Continued... Abolition of Ottoman Caliphate

Omar,

If he claimed he had no way to hold it, he probably had no way to hold it.

He abandoned it almost as soon as he arrived. He put very little effort into defending it. Also, we must look to the history immediately before it. He returned from the Dardanelles and began campaigning for the Caliphate to withdraw from the war. This meant he didn't believe in it, and therefore I think it's quite obvious that someone who doesn't believe in a war and is campaigning strongly for its end would not be fighting hard to prolong it.

The Sahabah fought a bloody civil war between themselves

What exactly are you trying to say by this Omar? I'm puzzled.

Guys please, thats like blind men feeling an elephant, one man touches the ear and says 'its a large flappy creature' the other touches the leg and says 'nay its a strong tree like trunk'.

Your analogy is nice Omar, but not quite applicable to my statements. As I've never claimed that the personal relationship between you and your Creator isn't part of Islam, nor have I claimed that love for Allah isn't part of  Islam. All I've done is try to fill in the gaps for bulldog, and show him that Islam is much more than that (although obviously it includes that).

Clearly its both. Fear and love, both from the other. Two sides to the same coin.

Yes that's a good analogy also.

Its like the famous race, the Indonesians look at the Arabs & Pakis and think they are really religous and try to catch up

Indeed Allah (swt) has commanded us to compete with eachother in this way:

"So vie with one another in good works" [S�rah al-Baqarah: 148, S�rah al-M�idah: 48]

arghhhhhhhhhh

What a scary site. That drunken stare is just disgusting. Please remove it.

Seko,

you were given numerous chances to either accept or refute your claim about your so-called Caliph being mentioned in the Quran

I gave you 5 verses from the Qur'an which clearly speak about the ruling system in Islam. I gave you several hadith and also the statements of the Sahabah (ra) and also the statements of the Greatest Imams and Classical Scholars of this Ummah. If you reject all of those together, there's not much more I can do for you. The idea that all of them colluded to make up something that doesn't exist is just preposterous. It is you who is making up something that doesn't exist, a new modified version of Islam to suit your own needs.

And you failed to provide the exact verses from the Quran

I provided all of the verses, and most of them with their surah and ayah number. The others are 2:30 (This is the ayah about a Khaleefah mentioned exactly) and also 5:44  about those who do not rule by what Allah (swt) revealed being kuffar. This verse CLEARLY shows that if you don't use an Islamic ruling system (ie. a Caliphate) then you are a KAFIR. If you want to dispute and say that it doesn't mention Caliphate  by word, it's irrelevant, if it looks like a duck, it waddles like a duck and quacks... it's a duck. Also the other verse 2:30 already establishes that Allah (swt) has called the ruling position of mankind as Khaleefah anyway, along with the numerous hadith in which the Prophet (saw) mentioned clearly this is the name for our ruler and ruling system. Anyway if you're going to fight over the name, it's pointless stop wasting our time. The kind of system (its attributes) have been clearly stated in the Qur'an, it must be a system based on the Shari'ah commandmenets of Allah or anything else would be KUFR.

I pointed out that bulldogs "take" on Islam is completely out of step with the 1400 year history of Islam (including the time of the Sahabah) and you responded to that statement with "The sahabah fought a bloody civil war between themselves", it just doesn't make sense, sorry. I needed some clarification, as I'm still at a loss to understand what you meant by it.

Qutuz

Qutuz,
I am amazed at how you take any word in the Quran that mentions something (khaleefatan) and you immediately think it means spiritual leader of muslims.
The following verse you provided is about Adam. Not about a successor to Muhammad.


2:30 And your Lord said to the Angels: "I am placing a successor on Earth." They said: "Would You place in it he who would corrupt in it, and spill blood, while we sing Your glory, and praise You?" He said: "I know what you do not know."
2:31 And He taught Adam the description of all things, then He displayed them to the Angels and said: "Inform Me the descriptions of these things if you are truthful."

5:44 We have sent down the Torah, in it is guidance and a light; the prophets who have surrendered judged with it for those who are Jews, as well as the Rabbis, and the Priests, for what they were entrusted of God's Scripture, and they were witness over. So do not fear the people but fear Me; and do not purchase with My revelations a cheap price. And whoever does not judge with what God has sent down, then these are the rejecters.

You prove my point. What did God send down? The Quran or Bukhari's, Malik's, Abu Huirara's 'talmudic' gospels?

Lastly, this was a question I asked you before:

"I ask again. Where is it clearly written that the Caliph is the leader of the Ummah?".

You answered:

"The verse I already quoted for you, "Whoever does not rule by what Allah has revealed, such are al-Kafiroon"
http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=16024&PN=1

This is your escape from reality. A general statement that doesn't mention Kalifa in the sentence.

Even the Rabbi's and Priests were to follow and judge by the Torah. They were not instructed to judge by something else about religious matters. Look at the religious fatwa's and laws created by Caliph's over the years that were not promoted by the Quran and you will see that they created laws contrary to it.

    

Edited by Seko - 11-Nov-2006 at 11:49

Qutuz

Originally posted by Qutuz I pointed out that bulldogs "take" on Islam is completely out of step with the 1400 year history of Islam (including the time of the Sahabah) and you responded to that statement with "The sahabah fought a bloody civil war between themselves", it just doesn't make sense, sorry. I needed some clarification, as I'm still at a loss to understand what you meant by it.

I mean that the Sahabah are not a role model in every single thing.

Originally posted by Seko Even the Rabbi's and Priests were to follow and judge by the Torah. They were not instructed to judge by something else about religious matters. Look at the religious fatwa's and laws created by Caliph's over the years that were not promoted by the Quran and you will see that they created laws contrary to it.

Actually that last line of 5:44 is an excellent argument not to include Hadieses in a shariah intepretation.

And whoever does not judge with what God has sent down, then these are the rejecters.

Hadieses were not sent down by God.

Originally posted by Qutuz Actually it's you who has no idea. You've completely confused talking with people about Islam, with the language of prayer. Prayer is a ritual and it should be done in Arabic. Speaking with someone about the qualities of Islam, would obviously be done in a language they comprehend. This goes without saying, and nowhere have I indicated otherwise. What you're talking about here I really don't understand.

the intention, duah and khutbah are usually in the local tounge. The actual prayer in arabic.

And anyway history shows that most of those who came to Islam, in the early centuries at least, all adopted the Arabic language as well. Persia was in those days Arabic speaking, and its only in later times that Persian made a comeback. Likewise most of the Turks who first embraced Islam became Arabic speakers. Imam's Bukhari, Muslim & Abu Hanafi were all of Persian or Central Asian origin, and became some of the greatest scholars of Arabic language, and Islamic jurisprudence.

Not true. The Semetic speakers of the middle east didn't just change their language to arabic, the semetic languages with greater intercontact and arabic influence blurred together. This is why there is so much variation in arabic "dialects", they are decendent from different semetic languages.
Indo european languages such as turkish, or Pharsi were never replaced by arabic. Arabic was never adopted by the masses of these people. Bukhari and Hanafi are not examples, as these men as scholars were taught and mastered arabic. In exactly the same way scholars do now.

Edited by Omar al Hashim - 11-Nov-2006 at 17:20

why should ezan be turkish? Because of Turkish nationalism? Bullsh*t.

Seko,

Qutuz, I am amazed at how you take any word in the Quran that mentions something (khaleefatan) and you immediately think it means spiritual leader of muslims

I quoted the tafsir of Imam al-Qurturbi, who is one of the most respected Classical Scholars and exegetes of the Qur'an. He is trusted by all sides of Islamic Orthodoxy, Sufis, Salafis, Tablighis whoever you ask, all agree Imam al-Qurtubi is an authentic scholar whose tafsir is trusted.

You prove my point. What did God send down? The Quran or Bukhari's, Malik's, Abu Huirara's 'talmudic' gospels?

I am sorry, I meant to write 5:45 not 5:44. But since I've quoted it for you about 3 times already, you should've been aware what I was talking about.

Again: "Whosoever does not rule by what Allah (swt) has revealed, such are disbelievers (al-Kafiroon)." 5:45

This is your escape from reality. A general statement that doesn't mention Kalifa in the sentence.

That verse makes it clear that only a ruling system based on the Islamic system is correct (which we know from the Prophet (saw) is called the Khilafah system), the name is not that important, but the substance of it is. If we failed to rule by it, we would become kuffar.

By this verse, we can know people like Mustafa Kemal are disbelievers, and therefore it's haraam to follow them, and this was my main point anyway. Whether you believed in the Khilafah or not is not my main aim here, as you don't even believe in the Sunnah, which is the first step you'd need to take before even worrying about the Khilafah. But at least we can see from this verse your beloved leader is not one of us, and it's haraam for Muslims to follow or praise him, as this verse clearly marks him as kafir.

Look at the religious fatwa's and laws created by Caliph's over the years that were not promoted by the Quran and you will see that they created laws contrary to it.

The Khulafa adopted rulings, based on the ijtihad of qualified Islamic Scholars, who have the necessary knowledge to derive a shari'ah ruling from the Islamic texts. This is something I don't think you have a lot of knowledge about, and probably should study a little more before you make such statements. Also you deny the hadith, so that limits you from really understanding the process of ijtihad anyway.