The Myth Of Khilafah for 1300 years

[s-b-r]

BTW you still havent given a source or anything to the article. Whic orientalist book is it from?

[WHOSANE]

No you just seem very irrate and your not discussing the thread topic. This is a discussion forum brother nothing personal. I'm not here to discuss Hizb, QF, Ikhwan etc Just trying to discuss a topic but you keep throwing accusations.

If you dont want to discuss the topic at hand then leave this thread!

Stop your accusations and suspicions as it's har'aam.

Fear Allah (S.W.T)

[s-b-r]

No you just seem very irrate over nothing. This is a discussion forum brother nothing personal. I'm not here to discuss Hizb, QF, Ikhwan etc
Just trying to discuss a topic but you keep throwing accusations.

If you dont want to discuss the topic at hand then leave this thread!
Stop your accusations and suspicions as it's har'aam.

I apoligised like two/three posts ago, no need to get hysterical or agitated

[WHOSANE]

Ok, apology accepted.

Nobody likes sellouts and Munafiqs especially hizb ut tahrir and al ghurabaa jokers, they are the worst.

Now as for this article I got it from another Islamic website. I have read some of the things before in a book called 'History Of Islam' by M.Hassan.

I dont read books by orientalists by the way, only muslim authors.

[s-b-r]

Ok, apology accepted.

Nobody likes sellouts and Munafiqs especially hizb ut tahrir and al ghurabaa jokers, they are the worst.

Now as for this article I got it from another Islamic website. I have read some of the things before in a book called 'History Of Islam' by M.Hassan.

I dont read books by orientalists by the way, only muslim authors.

Do you have a link to the article on the website?

Also any links to that book?

Also Muslim authors can be influenced by orientalists, as alot of these sort of 'arguments' were fronted by orientalists, also why is 1300 years? and not 1400 years, since most orientalist types try to argue with the 1400year bit, if the khilafah lasted only 30 years, so was the next 70 years a khilafah too?

[abumuwahid]

Ok, apology accepted.

Nobody likes sellouts and Munafiqs especially hizb ut tahrir and al ghurabaa jokers, they are the worst.

Now as for this article I got it from another Islamic website. I have read some of the things before in a book called 'History Of Islam' by M.Hassan.

I dont read books by orientalists by the way, only muslim authors.

Oh boy! You really think that you can get away with this.

Right. Why are they Munafiqeen? Detailed answer please, with evidence.

[abumuwahid]

Now as for this article I got it from another Islamic website.
.

What website? Link please.

[kamals]

Wa Salam,

Brothers, if I am wrong in this may Allah forgive me, but I really, truly, think that we engage in these arguments with a casualness that is really, really, dangerous.

Point: Any 'Alim knows the history of the khilafate both as a human and historical institution as well as an ideal Shari' legislated office.

And the historical difficulties and conflicts are known, none of this is secret, Ulema have known of this for centuries and yet they still consistently argued for the necessity of Khilafate, that Khilafate was so important that even when the Khalifa was all but a pretender to the throne controlled by rapacious tribal amirs from Khorasan who seized power - even still it was necessary to continue it.

There is the sort of history they teach in the first couple of years of an 'alim program that makes all of this clear as day, every student and person of knowledge knows the corruption ... the only ones who have major problems with the Ummah's history are people like myself, and others on this fourm, who are laymen or students.

It is simple though.

There is Khilafate and Amirate, as divinely ordained institutions, with specific Sharri' ahkam.

Imamate is fard, the Muslims have to be ruled according to the ahkam derived from the Quran, Sunnah, and - depending on the madhab and manhaj of the scholar other secondary sources (urf, qiyyas, ihtihsan etc., etc.)

The existence of independent Amirates is no contradiction of this. Imams like Marwardi, Baqillani, Malik, Abu Hanifa, Ibn Jama'a, all articulated the fiqh while seeing and living through, with their own eyes, the less than ideal applications of the principles.

They still upheld them.

Establishing and maintaining Khilafate is a fard kifiyyah on the Ummah according to the vast majority of Ulema.

Look at the Hedaya, or any book of fiqh, on Amirate and Imamate, and the principles are lain out before us.

The history is to some degree, I think, irrelevant. The Muslims need to be led. If the leadership is less than ideal then the office of Amir, of Imam, of Khalifa, is still a necessity, brothers.

2. The HISTORY of the Khilafate as a State and institution in the Ummah, separate from the legal theory.

They are two separate things, it is easy to get this sort of idealism and romanticism when it comes to these political and historical topics, but we have to keep clear heads when we discover aspects of our history that are difficult and go against what we were taught - and we should not freak out.

None of the Ulema of Andalusia, Muftis, Qadis, giants of the ummah with more 'ilm in their thumbnails than you, or I all of us put together, who recited the Spanish Ummayad Caliph's name during the Juma Khutbah, were ignorant of history or principles.

None of the Ulema who legitimized the overthrow of the Taifa Kings by the Berber Amir of the Murabitun, or who legitimized the overthrow of the Sudani Amirs of the Hausa by Ibn Fodio's Jihad, or who legitimized the seizure of power by corrupt and power hungry Turkish Amirs like the Seljuqs or others, none of these men were ignorant.

All upheld the necessity of leadership of the Muslims, and the necessity and continuity of khilafate - even in a few instances legitimizing khilafate in the margins of the Ummah's lands apart from the existent khilafate in its central lands.

The Ulema who asserted the legitimacy of Sunni Khilafate when the SUNNI KHILAFATE WAS UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF THE SHIA (The Buyyids / Buwayhids were most certainly shia) were NOT ignorant.

The Ulema who saw the legitimacy of independent Amirates and Khilafates from Spain to Morocco to Senegal to Nigeria, at the same time of existing Abbassid or Ottoman rulers, or who saw the legitimacy of a Mughal Shah who was independent from the Ottoman Caliph in all but name, or who allowed the existance of a legitimate independent Idrisi or Muwahhid or Marinid state in Morocco centuries ago, NONE were deluded, nor were they "ignorant of the Sunnah" they knew it far better than most alive. And that is the point.

There are ideas and realities. Both converge in the ABSOLUTE NECESSITY for a Khalifa of the Muslims, and when this is lacking an Amir who implements the hudud and ahkam and rules over the Muslims, collects zakat, establishes prayer, weights, measures, ribat, and ghazwat.

The fact that the Khilafate was more divide than is taught in elementary school history is not the point.

The point, brothers and sisters, is the transcendent essence of leadership and its divine ordainment. I mean that the Sharia decrees that Amirate be established, and if there is the idea is that true Khilafate is gone and only an oppressive Sultanate remains in the name of Khilafate, we OBEY that Sultan - in matters of right - as long as he is not an apostate UNLESS the conditions require his removal, and this can be done and someone rises up and does so in a way that is in the best interests of the Muslims.

Ulama HAVE authorized the removal of oppressive hukam and legitimized the seizure of power by others in history, and I am talking of the Salahiudin Ayyubis of history, or the Abdullah Ibn Yasins..

I AM NOT talking about Joe Mustafa and his friends who sit around all day complaining about the Hukam in their garages.

And Allah and his messenger know best, I don't and I admit that I could be wrong in all of this. If I am, I pray that Allah rectifies me gently....

Wa Salam