Sunni Caliphate System

[Noor-us-Sunnah]

First three caliphs were elected by shura, the one who have made a sincere study about this topic, objectively and without any bias and has some basic understanding of the terminology would definitely agree that the first three CaliPhs were elected by shura. Even though the process was not identical in all, but it was still shura through which they were appointed. The one who disagrees is a jahil, fooled by the misguided scholars he blindly follows, so I pity such people honestly.

To educate such misguided bigots about the correct understanding , let me quote what Ali(ra) himself said in Nahjul Balagha.

Ali(ra) wrote in his letter stating:
إنه بايعني القوم الذين بايعوا أبا بكر وعمر وعثمان ، على ما بايعوهم عليه ، فلم يكن للشاهد أن يختار ولا للغائب أن يرد ، وإنما الشورى للمهاجرين والأنصار ، فإن اجتمعوا على رجل وسموه إماماً كان ذلك لله رضى فإن خرج منهم خارج بطعن أو بدعة ردوه إلى ماخرج منه فإن أبى قاتلوه على اتباعه غير سبيل المؤمنين ، وولاه الله ما تولى
Verily, the people who payed allegience to Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman, have payed allegience to me based on the same principles as the allegience to them. So anyone who was present has no right to go against his pledge of allegience, and anyone who was absent has no right to oppose it. And verily shura (consultation) is only the right of the Muhajirs and the Ansar. So if they decide upon a man and declare him their imam, then it is with the pleasure of Allah. If anyone goes against this decision, then he must be persuaded to follow the rest of the people. If he persists, then fight with him for leaving that which has been accepted by the believers. And Allah shall let him wander misguided and not guide him. (Nahjul-Balaghah, Letter #6).  Similar report is present in Bihar al anwar (32/368)(33/76), noor al thaqalayn(1/551).

The people who appointed Ali as fourth caliPh where muhajireen and Ansar, and they appointed the first three caliphs through shura, and this was their right, as mentioned by Ali(ra).

[iceman]

First three caliphs were elected by shura, the one who have made a sincere study about this topic, objectively and without any bias and has some basic understanding of the terminology would definitely agree that the first three CaliPhs were elected by shura. Even though the process was not identical in all, but it was still shura through which they were appointed. The one who disagrees is a jahil, fooled by the misguided scholars he blindly follows, so I pity such people honestly.

To educate such misguided bigots about the correct understanding , let me quote what Ali(ra) himself said in Nahjul Balagha.

Ali(ra) wrote in his letter stating:
إنه بايعني القوم الذين بايعوا أبا بكر وعمر وعثمان ، على ما بايعوهم عليه ، فلم يكن للشاهد أن يختار ولا للغائب أن يرد ، وإنما الشورى للمهاجرين والأنصار ، فإن اجتمعوا على رجل وسموه إماماً كان ذلك لله رضى فإن خرج منهم خارج بطعن أو بدعة ردوه إلى ماخرج منه فإن أبى قاتلوه على اتباعه غير سبيل المؤمنين ، وولاه الله ما تولى
Verily, the people who payed allegience to Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman, have payed allegience to me based on the same principles as the allegience to them. So anyone who was present has no right to go against his pledge of allegience, and anyone who was absent has no right to oppose it. And verily shura (consultation) is only the right of the Muhajirs and the Ansar. So if they decide upon a man and declare him their imam, then it is with the pleasure of Allah. If anyone goes against this decision, then he must be persuaded to follow the rest of the people. If he persists, then fight with him for leaving that which has been accepted by the believers. And Allah shall let him wander misguided and not guide him. (Nahjul-Balaghah, Letter #6).  Similar report is present in Bihar al anwar (32/368)(33/76), noor al thaqalayn(1/551).

The people who appointed Ali as fourth caliPh where muhajireen and Ansar, and they appointed the first three caliphs through shura, and this was their right, as mentioned by Ali(ra).

So those who opposed Ali and in fact went far as waging war what is your opinion on them?

[Noor-us-Sunnah]

First three caliphs were elected by shura, the one who have made a sincere study about this topic, objectively and without any bias and has some basic understanding of the terminology would definitely agree that the first three CaliPhs were elected by shura. Even though the process was not identical in all, but it was still shura through which they were appointed. The one who disagrees is a jahil, fooled by the misguided scholars he blindly follows, so I pity such people honestly.

To educate such misguided bigots about the correct understanding , let me quote what Ali(ra) himself said in Nahjul Balagha.

Ali(ra) wrote in his letter stating:
إنه بايعني القوم الذين بايعوا أبا بكر وعمر وعثمان ، على ما بايعوهم عليه ، فلم يكن للشاهد أن يختار ولا للغائب أن يرد ، وإنما الشورى للمهاجرين والأنصار ، فإن اجتمعوا على رجل وسموه إماماً كان ذلك لله رضى فإن خرج منهم خارج بطعن أو بدعة ردوه إلى ماخرج منه فإن أبى قاتلوه على اتباعه غير سبيل المؤمنين ، وولاه الله ما تولى
Verily, the people who payed allegience to Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman, have payed allegience to me based on the same principles as the allegience to them. So anyone who was present has no right to go against his pledge of allegience, and anyone who was absent has no right to oppose it. And verily shura (consultation) is only the right of the Muhajirs and the Ansar. So if they decide upon a man and declare him their imam, then it is with the pleasure of Allah. If anyone goes against this decision, then he must be persuaded to follow the rest of the people. If he persists, then fight with him for leaving that which has been accepted by the believers. And Allah shall let him wander misguided and not guide him. (Nahjul-Balaghah, Letter #6).  Similar report is present in Bihar al anwar (32/368)(33/76), noor al thaqalayn(1/551).

The people who appointed Ali as fourth caliPh where muhajireen and Ansar, and they appointed the first three caliphs through shura, and this was their right, as mentioned by Ali(ra).

So those who opposed Ali and in fact went far as waging war what is your opinion on them?

Those who waged war on Ali(ra)[khawarij] or those on whom Ali(ra) waged war, were on error, as per Sunni Perspective.

[iceman]

First three caliphs were elected by shura, the one who have made a sincere study about this topic, objectively and without any bias and has some basic understanding of the terminology would definitely agree that the first three CaliPhs were elected by shura. Even though the process was not identical in all, but it was still shura through which they were appointed. The one who disagrees is a jahil, fooled by the misguided scholars he blindly follows, so I pity such people honestly.

To educate such misguided bigots about the correct understanding , let me quote what Ali(ra) himself said in Nahjul Balagha.

Ali(ra) wrote in his letter stating:
إنه بايعني القوم الذين بايعوا أبا بكر وعمر وعثمان ، على ما بايعوهم عليه ، فلم يكن للشاهد أن يختار ولا للغائب أن يرد ، وإنما الشورى للمهاجرين والأنصار ، فإن اجتمعوا على رجل وسموه إماماً كان ذلك لله رضى فإن خرج منهم خارج بطعن أو بدعة ردوه إلى ماخرج منه فإن أبى قاتلوه على اتباعه غير سبيل المؤمنين ، وولاه الله ما تولى
Verily, the people who payed allegience to Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman, have payed allegience to me based on the same principles as the allegience to them. So anyone who was present has no right to go against his pledge of allegience, and anyone who was absent has no right to oppose it. And verily shura (consultation) is only the right of the Muhajirs and the Ansar. So if they decide upon a man and declare him their imam, then it is with the pleasure of Allah. If anyone goes against this decision, then he must be persuaded to follow the rest of the people. If he persists, then fight with him for leaving that which has been accepted by the believers. And Allah shall let him wander misguided and not guide him. (Nahjul-Balaghah, Letter #6).  Similar report is present in Bihar al anwar (32/368)(33/76), noor al thaqalayn(1/551).

The people who appointed Ali as fourth caliPh where muhajireen and Ansar, and they appointed the first three caliphs through shura, and this was their right, as mentioned by Ali(ra).

So those who opposed Ali and in fact went far as waging war what is your opinion on them?

Those who waged war on Ali(ra)[khawarij] or those on whom Ali(ra) waged war, were on error, as per Sunni Perspective.

What kind of an error and why? Who's fault was it, the rightly guided Khalifa or those who used violence and threatening behaviour against the Khalifa to have their demands met BT taking up arms?

[Noor-us-Sunnah]

First three caliphs were elected by shura, the one who have made a sincere study about this topic, objectively and without any bias and has some basic understanding of the terminology would definitely agree that the first three CaliPhs were elected by shura. Even though the process was not identical in all, but it was still shura through which they were appointed. The one who disagrees is a jahil, fooled by the misguided scholars he blindly follows, so I pity such people honestly.

To educate such misguided bigots about the correct understanding , let me quote what Ali(ra) himself said in Nahjul Balagha.

Ali(ra) wrote in his letter stating:
إنه بايعني القوم الذين بايعوا أبا بكر وعمر وعثمان ، على ما بايعوهم عليه ، فلم يكن للشاهد أن يختار ولا للغائب أن يرد ، وإنما الشورى للمهاجرين والأنصار ، فإن اجتمعوا على رجل وسموه إماماً كان ذلك لله رضى فإن خرج منهم خارج بطعن أو بدعة ردوه إلى ماخرج منه فإن أبى قاتلوه على اتباعه غير سبيل المؤمنين ، وولاه الله ما تولى
Verily, the people who payed allegience to Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman, have payed allegience to me based on the same principles as the allegience to them. So anyone who was present has no right to go against his pledge of allegience, and anyone who was absent has no right to oppose it. And verily shura (consultation) is only the right of the Muhajirs and the Ansar. So if they decide upon a man and declare him their imam, then it is with the pleasure of Allah. If anyone goes against this decision, then he must be persuaded to follow the rest of the people. If he persists, then fight with him for leaving that which has been accepted by the believers. And Allah shall let him wander misguided and not guide him. (Nahjul-Balaghah, Letter #6).  Similar report is present in Bihar al anwar (32/368)(33/76), noor al thaqalayn(1/551).

The people who appointed Ali as fourth caliPh where muhajireen and Ansar, and they appointed the first three caliphs through shura, and this was their right, as mentioned by Ali(ra).

So those who opposed Ali and in fact went far as waging war what is your opinion on them?

Those who waged war on Ali(ra)[khawarij] or those on whom Ali(ra) waged war, were on error, as per Sunni Perspective.

What kind of an error and why? Who's fault was it, the rightly guided Khalifa or those who used violence and threatening behaviour against the Khalifa to have their demands met BT taking up arms?

These questions are irrelevant. The initial argument was your ignorance about shura regarding the three Sunni Caliphs, which I answered.

[Ijtaba]

First three caliphs were elected by shura, the one who have made a sincere study about this topic, objectively and without any bias and has some basic understanding of the terminology would definitely agree that the first three CaliPhs were elected by shura. Even though the process was not identical in all, but it was still shura through which they were appointed. The one who disagrees is a jahil, fooled by the misguided scholars he blindly follows, so I pity such people honestly.

To educate such misguided bigots about the correct understanding , let me quote what Ali(ra) himself said in Nahjul Balagha.

Ali(ra) wrote in his letter stating:
إنه بايعني القوم الذين بايعوا أبا بكر وعمر وعثمان ، على ما بايعوهم عليه ، فلم يكن للشاهد أن يختار ولا للغائب أن يرد ، وإنما الشورى للمهاجرين والأنصار ، فإن اجتمعوا على رجل وسموه إماماً كان ذلك لله رضى فإن خرج منهم خارج بطعن أو بدعة ردوه إلى ماخرج منه فإن أبى قاتلوه على اتباعه غير سبيل المؤمنين ، وولاه الله ما تولى
Verily, the people who payed allegience to Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman, have payed allegience to me based on the same principles as the allegience to them. So anyone who was present has no right to go against his pledge of allegience, and anyone who was absent has no right to oppose it. And verily shura (consultation) is only the right of the Muhajirs and the Ansar. So if they decide upon a man and declare him their imam, then it is with the pleasure of Allah. If anyone goes against this decision, then he must be persuaded to follow the rest of the people. If he persists, then fight with him for leaving that which has been accepted by the believers. And Allah shall let him wander misguided and not guide him. (Nahjul-Balaghah, Letter #6).  Similar report is present in Bihar al anwar (32/368)(33/76), noor al thaqalayn(1/551).

The people who appointed Ali as fourth caliPh where muhajireen and Ansar, and they appointed the first three caliphs through shura, and this was their right, as mentioned by Ali(ra).

And verily shura (consultation) is only the right of the Muhajirs and the Ansar. Can Shura be restricted to Muhajirs and Ansars only? As Sunni Caliphate System is based on Shura as First Four Rightly Guided Caliphs were chosen by Shura then... how can Sunni Caliph now (i.e. at present) be elected by Shura if Shura is only the right of Muhajirs and Ansars?

[Noor-us-Sunnah]

First three caliphs were elected by shura, the one who have made a sincere study about this topic, objectively and without any bias and has some basic understanding of the terminology would definitely agree that the first three CaliPhs were elected by shura. Even though the process was not identical in all, but it was still shura through which they were appointed. The one who disagrees is a jahil, fooled by the misguided scholars he blindly follows, so I pity such people honestly.

To educate such misguided bigots about the correct understanding , let me quote what Ali(ra) himself said in Nahjul Balagha.

Ali(ra) wrote in his letter stating:
إنه بايعني القوم الذين بايعوا أبا بكر وعمر وعثمان ، على ما بايعوهم عليه ، فلم يكن للشاهد أن يختار ولا للغائب أن يرد ، وإنما الشورى للمهاجرين والأنصار ، فإن اجتمعوا على رجل وسموه إماماً كان ذلك لله رضى فإن خرج منهم خارج بطعن أو بدعة ردوه إلى ماخرج منه فإن أبى قاتلوه على اتباعه غير سبيل المؤمنين ، وولاه الله ما تولى
Verily, the people who payed allegience to Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman, have payed allegience to me based on the same principles as the allegience to them. So anyone who was present has no right to go against his pledge of allegience, and anyone who was absent has no right to oppose it. And verily shura (consultation) is only the right of the Muhajirs and the Ansar. So if they decide upon a man and declare him their imam, then it is with the pleasure of Allah. If anyone goes against this decision, then he must be persuaded to follow the rest of the people. If he persists, then fight with him for leaving that which has been accepted by the believers. And Allah shall let him wander misguided and not guide him. (Nahjul-Balaghah, Letter #6).  Similar report is present in Bihar al anwar (32/368)(33/76), noor al thaqalayn(1/551).

The people who appointed Ali as fourth caliPh where muhajireen and Ansar, and they appointed the first three caliphs through shura, and this was their right, as mentioned by Ali(ra).

And verily shura (consultation) is only the right of the Muhajirs and the Ansar. Can Shura be restricted to Muhajirs and Ansars only? As Sunni Caliphate System is based on Shura as First Four Rightly Guided Caliphs were chosen by Shura then... how can Sunni Caliph now (i.e. at present) be elected by Shura if Shura is only the right of Muhajirs and Ansars?

The statement was made in the context of that era, and is restricted for that time only.

[iceman]

First three caliphs were elected by shura, the one who have made a sincere study about this topic, objectively and without any bias and has some basic understanding of the terminology would definitely agree that the first three CaliPhs were elected by shura. Even though the process was not identical in all, but it was still shura through which they were appointed. The one who disagrees is a jahil, fooled by the misguided scholars he blindly follows, so I pity such people honestly.

To educate such misguided bigots about the correct understanding , let me quote what Ali(ra) himself said in Nahjul Balagha.

Ali(ra) wrote in his letter stating:
إنه بايعني القوم الذين بايعوا أبا بكر وعمر وعثمان ، على ما بايعوهم عليه ، فلم يكن للشاهد أن يختار ولا للغائب أن يرد ، وإنما الشورى للمهاجرين والأنصار ، فإن اجتمعوا على رجل وسموه إماماً كان ذلك لله رضى فإن خرج منهم خارج بطعن أو بدعة ردوه إلى ماخرج منه فإن أبى قاتلوه على اتباعه غير سبيل المؤمنين ، وولاه الله ما تولى
Verily, the people who payed allegience to Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman, have payed allegience to me based on the same principles as the allegience to them. So anyone who was present has no right to go against his pledge of allegience, and anyone who was absent has no right to oppose it. And verily shura (consultation) is only the right of the Muhajirs and the Ansar. So if they decide upon a man and declare him their imam, then it is with the pleasure of Allah. If anyone goes against this decision, then he must be persuaded to follow the rest of the people. If he persists, then fight with him for leaving that which has been accepted by the believers. And Allah shall let him wander misguided and not guide him. (Nahjul-Balaghah, Letter #6).  Similar report is present in Bihar al anwar (32/368)(33/76), noor al thaqalayn(1/551).

The people who appointed Ali as fourth caliPh where muhajireen and Ansar, and they appointed the first three caliphs through shura, and this was their right, as mentioned by Ali(ra).

So those who opposed Ali and in fact went far as waging war what is your opinion on them?

Those who waged war on Ali(ra)[khawarij] or those on whom Ali(ra) waged war, were on error, as per Sunni Perspective.

What kind of an error and why? Who's fault was it, the rightly guided Khalifa or those who used violence and threatening behaviour against the Khalifa to have their demands met BT taking up arms?

These questions are irrelevant. The initial argument was your ignorance about shura regarding the three Sunni Caliphs, which I answered.

I have no ignorance regarding Shura. My question is does Shura mean all parties concerned get a fair say and then the decision is made or can just few sit down and chose one amongst themselves like the third was chosen. The second was appointed. There was no assembly/gathering to choose the second and six men were appointed by the second to choose the third amongst themselves. So what exactly is Shura and the circumstances and conditions?

[Hani]

Your criteria is what is in theory, not in practice. Whether the Muslim leader fulfills some of these requirements or not, he is obligatory to obey according to you guys.

In the absence of the Imam we still have people of authority in the Shi'i world. I will give the example of the fuqaha, whose criteria is much more rigirous than the non-practical yet still simple criteria you gave me.

One of the important ones is: adala. Strike one (once you lose your adala) and your out, you're not even allowed to be followed anymore for taqleed purposes. Unless you repent.

No it isn't "theory", it's rules that can be applied in real life. For us obedience to a ruler is only binding if it doesn't conflict with religious rulings, if the ruler orders what opposes Shari`ah, the people can refuse and the country's jurists judge in favor of God's book in times of difference.

As for your Fuqaha', the whole thing is a scam as according to your early leaders non-infallible men cannot rule. That's why there was HUGE opposition by many known Shia scholars against "Wilayat-ul-Faqih" which is nothing more than a mob who took Iran hostage. The only way out for you is if you can prove Khamina'i is appointed by the 12th Imam.

As for the `Adalah business, I don't know if you understand the inner workings of the Hawza, but there's a million scandals of corruption (monetary, sexual, political etc..) revolving around all the top maraji` and their direct followers so spare me your idealistic mumbo-jumbo.

[Hani]

LOL. I don't need to repeat myself over and over and over again and again based on your constantly denial. You have either divine Imamate or Shura. Your Khilafat isn't based on either of them. The first was picked coincidently.   The second was appointed by the first as his successor.The third was picked by a six man committee to decide amongst themselves. Your Shura has just been blown out of the window. LOL.

Actually, first was appointed at Saqifah after much discussions until one side was able to convince the other. The second was chosen when Muslims asked the first to appoint a man for them. The second picked a committee of the top six candidates (not including his relatives) and they consulted and chose their man.

[Hani]

So those who opposed Ali and in fact went far as waging war what is your opinion on them?

If you mean the mother of believers `A'ishah may God be pleased with her, `Ali's opinion was that he wept for the opposing army and was saddened at the loss of some of the most pious men, he supplicated God for them especially Talhah and Zubayr, he honored them and their relatives, he prepared `A'ishah's return trip in the most respectable way, he silenced all those who spoke ill of the opposing army, he called them "our brothers", he wished to be united in heaven with them, he never executed anybody because there were no ill intentions nor did he consider them criminals who needed to be punished.

In other words, according to all reputable historical sources, `Ali ALWAYS punished criminals and outlaws, he didn't view this situation in the same way otherwise he technically allowed the biggest criminals to get away unpunished, rather he honored them and prayed for them.

If anything, this proves he wasn't divinely appointed nor did he share your opinion towards those individuals.

[Hani]

And verily shura (consultation) is only the right of the Muhajirs and the Ansar. Can Shura be restricted to Muhajirs and Ansars only? As Sunni Caliphate System is based on Shura as First Four Rightly Guided Caliphs were chosen by Shura then... how can Sunni Caliph now (i.e. at present) be elected by Shura if Shura is only the right of Muhajirs and Ansars?

The Muslims today have two systems, The modern system currently is based on democratic elections and that everyone must have an equal voice. A few countries still run on the ancient system of royalty and bloodlines.

When `Ali said what he said above, he was reflecting his opinion and that of the top figures at the time. This is an ancient philosophical system called the rule of the elites. Meaning, the common farmers and peasants cannot be trusted in choosing, only the elites in society can choose. In `Ali's time, the elite were the earliest of Muslims, emigrants and supporters, those who went through thick and thin for the sake of God and his messenger (saw).

This last system is no longer in practice although I personally prefer the rule of the elites as long as those elites are pious on top of being educated.

Secondly, the title of "Caliph" is not some mythical position, ANYONE who rules the Muslims and takes charge of their affairs after the passing of the Prophet (saw), is technically his deputy/successor whether you call him "king" "sultan" or "president".

[Link]

Secondly, the title of "Caliph" is not some mythical position, ANYONE who rules the Muslims and takes charge of their affairs after the passing of the Prophet (saw), is technically his deputy/successor whether you call him "king" "sultan" or "president".

How do they succeed the position of Mohammad in what sense? In the sense of his spiritual authority: no. In sense of his religion authority: no.

But we have one last thing to check: Do they have the same political authority as the Nabi? 

And I would say no, since you can question a political command of ruler per Sunnis and say it is not according to Shariah right?

So the ruler ends up being necessarily one that people must agree is implementing Quran and Sunnah or per your words, you can disobey him and must replace him if he is against Quran and Sunnah.

This shows it is more a job and is not holding the authority of the Prophet in either the matters of safety and peace regarding religion or political matters but rather is just entrusted to implement the will of the people as far Quran and Sunnah goes in their interpretation.

The question is government really suppose to be looked at something that is the position of a Prophet in any sense of the word?

From what I look at. There is two possible times for humans.

1) When infallible leader is present among them in their land and time and place and outwardly manifest.
2) When he is hidden.

I don't see any person having a portion in any authority of the Prophet which is divine authority.


Governing and ruling is more like a social contract.  This is true whether people are duped into giving this contract out of fear or misguided or it is based on truth.

In this sense, I incline and agree with democratic anarchy. I think we have to see power for what it is, it is given by the people and hence it is people responsibility.... and people shouldn't look at as a top down thing.

The exception of course is the light of God and his command. That is an authority we have to obey. And a Messenger has proof of that authority, and so to succeed that, whether politically, religiously or spiritually, you have to proof that God gave you that position.

And that is one of the meanings of "King" and Talut (as) talk, is that Quran in a true sense, rejects kings except those who God chosen.

That is why Imam Hussain is careful in his words and says "those with knowledge (of the religion) are suppose to entrusted over the affairs of people" but didn't say they are kings or authorities.....

It is the same with an official or battle commander, they have a job to do, but if people see one of the governor during Mohammad time tell them to do something evil, they are suppose to disobey and tell the Rasool.

That is why really it is more of a job,  and judging same thing, it's not that a judge on behalf of Rasool,  has the same authority as Rasool. That is absurd. Not even a portion.

Rather he has a job to fulfill.

And people with knowledge should be responsible over the affairs of people, and when people who know leave it to ignorant people, darkness rules, and when people who know take responsibility, then the light is obeyed through their help.

But those who hold Authority of Moses in his people for example, they were those who had been made to be vicegerents and inherit the earth by God's proofs, and they were given the same manifest authority as Moses.

Anyways, carry on..... You don't have to respond if you don't want to.

But from what I read of good democratic anarchy. I agree, and I think Quran agrees with them when no manifest leader from God is present in many respects but they are still wrong in how knowledge should be sought and spread in society....

[Abu Muhammad]

As for your Fuqaha', the whole thing is a scam as according to your early leaders non-infallible men cannot rule. That's why there was HUGE opposition by many known Shia scholars against "Wilayat-ul-Faqih" which is nothing more than a mob who took Iran hostage. The only way out for you is if you can prove Khamina'i is appointed by the 12th Imam.

Ahh... it make sense now.

I was in conversation with a Twelver on Facebook (though briefly) and he said that Khamenei is one of the 12th Imam's representatives. Don't really bother at first (may be he is a lunatic for believing in that) but now it makes sense.

[Abu Muhammad]

But we have one last thing to check: Do they have the same political authority as the Nabi? 

And I would say no, since you can question a political command of ruler per Sunnis and say it is not according to Shariah right?

So the ruler ends up being necessarily one that people must agree is implementing Quran and Sunnah or per your words, you can disobey him and must replace him if he is against Quran and Sunnah.

Excellent. You described it perfectly. That is what Al-Quran calls as "Ulil Amri min kum" if you care to read 4:59.

[Hani]

Secondly, the title of "Caliph" is not some mythical position, ANYONE who rules the Muslims and takes charge of their affairs after the passing of the Prophet (saw), is technically his deputy/successor whether you call him "king" "sultan" or "president".

How do they succeed the position of Mohammad in what sense? In the sense of his spiritual authority: no. In sense of his religion authority: no.

But we have one last thing to check: Do they have the same political authority as the Nabi? 

And I would say no, since you can question a political command of ruler per Sunnis and say it is not according to Shariah right?

So the ruler ends up being necessarily one that people must agree is implementing Quran and Sunnah or per your words, you can disobey him and must replace him if he is against Quran and Sunnah.

This shows it is more a job and is not holding the authority of the Prophet in either the matters of safety and peace regarding religion or political matters but rather is just entrusted to implement the will of the people as far Quran and Sunnah goes in their interpretation.

The question is government really suppose to be looked at something that is the position of a Prophet in any sense of the word?

From what I look at. There is two possible times for humans.

1) When infallible leader is present among them in their land and time and place and outwardly manifest.
2) When he is hidden.

I don't see any person having a portion in any authority of the Prophet which is divine authority.


Governing and ruling is more like a social contract.  This is true whether people are duped into giving this contract out of fear or misguided or it is based on truth.

In this sense, I incline and agree with democratic anarchy. I think we have to see power for what it is, it is given by the people and hence it is people responsibility.... and people shouldn't look at as a top down thing.

The exception of course is the light of God and his command. That is an authority we have to obey. And a Messenger has proof of that authority, and so to succeed that, whether politically, religiously or spiritually, you have to proof that God gave you that position.

And that is one of the meanings of "King" and Talut (as) talk, is that Quran in a true sense, rejects kings except those who God chosen.

That is why Imam Hussain is careful in his words and says "those with knowledge (of the religion) are suppose to entrusted over the affairs of people" but didn't say they are kings or authorities.....

It is the same with an official or battle commander, they have a job to do, but if people see one of the governor during Mohammad time tell them to do something evil, they are suppose to disobey and tell the Rasool.

That is why really it is more of a job,  and judging same thing, it's not that a judge on behalf of Rasool,  has the same authority as Rasool. That is absurd. Not even a portion.

Rather he has a job to fulfill.

And people with knowledge should be responsible over the affairs of people, and when people who know leave it to ignorant people, darkness rules, and when people who know take responsibility, then the light is obeyed through their help.

But those who hold Authority of Moses in his people for example, they were those who had been made to be vicegerents and inherit the earth by God's proofs, and they were given the same manifest authority as Moses.

Anyways, carry on..... You don't have to respond if you don't want to.

But from what I read of good democratic anarchy. I agree, and I think Quran agrees with them when no manifest leader from God is present in many respects but they are still wrong in how knowledge should be sought and spread in society....

In the good simple past, the Caliph (aka Leader) was expected to be a top ranking jurist as well as experienced political figure. In our days, things are shaping up in a different way, we have a lot of eminent scholars we can ask, we have access to books, online lectures etc... No one is going to travel all the way to the house of a prime minister and ask him to issue a verdict in religion.

We're living in times were people specialize in different fields, I wouldn't even ask a Hadith scholar to interpret a verse for me, I would ask a Qur'anic exegesist/interpreter (Mufassir), that is his field. A person who spent a lifetime studying international politics and its intricacies may not know a whole lot about religious laws and similarly a grand Mufti may not know anything about politics.

In our days, humanity became educated and developed, what we want from today's "Caliphs" is the following:

A- Safety and security.
B- Freedom to worship in whatever way we desire and the religious establishment be of repute.
C- That our human-rights are respected and our needs met.
D- That we and our families live a dignified life in society.
E- That we get a say or a voice in shaping the future of our country and its policies.
F- That there is a civilized system to combat corruption or impeach a leader should he be not up to the task.
etc..

People in our days don't care about a bearded guy with a turban claiming a fancy title like "Caliph" or that he's God's mouth-peice. We need responsible humanitarian leaders more than anything and that's the majority opinion.

(Otherwise go join silly groups like Hiz-ul-Tahrir)

[Link]

Salam

What you are not understanding is the term "Authority" comes with it a lot of baggage.

When I was a Deist, I became a democratic anarchist. Anarchy means no power become the population determines and governs itself. The "government" which they refuse to call even government, was people entrusted to implement the will of the people.

So far there is no democracy in any part of the world. There is republics, and even by definition of republic, that is pushing it.  There is semi-republics at most, but they are closer to oligarchy than republics.

This is whether they are of just laws or not, I am just talking about what by definition democracy or republic is.


God knows what is behind words like "kingship" "authority" it can be said one of purposes of Prophets was to negate it almost in total, the exception would be them because they represent God.

That it has termed all sense of "leadership" be it religious or political as dark and evil and of shadows, whether we realize it or not.

It also by the word "Rabani" has said we all must become that: learn and teach God's book and what we study.

So I think you are not realize the depth Quran has gone to this.

Another word we can use is that government leader is suppose to navigate society towards justice but Quran has refuted that as well, and said only chosen ones can hold that position.

If we look at the word leader, it went to great lengths on it. And even interconnected with the straight path by calling a literal road an Imam showing these are interconnected even linguistically.

A leader leads somewhere, it's fine a soccer team leader regarding the game, or coach, or boss in a job...those are fine.

But political/spiritual/religious leadership and authority has been forbidden for all but the chosen ones.

So what are we suppose to do in Ghayba?  Perhaps something different, perhaps, more of a social anarchy and that even our religion is all counseling one another and gaining insights and knowledge from one another?

If Kings can only be chosen by God and governing is for God alone, and navigating and directing is suppose be God's Name and knowledge and wisdom is to be sought by his doors,  then yes, it is important question: "What is Authority" and who holds it absence of those he chosen.

Again, it has to be none, no one.

So how do organize ourselves. I would say organizing ourselves has to be through counseling one another and that society has to learn the truth and enjoin the truth.

Than what is termed government today, becomes:  People entrusted to organize society, deal with taxes, etc...

Because Quran must remain the authority and because God is authority, naturally, those it assigns as leaders are authorities.

But we can't choose this ourselves, we can't choose our leaders, I believe this is clear.

The fact was Khomeini was very hasty. Very very hasty.  I am going to write refutation in detail of Islamic government. It contradicts itself in many ways, and  there is only one set of ahadith and one interpretation presented of them.

And the interpretation of Quran...was soooo bad in this regard. I will write a refutation. Inshallah, I promise I plan on to.

[Mythbuster1]

Those Muslims who claim that they follow the traditions (the statements and practices) of Muhammad Mustafa, the Prophe of Islam, and of his companions, are called Ahl-es-Sunnat wal-Jama'at or Sunni. They also call themselves “orthodox” Muslims, and they make up the overwhelming majority of the Muslims in the world.

The Sunni Muslims believe that the Prophet of Islam did not designate anyone as his successor, and he (probably) assumed that after his death, the Muslims would find a leader for themselves. They further say that the Prophet did not even tell his followers how they ought to select their future leaders or what qualifications those leaders should have.

Thus, lacking both precedent and guidance in the matter of finding their leaders, the companions had no choice but to take recourse to improvisation.

But improvisation is not policy, and inevitably, it turned out to be a rather erratic manner of finding leaders of the Muslim umma (community). In one case the companions found a leader through what was supposed to be an election.

In another case, the first incumbent (who was elected), nominated and appointed his own successor.

In the third instance, the second incumbent (who was nominated), appointed a committee of six men and charged them with the duty of selecting one out of themselves as the future leader of the Muslim community.

The third leader, so selected, was killed in the midst of anarchy and chaos, and the umma was left without a head. The companions then turned to the family of their Prophet, and appealed to one of its members to take charge of the government of the Muslims, and thereby to save it from breakdown and dissolution.

The fourth incumbent was still ruling the Muslims when a new candidate for leadership arose in Syria. He brushed aside the hoax of election, challenged the lawful sovereign of the Muslims by invoking the principle of brute force, and succeeded in capturing the government. His action brought the number of the “principles” for finding leaders of the Muslim umma to four, viz.

How can there be lack of guidance when there was NO SUCH INSTRUCTION.....I keep asking you for CLEAR proof of that but all your posts you couldn't, so that theory is dead.

Yes election, ELECTED from consultation SHURA, Abu Bakr ra didn't want to but was chosen just like the 4th, as well as the 2 in between.

Abu Bakr ra elected by shura and was SELECTED, (even though in Islam Abu Bakr ra was a choice of the prophet saw also)

Umar ra was a candidate put forward, SELECTED,but eventually chosen and agreed by shura

Uthman ra again consulted and chosen by shura

Ali ra same situation as first khalif SELECTED and then agreement within shura

Allah swt blessed their rule and it spread far and wide.

Yet........the world has NEVER seen a divine imam rule, where is it? In Narnia?

This shura is sure killing off the divine Imamate theory, intelligently and logically, as can be seen.

LOL. I don't need to repeat myself over and over and over again and again based on your constantly denial. You have either divine Imamate or Shura. Your Khilafat isn't based on either of them. The first was picked coincidently.   The second was appointed by the first as his successor.The third was picked by a six man committee to decide amongst themselves. Your Shura has just been blown out of the window. LOL.

Yawn*** you are getting boring now, your argument against shura has no standing, you say first was a coincidence:

He was chosen and elected by the decision makers (ahl al-hall wa’l-‘aqd). For example, Abu Bakr al-Siddeeq became caliph when he was elected by the decision makers, then the Sahaabah unanimously agreed with that and swore allegiance to him, and accepted him as caliph.

You say second was appointed:
2nd was put forward as a choice, that choice was agreed by the people

You say third was a committee deciding amongst themselves:
3rd again chosen by the people

consultation was done amongst them to get a unified decision on a leader. However the end result was through consultation.shura.

It's that simple, obviously it wasn't smooth and things happen but they used shura for choosing the next leader.

We have the Quran, sunna and the above living example of shura in action, this is reality.

And yes a khalif can appoint another coz we ain't no divine beings.

Again.......your problem is shura, it TRUMPS divine authority, no one ruled by divine Imamate authority EVER in the history of the world..........you still haven't given us a good solid argument of any divine leadership from Quran and sunnah, its that simple.

[iceman]

Those Muslims who claim that they follow the traditions (the statements and practices) of Muhammad Mustafa, the Prophe of Islam, and of his companions, are called Ahl-es-Sunnat wal-Jama'at or Sunni. They also call themselves “orthodox” Muslims, and they make up the overwhelming majority of the Muslims in the world.

The Sunni Muslims believe that the Prophet of Islam did not designate anyone as his successor, and he (probably) assumed that after his death, the Muslims would find a leader for themselves. They further say that the Prophet did not even tell his followers how they ought to select their future leaders or what qualifications those leaders should have.

Thus, lacking both precedent and guidance in the matter of finding their leaders, the companions had no choice but to take recourse to improvisation.

But improvisation is not policy, and inevitably, it turned out to be a rather erratic manner of finding leaders of the Muslim umma (community). In one case the companions found a leader through what was supposed to be an election.

In another case, the first incumbent (who was elected), nominated and appointed his own successor.

In the third instance, the second incumbent (who was nominated), appointed a committee of six men and charged them with the duty of selecting one out of themselves as the future leader of the Muslim community.

The third leader, so selected, was killed in the midst of anarchy and chaos, and the umma was left without a head. The companions then turned to the family of their Prophet, and appealed to one of its members to take charge of the government of the Muslims, and thereby to save it from breakdown and dissolution.

The fourth incumbent was still ruling the Muslims when a new candidate for leadership arose in Syria. He brushed aside the hoax of election, challenged the lawful sovereign of the Muslims by invoking the principle of brute force, and succeeded in capturing the government. His action brought the number of the “principles” for finding leaders of the Muslim umma to four, viz.

How can there be lack of guidance when there was NO SUCH INSTRUCTION.....I keep asking you for CLEAR proof of that but all your posts you couldn't, so that theory is dead.

Yes election, ELECTED from consultation SHURA, Abu Bakr ra didn't want to but was chosen just like the 4th, as well as the 2 in between.

Abu Bakr ra elected by shura and was SELECTED, (even though in Islam Abu Bakr ra was a choice of the prophet saw also)

Umar ra was a candidate put forward, SELECTED,but eventually chosen and agreed by shura

Uthman ra again consulted and chosen by shura

Ali ra same situation as first khalif SELECTED and then agreement within shura

Allah swt blessed their rule and it spread far and wide.

Yet........the world has NEVER seen a divine imam rule, where is it? In Narnia?

This shura is sure killing off the divine Imamate theory, intelligently and logically, as can be seen.

LOL. I don't need to repeat myself over and over and over again and again based on your constantly denial. You have either divine Imamate or Shura. Your Khilafat isn't based on either of them. The first was picked coincidently.   The second was appointed by the first as his successor.The third was picked by a six man committee to decide amongst themselves. Your Shura has just been blown out of the window. LOL.

Yawn*** you are getting boring now, your argument against shura has no standing, you say first was a coincidence:

He was chosen and elected by the decision makers (ahl al-hall wa’l-‘aqd). For example, Abu Bakr al-Siddeeq became caliph when he was elected by the decision makers, then the Sahaabah unanimously agreed with that and swore allegiance to him, and accepted him as caliph.

You say second was appointed:
2nd was put forward as a choice, that choice was agreed by the people

You say third was a committee deciding amongst themselves:
3rd again chosen by the people

consultation was done amongst them to get a unified decision on a leader. However the end result was through consultation.shura.

It's that simple, obviously it wasn't smooth and things happen but they used shura for choosing the next leader.

We have the Quran, sunna and the above living example of shura in action, this is reality.

And yes a khalif can appoint another coz we ain't no divine beings.

Again.......your problem is shura, it TRUMPS divine authority, no one ruled by divine Imamate authority EVER in the history of the world..........you still haven't given us a good solid argument of any divine leadership from Quran and sunnah, its that simple.

It's not getting boring it's just becoming a waste of time now. I've said what I had to say and made my point. I have no intentions on running around in circles. You carry on mate.

[Mythbuster1]

No points made.

Shura from Quran trumps divine leadership theory made up from false reports.

You have no clear evidences from Quran and sunnah.

Good luck in your false beliefs, try again from another angle😂😂😂👍👍