One Arab World

1 - I just clicked through the links and I don't see this working out very well. "a supreme, pious leader who would combine religious and political power" and holy war is a positive concept. So this is basicly fascism with a religious twist. I don't see many problems being solved if you only ditch the secular from the secular dictators.

Qualms 4 and 5 were a pleasent suprise. Maybe you should start K-CAIR. People like Omar Ahmed make Islam incompatable with his own country.

Are there any infidels reading this who would like to join the organization I have started? We are going to make everyone in Iowa join the Church of God with Signs Following. (Comment this)

2 - Abdul rahman is a fanatic as i said before, brain washed & proud to repeat whatever nonsense he was told without checking it himself.
I had asked him a few questions in reply to what he termed as " complete political ideology" in Islam, which is absolutely false, but when he answered back, his answers werent islamic but historical & some were so vague, they didnt clarify anything in the end.
Abdul rahman doesnt realise how time has changed, he doesnt see nations but religions & in doing so, he eliminates borders & identities. He also mixes the Divine with the human in such a flagrant manner & doesnt even realise that his reply is deeply flawed, he wasnt taught to think but to reply in a certain way & this is the whole problem, DOGMA. Called Omars own personal efforts legislation, which means anyone too can have their own legislation as Omar isnt above the law or mentioned by name in the Quranic verses to follow, i asked him for references of choosin a leader in Islam & he mentions 3 different ways that he forgets werent according to any verse or any saying even, why if it was supposed to be a complete ideology inherent in Islam?
The other answers he replied were the normal smoke screens fanatics like him resort to when they cannot find answer, i mean, if he had some brains, just to look at his line; sources in islam are , quran, hadiths & ijmaa sahaba, the companions themselves disagreed on many issues, they fought battles against eachother, deadly & bloody & he says ijmaa sahaba( companion consensus)as a source in religion! There is only one source & thats the quran, & to understand the quran you need to understand circumstances surrounding each of the rules in the quran, as they were not asbolute nor eternal & this is what they will never see or understand.
 (Comment this)

3 - Karim
You want to understand the likes of abdul rahman? Dont waste time with his likes, go & read about him in history books, there was a group misguided like him 1400 years ago, they were arrogant & highly educated, fierce warriors who didnt shy from killing thousands of innocent muslims because they belived ONLY they were the true muslims while others were merely impostors, they talked rhetoric all the time & mixed cards just like abdul rahman does, & they all died except for their misleading ideology. These sort of people never ever have logic, if you present them with proof that their ideas are false, they will not take it, even if it was from the Quran, i can load my replies with sources but why trouble myself when i know he wont bother to look them up, even though they would shock him if he did. If you want to understand them better, you need to read about their their ideas that were proselytised through people like Sayed Qutb & El Mawdoudi, whos ideology was flawed & refuted yet enjoy many following. (Comment this)

4 - These are the pointless retorts I was talking about. Let the man say his piece. I, for one, am interested in what he has to say. (Comment this)

5 - Go ahead and delete mine. It was pointless, but you know he wouldn't listen to me anyway. This is also pointless. (Comment this)

6 - Me too, I've been following this blog since the hamas teaser, because I am curious to find out how these people think. (Comment this)

7 - "1. While the status of the Party is currently labeled as non violent there is a lot of preaching to the contrary."
The party's method is non-violent. We do not advocate violence in any way except in self defence (Iraq, Palestine, Afganistan, etc.) against occupying forces. And even then, we do not advocate in anyway the killing of inocent civilians.
I stated in another post that we follow the method of the prophet Muhammad (s). He did not wage wars until he established a khilafah in Madinah, and likewise, we will not wage any wars until we establish the khilafah, whereever it may be (eyes on Central Asia).

"The reason Islam was so successful in the centuries following its initiation was because of its wide appeal. Contrary to popular belief Islam spread primarily through that appeal, much like the current spread of democracy (the current ideology of the day); sure there was conquest, not always all-out war but often through absconding maneuvers, in parallel to Iraq and much of South America and East Asia. But because it is an appealing ideology it took to the people, as does Democracy today; especially as it did in West Africa. Where is the mass appeal in what you are advocating? How does it benefit people that just do not believe in what you do? All we tangibly sees is failure, lack of tolerance, and atrocities in our name."
Where? Because we call for the khilafah, does that make us bin ladenists by default? Because we want to live under Islamic rule does that mean we advocate hatred and violence? Is this assumption or do you have any proof of our violence? There is absolutly no record, and I dare you to bring one, which states that Hizb was responsible for any violent act ever since it was establish in the 1953.
We have a method of doing things and our method does not involve any bombs. It is the same method the prophet took and the same method coups have been initiated throughout history to this very very day.
You mentioned the issue of appeal and this is how Islam expanded. Well ofcourse, North Africa didn't turn into Islam by forcing people to convert. Islamic rule never even reach Indonesia and today it is the country with the most Muslim population. I have no problem with that argument, however, I sense that you are implying that Islamic rule is of the past and today we should all embrace democracy.

This is a tricky subject as the question is, what is democracy? If by democracy you mean that we vote for who rules us then I am all for it. But if democracy you mean that people get to do what they want, dress as they want, eat and drink as they and basically turn out countries into a copy of the west, then I have to say no.

"Even the hawks of our religion will admit that “The People of the Book” (Jews, Christians, and Muslims) are not following a false religion. How do you think a comment like “It turns Islam into just another religion like Judaism, Christianity, Hinduism or any other religion when Islam is so much more.” reflects on that."
I am not going to start giving fatawa on who is kaafir and who is not. All what I meant by the sentence that you quote me with is that unlike those religions, Islam is not compatible with secularism unless you remove several sections of our deen in which case, it is no longer Islam.

If there were two columns, one column had within it Christianity, Judism, Hinduism, and all the other religions and you had a second column with Communism and Capitalism, and then I was asked to put Islam in the column where it's more relevant, I would probably place Islam next to Capitalism and Communism. As far as Hizb ut-Tahrir al Islami sees it, Islam is a political ideology, a system of rule. A system does not necessarily have to be only involved in the general running of the state. Far from it. Actually, a system controls how most (certainly not all) people act and think more than a religion can. I wrote a topic about it that you can read here

"The Prophet himself (saws) said that during a holy war the lives of the enemies’ women, children, elderly, livestock, and even vegetation (trees) are the responsibility of every Muslim and their destruction murder. How do you stand in a position to say “resistance by any means necessary” which, and please correct me if my assumption is wrong here, is, I believe, to be advocating suicide bombings that may or may not kill innocents as outlined and defined in Islam."
Did I ever say "resistance by any means necessary"? I honestly can't remember, maybe. If I did, then I apologise, I shouldn't have said it as you're right, it's not a correct statment. I agree with you one all what you said in this point and as I stated earlier, we are not advocates to violence.

"And what gets me the most, what gets under my skin more than anything, is the mentality that you are right and everyone else is wrong, personified well in “Karim, you SHOULD find the text offensive.” (I didn’t even add the caps) The problem I see in your version of Islam is that it is not content with people getting together and living under a doctrine they like, which is with out doubt your right, but finds it necessary to impose it on everyone. That is the question I would like you to spend the most time on here. Wouldn’t it be a better idea to establish this ideology you have somewhere, flourish first and show the ones you wish to join you how beautifully it is working, and let them come to you instead of what most of us see as empty promises that will result in another failed theocracy of in-toleration like Iran?"
As part of the research you made the sources you gave earlier in your post, almost all the articles mention that the Islamic Liberation Pary has been giving out leaflets. Why do you think we do that? We certainly do not want to establish a khilafah against the will of the people it is being establish on. We want to educate the people abotu it and discussion on it is more than welcome.
Maybe I have been too strict in the quote you took of me. Fair enough, I apologise for that.

All what I said is not apologetic or trying to gain acceptance based on lies. You can second my words with Hizb materials. All our books are available in PDF format free of charge. Here are several links you can check. Mind you, a few of these don't state that they are Hizbis, however their material is clear enough.
Books news and political analysis
halal food for thought
Arabic website
General information about the khilafah (Comment this)

8 - I have a couple of questions, if you don't mind.

Could the Hizb Ut Tahrir operate within a fair democratic framework along with parties professing other ideologies? (If it did attain power, would it tolerate continued challenges to islamic rule, and campaign in fair elections for the continuation of its policies, relying on appeal to stay in power, or would it turn to autocratic measures to supress criticism, stifle debate, and deny non islamists the chance to run for office?)

If the Koran is to serve as some sort of constitution, or legislation, who gets the final say on interpretation? Who appoints the "supreme court judges", and is there a process of verification before they take office?

Is Islam, according to you, compatible with the sepparation of powers, in particular the sepparation of the judiciary from the legiaslative and executive?

There are, I believe, set standards of evidence in sharia, with so and so many testimonies requiered for such and such a conviction. Would this be compatible with modern day forensics such as dna testing and finger printing?

One of the main grievances with sharia, in the west, is that the standard of evidence for rape (or male infidelity), four eyewithness testimonies I believe, is to high to allow for a conviction, and thus do not provide women with any real protection. Also, women are sentenced to death for getting victemized, and thus don't dare complain. Is there any chance that forensic evidence could be acceptable in lieu of testemonies, and is the "getting raped constitutes infidelity" precedence written in stone? (Comment this)

9 - is it just me or does anybody also think that this guy is a little fishy??
now hang on a minute there: this man is using alot of terms which even a crazy, dogmatic, fascist wouldnt use to describe his "movement". Everybody thinks they're right, so why somebody would say that they're trying to satge a "coupe", or that they're eyeing Central Asia, and from there they'll start waging wars?? I mean those are the kind of things which somebody critical of this movement can use to describe their shady politics...but to be used by an actual member of this movement is really, really, fishy!
...this or he is a carried away naive kid...
(didnt intend any insults, sorry if u got that) (Comment this)

10 - Tomanbay
He is a naive & repeats any rubbish fed into him.
He said Islam has a Complete Political Ideology & failed miserably in finding it, what is more stupid than this?
I find him rather pathetic in his replies, totaly uninformed & ignorant with islamic true teachings, he mixes labels & words to try to prove something & doesnt realise how it backfires & destroys what he's trying to falsely build.

 (Comment this)

11 - Screw you, I'm curious to find out what makes his movement tick even if it doesn't jive with the lot of you. So quit it with the ad hominems will you? (Comment this)

12 - very interesting debate (Comment this)

13 - Einherjer:
"Could the Hizb Ut Tahrir operate within a fair democratic framework along with parties professing other ideologies? (If it did attain power, would it tolerate continued challenges to islamic rule, and campaign in fair elections for the continuation of its policies, relying on appeal to stay in power, or would it turn to autocratic measures to supress criticism, stifle debate, and deny non islamists the chance to run for office?)"
There is no party leadership in the Caliphate. When Hizb ut Tahrir takes power, the amir (leader) of the party (Atta Abu Rushta) will become a caliph and will in the process be expelled from the party. Hizb ut Tahrir will have absolutly no power in the government however will remain in existance to monitor the caliph and keep him answerable to his actions. However, the Hizb will have not dipose him even if they disagree with him unless he acts from outside of Islam. In which case he no longer rules by Islam and thus as the prophet (pbuh) told us, we are allowed to fight him.

And this leads us to the second part of your question. Will non-Islamic parties be allowed to run for leadership? The answer is no. The leadership is for Islam and by definition, a caliphate is to rule by Islam. Nothing from outside of Islam will be permissable to be inforced on the people.

As for critisism and debate, that is certainly open. As I said before, Hizb ut Tahrir will remain in existance even after the Caliph takes power but will completely disassociates from him and will change its purpose to be one of the many platforms to critisise and debate the caliph in a peaceful manner and to advice the caliph. Not only is Hizb ut Tahrir allowed to do that, but all Muslims are.

"If the Koran is to serve as some sort of constitution, or legislation, who gets the final say on interpretation? Who appoints the "supreme court judges", and is there a process of verification before they take office?"
As for the interpretation, it is for the caliph. I gave an example several times of Abu Baker and Omar's argument on the issue of the Islamic law on divorce. Each had his opinion and both were from Islam as the issue was not clear cut. Under Abu Baker's rule, Omar was forced to obey his interpretation of how the law of divorce is. When Omar became the caliph after Abu Baker's death, he changed the law to his own interpretation.
As for the supreme court judges, I'm really not sure off hand. I could ask some brothers for you if you want, but you'll have to wait until the weekend.

"Is Islam, according to you, compatible with the sepparation of powers, in particular the sepparation of the judiciary from the legiaslative and executive?"
I'm not sure if I understood the question correctly so I'll answer to as much as I have understood, if I'm wronge the correct me.
What I understood is that you're asking if the caliph or governmental leadership will have any power or influence over the supreme courts. Is that correct? If so, then certainly not. Several times caliphs were taken to court by citizens of the state. There is even a famous story of a man who took the caliph Abu Baker to court claiming that Abu Baker's shield is his. The trial ended by awarding that man Abu Baker's shield and Abu Baker left the court room after loosing without using any form of power to influence anyone even though the shield was truely actualy for Abu Baker.

"There are, I believe, set standards of evidence in sharia, with so and so many testimonies requiered for such and such a conviction. Would this be compatible with modern day forensics such as dna testing and finger printing?"
Certainly! We take by the purpose of things. The purpose of the witnesses was to get more accurate judgments in the absence of the technological advances of today. If we reach that purpose more accuratly using other methods then certainly they are to be used instead.

"One of the main grievances with sharia, in the west, is that the standard of evidence for rape (or male infidelity), four eyewithness testimonies I believe, is to high to allow for a conviction, and thus do not provide women with any real protection. Also, women are sentenced to death for getting victemized, and thus don't dare complain. Is there any chance that forensic evidence could be acceptable in lieu of testemonies, and is the "getting raped constitutes infidelity" precedence written in stone?"
There is no record that I know of in the books of the Sunni faith that punishes a women who get raped. The punishment is on the rapist who gets the same punishment as a married adulterer, stonned to death. In some schools of thought, before he is stonned he would pay a fine to the woman he raped and then executed.

As for the witnesses, as said earlier, technological advances that makes the trial easier and more accurate will replace anything that it could subsitute that was revealed with the purpose the technological advances aim for.

TOMANBEY:
"Everybody thinks they're right, so why somebody would say that they're trying to satge a "coupe", or that they're eyeing Central Asia, and from there they'll start waging wars??"
Where did I say we'll start waging wars? What I said was that we do not support any form of violence in the absense of an Islamic state unless it is in self defence. The only time violence is allowed is under the backing of a state. I did not say we will start waging wars left right and center. What I said was in reply to Karim's alligation that the Hizb is a violent party. I replied to it by saying, no we are not. We do not believe in attacking or physically offending any other group or individuals in the current state the Muslims are in. Not even to establish a caliphate. The only exception is self defence. The only time we are allowed to wage wars is under the banner of an Islamic government, a Khaleefah. This is in contrast to what bin Laden does, where he wages wars against what he calls "kufaar" without any state or unity between the Muslims themselves.
I also pointed out to prove my point that this is how the prophet established the first Islamic state in Madinah. Even though the Muslims were tortured, sanctioned, robbed and humiliated, the prophet didn't order any retaliation even though he was asked to by several sahaba. It was not until Madinah that he established an army.


Einherjer, Juhel and Karim. I would like to thank you for the decent way you discuss with me. It is always a pleasure to reply to any query you guys have. Although this is the basic and natural way anyone should discuss, I decided to thank you as apperently other more prominent individuals seem to have a problem with the common rules of discussion. (Comment this)

14 - abdul rahman
Regarding what you said & the nice stories you adorn it with, the caliphate you talk about proves how naive you are & ignorant again with history of the caliphate period.
Your party are after Power & power only, using religion & faithful as its tools.
Im fed up with you twisting facts & quoting while mixing events.
The story about Abu Bakr is true but you wouldnt mention that Abu Bakr rewarding khaled Ibn El waleed in the incident of Bani Yerboua. According to some sahaba & Omar they asked Abu Bakr the calipha to arrest khaled for his killing of another muslim fellow for no reason other than wanting his wife, whom he took for his own just a few days after killing her husband & didnt wait even for the 3 months period. What do your teachers tell you about this? another shiite/jewish conspiracy do you think that reached the books of Al Tabari, al Balazri, ibn al Atheer & Ibn Katheer & numerous other respected arab historians?
You dont possess thought that is your own, you merely repeat what you were told to say, you simply evade from many points i raised with you & the other points you either twist with other unrelated issues or you make no sense & then nicely wrap it up by talking about discussion, what discussion when you have nothing?
what discussion when you repeat historical lies & incorrect stories that dont exist in taditional old sunnah books & Historical books??
you havent apparently read ANY old arabic historical books.
I guess the Battle of the Camel never took place either between the Calipha ALi & 2 prominent companions, who according to a hadith are to enter heaven,Ibn al Zubayr & Ibn Talha with Aisha aiding them? & if anyone tells you it was because of that so called ibn Sabaa then you are more foolish than i expect, because even though its according to one source that Tabari refered it from while no other contemporary historians wrote about him, so it makes sense that the 3 close companions amassed fighters & went to make peace but then someone started the figth between them? why did they amass the armies in the first palce & why did the emissaries between them fail to reach any solution in a period of 1 month?
Why did ABdullah ibn Abbas say years later to Abdullah ibn Al zubayr that his father KAFFARR by fighting him & Ali years back & did so also by fleeing the battle to be killed by ibn Garmouz shortly after? This is in our SUnnah evered & respected history books by the way.
The caliphate you propose is simply a religious Tyranny & theocractic dictatorship 100 X worse than current dictators.
you can only discuss with others who dont know anything about Islam & its history so you can tell them the rubbish you know, & its rubbish, thats the only thing i can say about it. Last thing i will say to you is, go read the Quran Al A'raf 7. verse 185. doesnt that verse negate anything else other than the Quran? or you have another interpretation, of which i am not interested to know, as it will be another flagrant twisting.
 (Comment this)

15 - So, to summarise, there will be one elected Caliph heading both the legislative and the executive, and some form of judicial review, where some person or council can strike down laws as 'un-Islamic'. Who does this, and how they are appointed wil be covered later. The judiciary is sepparate from the government, and the process of appointment will be explained later.

Interpretation of Islam is not entirely literal, but is based upon discerning intent, thus forensic evidence will be allowed in lieu of witnesses, as the standard of evidence is upheld, and people will not be punished for 'crimes' they did not willingly take part in.

In the west interpreting the constitution as it relates to laws passed by the legislative, and laws passed by the legislative as they relate to judicial practice, is done by the supreme court. Here appointments are made by the government, but governments are up for reelection every four years, and judges are appointed for life, so there is not much of an opening for any government to stack the judiciary while in office.

I am looking forward to hearing how you would solve this with governments(caliphs) elected for life as well.

I still have a couple of questions related to checks and balances though, like is there any way to depose a caliph once he has taken power? Say if he lost some or all of his mental faculties, could he be relieved of his duties? And if he protested, who would have the power to insist he step down?

Would laws have to fulfill some islamic purpouse in order to be validated or is it enough for them not to contradict islamic teachings? What if some caliph took to enacting rediculous laws which, although not in direct conflict with any written tenent of Islam, were nothing but a nuisance to his subjects. Say he passed a law that everyone had to wear pink pyjamas with green spots on Mondays. Could such pointless laws be struck down?

How about if the caliph turned out to be a nepotist, and started awarding lavish contracts to family and cronies, wasting the welth of the empire?

It is a good principle when designing a form of government to ensure that it works even when it is run, at least in part, by people who are not virtuous. I am frankly a bit worried that one person would have the amount of power that a caliph would have, and I am thus quite interested in any checs on his power that has not already been covered. If I have missed anything, please let me know.

Finally I want to thank you for taking the time to answer my questions, I enjoy learning about a various ideologies and appreciate your insight into the ideology fueling the Hizb ut tahrir. (Comment this)

16 - Einherjar
I have asked him questions of the same nature you asked on the Caliph position but his replies were historic incidents that bear nothing to religion but more of personal initiatives.
When a claim of a complete political ideology is present in Islam , you would think it would be easy to point it out & that that alleged system works perfectly, but what i got was him adding scholastic books & including it as though its godly & even so, if agreed to allow it be a source, it doesnt fit or come near complete.
A group of men dealt with issues differently than the other, how can one regard their efforts or policies as that of a divine rule?
Im afraid his replies were ambiguous while mixing & twisting issues to conceal their agenda but failed to answer any question with historic accuracy or real knowledge.
 (Comment this)

17 - Dear Abdul Rahman and Alien Kain, some questions they may be a bit naive:
[1]Is the ruling by the Caliph divine?
[2]Are the laws implemented divine?
[3]Is there a difference?
[4]Should the western cittizens (muslim and non muslim)
feel threatened if a Khilafah comes into existence?
[5] How do you prove from Islam that a caliph can not be rotated? e.g. changed through regular elections?
[7] what scenarios can exist where the citizens would like the caliph to go yet he can not be removed?
[8] Does the caliph need to be a scholar?
[9] my perception of alien kain is that he is impolite and does not argue well - i wish he did with an open approach.
[10]Are the individuals in the hizb very power hungry?
[11]How will the Caliph differ from the current dictators of arabs? What factor would make him differ from the current rulers? How will the Caliph differ from the western representatave leaders? The western model of liberal democracy is considered to be the best model of ruling in existence today?
[12] can you provide evidence from todays reality that coup is a real and only successful method changing rulineg system and not just faces. And should we be concerned about changing systems and not just faces?
[13] alien kain what ruling system do want to live under and why?
[14] it is interesting that you differntiate hizb from osama bin laden, and yet you both want khilafah. Is there other groups that have greater mass appeal who consider the establishment of khilafah to be an obligation? (Comment this)

18 - juhel
1-NO, it isnt divine. It is simply human. No caliph can say, or said, he repersents God.
2- What laws implemented exactly? The ruler can legislate laws but again are human & so fallible.
Divine law in the Quran were implemented too but altered & cancelled whenever society changed & called for it. These Quranic Laws were for that society at that time, it wasnt meant for all time contrary to what most scholars say.
3- A difference between Human laws & Divine you mean or what? i didnt understand the question.
4-A calipha will not come into existence. Its an old fashioned system that cannot be resurrected,like bringing back caesar for example.
You must have Heads of state willing to give up their position for someone else & citizens in many countries who will warm up to the idea of a foriegn ruler. & according to some scholars the Calipha must be Qurayshi, from the tribe of Quraysh, which is extinct & if so, it means its a saudi citizen, what is the general criteria that all nations will agree upon for choosing that person? what about the shiites? What bout the armies, will they be incorporated into one army? the ramifications of this suggestion are just too crazy for reality.It will not happen
5-Look, there is no such thing in ISLAM. Islam simply did not talk about a political ruler, there are no text in the Quran that mentions it directly or indirectly. Nor did Mohamed mention it even otherwise if he had done there wouldnt have been disagreements on who to take over the duties after him & he would have left them guidlines & points which he did not, what abdul rahman says is rubbish as he flagrantly includes what those folks did afterward as divinical & Holy & so we should follow their footsteps,sorry this is simply not true.you cannot prove from Islam anything regarding a ruler or his duties or anything. There are verses however that mention Judges but not rulers.
6- There are no scenarios except revolt. It did happen with Othman, the third calipha, who carried out unfavourable & highly criticized policies plus the corruption of his aides resulted in the peoples of Kuffa, Basra & Egypt revolting against him & placing him under house arrest,Some companions even advised him to step down which he refused alongside the rebels demands so ultimately he was killed 2 months later.
The Elections Abdul rahman mentioned were actually a tribal voting that involved the heads of tribes in the case of the Abu Bakr( 1 calipha), there was no voting for Omar, abu bakr simply told them he endorses omar & they must accept him, in choosing Othman, the voting was between 6 companions only. There was no voting like nowadays where individuals go to polling stations, back then no such system existed in the whole world.
7- No, no one said he needs to be a scholar. First 4 caliphas werent scholars but wisest & closest to Mohamed, later the calipha was simply a Monarch system, In practice the calipha was a King under title of Calipha.
8- Maybe an open approach doesnt work with their kind, why? because i know them damn well, they are incorigible.I dont care about your perception of me, im not here to glorify myself, yes I'm impolite with ignorant idiots distorting religion on purpose for personal gains, impolite because im impatient with dimwits like abdul rahman, who lie through their teeth & smile thinking they know it all.
9- I would presume they are.
10-He wont differ.
11-I prefer a system thats is democratic,just,secular, equal opportunities to all.
Why? i dont think i need to say why.
14-bin Laden doesnt want Khilafa, he wants to take over saudi arabia & restructure it differently, like Ibn saud had for the arabian peninsula. The idea of Khilafa as far as i know wasnt mentioned by bin laden, or did he?? I'm not so sure he did (Comment this)

19 - "according to some scholars the Calipha must be Qurayshi, from the tribe of Quraysh, which is extinct & if so, it means its a saudi citizen, what is the general criteria that all nations will agree upon for choosing that person?"

The tribe is not extinct. The Hashemites still exist and the King of Jordan is one of their number, as was the King of Iraq (G-d bless the two of them).

I wouldn't mind seeing King Abdullah II of Jordan run the Arab world. He does a MUCH better job than the Arab nationalists or the Wahabi fundamentalists! (Comment this)

20 - Andrew
Without tracing back the roots of the Hashemite monarchy, That family doesnt enjoy any substantial support from the saudis & have their share of suspicions from other arabs too.
So i sincerely doubt that king Abdullah would be a popular choice,add to that king abdulahs mother is British which wont go down well with arabs or muslims alike, & i fail to see what exactly has he done till now but the point is, the Caliphate isnt a political system designed for today & it's even more impossible nowadays, it is obsolete.
You think that the Arab Monarchies, Heads of States & Presidents will give up their power for someone else to rule over them?
However i'm curious as to why you said God bless them both?
 (Comment this)

21 - Dear Alien Kain,
you are right, you are rude. I dont value your wisdom. i'll wait for a response from someone other then yourself - if it comes.

I hope you will allow different viewpoints to come through.
You may not consider islam to be political, many do.
You seem very indoctrinated by western values - these values are currently shaking in the west.

 (Comment this)

22 - Alien, I didn't advocate a caliphate. That was somebody else. I merely pointed out that you were mistaken about the tribe of Quraysh being extinct, and that, ironically, their current incarnation would be a good king indeed.

I said G-d bless them because of the respect I have for the King of Jordan, his family, and traditional (i.e. non-fundamentalist and non-antisemitic) Islam.

Not only are the Hashemites the traditional legitimate rulers of Mecca (where they have been removed by the pretender house of Saud), but they were also a voice of moderation in the last 60 years and Jordan, ruled by one of the Hashemites, is one of the most civilised Arab countries.

It is no secret that I a supporter of the traditional Arab monarchies. I think that if they had managed to remain in power when the Arab Nazis (Nasserites, Ba'athists etc.) tried to take over, many a tragedy could have been averted.

And I believe that when you compare Jordan and Morocco to those Arab countries ruled by pretenders and fascists, you will find that the traditional monarchies are doing comparatively well (and are taken a lot more seriously by the west too).

Unfortunately the "Arab street" thought they knew better than their kings. They did not. (Comment this)

23 - Andrew
I do see your point so you do understand the friction between the saudis & the hashemites then.
Morocco had its tyrannical moments, dont forget what the late king Hasan did with his opponents but i do admire what his son King Mohamed 6 is doing, trying for more openness & democracy albeit little by little.
As for the arab street, its a pretty mixed up array of many contradictory & sometimes conflicting ideas on subjects that demand unity.
But what Oman & the Emirates,andrew? People in Oman & Emirates adore their rulers & respect them genuinely,i dont know about Qatar or Bahrain but they seem ok till now, any thoughts on them?
juhel
Whether you like it or not, my conclusions are not mine alone,but also the same with Quranic verses & Arab muslim writers. You apparently did not read or didnt understand, you care more about what people say not what the religion itself says, You seem to want a certain answer from certain sources , instead of waiting for answers & for the anti christ, why dont you check what i said instead, why dont you read for yourself instead of that rather banal western indoctrinated, shows how subjective you are & thus,your opinions are biased which means your wisdom doesnt exist. You want to know a religion through its people & im telling you its through its Book, very much for your views.

 (Comment this)

24 - "But what Oman & the Emirates,andrew? People in Oman & Emirates adore their rulers & respect them genuinely,i dont know about Qatar or Bahrain but they seem ok till now, any thoughts on them?"

They seem legitimate, in the traditional sense, which I have applied here. I don't see them doing anything bad enough to make me doubt their legitimacy, so I respect them as rulers of their respective countries and peoples.

At least I respect them much more than the Saudi monarchy, who are backwards even for Arab government standards.

The King (previously Amir) of Bahrain is one I would usually "rate" like the King of Jordan. He seems to be a good ruler and runs a stable and comparatively tolerant society.

I think the most important definition of a state is stability, with justice and democracy coming second and third. Tradition is stability. That's one reason I support traditional rulers, especially when they turn out to be more peaceful, moderate, and democratic than the alternatives.

(Oman seems in its way towards more democracy?) (Comment this)

25 - EINHERJAR:
As for your earlier question on who appoints the judges in the Khilafah;
In the constitution it states:
"Article 78
The judge of the maHkamat ul-maDHalim is appointed to remove all unjust acts, committed by the Khaleefah, governor(s), or any official of the State, that have been inflicted upon anyone - whether that person is a citizen or not - living in the domain of the State.

Article 79
Judges in the maHkamat ul-maDhalim of Injustice are appointed by the Khaleefah or the chief judge. As for their accounting , disciplining and dismissal, this is carried by the Khaleefah, the maHkamat ul-maDHalim or the chief judge if authorised by the Khaleefah to do so. However, it is not allowed to dismiss him during his investigation in an unjust act against the Khaleefah, mua'win ut-tafweeDH or the chief judge."

it further goes on:
"Article 81
The maHkamat ul-maDHalim has the authority to dismiss any ruler, governor and official of the State, including the Khaleefah."

So I guess it's a balance of power between the Khaleefah and the mahkamat ul-madhalim.

"In the west interpreting the constitution as it relates to laws passed by the legislative, and laws passed by the legislative as they relate to judicial practice, is done by the supreme court. Here appointments are made by the government, but governments are up for reelection every four years, and judges are appointed for life, so there is not much of an opening for any government to stack the judiciary while in office.

I am looking forward to hearing how you would solve this with governments(caliphs) elected for life as well."
Well as I quoted from the constitution above, the Caliph, who does not go for re-election, is still open to be dismissed by the the Qadi al Madhalim. Although it is true that the Qadi is appointed by the Caliph himself, the Qadi has immunity against the Caliph during any case raised against the Caliph. So if there was a trial against the Caliph on corruption charges he will be tried by the very judge he appointed and cannot remove him untilt the trial is over. In which case, if the Caliph is found guilty will be punished according to the law. In extreme cases the Qadi might even order the diposition of the Caliph, in which case then the judge will jave immunity against the man as he no longer has any ruling power.

I can see your concern that the Caliph can appoint a man who would be linient towards him as the Qadi al Madhalim. True, but during the tiral, nothing will force the Qadi to judge in anyway as he will have immunity from the Caliph. On the other hand, if the Qadi was completely immune from the Caliph for life, then there is nothing to keep him from being unjust or himself corrupt. In the Caliphate, complete immunity is neither given to the Judge, nor the Caliph.

"is there any way to depose a caliph once he has taken power?"
I believe I answered that earlier in this post.

"Say if he lost some or all of his mental faculties, could he be relieved of his duties?"
"Article 39
There are three matters by which the situation of the Khaleefah changes, and by such he is discharged from the office of Khilafah. They are:

a. If one of the qualifying conditions of the Khilafah contract becomes void, such as apostatising from Islam, insanity or manifest sinfulness (fisq) and the like. This is because these are conditions for contracting the Khilafah and for its continuity.

b. His inability to undertake the responsibilities of the Khilafah post, for any reason.

c. In the event of sub-dual, whereby the Khaleefah is rendered unable to conduct the affairs of the Muslims by his own opinion according to the shar’a. If the Khaleefah is subdued by any force to an extent that he is unable to manage the citizens affairs by his own opinion alone according to the rules of shar’a, he is considered to be legitimately incapable of undertaking the functions of the state, and thus he ceases to be a Khaleefah. This situation may arise under two circumstances. They are:

First. When one, or more, of the Khaleefah's entourage exerts control over the management of affairs. If there is a chance that the Khaleefah could rid himself of their dominance he is cautioned for a specified period of time, after which, if he fails to rid himself of their dominance, he must be dismissed. If it appears that there is no chance of the Khaleefah freeing himself from their dominance, he is to be dismissed immediately.

Second. Should the Khaleefah be captured by a subduing enemy, whether he is actually captured or under its influence. In this case the situation is to be examined; if there is a chance to rescue the Khaleefah, he is given a period of time until it appears that there is no hope to rescue him, after which he is dismissed. Should it appear from the outset that there is no hope of rescuing him, he is to be dismissed immediately."

"And if he protested, who would have the power to insist he step down?"
Article 40
The responsibility of deciding whether or not the Khaleefah's situation has altered in such a way as to warrant his dismissal is the prerogative of the Court for the Acts of Injustice (mahkumat ul-maDHalim). It, alone, has the authority to admonish or dismiss the Khaleefah.

"Would laws have to fulfill some islamic purpouse in order to be validated or is it enough for them not to contradict islamic teachings? What if some caliph took to enacting rediculous laws which, although not in direct conflict with any written tenent of Islam, were nothing but a nuisance to his subjects. Say he passed a law that everyone had to wear pink pyjamas with green spots on Mondays. Could such pointless laws be struck down?"
Yes it could. The Caliph is not allowed to forbid something which is allowed in Islam or to allow something which is forbidden in Islam. So if a Caliph states that we should all wear pink pyjamas on Mondays he is forbidding wearing any other clothings on Monday, which he is not allowed to do since Allah allowed it.
So in the end, for every law he wants to legislate the Caliph must give a proper reasoning as to why it is permissable in Islam. Any law the Caliph puts forward could be struck down through the Court of Madhalim.

"How about if the caliph turned out to be a nepotist, and started awarding lavish contracts to family and cronies, wasting the welth of the empire?"
Again, this will be taken by the Madhalim Court as charges of corruption.

"It is a good principle when designing a form of government to ensure that it works even when it is run, at least in part, by people who are not virtuous. I am frankly a bit worried that one person would have the amount of power that a caliph would have, and I am thus quite interested in any checs on his power that has not already been covered. If I have missed anything, please let me know."
Well as I stated earlier, Hizb ut-Tahrir will not die after the establishment of the Caliphate nor will the Tahrireen take power. The Amir of the Hizb will become the Caliph and will be removed from the Hizb which will in turn take on another job of keeping an eye on the caliph and advicing him. According to the Quraan and sunnah, any group or even individuals can take on the job of warning and advicing the caliph. This can take the form of a party as Hizb ut-Tahrir, a council as the Shura, or just individuals.
And let there arise amongst you a GROUP, inviting to all that is good (Islam), enjoining al-Marouf (good) and forbidding al-Munkar evil); and those are the ones whom are the successful.
[TMQ 3:104]

Allah's Messenger (Sallallaahu Alayhi Wasallam)
said: "The master of martyrs is Hamzah, and (equal to him) a MAN who stood up to an unjust ruler, commanded him (to do good) and forbade him (against evil) so (the ruler) killed him."

Also there is the Majlis Al Ummah which you might be interested to know of.
Article 107 states among other things:
2. The Majlis has the right to account the Khaleefah regarding all the actions that the state has actually executed , whether they were of the domestic or foreign matters , or the finance or the army and the like . The view of the Majlis is binding wherever the majority opinion is binding and not binding wherever the majority opinion is not.

3. The Majlis has the right to express dissatisfaction with the assistants, governors, and mayors; and in this matter the view of the Majlis is binding and the Khaleefah must discharge them at once.



JUHEL:
"[1]Is the ruling by the Caliph divine?"
No ofcourse not. As I stated to Einherjer above, the Caliph's laws could be revoked by the court of Mathaalem. His rulings should, however, be derived from the Quraan and Sunnah, and even then there are special laws binding on him:
Article 36
The Khaleefah is restricted in what he adopts by the AHkam Shara’iah. He is forbidden to adopt any rule that is not soundly deduced from the divine texts. He is restricted to the rules he has adopted and to the method for deduction that he has chosen. Accordingly, he is prevented from adopting a rule deduced by a method that contradicts the method he has adopted, and he must not enact any command that contradicts the rules he has adopted.

"[2]Are the laws implemented divine?"
I can't see a difference between this and question [1]. The laws should be from divine text, however they could be scrutinised and if proven otherwise or against the Article 36 which I just quoted above, then they are revoked.

"[3]Is there a difference?"
I would ask you that question! :-)

"[4]Should the western cittizens (muslim and non muslim)
feel threatened if a Khilafah comes into existence?"
Certainly not! They would be represented in the Majli al Ummah . And if they are being threatened or prosecuted by a waali or governer or any authority in their wilaaya, then the caliph must emmidiatly discharge them.
Article 101
The members of the Majlis al-Ummah are those people who represent the Muslims in respect of expressing their views to the Khaleefah when consulted. Non-Muslims are allowed to be members of the Majlis al-Ummah so that they can voice their complaints in respect to unjust acts performed by the rulers or the misapplication of the Islamic laws.

Article 102
The members of the Majlis al-Ummah are elected by the people.

Article 103
Every citizen of the State has the right to become a member of the Majlis al-Ummah, provided he or she is both mature and sane. This applies to Muslim and non-Muslim. However, membership to non-Muslims is confined to their voicing of complaints in respect to unjust acts performed by the rulers or the misapplication of Islam upon them

Article 107
3. The Majlis has the right to express dissatisfaction with the assistants, governors, and mayors; and in this matter the view of the Majlis is binding and the Khaleefah must discharge them at once.

"[5] How do you prove from Islam that a caliph can not be rotated? e.g. changed through regular elections?"
I will ask if there is anything from the Quraan but as far as the sunnah, the prophet took Bayaah (pledge of alliance) from the Muslims but never had to go through re-ellections. Not even the mubashareen bil jannah (those how the prophet himself told them they will go to heaven) ever disagreed on the matter. There was complete consensus that after the first ellections or whatever method take to choose the Caliph, and after the Muslims give him the pledge of alliance, there is no relections. There is diposing, but no relections.

"[7] what scenarios can exist where the citizens would like the caliph to go yet he can not be removed?"
Once the caliph rules from outside of Islam then we have a green card from the prophet himself to physically fight him.
"The best of your Imams are those whom you love and they love you, who pray for you and you pray for them; and the worst of your Imams are those whom you hate and they hate you and you curse them and they curse you." The Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) was asked: "Would we not declare war on them (face them with the swords)?" He said: "No, as long as they establish salat among you."

Narrated Umm Salamah, r.a. the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him)said: In the near future there will be Amirs (rulers) and you will like their good deeds and dislike their bad deeds. One who sees through their bad deeds (and tries to prevent their repetition by his hand or through his speech), is absolved from blame, but one who hates their bad deeds (in the heart of his heart, being unable to prevent their recurrence by his hand or his tongue), is (also) safe (so far as God"s wrath is concerned). But one who approves of their bad deeds and imitates them is spiritually ruined.
People asked (the Prophet): Shouldn't we fight against them? He replied: No, as long as they say their salat. (Sahih Muslim 4569)

It has always been understood and agree with no disputes whatsoever from anyone that salat over here means Islam.

"[8] Does the caliph need to be a scholar?"
Article 31
There are seven conditions needed in the Khaleefah so as Khilafah be contracted to him. They are to be a male, muslim, free, mature, sane, 'adl (trustworthy) and competent (capable for the post).

"[9] my perception of alien kain is that he is impolite and does not argue well - i wish he did with an open approach."
The Prophet said, "Whoever has the following four (characteristics) will be a pure hypocrite and whoever has one of the following four characteristics will have one characteristic of hypocrisy unless and until he gives it up.
...
4. Whenever he quarrels, he behaves in a very imprudent, evil and insulting manner."

"[10]Are the individuals in the hizb very power hungry?"
Hizb ut-Tahrir is willing to support absolutly any party that accepts the Islamic constitution. Our amir does not have to be the khaleefah, the khilafah today would fall on whoever establishes it as today we are in a point of emergency and in dire need of bringing back the Islamic leadership whom, after it's removal in Istanbul in 1924, brought the ummah to her knees. In Algeria, the Islamic Salvation Front which won 55% of the votes actually accepted the Tahrireen constitution and was willing to implement it however and had the full support of the Hizb even though we disagreed on their method of gowing through the elections. Unfortunatly our doubts on the method proved true as history will tell you on what happened after the elections.

"[11]How will the Caliph differ from the current dictators of arabs? What factor would make him differ from the current rulers? How will the Caliph differ from the western representatave leaders? The western model of liberal democracy is considered to be the best model of ruling in existence today?"
What is today? Time has absolutly no meaning when putting a value on man. Giving him his rights and puting down the laws to limit his actions, what is right and what is wrong, how does that change with time? During the leadership of the Caliphate the Muslims were centuries ahead of any other nation in the fields of science, and by science I am not talking about weapons, but medicine, astronomy, chemistry and unnumerable inventions. No one, not even the west can deny the debt that they hold over their necks over what the caliphate brought to humanity. But not only were we ahead in science, but the people were happy as well. We have amazing poetry and stories that never again after the khilafah fell did the Muslim world wrote anything of the like. We will not lie and say every single age under the khilafah was a golden age, there were indeed darker times where some minorities were prosecuted, and I cannot promise you anything except that the Khilafah will bring this ummah what it had lost.

What is a system of rule? Is it not a system to guide man on what is right and what is wrong? To govern man and see that he is living perfectly according to what man's nature requires? And who can dictate man's nature and what man needs and requires better than the one who created man? Secularism is a reaction the west had due to several years of tyranny and prosecution under the rule of the Church. Democracy is the honey that is sweetening the poison of capitalism. It is the nice wrapping that is comforting to the eyes, but once looked at indepth you see the ugly face of the market leadership with the police being a necessary evil to secure the businesses. Who dictated all the wars that have been waging since the second world war? Is it not market interest and the aim to eat more and gain more profits? Do you honestly think Americans choose their own president? Or is it the large businesses that finance and support the candidate that is to be most supportive of their greedy aims?

Islam allows private property and the free market, however it does not allow it to dictate that affairs of the country. It does not allow it to gain as much power as the multinational super companies of the west, or the state monopoly of the USSR.

Democracy will require a seperate article to go through all it's faults and expose all it's lies and slaughter that it was responsible for. The League of Nations was scrapped because it was seen as useless after it allowed Italy to enter Ethiopia (or was it Eretria?) and now the UN allowed the US to enter Iraq against it's will. Does the Western regimes and systems really care about what the people think? Several million people demonstrated and showed that they're against the government policy, can they do anything about it? Absolutly not! The government had an iron grip in the democracy and the people's demonstrations had absolutly no effect whatsoever.

The people are made to believe they are free by giving them freedom in minor issues that bring nothing nor take anything. But when there is a huge project like the invasion of Iraq, not only is democracy and people's freedom is stepped on (take a look at the anti-terror bill Blair wants to pass through) but also on Human Rights itself.

"[12] can you provide evidence from todays reality that coup is a real and only successful method changing ruling system and not just faces. And should we be concerned about changing systems and not just faces?"
Anwar Saddat was assassinated only to bring a worse dictator, Mubarak. That is a change of faces that brought absolutly no gain whatsoever because the system remained in power.
The only time power was really take was through a coup. Abdel Nasser of Egypt did it, Lenin of Russia did it, Assad of Syria did it, this is how Qassim of Iraq did it. However, we didn't take those tyrants as examples, the most important example we follow step by step is that of the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh).

Juhel, changing faces will not change anything. If you really want a change you have to change the system. Should you be concerned? La walah! By Allah nothing worse could happen. The Muslim are walking towards revival as it is the only thing that makes sense and fits with their imaan and compatible with their deen. Walah, Juhel, I count the days for the caliphate to come back. No nation has suffered as much as we have and without the caliphate this world is heading straight for more blood and more destruction. There is absolutly no other way.

"[14] it is interesting that you differntiate hizb from osama bin laden, and yet you both want khilafah. Is there other groups that have greater mass appeal who consider the establishment of khilafah to be an obligation?"
Hizb ut-Tahrir makes it an obligation upon itself to work within the ummah. We sent messengers to every single group leader asking them to adopt our method and ready to enter a full discussion with them. I particularly know the story of two brothers who were sent to Qadafi of Lybia several years ago for two particular reasons. One was to invite him to rule by Islam and the other for a speech he made in a mosque saying that we should abandon the hadeeth and sunnah and only follow the Quran. The two brothers were tied by cars and dragged across the streets of Lybia until they died. Likewise another brother who I am actually hopeful to meet soon, was made to dig his own grave in Iraq back when Saddam was ruling. While digging under the watch of two guards he recited Quranic verses on the punishment of hell fire. After a while they both ran away and left the brother alone to escape Iraq.
Likewise, we sent delegate to Taliban back when they were ruling Afganistan. Of what I understood, Taliban didn't want to establish a caliphate. They wanted to establish a form of Emirate like that of the UAE, Dubai, Saudi Arabia and the sort.

There is another group which also calls for the Caliphate, however only work in Pakistan as they believe this is where the Caliphate will most likely come. I cannot seem to remember their name, if I do remember it I'll mention it to you.

I hope I answered all your questions. (Comment this)

26 - Abdul rahman
Your lies are increasing yet still feeble.
When did the Muslims Ever have a green light to physically oust their ruler in that case??
1-Refer to Othamn ibn Affan the third calipha who was asked to step down from his position by the Egyptian & Iraqis told them to :" here is the Book of God (Quran) & show me if it exists where does it say can you judge me & oust me?"
clearly there was no hadith at the time written or Known to give such a green light, even otherwise the companions would have said & did something themselves. so what you are saying is simply not true nor has it ever happened .
2- History facts contradict your story lies & hadiths even
3- i dont get this, in simple english explain without twisting it around the cape of good hope please, you say the calipha:
[His rulings should, however, be derived from the Quraan and Sunnah] correct?
then you say refering to those two:[The Khaleefah is restricted in what he adopts by the AHkam Shara’iah. He is forbidden to adopt any rule that is not soundly deduced from the divine texts] so you do say that SUNNAH is divine law?
Then you turn around & say regarding if the laws implemented divine or not
:[I can't see a difference between this and question [1].(wow).. The laws should be from divine text,(which you said quran & sunnah) however they could be scrutinised and if proven otherwise or against the Article 36 which I just quoted above, then they are revoked]
what exactly is to be scrutinised & proven otherwise not to be divine is revoked, how lovely, so you are now scrutinising both the QUran & sunnah to see what isnt divine? & if the SUnnah isnt divine, why include it in what the ruler should govern with? you are not making much sense im afraid.
4-& Even your so called 7 conditions for a calipha were made up by some scholars centuries later, none of these conditions were ever mentioned directly or indirectly during the choosing of the first 4 caliphas,thats purely human, again i ask you, where is that COMPLETE POLITICAL IDEOLOGY you so claim is in the QURAN?
5- let me ask you what is the difference between these words used in the Quran:
a-المؤمنون و المسلمون
b-الصلاة و الصلوة
you obviously disappear to go get your answers from the net or from some guy but they are not ISLAM! you are ignorant & you dare call me a hypocrite? you know how many veerses i can find in the Quran that describes low people like you??
The Cow, verse 11 [When asked to desist from spreading corruption in the lands they say:" why, we are reformers."
verse 16:" They are indeed those who bartered away good guidance for error & gained nothing from the deal, nor found the right way."
The Pilgrimage,verse 3:" And yet there are men who contend about God without understanding."
The Believer,verse 56:"verily those who argue in the matter of God's revelations without authorityhaving reachedthem,have nothing but pride in their hearts,and they will not achieve their end,so take refuge in God:surely He is all hearing & all seeing."
The Women, verse 50:" See how they fabricate lies about God, which is a clear sin."
The Spider,verse 11-12:" God will surely know the Believers & know the hypocrites.Those who deny say to those who affirm: follow our way;we shall carry the burden of your sins" but they cannot carry the burden of their sins in the least.They are liars indeed"

You havent proved anything with authentic historic references or proof from the Quran for many questions i asked, you write long texts that contradict eachother without you noticing, you say one thing & i refute it & you repeat it again or avoid it.
Like Mohamed said: لكم دينكم و لي دين.
You are one of the worst examples that inflict harm on Islam today, you bring shame to a great religion with your prejudism, hatred, blindness & ignorance, shame on you.
you know nothing about Islam, you parakeet islamics not Islam, this is the last thing to be to said to you. (Comment this)

27 - OK, I'll make this quick. First of all, Alienkain, in case you still haven't noticed, I'm scrolling past your posts. If anyone thinks Alienkain has some point in his post that needs an answer from me, or maybe even his whole post, then please tell me and I'll reply to that particular point (or the whole post if that was the case). Other than that, I have nothing more to say until now. (Comment this)

28 - Abd ul-Rahman Hilmi


“Who dictated all the wars that have been waging since the second world war? Is it not market interest and the aim to eat more and gain more profits?”

Most wars have been fought over territory. They continue to be. Current examples – Darfur and Palestine.

“Do you honestly think Americans choose their own president?”

Yes.
 (Comment this)

29 -
>Do you honestly think Americans choose their own >president?”

>Yes.

Someone was either sleeping or smoking some pot when the 2000 election went down..i.e. Al Gore WON the popular vote
and what exactly is the purpose of the Electoral college -- are the people too stupid to elect their own leaders as Jefferson said in the Federalist papers?

 (Comment this)

30 - Dear alien kain,

the following to me is the most valuable contribution you have made to this section, and 'yes' if you explain why then it would become more exciting:

Written by: alien kain at 2006/03/09 - 10:38:11
11-I prefer a system thats is democratic,just,secular, equal opportunities to all.
Why? i dont think i need to say why.

Here you have raised four important values which you hold:
[1] democratic
[2] just
[3] secular
[4] equal opporunities to all

I respect you for having such values because i believe that it demonstrates your value for all mankind. I am under the impression that you are a muslim, so using Islam as the reference point, please argue for these values. Do not assume that i know the meaning or the values of any of these four. i am looking forward to it because i think the contribution would be very valuable here if you stick as narrowly as possible to my request.

Abdur Rahman,
after the response from Alien Kain, I look forward to your approach to those values. Also if you disagree with the values, I would like to see how you respectably disagree to Alien Kain whilst compassionately demonstrating understanding to where he comes from.

Abdur Rahman,
[1] A question of credibility of your organisation:
Does your organisation have scholars of Islam, i dont just want a yes here nor is it necessary to give specific names. Numbers would be more insteresting and also do thse scholars if they exists trace back their learning to those who were learning from Muhammed (SAW). Is it of value for Muslims if the chain of the learnt man can be taken back all the way to Muhammed (SAW)? If it doesnt go that far then can the individual be a scholar of Islam?

[2] Does the women of the west have, as a result of the western system, greater opportunities such that we should model our community on? how would you argue against that?

I will come back later hopefully to the question of alternative methods of ruling system and revival (Comment this)

31 - "and what exactly is the purpose of the Electoral college"

I sometimes wonder why people have such strong opinions about political issues yet never find the time to do the basic research needed to answer their questions.

The electoral college is a mechanism to ensure that states with low population are not overwhelmed by states with a high population. The president is supposed to represent all states and the electoral college aims to achieve that goal, which would not otherwise be possible.

Is it undemocratic to elect a president using a system that doesn't give equal value to every individual's vote?

It is. But democracy here is about the legislative, not the executive branch of government. The parliament makes the laws, the president carries them out. And for the American parliament there is a mechanism in place to ensure that all votes are worth approximately the same (except in cases of a very small state where the residents have at least one MP by law).

History has shown that a system where government is divided into different branches is more stable and more just than alternatives. And that is why most democratic countries have such a system in place.

In short: it doesn't matter whether the American president has been elected by an absolute or relative majority of the people. That's not what presidential elections are supposed to do. The president is supposed to do what the elected parliament says and that's all. The presidential election system is merely meant to find a president who is a compromise for all states.

And George Bush did exactly what congress said he should do. There is no problem there. (Comment this)

32 - STRANGE ATTRACTOR:
<<Most wars have been fought over territory. They continue to be. Current examples – Darfur and Palestine.>>
The war for territory is not for the sole sake of gaining more land unless there is some benefit that is going to come in gaining that land. Generally it is always linked to some profit, where profit is no necessarilly more money (although most of the time it is), it could be in the form of securing future hegemony in the region, crushing resistance, getting a foothold in the region, cheaper resources, opening a new market for the offender's products, robbing the land of its resources.


JUHEL:
<<Abdur Rahman,
after the response from Alien Kain, I look forward to your approach to those values. Also if you disagree with the values, I would like to see how you respectably disagree to Alien Kain whilst compassionately demonstrating understanding to where he comes from.>>
I take it I will have to wait for Alien Kain to write a reply so that I can say my view on Democracy and Secularism.

<<[1] A question of credibility of your organisation:
Does your organisation have scholars of Islam, i dont just want a yes here nor is it necessary to give specific names. Numbers would be more insteresting...>>
Can you be more specific? What do you mean by scholars? If you're talking about learned people, people who studied Islam, then certainly there are but what do you mean by 'numbers'? You mean the number of people with a degree from some Islamic university? Or do you mean old men with long beards? Can you tell me how many scholars Ikhwaan have? We all know for sure they have alot of scholars, but I can't seem to understand what do you mean by 'how many scholars do you have'. The founder of the Hizb ut-Tahrir was a Palestinian Shareea Qaadi. Here is a biography I found for him.

Likewise, we have had two amirs after him, Shaykh Abdul-Qadeem Zalloum and the current amir (who came after the death of the previous one) Shaykh Ata Abu-Rashta. These are global Hizb ut-Tahrir leadership which anyone affiliated with the hizb know of so I can safely tell you of them. However to give you a number or even an average of how many shieukh we have in the hizb is quite difficult. Unless I miss-understood your question...

<<...and also do thse scholars if they exists trace back their learning to those who were learning from Muhammed (SAW).>>
Certainly. As i mentioned in other posts, we take all our Islamic teachings from the Quraan, Sunnah, ijmaa and Qyaas. Most of our major books were written by the founder of the hizb, Taqi ul-Deen, however there are a several written by the amirs and hizb members.

<<Is it of value for Muslims if the chain of the learnt man can be taken back all the way to Muhammed (SAW)?>>
Well they're knowledge of Islam should be derived from the teachings of our prophet (pbuh), that's for sure and I emphasised that in earlier posts. If there is something that is not clear cut in the Quraan and Sunnah then you are allowed to make ijtihaad within the Quraan and Sunnah to reach an answer to the question as long as you have enough wealth of education in Islam and the Arabic language.

I feel like I'm not answering the question you're thinking of as I have covered this subject several times before as I'm sure you already know. If I didn't answer your question, please try clearify it more.

"[2] Does the women of the west have, as a result of the western system, greater opportunities such that we should model our community on? how would you argue against that?"
The women of the west as compared to the women in today's Arab and Muslim countries do indeed have greater opportunities. No one can argue against that and I am no advocate of the current regimes that rule the Muslims, whether in Morrocco, Lybia, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Uzbekistan, Bangladesh, Indonesia and every other country. However, as compared to the society that will exist in the Caliphate that we will establish inshallah, then the western women are no where near.

Women in the west are used as a commodity and this is by their own admitions. The sexappeal of women are used to market products and services. Placed in positions shown as the 'face' of the company. Strip clubs and nudity magazines and even normal magazines, and daily public tabloid newspapers (Page 3 Girls of the widely distributed Sun newspaper in the UK) all sell the woman's body to make profits. You can argue that likewise there are places where men are modeled, however you cannot deny how rare this is in comparision with the women. Why is that? Because even in the west, where women are supposedly equal to men, the market is dominated by males. However, I'm going to add that educated women have a good opportunity to get a decent job if they recieved a good education.

I would also like you to take a look at these statistics:
One in 25 Fathers raising someone elses child

One in 10 babies are born to a teenage mother

22% of children are raised by single mothers

I can go one with those statistics that show nothing but women being victimised in the society. However, I will not just attack everything in the west. I will repeat what i said earlier that women do have better education and possibility of work.

No compared to the caliphate, the hizb will implement the following:
Article 110
Women have the same rights and obligations as men, except for those specified by the shar’ai evidences to be for him or her. Thus, she has the right to practice in trading, farming, and industry; to partake in contracts and transactions; to possess all form of property; to invest her funds by herself (or by others); and to conduct all of life's affairs by herself.

Article 111
A woman can participate in the election and giving of the bai’ah to the Khaleefah, and elect, and also be a member of the Majlis al-Ummah, and can be appointed as an official of the State in a non-ruling position.

Article 112
Women are not allowed to take charge of ruling, thus women cannot hold the positions of Khaleefah mu’awin, wali, ‘aamil, nor to practice any of the actions of ruling. She is not allowed to be a chief judge, a judge in mahkamat ul-MuDHalim nor amir of Jihad.

Article 113
Women live within a public and private life. Within their public life, they are allowed to live with other women, maharam males [males forbidden to them in marriage] and foreign men (whom they can marry) on condition that nothing of the women's body is revealed, apart from her face and hands, and that the clothing is not revealing nor her charms displayed. Within the private life she is not allowed to live except with women or her mahram males;and she is not allowed to live together with the foreign men. In both cases she has to restrict herself with the rules of shar’a.

Article 114
Women are forbidden to be in private (khulwah) with any men they can marry, they are also forbidden to display their charms or to reveal their body in front of foreign men.

Article 115
Men and women must not practice any work that poses danger to the morals or causes corruption in society.

Article 116
Marital life is one of tranquility and companionship. The responsibility of the husband on behalf of his wife (quwamah) is one of taking care, and not ruling. She is obliged to obey her husband and he is obliged to meet the costs of her livelihood according to the seemly standard of living.

Article 117
The married couple must fully assist each other in performing the household duties, with the husband performing all the actions normally undertaken outside of the house, and the woman performing those actions normally undertaken inside the house as best as she can. The husband should provide home-help as required to assist with the household tasks she cannot manage herself.

Article 118
The custody of children is both a right and duty of the mother, whether Muslim or not, so long as the child is in need of this care. When children, girls or boys, are no longer in need of care, they are to choose which parent they wish to live with, whether the child is male or female. If only one of the parents is Muslim, there is no choice for the child is to join the Muslim parent. (Comment this)

33 - Abdel rahman
you have nothing to say because you dont know & cannot answer,you didnt say much about anything or answered anything, so scroll past it,when it came down to references & sources you budged, too heavy stuff for you i guess! (Comment this)

34 - well juhel
I always believed in equality of man & abhored any forms of racism. I dont see how the colour of skin can determine a superiority. The only superiority i understand is the mind & secondly hard work.
1- Democractic because its the way people get to choose their leader & hold him accountable.Not based on the choice of half a dozen guys.
2-Just because its elemental, basic & necessary. Without it democracy is only a name & a way to bring someone to power to abuse it. Justice stands against absolute power & its corruption.
3-Secular is the only way people can live in harmony. Religion was not meant to rule inner or external politics.
It is foremostly between a person & his creator,sure it throws in a few tips on how to treat others but when you have many religions living side by side, why must one rule over the others? it is a form of racism in the name of God which is uglier than racism itself. let the faith of the leader not affect his governing based on religious ideologies because then everyone will fight & kill eachother which is barbaric. Sure Religion was the theme in the days when prophets walked the earth but there are no more of them walking, they taught people a message of love,compassion & justice to ensure harmony not to be racist against others & control them because of belief.
While every faithfull think they hold the absolute truth & they are the favoured ones, they forget God didnt create people to serve others based on their skin colour or their views or ideals, which takes me to the last point
4-Equal opportunities for all, only the person who is capable of doing a certain job should do it & not be prevented because his skin or nationality or ethnicity or background or parentage or faith is other than what we want it to be. Let the right person, whether Woman or Man do the job they are knowledgable & proficient in.
if people knew or were raised in a world where these values are & see them implemented, dont you think there wont be any need for religious tensions & much if the violence we see today? Shiites hitting at sunnis cos sunnis have been controlling them for too long unjustly, catholics hitting at protestants in Northern Ireland thinking it is what God wants of them, i can go on giving examples of tensions due to religions & injustice...but some people with sordid ideas are power hungry, its always about power & controling the masses, use any ideology to get them there.
I know nothing from what i said contradicts or conflicts with any genuine Islam Rules,it calls for justic not control or power unless its power of the human soul. (Comment this)

35 - Salamu alaikum,

1) I think it would be better to think of Democracy/Capitalism as a religion. It has a belief system, mainly that thier may or may not be God, but it doesn't matter since he is going to be kept in the private sphere. It believes that purpose of life is to attain sensual pleasure, hence you are free to do what you want to achieve it. These ideas are the basis of secularism, and whether you like it or not it is imposed on you either willingly or not. As a citizen I must live according to this system. Is that not imposing itself on me?
Bush, Clinton, Carter, Wilson, Blair, and the like all rule by a religion. That religion is Capitalism. Do you think that the communists, anarchists, fashists, oligarchists, etc were happy to be ruled by Democracy/Capitalism. Islam is an ideology like the rest of these that I just mentioned. Anytime you impose any ideology you are going to exclude others. The Cold War highlights this at the international level. The point is that you believe your ideology would be the best ideology to impose on the people.
Now if your defeatest, cannot think out of the box, lack a vision, assimilated probably by your college education then you will only adopt what you see in front of you. Islam, like all other ideologies accomadated the many minorities. For Allah's sake it was the Othmanis who rescued the Jews who were at the mercy of the inquisitors of Spain by sending mercy ships to pick them up. The 10 million coptic Christians of Egypt remind us of how they existed happy under the Islamic rule. Many examples highlight Islams robust and accomadating nature.

2)People talk about Democracy as if it is so open that it would allow another ideology to challenge it. People we must look beyond the superficial public relations game and ask ourselves why, in this century where democracy/capitalism has prevailed, is there so much conflict and strife?
Where was this "open" democratic system when the blacks in the 1960s where adopting communism/socialism. I'll tell you were it was, it was in the middle of an operation launched by the US called COENTELPRO, Americas war on Black America. You see when there is a serious challenge from another ideology, that threat is killed both overtly and covertly. Don't Dare Claim Democracy is open to challenge. Cause I can go on with many examples of challenges to democracy that were fought by the US.

3)Lastly, to accuse Islam of being good during the olden days but incapable of dealing with todays complex issues really is an insult to Allah (SBT). Is Islam like a carton of milk whereby we put an expiration date on it? When did Islams laws of government expire? When did the rules of Islam expire? What rules can expire and what rules do not expire? Who decides? I mean really these are ridiculous questions but they highlight the way secular muslims talk?

Islam came to change reality, not fit within it? But you need to have vision? If your gonna get an education in the West you have to look beyond your poli sci class. Only if you have the vision can you see how successful Islam can be. Americans, brits, french etc are living a miserable lifestyle. These people thrive on what we call in pharmacy world the "happy drugs" i.e. Prozac, Zoloft, etc... The other drugs are marajuana, cocaine, alcohol, etc... Yet Allah (SBT) the Creator of the Human and the Human experience sent them (not just Muslims) a system of mercy that will allow humans to fullfill all their needs without compromising the soul, body, or mind. Its a system that will rescue man from behaving as an animal to an elevated status. Its sad that we Muslims have failed in giving the world this beautiful way of life, since we have become more infatuated with our careers instead.

wasalam

Omar (Comment this)

36 - Gambino;


You said "Someone was either sleeping or smoking some pot when the 2000 election went down..i.e. Al Gore WON the popular vote"

Someone knows nothing about American electoral law. The award goes to he who wins the most electoral votes.


Abdel rahman

You said "Women in the west are used as a commodity and this is by their own admitions"

Nonsense. I am a Western woman and I never considered myself a commodity. Those admissions you heard must have been in your head.

You said "The sexappeal of women are used to market products and services. Placed in positions shown as the 'face' of the company"

For clothing and cosmetic companies, a woman will be used to sell products since the intended market is female. Women are considered more attractive than men and that’s why they tend to be used in advertising. However, companies do mix male and female representatives. It depends on the intended market.


You said "Strip clubs and nudity magazines and even normal magazines, and daily public tabloid newspapers (Page 3 Girls of the widely distributed Sun newspaper in the UK) all sell the woman's body to make profits."

Strip clubs, nudity magazines, and tabloids are disapproved of by the greater society. They are permitted because of the concept of Free Speech. If a woman gets a job as a stripper or a porn model, it’s because she chooses to. The vast majority of western women do not choose to do such activities. The vast majority of Western people do not even approve of them. And may I point out that erotica has existed throughout history in ALL cultures.


You said "I would also like you to take a look at these statistics
I can go one with those statistics that show nothing but women being victimised in the society"

Rubbish. Your statistics do not prove that women are “nothing but victimized”. Women raise children on their own because they are divorced, or because they had a child without getting married. These are choices women freely make, and while out-of-wedlock childbearing is unwise, that does not make them “victims” of anything but their own personal stupidity (same goes for the men who made them pregnant). As your own statistics show, these cases are in the minority. And you certainly know that divorce and out-of-wedlock babies are not exclusive to the West.
 (Comment this)

37 - "Democracy/Capitalism"

There are democratic countries that are socialist and there are democratic countries that are capitalist.

I know both democratic and non-democratic communists. I have met democratic socialists and social democrats.

Your theorem that democracy and capitalism form a distinct religion is wrong. (Comment this)

38 - It has come to our attention at halalfoodforthought.com, that our website has been mentioned on this blog incorrectly. We just want to clarify that we are not associated with Hizb Ut Tahrir, or any other group. Brother Abd ul-Rahman Hilmi you stated that by the “material” on our website you assumed that we are Hizb Ut Tahrir which is incorrect. Ideas are universal and can be adopted by anyone who believes in the ideas. Ideas are not owned by a group, or any individual.

I am not here to start a debate but we just wanted you Brother Hilmi and the rest of the readers to understand that we have nothing to do with Hizb Ut Tahrir. Brother Hilmi this is not an attack on you or the group you represent. I am just here to clarify our position.

 (Comment this)

39 - Omar
1- first of all, capitalism is not a religion. It is a system. Religion is a set of Beliefs that God sent to man through Prophets & Messengers. No one calims that democracy or capitalism is by God & they are for entirely different purposes, you cannot substitute religion with democracy or capitalism & you cant substitute them both by religion, they both have their fields.
2- Your generalisation that purpose of life is to attain sensual pleasure is mistaken & false regarding there may or may not be a God. Under secularism, you are free to believe what you want, no idea or religion is forced on you & if you look closely at secular countries, you will find the majority of the people believe in God in one faith or another. & tell me, with all what the democractic countries have done in the past 2 centuries, you think it was all about sensual pleasure?all these industries & inventions are to make a better human life yes & there aint nothing wrong there but it was done through hard work & toil.
3- again, you confuse matters, any ideology or faith under the secular system isnt excluded from life, but from the political & administrative machine.
4- I dont know who you are calling defeatest & thinking out the box but i would say what yous aid reflects your position.
5-Islam embraces & recognises other religions yes, but it was Muslims who accomodated others in their OWN land after the arabs conquered them. Later when they became minorities sure they enjoyed a good status better than anywhere else in those times, not today. The world has changed & things are not the same anymore.You cant compare nowadays with medievel times.
6-Christian copts in Egypt are not 10 Million, more like 8 million or 8.5. I dont think the copts would be happy to live as second class citizens when the rest of the world is abolishing this concept, nor would muslims living in europe like to live like second class citizens. it goes both ways.That robust & accomodating nature was centuries ago not today, you talk as if it was a concession given by muslims, no, it is a right given in Islam but wasnt fully implemented all the time.
7- Do you mean Islam or Islamic being good during the olden days?? Islam didnt rule, Islamic & muslims did.
but you say Islam laws of government & that is Islamic not Islam, the laws of government you refer to were done by muslims not by God, if you mean to tell me that these laws are in the Quran,which they are not, then show me directly unambiguous verses speaking of government & not meant for someth