Post by maruf on Apr 25, 2005 23:21:43 GMT -5
This person or brother, I do not know if he is a Muslim, does not talk about the issue of khilafah from an Islaamic point of view. He uses his reasoning or logic to discuss if khilafah should or can be implemented. What writers like him fail to appreciate is that Islaam was doubted by the Kuffar in Mecca when the call was first proclaimed, and that the odds have always been against Muslims.
Yet another point here is that khilafah is not just a Nice idea, but khilafah is an obligation on every Muslims until it is re-established, if neglected you are sinful, and sins lead to the Nar (audhubillah).
Because it is an obligation, it does not matter if it is romanticized in the mind or not, or whether the whole Western world is against it or not.
Daily Times - Site Edition Tuesday, April 26, 2005
www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_26-4-2005_pg3_2
COMMENT: Waiting for the Khalifa —Ishtiaq Ahmed
The renewed ambition to establish a worldwide khalifa may have something to do with Pakistan’s nuclear weapons, but global powers possess enough thermonuclear weaponry to ensure that instead of the universal khalifa being restored worldwide our complete safaya (extinction) takes place
On September 14, 2004 Daily Times published my article ‘Waiting for Imam Mahdi’. It generated considerable discussion and many curious enquirers wondered about its relevance.
It is only fair that I write on the mainstream Sunni institution of khalifa also, especially since I have been receiving emails dissuading me from writing in favour of democracy. I have been told that the people of Pakistan are waiting for the ‘khalifa’ to be revived; democracy has failed to take root and, therefore, why waste time on it. Hizb ut Tahrir claims to represent the movement for khalifa.
I am really at a loss to understand who the khalifa is. Obviously it cannot be an individual because it would be totally heretical to believe that Hazrat Abu Bakr or Hazrat Umar or any other khalifa can be brought back to life. In the case of the Shia, waiting for Imam Mahdi means waiting for a living individual. The Imam is believed to be in occultation and therefore invisible.
The Sunni have no such belief about the awaited khalifa. Therefore this talk about khalifa has to be about the institution of caliphate rather than anyone specific. But in all seriousness, I don’t think when the proponents of the khalifa tell me that the restoration of the khalifa is imminent they mean the revival of the Ottoman or Abbasid or even the Ummayyad caliphates; they mean the pious caliphate represented by the caliphate of Hazrat Abu Bakr, Umar, Usman and Ali (632-661). Altogether only 29 years. No doubt the pious caliphate established a model of good and responsible government, but it did not survive the death of the fourth caliph, Hazrat Ali. Even otherwise, the pious caliphate was marred by the brutal murder of two of the four caliphs (Hazrat Usman and Hazrat Ali) at the hands of extremist Muslims.
Amir Muawiya (661-80) consolidated the Islamic empire with very able military leadership and administrative reforms, and although criticism of the hereditary principle of succession that he introduced is morally understandable the fact remains that once the poor shepherds and small traders moved out of Mecca and became rulers of an expanding empire the pristine institution of the austere caliphate could not be tenable for very long.
Some legendary caliphs from the Abbasid dynasty (750-1258) such as Haroon al-Rashid (786-809) did take an interest in alleviating poverty of the downtrodden in Baghdad, but the pretence to distributive justice was practically abandoned under the later Abbasids. Over time the caliphate came to represent only oriental despotism.
Now, the problem is that in the original qualifications of the caliph it was necessary for the incumbent to be of Quraish descent. The Ottoman Turks (1299-1924) started asserting their claim to being caliphs but since Quraish descent was one of the original qualifications their claim was never conceded by all ulema. The British exploited this skilfully when they made the pirs and (spiritual divines) Brelawi ulema of the Punjab, the NWFP and Sindh issue fatwas that the Ottomans could not claim the allegiance of the Muslims of the Indian subcontinent as they (Ottomans) were not of Quraish descent. The pirs instructed (on British prompting) their disciples and tenant-peasants to seek employment in the British colonial army and fight the Turks.
In 1923 the great Turkish reformer and visionary Mutafa Kemal Atatürk made a long speech to the Turkish Grand Assembly in which he argued that no other institution had harmed the Turkish people more than the caliphate. Hundreds of thousands of Turks died in the 19th century defending Ottoman possessions in central and eastern Europe and again during the World War I, but the institution had come to represent only oriental despotism.
Attempts at instituting the khalifa have, however, always held a great attraction for Muslims and in the 20th century fundamentalist Muslims presented a revisionist version of that institution in which Quraish descent was no longer considered imperative. The idea is that the caliphate should be a universal state based on Islamic law. The Wahhabis tried to stake such a claim but when they realised that they had been walking on earth under which was to be found oil that could make them far richer than the traditional possession of gold they decided instead to institute hereditary monarchy so that they could keep the wealth accruing from it to themselves or at least under their strict control. They found it expedient, however, to hold regular Friday executions, hand-chopping of criminals and occasionally stoning to death of alleged adulterers.
A relative of mine who lived for 14 years in Saudi Arabia and bore four children there was only left alone once on the pavement by her husband for about 15 minutes while he went to another part of the town centre to fetch some medicine. The poor woman, covered from head to foot, had to face the humiliation of car horns and other vulgar gestures from Arab men who thought that since she was alone she must be a prostitute. Chaste women are always accompanied by their men folk or mehrams.
Then, of course, we must remember the Taliban. The main achievements of that regime was expelling all women from schools and offices, incapacitating, stoning to death and beheading alleged criminals and indeed the destruction of Buddha statutes at Bamiyan; something the iconoclast Mahmud Ghaznavi (999-1030) did not attempt even when according to his own admirers he raided India 17 times with the mission to destroy idols in Hindu temples (and not to loot the wealth of those temples as his detractors allege). The Taliban caliphate succumbed to the blistering bombardment of the Americans following 9/11, and so at present there is no model of caliphate available.
The renewed ambition to establish a worldwide khalifa no doubt has something to do with the fact that Pakistan possesses nuclear weapons, but global powers that are certain to oppose an expansionist khalifa possess overwhelming thermonuclear weaponry. They can ensure that instead of the universal khalifa being restored worldwide our complete safaya (extinction) takes place. Can someone talk sense to deluded ‘warriors’ from a bygone age and persuade them to step out of their dream world of the 7th and 8th century and face the facts?
The author is an associate professor of political science at Stockholm University. He is the author of two books. His email address is Ishtiaq.Ahmed@statsvet.su.se
Home | Editorial
Yet another point here is that khilafah is not just a Nice idea, but khilafah is an obligation on every Muslims until it is re-established, if neglected you are sinful, and sins lead to the Nar (audhubillah).
Because it is an obligation, it does not matter if it is romanticized in the mind or not, or whether the whole Western world is against it or not.
Daily Times - Site Edition Tuesday, April 26, 2005
www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_26-4-2005_pg3_2
COMMENT: Waiting for the Khalifa —Ishtiaq Ahmed
The renewed ambition to establish a worldwide khalifa may have something to do with Pakistan’s nuclear weapons, but global powers possess enough thermonuclear weaponry to ensure that instead of the universal khalifa being restored worldwide our complete safaya (extinction) takes place
On September 14, 2004 Daily Times published my article ‘Waiting for Imam Mahdi’. It generated considerable discussion and many curious enquirers wondered about its relevance.
It is only fair that I write on the mainstream Sunni institution of khalifa also, especially since I have been receiving emails dissuading me from writing in favour of democracy. I have been told that the people of Pakistan are waiting for the ‘khalifa’ to be revived; democracy has failed to take root and, therefore, why waste time on it. Hizb ut Tahrir claims to represent the movement for khalifa.
I am really at a loss to understand who the khalifa is. Obviously it cannot be an individual because it would be totally heretical to believe that Hazrat Abu Bakr or Hazrat Umar or any other khalifa can be brought back to life. In the case of the Shia, waiting for Imam Mahdi means waiting for a living individual. The Imam is believed to be in occultation and therefore invisible.
The Sunni have no such belief about the awaited khalifa. Therefore this talk about khalifa has to be about the institution of caliphate rather than anyone specific. But in all seriousness, I don’t think when the proponents of the khalifa tell me that the restoration of the khalifa is imminent they mean the revival of the Ottoman or Abbasid or even the Ummayyad caliphates; they mean the pious caliphate represented by the caliphate of Hazrat Abu Bakr, Umar, Usman and Ali (632-661). Altogether only 29 years. No doubt the pious caliphate established a model of good and responsible government, but it did not survive the death of the fourth caliph, Hazrat Ali. Even otherwise, the pious caliphate was marred by the brutal murder of two of the four caliphs (Hazrat Usman and Hazrat Ali) at the hands of extremist Muslims.
Amir Muawiya (661-80) consolidated the Islamic empire with very able military leadership and administrative reforms, and although criticism of the hereditary principle of succession that he introduced is morally understandable the fact remains that once the poor shepherds and small traders moved out of Mecca and became rulers of an expanding empire the pristine institution of the austere caliphate could not be tenable for very long.
Some legendary caliphs from the Abbasid dynasty (750-1258) such as Haroon al-Rashid (786-809) did take an interest in alleviating poverty of the downtrodden in Baghdad, but the pretence to distributive justice was practically abandoned under the later Abbasids. Over time the caliphate came to represent only oriental despotism.
Now, the problem is that in the original qualifications of the caliph it was necessary for the incumbent to be of Quraish descent. The Ottoman Turks (1299-1924) started asserting their claim to being caliphs but since Quraish descent was one of the original qualifications their claim was never conceded by all ulema. The British exploited this skilfully when they made the pirs and (spiritual divines) Brelawi ulema of the Punjab, the NWFP and Sindh issue fatwas that the Ottomans could not claim the allegiance of the Muslims of the Indian subcontinent as they (Ottomans) were not of Quraish descent. The pirs instructed (on British prompting) their disciples and tenant-peasants to seek employment in the British colonial army and fight the Turks.
In 1923 the great Turkish reformer and visionary Mutafa Kemal Atatürk made a long speech to the Turkish Grand Assembly in which he argued that no other institution had harmed the Turkish people more than the caliphate. Hundreds of thousands of Turks died in the 19th century defending Ottoman possessions in central and eastern Europe and again during the World War I, but the institution had come to represent only oriental despotism.
Attempts at instituting the khalifa have, however, always held a great attraction for Muslims and in the 20th century fundamentalist Muslims presented a revisionist version of that institution in which Quraish descent was no longer considered imperative. The idea is that the caliphate should be a universal state based on Islamic law. The Wahhabis tried to stake such a claim but when they realised that they had been walking on earth under which was to be found oil that could make them far richer than the traditional possession of gold they decided instead to institute hereditary monarchy so that they could keep the wealth accruing from it to themselves or at least under their strict control. They found it expedient, however, to hold regular Friday executions, hand-chopping of criminals and occasionally stoning to death of alleged adulterers.
A relative of mine who lived for 14 years in Saudi Arabia and bore four children there was only left alone once on the pavement by her husband for about 15 minutes while he went to another part of the town centre to fetch some medicine. The poor woman, covered from head to foot, had to face the humiliation of car horns and other vulgar gestures from Arab men who thought that since she was alone she must be a prostitute. Chaste women are always accompanied by their men folk or mehrams.
Then, of course, we must remember the Taliban. The main achievements of that regime was expelling all women from schools and offices, incapacitating, stoning to death and beheading alleged criminals and indeed the destruction of Buddha statutes at Bamiyan; something the iconoclast Mahmud Ghaznavi (999-1030) did not attempt even when according to his own admirers he raided India 17 times with the mission to destroy idols in Hindu temples (and not to loot the wealth of those temples as his detractors allege). The Taliban caliphate succumbed to the blistering bombardment of the Americans following 9/11, and so at present there is no model of caliphate available.
The renewed ambition to establish a worldwide khalifa no doubt has something to do with the fact that Pakistan possesses nuclear weapons, but global powers that are certain to oppose an expansionist khalifa possess overwhelming thermonuclear weaponry. They can ensure that instead of the universal khalifa being restored worldwide our complete safaya (extinction) takes place. Can someone talk sense to deluded ‘warriors’ from a bygone age and persuade them to step out of their dream world of the 7th and 8th century and face the facts?
The author is an associate professor of political science at Stockholm University. He is the author of two books. His email address is Ishtiaq.Ahmed@statsvet.su.se
Home | Editorial
