I see from your posts, is that you hold alot of grudge against the Al-Sauds. Im not a fan of them as well, but, what are your sources for this info?

 

Besides, Mecca and Medina, are constantly shifting their city plans, and buildings are continuously being razed to the ground, to allow for the haram's expansion, which the Saudi government has been commited to since it bore the responsibilty of keeping the two holy mosques. Not to make money, but to cope with the millions of annual pilgrims to those places. Do not worry, the two holy mosques will not slip out of arab control again. They are in respectful hands.

 

Arab control? Sorry but maybe I'm missing the point, arn't the Holy Muslim lands respected by all muslims? so why is it solely a priority of Arabs? all Arabs are not muslim so its an ironic comment.

 

Yes they do belong to all the muslims, but where do they lie? In arabia, so they are the responsibilty of the arabs. Do not forget that the prophet was an arab, and the caliphs were.

 

What better job? What is missing from mecca, what negatives do you see? I think the Sauds are doing a wonderful job in mecca, with annual expansions and facilities being built for the pilgrims. I doubt if any other regime would be as interested in the two holy mosques.

 

Hashimi as an arab, a descendant of the prophet? Or an Indian or Persian with a black turban?

 

Im no Saudi, I also do not defend that government. I do believe that they are despots, theives and tyrants, whom enslave their people. What Im talking about here isnt politics, its the islamic heritage and history. About Mecca and Medina, and that the Saudi regime is all but not taking care of those sites.

 

Actually, it does matter. According to the Sunnah, and the four principles of the Islamic schools of jurisdiction, Imams Hanafi, Shafi'i, Hanbali, and Maliki, the succesor of the prophet must be a Qurashi, not only an arab, but a Qurashi. Why do think then, when Ibn Saud kicked Sharif Husain out of the Hejaz, he did not assume that title? When he had the power, influence, and charisma over the entire arab nation at the time. He did not fullfil the Qurashi term. Thus he was not fit for such a position.

 

I'm extremely interested to know from where did you obtain the above condition?

 

why is becoming a Qurashi such important?

 

 

well said.

 

 

The Shia, on the other hand, prefer the title of Imam, and that this person must be of the prophet's household, let alone a Qurashi.

 

When you come to the Ottomans, they became legitimate caliphs at sword's edge.

 

Regarding  the Khalifa--

Look within Qureish, from those of Badr, then from Muhajjir, then from Ansar, if none are worthy then from pious able muslims(I think that's the order). If the last Qureishi is blind he is not given priority over a seeing muslim. If the Qureshi has no authority or influence then according to Imam Abu Hanifa a muslim who has will be given priority(A prerequisite). But at all times he must rule by what is revealed, otherwise he would be removed, Qureshi or not. On this there is also no difference in opinion. Imam Ibn Hanbal, Abu Hanifah, and Imam Hussein did just that. When Hussein set off for Kufah he had said: What is it that the people want from me but to rule 'by' what god has revealed. 

 

The case for Qureshis is made in the following hadith:

"The Khalifahs are Qureshi"

 

Ghazali being a staunch supporter of the Qureshi only view, but actually the hadith is not absolute in this matter and does not rule out non-qureshi Caliphs.

 

However it is open to interpretation; it would also mean that the Qureshis are especially tasked with the guardianship of Islam and that they 'should' be among it's foremost supporters.

 

Qureshi by the virtue of their birth are not destined for anything more than the non-qureshi. Prime examples would be Abu Jahal and Abu Lahab.

 

However, If a Qureishi has all the needed qualities and substantial support among the then there are no better candidates then him.(Deference)

 

Like almost all caliphs. (Except first three.)

 

 

Anyway, caliphate is not an esential part of islam. So qureshi part is more unnecessary.

 

It would be stupid that I accept someone as my leader because he is Qureshi. 

 

Hello Cok nice to see you, are you busy in your moderatng job?

Actually Ibn Munqidh is partialy right all the Sunnies Islamic sholars siad that except Abu Hanifa who said anyone have the right to be a caliph if he has the condition.

that is the only reason that made the Turks(Ottoman) adopted Hanafi sec.

 

 

Infact alot most of the Indian Sub-continant, Caucauses and Balkan muslims also did the same.

 

Its due to the wise men of this age that people converted to Islam, mysticsm equality unity the non-dogmatic teachings of religion is why so many converted.

 

If people who shared "Ibn Muniqdh" or some dogmatic puritanical rationalistic extremists were in charge nobody would have wanted to associate with them. Your practically implying Islam is an Arab religion, a non-Arab cannot have any legitmacy under Islam everybody is "under" the Arabs.

 

This is precisely what Hanafi was so against all those years ago and why so many respected him for it

 

Why is it, that everytime, someone tries to purify islam from from the many innovations and cultural intrusions in it, he is called an extremest, wahhabi etc. This is islam, like it or not, take it or leave it. From what you are saying here, you are implying that Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, Anas Ibn Malik, and Muhammad Al-Shafii, the father of fiqh, are all wrong, and whatever suits you is right. Otherwise, we are all wahhabi's extremists etc.

 

Besides, the caliph being an arab doesnt mean Islam is an arabic religion. Dont you accept that the prophet was an arab? Dont you accept that the Sahaba and Ahlul-Bayt are arabs? Dont you accept that the Qur'an is in arabic form? Please answer all the examples I gave you in my previous posts, then call me an extremist.

I said Ottoman not all the Turks adopted Hanafi to make their caliphate a legitimate one.

maybe they were wrong they were not infallable persons if you want to strength your claims bring the reasons that made the scholars announced this Fatwa about Caliphate.

the second Imam was Malik Bin Anas not the vice versa.

do you think yourself purify islam by talking in this way reconsider your ideas and try to make civlized conversation.

Salam.

 

Any ayet from quran? I mean why should accept everything said by others. Even  I must not listen word of prophet If It is against common logic.(for our times.) So I dont see any reason to leave from religion.

Check your sources please the Ottoman caliphate proclaimed by Selim I in 1517 after he defeated the Memlukes in Egypt and capture the last shadow Abbasid caliph Al-Mutawakkil III, maybe they didn't use the specifice title but the abolished the Abbasid and founded the Ottoman Caliphate.

 

which Abdul Al-Hamid you meant the first or the second.

Why is it, that everytime, someone tries to purify islam from from the many innovations and cultural intrusions in it, he is called an extremest, wahhabi etc.

 

Why do extremists worry about culture, try to destroy it and replace it with their own culture.

 

Cultre and Religion are seperate, religion can affect culture.

 

This is islam, like it or not, take it or leave it.

 

According to who? according to which authority. You have no right to call people good or bad, that is left to Allah.

 

 

 

So Hanafi doesn't exist? who said they're all wrong, they're schools of interpretation, there is no "right" or "wrong".

 

 

Ofcourse it does, it basically implies the highest ruling authority must be Arab and everybody else must serve Arabs.

 

People of this mindset sound like they're trying to install a Papacy, have a Pope centred round a religous headquarters, then institutionalise and rationalise the religion and morph it into a tool of dogmatic power.

 

Unfortunately some certain people with huge amounts of money are trying to make Islam into a religion of dogma, desensitized to humanity.

 

I get your point Ahmad Thanks for the correction.

 

Its not like selling something, but I get irritated with people who cut and paste, cut corners and absorb what suits them with religion, and leave the rest behind. If you wish to be part of a religion, accept the whole package. Me personally, I consider myself a secularist and do not consider myself religious, and I am proud to admit that. Yet if I were to talk about religion, I would answer back with sources, which unfortunately at the time, I aint got them near me, but I cite a fact, and whether you agree with it or not, its your decision.

 

As to my uncivilised conversation, Im telling you, I do not have any sources near me, but I will hopefully tomorrow.

@Bulldog,

 

Why do extremists worry about culture, try to destroy it and replace it with their own culture.

 

 

Cultre and Religion are seperate, religion can affect culture.

 

 

 

According to who? according to which authority. You have no right to call people good or bad, that is left to Allah.

 

-Im not labling people as good or bad, but if you indeed believe in God and Islam, why dont you accept what the highest Islamic scholars have said, or, in case you dont, come up with your own conclusion and propogate it. Who knows, you might start up a new 'islamic' sect.

 

 

So Hanafi doesn't exist? who said they're all wrong, they're schools of interpretation, there is no "right" or "wrong".

 

-Im not saying that he does not exist, my friend Ahmad the Fighter has thankfully pointed out that Imam Hanafi did not agree with the rest of the Imams, so I did not include him in my text. 

 

 

Ofcourse it does, it basically implies the highest ruling authority must be Arab and everybody else must serve Arabs.

 

-Incorrect, the Caliph isnt served, he serves the entire muslim nations, and is responsible for every muslim soul in his domain. The only position in the Umma that has to taken by an arab is the caliph, with the rest, anyone who is able, can fill them in. 

 

People of this mindset sound like they're trying to install a Papacy, have a Pope centred round a religous headquarters, then institutionalise and rationalise the religion and morph it into a tool of dogmatic power.

 

 

Unfortunately some certain people with huge amounts of money are trying to make Islam into a religion of dogma, desensitized to humanity.

 

 

 

 

Absurd.

 

Originally posted by Ibn Munqidh For example, one cannot be a muslim, and still practice zoroastrian beliefs, i.e. Nairooz, which is still celebrated in Iran. What type of hypocrisy is this?!

 

Hypocrisy is to expect all Iranians to be Islamic.  They should be able to practice whatever religion they want to.

 

 

Now, what has it got to do with religion? why is it a problem? farmers always celebrate the comming of spring its pretty logical.

 

How is it a "threat" to religion.

 

When something of a culture opposes Islam, to be a muslim, one must act against that and end it.

 

Umm well treating woman as inferior, not sending daughters to school, not promoting sciences, technology and education, not helping the poor if you have means to do so, equality, the right to elect and choose rulers.

 

All important aspects of Islam, sadly forgotten by a regime you are protecting.

Firstly guys, caaaalmmmmmm. Let's not personalize the issue.

 

The Quran it self speaks for culture and diversity, when it says that i have created you as tribes and nations(differing).

 

"O Mankind, We created you from a single (pair) of a male and a female and made you into nations and tribes, that you may know each other. Verily the most honored of you in the sight of God is he who is the most righteous of you" (Quran 49:13)."

 

"These differences are not wrong, rather a sign from God ("And among His Signs is the creation of the heavens and the earth, and the difference of your languages and colors. Verily, in that are indeed signs for those who know" [Quran 30:22]). "

 

If ever there was a safegaurd against primitive backward notions of racism, tribalism, nationalism or colourism the above would be it.

A man once visited the Prophet's mosque in Madinah. There he saw a group of people sitting and discussing their faith together. Among them were Salman (who came from Persia), Suhayb who grew up in the Eastern Roman empire and was regarded as a Greek, and Bilal who was an African. The man then said:

"If the (Madinan) tribes of Aws and Khazraj support Muhammad, they are his people (that is, Arabs like him). But what are these people doing here?"

The Prophet became very angry when this was reported to him. Straightaway, he went to the mosque and summoned people to a Salat.

 

IN ISLAM NATIONS ARE NOT EXHAULTED BUT INDIVIDUALS THROUGH 'RIGHTEOUS' ACTS.

 

-------------------------------------

 

It all looks like an Ummayad conspiracy.

 

"Be watchful of Iranian Muslims and never treat them as equals of Arabs. Arabs have a right to take in marriage their women, but they have no right to marry Arab women. Arabs are entitled to inherit their legacy, but they cannot inherit from an Arab. As far as possible they are to be given lesser pensions and lowly jobs. In the presence of an Arab a non-Arab shall not lead the congregation prayer, nor they are to be allowed to stand in the first row of prayer, nor to be entrusted with the job of guarding the frontiers or the post of a qadi. " - Mu'awiyah

 

"One day a group of the Mawali (Iranian clients of Arab tribes) came to Amir al-Mu'minin 'Ali and complained about the conduct of the Arabs. They said to him that the Messenger of God did not make any distinction between Arabs and non-Arabs in the disbursement of public funds (bayt ul-mal) or in the matter of marriage. They added that the Prophet distributed public funds equally among Muslims and let Salman, Bilal and Suhayb marry Arab women, but today Arabs discriminated between themselves and us. 'Ali went to the Arabs and discussed the matter with them, but it was to no avail. The Arabs shouted, "It is quite impossible! Impossible! "'All, annoyed and angered by this turn of affairs, returned to the Mawali and told them with utmost regret, "They are not prepared to treat you equally and as Muslims enjoying equal rights. I advise you to go into trade and God will make you prosper." - Usul Al-Kafi

 

Also, in response to the earlier point about celebrating Norouz, Zoroastrians are (usually) considered people of the book, therefore their traditions are not anti-islamic. Furthermore, as many other people mentioned Norouz is a cultural holiday, there is no religious significance to it (no prayer or worship involved). It also seems hypocritic to call Norouz anti-islamic when most people have a Quran on their Haft-Sin.

Imam Ali (PBUH) treated all people equally with no diffirences and your quote doesnot make sense,the Imam was the caliph and had all the power in his state no need to go to the Arab and ask them,if he saw somthing wrong he would fix it.

 

U quote Muawiya's personal opinion of the Iranians, which has as much relevance as G. Bush's view of  Iranians! The party of Muawiya was opportunist in that it wanted to consolidate the power within the tribe of Banu Ummayah, it dealt more harshly with fellow Arabs than Iranians. It did away with the meritocratic system for a hereditary system. I even hinted toward this non-Arab intolerance as an ummayad conspiracy in the previous post. To be honest i don't think it was outright racism, rather political use of race, by which the Ummayads would with one stroke deny a huge population from contending the seat of power. If anything the Ummayad were the first to renege on the fundamental Islamic principle of meritocratic leadership by creating authoritarian rule. None other than the grandsons of Mohamed were involved in leading the fight against their corruption.

 

The beginning was not of Islam, but of Ummayad rule, who foresake an Islamic principle and make a lot of people unhappy to put it mildly.

 

Hi Ahmed, good to hear from you. Sorry it has been extremely busy these few months.

As you know that most Saudis are Hanbalis and yet, this hadith is not circulated and I never heard of it. That is why I asked the source.