[QUOTE=suman;360456]Can you tell me what mistakes Holy Prophet committed inspite of that he had divine guidance? [QUOTE]

Shahzaib has already quoted a few verses. Do you know how ijtihad is proved from Quran and Sunna? There were many occassions where Prophet (P.B.U.H) had to rely on his own wisdom. Most of his acts were endorsed by Allah (S.W.T) like Bait ul Rizwan and the consequent revelation. What happened when Hazrat Ayesha came with a slave, what was Prophet's (P.B.U.H) reaction? I am sure you know he didnt talk to her for two months and then there came down revelation (after two months) where Allah testifies her innocence. Then there are verses in Quran where Allah has admonished Prophet (P.B.U.H) that why he had given permission to hypocrites until truthful were made dictinct. I have already given example of how Allah did not endorse Prophet's ijtihad (which was basically exercised by Hazrat Abu Bakr but was given preference over Hazrat Umer's ijtihad) as regards to his treatment with prisoners of Badr.

Prophet (P.B.U.H) was an ideal human being, did we ever get to see anyone like him? Medina was an ideal state, did we get to see a state like that after Prophet (P.B.U.H)'s death? What you are not understanding is that you, I and none of us can have a chunk of eeman which Companions had and thats the reason why I say that an ideal Caliphate (on the pattern of Prophet(P.B.U.H) and his Companions) is not possible, at least in near future. I have already explained how Muslim ummah cannot get united under none but Christ ( I suggest you to read Sahih hadiths about end of times if you are not getting my point).

You have to look at broader issues. Do you agree that Muslims need a union? Do you agree that its nothing but Allah's hukm that is important? If you agree with me on these two points then let me say these are the two core concepts of an Islamic concept of state/ caliphate.

I believe that the concept I have explained will solve most of problems. Right now, we are not looking for any solutions because we are focussing on petty issues. I have already explained the limitations of what I wrote. If you read that carefully, you'll notice where I have done that. Yes, it will not be a land of milk and honey but it was not so even in times of Companions, but surely, it will be a big step towards the essentials of what you call Muslim brotherhood and Islamic state.

PS: Cross-questioning can kill purpose of a discussion or a debate. Thats why I suggest you sister that before you ask questions, ensure that you have responded to the ones that were asked from you. Its gonna help a lot. I'll be waiting for the questions that I asked. You can post answers whenever you get time.

I know my religious duty and you should should also know yours. You can have personal correspondence with me if you feel like asking anything about Islam because that will drag us away from what most of us are discussing.

Did you answer my question?

Answer that (and if you dont have, there is nothing bad in saying that) and then ask your question.

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

I have tried to answer questions you raised.if any question is left let me know.

Medina was an ideal state, did we get to see a state like that after Prophet (P.B.U.H)'s death?

We did not get to see state like Madina because after Holy Prophet (PBUH) islam took a back seat and personal interests became first preference of muslims even of the many companions who endeared islam and unity of muslims more than anything else during lifetime of prophet (PBUH).unless the same spirit is not revived where collective well being is not the most important factor neither any ideal Islamic state nor any reformed concept of state according to needs of contemporary world will be possible.

you, I and none of us can have a chunk of eeman which Companions had and thats the reason why I say that an ideal Caliphate (on the pattern of Prophet(P.B.U.H) and his Companions) is not possible, at least in near future.
I understand and have said time and again that we lack action in your words firm emaan.but why this is so? Because we know everything but don’t take any firm action.greater responsibility lies with those who know and if they failed to act they will be held responsible for this more than the people who know less.the responsibility of establishing an Islamic state is as important as performing daily obligatory rituals o islam.

You have to look at broader issues. Do you agree that Muslims need a union? Do you agree that its nothing but Allah's hukm that is important.
Yes I do agree.but when Allah will ask us what we did when muslim states were downgraded,when Islamic shariah was nowhere,when muslims were divided when individuals were corrupted when societies were shattered? We will just answer that as it was said that muslims will get united under Christ so we even didn’t try!or we will reply that as our times were changed so it was not even possible to try for the creation of an ideal Islamic state(and by this I don’t mean exactly same as was the state of Madina but a reformed ideal Islamic state it can be).to me these are just excuses to satisfy ourselves.

I have already stressed over the need of a society that could promote tolerance and free thinking.

And how that society will be possible if people are not reformed to be tolerant?if that is the case tu pehle state of madina wajood mein aati then logoan ne islam ko follow kerna shuru kiya hota.agar aisi baat hoti tu Allah pehle collective duties k bare mein hukm deta individual responsibilities k bare mein nahin.suppose if without reforming ourselves a reformed advanced state is established but people refuse to leave riba system or to be tolerant then what will happen? Will that system will be replaced with any other or people will be forced to refuse riba or practice tolerance and allowing free thinking!

Do you know why I gave example of Hiz ut Tahrir? They are staunch champs of Caliphate. I quoted their example because they are the ones who have an ideology but how they are going to implement it, they have no road map.

Dear tell me where I have stressed upon unity of all muslims under one caliphate? Infact im not a great fan of caliphate system but is it only way to ideal Islamic state.? definately not.

Lakin meri behen agar Quran aur Sunnah har cheez par itnay he clear hain then why do we have so many sects?

If there are so many sects its not fault of Quran and Sunnah.people have stopped following Quran and Sunnah.you also said there are so many fabricated hadiths.aap mujhay batao k sects kab bane?tabhi na jab logoan ko koi hukm ya hadith apne mufaad k khilaaf lagi tu unhoan ne alag ho k apna alag sect bana liya oar hadiths bhi apne favour mein jaari ker dien.


The ethnic, cultural, sectarian problems that I pointed out do exist in today's world. How can we get rid of them by reforming people?

We can get rid of them by reforming ourselves in such a way that then we will be more tolerant towards other sects,ethinicities and cultures as these problems have no place in islam.moreover unity can exist along with diversity.

if I assume that all Palestinians, all Iraqis, all Afghanis, all Chechens, all Bosnians, have reformed themselves, what should they do now? Keep getting killed or what?

Then I will say they don’t have a leader who can lead them to their ultimate goal.we must not forget that leaders like imam Khomeini are still born who can change the opperessive system by leading people.

Do you believe that its only the concept of Muslim Union that can help us from getting rid of this riba-based system?

my stress is on reforming ourselves first.then to reform the system and working for unity of muslims.because if i reject this system no one can force me to adopt it.

When did I say that its impossible to reunite a billion Muslims? (What I meant was that you cannot REFORM a billion Muslims, reform them like Prophet (P.B.U.H) reformed Companions)

Some times you say it is impossible to reunite a billion muslims divided on different basis and other time you say its not impossible!well dear you are confusing me.and tell me where I said im going to reform a billion muslims? By reform I meant every muslim need to undertand his/her duty and everyone atleast can reform him/her self.

I personally believe that giving theory of an ideal islamic state, totally overlooking the contemporary world dynamics is like living in a bubble.

And in my view thinking about an advanced reformed state according to contemporary world’s requirements without reforming ourselves and overlooking ideal Islamic state concept is also like living in a bubble.

__________________
"Our affairs r attached to the destiny decreed by Allah even our best plans may lead us to destruction.Ali(a.s)

That was the point. We cannot have those people again. Period.


My point was same, we need to get practical. Tell you what, in Islam there are different kinds of act. Performing daily rituals is something that comes under belief (I am not talking about congregational prayers here) and if not observed, a person will get punishment by Allah but there is not worldy punishment. If I drink within confines of my home, state cannot interfere with that. If I drink and go outside and end up messing with someone, obviously I'll be liable to hadd. Similarly, if I dont offer salah at my home, dont observe fasts, state cannot do anything. These are the things for which I'll face the music one day.There are things that you call transactions (or muamlaat) which govern relationship of an individual with an individual and that of an individual with state. If I dont give zakat, state has all the right to penalize me since its comes under my transaction with state and not beliefe. State, on basis of law (whether divine or common) always governs transactions and not beliefs. Belief is a person's personal matter. When you have the hukm of Allah incorporated as your state law, obviously it will prevail and nothing else. So the state should legislate according to whatever Islamic means possible but legislating over beliefs is something that is not possible. Shiites offer prayer in a different way, Sunnis in a different way. State cannot tell you which way is correct.


Spot on. Read carefully my lengthy post again. When state is gonna govern transactions according to Allah's hukm, its nothing but His law that will prevail. The union concept I explained was for the same purpose so that broader issues like having common military, common foreign policy against non-Muslims etc can be solved. What makes you think that the above society will not be Islamic? A union working as per Allah's hukm is obviously Islamic. Plus, tell me a single unIslamic thing in the concept that I explained. Did you find any? Since I believe that world has seen plenty of reformers over last couple of centuries but no individual can reform the whole world. Had that been the case, today there wont have been any non-Muslims. Reforming part has lot to do with beliefs and no mater what, one cannot make all Muslims have same beliefs. But when it comes to transactions, it can be quick. The moment you realize that you are not going to interfere with beliefs. A parctical example is Iran and KSA, the two poles of Muslim world. Even heard any person talking about difference of opinion over transaction? They just want that the other party should hold the same set of beliefs as they are having, which is not possible. I hope you get it now.



Again, it just requires that you educate people that for every person there is a red line. The moment you cross it (whether crossed by state or individual) you are done. People should be told (and even we can legislate over it) that no one can force others to agree with one's particular beliefs. Free thinking and tolerance need to go hand in hand. You cannot pick one and leave the other. I am sure you know Meccan chapters deal with beliefs and not transactions. Any person who believes in five fundamentals of Islam is a Muslim no matter whether he is a practicing one or not. So preachers can still play their part in those states but again, people need to be freethinkers and have rational approach.Your transactions will be governed by state law (which will be actually hukm of Allah) but when it comes to belief, that is where you need tolerance and freethinking. So declaring someone as outright heretic or kafir will not be an individual's job. Discussions should be promoted but you cannot be violent and tell a person that your dua will not be listened by Allah because there was no waseela or something etc. As far as riba is concerned, when state law says that you cannot take usury, how will a person not leave riba? State can penalize the person as per the law. If he still does, he'll face the music. So what you are doing is that you are confusing beliefs and transactions. You had somewhere asked (which I forgot to reply) that what if a custom is in conflict with Islam, tu meri behen when you have a circle and you know that you have to legislate and work within that periphery, how will you cross it. The fifth legal maxim in fiqh is "Custom is the basis of law" but it simply means a custom that is not in conflict with Islam, its quite simple.


The first thing is that I never talked about Caliphate in a particular sense. I always talked about essentials of a Muslim state/ Caliphate/ Union or whatever you call it. Labelasare never important, essence is. Political system of Islam is a much debated topic. Can anyone deny the two core ideas underlying its political system? There are debates about elections, about term etc but these things are not that important. One thing is for sure, nothing unnatural (like monarchy) can survive in Islam. Yes, I believe a union is an ideal way to an Islamic system. Only a union can be a vanguard of rights and interests of Muslims all over the world, (we all are a witness to persecution of Muslims today).


I beg to differ here. There were different classical school of thoughts. All classical scholars had a different methodology of deriving legal rulings. One followed Quran, Sunnah, Ijma, Qiyas, someone else also considered public ineterst or maslahah mursalah and hence reached a different legal ruling. Still there were others who did not follow Qiyas. I mean they all had different methodologies and reached at different legal rulings but none of them dared crossing the periphery of Shariah. Now all these scholars said that if you find any rule in conflict with Quran and Sunnah, throw it to wall. But what happened? Their disciples started trying to prove that their imam was more logical and had reached better legal rulings than rest of the scholars. So this propaganda thing actually gave birth to group of people who were stubborn at head. It has nothing to do with fabrication of hadiths. Because the classical scholars were way too careful in choosing hadith from which they could derive legal rulings. So, in reality, there is nothing bad in it. What we need to understand is that there is khair in difference and it does not make any difference if all people do not follow any particular scholar.

I agree when it comes to ethnicity that it was something very much disliked by Prophet (P.B.U.H) but wasnt the Turk identity of Ottoman Empire one of the main reasons of its collapse? Didnt the asbiyah issue existed even in times of rightly guided caliphs We cannot see things in isolation. Many a times you can tell which hadith relating to khilafat is in conflict with Quran and Sunnah when you look at history of that particular period.

As far as culture is concerned, I have already explained how customary practice is basis of law. For example, in Islam we have a concept of nuclear family. Since we have spent so many years with Hindus, we have inherited the joint family system as well. Does that mean joint family system is not endorsed by Islam? In my opinion, its simply a cultural thing and does not violate Quran and Sunnah anywhere. I have already explained that how there is actually khair in difference of opinion and the sectarianism issue.


Alright, then what about people like Imam Shmail and Imam ibn-Taimiyya? Didnt they give their lives to get rid of foreign invasion? Imam ibn-Timiyya was a very reformed person and had the leadership qualities as well, what happened then? Meri behen when you have to face a joint military (NATO) tu there is very little you can do. When you have to face countries like Israel (that are actually controlling the world), who is going to support Palestinians with funds and weapons? Becharay abhi tak intifada ke tehrik chala rahay hain and keep getting rolled under tanks and get bombed. We can talk about resistance in Afghanistan owing to its geo-strategic position and intersts of different countries. What about Kashmir, jahan interest he sirf India Pakistan ka hai? What about Palestine where there is only interest of Muslims and non-Muslims? What good can a leader do? They have been struggling for years. Did we ever see them giving it a break? Had they been deprived of any leadership, they wont have been. But their leadership cannot provide them with funds and ammunition when there is literally an economic blockade. Have a look at whatever is going on in this world and then think why Prophet (P.B.U.H) said that Muslims are one body, I am sure you will get my point then.


Meri behen I think I have already explained in detail but still let me boil it down once again, Meccan verses tell you about belief, about day of Judgement, about heaven and hell etc. Why? Because Prophet (P.B.U.H) had to inculcate these beliefs in people who did not believe in these. Namaz, zakat, jihad, all these commandments were revealed after the first state of Medina was established. All revelations regarding transactions were revealed then. The one billion Muslims in this world believe in five fundamentals in Islam, thats why they are Muslims. So where is the reformation part you need? They need their transactions to be governed by Islam.


You didnt get me. One billion Muslims can get united under a union if and only if all states legislate as per Shariah but do not interfere with internal matters (including beliefs) of other states and go for shared economy, shared foreign policy, shared military etc. The reforms you are talking about are not involving only beliefs but also transactions. A person might not pay zakat (knowing he'll face Allah's wrath) but he'll be bound to pay it because its his transaction with the state and state can force him. No one can force anyone when it comes to things related to belief, even state cannot.


Thats perhaps because you are confusing beliefs and transactions (along with what acts are recommended, obligatory, prohibited etc). But still, you have an opinion and I respect that.

Edited Later: I think I have explained in detail a few points where you took me wrong. Since I get the hunch that the issue underlying here is nothing but your definition of reforms so I suggest you to kindly read some good book on Jurisprudence and find a little about beliefs and transactions along with types of acts. I am sure its gonna prove handy.

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

I may be late to this hot discussion! but its too hot to resist! Its been 33 pages written on it! Sorry, i cant go through all! Neither have i come here to object to anyone's thoughts nor to side with any!
I will dare ink my thoughts just to give the readers an idea about what my point of view is! So, if repeat the already discussed, pardon me! plz.


First things first, ISLAMic state has to be ideaoligical! An idealogy dished out by the last PROPHET HAZRAT MOHAMMAD(SAW)!

Those who say its impractical, i say to them its not me, you or anyone else to decide whether its practical or not! it was a system given to us by ALLAH, THE ALL-KNOWING, through HIS last messenger! it was not for that specific periond only, rather, till the day of judgment! had it not been practical for the times to come, ALLAH, ALMIGHTY, would not have given it to us!

For those who claim that in contemporary world where a lot has changed, seeking islamic system of governance is a futile exercise! sadly mistaken!...let me pinch a question, the time when PROPHET came n started his mission, were the circumstances favourable?..was that easy to bring in a system that practically changed the dynamics of arab world??? were they better off us???

THose, WHO SAY that we cannot replicate MADINA STATE! agreed! but can we pursue that model or not//?/?/?/.....we may not have the likes of PROPHET n HIS companians. we we may not be staunch momins as they were!....but is it a right justification for not trying to follow the models they designed for us!....sit back n think!

we have issues. we lack unity. we dont have leaders. but we have leadership models easily retreivable from islamic history! cant we pursue them???....it may take time before we get united n reshape islamic world! but its very much possible..very much pratical!

i leave it here as i have to do other tasks! see you again!

__________________
Out, beyond all ideas of right and wrong doings, there is a field, i ll meet you there.

@ Fatima47

well either i am not getting you or you are not getting me.anyways i don't want to drag this discussion further.but i will just like to say if Ideal islamic state as suggested by Islam is not possible in modern times no other state system will work out.

P.S: thanks for your kind suggestion but let me apprise you Muslim law and jurisprudence is my major subject.

__________________
"Our affairs r attached to the destiny decreed by Allah even our best plans may lead us to destruction.Ali(a.s)

Tell you what, there is a very detailed post made by me on page number 16. If at all you get time then care to read it. Its just that a member took me wrong and thought I believed that an Islamic state is not possible, which was not actually what I ever meant. I always meant that an ideal state like Medina cannot exist because we cannot have the same people again. An example is how things changed right after death of Prophet (P.B.U.H). Having said that, I ask What is an Islamic state? Where nothing but hukm of Allah prevails and Muslims are one body. I talked about the same state, cant do anything if people coulndt grasp that after such detailed posts.


Again, we cannot have a state like Medina, thats what I was explaining to a member, and that was the whole point. We can either sit back and wait that all Muslims will get on rails or work for a practical solution. The bottomline is that an Islamic state is one where hukm of Allah prevails and where Muslims are like one body. The model I explained includes both of these.

I have already explained the need of unity (one of the two underlying ideas for an Islamic state) and how practically it can be achieved. Yes, I believe its very much possible, very much practical thats why I gave my roadmap.

I am sure of that. I will also just like to say that one can work for near to ideal things. A hungry man cannot say I'll only eat in Serena. Plus, I, very much, was talking about Islamic state as explained by Islam, totally focussing on its underlying reasons (hukm of Allah and unity of Muslims).

PS: That was just a suggestion that I felt like giving because I had the feeler that you were not getting me owing to some terms that Jurisprudence could help you understand.

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

[QUOTE=Fatima47;360931]

Well, Fatima, with deepest regard for your input(quite valuable n informative atleast for me) on this topic, i would like to appreciate your effort! AS i went through long, exhausitive posts posted by you, i must acknowledge your deep knowledge n grip on the subject.....As u took a holistic view of the topic, some members somehow misunderstood your point of view. But that doesnt matter!......stay blessed!

__________________
Out, beyond all ideas of right and wrong doings, there is a field, i ll meet you there.

Very informative and enlightening Discussion. Though I have not read all the threads, the few posts I read made me curious especially the ones belonging to scholarly Fatima. However, I agree with the thread title that state must be secular. When a state identifies itself with a particular religion, its constituents the citizens who do not subscribe to the state religion would surely face persecutions, besides such state perpetually threatens other states secular or religious. History stands witness to this fact. Moreover state exists for the protection of its constituents with whose consent state came into being as the political thinkers believe, thus the basic purpose of state is the protection of its citizens against external and internal threats, however when state identifies itself with a religion it defies its basic purpose, as the minorities would stand exposed to threats, as it has happened frequently. If not religion Likewise state should not identify itself with any other ideology rather state should be a neutral judge whose main function should be to enforce the terms of agreement which created state therefore the welfare of its citizens should be its prime aim and governments should be installed to pursue the same. State identifying with any ideology seeks to impose on the others the same, many examples exist like Soviet Union communism and American Capitalism. The leading ideology Capitalism has come to dominate the world virtually all the states follow it. Now we see a campaign against it worldwide, which some believe is against no particular government but against a system. It means people want that their state should give up identifying itself with an ideology rather state should perform its primary function, which is the welfare and security of its citizens. I welcome criticism!

__________________
Prejudice is an opinion without judgment. Voltaire my hero