[sixpakistan]

Originally Posted by m_ali_qazi

let me ask you something

don't fiqhi rulings depend on the cultural and social context of the environment? I mean, we hear things like, "imam fulan changed his fatwas when he moved from egypt to syria or hijaz to basra" etc etc.

well why is it that the ulema still rule in favor of establishing the khilafa when the imperial system does not exist anymore. Modern systems are all about nation states. So why khilafa? the most you can probably have is unions of nation states.

whether the imperial system exists anymore or not is arguable, imo. unions of nation-states also existed back when the caliphate system was still thriving and well.
but anyway, this is a pretty good question. what you're referring to is urf, or the social customs of a given time and place.

i would think this is a misapplication of urf, because:

a) there are certain elements of the system of khilafa which cannot be replicated through a union of nation states. namely, that there is one ruler to whom everyone answers. now, you could have a union of nation states with a board and then one ruler from among them is elected as the 'chairman of the board.' but they still wouldn't have ultimate authority. it would be too easy for nations to want to serve/break away in their own interests vs the interests of the ummah.

b) there are ahadith which explicitly back the requirement of unity of muslims as a governing body, as well as the requirement of pledging allegiance to an amir.

but in addition to the caveats above, to establish such a union of nation states to begin with would require just as much - if not more - effort as establishing a caliphate. it would require a change of the current urf as we know it anyway.

interesting question, though.

[bihari]

Originally Posted by sixpakistan

well, not technically, no. not everyone has to participate in the election, and a caliph's successor can also be appointed by the current caliph. the caliph appoints his own governors also.

Well, the Sunni view is that a caliph is to be elected by the people, ie popular vote, which is democratic.

The Shi'a view is that a caliph can be appointed by the current caliph.

[bihari]

Originally Posted by WarriorAndWiseman

What your saying is that sharia is a vague set of rules to be played around with. In that case democracy would be a much better option donchaknow.

I think what he meant was more related to the fact that the Sharia is applicable to all types of people

Example: The punishment for theft is cutting off the hand. This punishment can be applied to ANY civilization/group of people, in ANY era of time. Primitive and remote villages can implement this punishment, as can modern day metropolitan areas. Now lets say the Sharia said that that a thief must serve a certain amount of time in prison, and do X hours of community service etc.. Such a punishment could not be implemented by every type of community. So hence the Sharia is simple so that it can be applied to all people of all times

[bihari]

Originally Posted by Dubai3000

I am for a democracy with islamic sharia elements. A total democracy is again to much freedom to do everything which is wrong. And total sharia is no freedom at all states like Talibans, Saudi etc.... The best way is find a middle ground where everyone can be happy.

The Taliban is by far very unislamic in its practices....Saudi Arabia has many issues also

[sixpakistan]

Originally Posted by bihari

Well, the Sunni view is that a caliph is to be elected by the people, ie popular vote, which is democratic.

The Shi'a view is that a caliph can be appointed by the current caliph.

I'm not sure where you get that idea.

Sayyedina Abu Bakr Siddiq (RA) appointed Sayyedina Umar (RA). Sayyedina Uthman (RA) was chosen by a majlis-e-shura, so that would be oligarchical.

The Shia view is that the Caliph must be of the family/lineage of the Prophet (SAW).

[bihari]

Originally Posted by sixpakistan

I'm not sure where you get that idea.

Sayyedina Abu Bakr Siddiq (RA) appointed Sayyedina Umar (RA). Sayyedina Uthman (RA) was chosen by a majlis-e-shura, so that would be oligarchical.

The Shia view is that the Caliph must be of the family/lineage of the Prophet (SAW).

The Shia also believe that the Caliph is appointed by his predecessor, they don't vote from a group of people who are Ahl Bait, the Caliph appoints his successor, who also must be Ahl Bait

I dont know about Abu Bakr (r) appointing Umar (r), but I do know that Abu Bakr (r) was himself elected, and Umar (r) could not have appointed Uthman (r) since Umar (r) was killed...but I will check on this and post later.....also, you said he was chosen by a 'shura', which means 'council'

---

Furthermore, the Qur'an (from which the Sharia is derived) say the following:

"42:38 and who respond to [the call of] their Sustainer and are constant in prayer; and whose rule [in all matters of common concern] is consultation among themselves; [38] and who spend on others out of what We provide for them as sustenance"
'and whose rule [in all matters of common concern] is consultation among themselves'

If that isn't democracy, I don't know what is...

"4:59 O you who have attained to faith! Pay heed unto God, and pay heed unto the Apostle and unto those from among you who have been entrusted with authority; and if you are at variance over any matter, refer it unto God and the Apostle, if you [truly] believe in God and the Last Day. This is the best [for you], and best in the end."

'..Pay heed unto God, and pay heed unto the Apostle and unto those from among you who have been entrusted with authority...'

Basically it is giving us a hierarchy, first consult God (Qur'an), then consult the Apostle/Prophet (Hadith/Sunnah), and then the leader from among you (political leader)

[sixpakistan]

Originally Posted by bihari

I dont know about Abu Bakr (r) appointing Umar (r), but I do know that Abu Bakr (r) was himself elected,

Sayyedina Abu Bakr (RA) did appoint Sayyedina Umar (RA). That invalidates your statement here:

Originally Posted by bihari

the sharia and democracy go hand and hand....the sharia states that leaders should be elected, which is democracy

Originally Posted by bihari

and Umar (r) could not have appointed Uthman (r) since Umar (r) was killed...but I will check on this and post later.....also, you said he was chosen by a 'shura', which means 'council'

Yeah. I said it was an oligarchic selection, not a democratic one. That means Uthman (RA) was selected by a small number of individuals who made up a council. Which again invalidates your statement about shariah and democracy..

Originally Posted by bihari

Furthermore, the Qur'an (from which the Sharia is derived) say the following:

Shariah is derived from the Qur'an, Sunnah, Qiyas, and Ijtihad.

Originally Posted by bihari

"42:38 and who respond to [the call of] their Sustainer and are constant in prayer; and whose rule [in all matters of common concern] is consultation among themselves; [38] and who spend on others out of what We provide for them as sustenance"
'and whose rule [in all matters of common concern] is consultation among themselves'

If that isn't democracy, I don't know what is...

"4:59 O you who have attained to faith! Pay heed unto God, and pay heed unto the Apostle and unto those from among you who have been entrusted with authority; and if you are at variance over any matter, refer it unto God and the Apostle, if you [truly] believe in God and the Last Day. This is the best [for you], and best in the end."

'..Pay heed unto God, and pay heed unto the Apostle and unto those from among you who have been entrusted with authority...'

Basically it is giving us a hierarchy, first consult God (Qur'an), then consult the Apostle/Prophet (Hadith/Sunnah), and then the leader from among you (political leader)

Well, that was a pretty ridiculous attempt at tafsir.

[bihari]

Originally Posted by sixpakistan

Sayyedina Abu Bakr (RA) did appoint Sayyedina Umar (RA). That invalidates your statement here:

I stated that I would look into it.....what else you want me to say?

Originally Posted by sixpakistan

Yeah. I said it was an oligarchic selection, not a democratic one. That means Uthman (RA) was selected by a small number of individuals who made up a council. Which again invalidates your statement about shariah and democracy..

A republic, which is a form of democracy, operates in a similar manner; voting is done by a small number of people

Originally Posted by sixpakistan

Shariah is derived from the Qur'an, Sunnah, Qiyas, and Ijtihad.

I know that, but the main source is the Quran...and this is irrelevant since I was quoting the Qur'an

Originally Posted by sixpakistan

Well, that was a pretty ridiculous attempt at tafsir.

1. Actually it wasn't that bad

2. I am sure that its very Islamic to insult another person's writing....not to mention I wrote that in like 2 minutes...

3. You get my point, so stop going off on tangents

[bihari]

Originally Posted by sixpakistan

Well, that was a pretty ridiculous attempt at tafsir.

42:38 and who respond to [the call of] their Sustainer and are constant in prayer; and whose rule [in all matters of common concern] is consultation among themselves; Asad(42,38)[38]

Note 38 (Quran Ref: 42:38 ) This particular qualification of true believers - regarded by the Prophet’s Companions as so important that they always referred to this surah by the key-word "consultation" (shura) - has a double import: firstly, it is meant to remind all followers of the Qur’an that they must remain united within one single community (ummah); and, secondly, it lays down the principle that all their communal business must be transacted in mutual consultation. (For the political implications of this principle, see State and Government, pp. 44 ff.).(Quran Ref: 42:38 )

----

4:59 O you who have attained to faith! Pay heed unto God, and pay heed unto the Apostle and unto those from among you Asad(4,76)[76] who have been entrusted with authority; and if you are at variance over any matter, refer it unto God and the Apostle, Asad(4,77)[77] if you [truly] believe in God and the Last Day. This is the best [for you], and best in the end. Asad(4,78)[78]

Note 76 (Quran Ref: 4:59 ) I.e., from among the believers.(Quran Ref: 4:59 )

Note 77 (Quran Ref: 4:59 ) I.e., to the Qur’an and to the sunnah (the sayings and the practice) of the Prophet. See also verse 65 of this surah.(Quran Ref: 4:59 )



Taken from the Muhammad Asad translation of the Qur'an....

By the way, I hope you noticed that I wasn't far off

[bihari]

Originally Posted by sixpakistan

Sayyedina Abu Bakr (RA) did appoint Sayyedina Umar (RA). That invalidates your statement here:

Actually, Abu Bakr (r) simply recommended Umar (r) as his successor, after consultation from a number of companions. After this he addressed the community and they took baya on Umar (r) after his death, so they agreed with his decision.... many people forget the part about baya...

[TrentReznor858]

Originally Posted by bihari

Actually, Abu Bakr (r) simply recommended Umar (r) as his successor, after consultation from a number of companions. After this he addressed the community and they took baya on Umar (r) after his death, so they agreed with his decision.... many people forget the part about baya...

Dont waste your time with sixpak. He is a know-it-all jerk who thinks he has it all figured out and that he is the best candidate for being a khaliph

[TrentReznor858]

Originally Posted by sixpakistan

The Shia view is that the Caliph must be of the family/lineage of the Prophet (SAW).

Like you said apples and oranges moron.

[Ibn Abu Ibrahim]

Originally Posted by m_ali_qazi

let me ask you something

don't fiqhi rulings depend on the cultural and social context of the environment? I mean, we hear things like, "imam fulan changed his fatwas when he moved from egypt to syria or hijaz to basra" etc etc.

well why is it that the ulema still rule in favor of establishing the khilafa when the imperial system does not exist anymore. Modern systems are all about nation states. So why khilafa? the most you can probably have is unions of nation states.

The nation-state model was developed by Europeans for Europe. It does not and cannot apply to the Muslim world because of the pluralism Muslims enjoyed under previous khilafah's.

The nation-state model goes hand-in-hand with nationalist model of governance, both of which when applied to the Muslim world result in death craters like Iraq. The nationalist nation-state model is developed for a single nation, so imposed on the Muslim world, by necessity the minorities of each state will be subject to oppression.

[sixpakistan]

Originally Posted by bihari

[
A republic, which is a form of democracy, operates in a similar manner; voting is done by a small number of people

Yeah, but in that case the small number of people are selected by all of the people & those representatives then vote for one amongst themselves (aka a parliamentary democracy).

Whereas the general populace doesn't vote on you being amongst the ulema.

And again, the key difference here is that Sayyedina Umar (RA) appointed every member of the council who selected Sayyedina Uthman (RA). They weren't selected by the general populace.


I know that, but the main source is the Quran...and this is irrelevant since I was quoting the Qur'an

Your statement was

Originally Posted by bihari

Furthermore, the Qur'an (from which the Sharia is derived) say the following:

which implied exclusivity to the Qur'an. Had you been aware of the other 3 sources of legislation, it is doubtful you would have made such a statement.

What it seems like is that you don't know what you're talking about, and are googling as you go to make the facts you discover suit your argument instead of the other way around.

Originally Posted by bihari

1. Actually it wasn't that bad

It was that bad, because you're not a scholar of the Qur'an and you're not qualified to do exegesis of the Qur'an. Tafsir is not based on imagination.

Originally Posted by bihari

2. I am sure that its very Islamic to insult another person's writing....not to mention I wrote that in like 2 minutes...

It is not Islamic to attempt to interpolate your own meanings into Qur'anic ayahs. It is not intelligent to do this on a public forum full of Muslims and then expect noone will criticize you.

Originally Posted by bihari

Taken from the Muhammad Asad translation of the Qur'an....

By the way, I hope you noticed that I wasn't far off

Quick question: before you googled this translation, did you have any idea who Muhammad Asad was and why his beliefs are not in line with Ahl-ul-Sunnah wal Jamah?

Originally Posted by bihari

Actually, Abu Bakr (r) simply recommended Umar (r) as his successor, after consultation from a number of companions.

Great job googling, but this is obvious and goes without saying.

The point is that the decision was ultimately that of Sayyedina Abu Bakr Siddiq (RA).

Originally Posted by bihari

After this he addressed the community and they took baya on Umar (r) after his death, so they agreed with his decision.... many people forget the part about baya...

Every caliph is given bayah. Again, the third footnote I mentioned that you left out previously is directly relevant to this, as are several sahih ahadith about the importance of giving bayah.

Originally Posted by TrentReznor858

Dont waste your time with sixpak. He is a know-it-all jerk who thinks he has it all figured out and that he is the best candidate for being a khaliph

The fact that you think little yellow smiley faces are a great way to lend emphasis to a rebuttal (read: nonsensical ad-hominem attacks) speaks for itself.

Originally Posted by TrentReznor858

Like you said apples and oranges moron.

He brought up Shias. I stated something for his edification. Also, what you said wasn't like what I said at all, because I'm capable of using punctuation and expressing myself coherently in English.

Originally Posted by Ibn Abu Ibrahim

The nation-state model was developed by Europeans for Europe. It does not and cannot apply to the Muslim world because of the pluralism Muslims enjoyed under previous khilafah's.

The nation-state model goes hand-in-hand with nationalist model of governance, both of which when applied to the Muslim world result in death craters like Iraq. The nationalist nation-state model is developed for a single nation, so imposed on the Muslim world, by necessity the minorities of each state will be subject to oppression.

word