What Happened to Honor Code of Taliban?

[khushal]

I remember talking to some typical Sunni mullas and they would say that soon all the technology in the world is going to be destroyed and the world will go back to fighting with swords and spears, then the Muslims will rise again. I thought how oblivious and stupid can these people be who have adapted this psychology.

Its rational for them to preach such non sense since they are trying to keep their way of making a living intact. New technology, new way of doing things would interfere with the way they make a living. They are trying to protect their livelihood.

The US fought a very bloody civil war over such matters.

[ذو الفقار]

Some Muslim thinkers compare the abolition of the Ottoman ‘caliphate’ in 1924 to the Roman destruction of the Jewish temple in 70 CE. For them, the caliphate is such an integral part of Islam that without it the very basic practice of Islam is futile and without meaning. They claim that vast majority of Islamic laws cannot be acted upon in the absence of a caliphate. Of course this is nonsense and simply not true, but it reveals the psychology behind this movement that seeks restoration of the caliphate.

The truth is, the concept of ‘caliphate’ has never been clearly defined in the sense of being an institution in the sacred texts of Islam. It can even be argued that caliphate doesn’t have a specific form, but is simply the term to describe the state in which God grants whom He chooses a degree of power in the land. This is why Adam is described as ‘caliph’ and likewise King David in the Holy Qur’an.

I argue that ‘caliphate’ is not at all an essential institution that is part of the fabric of Islam. Rather, it is an example of a divine favor, similar to how the Israelites were granted kingship as a divine favor in order to be strengthened against their foreign enemies. Consult the Verses in the Holy Qur’an about how Talut (Saul) was appointed King of the Israelites through the agency of a Prophet (Samuel). This was not the establishment of an institution or sacrement that is fundamental to the Religion, but only an example of a divine blessing for faithfulness.

In fact, this theory of mine explains why the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) never designated a successor to succeed him and lead the Muslim Umma after his death. The Prophet’s function was only to establish the integral institutions of Islam, such as Salat, fasting in Ramadan, the Zakat, etc. But he never designated a successor to succeed him because the ‘Caliphate’ is not an institution of the Religion itself.

[khushal]

[FONT="HardTimesW01-Roman"]
And the Baghdadi camp has manifestly failed, and if this was their theory that the caliphate will simply build itself once it is proclaimed, then it is self-evident how ridiculous that theory turned out to be.

All it does is tell us they were desperate. The building itself was their notion of attracting recruitment.

[maneatinglizard]

Some Muslim thinkers compare the abolition of the Ottoman ‘caliphate’ in 1924 to the Roman destruction of the Jewish temple in 70 CE. For them, the caliphate is such an integral part of Islam that without it the very basic practice of Islam is futile and without meaning. They claim that vast majority of Islamic laws cannot be acted upon in the absence of a caliphate. Of course this is nonsense and simply not true, but it reveals the psychology behind this movement that seeks restoration of the caliphate.

The truth is, the concept of ‘caliphate’ has never been clearly defined in the sense of being an institution in the sacred texts of Islam. It can even be argued that caliphate doesn’t have a specific form, but is simply the term to describe the state in which God grants whom He chooses a degree of power in the land. This is why Adam is described as ‘caliph’ and likewise King David in the Holy Qur’an.

I argue that ‘caliphate’ is not at all an essential institution that is part of the fabric of Islam. Rather, it is an example of a divine favor, similar to how the Israelites were granted kingship as a divine favor in order to be strengthened against their foreign enemies. Consult the Verses in the Holy Qur’an about how Talut (Saul) was appointed King of the Israelites through the agency of a Prophet (Samuel). This was not the establishment of an institution or sacrement that is fundamental to the Religion, but only an example of a divine blessing for faithfulness.

In fact, this theory of mine explains why the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) never designated a successor to succeed him and lead the Muslim Umma after his death. The Prophet’s function was only to establish the integral institutions of Islam, such as Salat, fasting in Ramadan, the Zakat, etc. But he never designated a successor to succeed him because the ‘Caliphate’ is not an institution of the Religion itself.

You know, none of us forgot that you're a Shia-inclined Qadiani. If you want to talk about other stuff, go right on ahead, but your understanding of Islam is severely warped by your strange views, and none of us will accept it.

It is well known that Khilafa is an obligation upon Muslims. Imam al-Ghazali (رحمة الله عليه) even mentions an Ijma upon this.

The reason people like Qadianis might advocate for such a positions is because they are puppets of the kuffar, who want Muslims to remain divided and weak. Ghulam Ahmad was a proud slave of the British, and sought to keep Muslims under their rule. It's only natural, then, to see one of his followers attempt to cast doubt on the necessity of the station of khalifah.

The funny thing about Muslims who deny the importance of a khalifah, is they seem to be blind to the reality that Muslims have never been as weak as we have been these last 90 years without any khalifah. Without a central source of power (even a symbolic one), the kuffar have been free to split us up and steal from us, kill us, and oppress us however they see fit.

[maneatinglizard]

Its rational for them to preach such non sense since they are trying to keep their way of making a living intact. New technology, new way of doing things would interfere with the way they make a living. They are trying to protect their livelihood.

The US fought a very bloody civil war over such matters.

I don't think anyone's doing to maintain their livelihood (how is a mulla's livelihood attached to old technology anyway? It's not like they teach sword fighting or something).

Rather, there are people who think some sort of large scale nuclear conflict will basically send everyone back to the Stone Age. That's not even a specifically Muslim belief or anything. It's probably more common in the West, if anything.

[maneatinglizard]

^^^^ Basically what's written above is tantamount to saying that Islamic government is only "problematic" if people want a good quality of life, where their basic needs are met and thensome. If this is not evidence to how skewed and deranged our current religious establishment is....not sure what is.

There's nothing spiritual about a society where people wallow in destitution. If you want to do that as part of your Sufi suluk, that's fine, but that's a choice you made. We're given talents and tools to prosper not perish.

I don't think you can blame the ravings of a confused crypto-Qadiani on any Islamic religious establishment lol.

There are problems for sure, but there are a lot of Islamic movements that are, while imperfect, agents of good and positive development overall in the Muslim world. The main problem, in my view, is a lack of unity, not a lack of competence or ideology.

[ذو الفقار]

You know, none of us forgot that you're a Shia-inclined Qadiani. If you want to talk about other stuff, go right on ahead, but your understanding of Islam is severely warped by your strange views, and none of us will accept it.

As usual ad hominem fallacy.

The reason people like Qadianis might advocate for such a positions is because they are puppets of the kuffar, who want Muslims to remain divided and weak. Ghulam Ahmad was a proud slave of the British, and sought to keep Muslims under their rule. It's only natural, then, to see one of his followers attempt to cast doubt on the necessity of the station of khalifah.

Not at all. The Khilafa is an institution the Muslims need for sure. I have never denied that. But I have pointed out that it is not one of the fundamental pillars of Islam or one of those institutions without which Islam is incomplete and cannot be practiced, contrary to the claims of the political Jama'aat and movements.

But a discussion on Khilafa has to begin with defining it. There are so many complex issues involved in this discussion, for example, who is entitled to be a Khalifa, how is a Khalifa chosen? What is the jurisdiction of the Khilafa established somewhere on those Muslims who are living in far off territories including as religious minorities? What is the validity of parallel or multiple caliphates to reflect the geographic vastness of the Muslim world? Is it essential to have a single Caliph for the global Muslim population? Must the Khalifa be a Qureshi and what is the validity of a non-Qureshi Caliphate?

These are classic issues which have been debated over for centuries, but I must point out the debate has never been settled.

The present political movement like Hizb ut Tahrir and likeminded groups which say there has to be a single caliphate on a global level which every single Muslim is subject to is based on a very modern theory that has no precedent in classic Islamic thought, let alone the actual sacred Texts.

The funny thing about Muslims who deny the importance of a khalifah, is they seem to be blind to the reality that Muslims have never been as weak as we have been these last 90 years without any khalifah. Without a central source of power (even a symbolic one), the kuffar have been free to split us up and steal from us, kill us, and oppress us however they see fit.

Muslims have been weak for a lot longer than 90 years. One can argue that Muslims have been weak and in decline for centuries. It has nothing to do with a loss of a supposed caliphate in 1924. That was, as you point out, only a symbolic seat which was ultimately meaningless. Suppose it was retained, it would not make any difference to the present dilemmas of the Muslim world.

The Prophet (peace be upon him) himself stated that the caliphate after him would only endure for a very brief period - 30 years. The true caliphate actually ended when sayyidina Hasan (Radi Allahu anhu), the fifth legitimate caliph, agreed to resign from the caliphate for the sake of ending a bloody civil war. Mu'awiya was then crowned king shortly thereafter, and ever since Muslims have basically been under corrupt dynastic rule or foreign colonization, and now the modern secular state.

[ذو الفقار]

As for Ghazzali, he lived in the 11th century CE. Was there a unified single caliphate in his time? There certainly was not. Why didn't Ghazzali ever launch a similar campaign for a united caliphate like the modern political groups are doing today? Was there ever a Khilafah Movement during Ghazzali's time like there was in 1920s India?

In Ghazzali's time there were multiple 'caliphates' and different Muslim states based on dynastic rule which might have claimed the title of caliphate, but in reality were nothing more than corrupt and despotic. There were the Fatimids in Egypt and North Africa, the Umayyads in Spain, claiming to be the legitimate Caliph. Ghazzali himself was subject to the Seljuq rule who were not even Arabs. Which was the legitimate caliphate? Even the Abbasids still existed and their claim to being the legitimate Caliph wasn't put to an end until the Mongol invasion in 1258, long after Ghazzali died.

[Iblis_Efreetzai]

I don't think you can blame the ravings of a confused crypto-Qadiani on any Islamic religious establishment lol.

There are problems for sure, but there are a lot of Islamic movements that are, while imperfect, agents of good and positive development overall in the Muslim world. The main problem, in my view, is a lack of unity, not a lack of competence or ideology.

Well, I'm not decrying the role of Islam in society or its importance, and perhaps there are agents of good and positive development, but they are not that powerful at the moment. Currently our religious establishment is ruled by tremendously powerful agents of negativity and stagnation. They have a vested interest in keeping things that way. .....Unity sounds great on paper and I'm not against it ....I do believe that shoulld be an aspiration, but we need to bring our respective societies to good health before such a feat would be viable. Unity won't solve our problems on its own, without a concerted effort to improve the social health of our various peoples.

[khushal]

I don't think anyone's doing to maintain their livelihood (how is a mulla's livelihood attached to old technology anyway? It's not like they teach sword fighting or something).

Rather, there are people who think some sort of large scale nuclear conflict will basically send everyone back to the Stone Age. That's not even a specifically Muslim belief or anything. It's probably more common in the West, if anything.

There are many that use Islam as a means to justify their actions or justify their livelihood. An example would be the practice of "tawiz." those mullahs know that the tawiz has no powers but they charge money for them anyways knowing that they are selling superstition just like the meccans were selling idols from Kaaba making people believe the idols were bringing fortune and safety. The prophets life was threatened because his preaching was interfering with the Meccans money making scheme of selling superstition. Furkhunda was savagely killed in Kabul, she wasn't killed because she spoke the truth about such practices, she was killed for interfering with a money making scheme. It's like when people started interfering with the New York mafia's money making scheme, many people lost their lives.

Most of these people don't know what a nuclear bomb is nor its destructive power nor care. Instead of telling people to progress and keep up with the world's technical knowledge, they tell people it will go back to the stone age anyways so why spend energy on acquiring knowledge. In other words they want to keep people ignorant so they can keep their influence over them.

[Iblis_Efreetzai]

Why Zulfi? Why?
Yet you are living in Canada and judging by the picture of yourself you posted here you look like you have more comfort than needed as per your interpretation of Islam.

he posted a picture of himself? Let's have a look of this Noble Islamic Warrior.

[Elias]

he posted a picture of himself? Let's have a look of this Noble Islamic Warrior.

This is what I look like



As you can see I look like a Pathan but I am Punjabi and Hyderabadi. I am mistaken for being Pathan because of my appearance and style of dress, but that is because I belong to the Panjpiri / Mamati maslak.

I like his LL cool J mustache.

[Khostai]

Islamic warriors? lmao. You are so s tupid that you have bought 100% the American narrative. Mujahedeens were not organized terrorist death squads, but most of them Pashtun and Tajik peasants. Actually many educated people in the cities were pro-mujhadeen or anti-communist. I met in Afghanistan people who were university ustaads and still disliked the communist regime and cooperated with the islamist movements.

It was the regime fault. It was their stupidity, their lack of vision, their hardcore liberal reforms" that eventually led to their failure. Really your retarded Khalqi heroes didn't expect a strong backlash in a strongly conservative country like Afghanistan? Were those morons really unaware of that? If thats the case, then we are far better off without them lol

My dear "chimi kuni" friend I guess your low IQ is in the way of proper reading comprehension. Where in my comment did I say they were organized? They called themself warriors of Islam. Becuase big bad commies were destroying the almighty Gods only true relligion on earth lol.

Afghanistan communist would have won. But becuase USA with pakis and Saudis helped and poured millions of money to the insurgency they overtrew the goverment. A lot of countries had similar regime changes and had the same conservatism if not worse, but they succeeded, Afghanistan would have too.

But thats history, you got your Islamic goverment with Islam as state relligion and billions in aid. However Afghanistan is still unstable and on a brinck of collapse. Becuase in 15 years your "chimi kuni" bacha baaz mudjhahids who fought for sharia were to busy molesting children and building mansions.
That is your Islamic legacy, that is what future generations will remeber your warriors for. Theft, rape and pillage.

[Iblis_Efreetzai]

I like his LL cool J mustache.

lol, I thought this was some old picture from the 70's ... beshak ....O besyar chagh asta ...murgh-e-chagha hahaha

[Elias]

lol, I thought this was some old picture from the 70's ... beshak ....O besyar chagh asta ...murgh-e-chagha hahaha

Haha rishtya wayi.