‘US-based group working to establish caliphate’

[architect_cobb]

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

All the people were not forces to give pledge to Yazid, some did it willfully. Same is the case with the following caliphs may they be abbassids or fatimids or even ottomons. There were some who pledged and some who didnot. And some were forced, the first ottomon caliph even had to prison the last abbassid caliph captured from Egypt to force him to abdicate and pledge to ottomons.
Al-Mutawakkil III - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Al-Mutawakkil III (Arabic: المتوكل على الله الثالث&#8206 (died 1543) was caliph from 1508 to 1516, and again in 1517. He was the last caliph of the later, Egyptian-based period of the Abbasid dynasty. Since the Mongol sack of Baghdad and the execution of Caliph Al-Musta'sim in 1258, the Abbasid caliphs had resided in Cairo, nominal rulers used to legitimize the actual rule of the Mamluk sultans.

Al-Mutawakkil III was deposed briefly in 1516 by his predecessor Al-Mustamsik, but was restored to the caliphate the following year. In 1517, Ottoman sultan Selim I managed to defeat the Mamluk Sultanate, and made Egypt part of the Ottoman Empire. Al-Mutawakkil III was captured together with his family and transported to Istanbul. According to a questionable story invented[citation needed] by later Ottoman historians, he formally surrendered the title of caliph as well as its outward emblems—the sword and mantle of Muhammad—to Ottoman sultan Selim I."

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...

Are you talking about able rulers like Abd al-Malik ibn Marwan who even attacked Makkah, bombarded Kaaba with catapults and destroyed most of it in 64 Hijri. The commander of the forces being none other than the uncle of MBQ Hajjaj Bin Yusuf.

If you want to hear more of their abilities I can continue for ever.

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...

Does Islam allow the newly converted muslims to be taxed heavily?

These new converts were called mawalis and given a second grade status. Again if you need more info let me know.

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...

Is there an ayat in Quran supporting this claim of yours. Check out Shahadat of Hazrat Osman and please let me know how many days was his body left in his house not allowed to be removed and how many days later was Hazrat Ali made the caliph?

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!!!

No Salahaddin couldnt for a number of reasons. Most of his life he was busy dealing with the crusaders and later some dirty politics in his own court. Not to mention that he didn't live very long. Also by that time muslims more or less had agreed in principle that the caliph should always be an Abbassid. There were even a few ahadees to strengthen this claim and Salahuddin despite all his abilities was not an abbassid.

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?

Again what muslims need today is enlightenment, education and riddance of the extremist mullahs. Caliphate doesn't even fall anywhere in the list its just a form of cruel monarchy muslims are much better without.

 

[Durran3]

I am going mentally crazy.....

 

[Muhammad-Bin-Qasim]

All the people were not forces to give pledge to Yazid, some did it willfully. Same is the case with the following caliphs may they be abbassids or fatimids or even ottomons. There were some who pledged and some who didnot. And some were forced, the first ottomon caliph even had to prison the last abbassid caliph captured from Egypt to force him to abdicate and pledge to ottomons.
Al-Mutawakkil III - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Al-Mutawakkil III (Arabic: المتوكل على الله الثالث&#8206 (died 1543) was caliph from 1508 to 1516, and again in 1517. He was the last caliph of the later, Egyptian-based period of the Abbasid dynasty. Since the Mongol sack of Baghdad and the execution of Caliph Al-Musta'sim in 1258, the Abbasid caliphs had resided in Cairo, nominal rulers used to legitimize the actual rule of the Mamluk sultans.

Al-Mutawakkil III was deposed briefly in 1516 by his predecessor Al-Mustamsik, but was restored to the caliphate the following year. In 1517, Ottoman sultan Selim I managed to defeat the Mamluk Sultanate, and made Egypt part of the Ottoman Empire. Al-Mutawakkil III was captured together with his family and transported to Istanbul. According to a questionable story invented[citation needed] by later Ottoman historians, he formally surrendered the title of caliph as well as its outward emblems—the sword and mantle of Muhammad—to Ottoman sultan Selim I."



Are you talking about able rulers like Abd al-Malik ibn Marwan who even attacked Makkah, bombarded Kaaba with catapults and destroyed most of it in 64 Hijri. The commander of the forces being none other than the uncle of MBQ Hajjaj Bin Yusuf.

If you want to hear more of their abilities I can continue for ever.



Does Islam allow the newly converted muslims to be taxed heavily?

These new converts were called mawalis and given a second grade status. Again if you need more info let me know.



Is there an ayat in Quran supporting this claim of yours. Check out Shahadat of Hazrat Osman and please let me know how many days was his body left in his house not allowed to be removed and how many days later was Hazrat Ali made the caliph?





No Salahaddin couldnt for a number of reasons. Most of his life he was busy dealing with the crusaders and later some dirty politics in his own court. Not to mention that he didn't live very long. Also by that time muslims more or less had agreed in principle that the caliph should always be an Abbassid. There were even a few ahadees to strengthen this claim and Salahuddin despite all his abilities was not an abbassid.

Again what muslims need today is enlightenment, education and riddance of the extremist mullahs. Caliphate doesn't even fall anywhere in the list its just a form of cruel monarchy muslims are much better without.

All that you have written can be answered by this hadith...

"There will be Prophethood for as long as Allah wills it to be, then He will remove it when He wills, then there will be Khilafah on the Prophetic method and it will be for as long as Allah wills, then He will remove it when He wills, then there will be biting ruling for as long as Allah Wills, then He will remove it when He wills, then there will be oppressive ruling for as long as Allah wills, then he will remove it when He wills, and then there will be Khilafah upon the Prophetic method" and then he remained silent. (translated from Musnad of Imam Ahmad)

 

[architect_cobb]

All that you have written can be answered by this hadith...

"There will be Prophethood for as long as Allah wills it to be, then He will remove it when He wills, then there will be Khilafah on the Prophetic method and it will be for as long as Allah wills, then He will remove it when He wills, then there will be biting ruling for as long as Allah Wills, then He will remove it when He wills, then there will be oppressive ruling for as long as Allah wills, then he will remove it when He wills, and then there will be Khilafah upon the Prophetic method" and then he remained silent. (translated from Musnad of Imam Ahmad)

is this hadees from Sahih Bukhari??????

No its not.

Secondly the hadees doesn't say its mandatory for muslims to have a caliph, or else its a sin. Nor is there a verse saying so, technically we havent had caliphate for about 1400 years. Yes I don't count oppression and malikiat is caliphate.

 

[Solomon2]

Muhammad-Bin-Qasim, you don't have much use for the Pakistani state, do you?

 

[Muhammad-Bin-Qasim]

is this hadees from Sahih Bukhari??????

No its not.

Secondly the hadees doesn't say its mandatory for muslims to have a caliph, or else its a sin. Nor is there a verse saying so, technically we havent had caliphate for about 1400 years. Yes I don't count oppression and malikiat is caliphate.

Oh wow... so now you ll confine Ahadith to Bukhari only?

Do you know the names of the books included in Sahai Sitah?

How about the names of the books by the Ayma of Fiqh?

Do you want to discuss the obligation of having a Caliphate based on the Quran and Sunnah?

We dont count oppression as Caliphate either... It is what we are living under today... Hereditary rule remains a Caliphate as long as the person applies Islam on people and has been given a pledge by the people... so although biting rulership... it is still called a Caliphate... otherwise you ll be at a loss to describe who Umar Bin Abdul Aziz, Haroon ur Rasheed, Sulayman Al Qanooni were for Muslims (and there are many other names to this list)...

If you had made the effort to read my previous post... I pointed out to you the issue of personal conduct and general affairs... George Bush and his gang of neocons abusing the American system does not mean that Capitalism is not being applied onto people... Personal animosity towards others (like the silly examples you so love giving) have nothing to do with how ordinary people live and function in a state system and structure of socioeconomic order...

So what shall it be Mr Architect... We can discuss one issue at a time... Its easy to throw a zillion red herrings... but then its also easy to discuss things point by point...

 

[Muhammad-Bin-Qasim]

Muhammad-Bin-Qasim, you don't have much use for the Pakistani state, do you?

Yo Solomon... Who does?

Zardari as President, Gilani as PM...

Feed me to the hungry lions instead sir... Thank you very much!!!

Cheers

 

[Solomon2]

Today's Pakistan doesn't really work for its citizens. Over a generation of attempts at "Islamic" governance - in Pakistan, Iran, Afghanistan, etc. - has mostly resulted in terror at home and abroad. Are you ready yet to try something new? Or do you wish to continue a course that - due at least to the frailties of us mere humans - has demonstrated no hope of success?

 

[GentlemanObserver]

Muhammad-Bin-Qasim, you don't have much use for the Pakistani state, do you?

That's right he and his imaginary caliphate from Ireland are going to storm into Islamabad and take over kahuta and from this forward base they will launch their plan of global domination...

 

[Parashuram1]

Today's Pakistan doesn't really work for its citizens. Over a generation of attempts at "Islamic" governance - in Pakistan, Iran, Afghanistan, etc. - has mostly resulted in terror at home and abroad. Are you ready yet to try something new? Or do you wish to continue a course that - due at least to the frailties of us mere humans - has demonstrated no hope of success?

I hope more people especially Pakistani citizens try to understand that such groups as these people claim in the United States are only further continuing to malign the religion of Islam and tarnish their image in the international arena. These self-righteous radicals are the first people doing more harm to their religion than anyone in the West or their regional rivals at all.

It is quite a common phenomenon on the forum that a deadlock is reached each and everytime people from West (essentially non-Muslims and even some Muslims) try to explain to desist from encouraging or even sympathizing with such group and not to get into an emotional gag and support them.

But hopefully there are some leaders who realize that this path that such people are embarking on is a destructive one and one that will never fetch peace in their region or ours at all.

 

[architect_cobb]

Oh wow... so now you ll confine Ahadith to Bukhari only?

Do you know the names of the books included in Sahai Sitah?

How about the names of the books by the Ayma of Fiqh?

Do you want to discuss the obligation of having a Caliphate based on the Quran and Sunnah?

Yes I do know sihah-e sittah and Imam of ahle Sunnat and also aima of ahle Tashee. But whats the point?

Sure if yoiu want to post some verses of Quran making Caliphate obligatory please go ahead.

We dont count oppression as Caliphate either... It is what we are living under today... Hereditary rule remains a Caliphate as long as the person applies Islam on people and has been given a pledge by the people... so although biting rulership... it is still called a Caliphate... otherwise you ll be at a loss to describe who Umar Bin Abdul Aziz, Haroon ur Rasheed, Sulayman Al Qanooni were for Muslims (and there are many other names to this list)...

Well you never answered my questions regarding Hajjaj bin Yousaf's attack on Makkah and damage inflicted to Kaaba itself. You also didnt answer my questions about Ameer Muawiya, Abdullah bin Zubair, and other parallel caliphates.

Now going by your logic if their are no laws governing accession to caliphate and it could even be hereditary. Who would decide which caliphate is right when their are multiple caliphates existing at one time?

If you had made the effort to read my previous post... I pointed out to you the issue of personal conduct and general affairs... George Bush and his gang of neocons abusing the American system does not mean that Capitalism is not being applied onto people... Personal animosity towards others (like the silly examples you so love giving) have nothing to do with how ordinary people live and function in a state system and structure of socioeconomic order...

Wow assassinations of caliphs are silly examples? So what kind of examples you watn mt to give? Again you never asnwered my question about Hazrat Usman not being allowed to be burried in a muslim cemetery and forced to be burried in a jewish one?

Thats so typical of you pick and shose aint it?

So what shall it be Mr Architect... We can discuss one issue at a time... Its easy to throw a zillion red herrings... but then its also easy to discuss things point by point...

And yes we are discussing one issue caliphate if a caliph attacks Kaaba and damages it to you he is still a caliph but to me its debatable, to you caliphs being murdered in broad day light is a norm not to me. And yes if you want to bring back that system of brother killing brother where each ottomon turk had to kill all his family before acceding to the throne and you still call it legit, sorry I cannot.

 

[Omar1984]

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.

And what does a hindu know. An Arab Christian just like a hindu can not even enter Mecca or Madina.

You dont have to tell us about Arabs. Some Arab Muslims dont even get a long with each other, it doesn't mean they are good representatives of Islam.


P.S. I think all hindus should mind their own business. We Pakistani Muslims wont mind if you united with Neapli hindus, why are you so obsessed with Pakistani Muslims.

 

[Muhammad-Bin-Qasim]

Yes I do know sihah-e sittah and Imam of ahle Sunnat and also aima of ahle Tashee. But whats the point?

The point is that its easy to detect a smartass... You are trying to act as if you know your stuff when it is clear that you dont even know the status of a Musnad Hadith... Imam Ahmad Musnad is a collection of the most authentic Ahadith in the Musnad style... This point alone proves to me that your purpose here is nt discussion, rather a lame flame game...

Sure if yoiu want to post some verses of Quran making Caliphate obligatory please go ahead.


Do you know the four pillers of Shariah? Heres a hint... Quran is the first one... what are the other three?

Well you never answered my questions regarding Hajjaj bin Yousaf's attack on Makkah and damage inflicted to Kaaba itself. You also didnt answer my questions about Ameer Muawiya, Abdullah bin Zubair, and other parallel caliphates.


Not only that... Your stupid questions have been answered numerous times and not just by me... Corruption of an individual does not mean the system does not exist... What you a failing to understand is that an American may be really upset at what George Bush did as President, but he will never suggest that Bush was never a President of the US, because he WAS!!!

Now going by your logic if their are no laws governing accession to caliphate and it could even be hereditary. Who would decide which caliphate is right when their are multiple caliphates existing at one time?

One of the ways losers discuss is that they put words in their opponents mouth... Can you point to me a single post I have made where I have given you the "logic" that there are no laws governing "accession" to caliphate?

Wow assassinations of caliphs are silly examples? So what kind of examples you watn mt to give? Again you never asnwered my question about Hazrat Usman not being allowed to be burried in a muslim cemetery and forced to be burried in a jewish one?

So are you saying that Usman was not a Caliph and there was no Caliphate at that time? Do you even realize what you are discussing?
Because I think you do need Iodine Salt...

Thats so typical of you pick and shose aint it?

Whats a shose?

 

[architect_cobb]

The point is that its easy to detect a smartass... You are trying to act as if you know your stuff when it is clear that you dont even know the status of a Musnad Hadith... Imam Ahmad Musnad is a collection of the most authentic Ahadith in the Musnad style... This point alone proves to me that your purpose here is nt discussion, rather a lame flame game...

Dude you need to cool down, lack of logic should not force you to start indulging into personal attacks. Its quite obvious who is acting as a smartass. the comparison was between Sahih Bukhari and Musnad. Now comment as to which is more authentic and why? Then explain as to if the hadees you quoted was from Bukhari or not?

Do you know the four pillers of Shariah? Heres a hint... Quran is the first one... what are the other three?

Rather than dropping me hints concentrate on the questions asked. Is the hadees you quoted from Bukhari? and is Bukhari considered more authentic than other sources?

Also I asked you a verse from Quran. Is there one? If not there is a very simple answer:-

"there is no verse in Quran supporting caliphate or otherwise".

Not only that... Your stupid questions have been answered numerous times and not just by me... Corruption of an individual does not mean the system does not exist... What you a failing to understand is that an American may be really upset at what George Bush did as President, but he will never suggest that Bush was never a President of the US, because he WAS!!!

Nopes you havent answered them don't beat about the bush. There was a context to the questions. You said that all Ommayyads were legal Caliphs so I asked you about Hajjaj acting on the orders of the Caliph, I also asked you the legal position of other caliphs and what decided whether a caliph is legal or not.

One of the ways losers discuss is that they put words in their opponents mouth... Can you point to me a single post I have made where I have given you the "logic" that there are no laws governing "accession" to caliphate?

defining the laws and denying them are two different things, I am asking you to define or quote the laws of accession.

And the way losers discuss is be resorting to personal attacks when at loss of arguments, so lets agree to behave in a civilized way.

So are you saying that Usman was not a Caliph and there was no Caliphate at that time? Do you even realize what you are discussing?
Because I think you do need Iodine Salt...

Now who is putting words in others' mouth?(I heard somebody saying:- "One of the ways losers discuss is that they put words in their opponents mouth") where did I say he was not a caliph? I am asking if the description of events is correct or not and in case it is why do you think that happened? Or is it that the office of caliphate was controversial even at that time? the golden period.

 

[Vassnti]

I do wonder which country would found the Caliphate,

Saudi Arabia as "the home of Islam"?
Pakistan because it is the Islamic state?
Eygpt as the "home of Sunii Islam?
Iran as the origional Islamic empire
Indonesia as the lagest Muslim population?
New Zealand because were really nice people andtheworld would be a better place if we ran it?

Problem is everyone thinks they are the obvious choice and their Islam is the right one, i just dont see the rulers of each country passing the batton and going home to live a quiet life even if their people liked the idea.