Ads by Muslim Ad Network

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Tanzimat destroyed the Ottoman Empire

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

  • #31
    Islam is already the middle path, it does not need reform with foreign ideas - we do not need to seek a balance with the west and Islamic ideas. That is completely the wrong approach. Instead, turn to Allah, turn to Islam and the Qur'an and Sunnah, and turn to continuous tradition - and use that to give an objective answer to foreign ideas.

    Our History must be based of ourselves not foreigners. Accept the Supremacy of Allah and his legislation of Islam and then approach all things through Islam.

    Do not compromise your Islam, but work through and with it.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by Muhammad Hasan View Post
      Islam is already the middle path, it does not need reform with foreign ideas - we do not need to seek a balance with the west and Islamic ideas. That is completely the wrong approach. Instead, turn to Allah, turn to Islam and the Qur'an and Sunnah, and turn to continuous tradition - and use that to give an objective answer to foreign ideas.

      Our History must be based of ourselves not foreigners. Accept the Supremacy of Allah and his legislation of Islam and then approach all things through Islam.

      Do not compromise your Islam, but work through and with it.
      But do you realise the way you understand Islam will inevitably change depending on where and when you live?

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by TheHaqq View Post

        But do you realise the way you understand Islam will inevitably change depending on where and when you live?
        Depends what you mean.

        Of course we accept Urf, and people speaking different languages and their different customs etc. and sometimes these effect legal rulings as well. (E.g. about which amount of Mahr that is customary etc.)

        Make sure you read what I've written previously, to understand what the subject is about.

        Comment


        • #34
          Dear brother Muhammad Hasan, please write your point in one post for the sake of convenience. You again brought up the matter of..., what should we call it, epistemology, or methodology, or approach? We should be sharing the same Islamic, Fiqhi epistemology with regards to evaluation, so that is not the matter of contention I assume. As for your criticism of my approach, I do not view it to be justified. You are making assumptions on my behalf. I am not adoring the West, nor any other tradition. I follow what is sound. The Western tradition is superior in historiography, I said, but this does not mean that I am following its epistemology. You keep telling me that I follow Western sources. And I had already pointed out once that knowledge is universal. I do not have a bias against any tradition, unlike you. We have the Koran and the blessing of aql/reason as guidance. Unlike you, the Prophets did not refuse to engage in dialogue with disbelievers, because they were self-conscious. I do not feel myself inferior to disbelievers, because I have the revelation of Koran. And I tell them: "Say, [O Muhammad], "I do not tell you that I have the depositories [containing the provision] of Allah or that I know the unseen, nor do I tell you that I am an angel. I only follow what is revealed to me." Say, "Is the blind equivalent to the seeing? Then will you not give thought?" (Q, 6:50)

          I had adjoined some other examples, don't know if you have read it, like a Jew telling the Prophet s.a.w. that swearing by the Kaba or using waw next to Allah is shirk. Remember, this is about theology! Yet you even dislike it when I engage with Western writings. You made some statements moderating your earlier stance, but this does not seem to have altered your actual stance.

          The Islamic tradition you refer too was heavily shaped by Arabs, Persians, Turks and others. It is thus not binding as a whole. The only thing that binds us is the revelation of Allah ta'ala, which is the Koran and the Sunna.

          There is no point in discussing this. Every one of us should question himself, whether he has a bias against the speaker. Let us come to the actual point, which is evaluating the specific subject matter that is the object of our discussion.

          I support Islamic democracy...
          1. Even if democracy emanates from Greek tradition. Origin does not make sth illegitimate. The military diwan was Persian. Khandaq was Persian. Bureucracy tradition was adopted from Christian locals. Hence, origin does not make sth illegitimate, as long as...
          2. it does not contradict a rule prescribed by the Sharia
          3. and democracy does not contradict the Sharia
          4. because there is no political regime prescribed by the Sharia, thus we are free to choose the way we want to organise our polity.
          Now, if you disagree with this, you need to bring shar'i evidence against any of those points above.

          #2 The obligation of Khilafah and its nature
          A second point you brought up is the obligation of Khilafah and its nature. I do not have any opinion on this I follow. Some scholars say the obligation is shar'i, some say it is aqli. In any case, it is wajib and I am striving for it. The motive of being strong is not illegitimate. Allah ta'ala mentions 'rih' (wind) in Surat al-Anfal. Hence, it is one of the legitimate reasons for unity. Muslims must be strong to support the Islamic call. You assume that I am compromising on some principles for this aim, right? No, that is not the case. I support democracy because it is legitimate and efficient (thus in our maslaha). If you want to attack my point, you need to attack my first point. Everything else is pointless as far as I can see.
          Last edited by YahyaIbnSelam; 12-01-21, 11:01 PM.
          “Let whosoever believes in Allah and in the Last Day either speak good or be silent.” — Prophet Muhammad pbuh | مَن كانَ يُؤْمِنُ باللَّهِ والْيَومِ الآخِرِ فَلْيَقُلْ خَيْرًا، أوْ لِيصْمُتْ

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by YahyaIbnSelam View Post
            Dear brother Muhammad Hasan, please write your point in one post for the sake of convenience. You again brought up the matter of..., what should we call it, epistemology, or methodology, or approach? We should be sharing the same Islamic, Fiqhi epistemology with regards to evaluation, so that is not the matter of contention I assume. As for your criticism of my approach, I do not view it to be justified. You are making assumptions on my behalf. I am not adoring the West, nor any other tradition. I follow what is sound. The Western tradition is superior in historiography, I said, but this does not mean that I am following its epistemology. You keep telling me that I follow Western sources. And I had already pointed out once that knowledge is universal. I do not have a bias against any tradition, unlike you. We have the Koran and the blessing of aql/reason as guidance. Unlike you, the Prophets did not refuse to engage in dialogue with disbelievers, because they were self-conscious. I do not feel myself inferior to disbelievers, because I have the revelation of Koran. And I tell them: "Say, [O Muhammad], "I do not tell you that I have the depositories [containing the provision] of Allah or that I know the unseen, nor do I tell you that I am an angel. I only follow what is revealed to me." Say, "Is the blind equivalent to the seeing? Then will you not give thought?" (Q, 6:50)

            I had adjoined some other examples, don't know if you have read it, like a Jew telling the Prophet s.a.w. that swearing by the Kaba or using waw next to Allah is shirk. Remember, this is about theology! Yet you even dislike it when I engage with Western writings. You made some statements moderating your earlier stance, but this does not seem to have altered your actual stance.

            The Islamic tradition you refer too was heavily shaped by Arabs, Persians, Turks and others. It is thus not binding as a whole. The only thing that binds us is the revelation of Allah ta'ala, which is the Koran and the Sunna.

            There is no point in discussing this. Every one of us should question himself, whether he has a bias against the speaker. Let us come to the actual point, which is evaluating the specific subject matter that is the object of our discussion.

            I support Islamic democracy...
            1. Even if democracy emanates from Greek tradition. Origin does not make sth illegitimate. The military diwan was Persian. Khandaq was Persian. Bureucracy tradition was adopted from Christian locals. Hence, origin does not make sth illegitimate, as long as...
            2. it does not contradict a rule prescribed by the Sharia
            3. and democracy does not contradict the Sharia
            4. because there is no political regime prescribed by the Sharia, thus we are free to choose the way we want to organise our polity.
            Now, if you disagree with this, you need to bring shar'i evidence against any of those points above.

            #2 The obligation of Khilafah and its nature
            A second point you brought up is the obligation of Khilafah and its nature. I do not have any opinion on this I follow. Some scholars say the obligation is shar'i, some say it is aqli. In any case, it is wajib and I am striving for it. The motive of being strong is not illegitimate. Allah ta'ala mentions 'rih' (wind) in Surat al-Anfal. Hence, it is one of the legitimate reasons for unity. Muslims must be strong to support the Islamic call. You assume that I am compromising on some principles for this aim, right? No, that is not the case. I support democracy because it is legitimate and efficient (thus in our maslaha). If you want to attack my point, you need to attack my first point. Everything else is pointless as far as I can see.
            Setting aside whether or not democracy is antithetical to Islam, why do you believe democracy is the best system of governance for the Muslim world?

            I haven’t read the entire thread so I apologize if you’ve already answered this; if you have, then please direct me to the post.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by YahyaIbnSelam View Post
              [*]Even if democracy emanates from Greek tradition. Origin does not make sth illegitimate. The military diwan was Persian. Khandaq was Persian. Bureucracy tradition was adopted from Christian locals. Hence, origin does not make sth illegitimate, as long as...[*]it does not contradict a rule prescribed by the Sharia[*]and democracy does not contradict the Sharia[*]because there is no political regime prescribed by the Sharia, thus we are free to choose the way we want to organise our polity.
              Point number one alone yes means that democracy is not immediately illegitimate. However, point 2 and 3 are wrong, it does contradict rules proscribed. As I've stated before, one can divide democracy into legislative and policy-based/executive. A legislative democracy is Shirk. As for a policy-based/executive democracy (or one where "legislation is in line with the Qur'an and Sunnah" etc.) that is against the Sunnah of the Prophet Salallahu Alayhi Wa Salam and the Sahabah, and against what the Prophet Salallahu Alayhi Wa Salam has ordered in that regards. It is also objectively a bad system - one has to analyse it critically to understand why.

              Point number 4 is wrong, there is a very basic sort of political system mandated by Islam. It is then up to the Amir how much power he does or does not want to delegate to others, but all that power ultimately rests with him and this is also shows by the Seerah of the Prophet Salallahu Alayhi Wa Salam and the Sahabah. I have given you Hadith in the past showing Autocracy (which I just use as a general term for one man rule) is what is mandates. The most one can argue for is that democracy (as a policy based system) is contrary to the Sunnah of the Prophet Salallahu Alayhi Wa Salam, his Khulafah, and the Muslims throughout history.

              As for Democracy being an efficient system, I have addressed this in the past on another thread. It is not an efficient system, I mean there is some irony we are talking about this in the present political climate. Read this.

              The book I linked for you by the way, has some excellent points on this subject, why democracy is antithetical etc. If you do want me to bring evidence again, then I'll have to dig up that book on the Khulafah by as-Suyuti, as that book has some more detailed points that I'll need to refer to, but also my evidence can be found in the Kutub al-Sittah etc. and from works of Seerah as well.

              Last edited by Muhammad Hasan; 13-01-21, 09:40 AM.

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by YahyaIbnSelam View Post
                Dear brother [USER="151950"]

                #2 The obligation of Khilafah and its nature
                A second point you brought up is the obligation of Khilafah and its nature. I do not have any opinion on this I follow. Some scholars say the obligation is shar'i, some say it is aqli. In any case, it is wajib and I am striving for it. The motive of being strong is not illegitimate. Allah ta'ala mentions 'rih' (wind) in Surat al-Anfal. Hence, it is one of the legitimate reasons for unity. Muslims must be strong to support the Islamic call. You assume that I am compromising on some principles for this aim, right? No, that is not the case. I support democracy because it is legitimate and efficient (thus in our maslaha). If you want to attack my point, you need to attack my first point. Everything else is pointless as far as I can see.
                I am questioning your Niyyah not which source of knowledge necessitates Khilafah (communal necessity as I understand it i.e. Fard al-Kifayah).
                Last edited by Muhammad Hasan; 13-01-21, 10:35 AM.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by Muhammad Hasan View Post

                  This is true though I don't see how that contradicts what I have written.

                  Nevertheless an interesting discussion can be had on the Mamluks, and the end period of the Abbasid and how the Caliph's power was curtailed. Technically at that time, the Sultans who ruled over vast empires at the time, were somehow de jure subordinate to the Caliphs but we know that the Sultans held the actual power. It seems fitting then that Selim I brought the Khilafah back into its rightful place rather than being a mere ceremonial institution.

                  I note that the hadith in Tarikh Dimashq does not mention Egypt or Cairo as locations for the Khilafah. I wonder why...
                  See I would not say the Khilafah has always been the same exact institution, I discuss the various political systems that Muslims can/have adopted here. (Ignore my mispelling of words like Monarchy, no way to change it now). I would use this sort of thing to frame what I see as the best possible system (that is by its nature unattainable), and then work down from there. This does not make those dynasties after the Rashidun illegitimate, rather they were legitimate Imams, and we can look at them for guidance/precendence in how to approach many things. But we should seperate from that bad practices (e.g. the Shogun Caliphate, which is very divisive, or the Tanzimat period attempt at putting democracy into Khilafah, which score lower down in my scale).

                  To be clear then, even though I see democracy as unIslamic, I do believe that an Islamic "democracy" (however much of an oxymoron that is), is still much better than a secular democracy, and e.g. the system of the Mamluks is still better than an Islamic democracy, a pretender Caliphate like that of Aurangzeb is better than that etc.
                  Last edited by Muhammad Hasan; 13-01-21, 10:36 AM.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    AmantuBillahi, Abu Sulayman, what are your views on this? Would you say that Democracy is compatible or incompatible with Islam?

                    (Please keep the discussion on-topic).

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by Muhammad Hasan View Post

                      I am questioning your Niyyah not which source of knowledge necessitates Khilafah (communal necessity as I understand it i.e. Fard al-Kifayah).
                      * Shar'i necessity, and as for whether it is an obligation, it is a communal obligation, the way I've typed it above it is as if I am answering your point on whether it is Aqli/Shar'i with "Fard al-Kifayah", which is not what I intended.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by Muhammad Hasan View Post
                        AmantuBillahi, Abu Sulayman, what are your views on this? Would you say that Democracy is compatible or incompatible with Islam?

                        (Please keep the discussion on-topic).
                        I haven't read the thread but I don't see anything inherently incompatible with democracy and Islam as long as the laws of the Shari'ah are not being voted over by the common people. Perhaps something like Iran could be taken as a model (although they have Wilayat-e-Faqih which could be reconsidered i.e. the role of Khamenei).

                        WaAllahu A'lam

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by AmantuBillahi View Post
                          I haven't read the thread but I don't see anything inherently incompatible with democracy and Islam as long as the laws of the Shari'ah are not being voted over by the common people.
                          I would agree .. An Islamic democracy is one in where its Muslim citizens have a say in affairs as opposed to a dictatorship.
                          We all know the problems associated with a bad dictator.

                          If a country's Muslims are not pious, we could end up with an unislamic govt. That's not the fault of the system .. it's a fault of the people.
                          InshAllah, peoples iman can go up as well as down.

                          ..and Allah knows best .. I am not a scholar.
                          He maketh me to lie down in green pastures; He leadeth me beside the still waters - Psalms (Zaboor of Dawood)

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by Muhammad Hasan View Post
                            AmantuBillahi, Abu Sulayman, what are your views on this? Would you say that Democracy is compatible or incompatible with Islam?

                            (Please keep the discussion on-topic).
                            Democracy includes the issue of legislation and is therefore not compatible with Islam, because the right to decide whether something is lawful or not is that of the One who created us and not other than Him.
                            Many Muslims however have another understanding of democracy, which is more like one where the Shura system is implemented in ruling while the legislation is based upon the Shari'a.

                            I can say something for sure however: In Iraq the democracy that was brought by the Americans is like a curse upon us. All kinds of mafia like political parties have destroyed our country. In the north the so called government is not able to pay the salaries of the people (last year they paid 4 or 5 salaries only!) - this with the knowledge that they sell oil themselves and don't give it to Baghdad! - and the central government also needed to take debts in order to pay the salaries (until now they paid all salaries, but it seems they want to be like the north). I just want to know where for God's sake all this money goes to! The worthless sectarian system that America has left is like the most corrupt system upon this globe!

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              When you look at ataturks law and compare it with tanzimat kufr reform you will see he came up with nothing jew he simply implemented those kufr laws and found it easy to make them active because the tanzimat kufr reform sultans who may have been kafir and had a confirmed kafir freemason had already began the implementation and sowed the seeds from before which allowed ataturk to easily accomplish his evil mission

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                .
                                Last edited by BintFulaan; 28-01-21, 12:24 PM. Reason: .

                                Comment

                                Collapse

                                Edit this module to specify a template to display.

                                Working...
                                X