I posted refering to Fatima47 post which I quoted. Neither it was a lengthy passage nor included in it any Hadith or Ayaat. So I request you to read thoroughly before posting a reply.

Here goes the post you are referring. CSS Forums - View Single Post - State must be secular In this post you didn't touch any of the questions I asked about Caliphate system. What is the Islamic system of government of Khilafah?What is the procedure to select a Caliph? Can a woman be a Caliph? What is the difference between Khilafat and Imamat forms of Islamic Government? I just cannot comprehend your view point because of your presumptive and contradictory posts. You always presume that you had already answered. And regarding contradictions, in one post you say that Jews was very much involved in state affairs of Madina and in the very next post you say that non muslims are not allowed to hold any public office in an Islamic society.

At least you should realize that Khilafat is not an agreed upon concept. Most of the reference books quote this Hadith in the context of nomination of Ali as the Prophet's successor. Even afterwards, the procedure of selection of every caliph was different every time and not always agreed upon. So if you want us to accept the righteousness of Caliphate as political system of Islam, you should come up with a definite procedure of choosing a Caliph, his/her tenure, whether or not the caliph is bound to follow majority decisions of parliament etc.


All I can say is that you know nothing about history and about religious political systems of Jews, and Christians and Hindus and Sikhs and about holy empires and holy wars of present time and past. I referred to dressing code and social system and church rule and Jewish state as examples to show that you are not right when you say that religions other than Islam are merely a blend of beliefs and prayers, not providing any guidance for worldly affairs.

These verses of Iqbal tell me that like Maududi, Ata Ullah Shah Bukhari and other religious leaders at the time of Independence, Iqbal was also against bounding the concept of Muslim Ummah within the boundaries of a WATAN.
CHEEN O ARAB HAMARA, HINDUSTAN HAMARA
MUSLIM HAIN HUM WATAN HAY SARA JAHAN HAMARA
Tu theek hay ab app farz pay Ijtehaad nahi karain gay. Chunkay Khilaafat ka niffaaz farz hay, app mujhay batain khalifa ki selection kaisay ho gi laikin ab app koi Ijtehadi baat nahi karo gay.

@ shahzaib.

brother,

i never considered Islam as a religion..its scope is far beyond being a religion only.
I am a firm believer to the fact that Islam is a complete code of conduct.
Islam is Political Justice. Islam is social equality.

but dear i am confused to hear that a non muslim does not have permission to join the state army, he can not be a political head and he can not enjoy the status of ful citizenship.....

these doctrines dont vindicate true iSLAM
this is all which i perceive against my beliefs about Islam...

@jazi roomi...

we know very well how these religions guide in other matters of life.
did you not have a look at my previous post addressed to you dear?

Guidance that we find in Islam has no parallel...
now point out any area where Islam does not guide.

Brother you are not getting me right. I am not favoring the dressing code of Sikhs or caste system of Hindus or Unity of Jews. I was just quoting examples to prove that other religions also provide guidance for worldly affairs. Right or wrong, it is a separate debate. But these religions do influence their followers far beyond the dimension of beliefs and prayers. And when we Muslims say that ours is a Deen not Mazhab, then for me it is merely a rhetoric, effective, impressive, but meaningless. Suppose I accept that Islam is a complete code of life even then I am not able to understand what is the political system of Islam.

You also wrongly attributed Nudity, alcohol, gambling, interest, Zina to Christianity. Christianity does not allow any of these. Similarly t human violation by Jews cannot be related to teaching of Torah. Hindu caste system is no good. And Indians law today don't provide for caste discrimination. In a similar way Quran also provide us different laws for free and slave. Our Fiqha provided us the rules of selling or purchasing of slaves. But it was only a need of that time and these rules are obsolete now. Your argument is basically faulty. You are relating social evils of a western society to their religious teaching. Would you appreciate if I relate social evils of my society to my religious teaching?

The main point is what you are trying to say is that Islam provides us with best of the systems. That is fine. My views are no different than yours. However, the present discussion is about political system of Islam. You tell me Islam is the best. I agree. You tell me that Islam is in danger. I agree. You tell me Khilafat system is the best form of government. I agree. You tell me working for the establishment of Khilafat is Farz. Even then I agree. But when I ask how to choose a Caliph, you just say we ll delibrate upon this issue and any suitable method can be adopted. And now I am confused. Does this system that you are so ruthlessly pleading for really exist?

Enough of rhetoric and meaningless slogans. Making it simple and practical. Just suppose that I am the president of Pakistan. And you ask me to promulgate Khilafat System in Pakistan. I agree and ask you a simple question. How to choose a Caliph? Selection, election, nomination, voting, adult franchise, basic democracy, aristocracy, military, Inqeelab or from a sacred blood line?. All of you participating in this discussion! just answer this single question and tell me what Ulema say about this so that I may be able to understand what is the Islamic political system.

__________________
He who has a why to live can bear almost any how.

A.A
Why the infidels or non Muslims are not permitted to join army?

Ans. According to Islamic teachings what i know there is no restriction for non Muslims in becoming a soldier of Muslim State. and i dont know that our constitution detain or not but what was the charter of Madina it was stated that jews, pagans, chiristians of Madina will fight along muslims against any invasion outside the madina forming them the ummah but what was the difference that the non muslims were not entitled to booty. reasons may be many but mostly on these occasions scholars say that it is just to show them the superiority of Islam and to encourage the Muslims. As, Non muslim's places of worships are not permitted to destroy by muslim states until they use their places to make decisions and plans against the sovereignty of Islam and state.

Why he can not be the head of state?
Ans. Muslims are considered to be the vicegerent of Allah Al Mighty, so as his Vicegerent he should be the head of state. Democratic system prevailing now a days is not Islamic why there are many loop holes first of all as Iqbal said that people are counted in democracy not weighted mean 2 dull and fool are better than 1 sane. so how could be possible to make a just state. It is a long story of democracy started by demolishing the Otthoman Empire. and than further divisions of countries and now a days revolts in libya, syria etc. but the main point is if a non muslim is permitted to become a State head how one can assure that he will act according to islamic teachings when he is not supposed to do so according to his religion. affairs of muslims should be in the hand of muslim leader although it is also true that the muslim of democratic countries are even worst than non muslims. In khilafat it was impossible to elect non muslim state head either the religion of state head flourish in his era like mutazala, zahriyya they flourished when they had the support of the caliphates of that time. and I am personally against the election of any particular Islamic leader as a state head because they are more extremist and they will support their groups with bias ism. non muslim can be a political head but not state head.

Full citizenship
Brother I dont know what you mean with full citizenship. because in present era passport is evidence of citizenship and Pakistani passport is very easy to avail. And western people have more rights in pak than us. the real islamic system is to implement jizya on them and only zakat on muslims but unfortunately they are living without any tax n v are paying in abundant.
In Arab countries they do not offer citizenship to foreigners and it is not only limited with non muslims. Muslims also cant avail the facility. And according to Law they cant be forced to offer citizenship to foreigners neither according to islamic law you can compel them. First of all according to Islam Whole world is for Muslims but it would be hideous to go across the border In India and ask them to clear the land for me as I am Muslim and it is my land. Bro many things have been changed to control the world under a system. I in fact do appreciate the arab countries atleast they are sincere to their nations. for instance in Kuwait there is not a single penny tax on kuwaitis either they get subsidies as this year at the independence day 25th feb, govt announced that for next one or two years cant remember exactly they will get free victuals from markets. that we use to say rashan (pulses, rice, oil, sugar etc)

__________________
Janoon say or Ishq say milti hay AAZADI

I tried to be as precise as I could be. Do you want me to quote verses from Quran and Sunnah to show that it’s a farz? If yes, then kindly let me know.
I never quoted any couplet of Iqbal nor did I say “Islam is not a Mazhab but Deen”. (Its not like I negate it. I firmly advocate this concept, but will address later.)

I kinda knew where you were trying to take it. I wanted to remain on the rails, but no worries, I have a weekend ahead and I hope we can discuss in detail what you wanted to.

I hope you got me when I said that by Khilafah, I mean nothing but supremacy of Quran and Sunnah.

You asked me as to how a Caliph should be selected (elected). I answered I believe in election system. By that I meant a direct election for the Caliph and the members of Shura have to be elected from their constituencies. Did I say anything outside the periphery of Quran and Sunnah?

You asked me about tenure of Caliph. I believe it should be for a particular tenure.

You asked me whether a woman can hold the office of a Caliph or not. I only told you my opinion and it was a careful answer. There has been a dispute over it but the opinion of jumhur is that she cant be.

You asked me about difference between Khilafat and Imamat. I personally don’t have any problem with the term but yes, in general that’s what you call election and selection.

You asked me about hadith of Khum-e Ghadir and I said its not an absolute tradition. I did not go into authenticity debate because again I knew that might get us off the rails. The Hadith is not absolute and has probable meanings (Ijtihad can be done wherever there is a verse or hadith with probable meaning). I hope you know the word “Maula” has been used in 127 different meanings. Now comes the authenticity part, people who read hadith only in reference books or just read somewhere that the hadith also exits in Sahih Muslim say that its an authentic hadith. In Sahih Muslim, weak traditions have been separately mentioned. The hadith is week (owing to its chain of narrators). Plus, no hadith or verse can be considered in isolation. You have to look various hadiths and verses given in Quran and Sunnah where the process of election or selection has not been explicitly expressed.

Having said that, I need to add that though there has been a difference over all the questions you asked, majority scholars hold the same opinion as I mentioned above. Like I said in my previous posts, there are things that have been left in Quran and Sunnah to be accommodated according to time, place, occasion, culture etc. Does this mean that holding any of these opinions is outside the periphery of Quran and Sunnah? (The principle of permissibilty is usually applied to such situations.)


You were probably pouring out your opinion in the first line. I disagree with that, at the same time I respect it.

Again, you probably picked lines from posts of different members and quoted them here. I do not have a problem in responding to it, but just to remind you again I did not mention “Islam is a deen and not mazhab”. Just negating you where you write “YOU SAY” (though you wrote that in small letters).

You say all religions provide a complete code of life, fair enough. Islam tells us that one should not steal. or rob. Other religions also tell us that its evil. Do other religions provide any practical way of social structure in which people will not rob? Enlighten me if they do. You reminded me of a hadith of Prophet (P.B.U.H) where his companions came to him complaining that Jews mock us that what kind of Prophet do you have who tells you to take mug (couldn’t find a better word for lota) and Prophet (P.B.U.H) replied “ Un say kaho HAAN, HAMARA NABI HUMAIN TAHARAT JAISI MAMULI CHEEZ BHI SIKHATA HAI. “ What kind of economic system do they provide to ensure that wealth does not remain concentrated in a few hands? That a person investing in a business does not get unjust profit and how poor people will be taken care of by the government?

Since I found giving examples of dressing code of sikh and social system o f hindus kinda weird, I'll come to Christianity. How do you relate teachings of Christianity with Crusades? Enlighten me.

The unity of Jews!!!!!! If they are ruling the world, that does not mean they are united as well. You think all Jews agree to the establishmet of Jewish state? Then why do people distinguish between Zionists and Jews? Why are Israelis usually termed as Zionists?
Just to enlighten you, Jews lost their state 2000 years ago. This is what Allah mentions in Holy Quran as well, in Surah Al-Bakra. Plus, there are a large number of Orthodox Jews (residing in America and other foreign countries) who do believe that God deprived them of a state 2000 years ago and declare establishment of Israel as false and at the same time support the right of Palestinians over it. (It just popped in my mind that the same thing was discusses by an Orthodox Jew in Capital Talk last year when Hamid Mir did his programme for freedom flotilla).

Did I drag in Iqbal anywhere? No, I didn’t. I believe whatever I say should be within framework of Quran and Sunnah and that’s what I have been sticking to (right now).
Establishment of Caliphate is obligatory whereas the means to achieve this goal have not been explicitly expressed. Owing to opinion of some scholars that there is no need of exercising ijtihad anymore, ijtihad's door has been closed which does not make any sense. Ijtihad can be and needs to be exercised over the problems as regards to the means of achieving a caliphate. At the same time, if ijtihad is not exercised, any strategy to establish caliph (within framework of Quran and Sunnah) can be adopted (One of the five principal maxims is "custom is the basis of law).

P.S: I overlooked your point regarding Iqbal's letter on purpose.

__________________
"I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, that His justice cannot sleep forever."

Dear, the first written constitution of the world is product of Islam… Its parliament and and over all political mechanism is not a hard nut to crake.

A leader is chosen among the people by the people and for the people. In ancient ages there were not ballot boxes and election commissions, no political parties to hold a periodic elections or something. A person who could host the trust of people and was liked by the majority for fairness of his character and wisdom He was selected as a Calipsh..
Our contemporary political system for election is actually a mimic to this age old system introduced by Islam. A caliph then delivered to his utmost for making a welfare state. He made no mistake in his services to the people and thus they were given no reason to dislodge him or hold new elections etc until he died a natural death.(referring to khulfa e rashideen).

Not at all I would rather condemn you for misrelating Islam with prevailing vices in society.

Here goes the reason;

Holy Quran is in its full originality. You can negate the malpractices of Muslims with authentic ayats and Hadis from Quran..
Here I can quote a number of Ayaths condemning extremist attitude, terrorism, intoxication, extra marital relations , gambling , interest, inequality , political injustice and the like various other societal vices.

Can you now quote a single verse from bible which negates these practices in society.

You can not because Court clerks kept engineering the original message of bible and moulded their religion time to time as per their wishes and personal expediencies.

Tell me any law in their society to prevent extra marital sex, alcohol, gambling and interest ?

See the same under the Islamic society.. You find several sever laws and punishments for these misdeeds.




Dear,
khalafat is what we know as (ideal) democracy today and I think I need not to describe criteria for electing a ruler under the democracy. Do I ?

At the time of early caliphate , life style was very simple so the democracy did not have formal election procedures as we have in the world today.
but yet the principles were all the same.

Brother, thank you for providing the reference. I did go through the battle. It is apparent that christian tribes were part of a war effort. But that wasn't the question now, was it?

The question was more on the lines of "Can non-muslims be part of a standing army of Islam?"

Because it is quite obvious from the Battle of Buwaib that they can be part of a military campaign but not necessarily a standing Islamic Army.

As I said earlier, I'm still researching this. I'll be happy to hear more from you on this.



Politics is a part of Human life, perhaps one of the most important ones. Indeed, Islam not only teaches spirituality but also guides you how to navigate the material world. If one reads the Quran and tries to understand it, it will become apparent to everyone that Quran doesn't just speak about spirituality but also about social, economic, military and other affairs of a human material life.

As a Muslim we believe that Allah S.W.T is the creator of the whole of the Mankind and his "hukum" is for all of man-kind. Islam intention is not to occupy "whole of the world to establish a POLITICAL GOVERNMENT" but to establish the hukum of Allah S.W.T.


Prophet David:

a) Wasn't the founder of the Jewish Faith that He A.S subscribed to.

b) He A.S was given psalms (zabur), which contained praises for Allah but no shariah.

c) The society he is born in already professes the same belief that He A.S is Prophet of.

Allow me to QUOTE what you've said earlier and embolden what made me write a response to it.

"How strange it is. YOU PEOPLE are so strongly pleading for Islamic form of government and raising emotional slogans like "Nothing out of periphery of Quran and Sunnat", "we all must work for establishment of Khilafah (as its a farz)", "Islam is not a Mazhab but Deeb", "Juda ho deen siasat say tu rah jati hay Changezi". And when you are asked a question about what you are advocating so emotionally, you have almost nothing concrete to tell. All you can say is, "there is no hard and fast rule", "in my opinion...", "I personally find...", and then escaping the question by saying,"I'll not go into authenticity discussion.""

Clearly Fatima is not equal to YOU PEOPLE and you have also quoted ALL THOSE (including me) who have spoken in favor of an Islamic state. Clearly you took a shot at US and I merely returned the favor. But it was nice to see you complain and wither.

Err... although the post doesn't elaborate on all your points yet it answers MOST (i never said all) of them. What is the islamic system of Khilafah -->



"So govern between the people by that which God has revealed (Islam), and follow not their vain desires, beware of them in case they seduce you from just some part of that which God has revealed to you"
[Qur'an 004:49]

A government that rules by what Allah has revealed is a Khilafah!

The method to choose a Khalifah and the eligibility of women to be a caliph are questions that anyone with just the semblance of Islamic history would know the answer to.

Caliph is selected by Bay'ah (Bayt). It can be implied or explicit.

Women can not be rulers over an Islamic state:

"Allah provided me with considerable benefit during the battle of the camel with one word (or one statement). When news reached the prophet (peace be upon him) that the Persians had appointed Chosroe's daughter as their ruler, he said: ''A nation which placed its affairs in the hands of a woman shall never prosper!'' (Al-Bukhari, Al-Jami` as-Sahih, hadith no. 4425)

Quran 004.034
YUSUFALI: Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has given the one more (strength) than the other, and because they support them from their means. Therefore the righteous women are devoutly obedient, and guard in (the husband's) absence what Allah would have them guard. As to those women on whose part ye fear disloyalty and ill-conduct, admonish them (first), (Next), refuse to share their beds, (And last) beat them (lightly); but if they return to obedience, seek not against them Means (of annoyance): For Allah is Most High, great (above you all).


Khilafat is a 100% agreed upon concept among all Sunnis. But even Shias believe in Islamic law, look at Iran. There are other "reference books" that clearly state that the apprehensions about Caliphate are a concoction of later times. The procedure for selection of Caliph during the rashidon time was agreed upon, were it not agreed upon there would've been rebellions for the sake of Khilafah. As I said, agreement/bay'ah is both implicit and explicit, whereas disagreement has to be explicit. All the time people did Bay'ah at the hands of Caliph of the time and this was the method of selection and this will be a method of selection in the future InshAllah. There is no tenure for a Caliph, he can be removed the very next day from his office if he is deemed unfit, but if he is deemed fit throughout this life, he will continue to serve the ummah. Caliph is not bound to follow anything but Quran and Sunnah. Administrative decisions are his prerogative (in consultation with the shurah)

Show me one verse from the Bible (old and new), from the Vedas, from the Guru Granth that talks about Government!

The holy empires you talk about are reason why secularism took birth and people like you found arguments therein. These repressive regimes used their religion (not deen) to justify their rule over people. The claimed absolutism for themselves (of which there is no part in Islam). There is no mention of Holy Roman Empire in the Bible, no mention of the Pope... these were exploitation schemes launched much later.

By the way Jewish state is in no way a religious state (Judaic State would be a religious state).

It seems I know more about history (the real one) than you ever will.

Lolz yet this is what his letter, that you copied and pasted, was trying to ward off as misinterpretation of his message.

I can see the trouble you've had in tying up your argument into a perfect weave.

The establishment of Khilafah is Fard, not the method of it. So on the method we can do Ijtehad. That is quite simple really.

Dear this sounds like blackmailing ..

you are forcing the approval of your faith by arresting the greed of non belivers. showing them booty profits and permission to join army as welcoming advantages to Islam !!!!! i am stunned by certain scholarly assumption that you are arguing with.

You well quoted the charter of Madina which allots a justifiable place to non muslim state members in the muslim army not necessarily a military campaign for a time being only.

Religious wars are no more in vogue now in which you fear infidelity on the part of non muslim soldiers due to religious faith deviation.

When we call Islam as Deen we means the solution for all problems.
Proper arrangements to sort out each and every Issue.
If we are on contrary denying equal footings to the non Muslim citizens, they have a reasonable issue with this move..
Our Deen must address this issue as well coz Islam is a DEEn not A Religion.


Political heads in a number of countries like in U.K are the competent authorities in the affairs of state where Kings , Queens are assigned a status of Rubber Stamp. Merely a symbol of heritage.

Under these circumstances if you are appointing a Non Muslim as your political Head.. How do you expect him to live up to the vicegerency Of Allah ?
Man is a representative of Allah's will on the face of the Earth .this does does not mean to enact the version of Islam Talibans and the other extremist Islamists are representing.
we have got to learn properly the Will of Allah Subhanahu Wa Tala first of all.
and this underscores the need for revisiting the symbolic message of Islam.
in which there lies political justice and social equality as the central theme.


Agreed..dear but its true for the systems with stagnant and conservative applications. System of Islam is distinctively ahead because it is ever innovative.
you find it guiding your every step in your life for not only your individual betterment but for the the collective welfare of the society also...

Religions of the World at large are no more the business of State politics.
The force of Secularism has rightly isolated them.

But we still have Islamic States. why ???????

Since this is not the case with true Islam because Islam is a system of life which offers ever viable code of a successful living as an individual and as a society or State at large.

The most trusted political system of secular brand in the world today is the one under the democracy and i must tell you that so called ideal democracy, its doctrines are purely derivatives of Islamic system of government.

If Islam can evolve democracy for your political affairs so many centuries before how is it possible that Islam can not have the solutions to other Human issues that the modern world is faced with !!!!!

Yes Islam does have them , all we need to do is to translate them in our implementations.

Here the idea of Secularism dies an utter death because it is left with no meaningful reasons behind its existence......

Regards.

Since you know about the "real" history, it looks more of an irony that you are unaware of the fact that there was no regular Islamic army then. if their right to fight for their homeland was acknowledged then, there is no reason that anybody should deny it now.
your stance is not only flawed considering the history but is also quite irrational.




yes politics is one of the important dimensions of human life. But the problem arises when instead of considering it mere a part of life you start considering it life itself.the following few lines will best explain that how the standard-bearers of political Islam are mistaken.









an example of how over emphasizing on economic aspect of life can turn out be...


So does it imply that occupying the whole world is essential in order to establish Allah's "HUKUM".
please quote the source of this "belief".

now coming to your post no 126

i thought that you mean either founder or prophet when you used /



So prophet PBUH was a founder of new faith; i never read that. i thought that all Messengers were sent for one single faith.

PS. pardon for copy paste