You underestimate earlier civilizations. Have you ever read about the Code of Hammurabi. It is Babylonian law code, dating to 1700 BC. The Code consists of 282 laws, with scaled punishments, adjusting "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth." Code deals with matters of contract, household and family relationships such as inheritance, divorce, paternity and sexual behavior, and provisions related to military and judiciary services. And this code for the first time banned usury, almost 2500 years before Islam.
Code of Hammurabi - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

App kya baat kar rahay hain janab. Just google for biblic references. I tell you only one thing.You know what is the punishment of adultery in Islam? Rajam. Stoning till death. Do you know what is the origin of this punishment? Neither Quran nor Hadith. There is no single verse for Rajam in Quran. This punishment was introduced by Torah. Prophet Muhammad simply continued the Shariat of Musa. How can you even think that other holy books don't condemn extremist attitude, terrorism, intoxication, extra marital relations , gambling , interest, inequality , political injustice. If you do not know this then it is your ignorance, not the fault of other holy books.

I have never made a claim to knowing history; real or pseudo. It is naive, at best, of you to attribute such claims to me especially when I have already said that I was researching the topic.

If a regular army did not exist at that time, how could you extrapolate that singular situation to times of today and assert that non-muslims should be included in a standing Islamic army? I think you ought to reconsider your statement as being irrational in nature.

Plus, we do not know for sure if the Christian tribes were included to allow them to fight for their homeland. It is just your words that we have to rely upon to reach that judgement!

Battle of Buwaib was not the only battle fought during the Persian expedition. In fact it wasn't even the first one. It was after a crushing defeat that Hazrat Umar R.A drafted Christian Arab tribes into the army.

As I said, I am researching this topic.

I'm not sure what to make of it, names are cut, the source is missing. But I take it that you wish to punctuate your point about "standard-bearers of political Islam" being wrong.

But the "rhetoric" (to quote Jazib) is nothing but just that. For a believing Muslim it does not hold an atom's worth of weight. Because Nabi S.A.W and rightly guided Caliph's example clearly show that Politics is an integral part of Islam.

On a logical note, life can be divided into two large parts (rather than the 100,000 that the urdu author asserts); Collective and Personal. Islam regulates both. But clearly, the collective life of a Muslim is more important than his individual life because it is the collective life that regulates the individual life, not the other way around. For example, a person can not "individually" alter the economic conditions of a state, only collectively, in the form of government can that be done.

It would be incomplete on part of any ideology, to set out certain principles and ideals and not enunciate how they can be achieved and upheld in real life. Of course, Islam explains through the example of Nabi S.A.W's and Rightly Guided Caliphs' "politics" and life as to how to uphold Islamic principles.


We already "occupy" the whole world, if you mean by "occupy" as being present in a particular place. But If you mean political power then yes, as does the United states exert power all over the world through U.N, IMF and other institutions. Khilafah too will have such political power all over the world and the Hukum of Allah will be established InshAllah. The source of this belief is the following verse of the Quran:

"Fight against those among the People of the Book who do not believe in God and the Last Day, who do not forbid what God and His messenger have forbidden, and who do not consider the true religion as their way of life, until they are subdued and pay Jizyah. The Jews say: 'Ezra is the Son of God', and the Christians say: 'The Messiah is the Son of God'. These are mere sayings from their mouths, following those who preceded them and disbelieved. God will assail them; how they are perverted! They have taken their rabbis and priests as lords other that God, and the Messiah, son of Mary; and they were commanded to worship none but One God. There is no deity but He, glory be to Him above what they associate with Him! They desire to extinguish God's light with their mouths, and God intends to perfect His light, although the unbelievers may be in opposition" (9: 29-32)

Plus Iqamat-e-Deen is a topic that has been amply elaborated on by many scholars.


Of course every muslim believes that all Prophets spoke of Islam. What I meant by founder was in the context of history and I did clarify that in my third point where I said that Hazrat Dawood A.S was born into a society where people were already practicing Judaism, he did not ask them to change their faith, furthermore Hazrat Dawood A.S was born and raised as a Jew following Judaic faith.

Nabi S.A.W, however, was born into a society that was polytheistic.

You said that the procedure for selection of Caliph was Bayat and that during the rashidon time it had always been agreed upon. First of all Bayat was not for the selection of Caliph. Bayat was only taken once the Caliph had been selected. And it was an obligatory compulsion not a matter of choice. Secondly two out of four times during Caliphate period of 30 years, Bayat was not agreed upon and indeed there were rebellions for the sake of Khilafat. You must have heard that after the selection of Abu Bakar as Caliph, Ali did not take Bayat for six months and then Ali's home was raided and Ali was forced to take Bayat. Historical accounts also say that during that raid Ali's house was burnt and the burning door of the house fell upon Hazrat Bibi Fatima R.A (pregnant at that time) and she could not survive the accident. Similarly Caliphate of Ali was not agreed upon and the conflict led to Battel of Camels. And since Bayat was always a compulsion Ali then waged war (Battel of Nahrvaan) on those who did not submitted their allegiance to Ali.

The point is Bayat has never been the procedure of selection of any Caliph. It was an obligation to the people that they submit their allegiance to the already selected Caliph. Below is a brief account of how each of the first four Caliphs selected.
Selection of first Caliph: in a short while after Prophet's death, three different meetings had been convened to decide about the Prophet's successor. Ali, Zubair, and Talha consulted privately in Fatima's home while Abu Bakar, Umer and Abu Ubayda and other Muhajireen debated in the Masjid e Nabvi. News was brought that the Ansaar were meeting in the house of Bani Saida, and Abu Bakar, Umer and Ubaida went there where in a course of heated debate Abu Bakar was chosen as the first caliph
Selection of second Caliph: Abu Bakar on his death bed nominated Umer as his successor.
Selection of third Caliph: Umer on his death bed nominated a committee of six member to choose a Caliph from among themselves. There was a tie between Usman and Ali and then Abu Ubaida used his casting vote in favor of Usman.
Selection of fourth Caliph: Usman was murdered by rebels from Egypt. Those rebels took bayat on the hand of Ali. Muslims from Syria refused to accept Ali as Caliph. Also the two Ashra Mubashra Talha and Zubair from Medina refused to Bayat on Ali hands and joined Syrian army headed by the Prophet's wife Hazrat Bibi Ayesha R.A. Two battels were fought between the Syrian and Hijaz army but the conflict never ended and Arab empire that time split into Hijaz and Iraq ruled by Ali and Syria and Egypt ruled by Muaviyah

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

Lolz... On the outset I have to say you've been reading a bit too much of pseudo history brother.

Bayat was and will be used to elect a caliph InshAllah. As I said Bayah is either implicit or explicit. In the past when simultaneous ballots were impossible, a group of people took the bayah at the hands of an individual and later the rest of the Ummah did so as they came to know of it. Let us take an example of selection of Hazrat Abu Bakr R.A:

The accounts that somehow the Sahaba were busy deciding who would take up the mantle of Caliph right after the "Wisal" of Nabi S.A.W make it sound as if there was a conspiracy at work. In fact all of the closest Sahaba were so grieved that they didn't have the time to think of it. Indeed Hazrat Umar R.A is said to have lost consciousness on hearing the news. However, one thing is most certain that the future of Khilafat was not being discussed by Umar R.A after the death of Nabi S.A.W:

It is related by Umar that as they were seated in the Prophet’s house, a man cried out all of a sudden from outside: “O Son of Khattab (i.e. Umar), pray step out for a moment.” Umar told him to leave them alone and go away as they were busy in making arrangements for the burial of the Prophet. The man replied that an incident had occurred: the Ansar were gathering in force at Saqifah Bani Sa’idah, and–as the situation was grave–it was necessary that he (Umar) should go and look into the matter lest the Ansar should do something which would lead to a (civil) war. On this, Umar said to Abu Bakr: “Let us go.”

(Al Faruq, by Allamah Shibli Numani, Vol 1, p.87)

Another narration goes:

Umar learned of this (i.e. the gathering of the Ansar at Saqifah) and went to the Prophet’s house and sent (a message) to Abu Bakr, who was in the building…[Umar] sent a message to Abu Bakr to come to him. Abu Bakr sent back (a message) that he was occupied (i.e. with caring for the Prophet’s body), but Umar sent him another message, saying: “Something (terrible) has happened that you must attend to personally.” So he (Abu Bakr) came out to him…

(The History of al-Tabari, Vol.10, p.3)

And the assertion that Hazrat Abu Bark R.A was made caliph before a vote was taken is also not correct. In fact, at Saqifah, after a heated debate with the Ansar, all of people present gave their Bayah to Hazrat Abu Bakr upon being nominated by Hazrat Umar R.A.

Later all of those in reach gave their bayah to Hazrat Abu Bakr R.A. It is recorded, even in the shia texts, that Hazrat Ali R.A gave his bayah to Hazrat Abu Bakr after two days (and may after six months too, a sort of a renewal of Bayah).

Tabrasi narrates from (Imam) Muhammad Baqir that when Usamah had left for Jihad when the Messenger of Allah passed away, the news reached Usamah (and) he returned with his army to Medinah. He (Usamah) saw a great number of people surrounding Abu Bakr; on seeing this, he went to question Ali ibn Abi Talib and asked: “What is this?” Ali ibn Abi Talib replied: “It is exactly what you are seeing!” Usamah asked: “Have you (also) given Baya’ah to him?” Ali ibn Abi Talib replied: “Yes.”

(Al-Ihtejaj, p.50: Printed Mashad, Iraq)

Ali ibn Abi Talib said to Zubair: “(Although) we got angry momentarily at the time of consultation (i.e. Saqifah), we can now see that Abu Bakr is the most deserving of the Caliphate: He was the companion of the Messenger of Allah in the cave. We know of his life and we know that the Messenger of Allah had ordered him to lead the prayers.” And then he (Ali) gave his Baya’ah (to Abu Bakr).

(Sharh Nahjul-Balagha; Ibn Abi Al-Hadeed; Vol.1, p.132)


Those quotes also shatter the conspiracies that say that Hazrat Ali R.A was Ma'azAllah forced to take the Bayah. Besides, the "historical" records that you mention about Hazrat Ali R.A's household being burnt down.... are inaccurate and false.

Bayah is indeed a compulsion, either it be explicit or implicit. When a larger portion of the Ummah elects a Caliph it has to be respected and those who do not respect it without reason are fought against by the state.

Hazrat Umar R.A was not unilaterally nominated by Hazrat Abu Bakr R.A but he consulted the leading Sahaba and some of them did not agree but a larger portion didn't object. Later a general Bayah was taken at Hazrat Umar R.A's hands and he became the Caliph.

Hazrat Uthman's election is well recorded and was done through consultation and the traditional Bayah.

Hazrat Ali R.A's election was the only point of contention during the Rashideen time. But the conflict between Hazrat Ali R.A and Hazrat Ameer Muawiya R.A was not about caliphate but the Qasas of Hazrat Uthman R.A, as is recorded in shia sources:

“In the beginning of our matter, the people of Syria [Muawiyyah’s forces] and us met. It is obvious that our God is one, our Prophet is one, and our call in Islam is one. We do not see ourselves more in faith in Allah or more in believing His messenger than them, nor they do. Our matter is one, except for our disagreement in Uthman’s blood, and we are innocent from his murder.” [Nahjul Balagha, vol.3, p.648]

Even after the battles that ensued Hazrat Ameer Muawiya R.A did not take the title of Khalifah or Ameer-ul-Momineen, these titles were still used by Hazrat Ali R.A and the division was a result of mutual agreement between Hazrat Ali R.A and Hazrat Ameer Muawiya R.A.

@ jaziroomi
Brother,
Its not like I do not believe Other Holy books in original form as the words of Allah.
In fact a belief in them all has made me a Muslim.
My point was that these books which are now found in different versions are not preserved in their original form. They are hampered with man made editions.
If such punishments would not have been edited from theses books , today the state laws in west and others in the fellowship of these books had restricted these practices in the society as they are banned in Islamic States.

Code of Hamurabi
Dear encyclopedia describes it as a code which had as its purpose the self-glorification of Hammurabi by memorializing his wisdom and justice.

is it any way comparable to the Charter of madina. which stood for the whole universe. It paved us to base a society of mutual interests,social equality. Never let go for authoritative designs as might be the case with Hammurabi code..


And dear Islam is the perfected form of the former religions brought by former agency of Prophets of Allah (Peace upon them all).
If we are finding any traces of Islamic law in other Holy scriptures of Allah S.W.T, it should be no exciting.

I am trying to take the to the point where I can show you the dirty power game behind these heart touching rhetoric. Muslims of Subcontinent have always been very innocent. So much innocent that to save the Ottoman MONARCHY they started the KILAFAT movement. Is not this funny? You tell me! Was Ottoman Empire a Khilafat? No. Not at all. Then why they started KHILAFAT movement. Only because a subcontinent Muslim has always been very strongly and emotionally attached to his religion. They were told that Ottman Empire was a Khilafat, just like the Empires of Rashideens. And look what they did to themselves and their families in protesting against the abolishment of a monarch regime which they were wrongly told about as Khilafat. At that time they did not bother to ask what is a Khilafat. And this is exactly what you are doing today, never bothering or daring to ask what is Khilafat. I show you how!
You believe in election system (I hope by that you mean adult franchise or Balig Rai Dahi) but I bet you that these theodamocrates or (if you allow me to coin a new term) Caliphists will never favor elections. Why? Because they knew they cannot get votes. We Pakistani give them respect, and roti and chanda and qurbani ki khaal, but we don’t give them vote. It is our history. You know before partition all these religious parties were against the creation of Pakistan. At that time what were they saying for Jinnah and Pakistan. Read this post. http://www.cssforum.com.pk/335216-post22.html On partition they came to Pakistan frustrated and defeated. And then they started planning of Hijacking Jinnah’s Pakistan by coining heart touching religious terms of Islamic State, theodemocracy, Nizam e Mustafa, Nifaz e Shariat, Majlis e Shura, Arbab e Hal o Aqad, and Ideology of Pakistan kind of stuff. The same technique that they had used earlier in Tahreek e Khilafat. But we never voted for them. And we never will.

And after that they started using term Khilafat once again. You must have noticed stickers pasted on shops and plaza and masjid and public transport. Pakistan ki Baqa Khilafat kay Ah’ya main hay.

And look how they argument?
Islam is not a Mazhaab but a Deen (True) which provides complete guidance in every walk of life (True) including politics and legislation (Err True). Since Islamic law is complete and no question or situation can arise the need of such a law relating to which cannot be discovered from the Quran or the Hadis and, therefore, Islamic law merely requires interpretation by those who are experts in it.. And who will interpret Islamic Law? Arbab e Hal o Aqad, meaning distinguished Ulema of the time. Are you getting the point? Who will sit in legislative assembly? Only interpreters, Ulama, Molvi, Mullah. What does this mean? Give power to religious parties and that is it.

Mullah ki psyche ko samjhain. Jin 5 namazo say app jannat kamatay ho wo in 5 namazo say roti kamata hain. Or hum per hakomat karnay kay khawaab daikhtay hain. Or masoom bacho ki brain washing kar kay un say suicide attacks karwatay hain or Shia Sunni ko laratay hain. Baqi agar election say hi khaleefa select hotay tu Gillani Sahab bhi Khalifa hain kion kay wo bhi vote lay kar aye hain.

Islam is not a religion of political power. You know what Quresh e Makkah offered to Prophet Muhammad? They offered him Makkah ki Sardari. And you know what was his reply? If you place sun on my right hand and moon on my left hand …….

نبی کی وفات کے بعد مسلمانوں میں خلافت کو لے کر جھگڑے شروع ہوئے۔ کیوں? اسلام تب بھی خطرے میں نہیں تھا اور اسلام آج بھی خطرے میں نہیں ہے۔ لیکن یہ بات ہمیں تسلیم کرنی پڑے گی کہ سیاسی ادارے تب بھی نہیں تھے اور آج بھی نہیں ہیں۔ مسلمانوں میں ہمیشہ انتقال اقتدار پر جنگ ہوئی۔ بیٹا باپ کے اور بھائی بھائی کا گلا کاٹتا رہا۔ وجہ یہی تھی۔ دیکھیں آپ لوگ بھی تسلیم کرتے ہیں کہ خلافت کے طریقہ کار کا تعین کرنا ایک اجتہادی عمل ہےیہ وہی اجتہاد ہے جو آج تک نہیں ہوا۔ لہذا پیچھے مڑ کے دیکھنے سے بہتر ہے کہ ہم آگے کا سفر کریں ورنہ تحریک خلافت کل بھی ناکام ہوئی تھی اور آج بھی ناکام ہو گی

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

@jazi roomi

i did not want to google.. but on ur demand i did one.
here are the results returned.
have a look at the conflicting references and be stunned for a while.

References to Alcohol in The Bible

Bhai app khamkha ki bahas main uljha rahay ho. Yeah topic hi nahi hay. Ab main app ko google kar kay reference dhondna tu nahi sikha sakta. Laikin yeah app galat samjhtay hain kay chrisitianity ya koi or religion stealing, murder, drinking ya extra marriage sex ko sahi qarar daita hay. App yoon karo kay 10 commandments likh kay search karo jo bible kay basic principles hain. Un main say kuch main likh daita hoon app parh lain

Honour your father and your mother, so that your days may be long in the land that the Lord your God is giving you

You shall not murder

You shall not commit adultery.

You shall not steal.

You shall not bear false witness against your neighbour

Baqi app agar yeah sabit karna chahtay ho kay Islam is the best religion tu wo app kar chukay. You win. I loose. I accept Islam is the best religion.

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

bhai jaan.
me khamakha nahe bahis kar raha.. bas janina chahta hon kay unki government elderly people and parents k liye ek khas isolated jaga kiyun banae deti hay jidar borhay ma bap ko chor kar atay hyn.

razamandi walay extra marital affairs kay khilaf government kiyun nahe law karti ?

alcohol allowed q hay... ?? Kiya wo religion ko itni ahmiyat nahe detay jo us ko politics me apply karen ? iskabil nahen samajhtey religion ko ?

agar aap argue kar rahy hyn kay Islam is an obsolete system to i disagree its applications are valid up to date. if there are any dysfunctional activities in Islamic society it means The muslims have deviated from the real message of Islam .. aor jab aap kahtay ho kay we should not follow a few religious scholars mulas I agree with you. we should revisit the theme of Islam.