Ads by Muslim Ad Network

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Why Do Some Muslims Hate the Islamic Belief of the Necessity of a Caliphate?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Why Do Some Muslims Hate the Islamic Belief of the Necessity of a Caliphate?

    The embarrassing response of the Muslim world, which mostly amounted to lip service, to the recent Palestinian oppression have highlighted a new low in the weakness of a fragmented Ummah, separated by borders, brainwashed by nationalism.

    This is an important article by Abdullah Al Andalusi on the need for Khilafah, also explaining the psychology of a Muslim that opposes this idea and what lead to it:

    https://abdullahalandalusi.com/2017/...hate-khilafah/

  • #2

    No credible difference of opinion on Caliphate in 1,400 years

    When looking through 1,400 years of Islamic scholarship, the challenge isn’t to find scholars that advocated the necessity of a Caliphate, but to find those who didn’t! After spending much research trying to find just one scholar that didn’t believe Caliphate was an obligation, I only found a small faction of the Khawarij (ironically appropriate) who came from Najd, believed that Muslims didn’t need a Caliphate, as they believed that ALL Muslims can implement the hudood and other laws collectively (i.e. socio-Anarchism).

    The Najdi Khawarij branch was famous for arguing with CALIPH Ali (ra) that only God should be the political ruler, not Ali (ra). To which Ali (ra) refuted them, by challenging them to put the Quran on a throne and make it rule [In a debate between Ali (ra) and Khawarij, would you really want to take the Khawarij’s side?!).

    The only other scholar was the Mutazilite, Abū Bakr al Assam who believed that the Caliphate was only not an obligation IF it was possible for the Muslim community to implement ALL Islamic laws without ANY GOVERNMENT. However, it they couldn’t THEN the Caliphate was obligatory. The majority of Mutazilites, however, all believed that Caliphate was an obligation – and three Caliphs were even Mutazilites!

    It should be noted, that even in these cases, no Muslim ever argued that another form of government was permitted. Especially not one that denied God’s law!

    Even scholars that many Secularised Muslims (ignorantly) look up to, condemned other forms of government, Ibn Sina, Ibn Rushd all discussed other forms of government, and (like their Greek muses) condemned Democracy as one of the worst forms of government.

    Ibn Farabi in his Kitab al Siyasah al-Madanıyyah (The Book of the Political Regime) even, amazingly, predicted that if Democracy were to exist, it would be dominated by the rich who could buy influence.

    Now even if a Seculariser were to bring up the Mutazilite al Assam, and the Najdi Khawarij has ‘valid difference of opinion’. It would not follow that they could criticise those who follow the (overwhelmingly) majority-to-the-point-of-virtual-consensus opinion. For if they call on Muslims to ‘respect their difference of opinion’, then they too CANNOT tell Muslims it is against Islam to publicly campaign (politically peacefully) for the re-establishment of the Caliphate, for Muslims have an equal right to follow the (vast majority) opinion too.

    However what you’ll find, is that Secularisers can be every bit as intolerant as those they misrepresent being intolerant of their ideas. When Muslims criticise them, they hold up their hands and cry ‘difference of opinion!’, but when Muslims reject Secularism or advocate an Islamic ideal that is contrary to Secularism, Secularisers will decry it as ‘extremism!’, denounce all those who believe in it, ask the West to clamp down on those opinions, and call for the destruction of these ideas from all societies. Secularisers demand Secularism, and won’t tolerate anything less.

    Comment


    • #3
      We are comfortable living under the advancements of the kuffar

      or

      Our leaders and scholars have taught us to be obedient to the 70 present despots leading the Muslim world, giving them the same protected status as ONE kalifa
      .لا نريد زعيما يخاف البيت الإبيض
      نريد زعيما يخاف الواحد الأحد
      دولة الإسلامية باقية





      Comment


      • #4
        But there was a caliphate recently, and it didn't turn out well...

        Comment


        • #5
          We presently live in a nation state model. Who will lead said Khilafah? If people make bayah towards Turkey, the Arabs won't join and if the Saudis do it the Turks and those aligned with them won't join either. We're fragmented at the moment and the borders have done their job unfortunately.
          "The organisation that is called as "the state" puts effort to destroy jihad in Sham as they destroyed it in Iraq because of their obvious transgressions against Quran and Sunnah." Abu Khalid as-Suri (Rahimahullah)

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by chitra View Post
            But there was a caliphate recently, and it didn't turn out well...
            Which? What went wrong?

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Muslim First View Post
              We presently live in a nation state model. Who will lead said Khilafah? If people make bayah towards Turkey, the Arabs won't join and if the Saudis do it the Turks and those aligned with them won't join either. We're fragmented at the moment and the borders have done their job unfortunately.
              Yeah. Nationalism and modern day tribalism. We do not consider Islam as our primary identity.


              Diversity is not a problem

              Why are some Muslims so ashamed of the Islamic idea of Caliphate? Why is uniting the Muslim world into one government that can combine resources for scientific research, develop self-reliant industries, be impervious to economic boycott, defend itself against endless Western military attacks, and end borders that serves to divide the Muslim world, ever conceivably be a bad thing? Is the Muslim world, and the artificial nation states that comprise it a peaceful, justice filled region that we should maintain? Are not Muslims dying by the millions in the last 17 years since the U.S’s war on terror? What state do Muslims have today would prevent foreign countries abusing its nationals, like America does whenever any of its citizens fall into trouble abroad? The answer is none.
              If Muslims don’t learn to stop being ashamed of Islam, we’ll never be respected by anyone else.

              The Muslim Ummah may be diverse and large, but if China can be unifed under one government, despite having 1.37 billion people, an area of 9,6 million km2, 56 distinct ethnic groups and 292 different languages, why can’t Muslims do it with Muslim majority countries whose collective population is lower than China’s, has similar or less number of languages, yet all commonly holding belief in the same God, same Prophet (ﷺ), same Book, and more agreement in laws and commands than Liberalism or Communism has amongst its own adherents?

              Comment


              • #8
                Who is the Caliph?

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by notEVOLVED View Post

                  Which? What went wrong?
                  The caliphate in Syria and Iraq...

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by chitra View Post
                    But there was a caliphate recently, and it didn't turn out well...
                    That wasn't really a Caliphate. That was a group of militants funded and armed by the West to bring death and destruction to the region. Just because they self proclaimed themselves as having a Caliphate, that doesn't make it true. They did not fulfill a number of the prerequisites of an actual Caliphate according to the Islamic rules.
                    The Lyme Disease pandemic: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z5u73ME4sVU

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Jazak'Allah Khair!

                      So true! I may sound like a broken clock but the final days are approaching..
                      Per aspera ad astra.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by chitra View Post

                        The caliphate in Syria and Iraq...
                        You need to read the article.


                        The truth that Secularisers don’t want people to realise, is that nationalism has caused more wars and terrorism in the last 200 years than anything else. for most of the 20th Century, Terrorism was caused mostly by nationalist groups (many of them supported by the CIA in South America), where in the name of ‘Freedom’, and ‘The Nation’ people were brutally murdered, raped and even beheaded in the thousands. In fact, the (in)famous Secular revolution of the Enlightenment, the French Revolution, in the name of ‘Liberte (Freedom), Egalite (Equality) and Fraternite (Brotherhood of Citizens), beheaded thousands of French people, including, Catholic clergymen (priests and nuns). They beheaded so many people, they even invented a machine to do it efficiently, called La Guillotine. They beheaded so many people, ISIS’s horrific record pales by comparison to this Secular movement.
                        Indeed, the biggest killer of Muslims in the Muslim world is the War on Terror by America and its allies, which has caused a death toll that dwarfs the death toll by all other terror groups in the region combined. Would the Secularisers be willing to devote the same amount of energy to defeating the America and the ideology behind its violence now (which is Secular Liberalism)? Doubt it – a child does not easily reject the parents that gave birth to them.

                        ISIS are a terror group, and they’d always remain so whether or not they pretend to call themselves a ‘Caliphate’ or not. The reality is, that they are clearly not a Caliphate, but simply a militia that infests the vacuum areas of two failed states and are themselves simply the reincarnation of former Secular Baathists who lost power after Saddam, and try to reinvent themselves using religious slogans (something Saddam did also). President ‘Virginity Testing’ Sisi or Egypt and [Baathist] Bashar al Assad act no different when it comes to using religious slogans or causes to murder people for their own ends. Many counter-terrorism experts, like Robert Pappe could tell you this, but Secularisers themselves find ISIS a useful means to demonise an Islamic idea that is far removed from the likes of ISIS. It should be worth noting, that the vast vast majority of Muslims who believe in Caliphate (which is all Muslim schools) reject the obviously false claim of a small militia group in Syria and Iraq. However, in France, the French still celebrate and look back with admiration to their ‘great’ French revolution…


                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Demonisation of the Concept of Caliphate by Secularists

                          Many Western politicians and strategists, since even before World War 1, looked at the concept of a Caliphate as a big obstacle for their imperial designs in the Muslims world (i.e. cheap resource extraction, strategic military projection against other powers). Western politicians, like Sir Mark Sykes (the man behind the disastrous Sykes Picot agreement) were open [1] about the necessity of dismantling and destroying the Caliphate under the Ottoman administration, and his successors have been vehemently opposed to its establishment ever since. Similarly, many people from Muslim backgrounds who embraced Secularism, view the hope in the Muslim world for the revival of a Islamic Caliphate, as an obstacle to the introduction and preservation of the artificial colonial construct that gave ‘birth’ to them, of the Secular Nation-State.

                          However, Western politicians and ‘Muslim’ Secularisers have found it difficult to persuade the Muslim world that unity (and its accompanying strength) under the justice and laws of God, is something Muslims shouldn’t want. So instead they’ve had to adapt their polemic and attempt to claim that the Caliphate will produce nothing but harm to Muslims.

                          Secularisers know deep down that belief in Caliphate produces no more violence than someone believing in the nation-state of United State of America. However, Secularisers need to use a gimmick in order to argue against it, because the Islamic Concept of Caliphate (and Islamic law) is one of the biggest obstacles to the wholesale Secularisation of the Muslim world. Of course, this is reflected in the strange and self-contradictory arguments they use.

                          For example, Secularisers argue that the belief in the Caliphate produces Terrorism, and then point to a supposed ‘history’ of terrorism amongst Muslims starting with the ‘Wahabbis’. It seems to have been lost on them, that the Saudi revolt wasn’t done in the name of a Caliphate, but it actually fought against the Ottoman Caliphate! After the destruction of the Ottoman Caliphate, the Saudis were rewarded by the British for their collaboration with control over the lands of Arabia (whose boundaries were determined by Sir Percy Cox). Saudi Arabia isn’t the cause of terrorism, but actually a post-colonial nation-state, whose job since its inception is to maintain the status quo and ensure the oil flows to the West (including lavish welcomes for American presidents like Trump). This becomes clear when you ask yourselves this: if the ‘ideology’ of Saudi Arabia promotes Caliphate, why haven’t the Saudi’s declared themselves as a Caliphate? The answer is, Saudi Arabia was built on the ruins of the (Ottoman) Caliphate, and are not seeking any return of it – quite the opposite in fact.

                          Secularisers then point to Terror attacks in the West, or in the Middle East, citing the belief in Caliphate as somehow the cause. Yet again, this is disproved by the claimed motivations of the terrorists themselves [2], who invariably cite Western foreign policy grievances. If simply belief in a Caliphate causes Muslims to spontaneously attack any nearby non-Muslims, why haven’t these Secularisers explained why no Muslim perpetrated terror attacks happen in South America (strong Muslim populations there, like Suriname, which has a Muslim population 14%), or South Africa (Muslim population comparable to UK proportion), Switzerland (Western Country) or Ireland (another Western country)?

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Hypocrisy of Secularists: Violence in the Name of National Interest is Justified

                            Of course, the arguments of Secularisers full of hypocrisy in this regard. Just yesterday, during a UK election debate, an audience with a strong demographic of Conservative Party supporters lambasted Labour party leader Jeremy Corbyn for refusing to confirm whether he’d ever fire the UK’s nuclear missiles as an enemy country’s civilian population, murdering millions [3]. The Conservative supporters wanted Corbyn to agree with them that he would! Indeed Theresa May [4], the acting Prime Minister of the UK confirmed in parliament that she would fire Nuclear weapons even if hundreds of thousands people would die in the process – all presumably in the name of the national interest, or to put it simply, the British Nation State.

                            The Hypocrisy of Secularisers telling Muslims that belief in Caliphate makes people justify killing thousands of civilians, while belief in nation state – is socially accepted in the West to justify killing millions in ‘the name of the nation’. Of course, Secularisers would argue, the Conservative party supporters only justify killing enemy civilians if the enemy kill ours’. To which I respond “How is that ANY DIFFERENT to terrorists who attempt to justify killing enemy civilians in retaliation for their dead civilians?!”

                            This logic is warped and disgusting, and very much part of Western political philosophy. The so called ‘Muslim’ terrorists don’t kill people because they believe they’re imitating the Prophet Muhammed (ﷺ), they do so because they are imitating the West – which is something Osama Bin Laden openly admitted [2]. In light of this, we should all ask Secularisers who want Muslims to imitate the West, how imitating the West is going to stop terrorism – when it is an idea the Terrorists imitated from Western military history in the first place?!

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by notEVOLVED View Post

                              Yeah. Nationalism and modern day tribalism. We do not consider Islam as our primary identity.


                              Diversity is not a problem

                              Why are some Muslims so ashamed of the Islamic idea of Caliphate? Why is uniting the Muslim world into one government that can combine resources for scientific research, develop self-reliant industries, be impervious to economic boycott, defend itself against endless Western military attacks, and end borders that serves to divide the Muslim world, ever conceivably be a bad thing? Is the Muslim world, and the artificial nation states that comprise it a peaceful, justice filled region that we should maintain? Are not Muslims dying by the millions in the last 17 years since the U.S’s war on terror? What state do Muslims have today would prevent foreign countries abusing its nationals, like America does whenever any of its citizens fall into trouble abroad? The answer is none.
                              If Muslims don’t learn to stop being ashamed of Islam, we’ll never be respected by anyone else.

                              The Muslim Ummah may be diverse and large, but if China can be unifed under one government, despite having 1.37 billion people, an area of 9,6 million km2, 56 distinct ethnic groups and 292 different languages, why can’t Muslims do it with Muslim majority countries whose collective population is lower than China’s, has similar or less number of languages, yet all commonly holding belief in the same God, same Prophet (ﷺ), same Book, and more agreement in laws and commands than Liberalism or Communism has amongst its own adherents?
                              China is a communist state lol so ruling by an iron fist isn't the way to go. In theory it'd be amazing, but the current leadership uses their positions for power and lining their own pockets. You're asking these individuals to go from Presidents/Kings to governors. And the current leaders don't care about Islam and a lot of them don't believe in it. They just use a few words and token scholars to fool their supporters and they're backed by either America or Russia/China, so anything threatening that will be removed. Look at what happened to Morsi rh the day he was elected they were in fear on cnn about Egypt having an "Islamist" leader and the plan for a coup was underway the minute he won. Look at what they did to an individual who memorized the Quran! and the only elected leader in the Arab world so imagine if a lot of Muslim countries decided to join one another?.. in sha Allah we'll live to see this glorious day where we're united but it's going to take a lot of hard work and sacrifice.
                              "The organisation that is called as "the state" puts effort to destroy jihad in Sham as they destroyed it in Iraq because of their obvious transgressions against Quran and Sunnah." Abu Khalid as-Suri (Rahimahullah)

                              Comment

                              Collapse

                              Edit this module to specify a template to display.

                              Working...
                              X