What's new

Whatever

. . . . . .
@Chak Bamu
(Since i can no longer reply there)the caliphate was not revered by muslims all over the world
The caliphs (except the first four ofcourse)"Only in some parts" , other simply did not bother or had their own caliphs/rulers!

Other then that some of the Ottoman rulers were quiet shameless and pathetic . Not to mention the Republic of madinah Lasted some 34(or 39?) years half of which was marred by internal strife!
 
.
Whoa!!
Thats news to me.

Seriously where are we headed??

Wait are you telling me that Stimulants would give me more 'hours' in a day to be a bit more productive; jeeez where can I get these ? Do you know of the name of some of them ? They're not Illegal or anything...right ?
 
.
@Chak Bamu
(Since i can no longer reply there)the caliphate was not revered by muslims all over the world
The caliphs (except the first four ofcourse)"Only in some parts" , other simply did not bother or had their own caliphs/rulers!

Other then that some of the Ottoman rulers were quiet shameless and pathetic . Not to mention the Republic of madinah Lasted some 34(or 39?) years half of which was marred by internal strife!

Yeah I know what you mean. However factually speaking Caliphate as an institution did survive to see 20th century. There were Umayyad caliphs in Andalus, and Fatimid caliphs in Egypt, but the bulk of rest of Islamic world did recognize caliphate. Now question of the worth of this institution at any point in history, or merit of individual such person can be discussed because nothing was set as such. I do understand Shia Muslims not accepting the institution of caliphate, but you have to place the debate in larger context. Turkish Muslims from Mongolia to Tatarastan, South Asian Muslims, the inhabitants of Ottoman empire, Indonesian Muslims etc... all accepted this institution and its symbolic importance.

Anyway this is a debate that does not practically interest us in this day and age. I do appreciate your views, but perhaps my context is a bit different?
 
.
@Chak Bamu
(Since i can no longer reply there)the caliphate was not revered by muslims all over the world
The caliphs (except the first four ofcourse)"Only in some parts" , other simply did not bother or had their own caliphs/rulers!

Other then that some of the Ottoman rulers were quiet shameless and pathetic . Not to mention the Republic of madinah Lasted some 34(or 39?) years half of which was marred by internal strife!

Who can possibly deny that the Caliphate in its truly democratic form (historically contextualized) ended with the death of Ali ibn Abi Talib (RA) ?

And after that the Caliphate gave way to Monarchies with decadent & corrupt Kings styling themselves as the Caliph !
 
.
Who can possibly deny that the Caliphate in its truly democratic form (historically contextualized) ended with the death of Ali ibn Abi Talib (RA) ?

And after that the Caliphate gave way to Monarchies with decadent & corrupt Kings styling themselves as the Caliph !
"Very Partially Democratic"
 
.
"Very Partially Democratic"

If you're expecting polling booths to spring up all over 13th Century Arabia with the Polling Agent asking 'Bat ko ya Sher ko vote deinaa haiii' tou I don't think it was gonna happen; but it was Democratic in the sense that it adhered to the Democratic Principle - Let the people held in high-esteem by the society (a little like a historically contextualized MNA or an MPA) decide who's going to be the Caliph and then present the decision to the People to accept or to reject !

Who in heaven's name was going to reject the candidacy of Abu Bakr, Omar, Osman or Ali (Peace Be Upon Them All) ?

Thats like saying 'Pakistanis voted for Quaid-e-Azam almost unanimously so it must be an undemocratic or a partially democratic process' !
 
.
If you're expecting polling booths to spring up all over 13th Century Arabia with the Polling Agent asking 'Bat ko ya Sher ko vote deinaa haiii' tou I don't think it was gonna happen; but it was Democratic in the sense that it adhered to the Democratic Principle - Let the people held in high-esteem by the society (a little like a historically contextualized MNA or an MPA) decide who's going to be the Caliph and then present the decision to the People to accept or to reject !
Who in heaven's name was going to reject the candidacy of Abu Bakr, Omar, Osman or Ali (Peace Be Upon Them All) ?
Thats like saying 'Pakistanis voted for Quaid-e-Azam almost unanimously so it must be an undemocratic or a partially democratic process' !
But some of the very seniors did disagree with the latter two . Anyways leaving that topic behind how's everything going?
 
.
But some of the very seniors did disagree with the latter two . Anyways leaving that topic behind how's everything going?

Of course they did - Hence the 'democratic rule' let the most heads decide ! :)

Everything is boring ! :(

I miss Peshawar....especially Namak Mandi ! :cray:

I ate mutton today that tasted like I was chewing on a leather shoe instead of a chaaamp ! :bad:
 
.
Of course they did - Hence the 'democratic rule' let the most heads decide ! :)

Everything is boring ! :(

I miss Peshawar....especially Namak Mandi ! :cray:

I ate mutton today that tasted like I was chewing on a leather shoe instead of a chaaamp ! :bad:
I am dying of boredom here too.
Nothing fun to do in this godforsaken city !
 
.

Country Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom