Choosing a Leader based on Consultation and Consensus

[muslim720]

Salaam alaykum wa rahmatullah,
I was visiting the beautiful Canadian Rockies and found a place that offered Friday prayers.  The khutbah was about Zaid ibn Haritha (ra).  While going through his life, the brother mentioned that during the Battle of Mu'tah, the Prophet (saw) appointed him as the leader for the Muslim army.  To succeed him, the Prophet (saw) named Jafar ibn Abi Talib (ra) and if Jafar (ra) were to fall, Abdullah ibn Rawahah (ra) would take over.  Here comes the part that debilitates Shia Islam.  The Prophet (saw) then said that if Abdullah ibn Rawahah (ra) is martyred too then the Muslims can choose their own leader or commander.

Therefore, keeping the verse of shura in mind, supplemented by this Prophetic example, electing leaders has far more foundational roots in Islam than Imamat will ever have.

[iceman]

And we all know and accept what the history of Khilafat and choosing your own leader brought. The second was murdered and so was the third. The 4th faced rebellion and was also murdered. And from here on Khilafat took a different turn. If believe in Khilafat and such system then accept what went on. Moawiya was the fifth and Yazeed was the sixth. Accept them all and who ever and what ever Khilafat Brought. Why start to pick and choose?

[Khaled]

And we all know and accept what the history of Khilafat and choosing your own leader brought. The second was murdered and so was the third. The 4th faced rebellion and was also murdered. And from here on Khilafat took a different turn. If believe in Khilafat and such system then accept what went on. Moawiya was the fifth and Yazeed was the sixth. Accept them all and who ever and what ever Khilafat Brought. Why start to pick and choose?

The second was murdered by a Persian nationalist, the third and the fourth were murdered as a result of overzealous youth thinking they know the Qur'an and Sunnah better than the Sahahba; I don't see how the way they were chosen actually led to them being assassinated.  I also accept Muawiyah as the fifth Caliph (well technically sixth, since al-Hassan رضي الله عنه was fifth) and Yazeed as the 6th or 7th.  Why does that in anyway de-legitimize the system?  It's like saying since Abraham Lincoln was assassinated, and because George W and Trump became President, then the US democratic system has been a massive failure and the US has been in disarray this whole time.  I hope you realize just how rediculous this sounds

[Abu Muhammad]

And we all know and accept what the history of Khilafat and choosing your own leader brought. The second was murdered and so was the third. The 4th faced rebellion and was also murdered. And from here on Khilafat took a different turn. If believe in Khilafat and such system then accept what went on. Moawiya was the fifth and Yazeed was the sixth. Accept them all and who ever and what ever Khilafat Brought. Why start to pick and choose?

The second was murdered by a Persian nationalist, the third and the fourth were murdered as a result of overzealous youth thinking they know the Qur'an and Sunnah better than the Sahahba; I don't see how the way they were chosen actually led to them being assassinated.  I also accept Muawiyah as the fifth Caliph (well technically sixth, since al-Hassan رضي الله عنه was fifth) and Yazeed as the 6th or 7th.  Why does that in anyway de-legitimize the system?  It's like saying since Abraham Lincoln was assassinated, and because George W and Trump became President, then the US democratic system has been a massive failure and the US has been in disarray this whole time.  I hope you realize just how rediculous this sounds

Exactly. Does the killing happen due to the system? How sure are you if Prophet (saw) were to appoint somebody, that person didn't get kill by some overzelous maniac?

I don't really see how's that argument really supports your believe in divine appointment.

[muslim720]

And we all know and accept what the history of Khilafat and choosing your own leader brought. The second was murdered and so was the third. The 4th faced rebellion and was also murdered. And from here on Khilafat took a different turn. If believe in Khilafat and such system then accept what went on. Moawiya was the fifth and Yazeed was the sixth. Accept them all and who ever and what ever Khilafat Brought. Why start to pick and choose?

I honestly did not expect you to grasp my point in one sitting.  Islam also brought death and persecution upon the early Muslims.  In fact, the people you mentioned were killed because they upheld Islam in its pure form (while their killers wanted their own agenda to be propagated).  So, as per your analysis, we should also paint Islam in a negative light, right?

It is not about what the system brought.  It is the fact that consultation (to choose a leader or anything for that matter) is allowed per Qur'an and Sunnah.  The same, however, is not true regarding Imamat.

[Hadrami]

And we all know and accept what the history of Khilafat and choosing your own leader brought. The second was murdered and so was the third. The 4th faced rebellion and was also murdered.

As usual, everytime shia try to bellitle something it turns out that they bellitle themselves. Shia believe all infallibles were murdered. You will say your imamah system crooked too?

And from here on Khilafat took a different turn. If believe in Khilafat and such system then accept what went on. Moawiya was the fifth and Yazeed was the sixth.

Muawiyah is so bad that imam helped him & legitimise his rule by pledging allegiance to him.

Accept them all and who ever and what ever Khilafat Brought. Why start to pick and choose?

Exactly, if your imam legitimise many of them and helped them to be in power. Either your imam were useless guide or you could believe like we do, that all imam accept most of those leaders. You cant win, shia explanation will only contradict their other explanation.

[Farid]

It's like saying since Abraham Lincoln was assassinated, and because George W and Trump became President, then the US democratic system has been a massive failure and the US has been in disarray this whole time.  I hope you realize just how rediculous this sounds

To me, it seems more like they are saying: "Trump is not our president because he supports the cops instead of the people." Or: "Obama is not my president, cuz he's black!"

Shias don't seem to understand the reality. Not liking someone doesn't cause history to be re-written. Yazeed was officially recognized as king by even the Sunnis that make takfeer of him.

The concept is simple.

What is confusing is how they believe that someone that hasn't been seen in public for 1200 years is their official leader.

[Link]

And yet Quran is explicit that God doesn't make unjust people into true leaders,  as for the Taghut, yes he allows leaders to call to the fire, but they aren't true leaders which is why the excuse "we followed our great men and leaders so they lead us astray" will not be an excuse.

[Khaled]

And yet Quran is explicit that God doesn't make unjust people into true leaders,  as for the Taghut, yes he allows leaders to call to the fire, but they aren't true leaders which is why the excuse "we followed our great men and leaders so they lead us astray" will not be an excuse.

Yazeed wasn't a "true leaders", but he was a Khalifah.  I don't follow him in any way whatsoever.  My ahadeeth, tafseer, fiqh, knowledge of the Arabic language, poetry, Qir'ah of the Qur'an all heavily rely on Ali رضي الله عنه.  He's a "true leader", Yazeed was a khalifah that is just a blip in Islamic history, who no one takes a leader and whose influence on Islam has been zero.

[Link]

And yet Quran is explicit that God doesn't make unjust people into true leaders,  as for the Taghut, yes he allows leaders to call to the fire, but they aren't true leaders which is why the excuse "we followed our great men and leaders so they lead us astray" will not be an excuse.

Yazeed wasn't a "true leaders", but he was a Khalifah.  I don't follow him in any way whatsoever.  My ahadeeth, tafseer, fiqh, knowledge of the Arabic language, poetry, Qir'ah of the Qur'an all heavily rely on Ali رضي الله عنه.  He's a "true leader", Yazeed was a khalifah that is just a blip in Islamic history, who no one takes a leader and whose influence on Islam has been zero.

A King is a political leader and Quran shows this is a position that belongs to his chosen. A Khalifah in primary meaning of the word would mean a successor of the Prophet. How is Yazeed is a successor?

If you mean ruler, in what sense, in the sense God is a ruler, or in the sense the Jibt and Taghut rules humanity to do this day?

[Khaled]

A King is a political leader and Quran shows this is a position that belongs to his chosen.

There are all kinds of kings in the Qur'an that aren't "His chosen."  An example is... Pharaoh.

A Khalifah in primary meaning of the word would mean a successor of the Prophet. How is Yazeed is a successor?

Politically he was the leader of the Muslims.

If you mean ruler, in what sense, in the sense God is a ruler, or in the sense the Jibt and Taghut rules humanity to do this day?

In the sense that he is a political leader.  Just like Ali رضي الله عنه was when he was a khalifah.  He wasn't a religious leader however, and has had zero effect on Muslim history.  While Imam Ali رضي الله عنه has been a leader for the Muslim Ummah in Qur'an, Hadeeth, Fiqh, Usool, Aqeedah, Qir'ah, Arabic Language etc.

[Link]

If the Taghut hands like Pharoah are actually truly politically leaders, what does it mean to disbelief in the Taghut?

Again, is he a political ruler like God is a political ruler because Moses is a  political ruler in the same way God is a political ruler.

Was Pharoah actually right when he said "Do you not see Egypt land is all under me?" or has he deceived them by falsehood? Was it really under God and hence Moses was to be obeyed?

[Khaled]

If the Taghut hands like Pharoah are actually truly politically leaders, what does it mean to disbelief in the Taghut?

Again, is he a political ruler like God is a political ruler because Moses is a  political ruler in the same way God is a political ruler.

Was Pharoah actually right when he said "Do you not see Egypt land is all under me?" or has he deceived them by falsehood? Was it really under God and hence Moses was to be obeyed?

Disbelief in taghut is to not worship taghut.  I can follow a political, social, communal leader and still follow God.  In fact, I am forced to "follow" Trump, Gerry Brown, my mayor, and my boss, and none of them are infallible leaders; heck, all of them except my boss aren't Muslim.  Doesn't mean that now I believe in taghut.

[Link]

If the Taghut hands like Pharoah are actually truly politically leaders, what does it mean to disbelief in the Taghut?

Again, is he a political ruler like God is a political ruler because Moses is a  political ruler in the same way God is a political ruler.

Was Pharoah actually right when he said "Do you not see Egypt land is all under me?" or has he deceived them by falsehood? Was it really under God and hence Moses was to be obeyed?

Disbelief in taghut is to not worship taghut.  I can follow a political, social, communal leader and still follow God.  In fact, I am forced to "follow" Trump, Gerry Brown, my mayor, and my boss, and none of them are infallible leaders; heck, all of them except my boss aren't Muslim.  Doesn't mean that now I believe in taghut.

Yet Quran says regarding friends of Satan, "if you obey them, you are indeed associators (with God)".

The Taghut is always religious leaders and political leaders who are loved on par or more than God. Even the gods that Noah's people loved so much, at the end, were stated that they took these as gods only as a means of love between themselves, and this was all through following others as a means of love between themselves.

This is what Suratal Baqara begins with leadership, that people put rivals with God and then shows it to be leaders who will be free from their followers on the day of judgement and this a theme through out Quran.

No one really valued stone idols more than the people advocating to worship them, and that is a fundamental fact of Quran that Quran calls the false leaders the Taghut, because it in a sense is the true oppressive idol, not the actual things they claim they take as gods but really their leaders from Jinn and Humans.

[Khaled]

Yet Quran says regarding friends of Satan, "if you obey them, you are indeed associators (with God)".

The Quran actually says "And do not eat of that upon which the name of Allah has not been mentioned, for indeed, it is grave disobedience. And indeed do the devils inspire their allies [among men] to dispute with you. And if you were to obey them, indeed, you would be associators [of others with Him]."

This is a verse regarding a fiqhi issue.  If you obey leaders in disobeying Allah, then are your disbelievers.

Are you seriously using this verse to say that anyone who obeys any leader who is not in Imam in any way shape or form is a Mushrik?  This is perhaps your most laughable claim yet.  Are you saying that by driving according to the speed limit set by the American government, that I am somehow a mushrik?

The Taghut is always religious leaders and political leaders who are loved on par or more than God. Even the gods that Noah's people loved so much, at the end, were stated that they took these as gods only as a means of love between themselves, and this was all through following others as a means of love between themselves.

Do you know of any Muslims who love Yazeed more than Ali, al-Hassan or al-Hussain رضي لله عنهم?  Or let alone God?

This is what Suratal Baqara begins with leadership, that people put rivals with God and then shows it to be leaders who will be free from their followers on the day of judgement and this a theme through out Quran.

Yes, "leadership" which includes all things to you, even political issues.  If a non-Imam becomes a leader, I am supposed to disobey him according to your tafseer.

No one really valued stone idols more than the people advocating to worship them, and that is a fundamental fact of Quran that Quran calls the false leaders the Taghut, because it in a sense is the true oppressive idol, not the actual things they claim they take as gods but really their leaders from Jinn and Humans.

Now, you're going off into one of your rants.  Lets try to keep it short and to do with the post.  Prove your points and stop accusing everyone else who is not you of kufr and following the taghut.

[Link]

Political obedience is only allowed with guarding against the enemies of God, but you can't believe any legitimacy of governance and authority from other than God.   What I meant is believing legitimacy of leadership of God's enemies whether political, religious or spiritual. 

You must participate in fighting all leaders of disbelief, but this does not mean doing something stupid to get you killed by the enemies of God by which you become their partners in sin.

This where it is a balancing act, and where it not for the fighting aspect of leadership and brutal nature of government and the nature of fight of good vs evil, Imammate and Prophethood would not have been limited to Men but even Fatima and Mariam and Sarah would have been given Divine Leadership and position of navigating society to justice.

And as far "society affairs being runned", that is suppose to be in ghayba of Imam Mahdi, democratic anarchy. We aren't even supposed to think of it as top-down authority or else we do away with too much of Quran.

And employer maybe your boss but he is not an authority either, just an organizer in a business, and we have to stop thinking of this authority concept but with respect to God and hence who he gives authority to.

Barely anyone loves Hussain as the Ayah he is and Leader from God he is, or else we would not have mixed in his authority unclean water with the streams appointed from God.