‘US-based group working to establish caliphate’

[rameez ahmed]

I am strongly anti Khilafat for the following reasons;

1.The ‘Tazkia Nafs” or cleanliness of the soul that happened to the people during the rime of our Holy Prophet (PBUH) was thru divine intervention and presence of a ‘Nabi’ in their midst. This is no longer the case.

2.The true Khilafat ended with the Rashideen. What we call Khilafat afterwards was actually a kingship or ‘Malukiet’. There was only one other Khalifa (Omer bin Abdul Aziz) after the Rashideen. All other
leaders were Maliks not Ameer ul Momineen. Remember Yazid was a Khailfa too! How can there be two Khalifaas at one time (Abbasids in Baghdad & Umayyad in Spain)? Pray tell me which was the true one?

3.There were also Fatimid Khilafaas as Khutba in Mecca was preached in their name for nearly two hundred years. Were Khalifaas in Baghdad usurpers during that time?

4.Turkish Khlifaas were at first Sultans and after they captured Hijaz they titled themselves Khalifa. How can Ummah follow a ruler no matter how immoral if all he has to do is to capture Hijaz by force and have Khutba declared in his name?

I ask all lovers of Khilafat to kindly research personal character of the Spanish, Abbasid, Fatimid and Ottoman Khalifaas before they try to force their view down our throat. If they think that they can get likes of Abu Bakr (RA), Omer (RA), Osman (RA) or Ali (RA) from the current crop of lying and cheating bigots, I will say that they are living in cuckoo land. Two of my heroes, Allama Iqbal as well as Quaid e Azam were also anti Khilafat IMO for the same reasons.

Yes Khilafat will eventually return with the Mehdi, but by then most us will be dead and thus would be of no benefit to us.

Agreed with you in many paragraphs of your post....

the hadith I stated in my above post clearly categorizes these Fatmids, Abbasids, Ottomans, etc as kingdoms.. This is agreed by Islamic Scholars that these were only Kingdoms...

But I just want to say that, the Institution of Khilafat was presented till the Ottoman Empire .. Their Khilafat was not at all Similar to that of Hazrat Abu Bakr , Umar , Usman and Ali (May Allah be pleased with all of them).... They were just Kingdoms who protected the Institution of Khilafat after the Four Pious Khalifahs.... This protection ended in 1924 and we Muslims entered in the Fourth Era that was stated by Holy Prophet (SA)...

But the Khilafat stated by Holy Prophet (SA) in the Last age (the age in which we are living) , to be Similar to that of Hazrat Abu Bakr (RA), Umar (RA) , Usman (RA) , Ali (RA) and not that of the Empires that followed their Khilafat...

So I think Brother you should not be Anti-Khilafat now because, the khilafat that will come now InshaAllah will be Similar to the Khilafat of the Four Pious Khalifahs , and not that of the Kingdoms that followed it....

As for your Last paragraph, I want to say that we really don't know whether we will live enough to see that Khilafat, because life and death is in Allah's hand Only.... But as Muslims now it is Obligatory on us to spread the information of the Beautiful Era that is coming for Muslims, because majority of Muslims are unaware of these facts ...

When will it come?? its knowledge is with Allah alone... But through the Signs given by Holy Prophet (SA), we can say that Undoubtedly its very close.... So right now we should spend some of our efforts to spread this message... Its not at all reasonable to say whether its beneficial for us now, because Allah will give us great rewards on the day of Judgment for spreading this Information about the Khilafat that is to come soon...

If we don't get the benefits of Khilafat in this world and we die before seeing it , InshaAllah we will get rewarded it in the Afterlife for spreading this message as far as our capabilities and resources permits us to spread it.... Not even a single good deed will be wasted on the Day of Judgment brother..

 

[Muhammad-Bin-Qasim]

Agreed with you in many paragraphs of your post....

the hadith I stated in my above post clearly categorizes these Fatmids, Abbasids, Ottomans, etc as kingdoms.. This is agreed by Islamic Scholars that these were only Kingdoms...

But I just want to say that, the Institution of Khilafat was presented till the Ottoman Empire .. Their Khilafat was not at all Similar to that of Hazrat Abu Bakr , Umar , Usman and Ali (May Allah be pleased with all of them).... They were just Kingdoms who protected the Institution of Khilafat after the Four Pious Khalifahs.... This protection ended in 1924 and we Muslims entered in the Fourth Era that was stated by Holy Prophet (SA)...

But the Khilafat stated by Holy Prophet (SA) in the Last age (the age in which we are living) , to be Similar to that of Hazrat Abu Bakr (RA), Umar (RA) , Usman (RA) , Ali (RA) and not that of the Empires that followed their Khilafat...

So I think Brother you should not be Anti-Khilafat now because, the khilafat that will come now InshaAllah will be Similar to the Khilafat of the Four Pious Khalifahs , and not that of the Kingdoms that followed it....

As for your Last paragraph, I want to say that we really don't know whether we will live enough to see that Khilafat, because life and death is in Allah's hand Only.... But as Muslims now it is Obligatory on us to spread the information of the Beautiful Era that is coming for Muslims, because majority of Muslims are unaware of these facts ...

When will it come?? its knowledge is with Allah alone... But through the Signs given by Holy Prophet (SA), we can say that Undoubtedly its very close.... So right now we should spend some of our efforts to spread this message... Its not at all reasonable to say whether its beneficial for us now, because Allah will give us great rewards on the day of Judgment for spreading this Information about the Khilafat that is to come soon...

If we don't get the benefits of Khilafat in this world and we die before seeing it , InshaAllah we will get rewarded it in the Afterlife for spreading this message as far as our capabilities and resources permits us to spread it.... Not even a single good deed will be wasted on the Day of Judgment brother..

I disagree with your statements...

The Hadith does not state Kingdoms as you are implying... They are talking about a BITING RULING... They are to be considered Caliphate as long as their is pledge by the Muslims to one leader... This pledge cannot be an enforced pledge and thus the pledge for Yazid is termed invalid and he is not considered a Khaleefah... The others in the Ummayad, Abbasids, Ottomans were all given this pledge by Ahl ul Aqd and by the end of the Caliphate by Sheikh ul Islam... These are all valid in Islam as long as they are not enforced...

The Biting Ruling reference is for the hereditary nature of the Caliphate that it became after the Rashideen which was obviously wrong because Family is no criterion for quality rather it should be merit and administrative capability... It should be noted however that many of our Caliphs were excellent administrators including Mawviya bin Sufyan, Umar Bin Abdul Aziz, Haroon Ur Rashid, The Caliph at the time of Sultan Salahuddin, Sultan Fatih, Sultan Abdul Hameed Han are just some of the examples...

There is absolutely no agreement between the scholars that the Caliphate ended with the Rashideen... Infact it is a minority opinion of the likes of Modoodi of Jamaat e Islami...

As for the last point... Yes... we shall see Caliphate in our life times inshaAllah... I wish sometimes I could tell people the things I know... but then they wont remain a secret... shhhhhh

Good night all

 

[Muhammad-Bin-Qasim]

I am strongly anti Khilafat for the following reasons;

1.The ‘Tazkia Nafs” or cleanliness of the soul that happened to the people during the rime of our Holy Prophet (PBUH) was thru divine intervention and presence of a ‘Nabi’ in their midst. This is no longer the case.

2.The true Khilafat ended with the Rashideen. What we call Khilafat afterwards was actually a kingship or ‘Malukiet’. There was only one other Khalifa (Omer bin Abdul Aziz) after the Rashideen. All other
leaders were Maliks not Ameer ul Momineen. Remember Yazid was a Khailfa too! How can there be two Khalifaas at one time (Abbasids in Baghdad & Umayyad in Spain)? Pray tell me which was the true one?

3.There were also Fatimid Khilafaas as Khutba in Mecca was preached in their name for nearly two hundred years. Were Khalifaas in Baghdad usurpers during that time?

4.Turkish Khlifaas were at first Sultans and after they captured Hijaz they titled themselves Khalifa. How can Ummah follow a ruler no matter how immoral if all he has to do is to capture Hijaz by force and have Khutba declared in his name?

I ask all lovers of Khilafat to kindly research personal character of the Spanish, Abbasid, Fatimid and Ottoman Khalifaas before they try to force their view down our throat. If they think that they can get likes of Abu Bakr (RA), Omer (RA), Osman (RA) or Ali (RA) from the current crop of lying and cheating bigots, I will say that they are living in cuckoo land. Two of my heroes, Allama Iqbal as well as Quaid e Azam were also anti Khilafat IMO for the same reasons.

Yes Khilafat will eventually return with the Mehdi, but by then most us will be dead and thus would be of no benefit to us.

I ll take the point about two Khulafah... one in Iraq and other in Spain...

Dont blame the Ummayad who survived the viciousness of Sifah the first of the Abbasid Caliphs... but because people gave pledge to the Abbasids and their bayah was before the bayah of the Ummayad AbdurRahman... this makes the Abbasid valid and Ummayad as rebel...

The Abbasid Caliph even sent a man to Spain to get pledge from the Ummayad there but he sent back the chopped head of the ambassador... obviously angry at what the Abbasids had done to his family!!!

Anyway... all this goes to show that they were not Caliphates on the method or mercy of the Prophethood... The one we want (and I think Rameez has said this) is a Caliphate on the method of the Prophet saw...

 

[architect_cobb]

I disagree with your statements...

The Hadith does not state Kingdoms as you are implying... They are talking about a BITING RULING... They are to be considered Caliphate as long as their is pledge by the Muslims to one leader... This pledge cannot be an enforced pledge and thus the pledge for Yazid is termed invalid and he is not considered a Khaleefah... The others in the Ummayad, Abbasids, Ottomans were all given this pledge by Ahl ul Aqd and by the end of the Caliphate by Sheikh ul Islam... These are all valid in Islam as long as they are not enforced..

Do you mean pledge by :-
1) All the muslims?
2) Some of the muslims?
3) Certain qty of muslims?

SInce in case you are chosing "all the muslims" none after the first three caliphs qualify. Even Hazrat Ali was not fully agreed upon, cause Amir Muawiya rebelled.

Later on during abbassids not the whole of the muslim world pledged, Khawarizam(Central Asia), Iran and India were never a part of it neither was spain and Maghreb.

Same was the case with Fatimis and later ottomans.

.

The Biting Ruling reference is for the hereditary nature of the Caliphate that it became after the Rashideen which was obviously wrong because Family is no criterion for quality rather it should be merit and administrative capability... It should be noted however that many of our Caliphs were excellent administrators including Mawviya bin Sufyan, Umar Bin Abdul Aziz, Haroon Ur Rashid, The Caliph at the time of Sultan Salahuddin, Sultan Fatih, Sultan Abdul Hameed Han are just some of the examples...

Correction Salahud din was not a caliph. Neither did he feel like reporting to one. He was an independent Sultan reigning 1171-1193. During this period the caliphs were:-
# Al-Mustadi 1170–1180
# An-Nasir 1180–1225

There is absolutely no agreement between the scholars that the Caliphate ended with the Rashideen... Infact it is a minority opinion of the likes of Modoodi of Jamaat e Islami...

As for the last point... Yes... we shall see Caliphate in our life times inshaAllah... I wish sometimes I could tell people the things I know... but then they wont remain a secret... shhhhhh

Good night all

Neither am I seeing a caliphate in our lifetimes, nor is there any love lost for monarchy in the muslim world. So best of luck!!!!

 

[Muhammad-Bin-Qasim]

Do you mean pledge by :-
1) All the muslims?
2) Some of the muslims?
3) Certain qty of muslims?

SInce in case you are chosing "all the muslims" none after the first three caliphs qualify. Even Hazrat Ali was not fully agreed upon, cause Amir Muawiya rebelled.

Later on during abbassids not the whole of the muslim world pledged, Khawarizam(Central Asia), Iran and India were never a part of it neither was spain and Maghreb.

Same was the case with Fatimis and later ottomans.


Correction Salahud din was not a caliph. Neither did he feel like reporting to one. He was an independent Sultan reigning 1171-1193. During this period the caliphs were:-
# Al-Mustadi 1170–1180
# An-Nasir 1180–1225




Neither am I seeing a caliphate in our lifetimes, nor is there any love lost for monarchy in the muslim world. So best of luck!!!!

For someone who posts his first message here, you seem to be very interested in the topic...

Right... No where did I say ALL the MUSLIMS... I said the existence of a pledge having taken place... This was fulfilled upto 1924 after which there has never been a pledge... I specifically mentioned who gave the pledge... and never mentioned all the Muslims...If you read it again perhaps you ll be able to pick it up a second time...

Correction? you want to correct where no mistake has taken place? My dear... Read what I wrote once again... I said "the Caliph" at the "time of Sultan Salahuddin"... which would mean that Sultan Salahuddin was not the Caliph rather there was another Caliph at the "time of Salahuddin"... lol

btw for your info... Salahuddin was not a self appointed leader of the Army rather he was given full authority as Ameer ul Jaish by the Caliph himself...

Lastly... You do not see the Caliphate coming because you do not know that we have already penetrated forces at multiple levels and know for a certainty that it will come back... We pray that it comes back in our life time but since we do not know about our Ajal we are happy to have worked for it... thank you for wishing me luck anyway... Luck has nothing to do with it... Its already written and we know it...

 

[architect_cobb]

For someone who posts his first message here, you seem to be very interested in the topic...

Right... No where did I say ALL the MUSLIMS...

and thats why you were asked whether it is all the muslims? A majority of muslims? or some other formula?

I said the existence of a pledge having taken place...

This was fulfilled upto 1924 after which there has never been a pledge... I specifically mentioned who gave the pledge... and never mentioned all the Muslims...If you read it again perhaps you ll be able to pick it up a second time...

I picked it up the first time and it doesn't make sense so again who and how many have to take the pledge. Yazid also got the pledge by some and so did Mullah Omar. is that the only condition if thats so we have potential millions if not billions of candidates of caliphate among muslims. Every tom dick and harry can get a pledge of a few and claim his own caliphate?

Correction? you want to correct where no mistake has taken place? My dear... Read what I wrote once again... I said "the Caliph" at the "time of Sultan Salahuddin"... which would mean that Sultan Salahuddin was not the Caliph rather there was another Caliph at the "time of Salahuddin"... lol

my bad so correction rescinded.

btw for your info... Salahuddin was not a self appointed leader of the Army rather he was given full authority as Ameer ul Jaish by the Caliph himself...

He was given authority when Salahuddin was all too powerful already and the caliph had little choice left. And how Salahuddin came to power was not through appointment by caliphate but a lot of political tussle to state it politely. But thats another discussion I am more than willing to have but in a separate thread.

Lastly... You do not see the Caliphate coming because you do not know that we have already penetrated forces at multiple levels and know for a certainty that it will come back... We pray that it comes back in our life time but since we do not know about our Ajal we are happy to have worked for it... thank you for wishing me luck anyway... Luck has nothing to do with it... Its already written and we know it...

Are these forces of caliphate or forces of Voldemort that no one but a few know about? If it is written it is luck but that discussion I would leave for another thread as well. Here lets focus on Caliphate.

 

[Muhammad-Bin-Qasim]

and thats why you were asked whether it is all the muslims? A majority of muslims? or some other formula?




I picked it up the first time and it doesn't make sense so again who and how many have to take the pledge. Yazid also got the pledge by some and so did Mullah Omar. is that the only condition if thats so we have potential millions if not billions of candidates of caliphate among muslims. Every tom dick and harry can get a pledge of a few and claim his own caliphate?

my bad so correction rescinded.

He was given authority when Salahuddin was all too powerful already and the caliph had little choice left. And how Salahuddin came to power was not through appointment by caliphate but a lot of political tussle to state it politely. But thats another discussion I am more than willing to have but in a separate thread.



Are these forces of caliphate or forces of Voldemort that no one but a few know about? If it is written it is luck but that discussion I would leave for another thread as well. Here lets focus on Caliphate.

My dear

If you read what I write carefully, you ll find answers to most of your questions... Yazid was not given pledge by the will of the people rather it was taken by force... Ameer Mawviyah ordered two soldiers to follow all the important Sahabah RA of that time and told the soldiers that if they dont give the pledge for his son Yazid, they should kill them!!! So because pledge has to be given by the will of the people, this pledge was null and void and Yazid is not considered a Caliph... later Ummayads however were given pledge with the will of the people... they were capable administrators and this is enough for leadership... They were vicious in their personal animosity but they continued to apply Islam on the population... No where will you see in Ummayad or Abbasid history that they enforced Riba on the people... or taxed people for anything other than what Islam permits to be taxed... You have to make a distinction between personal and general... Discussions of statecraft become petty when you start taking personal issues into it...

Islam does NOT require pledge to a Caliph by ALL Muslims... however the existence of a pledge is a Fard e Ayn i.e an established and necessary obligation upon Muslims... Muslims cannot be without an Ameer for more than three days and two nights... It is of such a vital importance that the Sahabah delayed the burial of the Prophet saw until Abu Bakr was selected as Ameer... It is labelled a Fard e Kifayah in fiqh and if the population is negligent towards this obligation then all Muslims share the burden of sin... The Sunnah and Ijma of Sahabah has plenty of details for this... One can also recommend a successor however one cannot force pledge for the successor from the people like it was done for Yazid...

Mullah Omar was never given pledge as Ameer of Muslims... He was the leader of the Taliban and he himself refused to accept any pledge as Ameer ul Momineen when certain people offered it to him... it would have been silly anyway... He did call himself the leader of the Islamic emirate of Afghanistan however... there is no such thing as a nationalistic islamic state anyway... Islamic state exists for all Muslims or does not exist at all if it defines itself according to Shia, Sunni, Afghan, Pakistani dimensions...

The tom dick and harry comment shows that you do not understand how politics works in the world... consider this... How many people chose Musharaf as leader of Pakistan? answer... three corps commanders... It was enough for Musharaf... It shall be enough for the return of the Caliphate... People who think they can get a pledge by a few of no political importance around them may claim to be Caliphs... someone could prescribe them some medications however...

He was given authority when Salahuddin was all too powerful already and the caliph had little choice left. And how Salahuddin came to power was not through appointment by caliphate but a lot of political tussle to state it politely. But thats another discussion I am more than willing to have but in a separate thread.

There is no discussion needed on this... You are merely speculating about the historical facts... If Salahuddin had such greed for being Caliph he could have taken that title for himself also as you yourself suggest that he was way too powerful for the Caliph himself...

The issue is straight forward... Salahuddin may God bless his good soul had no desire for ruling, rather this capability was as a military commander which he used to unite all Muslims against the evil Crusaders and liberated Jerusalem once again for the flag of Islam to be raised there... Allah Akbar!!!

As for your last point... Its obvious and plain and simple... We cannot mention names obviously because our enemies are hell bent on preventing the rise of the Islamic State... we see Munafiqeen all around us at all times... Do you really think we can trust every tom dick and harry with such sensitive information and cause problems for the sincere elements within Pakistan or other countries... Call it luck call it destiny... It is bound to happen... Your wishing us good luck holds no meaning in that sense

Readers be prepared... The Caliphate is certainly coming back... You should all start studying its institutions so that we have a natural accountability amongst the people for our leaders... We dont intend to allow the Caliphs a free hand to replace the current corrupt leaders with corrupt leaders in the name of Islam... It is about the method and mercy of Prophethood and everything else is rejected... InshaAllah once the Caliphate comes back... we will hold a gathering for all members of this forum!!! even some Indians shall be invited... Sounds good?

 

[T-Faz]

Righteous and ferocious leadership is a blessing, some do not deserve this blessing becuase of their own actions.

That is the current case.

 

[KS]

Why would the Rich Muslim countries (Gulf) would want to subsidise the relatively poor Muslim countries under the system of Caliphate ?

Spend the time thinking about Caliphate in making your motherland rich/developed --- why would you then need a Caliphate ?

 

[Muhammad-Bin-Qasim]

Dear Karthic...

These states are not rich if you ask me... My wife went for pilgrimage and told me how the holy city Mecca itself is full of beggars and even pick pockets... Take the example of Saudi Arabia... There is a lot of poverty there... and downright evil Arab people who torture their poor Philippine and Indonesian maids... It annoys and pains me so much... for God sent his religion to have mercy even on Animals and here we are watching people suffering and dont do anything to change all of this...

I take your point about making motherland rich... Its very valid for such discussion... my argument is that we wont be able to become rich and will continue to have models of these "rich" Gulf state that you are mentioning which are being built on the backs of poor laborers from Pakistan (see Dubai) and even India I think... Caliphate is about being rich but not just for the few but as a whole...

There used to be a time in our history when people used to walk on the streets looking to give obligatory charity or Zakat and no one was poor enough to be able to take it... The problem became so big that the Caliph of the time took all the Zakat money and sent it to Europe!!! So spreading the riches of the land is part and parcel of the idea of Caliphate... It is actually one of the most important thing and the very reason why Capitalism and Islam clash with each other...

and you are right... our worst opponents in the call for a Caliphate are not the secularists, not the west even... but these stooges who call themselves the guardians of the holy mosques... and the fat sheikhs of the Gulf because they will lose their unjust riches upon the return of a system of mercy and true brotherhood...

 

[KS]

Dear Karthic...

These states are not rich if you ask me... My wife went for pilgrimage and told me how the holy city Mecca itself is full of beggars and even pick pockets... Take the example of Saudi Arabia... There is a lot of poverty there... and downright evil Arab people who torture their poor Philippine and Indonesian maids... It annoys and pains me so much... for God sent his religion to have mercy even on Animals and here we are watching people suffering and dont do anything to change all of this...

I take your point about making motherland rich... Its very valid for such discussion... my argument is that we wont be able to become rich and will continue to have models of these "rich" Gulf state that you are mentioning which are being built on the backs of poor laborers from Pakistan (see Dubai) and even India I think... Caliphate is about being rich but not just for the few but as a whole...

There used to be a time in our history when people used to walk on the streets looking to give obligatory charity or Zakat and no one was poor enough to be able to take it... The problem became so big that the Caliph of the time took all the Zakat money and sent it to Europe!!! So spreading the riches of the land is part and parcel of the idea of Caliphate... It is actually one of the most important thing and the very reason why Capitalism and Islam clash with each other...

and you are right... our worst opponents in the call for a Caliphate are not the secularists, not the west even... but these stooges who call themselves the guardians of the holy mosques... and the fat sheikhs of the Gulf because they will lose their unjust riches upon the return of a system of mercy and true brotherhood...

Exactly --- the Arabs will not be willing to share their god given riches to others and you also cannot blame them for that.

Belive it or not most Arabs think themselves as Arabs first and then Muslims ( I ve been in the Gulf for considerable time) and if it comes between an Arab Christian or a South Asian Muslim let there be no doubt they will choose the Arab Christian.

You have a nation and that too one full of potential --- Utilise that to make your country a model and not a follower of some 'Fat Arab Sheikh' (in your words).

Anyway much of the religious thing you told just went over my head as I am not aware of your religion.Just make your nation good.your religion can take care of itself.

 

[Muhammad-Bin-Qasim]

That is what we are going to do... has nothing to do with religion... Islam is not a religion but only part of it deals with issues of religion... Islam is an ideology... All states have to have an ideology... like India is secular and capitalist... its the same for Pakistan at present but we also have a stupid mix in many arenas... thats why the system does not work properly for us... either we should be entirely secular... or entirely Islamic... we cannot be both at the same time... I think we as a nation should have an open discussion on these issues... both sides should present their arguments and after a lot of such thought process, we shall be able to see what is a better system for us... because I have compared both systems I support Islam as I see it much superior than Capitalism...

 

[Waffen SS]

Yeah right!

These disgusting mullahs are always scheming to come to power using Islam as a guise.

 

[Saleem]

I think pertinent to this discussion would be the books by Ms Asma Afsarruddin including 'excellence and precedence'.

islamic rule, in sunni belief, depends on demonstration of excellent character and works - kinship, inheritence etc has no role.

the manu ummayya usurped the khilafat and established heritable rulership - an illegitimate government.

the khalifa title for abu bakr was khalifatul rasulallah i.s. successor to the prophet saw. the title khalifatallah was disliked by omar b khattab ra etc. for obvious reasons. he preferred the title amir ul momineen - chief counsellor of the believers.

a muslim ruler [khalifa] does not, whatever the method of his selection / appointment, have divine sanction i.e. he is not God given etc. he is chosen by people for his and he, and the people, are all responsible to God individually for their own actions.

My question is if you want a khalifa [successor!], who is he going to be a successor to? Abdul Hamid II {last osmanli} or someone else.

 

[Muhammad-Bin-Qasim]

I think pertinent to this discussion would be the books by Ms Asma Afsarruddin including 'excellence and precedence'.

islamic rule, in sunni belief, depends on demonstration of excellent character and works - kinship, inheritence etc has no role.

the manu ummayya usurped the khilafat and established heritable rulership - an illegitimate government.

the khalifa title for abu bakr was khalifatul rasulallah i.s. successor to the prophet saw. the title khalifatallah was disliked by omar b khattab ra etc. for obvious reasons. he preferred the title amir ul momineen - chief counsellor of the believers.

a muslim ruler [khalifa] does not, whatever the method of his selection / appointment, have divine sanction i.e. he is not God given etc. he is chosen by people for his and he, and the people, are all responsible to God individually for their own actions.

My question is if you want a khalifa [successor!], who is he going to be a successor to? Abdul Hamid II {last osmanli} or someone else.

Lovely comments and post there Saleem, much appreciated...

Slight correction there... Abdul Hameed Han was not the last osmanli... he was the last powerful osmanli because after Abdul Hameed, the young turks and other nationalistic forces did not allow the remaining Caliphs to function properly as head of state at all... This is why people call him the last of the Caliphs in the great chain of the Caliphs that can be traced back to our master Muhammad saw himself...

The last Caliph by the way was Abdul Majid II

As for what would be the title of the next Caliph... I think Ameer Ul Momineen is grand... But Khaleefat Ul Muslimeen is good also... The Caliph of Muslims? You could also say that the next Caliph would be the successor to Abdul Majid II as it would resume the chain of leaders for Muslims... This would be a minor issue as the main issue is the re establishment (upon the right method) and then its functioning in all departments of Caliphate including military as well as civil administration (judiciary, education, agriculture, wealth distribution and bait ul maal, health services, media and information, libraries, local representatives, council of Muslims, provincial governors etc) and lastly but importantly accountability... The model was set by the Rashideen... we only need to study it and imitate it now...