User login
Author Information
Poll
Why have you visited this website?
To check for updates
11%
Read posts
39%
Contribute to discussions
6%
Share content
3%
Social media brought me here
6%
Tis fate
35%
Total votes: 633
Active forum topics
Recent blog posts
Upcoming Events
- 17 Nov 2024 - 11:30 to 16:30
- 17 Nov 2024 - 11:30 to 16:30
- 30 Nov 2024 - 11:30 to 16:30
- 30 Nov 2024 - 11:30 to 16:30
- 7 Dec 2024 - 11:30 to 17:00
Who's online
There are currently 0 users online.
It gives a framework to work within.
You still throw in irrelevant examples. Were the Quraysh in yor opinion part of the Jama'ah?
Who id denying this? The question comes wherne there are two opinions on what the correct path is. Which does the community follow then?
There is nothing here baout not following the correct path, but the question is which one.
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
When Islam conquered Mecca, the Quraysh became part of the Jama'ah.
The same principle applies - correctness exists on matters of belief and matters of ijtihad. IF there are two ijtihads, the community should adopt the correct one. How does it know which is the correct one? By looking at the evidences and reasoning provided by the mujtahid and evaluating them.
Is there another way of determining which opinion is correct and which is not?
when the verses were revealed that yoy were quoting, were they part of the jam'ah then?
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
I didn't quote any verses - paraphrasing heavily, the Tufayl example was where Quraysh told him not to listen to Mohammed(saw) in Mecca as he would bewitch him with his speech/arguments. Tufayl even stuffed cotton wool into his hears until it occurred to him that he should at least hear what the man has to say, and if it makes sense agree with him and if not reject it... which is what he ultimately did.
I'm not sure what the jama'a issue you're referring to or even if we're on the same page at the moment...
What I am trying to say is that if you use that hadith, trying to get a political community to "gather" around a specific leader... the hadith seems to approve of such a method as if the person is not an adequate leader, the community will not be gathered around him.
As for point, originally this was meant to be an aside, but it became the focal point. The whole idea was to show you how there is no "one way" to get a leader - I have mentioned previously how there have been multiple ways and each of the first 5 caliphs was chosen using a different manner.
Hadhrat Amir Mu'awiya was handed over leadership by Imam Hassan (ra) in order to unite the community.
Later the caliphate was heriditary (and like) kingship.
What matters more is what the leaders do, less how they become leaders.
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
Not too sure of this - the narration is saying the ummah will not gather on kufr - not leaders who are good/bad etc... but I can see the theme you're suggesting. There are more specific narrations and events than this on selection of rulers so that's probably why noone seems to use this narration as it is a little vague...
There are two concepts:
- expressing a preference for a ruler
- appointing a ruler
I can agree with your point on the first concept - namely, there are a variety of ways of the ummah determining or expressing a preference for a ruler and no text specifies one given method. Thus the variations seen amongst the companions.
The second step of appointing the ruler can only be through the bayah - which is obliged by Islamic texts. No other method has ever been stipulated or obliged.
Both concepts matter - and have repercussions. If someone is imposed that the ummah does not want, eg yazid, there could be rebellion, unstability etc
If the bayah is not given, from where does the ruler get his authority? Why should people obey him? The bayah is a contract and an oath of obedience that fulfils this.
it said "dalaalah", not kufr.
Would every single person in the community have to personally have to go to the new caliph and give Bay'ah? How would it work?
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
True but kufr can be used as a synonym for dalaalah - esp. as you appear to be more clearer on what kufr means than dalalah.
The answer is in the source hadiths of which the following is an example:
Whosoever dies without a bayah on his neck dies the death of jahiliyyah.
Make of it what you will - it appears to imply everyone has the responsibility of having a bayah on their neck - how do they achieve this? By giving it would be the obvious and simplest answer.
Other texts would imply that every individual would not have to give it personally, as some can give it on their behalf which is consistent with other known obligations where someone can discharge it on your behalf (eg zakat).
"Qullu bid'atin Dalaalah" ?
Every new act/innovation is kufr? Is that what you're saying?
but you have (had?) argued that democracy is not allowed as everyone is not forced to give bay'ah... I am just trying to figure out where you stand really... Previously uoi had said that it can be implicitly taken before you changed your mind (in a different topic, without acknowledging it ofcourse) when it was pointed out that can work within many systems of government.
Where would you put the case of Imam Hussain (ra) in all this?
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
People are not required to give bayah in a democracy, they are not required to vote, even when they vote there is confusion in relation to what the vote means.
And people suggest using democracy to appoint the most important figure in society???
I've stated it several times and restate it for you: bayah is fard, everyone must give it personally or ensure it is given on their behalf (eg through delegation).
Discharging a responsibility needs to be done is the key concept. I'm uncomfortable with the notion of implicitness and thus would not advocate it as it has a number of conceptual issues. That's why I would prefer to use the more explicit delegation. However the key issue of every individual's obligation to ensure the bayah is discharged is the crux and this obligation comes from the creator. There is no similar requirement in democracy - and whether implicit or not, that's where it intellectually falls apart!
//Where would you put the case of Imam Hussain (ra) in all this?[/quote]//
Not sure of what you're referring to here?
Imam Hussain (ra) did not give bay'ah to yazid.
So as long as the constitution is based on the qur'an and sunnah and it mandates bay'ah of the constituents...would you still have a problem even if the representatives and leaders were democratically elected?
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
Yazid was never Caliph - forced bayahs taken of the companions before Muawiyah's death do not have any validity.
What do you mean, the constitution mandates the bayah?
I think you're not understanding the actual problem - thus failing to see how bayah solves it and voting/elections do not.
Answer this question: How does a ruler have authority? What gives him over all others similar to him the legitimacy to enforce laws on others, take taxes from them, utilise force?
There were also some forced bay'ahs to hadhrat Abu Bakr (ra) and later, more forced bay'ahs to Hadhrat Ali (ra). Were all these invalid too?
We are discussing in different spheres. you are saying "the people have to give bay'ah" and my questions are more real world "how will this happen?" and "what if they dont?"
You can go as far into the theory as you like, but on the ground the ruler has authority through either respect or through enforcement where there is real enforcement of what the ruler says/requests if it is not done.
Legitimacy is through the barrel of the gun or through whatever enforcement agencies are available.
If you want to go back onto the discussion ond emocracy, after the election has been carried out and a leader democratically elected, ther ecna be an additional step to get the bay'ah of the people if you feel that is necessary and cannot be an implicit part of the system.
(btw, I doubt there is a single democracy in the world that does not operate within the restrictions of a constitution. The closest is the UK where the constitution is unwritten, meaning what has been done in the past is seen as whatshould be done in the future.)
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
isn't bayah the islamic equivalent of voting?
You appear unaware of the history I cited - the bayah's that Yazid used to legitimise his authority were given whilst Muawiyah was alive, by force, so do not count. Thus Yazid had no legitimacy to exercise force - one cannot exercise force willy nilly - they need legitimisation which is a point you still don't understand.
My questions are not regarding another planet - they are real world.
It's just that you don't have an answer to them - like proof of God. Maybe in the real world you don't believe in God either as it is another world!
And on the ground, why can one not rebel against an individiual who illegitimately wields force? Why should one pay him taxes? Is it only because he wields force, there is no moral obligation? So if one can avoid paying it is ok to not pay?
This is your on the ground problem! Most business people in the UK avoid paying taxes and you can argue about govt force as much as you want - the govt can provide no moral grounds why people should pay taxes so most people avoid them!
Nope - one can use a gun legitimately or illegitimately - it is absurd to say the gun gives legitimacy as it does not.
You have no answer to the question!
Elections are not fard or necessary thus the companions never undertook them, even in Medina. As a preference expression mechanism they may have some use but there are better ways of choosing a ruler than that - maybe you should read books of classical scholars rather than the "modern secularists" you so despise from previous posts who talk about elections.
You are so overwhelmed by western politics as you cannot imagine anything else - thus you will always remain a follower of other's ideas and never a thinker who can think outside the frameworks around him. You're a Cypher character - if you have ever watched the Matrix - you love being plugged in and cannot live outside the familiar system of rules you've grown up with
Bayah is fard in Islam with the Prophet(saw) saying, "Whoever dies without the bayah on his neck dies the death of jahilliyah" and "After me there will be many Khulafah... fulfil the bayah to them, one by one...".
Voting has never been used and is not necessary. Those who have the experience and skills, the influentitals and societal leaders pick the best politician/individual as Caliph on behalf of the ummah who then give bayah to the Caliph. If they don't like him, they can reject him, and another has to be picked - the time limit is 3 days from the death of the previous one otherwise all are sinful... our last Caliph was deposed in 1924 - we have a problem as an ummah on our hands...
you're ignoring the other uses of force to get bay'ahs though.
Why were they different?
Why is this one special to not count?
(if your answer is that the last leader was alive, same was the case with hadhrat Abu Bakr (ra) when he nominated Hadhrat Umar (ra). Same was the case with Hadhrat Umar (ra) when he selected the 6 people from which the leader was to be taken, so was Imam Hassan when he united the ummah by giving leadership to Hadhrat Amir Mu'awiyah (ra)).
What is your position on Hadhrat Amir Mu'awiyah (ra)?
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
thats only if there is an ameer right?
the Prophet
was asked a question by a sahaba, the question was: if there isn’t an ameer to give bayah to at the present time in the ummah then what shall one do? the Prophet 
said stay silent. the Prophet 
never said you will die a death of jahiliyah.
voting has been used.
this is the way uthman ibn affan (ra) was chosen.
before his death umar bin al khattab (ra) appointed a committee of 6 people, he said these 6 people will appoint the next leader. 3 of the sahaba voted one way and the other 3 voted the other way. so the case was then referred to the shoora of madina. at that time the shura consisted of 50 people, again their opinion was equally divided. abdur rahman bin auf (ra) was then appointed by shura as the chief election commissioner. his job was to get the opinion and vote of the citizens, to see what they wanted (the public vote). he conducted this for 3 days and 3 nights continuously. he got the vote of every adult/sane citizen.
I've not ignored them - you have not bothered researching them! The principle I have cited is the Islamic principle and applies in all cases when we judge regardless who it is.
you havent cited ay principles! all you said was "it is null and void in this one case". without showing and saying why it is the case and the same does not apply to the other cases I mentioned.
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
Nope - this condition is not present in the hadith and rightly so. The obligation is there at all times as sharia must be applied at all times and an amir must always be there. If one is not there, Muslims must work to establish one - which is why there are lots of groups working to establish the Islamic state - only by working to establish the Caliph is the sin lifted from one's neck as per the famous maxim, that which is necessary to achieve a wajib is wajib.
Nope the question was not that - the question was what one does if there is no jama'a and there are people calling to hellfire - the Prophet(saw) said keep away from all those calling to hellfire even if you have to separate yourself and cling to a tree.
The process Umar(ra) put in place was not a vote - but a council of 6 of the influentials/pious. This is not elections.
In the event of a tie, he left the decision to Abdr Rahman to decide on his personal view. He did not get the vote of the citizens but according to conflicting narrations in the books of history (which I'm not sure are even authentic or not!) asked people who they would prefer out of the remaining two and in other narrations asked what policies they would prefer.
Thus no elections occured - a survey occurred.
A survey is different to elections - primarily it is not binding (as the decision was primarily Abdr Rahma's) and secondly elections provide a mandate which it did not in this case.
Finally, I've never seen any narration that he got the "vote" or even survey of "every adult/sane citien" - do you have a reference for this?
A bayah can only happen when a previous Caliph dies - as it appoints a Caliph - and it is haram to have more than one at any one point in time!
"the bayah's that Yazid used to legitimise his authority were given whilst Muawiyah was alive, by force, so do not count."
Where do you get that principle from? sources for its validity? haraam as a strong term and I am sure your position is that everything is legislated - everything that is haraam has been made haraam, everything that is fardh has been made fardh and everything that is mandoob has been made mandoob amongst others...
There is also the case of Imam Hassan. He was still alive when the bay'ah to Hadhrat AMir Mu'awiyah occurred.
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
ok.
Imam at Tabari's, Tarikh ul Umum wa'l-Muluk vol 3, p35 and Ibn Kathir's, al-Bid'aya wa'n-Nihaya vol 13, p37.
Is your Ibn Kathir reference correct? I cannot seem to find the citation in vol 13...
as far as i am aware yes.
try the other kitab.
Imam Hasan had abdicated so the bayah could be given to Muawiyah. That is a valid reason too as is death - the well known hadiths which prohibit bayah being given to two Caliphs simultaneously implies it can only be given when the previous one dies (or abdicates or is captured and cannot return or becomes kafir etc). Also there's narrations where the Prophet(saw) told the companions, "fulfil the bayah (to the khulafah), one after the other..."
You should try to be accurate with your referencing - I'll try to have a look at both another time as I don't have time to search now - it's late and I need to sleep!
You're no doubt aware that neither reference is fully authenticated esp. Tabari where there are lots of problematic narrations. Are your citations actually authentic and worth the effort of looking up?
Pages