@ jaziromi

chalo mera to aap ko pata chal gaya na kay me Islam ko perfect sabit karna chata hoon.. aap baten apna ? what do you wana prove?

aor aap bara e mahirbani hamen ye batain kay aap ko Islam ki kon se baton bar ye lag raha hay kay Islam state religion nahe hona chahye.. app kay dicussion ka theme kiya hay kay Pakistan aor ham musliman European , american , hinduish life style akhtiar karin ?

koe aesi Islam ki baat aap batao jo insaniyat kay khilaf ho.. jis se hamari welfare na ho... jo kabil e amal na ho.. hamari roz marha zindagi me... etc ???


pls..

then what is this
there is no prohibition for non-muslims to join army in Quran and ahadees;the incident i quoted was only an example, and rest assured that its not the only one.

what u are doing is by no means a "research". you have already assumed a certain position and now you are simply trying your level best to find out some supporting evidence, no matter how feeble it could be.

so keep researching

consult some "Real" history book to know about battle of bridge. you shall find that what christian tribes fought for. BTW if non-muslims didn't qualify for booty what else could be the motive other than nationhood/homeland...
doesn't it make perfect sense..

does source really matter? and i omitted name(s) to avoid another useless debate with you.

oh bhai mere were did that statement reject politics to be a part of islam..
though good to know that you are a believing Muslim.


now that is really absurd. your proposed khalifa will establish the Hukum by following the footsteps of US.

allow me to consult Qur'an with reference to the above quoted verses. I will get back to you on this.

please name some of those before the fifteenth century.

you missed this question yesterday.

I totally loved your straightforward question . Lets come to the main point (and by this I mean others who are supporting an Islamic union, Islamic state, Caliphate or whatever are also requested to pour out their opinions). How is it going to be established in present day scenario? How exactly will this new caliphate work? Will it be a new revised modernised caliphate or the same we have read in books from the old centuries? So here I go…

When I say Caliphate, I always say that its nothing but supremacy of Quran and Sunnah. So what defines my Caliphate is a simple Islamic state governed by Alalh’s rule (though this is not what most of pro Caliphate people perceive when the word Caliphate is used).

Like I said before, no system of government has been explicitly mentioned in Quran and Sunnah so its all open for discussion. And this is why I say things have been left in Quran and Sunnah so that they could be accommodated according to time, place, occasion and culture. It can be a presidential system, a parliamentary democracy or some other from of democratic system out of dozens that are in place around the world. My own preference is for the leader (caliph or president) to be elected directly like in the US system. I personally like the kind of Presidential elections we have in US. Make your pick. The Federal Shariah Court can jot down some criteria (as per Quran and Sunnah) and then see if a particular candidates fulfills the criteria. The tenure should be pre-determined and if the ruler goes against Alalh’s hudud, the people should replace him with a new one.

We have the Objectives Resolution. We have the Constitution, which if implemented in letter and spirit can get us rid of 99% of our political clowns. We need to educate and mobilize the 82% of masses who think their vote just does not matter (no wonder when we have such leaders, they have a right to think so). We need to know that there is no mulla culture in Islam. Last but not the least, tolerance is something we’ll need more than anything (I’ll explain it in later part of my post). We know its not impossible to get decent and educated parliamentarians when we have article 62 and 63 incorporated in our constitution. These people are gonna constitute the legislative body or what we call parliament. They cannot and will not be allowed to transgress Allah’s hudood but yes, they can legislate (or you can say do ijtihad) when it comes to two or more lawful alternatives. Then there can be voting on any particular law to see how many legislators are in favour of a particular law. Opinions within the framework of Quran and Sunnah should be respected. But yes, they cannot go against Quran and Sunnah. Having said that, we know we are going to be ruled by rulers who are like us (though there will be a group of people always fighting to establish an Islamic state). So the transformation is an essential element.

I find this akin to perfect system of an Islamic state in present day world. But there is other side of the picture as well.

Suppose, if we manage to elect such leaders and everything goes smooth, how are we going to uproot this system of interest (No, simple Islamic banking cannot and will not suffice)? This one basic question immediately pushes me and many of my ilk into reality. Why? I am gonna discuss in later part of my post.

Now I’ll churn through pages of history. The era of Prophet (P.B.U.H) and the epoch of rightly guided caliphs was a commendable time. We all have read enough about the splendid era of rightly guided caliphs. I do not mean to disrespect any one of them here but if I have read history right, even they had certain shortcomings because they too were humans (that means we cannot expect the ruler to be perfect). Despite all the glory that Caliphate period had, three of the four Caliphs were assassinated owing to the rebellions broke out in their times. And Here we are talking about righteous men who were actually trained by Prophet (P.B.U.H) and the kind of moral integrity the exhibited, we cannot have a chunk of that.
The institution of Caliphate ( after Hazrat Ali was assassinated and Caliphate became controversial), was symbolic rather than a model of righteousness. Yet until the last Ottoman Caliph, it had united Muslims Arabs welcomed the end of ottoman caliphate, because of its strong Turkish , rather than Arab identity. What I mean to say is that difference on the basis of ethnicity is something that cannot be overlooked, neither in history, nor in present times.

Too many of us think that an Islamic State (whatever you call it ) should be one single entity. All Muslims should be equal. There should be no discrimination on the basis of ethnicity, sect etc. But I find it akin to living in a bubble. (I see that cannot happen under anyone other than Christ for all Muslims will not agree on anyone other than him). Why?

Too many of us who call for single Caliphate and a single Caliph concept with no borders (like we had in the time of Rightly Guided Caliphs) think this will be a land of milk and honey , it won't be (in my opinion) . Add to it the tribal nature of the arabs, the language and cultural difference of Pakistanis, Indonesians, Turks, Iranian , Afghans, berbers, somalis and deepest darkest African tribes. Add the religious differences between the Wahabis, Shias, Deobandis, Brelvis , Salafis and others (Did we have so many differences over religion during that golden era. So can actually turn into a single Muslim entity eliminating all these differences? The reason it has been failing as a concept for over a 1000 years is because we haven't been able to give the people proper representation.


All I'm saying is that we have to be practical on this issue. There is no way we can claim to be the seat of Khilafat and expect or force others to join us. This may have worked a 1000 years ago but it wont work now. What we need is an EU style system, with a rotating presidency, shared currency, shared markets, shared military (soon), shared policies, shared laws. Each country has it's own government but all follow Islamic law because at the end of the day, its His law that is supreme and not the Ruler, Representative, Caliph, Imam or whatever. The EU works because they have eliminated the influence of religion in their governance. If they bring in Vatican, Church of England, Baptists, and Presbytarians, all cease fires will cease as well.
Some of you might think of OIC for we do choose a rotating Leader, OIC has elections.
Notice, OIC = organization, AL = League, GCC = Cooperation Council.
The delimma is that they all have the "superior than thou" attitude.

EU = Union, meaning united.
NATO = Treaty, they have taken an oath, put it in writing.

Temporarily, we could change the charter of the OIC, and it could work, if we agree not to interfere in each other's internal matters, including faith/beliefs. And the treaty should be that when dealing with non-muslim states, we all need to stand united on all fronts, and support each other, including militarily and financially. Now this is how we can get rid of fiet currency and replace it with gold or silver or something tangible (Yes, the fiqh academies say that paper money is permitted, but I find it the core reason to this system of riba and to get rid of it, nothing can be done be a single state).

We Muslims should know that no one is responsible of anyone else deeds. But we Muslims should follow Islam in our life according to Quran and Sunnah, and choose best and most honest amongst us as our ruler, knowing that humans have limitations, so if any ruler goes out of line, we should discard that person as ruler for another ruler. Further, we should be cautious of dodgy people who try to make themselves self-appointed representative (of Allah) and use this route to con themselves into power using Islam .

State has duty to monitor our deeds with each other (Mamlaat) and nothing else. State can make best possible laws with the help of Quran, Sunnah or whatever means appropriate, but that has to be regarding ‘Mamlaats’ and not religious life of individuals. Rulers could be anyone who call himself Muslim and should see that no one get victimised regarding religion and that all should be equal in front of state. Laws of state should be strong and institutions in state should be such that they could take account of anyone in the country, including rulers.

Coming to beliefs, I do get more reward if I pray in a mosque, but it's not as if I become a sinner if I pray in my home. Example, in KSA, shopkeepers are forced to shut their business, and go to the mosque.
If that push to shove decision is attempted to be replicated in Pakistan, Egypt, Malaysia, Turkey or Dubai, there will be an uproar, as we're permitted to pray in our own privacy, even at a later time or day. So the public will contradict the government and demand an explanation, how or why are they over-ruling the liberty given to them by God the Almighty. Try telling a huge muslim population of Singapore, Malaysia and Indonesia, that covering your hair isn't enough, need to cover from head to toe, and then hear their reply.

I know, we all know, they all know, their religion. We don't need to be reminded again and again what the Quran says (as far as dawah is concerned, there is a a very appropriate and beautiful hadith about it which I’ll not quote right now). Some don't like to be reminded or told at all, and that itself can be an irritant enough to break away. It's a very sensitive issue for many. The Islamic state and even a Muslim Union (on pattern of EU) is only workable if we concentrate on broader issues, and does not affect beliefs.

We can choose to be united and run the Union in a practical way, or try to bring about a change that may never work, and cause more damage than achieve the goal.

I believe that the Islamic state needs to be far more flexible than Saudi Arabia or Taliban's Afghanistan if it's going to succeed. Actually Saudi Arabia is a very repressed and unnatural society and is no model of the Caliphate from my point of view. For some fundamentalist types Saudi Arabia is too liberal and they want something even more repressive. In Pakistani mosques people will sometimes actually comment on your trousers being too long.

Basically I think that we need to build a modern advanced state where a lot of flexibility is given to people in terms of how they want to live. In a three tier government system the local governments may be allowed to make rules that are more in tune with local customs (within periphery of Quran and Sunnah).

What I have in mind is a techno-Islamic society that promotes advanced science and technology and cultural development balanced with Islamic principles. What I have in mind is not at all what some other supporters of the Caliphate may be thinking. That’s why we need to be discussing this now.

P.S: I tried to be precise but somehow it was not possible. I have still left a few points that need further elaboration, but since I am running out of time so this should suffice for now. This is purely my opinion and concept of a Caliphate (an Islamic state) along with to what extent Islamic law can be actually used to run the state. Healthy criticism is welcomed. Plus, I would seriously like to know opinions of others about establishment of an Islamic state, a Muslim Union or any model that you have in your mind.

Good Heavens! Its far more lengthier then I expected it to be. No wonder if such a lengthy post makes you bang your head into a wall, lol.

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

purepk bhai jahan tk jazib ki baat main samjha hn wo islam k against nahi ha
lkin wo yeh samajhta ha k aam insan islam ko as it is implement kr he nhi sakta
aap bayshak tareekh utha k daikh lo sahaba RA ka hakoomat k maamlay pr governery k maamlay pr kitna shadeed ihtlaf raha phir Hazrat Usman RA jesay jaleelul qadar sahabi b hukmaran k tor pr kamyab sabit na ho sakay

jo cheez khilafat ko itna romanwi tasawar bna deti ha wo ha pehlay do khulafa k zamanay ki fatoohat hain

in fatoohat ka daromadar khilafat kilawa doosray kharji haalat pr zyada tha


dusri bat yeh k state k secular honay ki zaroorat kyun mehsoos hui

aik saada misal lain

teen bhai hain a, b, c
a aur b to mutaqi parhezgar aur shariat k paband hain lkin c ko thora peenay pilan ka chaska lga hua ha, thora buhut tash pay b haath seedha kia hua ha to jua b lgata rehta ha. garaz yeh k tmaam aib us main mojood hain
aab aap teenon bhaion ki sanjhi property kia a,b, tmam property k faislay hud lay sktay c ko nazar andaz kr k . nahi na. ps isi tarah aik ghair muslim jo is sarzameen pr paida hua ha wo bhi isi mitti ka beta ha aur usay wohi tmam haqooq honay chahiyen jo mujhay aap ko ya kisi teesray shaks ko hn.......ps yeh usi surat mumkin ha jb k ryasat kisi aik mazhab ki tarafdar nhi ho g

secular ka matlab mazhab bezar ryasat nhi ha blkay aik aisi ryasat jahan sb ko brabar mazhabi azadi ho

umeed ha yeh saada misal kafi ho g aik dusra moqaf samjhnay k liye. kaash yeh masla b itna he sada hota....

sir theodemocrates to hamain vote dena ka ahal he nahi samjhtay. un ka electoral college sirf ba shara logon pr mushtamil ha.
aap yeh rule Molana Modudi aur Dr. Israr sahib k tahreron main dekh sktay hain

@chfarooq
brother i second jazziroomi bhai when he maintains that We can hardly shape our life in the same Islamic frame as it used to be in early times.

Life is name of a force behind the development. Its always on changing pace.

and let me tell you brother Islam did not neglect this factor...

We were given the tools like Ijtihad, Ijma and Qias to keep in touch with the changing life style as per the changing times.. such modifications that are surely under the blissful ambit of Islamic ethics.

Now here comes the question,
why are these tools a forgotten portion of Islamic shariah ?
because
1. so called mullas host conservative and fanatic approach they want no change in Islamic system...

and
2.
the secular muslims do not bother to study the Holy Quran and Ahadis with deep insight and decode the real message within.
studying this way they can achieve eligibility to sit in the ijtihad and offer your reasoning. Support your suggestions and ideas by quoting the Quran and Ahadis..

..
I repeat dear,,
Reformation of religious thought by revisiting the message of Allah we can solve many issues that jazzbai or other Muslims have....

@ Fatima

You rightly expressed your perception about Caliphate by saying that it is nothing out of the Quran and orders of Allah… But you did not tell us what is Quran and what the orders of Allah S.w.T are ?
Are they as various religious scholars impart to us in different fashions? Is the Quran And Ahadis which based sectarianism in The Muslim society ? Is shariah about depriving minorities of full citizenship in the Islamic State? If not then what is real Islam where do you find it ? have you been personally to the message of Islam ? nope… we only know islam what the scholarly interpretations represent to us. But I must tell you that
We have a variety of issues with the Islam , represented by a selected clergy.

We do not know Quran personally (never drifted our insight within and developed an opinion accordingly)………………. In presence of the sectarian based Islam how can you evolve a unanimous system of government which islamic laws will you follow ? those which say a minority is only a protected community in the state and nothing more than that ? the laws which say a non muslim can not be part of the standing State Army and the laws which restrict the non muslim to hold higher political office in the country ???
What laws you will follow dear ?
Before moving ahead you need to get back to Quran. It is a symbolic message, as the scholars took different meanings out of it, we can also revisit it and find out the possibilities for the demands of new times, new thoughts and new life styles.
this is then you can proceed to evolve an administrative system in harmony with The correctly interpreted orders of Allah S.W.t and requirements of the modern world....

Allah's hudud has been explicitly mentioned in Quran.No sect can have any dispute over it. When it comes to Sunnah, the Sunnis have four school of thoughts and go for Saha-e Sitta (I personally go for Sahih Muslim and Shih Bukhari only ). Shiites have other school of thoughts and books of traditions. We all know how family law is administered in Pakistan. We know how it is administered in Iran. Same goes for Shiite countries. But again, both sects should give space to one another when it comes to transactions involving personal life. Muslims should go abck to primary sources, thats what every one has been saying but saying is not enough. What we need more than anything is tolerance.

You probably missed my point. I was focussing more on present times (though in first part of my post I was explaining what kind of ideal Islamic state Pakistan can turn into but again, that was kinda ideal situation).

We have so many sects, agreed. We have our ethnic differences, fair enough. But what actually makes this sectarianism so much repulsive? In a second, we can declare anything haram, bidat or whatever and declare someone as Kafir (when only Allah (S.W.T) has that right) Isnt it that all the time we stick to beliefs (we hardly talk about transactions)? Isnt it that we love being nosey-pokers and tell others hey you do not believe in Mehdi so you are not a Muslim! Isnt it because we love debating over stuff like going to graveyards is prohibited or not? We'll love ridiculing someone just because he offers asr and maghrib in one go. We'll tell that someone is wajib ul qatal just because he is a sunni or a shiite. Most of us can go to any extent to prove that Ali(R.A) was the successor of Muhammad (P.B.U.H) or prove that there was no one more phenomenal than Omer (R.A). I mean what is all this? So you can well imagine why we have so many sects. The sectarian issue arose owing to the different methodologies for ijtihad followed by early scholars along with difference over hadiths. I believe the early scholars were far more tolerant that we are. Why? Because we think that everything that we quote as Sunnah is hudud of Allah. (I am avoiding on discussion of authenticity of hadith on purpose for the time being).

We should understand that all have right to believe that what they understand about Islam is most appropriate and true, but they should also know that other Muslims following completely different beliefs also thinks the same about their beliefs and understanding of Islam. Now, there would not be any ‘prophet of Allah’ who would tell who is right and who is wrong, but it is our own understanding, intelligence, and whatever we have in the form of Quran and Islamic source that we accept as true (and here we have different sources), that can guide us, and in this situation, all are following according to their understanding, intelligence and whatever acceptable source about Islam they have (only one source is non-controversial and that is Quran, though even here, there are many interpretations). So, we can discuss and argue, but should never start forcing anyone in religion, as force can be used by all sides and when someone starts using force, they become animals, where whoever is stronger, they are heard.

You asked me about which law will I follow, like I said before status of non-Muslims is an agreed upon status. That surely does not make it binding. As far as holding political office is concerend, I still stick to my view that they should not be allowed to hold office of President, PM (and in current system even COAS), I personally think it should never happen. Again, thats my opinion (for others reasons obviously).

Yes, we need to go back to primary sources, I agree with that. But let me come to real world. How many of us are going to do that? I mean dawah is a good thing but at the same time even going back to primary sources can improve our understanding. Telling everyone all the time that go back to Quran and Sunnah will not suffice. What if Palestinians go back to primary sources? What if Bosnians go back to primary sources? What if Afghanis go back to primary sources? What if Iraqis go abck to primary sources? Will it turn everything into honey? Will they not have any difference of opinion or different ijtihads? All I meant to say(in my last post) was that waiting for a single entity Caliphate and emphasizing the need to go back to primary sources only will not help (Had this been the case Hizb ut tahrir would have created Caliphate long time back). This is what we have been hearing since ages. We need something more, something concrete and thats what I was focussing on (with a simple solution).


So the bottom-line is that yes, promote free thinking but at the same time there is more need of promoting tolerance. The moment any state will try to impose its beliefs on individuals, its done. The moment a EU type union brings religions in, it will be nothing more than a goldfish in a jaw (like OIC).

In one of your posts, you were calling Islam as secularism. The best way I can comprehend that is Islamic state should govern only muamlaat and not beliefs. Your belief is your personal matter. You do anything wrong or do not act upon whats obligatory and that does not harm anyone or state, its you who should be ready to face God, thats it.

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

@Fatima,jazi and other mates.

We are here to discuss the status of the state .Whether it should be secular or not.
Keeping the current developing secular states on one side of our view, and declining Muslim Ummah on the other, we argue that State should be secular. But religion should not be isolated as in case of other secular states in the world today. We want Islam in.
This brand new style of Secularism took us to discuss the Islamic principles on particularly political and social counts.

We then found some of the religious doctrines quite conflicting with the secular atmosphere (Here I never mean faulty culture, dressing code and certain malpractices of the west as secularism so please do not mistake me.). We discussed especially the points on political and social equality. In a secular state no one is considered a religious minority that is only entitled to be protected under Islam according to some of the members here. Every citizen in secular state enjoys equal rights and equal socio political status .Which again we found contrary.

We read some of our forum mates writing that Islam disapproves full citizenship to the religious minorities. In The Islamic State a non Muslim can not join the standing State Army (though you later accepted it), and he can not be a head of state and head of government (though a member told that he can be a political head not state head).

And more importantly the discussion covered within, a topic of Caliphate, which you discussed at an adequate length.

Selection of a caliph and an over all political mechanism under a caliph was again conflicting the government system in a secular state .As one of us argued that this system matched that particular era only and is outlived for the modern political society.

Cutting short the long debate, we are hung between two extremes.

1. State Should not be secular
2. State should not be theological.

Does the solution lie somewhere in between?

I have no idea.

Because we are not ready to reformat our religious concepts rather stay reluctant to welcome even some of the viable traits of secular states on one side of spectrum
And on the other our secular minds are not prepared to enact Islamic laws in the state.
We somehow consider them outlived (nauzbillah).
So where do you find the solution ???

This question is especially addressed to Jazi Roomi bhai who came here to generate a secular sensation … seemed to have a number of complaints against the practical Islam.
He argued a lot but did not took us to the solution… He did not express his wish.. what does he want the state to be. If the practical Islamic laws are unacceptable to his wisdom what alternate is he giving us… Please….

we should forget establishing the caliphate for the time being as it is not a childz play and any road map to revive the institution of caliphate would just be theoratical.


for the last 500 years the contribution of muslims towards the world or mankind is nil.even the bulb that we use in our houses is the service of the much criticised west.we should just think of educating and creating awareness among the massess.thats it




a question:what practical benefits we will be getting from switching over to secularism?

__________________
Puppet,Slave,Lover

A theologian may argue that by adapting to secular trends we'll have
1. short clothing, dance and bar clubs, alcoholism and of course the culture of extra marital relationships.
2. Political Influence of the western world to take the religion away from our political system.
3.love for the people who killed millions of muslims in palestine,labnon, Afghanistan and iraq.

etc

A secular may argue;

1. woman and minority empowerment to the extent of becoming head of state, joining armed forces and enjoying full citizenship.

2. Removal of the "Religious minority tag"

3. Removal of science and technology phobia from Madarssas and remote regions solely occupied by out fashioned ideas.

3.Upgradation of the conservative mindset regarding the hatred for the west which hampers development in the interacting world today.

4. Containing religious extremism based on this ideology .

etc.

The force of secularism has swept across the modern world and the disapproving religions have been isolated and have become confined to churchs and temples only.

And Islam is still intact... because it preserves the room for some of the meaningful and logical demands of secularism....

a modren muslim needs to understand certain instances on which Islam agrees so called secularism...

and a secular person has to accept that Islam offers bounteous doctrines to rise even above what they call secularism.

What may a Human want more than his welfare in both his material and spiritual existence !!!!

……………………………………………………………………………………..

A very beautiful compaign is being carried out to confuse the people of this country by saying

"Ham Nain ya mulk Kis liay Hasil kia tha"
"Jinnah tu Secular mulk chahaty thy"
so n so

these are all planted agents of West. according to these foolish westren paid agents Minorities are in very much in danger in pakistan but can i ask from them that the minorities killed in last 10 years may be equal to Muslims killed in 1 month in pakistan.

11 Aug Jinnah's speech is wrongly interpreted by these funny puppits of media

"Either u r hindu muslim ...state has no concern......"

This z the basic rule which is presented by Islam for the state that every human should have the right to live according to his own religion and state should not interfare, but how come this statment of Quaid e Azam can be taken as a plea for a secular state.

This z an amazing fact, even in these crisis era of the country, Jews are very much afraid of Pakistan and its Ideology.So its the easy method in a War to misguide and confuse the nation through self created think tanks.Insh ALLAH they will lose.

but bro nd sis i realy trust n u and new generation which z peace nd ISLAM loving so keep ur moral High against these enemies of ISLAM nd Pakistan.