Dubai Forums Dubai Discussions Dubai Politics Talk Philosophy and Religion Forums

With the greatest of respect Liban

If i appear to have my facts wrong or you disagree just say so without the personals and the sarcasm. I do not have a problem with either being corrected or enlightened, its how we learn.

when you know little or nothing of something that its usually better not to speak of it for your own credibility...

Credability is of no issue here, i come here to understand and learn as well as general chit chat.

You are a nay sayer Arniegang and it is sad.

This was uncalled for

Sure... God Bless the Queen...

Its remarkable you have lived to your age by seeing only black and white.

This was also uncalled for.

You see Liban like we agreed in the other thread, respect cuts both ways. If you want respect you must be respectful.

If we are to start aknew then like you said it will cut both ways.

I will start now Arniegang

My reading of the history of the Middle East in general and of the Arabs in particular is that there have historically been much in-fighting.

Prior to Islam, the Arabs were a warring nation with tribes fighting other tribes. There was so much disunity that the outside world looked at the peninsular with disdain and thought of the inhabitants and uncultured barbarians. This is pretty much undisputed as the Quran itself describes the state of the Arabs as dismal. Gambling, drinking were rife and women were no more than chattels with the practice of burying new born females alive not being uncommon.

Whilst many modern day countries do owe their borders to Colonial whims, to say that nations did not exist before is not true either. Liban rightly points to Egypt and Iran as ancient nations, but Syria also existed as a separate state as did other nations around Arabia. Within Arabia itself, there was no unity and only loose affiliations along tribal lines.

Islam brought a period of unity where allegiance was to the Islamic ruler – but this was relatively short lived as the power base moved from place to place (with each ‘dynasty’ – Fatimids, Ummayids etc), until there were rival and concurrent rulers and then finally the Ottoman empire was born. Even under the Ottoman empire there was not unity amongst muslims and there were still spheres of influence and nation states.

The glorious days of united Ummah (nation) of Muslims are in the distant past (unfortunately) – arguably this only lasted 2 or 3 hundred years after the death of the Prophet. It has to be remembered that even at the height of Muslim civilization in Spain, the Muslim empire was fragmented – when Al Hambra was built, the inhabitants owed allegiance to the local rulers and were separate from the Muslims of Iran or Iraq, say.

I have heard orators telling audiences of muslims that the answer to the ills of today is a return to ‘Khilafat’ and a unified ‘Ummah’. They unfortunately use these words with modified meanings, calling ‘Khilafat’ a system of governance rather than the literal meaning of following one spiritual and temporal leader (the Khalifa/Calif) – to get away from the prickly question as to who could fulfill this role given the hundreds of Islamic sects out there. Similarly the concept of ‘Ummah’ has no meaning without having unity of leadership – you can’t be one Ummah or Nation when you have allegiance to different heads.

Therefore these calls for unity are fruitless until and unless the issue of who should lead the muslims is addressed. Until then, they will be tilting at windmills and living in a fantasy past that didn’t really exist as they fantasise it did.

Just my 2 penneth worth..

Wasalaam,
Shafique

shafique wrote:The glorious days of united Ummah (nation) of Muslims are in the distant past (unfortunately) – arguably this only lasted 2 or 3 hundred years after the death of the Prophet. It has to be remembered that even at the height of Muslim civilization in Spain, the Muslim empire was fragmented – when Al Hambra was built, the inhabitants owed allegiance to the local rulers and were separate from the Muslims of Iran or Iraq, say.

I have heard orators telling audiences of muslims that the answer to the ills of today is a return to ‘Khilafat’ and a unified ‘Ummah’. They unfortunately use these words with modified meanings, calling ‘Khilafat’ a system of governance rather than the literal meaning of following one spiritual and temporal leader (the Khalifa/Calif) – to get away from the prickly question as to who could fulfill this role given the hundreds of Islamic sects out there. Similarly the concept of ‘Ummah’ has no meaning without having unity of leadership – you can’t be one Ummah or Nation when you have allegiance to different heads.

Therefore these calls for unity are fruitless until and unless the issue of who should lead the muslims is addressed. Until then, they will be tilting at windmills and living in a fantasy past that didn’t really exist as they fantasise it did.

Exactly Shafique.

I can understand that a religion could bind many together, but the fact remains that one person alone ruling all Muslims across the Middle East sounds impossible. (What about the Muslims in the rest of the world?) There would always be jockeying for power based on the differences, like region, religious sect, language, culture, nationality, sub-group. There are too many to mention.

Liban wrote:If we are to start aknew then like you said it will cut both ways.

I will start now Arniegang

thank you

So did "Ummah " last exist under the Prophet (pbuh) ?

Arnie - the Ummah, or nation of Muslims, did indeed exist under the Prophet Muhammad, pbuh.

His ministry lasted some 23 years - he received the first revelations at age 40. It was only in the last part of his life that Islam were the tribes of Arabia united. Mecca surrendered to the Muslims only 2 or 3 years before the death of the Holy Prophet, pbuh.

The Muslim world was pretty united whilst under the first 4 Caliphs, and predominantly unitied for a few centuries after..

I just did a search for a timeline and got this: http://www.religionfacts.com/islam/timeline.htm

It shows the ebbing and flowing of power amongst the Muslims.

Cheers,
Shafique

arniegang wrote:So did "Ummah " last exist under the Prophet (pbuh) ?

Not sure if I understand your question, but The Prophet did unite Arabia under Islam...

So,

After the Prophet (pbuh), did muslims have anyone to guide or lead them, or did they consider that no one could replace him ??

Also if this were hypothetically possible today, how could/would the muslim nation be able to select someone who was worthy to be a principle leader of their faith?

soz another question

why did "mecca surrender" as in too what and too whom?

arniegang wrote:So,

After the Prophet (pbuh), did muslims have anyone to guide or lead them, or did they consider that no one could replace him ??

Also if this were hypothetically possible today, how could/would the muslim nation be able to select someone who was worthy to be a principle leader of their faith?

The Caliphs guided the Ummah following the death of the Prophet. The Prophet was God's Messanger. He delivered the Message. The Caliphs made sure the Message was maintained.

The Caliphs were chosen by I beleive what can loosly be called a council of elders of sorts. It may be possible to do today, but Arabs indeed the greater Muslim Ummah (are only 20-25% of the 1.5-1.7 billion Muslims worldwide) need to remove the cloak of the "personality cult" that governs most of our elders and leaders.

arniegang wrote:soz another question

why did "mecca surrender" as in too what and too whom?

Meccan surrender was peaceful. Muslims marched from Medina into Mecca on a pilgrimage. Not a single man, woman or child was hurt. Not a single home damaged in the slightest, not a single animal killed, not a single tree uprooted.

They surrendered to The Prophet and His followers. Even Hind, who was viruntly opposed to Islam became Muslim after the surrender. The Message of the One God, the True God, The Only God was the clincher. The Meccans realized their pagan ways were dead in the water in the faith of the Truth.

The Caliphs were chosen by I beleive what can loosly be called a council of elders of sorts. It may be possible to do today, but Arabs indeed the greater Muslim Ummah (are only 20-25% of the 1.5-1.7 billion Muslims worldwide) need to remove the cloak of the "personality cult" that governs most of our elders and leaders.

dont understand in bold

arniegang wrote:

The Caliphs were chosen by I beleive what can loosly be called a council of elders of sorts. It may be possible to do today, but Arabs indeed the greater Muslim Ummah (are only 20-25% of the 1.5-1.7 billion Muslims worldwide) need to remove the cloak of the "personality cult" that governs most of our elders and leaders.

dont understand in bold

Too many words for one sentence

In summary, I was saying that the Muslims of the world have leaders that are governing by personality cult (kind of like Saddam Hussein) or the leaders are meglomaniacs or simply power hungry.

Therefore with this attitude, obtaining a Caliphate system today would be hard, but I doubt it would be impossible.

Keep in mind that under the Caliphs, Christians and Jews enjoyed full freedom.

gotcha

thx for clarification

arniegang wrote:gotcha

thx for clarification

My pleasure

In summary, I was saying that the Muslims of the world have leaders that are governing by personality cult (kind of like Saddam Hussein) or the leaders are meglomaniacs or simply power hungry.


This sounds like a situation that happened (and continues to this day) with the christian and many other faiths around the world. It is a sad fact that religion and politics often go hand in hand and both have been guilty of using and being used by the other to control the people for many centuries.

Is there a sensible solution in todays society where mass communication can highlight and spread a cry for reason in a very short space of time?

I would like to think it is possible and fervently hope it may happen, but I am afraid it would be hi-jacked by some politician as a 'champion call' to further his own megalomaniac desires.

We are victims of human frailty.

Knight

shafique wrote:My reading of the history of the Middle East in general and of the Arabs in particular is that there have historically been much in-fighting.

Prior to Islam, the Arabs were a warring nation with tribes fighting other tribes. There was so much disunity that the outside world looked at the peninsular with disdain and thought of the inhabitants and uncultured barbarians. This is pretty much undisputed as the Quran itself describes the state of the Arabs as dismal. Gambling, drinking were rife and women were no more than chattels with the practice of burying new born females alive not being uncommon.

Whilst many modern day countries do owe their borders to Colonial whims, to say that nations did not exist before is not true either. Liban rightly points to Egypt and Iran as ancient nations, but Syria also existed as a separate state as did other nations around Arabia. Within Arabia itself, there was no unity and only loose affiliations along tribal lines.

Islam brought a period of unity where allegiance was to the Islamic ruler – but this was relatively short lived as the power base moved from place to place (with each ‘dynasty’ – Fatimids, Ummayids etc), until there were rival and concurrent rulers and then finally the Ottoman empire was born. Even under the Ottoman empire there was not unity amongst muslims and there were still spheres of influence and nation states.

The glorious days of united Ummah (nation) of Muslims are in the distant past (unfortunately) – arguably this only lasted 2 or 3 hundred years after the death of the Prophet. It has to be remembered that even at the height of Muslim civilization in Spain, the Muslim empire was fragmented – when Al Hambra was built, the inhabitants owed allegiance to the local rulers and were separate from the Muslims of Iran or Iraq, say.

I have heard orators telling audiences of muslims that the answer to the ills of today is a return to ‘Khilafat’ and a unified ‘Ummah’. They unfortunately use these words with modified meanings, calling ‘Khilafat’ a system of governance rather than the literal meaning of following one spiritual and temporal leader (the Khalifa/Calif) – to get away from the prickly question as to who could fulfill this role given the hundreds of Islamic sects out there. Similarly the concept of ‘Ummah’ has no meaning without having unity of leadership – you can’t be one Ummah or Nation when you have allegiance to different heads.

Therefore these calls for unity are fruitless until and unless the issue of who should lead the muslims is addressed. Until then, they will be tilting at windmills and living in a fantasy past that didn’t really exist as they fantasise it did.

Just my 2 penneth worth..

Wasalaam,
Shafique

The only significant division the Ummah had after the death of the prophet Mohammed(pbuh) was the division of Sunni and Shia...other than that division was always minimal...Of course the Ummah wasn't perfect..there was in fighting between those leaders who seeked power and wealth and those who fought for the glory of the Ummah. Nobody is saying restablishing the Caliphate will be easy, but its also not entirely impossible. The restablishment of the caliphate depends on two things...muslims willingness see through their difference and unite under the banner muslim brotherhood..and West willingness to allow this to happen. I'm pretty sure if muslims from Maurtania to Pakistan decided to unite tomorrow the west, especifically United States,UK and Isreal would not allow this to happen.

Therefore these calls for unity are fruitless until and unless the issue of who should lead the muslims is addressed. Until then, they will be tilting at windmills and living in a fantasy past that didn’t really exist as they fantasise it did.

If we are close to the end of time than the leader of the Ummah is the Mahdi...but if we are not close to end of time, than the leader is Ummah in my opinion should someone who exhabits allot of patience, understanding and very knowledgable in both Islam and other aspects.

Lionheart wrote:If we are close to the end of time than the leader of the Ummah is the Mahdi...but if we are not close to end of time, than the leader is Ummah in my opinion should someone who exhabits allot of patience, understanding and very knowledgable in both Islam and other aspects.

I persoanlly think that from current world events, the end is getting closer as per the Quran. 9/11 was predicted in the Quran and is the first in many events heralding the End of Days.

Also, there is nobody in the entire Muslim world from Mauritania to Indonisia at this time that is capable of uniting the Ummah. I mean look how Mahathir Mohammad was silenced by his brethern at an OIC meeting once...

firstly - let me say I agree with Liban's and Lionheart's comments above about personality cults etc. Liban - your explanations and answers to Arnie are very good.

Now to a bit of dissension..

Lionheart - in regards of the Mahdi, there are numerous Hadith on the subject of his coming. The coming of the Mahdi will also be marked by the second coming of Jesus (Issa), pbuh.

I've read up on this and there are clear and unequivocable Hadith that say that there will be no unity or sole leader until the Mahdi comes. I think the hadith says that there will be a period of Caliphate, followed by kingship and then dis-array until the Mahdi/Messiah comes.

Therefore, if this hadith is true, your assessment of a temporal leader chosen by Muslims (who is not the Mahdi) is a vain hope. (I'll see if I can find a reference to the hadith - but all my books are still in storage at the moment)

I still maintain that it is inconceivable to have unity (in the name of Islam) and still believe in different spiritual leaders.

I also respectfully disagree with the assertion that the only significant split in Islam was the Sunni-Shia divide - if you just look at the timeline I stumbled across and posted a link to a few posts ago, you will see the intrigues and in-fighting that took place. Ummayyads killing Abassid rulers etc.

There are major schisms in Sunni Islam and major schisms in Shia Islam.

If you go to the site mentioned and click through to the section detailing the sects in Islam you will see that there is even a sect called Ahmadiyyat that claims that the Mahdi has come!

(Arnie - 'Mahdi' means 'guided one' and refers to prophecies made by the Holy Prophet, pbuh, that in the latter days there will be an 'Imam Mahdi' or 'guided leader' who will be sent by God to bring the Muslims back to true Islam. This will be in a period when Muslims will have gone astray and there is evil in the world. The anti-Christ (Dajjal) will be exerting power over the world. At the same time, the second coming of Jesus will also take place - Jesus would follow the Mahdi and wage war against the infidels and hand the keys of power to the Muslims - but this is another story all together).

All that said - we all can do our bit and live our lives according to the principles of all revealed religions, if we do that - then there will be inward peace and social peace. All religions teach tolerance and respect of others and doing unto others what you would want done unto you (to borrow the Golden Rule). It is when organised groups stray from this that we have the trouble and strife we see in the world today.

Wasalaam,
Shafique

shafique wrote:All that said - we all can do our bit and live our lives according to the principles of all revealed religions, if we do that - then there will be inward peace and social peace. All religions teach tolerance and respect of others and doing unto others what you would want done unto you (to borrow the Golden Rule). It is when organised groups stray from this that we have the trouble and strife we see in the world today.

Well spoken Shaf. If everyone followed the Golden Rule the world would be in a better state!

Shaf

thanks for putting in an explanation for me, i was reading and was thinking i will ask who/what Mahdi is lol.

So, is the Mahdi a hypothetical "second coming". ?

A lot is mentioned about Hadith. Are these writings of the Prophet(pbuh) or writing subsequent to him.?

arniegang wrote:Shaf

thanks for putting in an explanation for me, i was reading and was thinking i will ask who/what Mahdi is lol.

So, is the Mahdi a hypothetical "second coming". ?

A lot is mentioned about Hadith. Are these writings of the Prophet(pbuh) or writing subsequent to him.?

Nothing hypothetical about it Arnie

Liban wrote:

arniegang wrote:Shaf

thanks for putting in an explanation for me, i was reading and was thinking i will ask who/what Mahdi is lol.

So, is the Mahdi a hypothetical "second coming". ?

A lot is mentioned about Hadith. Are these writings of the Prophet(pbuh) or writing subsequent to him.?

Nothing hypothetical about it Arnie

There was a 'Mahdi' who was the ruler of Sudan in the early 1880's and was responsible for the siege and capture of Khartoum in 1885. Is this a title that was bestowed upon him as a 'leader' or was he one of the incarnations of the second coming? Needing input...

Knight

Unrelated:

Mahdism and condominium
Main article: History of Sudan (1884-1898)

In 1881, a religious leader named Muhammad ibn Abdalla proclaimed himself the Mahdi, or the “expected one,” and began a religious crusade to unify the tribes in western and central Sudan. His followers took on the name “Ansars” (the followers) which they continue to use today and are associated with the single largest political grouping, the Umma Party, led at one time by the descendant of the Mahdi, Sadiq al Mahdi. Taking advantage of conditions resulting from Ottoman-Egyptian exploitation and maladministration, the Mahdi led a nationalist revolt culminating in the fall of Khartoum in 1885, where the British General Charles George Gordon was killed. The Mahdi died shortly thereafter, but his state survived until overwhelmed by an Anglo-Egyptian force under Lord Kitchener in 1898. Sudan was proclaimed a condominium in 1899 under British-Egyptian administration. The Governor-General of the Sudan, for example, was appointed by 'Khedival Decree', rather than simply by the British Crown, but while maintaining the appearance of joint administration, the British Empire formulated policies, and supplied most of the top administrators.

Liban wrote:Unrelated:

Mahdism and condominium
Main article: History of Sudan (1884-1898)

In 1881, a religious leader named Muhammad ibn Abdalla proclaimed himself the Mahdi, or the “expected one,” and began a religious crusade to unify the tribes in western and central Sudan. His followers took on the name “Ansars” (the followers) which they continue to use today and are associated with the single largest political grouping, the Umma Party, led at one time by the descendant of the Mahdi, Sadiq al Mahdi. Taking advantage of conditions resulting from Ottoman-Egyptian exploitation and maladministration, the Mahdi led a nationalist revolt culminating in the fall of Khartoum in 1885, where the British General Charles George Gordon was killed. The Mahdi died shortly thereafter, but his state survived until overwhelmed by an Anglo-Egyptian force under Lord Kitchener in 1898. Sudan was proclaimed a condominium in 1899 under British-Egyptian administration. The Governor-General of the Sudan, for example, was appointed by 'Khedival Decree', rather than simply by the British Crown, but while maintaining the appearance of joint administration, the British Empire formulated policies, and supplied most of the top administrators.

Thank you. I am enlightened. Not sure about Sudan being a 'condominium' though? Pretty big apartment block with amenities!

Knight

Dubai Knight wrote:
Thank you. I am enlightened. Not sure about Sudan being a 'condominium' though? Pretty big apartment block with amenities!

Knight

Sorry, I dunno where that came in from.... Probably because I am looking at condo listings...

Dubai Knight wrote:

Liban wrote:

arniegang wrote:Shaf

thanks for putting in an explanation for me, i was reading and was thinking i will ask who/what Mahdi is lol.

So, is the Mahdi a hypothetical "second coming". ?

A lot is mentioned about Hadith. Are these writings of the Prophet(pbuh) or writing subsequent to him.?

Nothing hypothetical about it Arnie

There was a 'Mahdi' who was the ruler of Sudan in the early 1880's and was responsible for the siege and capture of Khartoum in 1885. Is this a title that was bestowed upon him as a 'leader' or was he one of the incarnations of the second coming? Needing input...

Knight

He was fake wannabee Mahdi like many throughout history.... the real prophecised Mahdi has yet to arrive or been born yet.