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

  • KnoweldgeNorth
    replied
    Some videos on the caliphate from a credal/historic perspective here, in case of interest:

    Abbasid Apocalypse:
    - https://youtu.be/s1glrPczPB4

    Mamluk Misfortune:
    - https://youtu.be/4d6DTtVzN8Q
    Last edited by KnoweldgeNorth; 31-05-21, 07:18 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • AbuMubarak
    replied
    Originally posted by alifbahtah View Post
    to make a caliphate with actual power would take decades and would come with its own set of issues to sort out. It's not like it will be a caliphate one year and Palestine is liberated the next. It would be years of countries opting for federalization and joining the union. Then decades of building up the country so it actually has power on the world stage.

    Even then, do you want a caliph just to restore the islamic empire, or do you want a place where muslims can practice islam? Would you solve an issue by invading or by taking those groups in and assimilating them into society? Do we use soft power and economic threats or military might and oppose global hegemony in favour of regional hegemon or do we opt for it and become the new top dog? Would you be ok with a muslim group you hate or has "deviant" ideas being leader of the caliphate?
    The sad thing when people predict the future, or say this cannot happen or that cannot happen is they overlook the will of Allah and His might

    I remember when Iraq was totally secular then it became a center of Islamic jihad
    Same with Afghanistan, and even Palestine. these countries were not thinking of Islam for long time, it only takes Allah to change hearts, and major changes happen

    We dont know what or when anything can happen, that is solely up to Allah, but what we can do is correct our Islam, work with each other to strengthen and correct our Islam

    That is one aspect that i think ummah.com and the internet, in general can be used for

    Also, offline actions, but not token gestures but real meaningful applications of Islam and removing bida and cultural deviances

    Leave a comment:


  • Muslim First
    replied
    Originally posted by notEVOLVED View Post

    If you don't want to use China, you can take India then. Second largest population in the world and extremely diverse with a very lage Muslim population too. As I said, diversity is not a problem. I didn't say it would be easy, especially undoing the generations of brainwashing that have occurred through the "educational institutes". But we need to start somewhere. It's almost 100 years since the end of the last Caliphate. And I see no sign in today's Muslims that they want it back. Instead they want democracy and secular constitution, and then when Muslims get attacked like recently, we start complaining why "Muslim leaders" are not doing anything. Who is the Muslim leader? The leader of Saudi Arabia is the leader of that land, the leader of UAE is the leader of their land, the leader of Pakistan is the leader of their land. They are leaders of their own lands, not the ummah of Muslims. The jurisdiction of one ruler doesn't apply to the land of another ruler. That is not a Muslim ruler. The Muslim ruler, the Caliph, has authority over all Muslim lands, not just a part of it.

    Muslims are being systematically dehumanized, their lives devalued into worthless expendable rags, and it is very much visible. Even many non-Muslims concede to this. Yet, we still are not doing anything significant to break that system. Democracy exists because most people want it. And it wouldn't exist if most people didn't want it.

    إِنَّ اللّهَ لاَ يُغَيِّرُ مَا بِقَوْمٍ حَتَّى يُغَيِّرُواْ مَا بِأَنْفُسِهِمْ
    And this is the main issue. We have two groups at the moment. One that is led by Turkey and one that is led by Saudi and this has historical issues with the Ottomans vs Najd. The mention of unity/khilafa is basically a death sentence in Muslim countries. It won't be easy to undo and it'll take a lot of sacrifice but it'll happen eventually. May Allah grant us with a united ummah.. Ameen.

    Leave a comment:


  • alifbahtah
    replied
    to make a caliphate with actual power would take decades and would come with its own set of issues to sort out. It's not like it will be a caliphate one year and Palestine is liberated the next. It would be years of countries opting for federalization and joining the union. Then decades of building up the country so it actually has power on the world stage.

    Even then, do you want a caliph just to restore the islamic empire, or do you want a place where muslims can practice islam? Would you solve an issue by invading or by taking those groups in and assimilating them into society? Do we use soft power and economic threats or military might and oppose global hegemony in favour of regional hegemon or do we opt for it and become the new top dog? Would you be ok with a muslim group you hate or has "deviant" ideas being leader of the caliphate?

    Leave a comment:


  • ອາໄສຢູ່ ຣາຮາມ
    replied
    Let us consider the geographical land mass here :

    From Morocco to Indonesia

    It has Gibraltar, Suez canal, gulf of Aden, strait of homruz, Malacca strait

    It has crude oil and natural gas from North Africa to Central Asia


    Europe, China, etc need these fuel to power their industries.

    Also they need these trade routes for commerce shipment.

    The western world and the Eastern domain all have interests in this region because of it's geostrategic importance.

    This is why Israel is termed by some experts as a
    Surrogate fortress or watchdog of the USA and it's allies because Israel enables the west to monitor and control the whole region.

    I personally call it the modern crusader castle.

    A caliphate would be an existential threat for Israel .

    And consequently threaten western interests in the region.

    The only way to assert dominance is to keep the status quo

    Which is to keep those who oblige in their place and those who disobey in chaos.

    Leave a comment:


  • Abu Sulayman
    replied
    Barakallahu fik for sharing, brother.

    Some very good points.

    Leave a comment:


  • notEVOLVED
    replied
    Originally posted by Muslim First View Post

    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.
    If you don't want to use China, you can take India then. Second largest population in the world and extremely diverse with a very lage Muslim population too. As I said, diversity is not a problem. I didn't say it would be easy, especially undoing the generations of brainwashing that have occurred through the "educational institutes". But we need to start somewhere. It's almost 100 years since the end of the last Caliphate. And I see no sign in today's Muslims that they want it back. Instead they want democracy and secular constitution, and then when Muslims get attacked like recently, we start complaining why "Muslim leaders" are not doing anything. Who is the Muslim leader? The leader of Saudi Arabia is the leader of that land, the leader of UAE is the leader of their land, the leader of Pakistan is the leader of their land. They are leaders of their own lands, not the ummah of Muslims. The jurisdiction of one ruler doesn't apply to the land of another ruler. That is not a Muslim ruler. The Muslim ruler, the Caliph, has authority over all Muslim lands, not just a part of it.

    Muslims are being systematically dehumanized, their lives devalued into worthless expendable rags, and it is very much visible. Even many non-Muslims concede to this. Yet, we still are not doing anything significant to break that system. Democracy exists because most people want it. And it wouldn't exist if most people didn't want it.

    إِنَّ اللّهَ لاَ يُغَيِّرُ مَا بِقَوْمٍ حَتَّى يُغَيِّرُواْ مَا بِأَنْفُسِهِمْ

    Leave a comment:


  • Muslim First
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • notEVOLVED
    replied
    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?!

    Leave a comment:


  • notEVOLVED
    replied
    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)?

    Leave a comment:


  • notEVOLVED
    replied
    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…


    Leave a comment:


  • Al-Mualim
    replied
    Jazak'Allah Khair!

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

    Leave a comment:


  • neelu
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • chitra
    replied
    Originally posted by notEVOLVED View Post

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

    Leave a comment:


  • mistersun12
    replied
    Who is the Caliph?

    Leave a comment:

Collapse

Edit this module to specify a template to display.

Working...
X