> Choosing the Caliph

[salamfromrom]

Salam

I frequently read news from the North Caucasus region (Chechnya, Daghestan, Ingushetia, etc) and I came across these two very interesting articles.

The first, is the explanation of a strategy which I think many politically aware muslims know very well, which is the issue of how to rule the muslim masses. This author basically states that the masses (ummah) are mostly unaware, ignorant (and/or plain dumb) and that the self-proclaimed ''most pious'' should elect a leader. Here is the full (and interesting, I think) article: Prague Watchdog - Crisis in Chechnya - Irreconcilables

Then, another author wrote a piece criticising the former for according to him, basically being just authoritarianism with an islamic face. Here is the article: Prague Watchdog - Crisis in Chechnya - Sheep

I was wondering what the knowleadgeable brothers and sisters here have to say on the matter. How exactly should a leader be elected/chosen/come to power? Can force be used to crush any dissent? I am interested in the practical steps of establishing a working government and I feel that few if any people truly seek to find a viable solution apart from repeating the usual robotic talking points.

Salam a leikum

[al-boriqee]

Originally Posted by salamfromrom

Salam

I frequently read news from the North Caucasus region (Chechnya, Daghestan, Ingushetia, etc) and I came across these two very interesting articles.

The first, is the explanation of a strategy which I think many politically aware muslims know very well, which is the issue of how to rule the muslim masses. This author basically states that the masses (ummah) are mostly unaware, ignorant (and/or plain dumb) and that the self-proclaimed ''most pious'' should elect a leader. Here is the full (and interesting, I think) article: Prague Watchdog - Crisis in Chechnya - Irreconcilables

Then, another author wrote a piece criticising the former for according to him, basically being just authoritarianism with an islamic face. Here is the article: Prague Watchdog - Crisis in Chechnya - Sheep

I am going to reply inshallah to the one who spoke on the sheep.

the following comment was of the most preposterous assumptions of the entire tabloid, mainly that

"Yusuf I.’s political reflections are far more interesting. Without hesitation he argues that majority opinion does not matter, because most people are by nature " not leaders” – even, presumably, if they consider themselves Muslims and another name for them is the so-called "Ummah". For they are not leaders. And who are they, these ordinary people? The answer is obvious – they are "sheep". Thus, in Yusuf I.’s version of reality the world is dominated by a conscious minority – the "leaders" – while everyone else, the irrational, the irresponsible, the easily duped, the common people, the Ummah – are "sheep". The "sheep" don’t know what is good for them. The “sheep" are easy to manipulate, and this is something "democrats" take advantage of in order to subordinate them to their will. Therefore, democracy is harmful."

the bafoon completely missed the spirit of yusifs words. Yusif was commenting on THE STATUS QUA of todays political climate and was not advocating the idealism that this tabloid journalist is insinuating on him.

let us examine the exact contraversial statement of Yusif in order to reveal how this tabloid journalist attempted to befuddle the truth.

yusuf states

Today people are accustomed to the notion that the majority is always right and that the minority must obey it. But this formula has been concocted by the minority that holds power in order to delude and control the masses. On this principle so-called "democratic elections" are organized.
For Islam this is unacceptable. This world is constructed in such a way that the capable and conscious are always in the minority. They are, as the Koran says, the leaders, and the others are the led. And no one will argue that society consists mainly of leaders. The majority of people are led, which means that they are not free in their choice, and only duplicate the opinion of the leader. Therefore, the "elected" ruler of the masses is not really legitimate. He and his party are simply hustlers who have managed to convince others that they are worthy of holding power.

let us predicate the entire atmosphere of yusufs words in order to truely arrive at an accurate depiction of yusufs view and to isolate it from the insinuation of this German Sadulayev,

All of the words in red depict his depiction of the actual status qua of todays world. Everything in blue is a depiction of Islam's position on everything in red. Everything that is underlined is that which he is highlighting as to why Islam objects to this status qua.

In other words, Yusuf is advocating that the ideal society should be opposite of this, and not what this drive by media tabloid journalist assumes that yusuf views the world is naturally (ideally) divided into a minority conscience class and a majority duped population.

secondly, what reveals the buffoonery of this tabloid journalist is that Yusuf was primarily speaking about the non Muslim world and was not speaking about the Islamic paradigm of khilaafa. Hence that is why Yusuf after commenting on the above status qua, then brings forth a different approach starting with

"In Islam....." and then establishes the Islamic method. However this simple context seemed to have traversed beyond the thinking of this tabloid journalist for he stated

Yusuf I.’s refrain goes like this: the ruler should be a manipulator and demagogue chosen not by the stupid majority, but by "the one who is most God-fearing". Mr. Ibrahim's logic is that if the state is Islamic, and it can be if the people so desire, then the best ruler will be the best Muslim.

Id say this person belongs in an elementary school more so than provoking a political spectrum debate on issues he has no idea what he is talking about.

I was wondering what the knowleadgeable brothers and sisters here have to say on the matter. How exactly should a leader be elected/chosen/come to power?

there is no single method and since the shariah remained silent, the jurist derived that its method is based on the situational circumstance. Hence Abu Bakr was silently appointed by the Prophet and Umar was openly appointed by Abu Bakr, but Uthmaan was elected BY THE ELITE and then Ali assumed command somewhat through Yusufs approach, but not exactly as there is contraversy between him and Muawiyyah which would explaned why the scholars of the ummah remained silent and did not affirm the khilaafa of Ali until AFTER the controversy that took place

Can force be used to crush any dissent?

yes, if the ummah has conceded to a particular ruler, there can be no dissent because dissent is the essence of kharijiyyah. In fact, if there is dissent, the ummah naturally itself will wish to crush it even if the ruler desires to do so or not. WHY, because dissent is the antithesis of unity. Hence when the kuffar shout out slogans like "unity through diversity" is only a satanic plot to throw us off guard of the true objective of what they are trying to espouse in the Muslims world.

I am interested in the practical steps of establishing a working government and I feel that few if any people truly seek to find a viable solution

maybe because you are not fully acquainted with certain approaches.

apart from repeating the usual robotic talking points.

that is pure and uncut modernism/progressivism101. try to broaden your thinking beyond this defunct approach, just food for thought

[salamfromrom]

that is pure and uncut modernism/progressivism101. try to broaden your thinking beyond this defunct approach, just food for thought

Salam

thank you for your careful examination. However, what I said above was not modernism, but just my opinion that whenever people debate about this issue, they usually fail to take reality into consideration, namely that the Ummah is deeply divided along sectarian lines, and if a government belonging to one sect/group/way of thinking comes to power, the others will always refuse the former's interpretation of shariah. So far, as long as I can tell, no one has come up with a solution to how the government can exist without the support of a majority of the population. When people usually talk about reestablishing the Caliphate, they usually think of this entity as comprising the vast majority of muslim (Sunni&Shia) countries but at the same many muslims have radically different interpretations of shariah law. There's bound to be some serious friction if you know what I mean, and few take this into consideration.

So I take it from your response that the Caliph could theoretically be chosen by popular vote similar to the democratic elections in the west?


Salam

[al-boriqee]

Originally Posted by salamfromrom

Salam

thank you for your careful examination. However, what I said above was not modernism, but just my opinion that whenever people debate about this issue, they usually fail to take reality into consideration, namely that the Ummah is deeply divided along sectarian lines, and if a government belonging to one sect/group/way of thinking comes to power, the others will always refuse the former's interpretation of shariah. So far, as long as I can tell, no one has come up with a solution to how the government can exist without the support of a majority of the population. When people usually talk about reestablishing the Caliphate, they usually think of this entity as comprising the vast majority of muslim (Sunni&Shia) countries but at the same many muslims have radically different interpretations of shariah law. There's bound to be some serious friction if you know what I mean, and few take this into consideration.

hence as I said modernism for this is their argument and reasoning as lead by Ahmad ghamidi. Not that I'm making you a modernist, but rather this is the theory.

Essentially speaking, the ummah will not unite except under the auspices of pure sunnism or any of it's derivatives like
ahlul-hadeeth
atharism
salafism
ahlu-sunnah wal-jama'ah

this auspise is tr essence of islam. In other words any other auspice would be nothing but sectarian thought and a tangent that is different than the intent of the shariah.

Until the ummah realizes that, the hadeeth of the messenger will still be in effect, namely when he said
"my ummah will never unite upon error"

as long as sectarian thought remains the predominant view rather than the thought of the salaf (i.e. Salafiyyah, ahlul-hadeeth), disunity with no end near in sight will remain.

So I take it from your response that the Caliph could theoretically be chosen by popular vote similar to the democratic elections in the west?


Salam

no way, far from it. That was why I added the phrasal clause (by the elite) so that way you will not arrive at this errorneous conclusion.

Majlis ash-shura is an entirely different concept than democratic election. Democratice election is an academic term for mob rule. What I'm talking is more in line of an allegarchy but with the system of a republic so to speak.

Asalamu alaikum

[salamfromrom]

Salam

That was why I added the phrasal clause (by the elite)

Who decides who the elite is?

as long as sectarian thought remains the predominant view rather than the thought of the salaf (i.e. Salafiyyah, ahlul-hadeeth), disunity with no end near in sight will remain.

Thank you for that explanation. Also, I did not say that we should all unite, because that would obviously be impossible. People with such widely differing beliefs and viewpoints cannot logically agree with one another long enough to construct any sort of working power-sharing govt.

From your explanation I take it that you believe that we should try and make ourselves better, then our families, then our local communities then the ummah (correct me if I'm wrong). As far as I can remember , you were never a proponent of violence against other sectarian groups and others with different beliefs. However, I think you can aknowledge that many of the sheikhs of the salafi movement (and almost every other movement within the deen) often seem to make firebrand speeches and fatwas denouncing the ''heretics'' and some of these speeches can very easily be misunderstood(?) to condone violence against those of different beliefs. I think that (if true) this is a problem plaguing the ummah, namely the quickness to anger and violence and the refusal to agree to disagree.

If indeed the majority becomes united sometimes in the future under the salafi way of thinking, what are the rest 30-40% of the population to do? will they be granted minority rights or something? I'm sorry but I don't see the practical solutions.

Relying on Allah(swt) to guide humanity is offcourse something everyone should do, but Allah(swt) helps those who help themselves, and no real solutions have been put forward to explain what we should do and how we should interact with the hundreds of millions of followers of different sects (modernists/shiahs/etc) within Islam. We still treat this issue as if they don't exist at all. Are they to be killed in the salafi version of the Islamic state as heretics or will we coexist with them peacefully?

In short, I guess what I'm trying to ask is: Does the modern Salafyiah movement condemn and/or even encourage violence against those who do not share it's beliefs and it's interpretation of shariah law?

There's no reason to beat around the bush, I'm not trying to be disrespectful, but this is something I've been wanting to ask straight up for quite some time.

Also, thank you very much for taking the time to answer me, your explanations have always been top knotch.

All the best, Salamu a leikum

[salman]

^akhee, tell me how would learning about this solution help you in terms of your deen? Other than bit about knowledge, is there any other benefit in discussing this issue and sort of focusing on it? Is Allah going to ask you on the day of judgment whether you knew about the solution?

See this is the problem with us now days; our priorities are not sorted out. Akhee, you are a new Muslims and your top priority should be learning the basics of Islam and spending time and effort into that instead of arguing and discussing the political issues which hardly bring any benefit to those who are discussing.

Don't get me wrong, I am not against asking questions for benefit of knowledge; however, I have problem with people going into extreme regarding that issue. And I notice that problem in you and I am advising you as your brother in Islam that you need to change your focus.

[salamfromrom]

Salam

Thank you for your concern, however I am deeply interested in political issues, that's just the way I am. I thank you all for the information shared with me and if you do not wish or cannot reply for whatever reason, I do not mind at all.

Salam

[al-boriqee]

Originally Posted by salamfromrom

Salam

Thank you for your concern, however I am deeply interested in political issues, that's just the way I am. I thank you all for the information shared with me and if you do not wish or cannot reply for whatever reason, I do not mind at all.

Salam

akhee

don't worry. Salman was right, but some people have various natures. I will try to expound a bit on Salmans point AFTER I reply to your inquiring post

Originally Posted by salamfromrom

Salam

Who decides who the elite is?

since we are speaking about Islam, then within the realm of Islam, Allah has chosen who the elite were when He said

"O mankind! We have created you from a male and a female, and made you into nations and tribes, that you may know one another. Verily, the most honourable of you with Allah is that (believer) who has at-taqwa [i.e. he is one of the Muttaqun ]. Verily, Allah is All-Knowing, All-Aware.
( سورة الحجرات , Al-Hujraat, Chapter #49, Verse #13)

the second nobility upon which Allah favored is knowledge, particularly to those who hold it and the ayaat on this are plenty.

So the two singular aspects of nobility in Islam i.e. the elite, are the people who perform the most righteous deeds and the people of knowledge of the shariah. These are the nobility in Islam.

the top and head of the people of worship are the mujaahideen as their fighting is a burhaan (a clear and decisive proof) for Islam. Likewise the second are those who spend in charity for Ali radhiyallahu anhu said
"wherever you see a man spend his wealth, that is where his heart is into".

WHY, because no one is going to give money in that which they do not believe in.

so how do we connect this with the approval of someone to assume authority. Simple. the people of knowledge are those who are best able to determine the suitable person to assume the task for they have within their hands the tools required to analyze the state of the person whereas the common people lack in this ability.

Thank you for that explanation. Also, I did not say that we should all unite, because that would obviously be impossible. People with such widely differing beliefs and viewpoints cannot logically agree with one another long enough to construct any sort of working power-sharing govt.

I would agree and disagree. the agreement is understandable so no need to explain. However, where I disagree is in the total or absolute negation of khilaafa merely on sectarian premises. I myself, being salafi, would love, work with, and concede to a sufi or ash'ari khilaafa than NO khilaafa, and likewise ash'aris, sufis, or whoever else would love to see (well maybe not love, but would prefer) a "wahhabi" khilaafa rather than NO khilaafa. WHY, because in Islamic law, the Imaams of the whole ummah agreed that having no Amir is the worst thing on the face of the planet and is worse than any sectarian dispute.

The second reason WHY I would disagree is even more logical. That is that most of the disputes of the ummah on sectarian lines have to deal with theological issues, doctrinal premises. These issues have very slight or little bearing or toll on a POLITICAL khilaafa system. In other words no matter what sectarian group wields authority, the basics of the shariah upon which all the groups concede to will still be upheld with very very minute differences in the application of the law. In other words, if I were a khaleefa, while I would institute the sunni creed to be taught on a national level, the purpose and crux of the khilaafa itself is the implementational system of Islam i.e. the shariah, and has very little connection with doctrinal issues.

From your explanation I take it that you believe that we should try and make ourselves better, then our families, then our local communities then the ummah (correct me if I'm wrong).

yes, because Allah said
"save YOURSELVES, and THEN your families from a fire"

so the order of importance is yourself. Once you are able to stand up on your own in terms of watching out what will steer you to hellfire, then you are able to do the same with your family or your direct circle of influence. after each circle is sustained, then if the ability is available, that circle can expand to a wider audience and so on and so forth.

As far as I can remember , you were never a proponent of violence against other sectarian groups and others with different beliefs

except for the position of the khilaafa. I believe that the khaleefa is to execute the extreme heretic as the Islamic state did with the sufi al-Hallaaj. Likewise the ruler Subaktujin who executed ibn Furak al-Ash'ari. So I do not espouse vigilante violence, But I do uphold that heresy is to be punished in Islamic law just as Ali did with the shia.

However, I think you can aknowledge that many of the sheikhs of the salafi movement (and almost every other movement within the deen) often seem to make firebrand speeches and fatwas denouncing the ''heretics'' and some of these speeches can very easily be misunderstood(?) to condone violence against those of different beliefs. I think that (if true) this is a problem plaguing the ummah, namely the quickness to anger and violence

I think that derivation of what is going on is not really accurate. MOST of the violence today in the Muslim world from a sectarian perspective is between the generality of sunnis vs the shia, and rightfully so. The shia are the munafiqeen of this ummah and who were the ones who invited the mongols to invade and thereby destroy the Abbassi caliphate. Not only are they heretics, they are kuffar and their ruling, is that they are to be killed, the callers among them. As for the common folk, they are to be educated back to Islam.

and the refusal to agree to disagree.

this is a sickness in the ummah when applied to fundamentals of the religion. Our way is one way, and if there is disagreement by another one saying, "no, it is this way", then it is not a matter of "lets agree to disagree" it is a matter of us being upon disunity because of the error and never uniting until that error is deleted from our minds and practice.

If indeed the majority becomes united sometimes in the future under the salafi way of thinking, what are the rest 30-40% of the population to do? will they be granted minority rights or something? I'm sorry but I don't see the practical solutions.

i believe you have to switch your way of thinking. sometimes as converts we always judge the suitability of the Islamic paradigm based on the premises of where we came from, most notably, the western way. I naturally despised the western way even as a kaafir because I always had an innate feeling that this is all wrong, but I had no guidance like Islam to explain the way. So it was particularly easy for me to fully submit like a nice dive into the ocean of Islam.

firstly, the population needs to do nothing because the madhaab of the salaf is not to treat the generality of people who may be unaware with severity, rather our way is a way of ease and only harshness is utilized upon those specific singular instances where it is necessary i.e. 1 out of a million as the saying goes.

secondly, there is no "minority" rights in Islam. every group of people have been given rights by Allah and the shariah is merely there to ensure it, not to strip them or to grant them.

Relying on Allah(swt) to guide humanity is offcourse something everyone should do, but Allah(swt) helps those who help themselves, and no real solutions have been put forward to explain what we should do and how we should interact with the hundreds of millions of followers of different sects (modernists/shiahs/etc) within Islam. We still treat this issue as if they don't exist at all. Are they to be killed in the salafi version of the Islamic state as heretics or will we coexist with them peacefully?

the primary action of interaction with sectarian dissidents is virtually dawah. no one is to be killed except for the mubtadi (the innovator) in which what he innovated entails kufr or apostasy. for example, the khilaafa would execute Ahmad Ghamidi, but not the generality of the modernists. execution is rare and far in between in an Islamic state.

In short, I guess what I'm trying to ask is: Does the modern Salafyiah movement condemn and/or even encourage violence against those who do not share it's beliefs and it's interpretation of shariah law?

another misconception is the idea that "salafiyyah movement" has its "own" version of shariah. There is no "salafi version" of the shariah. the shariah is the shariah and the five legal juristic derivatives of that law are
hanafi
shafi'ee
maaliki
hanbali
dhaahiri
however, the most popular are the first four. There is no "salafi" version. If we really want to get technical, ALL of the founders and their direct students were salafi
Abu Haneefah was salafi and so where his students Muhammad ash-Shaybaani and Abu Yusif
Imaam Maalik was salafi and the leader of the athari (i.e. salafi) aqeedah and his direct students were salafi
Shafi'ee was salafi and his direct students like al-Muzaani and others were all salafi
Ahmad bin Hanbal and all of his students were salafi

so technical speaking, the sources upon which shariah law were derived from were all salafi, but there is no such thing as a "salafi version" of shariah.

I myself am salafi but I particular incline towards the hanbali approach in fiqh and usool and qawaa'id. I know another salafi who is takes the hanafi approach. likewise there are salafis who are shafi'ee and salafis who are maaliki. i even know one who leans towards the dhaahiri approach in the law.

So the idea of there being some "wahhabi" or "salafi' version of the law was really invented by the west to inculcate the masses upon the idea that salafism is an entirely different religion than Islam, and they particularly did this because the sufis and ash'aris formed an alliance with the west to fight against the "wahhabis". Part of that alliance is the watering down of Islam. In other words sufi and ash;ari ideologues will do what they can do to steer the muslim away from Islam, which is the main objective of the west. So in this plot, they made four categorical distinctions for the muslims

1. the secularist (progressives). the kuffar said that these groups their undivided and utmost support
2. the modernist, the kuffar said that they will invest great support for this campaign
3. the traditionalist (the sufis and ash'aris, which in reality they are not traditionalists), the kuffar do not like to support this group but they do have an alliance headed by hischam kabbani the naqshbandi sufi
4. the fundamentalist (the real traditionalists of Islam) and it is this group upon which the kaafir objective is to make sure no one becomes a "fundamentalist" because they know that this is a real muslim.

There's no reason to beat around the bush, I'm not trying to be disrespectful, but this is something I've been wanting to ask straight up for quite some time.

do not feel awkward for your questions.

Also, thank you very much for taking the time to answer me,

All the best, Salamu a leikum

no problem

[salamfromrom]

Salam

I agree that the elites should be the knowleadgeable and pious, but do the people have no say about which group among the pious rules over them? I mean, many good muslim scholars have disagreements among them, sometimes serious, shouldn't the muslim masses get to vote which scholars' understanding of islam is best? Furthermore, people would most likely fight over who they think is the most ''pious'' and we will see sectarian strife on a grand scale. Maybe an election would solve that.

For example if people think Al-Albani was right about one thing, but the other scholars disagree with him, can't the people vote for supporting the law derrived from Al-Albani's position and vice-versa?

Offcourse, the weakness of this sistem is that eventually corrupt scholars would ''play the people'' so to speak and say whatever they think the people want to hear in order to get the vote (just like politicians in a democracy) but isn't this better than having someone who doesn't have the backing of the people (symbolized by the vote) in power?


I just think that you know, as the saying goes, ''power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely''. It would be dangerous to have people in power who are unnacountable to the people, and who can easily, easily impose a police state to cement their grip on power all in the name of Islam.

Also, I know the kuffar want to break us into wahhabis vs moderates and I wasn't supporting that. I mentioned Salafi understanding as separate from other groups' understanding of islam because frankly different groups have different interpretations, I was not saying that the salafi way is wrong or anything, I am not the one to judge. I was just stating a fact that different groups see things differently.


Thank you so much for the well written and informative post, now I understand your position (and I assume the salafyiah position) much better. I do not agree with some things, I must admit that, but I respect this position and this way of thinking.

Thank you very much again akhee.


P.S. This is the last time I will be asking these type of questions, about political violence etc. You have really answered everything this time. last time I asked you about this sort of stuff you basically said ''Allah(swt) will sort it out when we have a khalifah'' and I wasn't satisfied fully because I wanted practical steps lol .


Salam, take care.