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

  • Muhammad Hasan
    replied
    Originally posted by Muhammad Hasan View Post
    Point 3: Materialism, "Oh look at the West!" and the Tanzimat
    It got to a point where Ottoman intellectuals (not necessarily the traditional Ulama) were questioning why this decline was taking place. Of course one should note that at this point the decline was mainly materialistic - I.e. the Ottoman's were concerned with a decline in wealth... What does that tell you about their mindset?

    So these Ottoman intellectuals started looking through the books to find the cause of the decline. They came upon a book not well received by the other Scholars of its time: The Muqaddimah by Ibn Khaldun. This book fascinates me as it reveals much that is wrong with the Islamic mindset. To this day you will get Muslims who praise the book and Ibn Khaldun as being a genius. For Westerners it is more important - it lays the foundation for western Sociology. At its time though great scholars like Ibn Hajar (rahimullah) criticised the book - and by the way this is a book which exhibits mild racism and glorification of "Asabiyya" (Tribalism which the Prophet Sallahu Alayhi Wa Salam condemned). Ibn Khaldun's whole thesis in the book, unsupported by Quran or Hadith, is that societies decline due to being less tribalistic (cohesive) and becoming more settled. So what did the Ottoman scholars think? "We need to be more tribalistic" This is the root of the development of "Ottomanism". Another thing Ibn Khaldun does is that he praises and glorifies the Greeks, and criticises the Muslims for being critical of the Greeks. This and the material success of the West caused these intellectuals to turn to examine the west.

    Of course what they found were peoples much more materially developed and much more nationalistic (the Asabiyya of Ibn Khaldun). The Ottomans started to compare themselves to the the west and the Ottoman upper class started to buy western luxury goods. An obsession developed. Then between the late 18th and 19th century something unthinkable happened.

    The Ottomans abandoned the Sharia.

    Go and take a look at Ottoman decline before the Tanzimat. Its talked about a lot but... Is it practically there? When did the Ottoman empire start losing land? When did the empire which had never taken a foreign loan go bankrupt? When did they start having problems with the Armenians and the Greeks? All in the Tanzimat period.

    In the Tanzimat period, the Ottoman empire reformed. They did several things which utterly destroyed them.
    1. Over time they implemented western laws. They essentially adopted the french legal code. This means that technically (astaghfirullah) they would legalise homosexuality. Western punishments had to be administered - ask yourself how much disruption did this caused to the Qadis?
    2. They overhauled the tax system, introducing western-style income taxes. The Muslims did not implement Income taxes until the Tanzimat period - taxes were on property and goods. Think about how this effected the financial situation of the common people.
    3. They crushed the Awqaf system, centralizing it and bringing it under their control. The Awqaf system is a broad system of charitable endowments unique to Islam. It allowed us to have healthcare without paying for it (directly or through tax), it allowed pilgrims to have free lodging.
    4. They started to take out foreign loans (terrible idea - a war on Allah and his messenger and it led to their bankruptcy).
    5. They ignored or imprisoned the Ulama.
    What do I mean by the last one? During the Tanzimat period there was an Ottoman sultan who imprisoned his Sheikh-ul-Islam after he refused to give a fatwa allowing the massacre of Greeks as payment for some of them rebelling. This is what these Sultans of this period thought of the scholars.

    Western ideas proliferated and the old system of Jizya was abolished (awful idea) and replaced with this idea that all the millets (the religious communities) were equal. As these communities got access to this "freedom", western ideas of nationalism proliferated leading rebellion and discontent.

    In this period the Ottoman upper class were now addicted to importing western goods and they taught their children French. What does this tell you of their mindset?

    Of course in this period the Ottomans lost a lot of territory both in the Balkans and in the Muslim heartlands. The Ottoman elite became addicted to western ideas and democracy was advocated. They established a parliament.
    I would like to correct the record here after further reading on this topic.

    From what I said it seemed that the Tanzimat incursion against the Sharia was quite widespread and brutal as far as 'implementing western laws' goes. These ideas can be found in some material I read in Modern Islamist works recounting and criticising the Ottomans during this period (I linked one of these at one point too). To be honest though Tanzimat incursions against Shar'ia have widely exaggerated in those accounts and in what I have written. This doesn't take away from the broader points I was making in those posts, but is nevertheless an important detail to correct.

    Brother YahyaIbnSelam first opened my mind to this with what he had said at one point. So Insha'Allah I will provide a more accurate explanation, based off of what is more historically accurate as far as I know, on roughly what the Tanzimat incursions against the Sharia were:

    Overview of Pre-Tanzimat Ottoman Legal System

    This is what I would refer to as 'Full' Shari'a. It was based off of the Hanafi Madhab and was uncodified and subject to the Intra-Madhhab Ijtihad of the scholars (the late Imam Ibn Abidin and his works are a perfect example of that.)

    Shari'a itself can be roughly divided into three components:
    1. Ibadat (Personal Worship Law - the Fiqh we all deal with on a daily basis regardless of what country we are in, dealing with Wudu, Salah, Zakah, Fasting (Sawm), Hajj etc.)
    2. Mu'amalat (Civil Law - Dealing with transactions, business law, property ownership, slavery, agency, marriage, inheritance, child-custody etc.)
    3. Uqubat (Criminal Law - Dealing with punishment for crimes including Ta'zeer, Hudood, and Qisas.)

    Outside/complementary to Shari'a was Urf (Customary Law) and the Qanuns of the rulers (you can think of this as executive orders that relate to administration, orders given to military personnel and matters pertaining to rulership - these decrees also have a basis in the Khulafah ar-Rashidin and Sunnah of RasulAllah Alayhis Salam though obviously certain Ottoman Sultans not unlike the Abbassid before them gave questionable decrees e.g. the fraticide of princes present in the earlier empire - Qanun though has never been perfect since the fall of the Khulafah ar-Rashidin). The rulers also held control of the practical implementation of Shari'a, policing etc.

    Sometimes specific pre-Tanzimat Ottoman Sultans would also enact some ridiculous measures as far as implemation of the Sharia goes, though these were supposedly done in the public interest and did have some loose albeit questionable basis in the Sunnah e.g. an Ottoman Ruler famously bringing back the death penalty for drinking alcohol to curb societal degeneracy (which was abrogated in the Prophet Alayhis Salam's time + he Alayhis Salam only levied this on the third offence unlike our ruthless Ottoman ruler).

    So whilst it wasn't some kind of utopian or near-utopian implementation of the Shari'a, nevertheless is was a complete and uncodified implementation of it. What followed this was a scaling back in some areas during the Tanzimat and then a return to a complete implementation in the Hamidian period, albeit with codification.

    Ottoman Tanzimat Era Reforms

    Yes some of Shari'a was compromised, but not at all to the degree I previously suggested. The Hudood were left untouched (with one sort-of exception). For example, if you stole in that period or killed someone you would still get the Hadd punishment and Qisas if applicable. Most of the changes to the state legal framework were in the Mu'amalat (Civil Law) and to Taz'eer punishments - the former is indeed breaking away from Shari'a in certain aspects whilst the latter is arguably within the scope of Shari'a (especially when we go into where these changes orginate from).

    Now technically there was no proscribed punishment according to the 1858 penal code act for Homosexual Sodomy - that is correct. But this is only half the story, the fact of the matter is that the official position of the Hanafi school, and of Imam al-Azam, is that there is no proscribed punishment for that act. It is a Ta'zeer offence. Technically the penal code did not at all legalise that, it merely (by accident rather than intention) left out stipulating what the punishment should be. So no Sodomy wasn't legalised either.

    Things that were compromised:
    • Uncodified nature of Shari'a - this continued to be compromised even after the State returned to what I would describe as 'Full' Islamic Law under Sultan Abdul Hamid II, with the passing of the Majalla - as the Majalla itself was a codification of Hanafi Mu'amalat, discluding what the Sultan ordered to be discluded (marriage and inheritance if I remember correctly).
    • Aspects of Mu'amalat e.g. certain types of Riba even at times were permitted (then prohibited even during the same period). It is well known that the Ottoman State got itself into a debt crisis during this period too (reminding me of al-Qur'an, Surah al-Baqarah 279). Non-Muslim financial institutions prevailed in the Tanzimat era, with many a western-style bank being set up.
    • Sunnah method of punishment of the Tazeer - Discretionary Lashings were done away with (some argue this is not a requirement but nevertheless against the Sunnah, though I still view it as an abberation to get rid of this).
    • The de jure execution of the Murtadeen was stopped in 1844 just after the beheading of some Armenian Murtad stoked international animosity from the likes of the British and the French. This is the one sort-of exception to the fact that they did not touch the Hudood. Now technically the Ottomans of course did not actually stop executing the Murtadeen, they simply told the foreigners that it was banned, issuing certain edicts. In practice though the Ottoman public were not told this and the Murtadeen were still executed - a Murtad in one of the provinces would be sent to Istanbul (secretly as far as the locals were concerned, to not rise local protest against the Hudood apparently not being implemented), where the foreigners would witness them being imprisoned instead of being executed. Then after things had cooled down and largely forgotten, the prisoner would 'escape' if you catch my drift. In fact they sometimes even 'escaped'on route to Istanbul...
    There were some other things that were unislamic without relating law itself - e.g. the abandonment of the Alsina-i-Thalatha ('Three Languages' that were the official/court languages of the Empire up till that point - Arabic, Farsi and Ottoman Turkish), with only Ottoman Turkish being made official (and members of the public worryingly given increasing importance to French etc.) This distancing from the language of RasulAllah Alayhis Salam cannot be said to be Islamic. There was indeed actions taken against the teaching of other than Ottoman Turkish, and though these actions were repealed and acted against during the rule of Sultan Abdul Hamid (who in particular promoted Arabic under the Pan-Islamism drive), the official bigotry against non-Turkish instruction in schools came back after he was deposed and the Tanzimat era-esque constitution re-instituted - so these actions had lasting changes (and of course led to the rise of Arab and Turkish Nationalism which in essence led to the destruction of the Khilafah in the end).

    As I mentioned previously, the Millet System and Awqaf etc. were also destroyed in this period, important Islamic institutions that date to the time of the Prophet Salallahu Alayhi Wa Salam and the Sahabah. The Millet system in particular has never again been instituted in any Muslim country since. You also had the introduction of paper money and other evils too.

    Was the Napoleonic Code Instituted?

    Yes, but the question is - how did this effect implementation of the Sharia?

    Well the bizarrre thing is: Not much.

    The Napoleonic Code is in turn based off of Maliki Fiqh... So much of the practical changes were simply a switch from valid interpretation of Shari'a to another and the Hudood were exempted of course from any changes. Nevertheless you did have some incursions against Shari'a in field of Mu'amalat as explained and the fact of codification cannot be denied either.

    Tanzimat Era Ottoman State - How should we view it?

    Well admittedly if you are the sort of person who naively thinks Saudi Arabia or Mauritania today are implementing the Shari'a 'comprehensively', then actually you would not have much of an issue with the Tanzimat Era Ottoman attacks on Shari'a, as the level of implementation is similar, though the Tanzimat era Ottoman State would still be considered more Islamic than these nation states in my view.

    Now I, like Insha'Allah most of you reading this, am not that kind of person. Compromise on the Shari'a in any aspect, whether that be in the Mu'amalat e.g. allowing Riba at times (with the innovators today attacking the prohibition of Riba an-Nasiya) or simply abandoning the method of discretionary punishment we have had since the time of the Prophet Alayhis Salam. So I still condemn the Ottoman Empire for lapsing in their implementation of the Shari'a in this period. The degree and extent of their lapse was simply mistakenly judged by myself in the past, but I remain of the view that there was a condemnable lapse. A Saudi/Mauritanian level of implementation of Shari'a, is not in my view an actual comprehensive implementation of it, I am not fooled by states that merely implement the Hudood on a surface level whilst allowing foreign interest-based banks to operate etc.

    Thankfully by Sultan Abdul Hamid's reign, these things changed though I do not like the codification present during his reign either, but that's an acceptable compromise comparatively.

    Really my views towards the Tanzimat Era Ottomans has not changed - they were heavily influenced by materialism and the west and this led to our downfall. To think we have some people who defend the likes of Saudi today when they get rid of corporal punishment for Ta'zeer speaks to our collective ignorance of our history, our inability to rightfully criticise the rulers (which some weak-willed individuals think is the same as calling for rebellion against them) and the apparent causes of such reforms.

    With the likes of Bin Salman saying the Non-Mutawatir Hadith are optional, it seems Allahu Alam we will only continue to see a decrease in Shar'ia implementation in certain regions in the future.
    Last edited by Muhammad Hasan; 3 weeks ago.

    Leave a comment:


  • YahyaIbnSelam
    replied
    Originally posted by Muhammad Hasan View Post

    This is not "moral", this is showing kindness. Even in an extremely immoral society which allows people to marry animals etc. you can get kind people who give charity or stop one societal wrong. "Moral" is the wrong word. The same person could be involved in something very immoral - would you count this kindness as a sort of morality? So e.g. a man who eats human flesh (of his deceased father) and is married to another man, feeds some orphans, stops murder, helps Muslims etc. He's moral is he?

    The biggest immorality is to not worship only and consider divine only Allah Azza Wa Jal.

    Moral means: "1. Concerned with the principles of right and wrong behaviour. 2. Holding or manifesting high principles for proper conduct." (Oxford Lexico.com)

    Considering that disbelievers cannot know everything which is right and wrong via reason, especially so according to Ash'arites, their fault is in failing to submit to the Sharia. Maturidi scholars say some good can be established by reason before revelation. Do you konw any details on that?

    You are right when we see that right and wrong is universal and not relative, besides constituting a whole. Obviously disbelievers hold a different moral, but it does overlap with ours, with the univeral Islamic ethics. The second sense does not seem wrong: people may have high principles, while failing on others. Also, which word do you find more appropriate? Decent, right-minded, benevolent, gracious, honest, principled? It is not always about charity. People may stand up against injustice. They may be honest and refrain from cheating, lying and scamming. Reject bribes.

    We see in the narrations on Hilf al-Fudul and Hilf al-Mutayyabin words used such as al-mutayyabin (lit. making good and better) and non-believers making amr bil-maruf by fighting injustice. I have heard of the position that non-Muslims are not to be considered just/adil, but I assume there is some limitation for evident matters we can know by reason they are good. These are no judgements/hukm, but evident behaviour.

    Even if we do not call non-believers moral, they can certainly act morally. And we may call them mutayyab.

    ู„ู‚ุฏู’ ุดูŽู‡ูุฏู’ุชู ููŠ ุฏุงุฑู ุนุจุฏู ุงู„ู„ู‡ู ุจู†ู ุฌูุฏู’ุนุงู†ูŽ ุญูู„ู’ูู‹ุงุŒ ู„ูˆ ุฏูุนููŠุชู ุจู‡ ููŠ ุงู„ุฅุณู„ุงู…ู ู„ุฃูŽุฌูŽุจู’ุชูุŒ ุชูŽุญุงู„ูŽููˆุง ุฃู†ู’ ูŠูŽุฑูุฏู‘ููˆุง ุงู„ููุถูˆู„ูŽ ุนู„ู‰ ุฃู‡ู’ู„ูู‡ุงุŒ ูˆุฃู†ู’ ู„ุง ูŠุนุฏ ุธุงู„ู…ูŒ ู…ูŽุธู„ูˆู…ู‹ุง..

    ุงู„ุฑุงูˆูŠ: ู…ุญู…ุฏ ูˆุนุจุฏุงู„ุฑุญู…ู† ุจู† ุฃุจูŠ ุจูƒุฑ | ุงู„ู…ุญุฏุซ: ุงุจู† ุงู„ู…ู„ู‚ู† | ุงู„ู…ุตุฏุฑ: ุงู„ุจุฏุฑ ุงู„ู…ู†ูŠุฑ
    ุงู„ุตูุญุฉ ุฃูˆ ุงู„ุฑู‚ู…: 7/325
    ุฎู„ุงุตุฉ ุญูƒู… ุงู„ู…ุญุฏุซ: ุตุญูŠุญ

    - ุดูŽู‡ูุฏุชู ุญูู„ููŽ ุงู„ู…ูุทูŽูŠู‘ูŽุจูŠู† ู…ุน ุนู…ูˆู…ุชูŠ ูˆุฃู†ุง ุบู„ุงู…ูŒุŒ ูู…ุง ุฃุญูุจู‘ู ุฃู†ู‘ูŽ ู„ูŠ ุญูู…ุฑูŽ ุงู„ู†ู‘ูŽุนูŽู… ูˆุฃู†ูŠ ุฃู†ูƒูุซูู‡ .

    ุงู„ุฑุงูˆูŠ: ุนุจุฏุงู„ุฑุญู…ู† ุจู† ุนูˆู | ุงู„ู…ุญุฏุซ: ุงู„ู‡ูŠุซู…ูŠ | ุงู„ู…ุตุฏุฑ: ู…ุฌู…ุน ุงู„ุฒูˆุงุฆุฏ
    ุงู„ุตูุญุฉ ุฃูˆ ุงู„ุฑู‚ู…: 8/175
    ุฎู„ุงุตุฉ ุญูƒู… ุงู„ู…ุญุฏุซ: [ุฑุฌุงู„ู‡] ุฑุฌุงู„ ุงู„ุตุญูŠุญ


    Originally posted by Muhammad Hasan View Post
    Not that I want you to support HT and their laughable concept of "Islamic" democracy, though you have in the past, I find it funny that you are irked by them requiring people to pledge 'allegiance' to them in exclusion of other movements. So what is it that you exactly want? People to join different movements and parties and then form the Khilafah together or something? You actually support Partisan politics?

    Optimates and Populares, they're unavoidable.
    I support a majlis shura of Islamic movements with central command for the time being, similar to now-dissolved Jaysh al-Fath in Syria.
    Last edited by YahyaIbnSelam; 21-03-21, 06:49 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Muhammad Hasan
    replied
    Originally posted by YahyaIbnSelam View Post

    Moral in the sense of Abdullah b. Jud'an.
    ู‚ูู„ุชู: ูŠุง ุฑูŽุณูˆู„ูŽ ุงู„ู„ู‡ูุŒ ุงุจู†ู ุฌูุฏู’ุนุงู†ูŽ ูƒุงู†ูŽ ููŠ ุงู„ุฌุงู‡ูู„ููŠู‘ูŽุฉู ูŠูŽุตูู„ู ุงู„ุฑู‘ูŽุญูู…ูŽุŒ ูˆูŠูุทู’ุนูู…ู ุงู„ู…ูุณู’ูƒููŠู†ูŽุŒ ููŽู‡ู„ู’ ุฐุงูƒูŽ ู†ุงููุนูู‡ูุŸ ู‚ุงู„ูŽ: ู„ุง ูŠูŽู†ู’ููŽุนูู‡ูุŒ ุฅู†ู‘ูŽู‡ ู„ูŽู…ู’ ูŠูŽู‚ูู„ู’ ูŠูŽูˆู’ู…ู‹ุง: ุฑูŽุจู‘ู ุงุบู’ููุฑู’ ู„ูŠ ุฎูŽุทููŠุฆูŽุชูŠ ูŠูŽูˆู…ูŽ ุงู„ุฏู‘ููŠู†ู..

    ุงู„ุฑุงูˆูŠ: ุนุงุฆุดุฉ ุฃู… ุงู„ู…ุคู…ู†ูŠู† | ุงู„ู…ุญุฏุซ: ู…ุณู„ู… | ุงู„ู…ุตุฏุฑ: ุตุญูŠุญ ู…ุณู„ู…
    ุงู„ุตูุญุฉ ุฃูˆ ุงู„ุฑู‚ู…: 214
    ุฎู„ุงุตุฉ ุญูƒู… ุงู„ู…ุญุฏุซ: [ุตุญูŠุญ]
    ุงู„ุชุฎุฑูŠุฌ: ุฃุฎุฑุฌู‡ ู…ุณู„ู… (214))
    This is not "moral", this is showing kindness. Even in an extremely immoral society which allows people to marry animals etc. you can get kind people who give charity or stop one societal wrong. "Moral" is the wrong word. The same person could be involved in something very immoral - would you count this kindness as a sort of morality? So e.g. a man who eats human flesh (of his deceased father) and is married to another man, feeds some orphans, stops murder, helps Muslims etc. He's moral is he?

    The biggest immorality is to not worship only and consider divine only Allah Azza Wa Jal.

    Originally posted by YahyaIbnSelam View Post
    I did not know that HT supported constitutional democratic government, that is delightening to hear. Probably that is only in the final stage, after they have established the caliphate as the vanguard party, right? So still they are insisting that people pledge allegiance to them, in exclusion of other movements. Correct me if I am wrong.
    Not that I want you to support HT and their laughable concept of "Islamic" democracy, though you have in the past, I find it funny that you are irked by them requiring people to pledge 'allegiance' to them in exclusion of other movements. So what is it that you exactly want? People to join different movements and parties and then form the Khilafah together or something? You actually support Partisan politics?

    Optimates and Populares, they're unavoidable.

    Leave a comment:


  • YahyaIbnSelam
    replied
    Originally posted by Muhammad Hasan View Post

    What are you using to judge that a disbeliever is "moral", and would you consider western society "moral"?

    HT is democratic and constitutionalist, you know that as much as I do. You were the one promoting some literature they have not to long ago, and I've spoken to some of them, and they are of the exact same mindset as you. Do you wish for me to show you evidence of that or something?
    Moral in the sense of Abdullah b. Jud'an.
    ู‚ูู„ุชู: ูŠุง ุฑูŽุณูˆู„ูŽ ุงู„ู„ู‡ูุŒ ุงุจู†ู ุฌูุฏู’ุนุงู†ูŽ ูƒุงู†ูŽ ููŠ ุงู„ุฌุงู‡ูู„ููŠู‘ูŽุฉู ูŠูŽุตูู„ู ุงู„ุฑู‘ูŽุญูู…ูŽุŒ ูˆูŠูุทู’ุนูู…ู ุงู„ู…ูุณู’ูƒููŠู†ูŽุŒ ููŽู‡ู„ู’ ุฐุงูƒูŽ ู†ุงููุนูู‡ูุŸ ู‚ุงู„ูŽ: ู„ุง ูŠูŽู†ู’ููŽุนูู‡ูุŒ ุฅู†ู‘ูŽู‡ ู„ูŽู…ู’ ูŠูŽู‚ูู„ู’ ูŠูŽูˆู’ู…ู‹ุง: ุฑูŽุจู‘ู ุงุบู’ููุฑู’ ู„ูŠ ุฎูŽุทููŠุฆูŽุชูŠ ูŠูŽูˆู…ูŽ ุงู„ุฏู‘ููŠู†ู..

    ุงู„ุฑุงูˆูŠ: ุนุงุฆุดุฉ ุฃู… ุงู„ู…ุคู…ู†ูŠู† | ุงู„ู…ุญุฏุซ: ู…ุณู„ู… | ุงู„ู…ุตุฏุฑ: ุตุญูŠุญ ู…ุณู„ู…
    ุงู„ุตูุญุฉ ุฃูˆ ุงู„ุฑู‚ู…: 214
    ุฎู„ุงุตุฉ ุญูƒู… ุงู„ู…ุญุฏุซ: [ุตุญูŠุญ]
    ุงู„ุชุฎุฑูŠุฌ: ุฃุฎุฑุฌู‡ ู…ุณู„ู… (214))



    I did not know that HT supported constitutional democratic government, that is delightening to hear. Probably that is only in the final stage, after they have established the caliphate as the vanguard party, right? So still they are insisting that people pledge allegiance to them, in exclusion of other movements. Correct me if I am wrong.

    Leave a comment:


  • Muhammad Hasan
    replied
    Originally posted by YahyaIbnSelam View Post
    I did not say it is not objective. I had looked through the document but it has a very large scope. Muslims can write objective, too, of course, but that is seldom because that genre is not prevalent with Sharia scholars whose main work is to prove their own point, which is not a bad thing in itself, just a different genre.

    I know that statement of shaykh Abduh, but I strongly disagree with that appraisal of Western society. Islam is a whole. Ethics and justice are located in the same equation with obedience, which is all maruf and hasan. so they cannot be separated either. The only thing one can say about a moral disbeliever is that he would make a good believer. Such way of thinking as mentioend reminds me of the Iman is ilm position, which suggests that non-believers are just ignorant of Islam. Yet in reality there are many disbelievers refusing to submit to Allah, despite their knowledge of the religion and its proofs. Besides that, I want to remind you that sheikhulislam Mustafa Sabri Efendi mentioned Abduh as al-sheikh, and al-marhum. There is no need to denigrate your opponent.

    I am not with HT, its program seems autocratic to me.

    You seem bad at guessing people brother, so I recommend you to avoid it and just be open, not attempting to fit people into categories.
    Right. So you won't read it because it has "large scope"... Also what you have said confirms my views of you - you consider the westerner to judge your religion objectively. I wonder how much orientalist literature you've read... That's interesting, if you are working to prove your own point, your subjective in your view. So you think orientalists do not have an agenda or points they seek to prove then?

    I retract what I said on Allah's slave Muhammad 'Abduh in light of hearing from a respected Shaykh that he repented at the end of his life. As for Shaykh al-Islam calling him "al-Shaykh", I mean he also pointed out that what he was calling to was clear-cut heresy, so its not like he was calling him that in recognition (at that time) of any orthodoxy, if that's the point you're trying to make. He likely knew what he had said at the end of his life. As for 'al-Marhum', this is just showing respect for the deceased.

    What are you using to judge that a disbeliever is "moral", and would you consider western society "moral"?

    HT is democratic and constitutionalist, you know that as much as I do. You were the one promoting some literature they have not to long ago, and I've spoken to some of them, and they are of the exact same mindset as you. Do you wish for me to show you evidence of that or something?

    And what do you mean by be more open? I used to hold the views you do, although I debated whether parliamentary/presidential/semi-presidential is better etc. But you learn to think more critically, you learn more history, learn more about politics and political structure and come to the conclusion that it is actually a pretty bad system. There is no Muslim scholar who gave me that view on democracy, no disbeliever either. I just critically examined it, and realised it is flawed. Insha'Allah you'll come to the same conclusion eventually, if you are critical enough. (On top of that though it also contradicts the Sunnah)

    You say I am bad at guessing, but I've essentially guessed your perspective, not that this was some kind of goal. Fitting people into categories is what I do best, people are naive enough to think they are unique and there are none others like them. Western civilisation thinks this of itself. Its just a repeat of a cycle that is hundreds and thousands of years old. The same ideas, including denialism, thinking he is "progressing" etc. that we have seen since ancient times. Man doesn't change, he thinks he changes, but he makes the same mistakes, uses the same logic, etc. over and over again.

    It is a good idea for us to ponder on the Prophets Alayhim Salam and their missions.

    Ottoman province of Karaman, yes.
    Ottoman province? That's over a hundred years ago... So your grandparents or great-grandparents migrated? Tell me more about that, sounds interesting.

    Also, how did your ancestors answer the call to Jihad? What were their experiences of the great war like?
    Last edited by Muhammad Hasan; 19-03-21, 08:33 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • YahyaIbnSelam
    replied
    Ottoman province of Karaman, yes.

    Originally posted by Muhammad Hasan View Post
    How do you know that what I have linked is not an objective appraisal? You haven't even read it, its written in an western academic style, not Islamic scholarly one, and it references orientalist opinions etc.

    It seems you think the western orientalist is the objective judge of your religion. Why do you have such an obsession with the west, their academia, western democracy, liberalism etc.?

    I'm guessing you agree with the statement of Abduh (al-Mubtadi') who said:



    The essence of modernism and Islamic reformism.
    I did not say it is not objective. I had looked through the document but it has a very large scope. Muslims can write objective, too, of course, but that is seldom because that genre is not prevalent with Sharia scholars whose main work is to prove their own point, which is not a bad thing in itself, just a different genre.

    I know that statement of shaykh Abduh, but I strongly disagree with that appraisal of Western society. Islam is a whole. Ethics and justice are located in the same equation with obedience, which is all maruf and hasan. so they cannot be separated either. The only thing one can say about a moral disbeliever is that he would make a good believer. Such way of thinking as mentioend reminds me of the wrong Iman is ilm position, which suggests that non-believers are just ignorant of Islam. Yet in reality there are many disbelievers refusing to submit to Allah, despite their knowledge of the religion and its proofs. Besides that, I want to remind you that sheikhulislam Mustafa Sabri Efendi mentioned Abduh as al-sheikh, and al-marhum. There is no need to denigrate your opponent.

    I am not with HT, its program is autocratic based on a wrong understanding of the Sharia. He calls it a hukm shari, whereas scholars have discussed whether the caliphate is even obligatory by reason or by Sharia (see al-Mawardi's book). Yet he assumes that every rule is set by the Sharia, whereas disagreement existed even on the fundament. They demand AFAIK everyone to give bay'a to their Imam and they apply the hadiths on bay'a and jama'a on this issue, as if there was not any other jama'a working towards the caliphate, which is only the last stage of our goal. Defending Muslims at all levels but especially their lives and establishing Sharia rule at the local level is more urgent than establishing a global caliphate by collecting bay'a for their Imam, which is not a tangible strategy anyway. Nonetheless, I appreciate their subsidiary political work. They would make a good political party in the Islamic republic.

    You seem bad at guessing people brother, so I recommend you to avoid it and just be open, not attempting to fit people into categories.
    Last edited by YahyaIbnSelam; 19-03-21, 07:37 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Muhammad Hasan
    replied
    YahyaIbnSelam so you're part of HT or just interested in them?



    What do you think of the topics they discussed?

    Leave a comment:


  • Muhammad Hasan
    replied
    Originally posted by YahyaIbnSelam View Post
    I live in Germany.
    But your family is from Karaman? Do you go back there?

    Originally posted by YahyaIbnSelam View Post
    I am not that much interested in the maddhab/taqlid debate, it is too banal in my opinion. Our disagreement was about benefit-thinking (its prevalence with contemporary scholars) and whether the current mujtahid claimers are competent. I would only be interested to read objective appraisals of that, not polemics due to holding different ijtihad.
    How do you know that what I have linked is not an objective appraisal? You haven't even read it, its written in an western academic style, not Islamic scholarly one, and it references orientalist opinions etc.

    It seems you think the western orientalist is the objective judge of your religion. Why do you have such an obsession with the west, their academia, western democracy, liberalism etc.?

    I'm guessing you agree with the statement of Abduh (al-Mubtadi') who said:

    I went to the West and saw Islam, but no Muslims; I got back to the East and saw Muslims, but not Islam.
    The essence of modernism and Islamic reformism.

    Personally I don't feel you do much critical thinking, you just uncritically accept the orientalist/western view being superior. I am sure you think the same of me, thinking that I uncritically accept the tradional Sunni Islamic views of things, even though that's not the case.

    Allahu Alam, I could be wrong.

    Leave a comment:


  • YahyaIbnSelam
    replied
    I live in Germany. I am not that much interested in the maddhab/taqlid debate, it is too banal in my opinion. Our disagreement was about benefit-thinking (its prevalence with contemporary scholars) and whether the current mujtahid claimers are competent. I would only be interested to read objective appraisals of that, not polemics due to holding different ijtihad.

    Leave a comment:


  • Muhammad Hasan
    replied
    Dear brother YahyaIbnSelam, when I get the time I will respond to some of these points insha'Allah. In the mean time, have you read this? From our discussion on the other thread I feel you haven't. It addresses some of the points you've made, especially on the Madhahib/Taqlid.

    Also out of interest, whereabouts do you live in Turkey?

    Leave a comment:


  • YahyaIbnSelam
    replied
    As for your political criticism of democracy, that is open to debate. Certain elements may be adjusted. In essence, what I defend is a presidential multi-party regime where rulership is contested, but once the ruler is elected, people should coalesce around him and follow his orders. Opposition parties balance against his power by participating in politics.

    Your criticism is too hard and thus unfit.
    1. You say it is mob rule, which is not true. Mob rule is a danger, not a constant reality. Some who crticise mob rule are pointing at majoritarianism and neglecting minority groups' rights. I do not think you are opposing that the believers should be the leaders of the republic, in exclusion of disbelievers. Then, if you are criticising intra-Islamic mob rule, the constitution and the judiciary guards against that. The multi-party system upholds this balance on a politcal level. Mob rule points at oppression and one-man's rule is no better at that. Monarchs are valued if they are neutral and protect everybody's rights. This is the same with republics. Aristotle, who criticised democracy as mob rule, did not point at monarchy as a solution. What he criticised was that those with authority were fallible to manipulation. This is a question of integrity, not regime type.

    2. You say it is inefficient. This is true to some degree. Authoritarian regimes have more clandestineness, which is good internationally. But this is a trade-off between international strength and domestic checks-and-balances. You lose the latter if you insists on hard autocracy. Also, there are many ways to increase efficiency and secrecy in democratic regimes, too. Finally, the world's most powerful regime today, the USA, is a democracy, which should invalidate your argument without much effort.
    Last edited by YahyaIbnSelam; 13-03-21, 02:11 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • YahyaIbnSelam
    replied
    Constitution

    That is not what the charter of Madinah did - go and actually read it - it does not establish the character of government at all, it does not define the basic principles a socity must confirm to - rather that is embedded in the Qur'an and Sunnah.

    If you are so hell bent on comparing the Islamic political system to that of the Kuffar, then at least compare it to the British constitutional system - does Britain have a written constitutional document? No. It has a series of documents and also unwritten conventions which collectively approximate a constitution but there is no one document that does this. Arguably from the Islamic point of view one could argue the Qur'an is the closest thing we have to a constitution - and even that as a document does not explicitly spell out the fundamental structure of a state entity. Rather the fundamental nature of the state is written down in multiple Ayat and Ahadith and then after that in multiple works of Fiqh and Siyasah (as secondary interpretations) of the primary sources of law (the Qur'an and Sunnah).

    If you force a constitution of people you create a document of law that is infallible that constrains and prevents dissenting opinion - this is what the Ulama throughout history have tried to avoid - it limits the power of the Fuqahah and Qudah to voice whatever valid opinion they derive by way of usul from the Qur'an and Sunnah.

    Arguably making such a document which is forced and carries such legal effect is Tashrih - especially if any of the clauses are not found in nor derived from the Qur'an and Sunnah (which in your case they would be like that). Then you will get works interpreting this constitution in the manner that the Qur'an and Sunnah is interpreted - did Allah command us to follow you and your constitution or did he tell us to follow and obey RasulAllah Salallahu Alayhi Wa Salam?

    RasulAllah Sallahu Alayhi Wa Salam commanded us to follow the Khulafah ar-Rashidah (and Sahabah in general) - did they ever have a constitution? Rather a constitution creates rigidity and their rule was adhocratic.

    (Also note that if the Charter of Madinah is reliably attributed to RasulAllah Sallahu Alayhi Wa Salam as some of the ulama have said, then it too is a source of law - as a literal written source of the Sunnah - and so the articles need to be examined and looked at even today to at least derive fiqh in congruence to it).
    Constitution is not about deriving rules from sharโ€™ฤซ sources. It is a treaty, an aqd, between the people, as they come together in a state and delegate their affairs (tawkil) to state power, as represented in governments and bureaucracy. Fuqaha have no special say in this. It is something that concerns all believers, including the fuqaha. Constitution is contingent on time and represents the contemporary society, hence sharสผฤซ sources are not a substitute. Treaties are a human affair that is bound by sharสผฤซ conditions, but not predetermined. Also, it is not my constitution that I impose on anybody. The umma/jamaสฟa chooses its own constitution.
    What is your point in opposing it? It is not fixed, it can be changed by the majority when needed.

    It is a western concept, not word. And no the tradition is not universal, the vast majority of states throughout history have not had a constitution.

    I have made the argument previously that the Diwan did not replace anything - rather it built on what was there. Your constitution and other things you call for actively oppose and go against the Sunnah including the Sunnah of the Khulafah ar-Rashida.

    Really this want of a constitution shows a fanatical obsession with the west, wanting to adopt their systems and views. This mindset is exactly what destroyed the last Khilafah, do you want to destroy the next one before it is even made? What made us great (in the materialistic/dunyawi sense) was a political system which was based off of the earliest generations and particularly the Sahabah - do you want us to abandon the Sunnah and adopt what is in opposition to it, hoping to find in that a solution?

    Then you say that we were using inferior systems from the start - so the Islam is not fit for all generations of history, rather it can and does need reform according to you when better systems are found.

    What's worst is you haven't actually critically examined what is there from the Islamic viewpoint - you've ignored our own institutions (including the Diwan which was not in contradiction to us) - you have assumed what Islam has historically had to offer is inferior.
    What did it replace, which Sunna? Be precise please, brother and stop these accusations of following the West etc. I have pointed out that the Sahifa is a constitution, in the sense that it lays out how the relations between the different groups in Medina is to be managed. And there are several other issues between Muslims not dealt with in the Sahifa, that are dispersed across sources, as you point out. And I argue that there is benefit in molding these traditions into a constitution that befits the society, in a particular region. I urge you to read the works of sheikh Hakim al-Mutayri in this regard.[1]

    Your point that historically and contemporarily there are societies who donโ€™t have a constitution does not prove anything. You cannot establish the purported harm of having a constitution in this way. You need to be more specific, if you claim there is any harm.

    Let me explain the benefits of having a constitution briefly. My main concern is that political transition of power is systematized, leaving no room for doubt. Rebellions and civil unrest are avoided in this way. Ahl al-aqd is known, the leader is known and how he was chosen. Necessitating respect and obedience to them in a legitimate way. Unlike classical systems were people vied for power, killing each other, or Ottoman fratricide and later imprisonment of princes.

    ut if someone takes al-Mawardi's work and re-writes it to make it a constitutional document which is forced upon a nation then we completely oppose that and that is not what Imam al-Mawardi intended. Did other people after Imam al-Mawardi write such tracts? Of course. Can you implement the ahkam derived from Nass found in other works instead? Yes. So we are allowed to disagree with al-Mawardi.


    Such things are written in works of Siyasah and Fiqh, not in constitutions. The ruler should follow what is in those works and the Ulama's understanding of them.
    No this is a wrong understanding of the constitution.

    First of all, what you have described is not Siyasa Shariyyah - Siyasah Shariyyah relates particularly to the implemention of the Shariah by the ruler including Hudood.
    Siyฤsa sharสฟiyya and istiแนฃlฤแธฅ. They go hand in hand. Also, sharia is not restricted to hudud! Everything relating to the good of the society is siyฤsa. Legitimate siyasa is siyasa shariyya.

    If I am pushing "traditionalism" then you admit you are pushing "modernism".
    Yes I am being modern in this regard, though this not "modernism". You may favor tradition, but continuity should make sense lest it be blind imitation and fear of change.
    It is not for the Amir to force an interpretation on Fiqh upon the subjects, as this will cause more division than unity. Even Khatam an-Nabiyyin Salallahu Alayhi Wa Salam, the living Wahy, would not always do this (the famous incident of ikhtilaf between the Sahabah where the Prophet Salallahu Alayhi Wa Salam stayed silent). Moreover, the codification of law leads to a document or documents other than the Qur'an and Sunnah having primacy and you will turn to interpretation of your constitutional documents over interpretation of the Qur'an and Sunnah. Moreover you are inventing for yourself documents superior to the Qur'an and Sunnah, whether you realise it or not.
    Constitution is about the essential matters and it does not clash with the sharสฟฤซ sources, as its subject matter is different. The amir is the leader and he leads the consultations with the ulama. He may lend preference to an opinion in political and societal matters, i.e. muสผamalฤt and siyฤsa, making it binding for the society when necessary in issues concerning the whole nation. There was a dominant madhhab in all Islamic states, there is no way around this, although autonomy in subsidiary matters should be respected to the utmost manner possible.

    However this must not be taken to the other extreme, and that is what implementing a fully codified document does, it essentially restricts Ijtihad and kills difference of opinion by making a new Ijtihad which everyone has to follow. This is against the Sunnah of the Sahabah Radiyallahu Anhum.
    The governance of Umar and other khulafa r.anhum show that the imam decides ultimately after consultations. This was their unwritten constitution. Then, you constantly conflate between the constitution and other laws. The constitution does not decide on various matters of ijtihad, other law might to that. The constitution can only say, Islamic fiqh tradition is to be respected, as Egyptสผs 2012 Islamic constitution did. And this conflations of yours makes your subsequent points, like interpreting it on par with sharสผi sources, invalid. Also, such rhetoric is strongly reminiscient of ahl al-hadith/salafis, who opposed any raสผy, even fatwas and only cites hadiths.

    Ulama and Ruler
    The Ulama and the Rulers should be seperate - as according to the Hadith of RasulAllah Alayhis Salatu Was-Salam regarding the ruler and the Ulama. Even when the Ruler acts upon his capacity as a Mujtahid, he does not do so and force his Ijtihad on the next rulers or on his subjects who might hold differing views, unless those subjects hold clear-cut deviation etc. Look at the Sunnah of our righteous four Khulafah - look at the differences in their rule and their disagreements with each other. They even disagreed on the structures of the state - why are you asking for even such structures to be codified in law??

    You are strangling the adhocratic nature of the Islamic State and forcing it to comply to your western notions of constitution and constitutionalism. The path of the Sahabah is better. The path of the Prophet Muhammad Salallahu Alayhi Wa Salam is better.
    First of all, our vision of the constitution does not differ from the Sahabaสผs way. Ad hoc does not mean there are no rules. As al-Mutayri explains, after Yazid 680, bayสผa to the ruler was not based on consent anymore. The believers were ignored. What we say now is that the people are the basis of state power (masdar al-sulta).

    As for ulama and ruler being separate, there is no such norm among the Sahaba. There is not even the concept of ulama, or clergy. You seem to be imitating the Christians and Jews in this regard. Ulul amr refers to scholars and leaders at the same time. Because ideally, leaders are also knowledable, hence scholars. Not everbody needs to be a specialist in the rulings of inheritance. The concept of mujtahid was developed by scholars to barr people without knowledge from issuing rulings. The sahaba would not issue rulings without knowing, thus they did not need the concept of ijtihad or alim. But some were more knowledgable than others. The word ulama in the Koran refers to having a grasp of the religion, which does not refer to specialisation.

    Madhahib
    The Madahib if anything were a pushback against the Abbasid who would have loved a fully codified document they can enforce (as I have evidenced from the above exchange between al-Mansur and Imam Malik Rahimullah Alay - a scholar prophesised by RasulAllah Salallahu Alayhi Wa Salam), instead they were forced to pick between semi-codified Madahib which restricted political control of the interpretation of Islam, which is what you are calling for.
    Before, the madhhฤhib were not fixed. People taught and studied, but did not bind themselves to any opinion. Madhฤhib in the sense of fatwa tradition developed due to the need of fixed law in the judiciary.
    I am not calling for the political control of opinions. People and study and strike judgements. But the imam chooses one rule. Some matters are indivisible, and the rulerโ€™s choice after consultation is preferred there. I am really amazed that you manage to combine legal pluralism with authoritarian rule.

    Rulers, Authority and Obedience
    Brother we are having serious discussion here. This is not the place for childish notions. Obviously whilst the ruler is subject to Allah's laws like the rest of us (i.e. the Sharia is above the ruler), and whilst the likes of Imam Ali KarramAllahu Wajhahu showed this practically, we mustn't forget the most fundamental fact here:
    The Shariah is enforced and implemented by the ruler.

    That is what Siyasah ash-Shar'iah is. The ruler enforcing and implementing the Shariah. If you try and change this, all you are doing is shifting where the power lies and are creating a less efficient or a very unstable system, where the judges are practically those in power, the ruler subject to them. Someones got to have power, and that is the ruler. They then use this to enforce the Shariah on the population, that is the duty of the government.
    Mine was a serious point. The constitution and the separation of powers serves to assure that rulers are abiding by the Sharia. Leadership can corrupt everybody. Abd al-Malik b. Marwan was a student of knowledge too in Medina for years. Rulers need to be held accountable. Unlike your understanding of modern judiciary, they are not the ruling power. They enforce the rulings of the legislative. And they too are held accountable. There is a balance of power and competencies. The ruler is the executive and has share in the legislative. If you leave the judiciary to him too, then who will hold him accountable? Nobody except God, in this world.

    A ruler will never get away with his evil or incompetance - we are Muslims remember - he will have to answer in the court of Allah Azza Wa Jal. You cannot stop every injustice in this world, and if you attempt to do so you will only cause more misery by creating new problems inadvertantly. That is the way of the Muslim, submission to Allah's will, not fighting against it and thinking you know better.

    Nevertheless, the Ulama do discuss removing the tyrant (or really disbelieving) ruler in the books of Siyasah etc. The only reason to do this would be invalidation of themselves as the Imam. Such removal is through the most traditional method possible used in Islamic and prior history - Rebellion. That is practically what has to be done, subject to planning and ensuring a minimisation of loss and a higher likelyhood for victory. This is a very last resort and is generally codemned and it is better not to rebel against the tyrant Muslim ruler but to instead be patient. Nevertheless we have many examples throughout history.

    That is our only practical mechanism, all other mechanisms are just formalities that can be ignored by someone bold/powerful enough.
    Look, you again cling to tradition here, without a point. You just dismiss opinions, because they do not have a precedence. We must seeks any new method to improve siyasa. If you think siyasa is tradition, you are completely wrong. Please genuinely reflect on this matter. If people thought like you all the time, there would not be any innovations in siyasa till our time. Rebellion is inefficient and costly, as the ulema themselves pointed out. How can you cling to it when there are ways to find new mechanisms? As the British example showed. I urge you to read about Britainสผs Glorrious Revolution for this matter. It changed much of how the king

    As for the ruler, I have already discussed his accountability
    I do not remember. Exactly this is missing to me in your position.

    it is that you try and make the argument that essentially our Khulafah are too good to immitate.

    โ€ฆ
    If you say, "Imam Abu Bakr Radiyallahu Anhu was excellent but we will not get this sort of person", you have already admitted defeat and have told me you intend to pick some incompetant. You cannot use your own incompetance O Muslims to pick a ruler as an excuse to attempt to lessen and constitutionalise the rightful power of the ruler.
    It is established that the companions were the most virtuous. Moreover, there is no norm saying the Khulafa are in charge of this or that. These may be designed by the believers in their constitution. All judges are appointed somehow. The challenge is to establish accountability in any way possible. I am not proposing any particular model. The Khulafa managed to establish accountability. The people after them did not. And we are fighting with their legacy. Sultans could kill anybody they like. This is why Tanzimat came essentially (aside from later errors like equal status for all citizens irrespective of religion, which was decreed in 1856, though de facto abandoned later).

    I thought you were trying to prove to me that the case of Sultan AbdulHamid ath-Thani being deposed was a hiccup that won't happen again. Instead are you actuallyjustifyinghis removal??
    I suppose you did not understand me. Ottoman constitutionalism was flawed, that is what caused Abd al-Hamid to be deposed, among others. Non-Muslims were involved in that move. Also, Islamic norms were not firm enough in the political tradition, allowing for hypocrites to participate in Muslimsโ€™ affairs.

    And that's what you don't get - in your utopian system of checks and balances you repeatedly assume that the Ahl al-Hall and others who you wish to call the Caliph to account won't be corrupt. You have given these people real power and stolen it from the Caliph, and yet we are supposed to believe they are not similarly held accountable? In this instance it only took your beloved Parliament, and the Shaykh al-Islam did not even wish to sign the fatwa!

    So are you going to put checks and balances on top of checks and balances? The ones checking the Sultan will require their own checks, who will require their own checks in turn. What kind of system is that? And it leads to a bloated bureacracy. Why are we paying these individuals - your wasting state expenses on a special Judge overseeing the Caliph. And who will oversee your judge?

    So why does the Sultan even need to "cooperate" (agree) with parliament in the first place? More on that later.
    My point is theoretical here, not cut to the example of Abd al-Hamid. The Ottoman parliament was ineffective, because Ottoman nationalism and the political tradition had flaws, as briefly explained above. Ideally, the sultan must cooperate with the parliament. Abd al-Hamid might have had reason in not doing it. But that is not all. He also earned the opposition of civil actors, including scholars and some Sufi tariqas. His rule was in a cloud. Nobody knew about his personality. This lead to misjudgement. A ruler needs to be visible. That is not to judge Abd al-Hamid, he might have lived in a disadvantaged context. But this is to explain the historical outcome. The sultan supported certain factions, certain tariqas to establish a support base. But this alienated at points other actors.

    Removing the Ruler


    So why was Sultan Abdul Hamid required to do the bidding of parliament? Why are you justifying his removal on the fact that he distanced himself from them? I say with confidence that there is no requirement of the Imam to obey Ahl al-Hall, whilst Ahl al-Hall have the dutyto obey the Khalifa.
    No - because the verdict of the Majlis is not binding and so does not contrain the ruler and prevent him from taking at times tought and unpopular decisions.

    I did not justify his removal. See above. As for ahl al-hall having to obey, you are basically right, though there must be consultation. But obeying is not about being submissive. Consultation is a bargain. Even the Prophet s.a.w. submitted to the youth in the Uhud battle, and he was not reprimanded but rather commended to follow up on his decision (verse 3:159). Moreover, the competencies of the leader and the majlis can be determined by the Muslims. It is not fixed.


    What was the Prophetic advice? Should we remove the Caliph when he's a tyrant for not doing what we want?

    Rather:



    'Alqamah bin Wa'il bin Hujr narrated from his father:

    "I heard the Messenger of Allah(s.a.w) while a man was asking him: 'What do you see that we should do if there are leaders over us who deny our rights, while they seek their rights?' So the Messenger of Allah(s.a.w) said: 'Listen and obey, for only they are responsible for their burdens, and only you are responsible for your burdens."'

    - Jami'at-Tirmidhi Vol. 4, Book 7, Hadith 2199; Imam at-Tirmidhi authenticated it.
    This was said due to the costliness of removing a leader. Allah knows best. The Prophet knew that Uthman r.a. was going to be deposed and killed unjustly. He might have warned against that. And Uthman r.a. was deposed in an illegitimate manner, to which the noblemen r.anhum in Medina objected. The aแธฅฤdฤซth forbidding rebellion, such as (ุŒ ู„ุงุŒ ู…ุง ุฃู‚ุงู…ููˆุง ูููŠูƒูู…ู ุงู„ุตู‘ูŽู„ุงุฉูŽ) are about fighting (qitฤl). Removing a leader through a political procedure is a different matter.
    There is much hadith on repelling injustice.

    a. Khuluf
    - ู…ุง ู…ูู† ู†ูŽุจููŠู‘ู ุจูŽุนูŽุซูŽู‡ู ุงู„ู„ู‘ูŽู‡ู ููŠ ุฃูู…ู‘ูŽุฉู ู‚ูŽุจู’ู„ููŠ ุฅู„ู‘ูŽุง ูƒุงู†ูŽ ู„ู‡ ู…ูู† ุฃูู…ู‘ูŽุชูู‡ู ุญูŽูˆุงุฑููŠู‘ููˆู†ูŽุŒ ูˆุฃูŽุตู’ุญุงุจูŒ ูŠูŽุฃู’ุฎูุฐููˆู†ูŽ ุจุณูู†ู‘ูŽุชูู‡ู ูˆูŠูŽู‚ู’ุชูŽุฏููˆู†ูŽ ุจุฃูŽู…ู’ุฑูู‡ูุŒ ุซูู…ู‘ูŽ ุฅู†ู‘ูŽู‡ุง ุชูŽุฎู’ู„ููู ู…ูู† ุจูŽุนู’ุฏูู‡ูู…ู’ ุฎูู„ููˆููŒ ูŠู‚ูˆู„ูˆู†ูŽ ู…ุง ู„ุง ูŠูŽูู’ุนูŽู„ููˆู†ูŽุŒ ูˆูŠูŽูู’ุนูŽู„ููˆู†ูŽ ู…ุง ู„ุง ูŠูุคู’ู…ูŽุฑููˆู†ูŽุŒ ูู…ูŽู† ุฌุงู‡ูŽุฏูŽู‡ูู…ู’ ุจูŠูŽุฏูู‡ู ููŽู‡ูˆ ู…ูุคู’ู…ูู†ูŒุŒ ูˆู…ูŽู† ุฌุงู‡ูŽุฏูŽู‡ูู…ู’ ุจู„ูุณุงู†ูู‡ู ููŽู‡ูˆ ู…ูุคู’ู…ูู†ูŒุŒ ูˆู…ูŽู† ุฌุงู‡ูŽุฏูŽู‡ูู…ู’ ุจู‚ูŽู„ู’ุจูู‡ู ููŽู‡ูˆ ู…ูุคู’ู…ูู†ูŒุŒ ูˆู„ูŠุณูŽ ูˆุฑุงุกูŽ ุฐู„ูƒูŽ ู…ูู†ูŽ ุงู„ุฅูŠู…ุงู†ู ุญูŽุจู‘ูŽุฉู ุฎูŽุฑู’ุฏูŽู„ู.
    ู‚ุงู„ูŽ ุฃุจูˆ ุฑุงููุนู: ููŽุญูŽุฏู‘ูŽุซู’ุชู ุนูŽุจู’ุฏูŽ ุงู„ู„ู‡ู ุจู†ูŽ ุนูู…ูŽุฑูŽ ูุฃู†ู’ูƒูŽุฑูŽู‡ู ุนูŽู„ูŽูŠู‘ูŽุŒ ููŽู‚ูŽุฏูู…ูŽ ุงุจู†ู ู…ูŽุณู’ุนููˆุฏู ููŽู†ูŽุฒูŽู„ูŽ ุจู‚ูŽู†ุงุฉูŽ ูุงุณู’ุชูŽุชู’ุจูŽุนูŽู†ููŠ ุฅู„ูŽูŠู’ู‡ู ุนุจุฏู ุงู„ู„ู‡ู ุจู†ู ุนูู…ูŽุฑูŽ ูŠูŽุนููˆุฏูู‡ูุŒ ูุงู†ู’ุทูŽู„ูŽู‚ู’ุชู ู…ุนู‡ู ููŽู„ูŽู…ู‘ูŽุง ุฌูŽู„ูŽุณู’ู†ุง ุณูŽุฃูŽู„ู’ุชู ุงุจู’ู†ูŽ ู…ูŽุณู’ุนููˆุฏู ุนู† ู‡ุฐุง ุงู„ุญูŽุฏูŠุซูุŒ ููŽุญุฏู‘ูŽุซูŽู†ูŠู‡ู ูƒู…ุง ุญูŽุฏู‘ูŽุซู’ุชูู‡ู ุงุจู’ู†ูŽ ุนูู…ูŽุฑูŽ.
    ู‚ุงู„ูŽ ุตุงู„ูุญูŒ: ูˆู‚ุฏู’ ุชูุญูุฏู‘ูุซูŽ ุจู†ูŽุญู’ูˆู ุฐู„ูƒูŽ ุนู† ุฃุจููŠ ุฑุงููุนู..

    ุงู„ุฑุงูˆูŠ: ุนุจุฏุงู„ู„ู‡ ุจู† ู…ุณุนูˆุฏ | ุงู„ู…ุญุฏุซ: ู…ุณู„ู… | ุงู„ู…ุตุฏุฑ: ุตุญูŠุญ ู…ุณู„ู…
    ุงู„ุตูุญุฉ ุฃูˆ ุงู„ุฑู‚ู…: 50
    ุฎู„ุงุตุฉ ุญูƒู… ุงู„ู…ุญุฏุซ: [ุตุญูŠุญ]
    b. Zalim
    - ู„ู…ู‘ูŽุง ูˆู‚ุนุช ุจู†ูˆ ุฅุณุฑุงุฆูŠู„ูŽ ููŠ ุงู„ู…ุนุงุตูŠ ู†ูŽู‡ุชู’ู‡ู… ุนู„ู…ุงุคูู‡ู… ูู„ู… ูŠู†ุชูŽู‡ูˆุง ูุฌุงู„ุณูˆู‡ู… ููŠ ู…ุฌุงู„ูุณูู‡ู… ูˆูˆุงูƒู„ูˆู‡ู… ูˆุดุงุฑูŽุจูˆู‡ู… ูุถุฑุจูŽ ุงู„ู„ู‘ูŽู‡ู ู‚ู„ูˆุจูŽ ุจุนุถูู‡ู… ุจุจุนุถู ูˆู„ุนู†ูŽู‡ู… ุนู„ู‰ ู„ุณุงู†ู ุฏุงูˆุฏ ูˆุนูŠุณู‰ ุงุจู†ู ู…ุฑูŠู…ูŽ ูˆุฐูŽู„ููƒูŽ ุจูู…ูŽุง ุนูŽุตูŽูˆู’ุง ูˆูŽูƒูŽุงู†ููˆู’ุง ูŠูŽุนู’ุชูŽุฏููˆู†ูŽ [ุงู„ู…ุงุฆุฏุฉ 78] . ูˆูŽูƒุงู†ูŽ ุฑุณูˆู„ู ุงู„ู„ู‘ูŽู‡ู - ุตู„ู‘ูŽู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‘ูŽู‡ู ุนู„ูŠู’ู‡ู ูˆุณู„ู‘ูŽู…ูŽ - ู…ุชู‘ูŽูƒุฆู‹ุง ูุฌู„ุณูŽ ูู‚ุงู„ูŽ ู„ุง ูˆุงู„ู‘ูŽุฐูŠ ู†ูุณูŠ ุจูŠุฏูู‡ู ุญุชู‘ูŽู‰ ุชุฃุทูุฑูˆู‡ู… ุนู„ู‰ ุงู„ุญู‚ู‘ู ุฃุทุฑู‹ุง ูˆููŠ ุฑูˆุงูŠุฉู ุซู…ู‘ูŽ ูŠู„ู‚ุงู‡ู ู…ู† ุงู„ุบุฏู ูˆูŽู‡ูˆูŽ ุนู„ู‰ ุญุงู„ูู‡ู ูู„ุง ูŠู…ู†ุนูู‡ู ุฐู„ููƒูŽ ุฃู† ูŠูŽูƒูˆู†ูŽ ุฃูŽูƒูŠู„ูŽู‡ู ูˆุดุฑูŠุจูŽู‡ู ูˆู‚ุนูŠุฏูŽู‡ู ูู„ู…ู‘ูŽุง ูุนู„ูˆุง ุฐู„ููƒูŽ ุถุฑุจูŽ ุงู„ู„ู‘ูŽู‡ู ู‚ู„ูˆุจูŽ ุจุนุถูู‡ู… ุจุจุนุถู ุซู…ู‘ูŽ ู‚ุงู„ูŽ ู„ูุนูู†ูŽ ุงู„ู‘ูŽุฐููŠู†ูŽ ูƒูŽููŽุฑููˆุง ู…ูู†ู’ ุจูŽู†ููŠ ุฅูุณู’ุฑูŽุงุฆููŠู„ูŽ ุนูŽู„ูŽู‰ ู„ูุณูŽุงู†ู ุฏูŽุงูˆูุฏูŽ ุฅู„ู‰ ู‚ูˆู„ูู‡ู ููŽุงุณูู‚ููˆู†ูŽ [ ุงู„ู…ุงุฆุฏุฉ 78 โ€“ 81 ] ุซู…ู‘ูŽ ู‚ุงู„ูŽ ูƒู„ู‘ู‹ุง ูˆุงู„ู„ู‘ูŽู‡ู ู„ุชุฃู…ุฑูู†ู‘ูŽ ุจุงู„ู…ุนุฑูˆูู ูˆู„ุชู†ู’ู‡ูˆูู†ู‘ูŽ ุนู† ุงู„ู…ู†ู’ูƒุฑู ูˆู„ุชุฃุฎุฐูู†ู‘ูŽ ุนู„ู‰ ูŠุฏู ุงู„ุธู‘ูŽุงู„ู…ู ูˆู„ุชุฃุทูุฑู†ู‘ูŽู‡ู ุนู„ู‰ ุงู„ุญู‚ู‘ู ุฃุทุฑู‹ุง ูˆู„ุชู‚ุตูุฑู†ู‘ูŽู‡ู ุนู„ู‰ ุงู„ุญู‚ู‘ู ู‚ุตุฑู‹ุง ุฒุงุฏูŽ ููŠ ุฑูˆุงูŠุฉู ุฃูˆ ู„ูŠุถุฑุจูŽู†ู‘ูŽ ุงู„ู„ู‘ูŽู‡ู ุจู‚ู„ูˆุจู ุจุนุถููƒู… ุนู„ู‰ ุจุนุถู ุซู…ู‘ูŽ ู„ูŽูŠู„ุนู†ู†ู‘ูŽูƒู… ูƒู…ุง ู„ุนู†ูŽู‡ู….

    ุงู„ุฑุงูˆูŠ: ุนุจุฏุงู„ู„ู‡ ุจู† ู…ุณุนูˆุฏ | ุงู„ู…ุญุฏุซ: ุงุจู† ู…ูู„ุญ | ุงู„ู…ุตุฏุฑ: ุงู„ุขุฏุงุจ ุงู„ุดุฑุนูŠุฉ
    ุงู„ุตูุญุฉ ุฃูˆ ุงู„ุฑู‚ู…: 1/194
    ุฎู„ุงุตุฉ ุญูƒู… ุงู„ู…ุญุฏุซ: ุฅุณู†ุงุฏู‡ ุซู‚ุงุช ุŒ ูˆุฃุจูˆ ุนุจูŠุฏุฉ ู„ู… ูŠุณู…ุน ู…ู† ุฃุจูŠู‡ ุนู†ุฏู‡ู…
    ุงู„ุชุฎุฑูŠุฌ: ุฃุฎุฑุฌู‡ ุงู„ุชุฑู…ุฐูŠ (3047)ุŒ ูˆุฃุญู…ุฏ (3713)

    Society, State and Hierarchy

    But if you give the people who elect the Caliph into power the ability to easily remove him as well, then not only do you go against the Sunnah, but you effectively make those the real people in power - the Khalifa having to obey them to not get removed.

    โ€ฆ
    What is this talk of the population choosing the leader??

    At Saqifah, who amongst the Sahabah turned up? Was the entire Ummah consulted? Did the Ummah even choose those who turned up at Saqifah? Where are these notions you have coming from? They are coming from the west and the disease you have in wanting to imitate them! How have you not learnt from what happen to our forefathers? Stop this blind appetite to immitate them.

    I have already talked about the weaknesses of democracies and republics - educating the populace to that level, giving a political education, will never work nor happen. Wake up to reality and stop delving into fantasies. What is much more likely is that you able to educate a subset of the population or bring at least a ruler educated for the job into the position. Look at the "educated" populations of the west. They educate their populations on the democratic process etc. in schools. Do they pick the best of rulers? And they have dedicated themselves to the project of "democracy" for far longer than you have even been talking about it, and they are still incapable. We observe that it is impossible to educate the masses to such an extent that they can pick the ruler themselves.

    Unless Allah so wills, you will never achieve such education.

    Moreover, what is the greatest weakness of relying on the population? Any population does not care to think about the long term future beyond what is immediately beneficial to them. They will pick a ruler who speaks to their desires. What is beneficial for society is not what the majority want - many times it is what the majority hate.

    So it is against the Sunnah of our Khulafah ar-Rashidah, Sultan Abdul Hamid whom you quoted himself has spoken of how a (democratic) parliament contrains a ruler and prevents him from ruling effectively and above all we do not find it in the Sunnah of Allah that you will achieve such a level of education.

    Government is peopleโ€™s affair, as Umar r.a. pointed out:

    - ุงู†ู‚ู„ูŽุจ ุนุจุฏู ุงู„ุฑู‘ูŽุญู…ู†ู ุจู†ู ุนูˆูู ุฅู„ู‰ ู…ู†ุฒู„ูู‡ ุจู…ู†ู‹ู‰ ููŠ ุขุฎูุฑู ุญุฌู‘ูŽุฉู ุญุฌู‘ูŽู‡ุง ุนู…ุฑู ุจู†ู ุงู„ุฎุทู‘ูŽุงุจู ูู‚ุงู„: ุฅู†ู‘ูŽ ูู„ุงู†ู‹ุง ูŠู‚ูˆู„ู: ู„ูˆ ู‚ุฏ ู…ุงุช ุนู…ุฑู ุจุงูŠูŽุนู’ุชู ูู„ุงู†ู‹ุง
    ู‚ุงู„ ุนู…ุฑู: ุฅู†ู‘ููŠ ู‚ุงุฆู…ูŒ ุงู„ุนุดูŠู‘ูŽุฉูŽ ููŠ ุงู„ู†ู‘ูŽุงุณู ูˆุฃูุญุฐู‘ูุฑูู‡ู… ู‡ุคู„ุงุก ุงู„ู‘ูŽุฐูŠู†ูŽ ูŠูุฑูŠุฏูˆู†ูŽ ุฃู†ู’ ูŠุบุตูุจูˆู‡ู… ุฃู…ุฑูŽู‡ู…
    ุงู„ุฑุงูˆูŠ: ุนุจุฏุงู„ู„ู‡ ุจู† ุนุจุงุณ | ุงู„ู…ุญุฏุซ: ุงุจู† ุญุจุงู† | ุงู„ู…ุตุฏุฑ: ุตุญูŠุญ ุงุจู† ุญุจุงู†
    ุงู„ุตูุญุฉ ุฃูˆ ุงู„ุฑู‚ู…: 413
    ุฎู„ุงุตุฉ ุญูƒู… ุงู„ู…ุญุฏุซ: ุฃุฎุฑุฌู‡ ููŠ ุตุญูŠุญู‡

    Rulership is deputyship. Rulers have power because they are deputed that power. This is about how you pledge your allegiance. Treaties can be designed as people wish. The Sahaba pledge their allegiance saying they will obey unless the ruler comes up with manifest disbelief. Yet scholars have since pointed out that a tyrannical ruler might be unseated if it is feasibly without much cost. Political institutions make that possible. As for it being easy, it is certainly easier than rebellion, but it has its procedures and rules. It is not something you do casually.

    Now the Amir is their leader, and they are not his equals, they are his subordinates. Allah has preferred Adam Alayhis Salam and his children above the creations. And he Alayhis Salam and all of them and all creations are slaves before Allah Azza Wa Jal. There is no equality. There is only acceptance and submission. Accept what Allah has made you and submit to him in Islam. With submission is an increase in faith and piety, and an increase in your true and final rank. But in this world, has Allah placed who are your betters and who have authority above you.

    The ruler is your master and commander placed in authority by decree of the One with Sole Authority.

    The ruler is a public servant, yes. He is your Shaykh, your uncle, your brother in faith, yes. He is a man and a slave of Allah like you, yes.

    But he is not your equal. He is
    not your equal. He is not your equal.
    All believers are equal. Obedience does not mean inequality. You do not get your notion of rulership from the Sharia but from Umayyad and Persianate tradition. Umayyads believed their rulership was decreed by God and they had the right to do everything. Some even believed that rulers are immune to sins. Hasan al-Basri objected to such thinking, and was declared a Qadari by them.
    Unlike that, tribal Arab tradition was egalitarian. The Sunna did insist on obedience to the leader, but also on consent and good conduct. We obey even if we donโ€™t like the policy of the ruler, as the baya affirms (ala l-makrah). Yet there is no obedience to injustice. One is entitled to protect his rights at every occasion. How can you just let the sultan kill you? This is part of the isyan mentioned. The rights mentioned in the hadith you quoted most probably point at perceived grievances of being neglected, as was the case with those opposing Uthman r.anh. See the other hadith I quoted above.
    Education


    Concerning education, it is again the Persianate influence here that you say education is not possible. They believed people are born noble and you cannot make anybody noble by education. This is genetical determinism which leads to pessimism. Many flaws can be healed with education. Also, education is about basic education. Similar to teaching the tenets of religion and Sharia. It is only extended now to understand our complex world through believersโ€™ lense. Education does not need to qualify for governance. At the end, it is only a part of the people who will govern. But they should be able to select between different Islamic parties. More work is left to the elite class, who will establish the state, the government and manage all affairs. Yet they do this as deputies of the people, whose consent they must always seek. You cannot constraint the danger of populism to democracies. Do you think the military and other autocratic institutions are free of populism? In fact, most of the leaders there are people who dominate by force, using all kinds of evil. But, as far as I have understood, you are not against election, so I donโ€™t need to argue on that point anymore.
    [1] In particular แธคฤkim al-Muแนญayrฤซ, Al-Uแนฃลซl al-sharสฟiyya fฤซ al-aแธฅkฤm al-siyฤsiyya, 2013, http://www.dr-hakem.com/Portals/Cont...1RPT0rdQ==.jsp. But also แธคฤkim al-Muแนญayrฤซ, Taแธฅrฤซr al-insฤn wa tajrฤซd al-แนญughyฤn (Beirut: al-Muสพassasa al-สฟArabiyya li-l-Dirฤsฤt wa-l-Nashr, 2009); แธคฤkim al-Muแนญayrฤซ, Al-แธคurriyya aw al-แนญลซfฤn (Kuwait: al-Muสพassasa al-สฟArabiyya li-l-Dirฤsฤt wa-l-Nashr, 2004).
    Last edited by YahyaIbnSelam; 13-03-21, 02:15 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Muhammad Hasan
    replied
    YahyaIbnSelam, in addition to the above, in response to your last point especially, please review a post I made explaining the flaws of democracy even outside of a Naqli/Scriptural paradigm.

    Originally posted by Muhammad Hasan
    Before we get into explaining what the issues with democracy are, let us be clear what is democracy. Below I will be outlining a democratic system and its flaws outside of a scriptural paradigm, just looking at them from a rational, philosopical and more empirical viewpoint. In the next post I will detail the real compatibility issues between democracy and Islamic governance.

    Democracy can be modelled into two forms or areas of application:

    Legislative Democracy and Policy-based Democracy.

    Most western forms of Democracy are both legislative and policy-based (and are not pure democracies anyway, being what is known as a "Democratic Republic"), although a proposed Islamic system of democracy would only be policy-based, legislation being handled externally (by Allah, his legislation then interpreted by the Ulama).

    Examples at attempts at 'Islamic Democracy' is the Tanzimat and post-Hamidian Ottoman Empire (i.e. under the CUP post Abdul Hamid ath-Thani), Pakistan, Afghanistan, Northern Nigeria, Malaysia, Egypt under Morsi etc. Some of these were/are work-in-progress Islamic democracies (i.e. the Hudood have not been implemented in full).

    Legislation refers to the making of law. It is known as Tashrih in Arabic.

    Political policy refers to a government forming foreign, economic and administrative policy, included but not limited to the implementation of laws (Siyasah Sharia), taxation, government structure, government employees, their wages, declaring war/ making peace treaties, tariffs etc. It is known as Siyasah in Arabic.

    Below when I refer to 'Western Democracy' I mean a Democracy that is both legislative and policy-based. When I refer to 'Islamic Democracy' I mean a Democracy that is only policy-based (the Sharia being the source of law).

    General Structure of a Democracy

    Any political system can be modelled by what Shaykh Zaid Shakir Rahimahullahu Alayhu mentions in a certain lecture of his, based off of verses of the Qur'an. We can divide the actors in a state into three categories.
    1. The Ruler or Head of State
    2. The Elite/ Aristocracy etc.
    3. The Common People.
    A democracy aims to give power (political and/or legislative) to the common people as opposed to the the Elite or the Head of State.

    Issues with Pure Democracy i.e. 'Direct Democracy'

    If we actually allow the Common People to decide then this leads firstly to ineffective governement as decisions are slower as each decision is subject to popular vote - this takes time out of the day of the government and common people (and this still remains with at some level with a democractic republic - with time to make policies delayed by the legislature needing to discuss, debate and vote on issues).

    Secondly the electorate are (to put it politely) not so well educated in statecraft and not every common person will have good judgement on what to do in a matter of economic or foreign policy etc. Brexit is a good modern example of this.

    Thirdly, the electorate if given the reigns of the state will likely go for actions beneficial in the short term to their own generations, not caring to much of later generations.

    Finally, giving these common people the power allows the majority to tyranise the minority - this devolves into what the Greeks called Ochlocracy - mob rule.

    Note that all of these issues are still present in an Islamic democracy.

    So what is the solution?

    Rather than getting all of the common people to vote on each political issue (which no country in the world - not even Switzerland which comes closest to this - does), the people can instead elect more qualified and educated representatives who will represent them on the political stage.

    Issues with Democratic Republicanism i.e. 'Indirect Democracy'

    The first issue (which in my opinion is not so much an issue as more of a ideological critique), is that a pure democrat will claim that an indirect democracy is no longer actually a democracy - rather an Elite are created (the politicians/parliamentariens/congressmen etc.) who have power vested in them. In some systems the ruler is also elected (presidential and semi-presidential) and in other systems the ruler is one of these Elite (parliamentary).

    Ultimately such a group is ultimately sovereign in a western-based democracy (at least in a parliamentary democracy, in a presidential democracy there is an attempt to balance this power between the ruler and the elite).

    The issues with this form of government are the issues are that decision making is still slow and political deadlock can stall a government and make it ineffective (again look at Brexit). It is for this reason that some key powers in most western countries e.g. power to use nuclear weapons is given to the ruler - to allow for quick and effective use without bickering (although this also causes a whole new basked of problems).

    Also this form of government now suffers from all the problems the Roman Republic faces.

    Plato envisaged the Republic as the ultimate version of government, and whilst the Greeks are certainly creative thinkers, this is yet another area that they have just gotten things wrong (both Aristotle and Plato make errors in Metaphysics too).

    The Roman Republic suffered in particular from the Populares - a group of politicians who pandered to popular wants of the common people. In our times we call them the populists and they are responsible for dragging an indirect democracy closer to a direct democratic system, where Ochlocracy (mob rule) and other issues detailed above ensue.

    In contrast to them, you had the Optimates - a group of politicians who wished to take away power/ ignore the common wishes of the electorate, handing more power to themselves and/or the rulers. Contrary to the Populares they would try and drag an indirect democracy closer to an Oligarchy/Aristocratic system. In pre-modern western politics, certain monarchists could be described in this way. However many political parties today act like this under the hood to those educated enough to see through them - why will the UK not implement the more "democracy friendly" alternative vote system, favoured by the populists? It is because of the big political parties (conservative, labour etc.) do not seek to gain.

    One also notes that partisan systems in indirect democracy will at times tend to two extremes - either there will only be two political groups or there will be many who disagree and struggle to come to a compromise.

    Stability is an issue with the Democratic Republic - most Democratic Republics historically tend to revert to autocracy after maybe some populism. (Go read up the history behind Julius Caesar etc.)

    The politically inept electorate can easily be swayed by the cosy words of the politicians, and any number of ineffective policies can be enacted.

    Finally, all democratic systems (including direct democracy) suffer from the populace valuing the Short term gains more. This means a politician cannot enact long term beneficial but short term unpopular policies. And of course we have the issue of tyranny of the majority etc.

    How does a Western Democracy compound these Issues

    Note: I have been arguing the above for both Western and Islamic democracies, but the issues are worst for a legislative democracy as it allows laws to be subject to the Zeitgeist, the whims and desires of the people, acting as a vehicle for expressing changing moral attitudes especially when religion and scripture are ignored.

    It is easier to pass laws disadvantaging and attacking the minorities e.g. see France for a good example.

    What are the general problems with any Democratic System?

    Essentially it requires a large group of people (the entire society) to be either effective administrators themselves (direct democracy) or extremely educated voters. Neither of these happen in practice, and unlike certain autocratic systems of government where you will occasional get a good ruler etc. you do not get the entire society becoming extremely sophisticated quickly.

    This is the reason why the founding forefathers of the USA tried to limit any possibility of mob rule, by systematically trying to take away power from the people. The Senate was even unelected at one point (like the UK House of Lords) - the idea being that they are hedges against populism (another example of the optimates trying to impede the populares).

    In summary democratic governments are slow, ineffective and unstable (eventually collapsing).
    Last edited by Muhammad Hasan; 10-03-21, 02:07 PM. Reason: Minor edits to post: Spelling, fixing transliteration, making an idea clearer, removing a clause, adding a sentence, appropriate use of descriptive language etc.

    Leave a comment:


  • Muhammad Hasan
    replied
    Bismillah ar-Rahman ar-Raheem,

    Below is a reply I never got to post to you. I had written up most of it more than a few months ago, but I didn't finish it till today, as the time I've spent on the forum has been taken up by engaging with sectarian polemics etc.


    Before I post my reply to what YahyaIbnSelam has posted, first I will just post his first post on this and my original reply that he then responded to (my new response to this written below).

    YahyaIbnSelam said:

    Originally posted by YahyaIbnSelam
    Muhammad Hasan Mine was a response to the three points made by the speaker in the video whereby he asserted that democracy is illegitimate. I did not defend democracy as an efficient system yet. I would like to know which way you want to ensure justice and integrity an autocratic rule, also the way a leader comes to reign and is possibly replaced.

    Democratic tools are certainly legitimate, as seen in Abdurrahman b. Awf' seeking out the opinion of the Medinese people on Uthman and Ali. Radiyallahu anhuma.

    As for the constitution. Regardless of whether the Medinese charter should be counted as such, there existed an informal constitution in Islam since the beginning. That is the enforcement of Sharia law and ruling in accordance with the ordinances of Islamic government. This is contained in the Medinese charter where arbitration is reserved to the Messenger of Allah s.a.w.

    Regardless of the political regime we prefer, there must be a strog Islamic judiciary that vigilates the enforcement of Sharia and the preservation of rights. The classical institution of al-mazalim should be upgraded to a constitutional court that guards the Sharia. Otherwise I do not mind how the imam is instated and replaced (or not replaced, at least not regularly).
    I replied:

    Originally posted by Muhammad Hasan

    The example of Abdurrahman bin Awf Radiyallahu An does not establish any legitimacy for democracy - it establishes legitimacy for Shura which is a different concept with fundamental inconsistencies with democracy.

    The Charter is a treaty. An informal and/or uncodified constitution is not a constitution. There have been attempts in the past of certain rulers to enforce a document (like the Muwatta of Imam Malik etc.) on the populace - examples are found in the Mughal Empire and a rather bad example of this is also found near the end of the Ottoman Empire (the Mecelle). The Ulama have always opposed such codification and it restricts the ability for the Ulama to give contextual fatawa, limits or rather annihilates difference of opinion, reduces the ability to perform Ijtihad (internal to a Maddhab) in fiqh overriding previous Mu'tamad positions etc.

    As for a constitution it is a western concept whereby a legally binding document of law establishes the basic nature of the state and establishes different laws and rights - this is Tashrih and a completely Batil concept and I oppose any who seek to force such ideas into an Islamic discourse. We managed without it for most of Islamic history and such a thing helped destroy the last Khilafah - do you seriously want to resurrect the exact thing that helped destroy us the last time?



    I have not gotten to it yet, but I will be arguing that democracy as a political (not just legislative) regime is unislamic - I've only argued its flawed above to discuss it as a general idea removed from scriptural sources (and as a reminder to people that any democratic system is heavily flawed - and yes I mean more flawed than an autocratic system which can be the best system possible under certain circumstances).

    Why would you need a constitutional court to guard the Sharia unless you are allowing for independent legislation? Where is the Ulama and the Madahib and the Usuli scholars in all of this? Keep the Mazalim/Juraim as it is - a Siyasah court where the ruler can enforce policy, deal with a subset of disputes coming under his purview (like rebellion etc.), and to deal with the corruption of state employees etc.

    Having a "constitutional court" (western concept) guard the Sharia does not prevent a powerful secular military leader coming along and doing what he wants. If he has military power he can do everything. What are you going to do - give military power to the courts??

    We need to stop trying to put the Judiciary above the ruler, the Judiciary are subject to and appointed by the ruler as has always been the case (yes they can call the ruler to court etc. that's not what I mean).

    Who will otherwise appoint your judiciary? Think - are you just solving the problem by giving more power to the Judiciary until it is essentially the Judiciary running the country? Having a system where the Imam can be removed etc. is important, but not at the expense of creating another ruling class who combine such executive and judicial power. This is creating an aristocracy and giving power to the elite from the ruler.
    To this he has written a response to which I will now respond to:

    Originally posted by YahyaIbnSelam


    1. Limiting the power of the imam: constitution and judiciary.

    A constitution is "The fundamental law, written or unwritten, that establishes the character of a government by defining the basic principles to which a society must conform" (https://legal-dictionary.thefreedict...ion+(political)).

    In this sense, the Medinese charter is a constitution. Constitutions are also treaties; between the ruler and the ruled. It being a Western word (the tradition is arguably universal) does not detract its legitimacy, for, the diwan was also Persian! What speaks for it is the dire need for it.

    Did not al-Mawardi and others elaborate the duties of the imam? This goes into the constitution. Is not he responsible to enforce the Sharia? This goes into the constitution. We are enjoined to write down treaties, and the imamate certainly is a treaty. It is deputyship, wakala. And I may depute on condition.

    You take the history as an example, yet do you not see that it did not work well, that people infringed on men's rights, and that the ulema were at times powerless to intervene? Not all rulers are like the Rashidun. Regardless of how far you are going to push such traditionalism, you certainly cannot argue that things were always perfect. Hence, every measure taken to improve things is commendable. This is siyasa shar'iyya.

    Same with codifying the law. It is strange that you vigorously champion a strong one man's rule, yet at the same time object to his imposing a uniform law (in muamalat, siyasa and uqubat, not ibadat) onto his subjects. Majalla was a necessary adaptation to an efficient modern statecraft and those like Hasan Fehmi Efendi who opposed it were wrong on this matter. Also striking is that the madhahib you champion are themselves formal institutions that are the result of the Abbasid's need for legal uniformity. What intrinsic value do schools have? Is it rijhan? Then why restrict further, continuous ijtihad on past issues? Noโ€ฆ uniformity is exactly the reason why the Ottomans and others protected the schools. That is why a qadis was forced to rule by his school, to ensure legal stringency and security. If a uniform system is more efficient, why stick to a four-tier system then? All mujtahids are musib. Also there is few difference between allowing people to consult qadis from a different madhhab for expediency in muamalat and altogether decreeing a uniform law that keeps with the interest of the community.

    As for the judiciary... Is not the Sharia above the ruler? Nobody may infringe upon it, so the judiciary necessarily and by default is above the ruler. We need procedures to ensure compliance with Sharia law. Selims and Suleymans may obey the sheikhulislam, but how are Murads to be stopped who execute people for drunkenness and smoking? How is Selim II. to be lashed for drinking? Separation of powers is necessary. This may be derived from the ruling that the imam is not obeyed over disobedience to Allah. And the constitution will clarify on this matter. The army and the police, the executive, all are committed to the constitution. Denying the constitution means supporting an absolute monarchy, which is tughyan. And this never was the case in Islamic history. So your objection rests with the wording.

    Umar appointed judges, because he was as pious as they were. Ali subjugated himself to the court of Sharia, but who else will do wholeheartedly? There is no incentive to have the rule appointing judges.

    Your case of Abdulhamid II. being deposed by the judiciary is reasonable, but there is some flaw to it. First of all, the ascendance to the throne of a pious caliph has been overly random, as is the case in all hereditary monarchies. Secondly, Ottoman constitutionalism was not ideal, because it included non-Muslims. Thirdly, Abdulhamid II. was isolated and did not cooperate with the parliament, meaning he was wholly separated from the supposed โ€œahl al-hallโ€, as can be seen in the deposition fatwa, where incredible accusations are made against him, such as disrespecting the religion and burning books. In an ideal, non-hybrid system, rulers are elected from among the ahl al-hall, and naturally a trusted relationship ensues. It is also worth mentioning that the sultan said he closed the parliament until the education of the populace is raised, which is brilliant. Because if the law is known, the people are educated and choose a capable leader, harmony ensues. As for the flaws you see In democracy of inefficiency and the like, donโ€™t you think a presidential system with much power to the leader could solve it?


    My New Response


    Originally posted by YahyaIbnSelam


    1. Limiting the power of the imam: constitution and judiciary.

    A constitution is "The fundamental law, written or unwritten, that establishes the character of a government by defining the basic principles to which a society must conform" (https://legal-dictionary.thefreedict...ion+(political)).

    In this sense, the Medinese charter is a constitution. Constitutions are also treaties; between the ruler and the ruled.
    That is not what the charter of Madinah did - go and actually read it - it does not establish the character of government at all, it does not define the basic principles a socity must confirm to - rather that is embedded in the Qur'an and Sunnah.

    If you are so hell bent on comparing the Islamic political system to that of the Kuffar, then at least compare it to the British constitutional system - does Britain have a written constitutional document? No. It has a series of documents and also unwritten conventions which collectively approximate a constitution but there is no one document that does this. Arguably from the Islamic point of view one could argue the Qur'an is the closest thing we have to a constitution - and even that as a document does not explicitly spell out the fundamental structure of a state entity. Rather the fundamental nature of the state is written down in multiple Ayat and Ahadith and then after that in multiple works of Fiqh and Siyasah (as secondary interpretations) of the primary sources of law (the Qur'an and Sunnah).

    If you force a constitution of people you create a document of law that is infallible that constrains and prevents dissenting opinion - this is what the Ulama throughout history have tried to avoid - it limits the power of the Fuqahah and Qudah to voice whatever valid opinion they derive by way of usul from the Qur'an and Sunnah.

    Arguably making such a document which is forced and carries such legal effect is Tashrih - especially if any of the clauses are not found in nor derived from the Qur'an and Sunnah (which in your case they would be like that). Then you will get works interpreting this constitution in the manner that the Qur'an and Sunnah is interpreted - did Allah command us to follow you and your constitution or did he tell us to follow and obey RasulAllah Salallahu Alayhi Wa Salam?

    RasulAllah Sallahu Alayhi Wa Salam commanded us to follow the Khulafah ar-Rashidah (and Sahabah in general) - did they ever have a constitution? Rather a constitution creates rigidity and their rule was adhocratic.

    (Also note that if the Charter of Madinah is reliably attributed to RasulAllah Sallahu Alayhi Wa Salam as some of the ulama have said, then it too is a source of law - as a literal written source of the Sunnah - and so the articles need to be examined and looked at even today to at least derive fiqh in congruence to it).

    Originally posted by YahyaIbnSelam
    It being a Western word (the tradition is arguably universal) does not detract its legitimacy, for, the diwan was also Persian!
    It is a western concept, not word. And no the tradition is not universal, the vast majority of states throughout history have not had a constitution.

    I have made the argument previously that the Diwan did not replace anything - rather it built on what was there. Your constitution and other things you call for actively oppose and go against the Sunnah including the Sunnah of the Khulafah ar-Rashida.

    Really this want of a constitution shows a fanatical obsession with the west, wanting to adopt their systems and views. This mindset is exactly what destroyed the last Khilafah, do you want to destroy the next one before it is even made? What made us great (in the materialistic/dunyawi sense) was a political system which was based off of the earliest generations and particularly the Sahabah - do you want us to abandon the Sunnah and adopt what is in opposition to it, hoping to find in that a solution?

    Then you say that we were using inferior systems from the start - so the Islam is not fit for all generations of history, rather it can and does need reform according to you when better systems are found.

    What's worst is you haven't actually critically examined what is there from the Islamic viewpoint - you've ignored our own institutions (including the Diwan which was not in contradiction to us) - you have assumed what Islam has historically had to offer is inferior.

    Originally posted by YahyaIbnSelam
    What speaks for it is the dire need for it.
    What dire need?

    The majority of states throughout history have not had a written constitution. Did the Mongols who invaded us have such a constitution? No. Did the various chinese dynasty have such a constitution? No.

    Subhanallah we Muslims have gone from the people that all the people of the worlds look at to figure out how they should structure their own governments (as the US did with the Ottoman Empire) to people who are now begging for the inferior systems of a people who do not even know how to clean their own rear ends!

    Originally posted by YahyaIbnSelam
    Did not al-Mawardi and others elaborate the duties of the imam?
    Excellent, you have mentioned Imam al-Mawardi (ash-Shafi'i al-Mu'tazili). Now he wrote a work known as Ahkam al-Sultaniyyah which is a work of Fiqh and Siyasah which interprets the Qur'an and Sunnah and derives therefrom ahkam including the duties of the Imam. We encourage such works and your movements should look back at such works for reference.

    But if someone takes al-Mawardi's work and re-writes it to make it a constitutional document which is forced upon a nation then we completely oppose that and that is not what Imam al-Mawardi intended. Did other people after Imam al-Mawardi write such tracts? Of course. Can you implement the ahkam derived from Nass found in other works instead? Yes. So we are allowed to disagree with al-Mawardi.

    So will you allow your constitution to be written as an unfixed work which multiple people write with different content and perhaps differing ahkam based of differing usul, with scholars coming later writing such works etc? Of course not. So they are not the same.

    If a ruler wants to himself implement the Ahkam in a particular work then that is his perogative.

    In summary your appeal to Imam al-Mawardi's Ahkam goes against the very nature of a constitution. Yes I agree - works of Fiqh and Siyasah should be written, even and especially in our era - and rather than writing a constitution perhaps these so-called "Islamist" groups should be focusing on that or discussions based off of that (or maybe the Ulama should, and the Islamists should listen to them in that). But that would mean respecting the traditional Ulama and learning, which such groups show distaste for.

    Originally posted by YahyaIbnSelam
    This goes into the constitution. Is not he responsible to enforce the Sharia? This goes into the constitution. We are enjoined to write down treaties, and the imamate certainly is a treaty. It is deputyship, wakala. And I may depute on condition.
    Such things are written in works of Siyasah and Fiqh, not in constitutions. The ruler should follow what is in those works and the Ulama's understanding of them.

    Originally posted by YahyaIbnSelam
    You take the history as an example, yet do you not see that it did not work well, that people infringed on men's rights, and that the ulema were at times powerless to intervene? Not all rulers are like the Rashidun. Regardless of how far you are going to push such traditionalism, you certainly cannot argue that things were always perfect. Hence, every measure taken to improve things is commendable. This is siyasa shar'iyya.
    First of all, what you have described is not Siyasa Shariyyah - Siyasah Shariyyah relates particularly to the implemention of the Shariah by the ruler including Hudood.

    E.g.
    The Shariah says X must be executed as he has been found guilty in a court of law.

    There is a drought.

    Siyasah Shariah says we do not execute X right now due to the drought.
    If I am pushing "traditionalism" then you admit you are pushing "modernism".

    The reason I push such "traditionalism" is because I respect such "traditions" and realise they are superior to what you calling to (and I realise that what you are calling to causing bigger problems), and more importantly that they do not contradict the Qur'an, Sunnah and the way of the Khulafah ar-Rashidah - rather they are according to them.

    As for problems, it would be of immature of you to think we can create some kind of perfect utopian system - perfection is for the next world. In this world the best systems are unattainable (rule by the Prophets Alayhim Salam), so any system we do use will of course have flaws. It takes (intellectual) maturity and appreciation of different political systems to realise this.

    The question is, where and in what area is the flaw? That is something you can control for. There are some systems that are less flawed and are the best overall - and one of those systems is autocratic rule by the Imam without a constitution.

    The Ulama should always speak against the rulers who are tyrannical, and advise them to what is better - this is from the Sunnah of RasulAllah Salallahu Alayhi Wa Salam and it is the rulers who are being tested by Allah.

    Originally posted by YahyaIbnSelam
    Same with codifying the law. It is strange that you vigorously champion a strong one man's rule, yet at the same time object to his imposing a uniform law (in muamalat, siyasa and uqubat, not ibadat) onto his subjects. Majalla was a necessary adaptation to an efficient modern statecraft and those like Hasan Fehmi Efendi who opposed it were wrong on this matter.
    What I argue for is what I derived from our Islamic history and from the Sunnah of the Prophet Alayhis Salatu Was-Salam and the Sahabah.

    When Caliph Al-Mansur performed the pilgrimage, he called Malik and said, โ€œI am determined to have several copies made of these books of yours. I will send a copy to every region in the lands of the Muslims and I will command them to adhere to its contents without referring to any other, and they will set aside everything but this new knowledge.โ€

    Malik replied: O Amir al-Muminin, do not do this, for the people have received sayings, heard narrations, and transmitted various accounts. Each people adheres to what it has received and acts by it. They deal with their differences accordingly and, indeed, to turn them away from their beliefs would be very difficult, so leave the people with what they are upon and with what the people of every country has chosen for themselves.

    - Jamiโ€™ Bayan Al-โ€˜Ilm of Imam Ibn Abdul Barr (al-Maliki), Translation from Here

    (Note: I do not own the work myself nor can I find an archived copy of it online.)
    It is not for the Amir to force an interpretation on Fiqh upon the subjects, as this will cause more division than unity. Even Khatam an-Nabiyyin Salallahu Alayhi Wa Salam, the living Wahy, would not always do this (the famous incident of ikhtilaf between the Sahabah where the Prophet Salallahu Alayhi Wa Salam stayed silent). Moreover, the codification of law leads to a document or documents other than the Qur'an and Sunnah having primacy and you will turn to interpretation of your constitutional documents over interpretation of the Qur'an and Sunnah. Moreover you are inventing for yourself documents superior to the Qur'an and Sunnah, whether you realise it or not.

    Rather take the differences already there that are valid, and accept them and allow for difference of opinion.

    Do not force one fiqhi interpretation on others who hold valid interpretations (leading to monolithic religion and people not being able to criticise or adopt what they view as better positions based off of evidence), nor go to the other extreme of having so many jurists/Mujtahid making new opinions on things at every moment, rehashing old weak opinions, but rather follow the middle path of the Madahib. Compare Sunni Islam to Ibadi and Ja'fari/Usuli Shi'i Islam - what are the differences in fiqh? Compare Islam to Judaism and Christianity - complete decentralisation and interpretive free-for-all vs complete centralisation and rigid conformity. Islam is in the middle - you have traditional Madahib - only a few - which give some structure and restriction, but not so much that Ulama cannot revise views based off of evidences etc.

    Take the Middle Path. The Ulama and the Rulers should be seperate - as according to the Hadith of RasulAllah Alayhis Salatu Was-Salam regarding the ruler and the Ulama. Even when the Ruler acts upon his capacity as a Mujtahid, he does not do so and force his Ijtihad on the next rulers or on his subjects who might hold differing views, unless those subjects hold clear-cut deviation etc. Look at the Sunnah of our righteous four Khulafah - look at the differences in their rule and their disagreements with each other. They even disagreed on the structures of the state - why are you asking for even such structures to be codified in law??

    You are strangling the adhocratic nature of the Islamic State and forcing it to comply to your western notions of constitution and constitutionalism. The path of the Sahabah is better. The path of the Prophet Muhammad Salallahu Alayhi Wa Salam is better.

    Originally posted by YahyaIbnSelam
    Also striking is that the madhahib you champion are themselves formal institutions that are the result of the Abbasid's need for legal uniformity.
    You think that the Madahib are Abassid institutions??!

    They arose from the previous Madahib of the Sahabah, the Hanafi Madhab itself is derived from the older Masudi Madhab i.e. based off of the fiqh and usul of the great Faqih Abdullah Ibn Mas'ud Radiyallahu Anhu. You had people doing Taqlid in the time of the Sahabah to the Mujtahid Imams, and the Prophet Alayhis Salatu Was-Salam would even send a Sahabi into a region for the others to do Taqlid upon, and he would ensure his Usul were correct before that.

    I strongly recommend you read this piece by a scholar who I have met, who I disagree with in certain matters, and yet who I think gives a very objective view of the Madahib and the history of Ijtihad vs Taqlid.

    The Madahib if anything were a pushback against the Abbasid who would have loved a fully codified document they can enforce (as I have evidenced from the above exchange between al-Mansur and Imam Malik Rahimullah Alay - a scholar prophesised by RasulAllah Salallahu Alayhi Wa Salam), instead they were forced to pick between semi-codified Madahib which restricted political control of the interpretation of Islam, which is what you are calling for.

    Originally posted by YahyaIbnSelam
    What intrinsic value do schools have? Is it rijhan? Then why restrict further, continuous ijtihad on past issues? Noโ€ฆ uniformity is exactly the reason why the Ottomans and others protected the schools. That is why a qadis was forced to rule by his school, to ensure legal stringency and security. If a uniform system is more efficient, why stick to a four-tier system then? All mujtahids are musib. Also there is few difference between allowing people to consult qadis from a different madhhab for expediency in muamalat and altogether decreeing a uniform law that keeps with the interest of the community.
    No the Madahib can and do frequently change the Mu'tamad from earlier positions, you're a Hanafi, how do you not know this??

    My father told me that my grandfather was asked to give fatwa in the case of a woman who's husband had gone missing. He explained that the view in the early period of the (Hanafi) Madhab was that she would have to wait an extraordinary amount of time and only then can the marriage be anulled (100+ years, cannot remember the exact number). But the Mu'tamad position changed in the later Madhab which is now the same as the Maliki (and other's) position.

    In the example given in the other thread, we noticed in the earlier period of the Madhab, there were many fuqahah giving the verdict that Abortion is unconditionally permitted prior to ensoulment, and yet the later scholars do not adopt that.

    And many issues are like this, especially in our Hanafi school, and also in the other schools. Didn't Taqiuddin Ibn Taymiyyah and Ibn Rajab have a large impact on the fiqh/usul al-fiqh of the later Hanbali Madhab? It is like this for all of the schools, even and especially the Shafi'i and Maliki schools. How you don't know this is beyond me. Why do you think we have verifiers in the Madahib (e.g. like Imam al-Abidin etc.) in the first place?

    There are also unsuccesful attempts to change the Rajih/Mu'tamad positions and this shows practically that the Madahib are living and breathing, but also strict traditions. So I agree they are to a degree stringent upon not re-exploring old disputes as some issues have been explored with the Usul of the school to death in the past, and a firm position has been established based off of evidence from the Qur'an and Sunnah. This is a positive of the school - they don't keep on bickering on bygone issues that they have formed an agreement on. They scrutinise and then accept, they do not scrutinise and keep and scrutinise for the sake of more scrutiny - the modern Hanafi faqih has better things to be doing than re-analysing Rafa ul-Yadain, like applying new Ijtihad based off of Usul and older position on new issues like Artificial Wombs.

    Yes having the semi-codified Madahib is more beneficial for an Islamic government than having e.g. what the Usuli Shi'a or the modern pseudo-Salafi have (which is chaotic and makes Islamic governent hard to enforce). You do need some degree of stability. However this must not be taken to the other extreme, and that is what implementing a fully codified document does, it essentially restricts Ijtihad and kills difference of opinion by making a new Ijtihad which everyone has to follow. This is against the Sunnah of the Sahabah Radiyallahu Anhum. In the end this means we are no longer following the Qur'an and Sunnah, we hold your interpretation above that and we say your interpretation is infallible and has to therefore be followed by everyone.

    Then you will develop interpretation of your document instead of interpretation of the Qur'an and Sunnah, people will analyse the grammar of your document and all sorts (like western Judges do in countries with a Common Law system, they interpret the constitution and their interpretations become a form of law itself), instead of doing so with the Qur'an as they do and have done throughout history.

    In the end, you will only cause more dissension in forcing your document upon others, as Imam Malik has said, so the entire point of it (unity) is defeated. Don't follow the two extremes (contemporary absolute Ijtihad vs absolute codification), follow the middle path we have always taken. Accept valid differences of opinion, don't try and crush them. It is the best of both worlds.

    Originally posted by YahyaIbnSelam
    As for the judiciary... Is not the Sharia above the ruler?
    Brother we are having serious discussion here. This is not the place for childish notions. Obviously whilst the ruler is subject to Allah's laws like the rest of us (i.e. the Sharia is above the ruler), and whilst the likes of Imam Ali KarramAllahu Wajhahu showed this practically, we mustn't forget the most fundamental fact here:

    The Shariah is enforced and implemented by the ruler.

    That is what Siyasah ash-Shar'iah is. The ruler enforcing and implementing the Shariah. If you try and change this, all you are doing is shifting where the power lies and are creating a less efficient or a very unstable system, where the judges are practically those in power, the ruler subject to them. Someones got to have power, and that is the ruler. They then use this to enforce the Shariah on the population, that is the duty of the government.


    Originally posted by YahyaIbnSelam
    Nobody may infringe upon it, so the judiciary necessarily and by default is above the ruler. We need procedures to ensure compliance with Sharia law. Selims and Suleymans may obey the sheikhulislam, but how are Murads to be stopped who execute people for drunkenness and smoking? How is Selim II. to be lashed for drinking? Separation of powers is necessary. This may be derived from the ruling that the imam is not obeyed over disobedience to Allah. And the constitution will clarify on this matter. The army and the police, the executive, all are committed to the constitution. Denying the constitution means supporting an absolute monarchy, which is tughyan. And this never was the case in Islamic history. So your objection rests with the wording.
    A ruler will never get away with his evil or incompetance - we are Muslims remember - he will have to answer in the court of Allah Azza Wa Jal. You cannot stop every injustice in this world, and if you attempt to do so you will only cause more misery by creating new problems inadvertantly. That is the way of the Muslim, submission to Allah's will, not fighting against it and thinking you know better.

    Nevertheless, the Ulama do discuss removing the tyrant (or really disbelieving) ruler in the books of Siyasah etc. The only reason to do this would be invalidation of themselves as the Imam. Such removal is through the most traditional method possible used in Islamic and prior history - Rebellion. That is practically what has to be done, subject to planning and ensuring a minimisation of loss and a higher likelyhood for victory. This is a very last resort and is generally codemned and it is better not to rebel against the tyrant Muslim ruler but to instead be patient. Nevertheless we have many examples throughout history.

    That is our only practical mechanism, all other mechanisms are just formalities that can be ignored by someone bold/powerful enough.

    Originally posted by YahyaIbnSelam
    Umar appointed judges, because he was as pious as they were. Ali subjugated himself to the court of Sharia, but who else will do wholeheartedly? There is no incentive to have the rule appointing judges.
    I mean what is this? Your brothers-in-arm tell me that you emphasise the Qur'an and Sunnah, and are not averse to Islamic History and that you wish to create a state in the mold of the Khulafah ar-Rashidah - then why are you actually giving me points for why you shouldn't follow the Khulafah ar-Rashidah?? You are admitting their Sunnah then abandoning it.

    What has it reached us that our Nabi Salallahu Alayhi Wa Salam said?

    Narrated Al-'Irbad bin Sariyah:

    "One day after the morning Salat, the Messenger of Allah (๏ทบ) exhorted us to the extent that the eyes wept and the hearts shuddered with fear. A man said: 'Indeed this is a farewell exhortation. [So what] do you order us O Messenger of Allah?' He said: 'I order you to have Taqwa of Allah, and to listen and obey, even in the case of an Ethiopian slave. Indeed, whomever among you lives, he will see much difference. Beware of the newly invented matters, for indeed they are astray. Whoever among you sees that, then he must stick to my Sunnah and the Sunnah of the rightly guided Khulafa', cling to it with the molars.'"

    - Jami'at-Tirmidhi Vol. 5, Book 39, Hadith 2676; Imam at-Tirmidhi authenticated it.
    So this quote used by the ps.Salafis was given in relation to this matter - how ironic it is that you try and make the argument that essentially our Khulafah are too good to immitate.

    My brother.

    You must pick a Khalifah who is suitable for the job, not just any old person. They should be one who will then select the Judiciary and hold them accountable. As for the ruler, I have already discussed his accountability and that we are not to establish some kind of system that shifts power from him.

    If you say, "Imam Abu Bakr Radiyallahu Anhu was excellent but we will not get this sort of person", you have already admitted defeat and have told me you intend to pick some incompetant. You cannot use your own incompetance O Muslims to pick a ruler as an excuse to attempt to lessen and constitutionalise the rightful power of the ruler.

    Originally posted by YahyaIbnSelam
    Your case of Abdulhamid II. being deposed by the judiciary is reasonable, but there is some flaw to it. First of all, the ascendance to the throne of a pious caliph has been overly random, as is the case in all hereditary monarchies.
    I am glad you see sense in my example of Sultan AbdulHamid.

    So when the ruler is not ostensibly pious we should remove them? Look at the worst of the Khulafah, look at Yazid and his successors (disc. Umar bin Abdul Aziz Rahimahullahu Alayh) - they were the worst of the tyrants and yet they were effective in spreading the frontier of Islam.

    Moreover, this point of yours is discounted when we consider that the system you should be arguing for is to elect/appoint the Caliph via a Majlis ash-Shura, not hereditary rule which is sub-optimal and not in accordance with the Sunnah of the Khulafah ar-Rashidah.

    Originally posted by YahyaIbnSelam
    Secondly, Ottoman constitutionalism was not ideal, because it included non-Muslims.
    I mean this is a throw away statement.

    What are you trying to prove here? Let's review - I made to you the point that Abdul Hamid ath-Thani being deposed is evidence of how a pious ruler can and is removed in such a system you devise. I thought you were trying to prove to me that the case of Sultan AbdulHamid ath-Thani being deposed was a hiccup that won't happen again. Instead are you actually justifying his removal??

    There are lots of things wrong with Ottoman Constitutionalism, not limited to the removal of the Millet/Dhimmi system. There are key components of it that I am saying you are imitating. Stating that "Ottoman Constitionalism is not what we are doing as they did X wrong which we promise not to do" is meaningless - it doesn't answer my point - my point was that the attempt to curtail and constitionalise the power of the Caliph is exactly what got him removed from office, and a powerful party to whom the power had shifted achieved this. And this is exactly what you are trying to do!

    Mentioning the removal of the Dhimmi system has nothing to do with anything.


    Originally posted by YahyaIbnSelam
    Thirdly, Abdulhamid II. was isolated and did not cooperate with the parliament, meaning he was wholly separated from the supposed โ€œahl al-hallโ€, as can be seen in the deposition fatwa, where incredible accusations are made against him, such as disrespecting the religion and burning books.
    Why does he need to cooperate with parliament? Again what kind of point are you making? It is as if you are defending the constitutionalists against the Imam, saying he did not co-operate and therefore it is his fault that they lied against him, accusing him of defacing something that he commisioned himself! Then later after his death and everything has gone to wreck they turn around and apologise, after realising the reality of Attaturk.

    And that's what you don't get - in your utopian system of checks and balances you repeatedly assume that the Ahl al-Hall and others who you wish to call the Caliph to account won't be corrupt. You have given these people real power and stolen it from the Caliph, and yet we are supposed to believe they are not similarly held accountable? In this instance it only took your beloved Parliament, and the Shaykh al-Islam did not even wish to sign the fatwa!

    So are you going to put checks and balances on top of checks and balances? The ones checking the Sultan will require their own checks, who will require their own checks in turn. What kind of system is that? And it leads to a bloated bureacracy. Why are we paying these individuals - your wasting state expenses on a special Judge overseeing the Caliph. And who will oversee your judge?

    So why does the Sultan even need to "cooperate" (agree) with parliament in the first place? More on that later.

    What was the Prophetic advice? Should we remove the Caliph when he's a tyrant for not doing what we want?

    Rather:

    'Alqamah bin Wa'il bin Hujr narrated from his father:

    "I heard the Messenger of Allah(s.a.w) while a man was asking him: 'What do you see that we should do if there are leaders over us who deny our rights, while they seek their rights?' So the Messenger of Allah(s.a.w) said: 'Listen and obey, for only they are responsible for their burdens, and only you are responsible for your burdens."'

    - Jami'at-Tirmidhi Vol. 4, Book 7, Hadith 2199; Imam at-Tirmidhi authenticated it.
    It has been narrated on the authority of 'Auf b. Malik that the Messenger of Allah (๏ทบ) said:

    The best of your rulers are those whom you love and who love you, who invoke God's blessings upon you and you invoke His blessings upon them. And the worst of your rulers are those whom you hate and who hate you and whom you curse and who curse you. It was asked (by those present): Shouldn't we overthrow them with the help of the sword? He said: No, as long as they establish prayer among you. If you then find anything detestable in them. You should hate their administration, but do not withdraw yourselves from their obedience.

    - Sahih Muslim 1855a
    So why was Sultan Abdul Hamid required to do the bidding of parliament? Why are you justifying his removal on the fact that he distanced himself from them? I say with confidence that there is no requirement of the Imam to obey Ahl al-Hall, whilst Ahl al-Hall have the duty to obey the Khalifa.

    Originally posted by YahyaIbnSelam
    In an ideal, non-hybrid system, rulers are elected from among the ahl al-hall, and naturally a trusted relationship ensues.
    I don't disagree with electing the ruler from the Majlis (by the Majlis), as we saw in the Sunnah of most of our Khulafah ar-Rashidah. But if you give the people who elect the Caliph into power the ability to easily remove him as well, then not only do you go against the Sunnah, but you effectively make those the real people in power - the Khalifa having to obey them to not get removed. What an awful system - we obey the Amir, one ruler - and we will kill whoever else claims to be the ruler - the Amir has no requirement to obey the Majlis, as seen from the time of the Khulafah ar-Rashidah.

    Originally posted by YahyaIbnSelam
    It is also worth mentioning that the sultan said he closed the parliament until the education of the populace is raised, which is brilliant. Because if the law is known, the people are educated and choose a capable leader, harmony ensues.
    And when the Ottomans went to war with Russia, the same Sultan Abdul Hamid felt that the parliament constrained him, and made him less able to do what he wanted - which is one of my points. A Majlis Ash-Shura in and of itself is part of the Sunnah - but did the Majlis hold the Khulafah ar-Rashidah back? No - because the verdict of the Majlis is not binding and so does not contrain the ruler and prevent him from taking at times tought and unpopular decisions.

    What is this talk of the population choosing the leader??

    At Saqifah, who amongst the Sahabah turned up? Was the entire Ummah consulted? Did the Ummah even choose those who turned up at Saqifah? Where are these notions you have coming from? They are coming from the west and the disease you have in wanting to imitate them! How have you not learnt from what happen to our forefathers? Stop this blind appetite to immitate them.

    I have already talked about the weaknesses of democracies and republics - educating the populace to that level, giving a political education, will never work nor happen. Wake up to reality and stop delving into fantasies. What is much more likely is that you able to educate a subset of the population or bring at least a ruler educated for the job into the position. Look at the "educated" populations of the west. They educate their populations on the democratic process etc. in schools. Do they pick the best of rulers? And they have dedicated themselves to the project of "democracy" for far longer than you have even been talking about it, and they are still incapable. We observe that it is impossible to educate the masses to such an extent that they can pick the ruler themselves.

    Unless Allah so wills, you will never achieve such education.

    Moreover, what is the greatest weakness of relying on the population? Any population does not care to think about the long term future beyond what is immediately beneficial to them. They will pick a ruler who speaks to their desires. What is beneficial for society is not what the majority want - many times it is what the majority hate.

    So it is against the Sunnah of our Khulafah ar-Rashidah, Sultan Abdul Hamid whom you quoted himself has spoken of how a (democratic) parliament contrains a ruler and prevents him from ruling effectively and above all we do not find it in the Sunnah of Allah that you will achieve such a level of education.

    Originally posted by YahyaIbnSelam
    As for the flaws you see In democracy of inefficiency and the like, donโ€™t you think a presidential system with much power to the leader could solve it?
    No.

    Call me an elitist if you wish. The greatest lie that the west has taught you people is in answering in the affirmative to the following:

    Do you think that men being born equal must be equally free, that all distinction between men is unjust, that each ought to be the master of his own opinion and his own manner of living?

    Then you have the imputence to say that we are brothers and friends with the Kuffar, our interests uniting us, and that we share the same way of life.


    That is liberalism then that you follow, as described by one of the commanders of the Muslims. Forget such notions the disbelievers corrupted us with and return to the way of Muhammad Salallahu Alayhi Wa Salam.

    There is no way acceptable but Islam.

    For man born upon the Fitra, is raised into different situations. The disbeliever is inferior to the believer. And amongst the believers there are those of action, those of knowledge and those of rulership. Some are distinguished in nobility, others are distinguished in wealth, and others still are distinguished in profession. Some are servants, slaves and workers for others, who are the dignataries, masters and managers.

    But there is no distinguishment in skin colour. Allah has made us into tribes and nations to recognise each-other.

    True superiority is only in the sight of Allah, and piety is its measure.

    Now the Amir is their leader, and they are not his equals, they are his subordinates. Allah has preferred Adam Alayhis Salam and his children above the creations. And he Alayhis Salam and all of them and all creations are slaves before Allah Azza Wa Jal. There is no equality. There is only acceptance and submission. Accept what Allah has made you and submit to him in Islam. With submission is an increase in faith and piety, and an increase in your true and final rank. But in this world, has Allah placed who are your betters and who have authority above you.

    The ruler is your master and commander placed in authority by decree of the One with Sole Authority.

    The ruler is a public servant, yes. He is your Shaykh, your uncle, your brother in faith, yes. He is a man and a slave of Allah like you, yes.

    But he is not your equal. He is not your equal. He is not your equal.

    So my brother, ponder and do not write a refutation nor later scholarly interpretation nor any resistance to this verse:

    O you who have believed, obey Allah and obey the Messenger and those in authority among you. And if you disagree over anything, refer it to Allah and the Messenger, if you should believe in Allah and the Last Day. That is the best [way] and best in result.

    (Sahih International's Interpretation of al-Qur'an, Surah an-Nisa, Ayah 59)
    Submit and you are one of the submitters.

    Leave a comment:


  • Muhammad Hasan
    replied
    On the Subject of Sultan Abdul Hamid ath-Thani, the last of the Khulafah to have any real power

    (1/3)



    (2/3)



    (3/3)




    Leave a comment:

Collapse

Edit this module to specify a template to display.

Working...
X