To Those who are pro Khilafat

[Salahuddin]

True, we can bring religion into the state but bringing religion into politics would be society destruction

The Qur’an clearly and directly asks all human beings to surrender to God(Allah) in
complete submission and accept His guidance in every field of activity. “Oh you who
believe! Enter into Islam fully and whole-heartedly, and follow not the footsteps of Satan,
for he is to you an avowed enemy,”(2:208). Because Islam is a complete way of life this
Divine Guidance is for all matters private and public, political and economic, social and
cultural, moral and legal.

In the Godless secular nations they require a separation of religion and state. Politics is to
be made free from religious influence. In Islam politics is a necessary element of the
religious domain. Allah has told us He is to be the sole determiner of what is right and
lawful. “Command is for none but God; He has commanded that you obey none but Him
– that is the right path,”(12:40). And, “If any do fail to establish and rule by what God has
revealed, they are the unbelievers, the unjust or the evil doers,”(5:44,45,47)

What has a secular political system given the Western world? Admittedly, it has allowed
them to gain great wealth, power and technological expertise; but, at what expense?
Their secularism has brought with it skepticism in thought, confusion in values,
expediency in standards, vulgarity in behaviour, and opportunism in diplomacy. Modern
man has learned to fly through the air like a bird and swim through the oceans like a fish,
but he has failed to learn how to live on the Earth like a human being.

The political system in Islam is to help those it governs be successful in the practice of a
right Islamic way of life. “And grant from Thee a ruling authority as an aid for
me,”(17:80). An Islamic world society cannot have a secular political system. For the
Islamic world to exist there must be an Islamic State.

It is not difficult to define an Islamic State. An Islamic State is one, which opts to conduct
its affairs in accordance with the revealed guidance of Islam, which accepts the
sovereignty of God in all matters, and devotes its efforts and resources to ensuring the
existence of a right society living in accordance with the Will of God.



http://www.islamic-world.net/islamic-state/index.htm


Only Allah has right to make laws not you and me..

 

[Salahuddin]

The secular way of life with its detachment of God from state and its values of freedom and man-made law have resulted in an epidemic of problems that not only plague the western world but also the Muslim world.

Ideas such as freedom of expression have allowed the woman's body to become nothing but an economic commodity used in the entertainment, beauty, and advertising industry to sell products, not to forget the multi-billion pornography industry. It has also allowed racist organisations to function freely in society and propagate their racial hatred in the name of freedom of thought.

Personal freedom has resulted in a man feeling that he can rape a woman with no accountability to himself as well as abuse a woman if he so wishes. According to Home office figures in the U.K. 1 in 20 women have been raped. According to the BMA 1 in 4 women face domestic violence.

Freedom of ownership has allowed the multibillion capitalist companies and capitalist companies to exploit the world - leaving countries in abject poverty as a result of the enormous interest loans.

With such a reality is it not each of our duties as human beings - Muslim or non-Muslim to re-consider whether there is an alternative political ideology and system that can provide true harmony and protection for all human beings? We present Islam as this alternative ideology and the Islamic history as a testimony of the ability of the Islamic state to take care of the affairs of all people, Muslim and non-muslim, to truly integrate together all people and provide an environment of security and honour.

 

[Salahuddin]

It was/is attempted.

Neither did the Khilafah spread Islam by force, nor destroy civilisations. When Islam spread to Egypt, many Coptic Christians did not embrace Islam, and today they still number approximately 7 million. Likewise, when India was opened up to Islam, the inhabitants were not coerced into accepting Islam. India today has a population of more than 750 million Hindus.

Compare this to extermination of Muslim and Jews in the courts of the Spanish Inquisitors during the much-coveted European renaissance. Those Jews that survived this Spanish holocaust, were warmly welcomed by the Ottoman Caliphate. In Islamic Spain they flourished and became important members of the Islamic society.

Today the world has more to fear from the destructive nature of western values than WMD in the hands of Muslims. In the past these values were enforced upon nations either through direct colonial rule or through tyrannical regimes loyal to the West. Presently, the greatest danger-facing mankind is the constant threat of the West imposing its values on the rest of the world through its own WMD.

 

[Quwa]

The Caliphate will only work if it is run by real Muslims; in this world the number of truly devout and pious Muslims who can make a difference is VERY small.

 

[Salahuddin]

The Caliphate will only work if it is run by real Muslims; in this world the number of truly devout and pious Muslims who can make a difference is VERY small.

lol how can you judge 1.6 bn people, are you saying we dont have 1 sincere muslim to lead us? Prophet said there will be allways good in my ummah till the day of judgement..

 

[Quwa]

lol how can you judge 1.6 bn people, are you saying we dont have 1 sincere muslim to lead us? Prophet said there will be allways good in my ummah till the day of judgement..

If there are 1000 ignorant and blind people - how will one good person lead them? If there is a hall of corrupt immoral swines - how can one pious person lead them? Did you not read Plato's Allegory In The Cave? My friend - if we had one person preach equality, moral laws, spread of wealth and hard work; will that person ever lead?

There are good people in this Ummah - no doubt; if there were not any good people, then the Ummah would have fallen and Muslims would have ceased to exist by now. However - wake up; a strong political system needs strong political followers - like it or not, the potentially strong political followers are mostly immoral swines. No matter how good one person is - they would need an army of good people to make a difference; one can only expect that through a social revolution.

Now, I know that only one in perhaps one million would ever dare to participate in a proper social revolution! How many of the poor are willing to stand up against the corrupt? How many of the blessed are willing to properly exploit their advantages for the betterment of those bellow them? How many able to learn are willing to learn something that others tell them is wrong?

See my friend, unless there is a social revolution - a change of thinking - the Muslim Ummah will not be able to re-achieve their Caliphate. For every Caliphate required a mass number of strong thinkers, brave lion hearted warriors and sympathetic comrades; something that barely exists in the Muslim World in big numbers. For the Westerners needed a Renaissance - for they needed to learn from who they considered deep down as infidels and swines in order to become strong.

Are Muslims like yourself willing to learn the so-called sins of the West?

 

[Sid]

Thats the thing, Mr Salahuddin thinks from his heart like most fanatics and not his 'brain'; or atleast that is the impression I get from reading his posts so far.

I'd advice him to read some Political Science material and how society as well as democracy developed in the western world before taking cheap shots at it. Every society has its pros and cons, right now, as much as it would hurt Mr Salahuddin, the western society has more pros than cons.

The Muslim world has been stagnant with the fundamentalists crying out for Khilafat from time to time but they are speechless when you ask them if they have an alternative way to progress and prosperity of the masses instead of the western model of democracy that they reject. Lets be frank, Khilafat is no longer a practical option.

 

[KashifAsrar]

If there are 1000 ignorant and blind people - how will one good person lead them? If there is a hall of corrupt immoral swines - how can one pious person lead them?

How you concluded that all the so called ignorant, blind corrupt immoral swines will be die-hard fanatics. By self-concluding the silent majority of righteous people, what you are doing. Just trying to scientifcally discourage a right minded person from leading a renaissance struggle. You would not succeed. Not because I belive so, but because your assumptions are quite wrong and false.

Did you not read Plato's Allegory In The Cave? My friend - if we had one person preach equality, moral laws, spread of wealth and hard work; will that person ever lead?

We have Quran and Ahadeeth!. And we the Indo-Pak muslims have another jem with us. The philosphy of Allama Iqbal. We, atleast now, do not need Plato.

However - wake up; a strong political system needs strong political followers - like it or not, the potentially strong political followers are mostly immoral swines. No matter how good one person is - they would need an army of good people to make a difference; one can only expect that through a social revolution.

That is what the your 'A Good Person' is all about. good people, however small they are in number, require only one leader to change the entire system.

Now, I know that only one in perhaps one million would ever dare to participate in a proper social revolution! How many of the poor are willing to stand up against the corrupt? How many of the blessed are willing to properly exploit their advantages for the betterment of those bellow them? How many able to learn are willing to learn something that others tell them is wrong?

Your knwoldge is wrong. Let one faithfull and fearless leader come up and see the change of these very people. Don't go far away. Gandhi, how so ever political he was, was atleast not corrupt and lead a massive numbers of followers, right in the country where pakistan once was.

See my friend, unless there is a social revolution - a change of thinking - the Muslim Ummah will not be able to re-achieve their Caliphate. For every Caliphate required a mass number of strong thinkers, brave lion hearted warriors and sympathetic comrades; something that barely exists in the Muslim World in big numbers. For the Westerners needed a Renaissance - for they needed to learn from who they considered deep down as infidels and swines in order to become strong.

Quite true. But the way you reached this conclusion is quite negative and wrong, to say least.

Are Muslims like yourself willing to learn the so-called sins of the West?

Not only that we need to learn from the sins of the Muslim Ummah as well, dear.
Kashif

 

[Awesome]

Barking doesnt do much, proove HT has ever commited any violent act.

Cheering on terrorists is equally bad.

Barking? Looks like you're not enjoying your stay here on, PFF.

 

[Skeptic786]

Thanks for the info Skeptic.

Again my point stands though. If the said Hizb-Tahreer were sincere in establishing a Khilafah they would plan long term. And as Asim said they would be tolerated if they didn't have a violent platform. There are groups in Pakistan that are trying to educate more and more people about the fundamentals and are not into politics but they are a minority.

your welcome.

anyway the questions you raised at the top of the thread i once myself put them to a hizb-tahreer activist.......to say the least the debate with him was heated and ended on both of us parting on the agreement to disagree with one another. He never talked to me again on Islam and generally avoided me as much as possible.

 

[Awesome]

Neither did the Khilafah spread Islam by force, nor destroy civilisations. When Islam spread to Egypt, many Coptic Christians did not embrace Islam, and today they still number approximately 7 million. Likewise, when India was opened up to Islam, the inhabitants were not coerced into accepting Islam. India today has a population of more than 750 million Hindus.

I'm talking about much more recent occurrences in Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan and by Al Qaeda as a whole.

Saudi Arabia enforces it's Islam onto its people. Guys hanging out in the neighborhood during prayer timings are picked up by the infamous black GMC Van and driven to a nearby mosque to pray. How screwed up is that? If they don't want to pray then they don't want to pray. They have to answer to God themselves.

In Taliban's rule it was decided to do the same and take it a step higher and people were also enforced to keep beards.

In Al Qaeda's mission plan there are plans to bomb random non-Muslims to spread Islam.

I know, if you argue (I hope) that these are not examples of Islam I'd agree. But ever lunatic idealist of Islam claims for it to be Islam and gathers momentum as well. This version of religion is not Islam, just means to grant power to the clergy class.

You know who ruled like that? Jews and Christians, since common people weren't religion literate and depended upon a clergy class for guidance. In Islam you have a beautiful option through the mandatory requirement to gain knowledge which empowers you to make your own choices about what religion IS and you want to throw that power away into the hands of the clergy?

Why? Can't you read the Quran? You've quoted (only) loosely relevant ayahs, so I'm guessing you can. Make your own interpretations, its poetic but not impossible for an adult person to figure it out.

I can understand why the illiterate masses would cling to clergy mob bosses of groups like HT, since they can't read and write. 9/10 of us Muslims can't read or write. But you obviously can. Your efforts should be to spread literacy not some long forgotten governance system that saw it last (even though it was long in decline much earlier) in 1924.

You don't want to climb the ladder step by step. You leap and you fall.

 

[niaz]

In my opinion, the main problem is that when people think of khilafat. They have khilafate-e Rashida in mind. I saw a TV program with Dr Javed Iqbal and Prof Israrul Haq. In this it was agreed that you cannot have a repeat of the period similar to those of the rightly guided Khalifas because the 'Tazkia Nafs' or purification of soul which occurred because of companionship of the holy prophet(PBUH) is neither possible or present today.

Khailfas after the initial four, except Hazart Omer bin Abdul Aziz, were Khalifa's only in name, they were actually autocratic kings defined in Arab hisory as 'Maliks' just Saudi ruler is styled as Mailk. Turkish Khalifas were definitely no way near in character one would imagine in Allah's viceregent on earth. These Turkish sultans ,who later styled themselves as Khalifas simply because their name was mentioned in the Friday prayers at Mecca and Medina were just powerful and ruthless kings. Any one with slightest knowldge of history will know of the palace intrigues and other unislamic practices during their regimes. Abdul Wahab, founded the Wahabi movement to get rid of the Ottomon Khalifas from Arabia. Do we really want such a rule to be re introduced? Aren't we better off without the likes of Mulla Omer as our Amirul Momeneen?

 

[Salahuddin]

Bush attacks the imminent return of the Caliphate

uploaded 14 Oct 2006


London, UK, October 11 – At a press conference at the White House today, President Bush, spoke of a "world in which extremists are trying to intimidate rational people in order to topple moderate governments and to extend the caliphate." Referring to the American presence in the Middle East , he said, "And they want us to leave. And they want to topple government. They want to extend an ideological caliphate that has no concept of liberty inherent in their beliefs."

Responding to Bush's comments, Imran Waheed, media representative of Hizb ut-Tahrir Britain , said, "Bush has confirmed once again that what Britain and America are fighting in the name of the 'war on terror' is the Islamic political system or Caliphate. Bush is continuing the propaganda campaign of Western governments that maligns the political work in the Muslim world for establishing the Caliphate by equating it with fanaticism and violence."

"Bush and his allies are now in a state of desperation as millions of Muslims, from Turkey to Indonesia are calling for the return of the Shariah and the Caliphate to replace the corrupt dictators, monarchs and kings that have been loyally serving the West ever since they destroyed the Caliphate in 1924. Having failed to face the Islamic movement intellectually and politically and realising the inevitability of the return of the Caliphate on the world stage, Western governments have launched a worldwide war against Islam and the political work for the Caliphate."

 

[Thunder]

In my opinion, the main problem is that when people think of khilafat. They have khilafate-e Rashida in mind. I saw a TV program with Dr Javed Iqbal and Prof Israrul Haq. In this it was agreed that you cannot have a repeat of the period similar to those of the rightly guided Khalifas because the 'Tazkia Nafs' or purification of soul which occurred because of companionship of the holy prophet(PBUH) is neither possible or present today.

Khailfas after the initial four, except Hazart Omer bin Abdul Aziz, were Khalifa's only in name, they were actually autocratic kings defined in Arab hisory as 'Maliks' just Saudi ruler is styled as Mailk. Turkish Khalifas were definitely no way near in character one would imagine in Allah's viceregent on earth. These Turkish sultans ,who later styled themselves as Khalifas simply because their name was mentioned in the Friday prayers at Mecca and Medina were just powerful and ruthless kings. Any one with slightest knowldge of history will know of the palace intrigues and other unislamic practices during their regimes. Abdul Wahab, founded the Wahabi movement to get rid of the Ottomon Khalifas from Arabia. Do we really want such a rule to be re introduced? Aren't we better off without the likes of Mulla Omer as our Amirul Momeneen?

Yaar klifia law, aka you pick a person who has the most knowledge in terms of religon, who can lead, who has knowledge about today's world and problams, a guy who knows about ecomany and how to run it propely, and person who knows/can lead a army. ETC. If a perso has these quilities, he is quilfy to be the klifia,

 

[Awesome]

No link. Next time you post something without a link your message is being deleted.

About Bush, Ha! Your version of Khalifah IS so crazy that he can easily state "THIS is what Khalifah is. No democracy, no freedom.".