reply: shwokat, all sincere muslims-part one

[mahdi]

bismil rabil noor,
assalamu alaikum,
br showkat, thanks for the posting but in short the article is not supported by any evidence. it can be taken as a personal analysis only. it is not based on islam and it is contradictory to islam in that it is calling acts as non islamic without any evidence.

you said;
"It is a well acknowledged fact that Islam is a complete way of life which necessitates the existence of the State to implement the Shariah both at an individual and societal level comprehensively. Individuals can abide by so me rules of Islam related to the prayer, fasting, and Hajj. The other rules of Islam that organize the various political, social, economic, and international relationships requires the existence of the State with the authority to organize the myriad of re lationships that characterize the society and the resources to mobilize the Ummah towards propagating Islam. "

****this can be one of the objectives of the state but it is not the only objective. Bringing harmony, justice, equality ridding the society of ignorance (jahl), advancement of science and technology etc among other things also form part of the duty of the state.
we are all muslims and there is no need for this repeated cut and paste, by virtue of being muslims it should be assumed that we all accept this and we all want to have a state. I cannot see any muslim who would say I rather have a non islamic state. Therefore, most of these arguments are outdated, they were produced and given to hizbur tahrir many years ago when msulims did not want an islamic state.

you said;
"Muhammad (saw) initiated a dynamic ideological and political struggle in Mecca in order to demolish the existing societal framework and reconstruct the social structure based on Islam. After thirteen years of struggle, he managed to establish the Islamic State in Medinah. From the first moment of its creation, that Islamic State implemented the Shariah comprehensively,


***brother, it is such misunderstandings that have led some astray into thinking that matters are that simple. If we had time and you and brother islamicboy instead of running away from us sat down and got into a dialogue with us then I could give you many examples, step by step, to prove that these ideas are wrong. The khilafa that you are proposing has no head nor a tail. It would not last to say shahadat. Because none of the practical issues are addressed. As you said the prophet s.a.w. worked for 13 years but with a program. Did he, during the 13 years, once call for khilafa or any form of a state. As a proclaimants of khilafa and those who claim to follow sunna is there any ‘dalil’ that he once did what hizbur tahrir are doing? The answer is NO.
islam came slowly, the implementation of islam was not complete and how did the prophet s.a.w. have a state with all the shariah when qur’an had not been revealed and was not completed. Most of qur’an came in madina not makka. Most rules came step by step until the last days. The last aya was after the hajjatol weda,(the final hajj) and after the incedence of ghadiril khum. The ‘aya was layaum akmalto lakom deenakum wa atmamto lakom ne’mati wa radaito lakumul islama deena’(today I have completed for you your religion and completed my bounties on you and am pleased with islam being as your deen.) the aya clearly says today I have completed your religion, this indicates that before that the religion was not complete.
The laws regarding drinking came slowly because over night people were not expected to change all habits. Some had to change over night but not all. Therefore, first it was ‘wala taqrabul salat wa antom sokara’(do not approach prayer while drunk) but later it was ‘inamal khamra wal maisar rijson ….fajtanabooh’ ( liquor is a trick….keep away from it).
You see, first it was, do not pray while drunk, later it was avoid it altogether. There was no permission for ‘jihad’ and with the first permission and the ayas of jihad they went and fought kuffar in the battle of badr. Are you saying the state that was first established with no jihad was a complete follower of shariah. Shariah was completed with the maturity of muslims until the last day of his s.a.w. life.
In conclusion, the state has to implement whatever it can while carrying the nation towards purification. Let me give you an example.
Let us say you have khilafa and the next day all women come out without the islamic cover(hejab). What do you think the khalif would do? Shoot all women? Those who have lived with an islamic state and seen the practical examples know that slogans are only good when there are no challenges. Of course if the khalif was lucky and lived in a state that all muslims were more pious than him and wanted more of islam than he did then there would be no problems.
The prophet s.a.w. in the battle of uhud wanted to stay in madina and defend from that position, some hot headed muslims were over confident and said no we go out. Of course when the going got tough they left the prophet s.a.w. are run up the mountain while he was left to fight on his own with only ali a.s. by his side. This was a violation of his command which is agianst shariah yet he tolerated it. Why? Because they were not ready for it. There is evidence in quran too, qur’an says ‘if the prophet s.a.w. was to follow you in many things then you would go astray, this means that the state or the leader(if there is no state) should not be dictatorial and want things his way even if it is correct. At times when it is possible and no major harm will comehe should let the people expeience and learn from their wrong doings. That was the lesson of uhud. The prophet s.a.w. followed the nation rather than they listening to him and they lost. Today, in iran too there are acts that are carried out that for sure do not meet the approval of the leader yet with patience he tries and by giving advice correct the situation, when it is serious then he intervenes directly. Two examples were the closure of some of the newspapers that were covetly sponsored by the west and were spreading anti islamic prooganda, including against the state and the leader. First he tried by giving advice and reminding of the akhira etc to stop them, it did not work. Then he ordered the judiciary to take action in accordance with laws that prohibit any anti islamic activity and they did by closing 20 newspapers and we all heard the western hue and cry. Another example was the recent press bill that some members of majlise shoura(parliament wanted to discuss and pass which would have changed the law such that they could have again sponsored their anti islamic words. Again he intervened and said if this is passed in accordance with my duty as the leader I will not remain silent. They saw this polite sentence as a serious warning and pulled out. This is called hikma.
I wish you would tell me how your ideal khalif would have dealt with these situations. Probably he would have resigned and said until you muslims follow the whole shariah, that no one knows what it is, then I will not be a khalif.
Ali a.s. in the battle of saffain stopped the battle because khawarej did not follow his command. When faced with complete revolt he accepted and carried out their wishes, against his judgement. He did not kill them. Later the same khawarej accepted that they were in error and blamed ali again but this time because he had listened to him. My pint is that when we say the state msut follow shariah it is true but sometimes it cannot because muslims are not ready or too naïve and the state cannot butcher those muslims, it will have to live with them.

Your ideas that the state is a khilafa and deserves a bay’a only if adheres to all of islam 100% is contradictory to the action of khalifs you support.
Another example: othman during his khilafa committed acts that were haram. In other words his state was not following the shariah 100%. But you still consider that as a khilafa. Why? Yo may say no it did not , we know that muslims rebelled against othman they sent their representatives to madina and asked for the resignation of his son in law, marwan ibne hakam(who was bannished by the prophet s.a.w yet othman brought him and made him his deputy! A true follower of the sunna of the prophet s.a.w.!). also, he had appointed his step brother walid ibne uqba as the amir of kufa, he used to suck the blood of muslims and kill his opponents finally he embarrassed the khalif othman when he was too drunk and vomited in mehrab of masjid of kufa. Eventually, otham brought him back and as all muslims were afraid of punishing him ali a.s. said I have no fear in carryng out the laws of allah s.w.t. and he lashed him accordingly.
The muslims and othman made ali a.s. a judge and he took his word than othman will change his appointments and restore the wrong he has done. Also, as a condition Othman had to publicly repent in the mosque of madina. This is all recorded history and I can give you references from authentic source according to sunni authors. The problem is that most muslims have no idea about the true islam and the history they just have taken a tablet and swallowed it. The net result is this is haram and that has no dalil and khalif has to do this and shariah is that.
So now, given all that, how do you explain that othman was a khalif, the state was islamic although his state was doing against shariah, unless you say his repentance was not real or he had not wronged but was asked to repent in public for no reason. and do not use the old tail that he did ijtihad and it was wrong, he was forcefully made to repent in public, and if a ruler can go aginst sharia in accordance with his ijtihad then everything goes and you can never call any state un islamic because the ruler will give you the same joke back and say it is my ijtihad.
Just to complete the history, soon after he went against his words and this time the muslims were back and did not accept anyone’s mediation. They called for the resignation of not marwan, his son in law, but himself. They said we made you khalif and now we remove you from it. it ended in the killing of othman. Many were sahabis and knew the sunna! So all these HT hadiths about having to follow the khalif or else did not wash, may be there was no HT at that time to teach those sahabis about the real islam, or they did not have the internet and could not get the real hadiths and sunna on some dotcom site!
You see, brother, a sincere muslims has to chew all this and be able to digest the words he utters. When there are so many contradictions then people will not accept what one says.
I am glad that you and brother islamicboy have raised the issue which has given me the opportunity to discuss issues that I would not have ever opened. Aya shahid mottahari used to say islam glows better when under attack because it shows the strength and the attacks blow the dust and reveal the real truth. i hope you continue with these diversion which give me the opportunity to bring up more examples.

I will continue with the rest of your remarks later.
I apologise for errors I am typing as fast as I can and writing from memory, not cutting and pasting from a web site, therefore, you will at times have difficulty reading or understanding.
Again, please brother read and reflect upon all what I have said. Give me your thought from what I said and stop copying websites. It is looking to all readers that you and br islamic boy have no personal views on these issues
May He guide us as he sends the light(noor).
wasalam
mahdi

[muhammad]

Salaam to all,

What happened to the discussion about Khilafah, etc that we were having? Are Showkat and islamicboy still around I haven't seen them for a while?

Regards,
Muhammad

[islamicboy]

salaam bro muhammed

the discussion about khilafah is still aalive all aorund the world. However the brothers mahdi, nur, abdur rahman, follow the shia school of thought regarding the 12 infallibale imams and the concept of wilayatul faqih hence the questions on yazid and ali and the actions of many kulafaa.

It is not a school of thought i follow, however before discussing about the branches lets discuss the roots i.e wilatul faqih and the 12 infallibale imams.

jazak allah khair

[Abdur_Rahman]

[quote]Originally posted by islamicboy:
salaam bro muhammed

the discussion about khilafah is still aalive all aorund the world.

it migth be in other corners of the world but I can assure all the readers that the disscussion started by the Khilafa boys re Khilafa has gone dead because the promoters khilafa have gone silent (Allah knows why) but a few reasons could be that they have no answer to give. And the pathetic answer they give is that some of the peopel are shia or whatever, so what even if some peopel are shia/sunni/sufi or from any other religions, as as muslims you must give reasoned answer and should never say 'i will not asswer because you are a so and so'.

Brother I suggest you take off the word 'Islamic' out from you name and just call youself a BOY, because the the kind of replies you are giving is of ana immature brother.

You wanted a face to face meeeting so that you will give all the answers to our queries, brother I am now prepared to make to time for this meeting, Brother ready when you are.

[mahdi]

bismil rabil noor,
assalamu alaikum,
it does not matter what school we belong to, if you cannot answer the questions then it is a sign of weakness in your logic. i did not see you lacking answers when you were discussing with indian, but now because you have no answers you have come up with the escape card.
it seems that khilafa is like pepsi, only to be adverised but if one starts to dig then the harm it causes will be revealed. no questions on the ingeredients, contents can be answered.
those questions on yazid were very valid and for 1400 years non of those who believe in khialfa have managed to answer.
if the group we follow is correct then it should be able to answer these questions.
based on what you have done so far, you are able to have discussions and i think hizbur tahrir is a good place for you.
as for discussion on 12 infallible imams, and welayat faqih, again, how long would it last before you jump to anpther subject.
i am prepared to discuss any subject but again if i ask you why fatima al zahra, the doughter of the prophet s.a.w. refused to talk to those you consider so pious and holy then again you will jump the subject.

wasalam
mahdi

[islamicboy]

salaam brothers


ok why are we limiting ourselves to just imam hussein, why do we not talk abouth khalifah abu bakr (ra), omar bin al khattab (ra) uthman bin affan (ra) and even ali bin abi talib (ra).

what these khalifs


683-92
Khalifah Marwan ibn Hakim

692-705
Khalifah ‘Abdil-Malik ibn Marwan.

705-15
Khalifah Al-Walid ibn ‘Abdil-Malik


715-17
Khalifah Sulaiman ibn ‘Abdil-Malik

717-720
Khalifah Omar ibn ‘Abdil-Aziz


720-24
Khalifah Yazid ibn Abdil-Malik


724-43
Khalifah Hisham ibn ‘Abdil-Malik


744-44
Khalifah Ibrahim ibn Al-Walid

744-50
Khalifah Marwan (Al-Himar) ibn Muhammad

750-54
Khalifah Abul-‘Abbas As-Saffah

754-75
Khalifah Abu Ja’far Al-Mansur


775-85
Khlaifah Al-Mahdi


785-86
Khalifah Al-Hadi


786-809
Khalifah Harun Ar-Rashid


809-813
Khalifah Al-Amin

813-33
Khalifah Al-Ma’mun

833-42
Khalifah Al-Mu’tasim Billah

842-47
Khalifah Al-Wathiq Billah

847-61
Khalifah Al-Mutakwakkil ‘Allah

861-62
Khalifah Al-Muntasir Billah


and the list goes on brothers, your persistance on concentrating on just one incident on the history of khilafah goes to show either your ignorance on the islamic history, or your just here to slander sincere brothers who are calling for the return of the deen of allah (swt).


I asked you to provide me constitution of iran, but you failed to do this. How many islamic states do we have here, afghanistan claim to be one, saudi arabia claim to be one, pakistan claim to be one and other muslim countries claim to be one. So who is correct?????


Did the prophet (saw) have many islamic states or just the one in medinah which then spread to the whole of the arabian peninsula???


Did the khilafah ar rashidun have many islamic states???


Brothers stop given me slogans, and provide me with dalil i.e. constitution of iran. Don say i am not mujtahid so i won't understand it, bro i showed you the current constitution of iran, If you claim that this is wrong then prove it.


If you want to know more about the khilafah, then visist khilafah.org. Its up to you at the end of the day whether you want to accept this or not.

Yes insha just say when and where and we will meet up.


jazak allah khair

i apologise if i have offended anyone

[muhammad]

Originally posted by islamicboy:
salaam bro muhammed

the discussion about khilafah is still aalive all aorund the world. However the brothers mahdi, nur, abdur rahman, follow the shia school of thought regarding the 12 infallibale imams and the concept of wilayatul faqih hence the questions on yazid and ali and the actions of many kulafaa.

It is not a school of thought i follow, however before discussing about the branches lets discuss the roots i.e wilatul faqih and the 12 infallibale imams.

jazak allah khair

Salaam bro,

1) Nur claims to be Sunni - I quote from an earlier post - "I am a hanafi sunni"
2) You've been discussing with Mahdi all this time. Why end the discussion with him now - if you cannot answer his questions, just say so.
3) You've also been involved in many discussions with Indian and other self-confessed non-Muslims. However, you did not say I cannot discuss with you because you are Hindu! Why are you prepared to discuss with Hindu's and Atheists, but not Shia's and other Muslims groups?

Anyway, I know sunni's who are not HT and have similar views to those posted by Mahdi, Nur and AR. It is up to you to convince us that your school of thought is valid using reason and logic, as taught by the Prophet (PBUH).

I look forward to this (but I won't be holding my breath!)

Regards,
Muhammad