) has said that he will not change the situation of the people until they first change what is within their own selves.

Without under-emphasising the importance of Tazkiyyat un-nafs (purification of oneself) at all, it is necessary to eradicate the above false understanding, especially the idea that through this Tazkiyyah alone one can revive the Ummah. In fact, such a twisted interpretation of the glorious words of Allah (swt) cannot be further from the truth. The following Tafseer of this Ayah will explain it’s true meaning, breaking down the Arabic word by word with the aim of elucidating the collective nature of the Islamic Da’wah. Thus refuting at the same time the secular interpretation made by those smitten by western individualism.


The nature of the Ayah:

The Ayah is Ikhbariyyah (informative) therefore it informs about when Allah (swt) will change the situation of a people. It doesn't provide a detailed method for revival, and shouldn’t be used as such just as no scholar has used this Ayah in this way before. Imaam ul-Qurtubi said in his Tafseer entitled ‘al-Jaami’u li Ahkaam il-Qur’an’ that “ akhbara Allahu (meaning, ‘Allah informs’)…” So it is an informative Ayah (Akhbara being the verb from which the adjective Ikhbariyyah is derived) which informs about the law of Allah (swt) regarding change


Upon who does the change occur (Maf’ool ul-Fi’l)?

The verb (Fi’l) under discussion is the change, and the doer (Faa’il) of this change, is Allah (swt). So what is the object of the verb (al-Maf’ool)? That is to say, who is Allah (swt) going to change?

Allah (swt) stated, ‘…maa bi Qawmin…’ meaning, ‘(Allah will not change) whatever is in any Qawm’.

It is clear that the change will occur upon the Qawm. What is the meaning of this word Qawm, and what is the nature of this change? The maa here is 'aam (maa al-'Umoom) thus it applies to whatever is in the Qawm. Further, the word Qawm has come in the Mutlaq (unrestricted) form, and thus it even applies to the Kafir Qawm’s. Thus, the meaning is that "Allah will not change whatever is in any Qawm".

Please note that the word Qawm has been used, which means that the subject matter is the issue of collective change in society, not individual change. Qawm, in the Arabic language, means nation or sha’ab (people) and it can mean Ummah. It does not however, mean an individual, or even a collection of individuals. Fard or Shakhs means an individual or a person respectively, and Afraad or Shakhsiyyaat are the plurals, meaning a collection of individuals or persons. These words may be used to denote the work that treads the path of individual reform.

However, none of these words have been used by Allah (swt) in this Ayah, instead he used Qawm, which means nation, or Ummah. Nation has a specific connotation. It means a group/collective of people, but more than that because this is merely Afraad. So further, this collective, known as a Qawm is bonded by a common identity, having some form of common unifying force, which is why it can also be used to describe a nation unified by race, hence the noun Qawmiyyah (nationalism). However, here it is not restricted to ethnic groups, as the Muslims are included in its’ meaning. Also, it is not restricted to ideological societies, the word Ummah would be better to use here, as ethnic groupings are not necessarily ideological yet are also known as a Qawm. Thus, in this Ayah it is used in a loose meaning denoting any nation, not necessarily along racial or ideological lines, thus it is Mutlaq (unrestricted) and applies to all collective groupings of people.

This is what the word Qawm means in Arabic, and even in the English language. So, from this it is clear that the meaning taken by some people that "Allah will never change the situation of individuals until each one changes what is in his own self", is in fact a twisted meaning, and is not the meaning of Allah (swt). Shakhs (person) hasn't been mentioned, nor has persons, or Afraad (individuals). If it had been, then the protagonists of such a fallacy may have had a case, as merely a collection of individuals does not denote collective work. Thus they may have been able to argue that each person should correct himself first and foremost, then convince another to change, until they become large in number, and then they go about individually changing others. Indeed, this fits the description of Afraad or Shakhsiyyaat, but it doesn't fit the description of Qawm. So clearly in this Ayah Allah (swt) is addressing change in the collective.

The final meaning is therefore that it refers to everything in general in any Qawm
(nation), whether Muslim or Kafir. The fact that it can be applied to Kuffar as well is relavent, please see below.

What must the Qawm do?

Allah (swt) stipulates, “…Hattaa yughayyiroo…” which means “until they all change…”

These words are in the form of a conditional clause (Seeghat us-Shart), due to the use of the Shart (condition) ‘Hattaa’ (until). This renders the meaning, ‘Allah will not change…(them)…until they all change’. The usage of the Shart here means that the Mafhoom ul-Mukhalafah (opposite understanding) of this Ayah can be taken. Thus rendering the meaning that if the Qawm does not collectively change together, then Allah (swt) will not change their situation. So a condition for change is that action must occur from the Qawm, and that means doing, not sitting around waiting for Allah to provide the change. The active verb ‘yughayyirooo’ has been used by Allah, so the Qawm must do something to be eligible for the change, without which they will not get it.

So, what is expected from this Qawm in order that they qualify for change by Allah to occur? Is it that each and everyone changes himself alone, and then asks every other individual to change? No, as Allah (swt) addressed the Qawm by the verb ‘Yughayyiroo’, which means ‘until they change…’ So the nation must "Yuhaghayyiroo". This word is an active verb (F'il) in the plural (Jam'a) third person (Ghaa'ib) masculine (Mudhakkir) and it is in the present tense (Mudaari). It being an active verb means that it is not a passive verb, so in order to qualify for the said condition the Qawm must do something, not wait for some thing to be done to them. Thus the fatalistic concept prevalent nowadays that encourages people to practice patience without action, whilst Allah brings change, is blatantly flawed. It being masculine means that it includes both male and female as the masculine plural in Arabic means a mixed group unless indicated. In this case there is no indication and so it applies to male and female. It being plural means that all individuals within the Qawm must do something, and it also reinforces the fact that the Qawm, or a collective, is being addressed. Therefore, the plural masculine verb renders the meaning ‘ until they all, male and female, collectively make a change occur…’ Thus is it 'Aam, and all people are required to make a change.


What do they have to change?

‘…Maa bi anfusihim’
‘…Whatever is in themselves…’

Here Allah (swt) informs about the target for the change, which is ‘….Maa bi Anfusihim’. The Maa here is Maa al-'umoom, so again, it means everything must be changed in the specified target. Also, The Ism (noun) ‘Nafs’ is used. This means oneself, and does not mean what is inside a person in any spiritual or mystic way. Rather it simply means oneself, similar to the English usage of the noun ‘himself’ when saying, ‘Zayd went by himself (alone)’. This would be rendered in Arabic as ‘Jaa’a Zayd bi Nafsihi’. Anfus is the plural for Nafs. Therefore, Allah (swt) has decreed that he will not change the situation of any Qawm until they all collectively change all that is within themselves, as a nation, not as individuals, because they are addressed as a "Qawm", not as "Afraad". The verb came in the plural form, and so it is not addressing the each individual alone at all, in fact it is addressing all the individuals in the nation, that Allah will not change their nation until they all make a change occur in their selves, and in others.


What is the nature of this change?

The word Qawm being in the Mutlaq (unrestricted) form means that this Khabar (news) that Allah (swt) has graced us with about the wisdom of how he makes change in societies, is universal. Meaning that it applies to any nation, or group of people. This is the Sunnah of Allah. Thus, my dear brothers, it cannot be taken from this that the Muslims must simply pray, fast, and encourage one another to do this, and then they will be revived. This is because the Kuffar are also addressed by this Ayah, and despite the fact that they don't pray and fast, their nations have progressed and revived (albeit incorrectly). Thus the nature of the change needed cannot be restricted to ‘Ibadaat, Morals, clothing, Taqwah, or even being Muslims. As the word Qawm is Mutlaq and it applies to the Kaafir nations, or anything that can be described loosely as a nation. Indeed we have witnessed that the Kuffar have progressed beyond us to the extent that they dominate us. This was despite the fact that these nations took the rebellion from religion as the cornerstone of their ideals, adopted immoral practice as their constitutional rights, and have never ceased oppressing those who Allah loves, the Muslims. Indeed, they progressed despite all this. Therefore the change mentioned cannot be the moralistic, religious, or ritualistic change that some preach about, for the Kuffar of today are of the most immoral, atheistic hedonists that the world has ever witnessed.

So what change is being addressed here? It must be some form of change that is available for the Kuffar too. This change is the ideological change, the change that occurs in a nation when they unify around one common ideology (something Muslims or Kuffar can both do). So it is about altering the way in which they view life, the basis of their relationships and their ruling system. Thus when the Communists unified around Communism they progressed and Allah (swt) changed their affairs, despite the fact that he despises those who deny him and reject his signs. Also, when the Europeans before them adopted Secularism as their ideology, as did the Americans when they rebelled from the Europeans, they all progressed beyond bounds. Allah (swt) altered their affairs and they dominated us, even though he (swt) loves us and despises the arrogant deniers of his Haakimiyyah (right to rule), the secularists. This was all done in accordance with the Sunnah of Allah (swt). That is that whenever any nation alters itself and bonds around a common basis, she progresses.

Alas, for the Islamic Ummah has the best Ideology, Islam, yet she doesn't unify around it, nor does she make it her basis for solving all lifes problems. She doesn't change her Qawm (the Islamic Ummah) to bond upon it, she has the best ruling system, the Khilafah, yet she doesn't work for it, thus Allah (swt) will not change her affairs until she does so. The result of understanding this Ayah like this, means that when the Ummah returns to her Ideology as a whole, basing her relationships upon it’s ‘Aqeedah alone, and governing her interests by it’s ruling system, the Khilafah, only then will Allah revive her. This is just like when the Kuffar adopted a complete Ideology, and Allah revived them. Moreover, if she leaves the ruling by the Ideology in all of lifes’ affairs, then she declines, just as she did and just as the Communists did when they dropped their ideology.

Imaam al-Qurtubi, in his Tafseer entitled ‘Jami’u li Akhmaa il-Qur’an’ is careful, as if knew that a twisted meaning would be placed upon this Ayah, to explain the very understanding mentioned above,

“Allah informed in this Ayah that he does not change what is in a Qawm until change takes place from them, whether it be from them, or from their supervisor (of their affairs - leaders), or from he who is (appointed) from them… So the meaning of this Ayah is not that it was only revealed for individual punishment and to address nothing but progress from a sin. Instead, it has been revealed for the correction of others sins too. As he said (in the Hadeeth), “…It was asked, ‘will we be destroyed whilst the righteous are amongst us?’ He (saw) said, ‘Yes, if the corruption increases (beyond bounds) [Saheeh al-Bukhari and Muslim, on the authority of Zaynab bint Jahsh about the Ya’jooj]”

So you see, dear brothers, al-Qurtubi demonstrates in his Tafseer of this Aayah that it is not simply for the individual focus. His quotation of the Hadeeth in fact provides an admonishment, in the form of complete destruction, for the whole community if they leave others alone to practice corruption without addressing it, despite the fact that the righteous may live amongst them. Therefore, this Ayah reinforces the correctness of the work of those brothers who work to alter society collectively via their political work to bring back the Khilafah. After this lengthy explanation, we may now revisit the final meaning of the Ayah. It may be correctly rendered as, “Allah will not change what is in any nation, until they all collectively make a change occur in what is in themselves”. Please, dear brothers, do not ever again use it to mean perfection of the individul alone, or Allah (swt) will ask you concerning this on al-Qiyaamah. Wa BarakAllahu Feekum.
http://islamicsystem.blogspot.nl/200...d-ayah-11.html

[Perseveranze]

Corrupt Caliphate or not, it's obligatory to have one.

Al-Imam Al-Jaziri, in AI fiqh alal Mathahib AI-Arbaï'a (the fiqh of the four schools of thought) says:

"The Imams (scholars of the four schools of thought) may Allah have mercy on them agree that the Imama is an obligation, and that the Muslims must appoint an Imam who would implement the deenïs rites, and give the oppressed justice against."

[Jedi_Mindset]

Corrupt Caliphate or not, it's obligatory to have one.

Agreeing on this, its the only way to prevent unity being broken.

[greenhill]

Salaam to all,

Yusuf, agreed, my thoughts come to a stale-mate everytime I think about it.
Pereseveranze, obligatory to have one corrupt or not is what I feel, too.

Thank you Jedi_Mindset for your elaborate answer! Wow! ! Much appreciate the time you took and the detail of the explanation from the meaning, the root cause, to the 'state of being' as Qawm and sunnah Allah. AllahuAkhbar!

I was hoping for some kind of 'enlightenment' here and did not really expect anything like what you said. And it stemmed from the ayah about Allah will not change anything unless the nation collectively change itself and how THIS ayah itself is a guide/hint/or even the KEY to our realisation for the road to untity. So simple but hidden under layers of other text on how we could possibly rise again as a nation.

Although was not really looking at the possibility of it 'happening', your well explained post answered that too! It is possible with concerted effort.

Peace

[Jedi_Mindset]

Salaam to all,

Yusuf, agreed, my thoughts come to a stale-mate everytime I think about it.
Pereseveranze, obligatory to have one corrupt or not is what I feel, too.

Thank you Jedi_Mindset for your elaborate answer! Wow! ! Much appreciate the time you took and the detail of the explanation from the meaning, the root cause, to the 'state of being' as Qawm and sunnah Allah. AllahuAkhbar!

I was hoping for some kind of 'enlightenment' here and did not really expect anything like what you said. And it stemmed from the ayah about Allah will not change anything unless the nation collectively change itself and how THIS ayah itself is a guide/hint/or even the KEY to our realisation for the road to untity. So simple but hidden under layers of other text on how we could possibly rise again as a nation.

Although was not really looking at the possibility of it 'happening', your well explained post answered that too! It is possible with concerted effort.

Peace

Remember i did not explain this verse myself, used tafsir for it since its the best thing we can do when explaining qu'ran verses. I often use tafsir ibn kathir(Ra). Ofcourse i read the article before posting.

[Ahmad H]

I guess, it is an impossible question. But can't help wondering though...

Br. Ahmad H, on what you said, corrupt and violent is too much. Just corrupt? Not Ottoman justice.

Thruthseeker63, I feel so too.

Think about it this way. If Allah wanted that Caliphate to continue, would He have allowed it to discontinue in the first place? I believe if it were a good Caliphate, then Allah would have protected it. But everyone knows that the Ottoman Empire was not a Caliphate in the end, just a Sultanate. Yes they were corrupt because under no circumstances does Islam allow genocide. And if the Ottoman Caliphate had such good Caliphs (Sultanates) in the end, then why is their piety never remembered amongst anyone now?

I am with agreement with Hazrat Jalal-u-Din Suyuti (ra), who explained that the Caliphate was with justice until the first twelve Quraysh Caliphs ruled the Muslims. After that, injustice and tyranny began. So in reality, there was no Caliphate, just a Sultanate amongst the Muslims. It only appeared to be a Caliphate. Can you honestly say that there have still not been 12 Quraysh who have lead the Muslims until now? After more than 1400 years Hijra? It was a godsend for sure when I read Hazrat Jalal-ud-Din Suyuti's (ra) explanation on this issue. Eventually monarchy had to come in place and after that tyranny. I don't see anything but tyranny amongst Muslim leaders these days. Caliphate ended a long time ago, way before the Ottomans came into place.

[greenhill]

Salaams to you, Ahmad H.

I cannot say otherwise to what you say historically as my knowledge there is sadly basic . The history is there for those who want to see it as it was in the past and documented. And I have not read it.

It's hypothetically about now, or the near future, where we have history to teach us and a generally a more 'learned' civilisation that the Caliphate system, if miraculously appeared, might be more 'civil' than during the timesyou described as the Ottoman Sultanate.

As you also said if Allah wanted to preserve that system Allah would have protected it. No, Allah was not protecting the Sultanate, that went. But unfortunately, together with it, the Caliphate, and with that, a Nation that was united on faith, Islam. It may have been in a terrible state, but could have been rebuild, if the nation had willed it. But Allah broke up the nation. But then again Allah does not claim to seal the fate of the system, either. Hence,Jedi_Mindset[/ point about Allah not changing any kawm's ..... could set the tone for the future, but will be an immense uphill struggle.

I mean, as independent nations we live in now, what can we do for other nations? How can one muslim nation interfere with another muslim nation's affairs? Under a single rule, I cannot believe our brotherhood, with the available information and technolgical advancement, would sit by and allow abuse happening within our nation, however far. There would be no borders to cross.

Peace

[Urban Turban]

Inna Lillahi Wa Inna Ilayhi Ra'jioon.

Its impossible that Allah chose something for us (in this case Caliphate) and He has not ordained good in it.

Corrupt rulers are (mainly) because of our deeds.

Hajjaj Bin Yusuf was a punishment from Allah - Google his story including Hasan Al Basri.

The vast majority of the groups present today in the field of da’wah try to win the sentiments and support of the people by focusing and pointing their fingers towards the rulers. They make them the scapegoats for all the calamities, evils and ills to befall the Ummah, and subsequently make their methodologies of reform based around coups, revolutions and bringing about the downfall and replacement of governments. All of this is based upon ignorance of the Sharee’ah and ignorance of Allaah’s Divine wisdom, and is a mental outlook that is based upon a corrupt underlying aqidah. Ibn Sa’d relates in his Tabaqaat al-Kubraa (7/163-165):

A group of Muslims came to al-Hasan al-Basree seeking a verdict to rebel against al-Hajjaaj [a tyrannical and despotic ruler]. So they said, ”O Abu Sa’eed! What do you say about fighting this oppressor who has unlawfully spilt blood and unlawfully taken wealth and did this and that?”

So al-Hasan said, “I hold that he should not be fought. If this is a punishment from Allaah, then you will not be able to remove it with your swords. If this is a trial from Allaah, then be patient until Allaah’s judgement comes, and He is the best of judges.”

So they left al-Hasan, disagreed with him and rebelled against al-Hajjaaj - so al-Hajjaaj killed them all.
Al-Hasan used to say, ”If the people had patience when they are being tested by their unjust ruler, it will not be long before Allaah will give them a way out. However, they always rush for their swords, so they are left with their swords. By Allaah! Not even for a single day did they bring about any good.”

It is narrated from al-Hasan al-Basree (d.110), as mentioned in Minhaj us-Sunnah of Shaikh ul-Islam (4/528),

Verily, al-Hajjaaj is the punishment of Allaah. So do not repel the punishment of Allaah with your own hands. But you must submit and show humility, for Allaah the Most High stated,
“And indeed We seized them with punishment, but they humbled not themselves to their Lord, nor did they invoke (Allýh) with submission to Him.” (Al-Mu’minun 23:76).

And also from al-Hasan al-Basree, as occurs in Adaab Hasan al-Basri, of Ibn al-Jawzee, (pp.119-120):

Know - may Allaah pardon you - that the tyranny of the kings is a retribution (niqmah) from among the retributions of Allaah the Most High. And Allaah’s retributions are not to be faced with the sword, but they are to be faced with taqwaa and are repelled with supplication and repentance, remorse (inaabah) and abstention from sins. Verily, when the punishments of Allaah are met with the sword, are more severe.

And Maalik bin Deenaar narrated to me that al-Hajjaaj (Ibn Yoosuf) used to say, “Know that every time you commit a sin Allaah will bring about a punishment from the direction of your ruler (sultaan)”.
And I have also been told that a person said to al-Hajjaaj, “Do you do such and such with the Ummah of Muhammad (sallallaahu alaihi wasallam)?”

So he replied, ”For the reason that I am the punishment of Allaah upon the people of Iraaq, when they innovated into their religion whatever they innovated, and when they abandoned the commands of the their Prophet (alaihis salaam) whatever they abandoned.”

Lastly, Al Mahdi as well Hadrath Isa [a.s] will both be supreme rulers in their respective times.

[greenhill]

Urban Turban, what to say?

[Ahmad H]

I agree with you Greenhill. It is true that Muslims have to change before they can be united again.

And yes, Muslims need to first enact a change before they can talk of a Caliphate.

If you want to know about Caliphate, then you only need to read this one verse of the Holy Qur'an:

24:55 Allah has promised, to those among you who believe and work righteous deeds, that He will, of a surety, grant them in the land, inheritance (of power), as He granted it to those before them; that He will establish in authority their religion - the one which He has chosen for them; and that He will change (their state), after the fear in which they (lived), to one of security and peace: 'They will worship Me (alone) and not associate aught with Me. 'If any do reject Faith after this, they are rebellious and wicked.

I think everyone here will understand the situation of Caliphate in the world if they read Tafsir Ibn Kathir regarding this verse. It has given a good explanation of it.

[Jedi_Mindset]

I agree with you Greenhill. It is true that Muslims have to change before they can be united again.

And yes, Muslims need to first enact a change before they can talk of a Caliphate.

If you want to know about Caliphate, then you only need to read this one verse of the Holy Qur'an:

24:55 Allah has promised, to those among you who believe and work righteous deeds, that He will, of a surety, grant them in the land, inheritance (of power), as He granted it to those before them; that He will establish in authority their religion - the one which He has chosen for them; and that He will change (their state), after the fear in which they (lived), to one of security and peace: 'They will worship Me (alone) and not associate aught with Me. 'If any do reject Faith after this, they are rebellious and wicked.

I think everyone here will understand the situation of Caliphate in the world if they read Tafsir Ibn Kathir regarding this verse. It has given a good explanation of it.

I think its highly reconmended to read the tafseer, i've seen muslims posting qu'ran verses out of nowhere only to suit there opinions while the verse might not direct towards it. infact scholars like ibn kathir(Ra) were highly studied in the fusa'a arabic language and islamic works, so its a good thing ot read his tafseer.

[Said_Soussi]

..whether the cursed unbelievers (kufaar/munafiqeen) like it or not!!

its not just a Caliphate which will return, but a Rightly-Guided Caliphate


INCHA´ALLAH [swt]

لا إِلـهَ إِلاّ الله

مُحَمّـد رَسـولُ الله

[Independent]

I wonder if anyone could help me with a good source for how the Caliphate would operate as a modern state? The only things i can find are highly idealised, historical and theoretical.

I am interested to know the mechanics of how it would be administrated - especially across multiple countries, cultures and languages - eg how the shura would be selected, whether non Muslims could ever play a role in the administration, etc.

Also, from a practical financial point of view, I would like to know how it is proposed a modern state would operate on a zakat income of about 2.5% when income tax rates in Europe are currently 40-50%.

Also, from a credit point of view, would non Muslims be allowed to provide/access to credit/funding for business?

Is there a link or source that would answer that kind of question?

[greenhill]

I will read his tafseer, the list of things to read is building up.... You guys will know why I've disappeared for a few days... Ha ha.

Yup, the rightly guided Caliphate will come at the end, Said_Soussi?

Independent, good questions, perhaps you can look at the Tafseer as indicated above. And perhaps others will give more info on where to look.

On your question about the 2.5% zakat, the public expenditure during the times of the prophet was different to the way it is done now in the West. The public built the eminities then, individuals expanded the masjid when it became too small for the reward in the hereafter etc, different concept to now.

I don't believe that non muslim will play a major role in the administrative process if they play any role at all.

On the credit and funding part, I am sure there is no difference in the need, whether muslim or not, but, what happens next is where the differentiation occurs. Generally, the lender has to take the risk. If the business goes belly up, the lender cannot expect compensation. (I am not talking about the morals of the borrower here). The lender can only expect to get back his loan if the borrower does well enough to pay him back. Even then, it must be the amount borrowed, not anything more unless the borrower insists to share his profits with the lender. Here it reinforces the belief that what you own, your wealth etc, is an amanah loaned to you by Allah. He can take it back from you anytime. So do good things, and expect nothing in return. That is a very hard concept in this day and age.

Above points are just my opinion based on my general knowledge. Please correct me if I am wrong, anybody

[Independent]

On your question about the 2.5% zakat, the public expenditure during the times of the prophet was different to the way it is done now in the West. The public built the eminities then, individuals expanded the masjid when it became too small for the reward in the hereafter etc, different concept to now.

In effect, the size of the state (by which I mean the functions it carries, not its geographical extent) has grown enormously over the last 1500 years. The budget required for key items such as health, education, social security and defence either barely existed or was much smaller in the early days of the Caliphate. So I am wondering, is there a modern source which has addressed this issue? Either the State must drop most of its functions or somehow it has to get more income than seems to be allowed under the zakat or other sources.

On the credit and funding part, I am sure there is no difference in the need, whether muslim or not, but, what happens next is where the differentiation occurs.

The need is the same, but would non Muslims be obliged to follow these rules too? (In effect this would lead to a huge reduction in the amount of available credit.)

I am interested in differential treatment of Mulsim/non Muslim citizens. For instance, is there a mechanism for a state which (for whatever reason) ceased to be majority Muslim to 'vote' or otherwise decide to cease to be part of the Caliphate/Sharia law etc?