AHC: Caliph as an elected title, not hereditary

This was inspired by a brief read recently of the idea that, originally, the selection of the Caliph was to be done in a sort of Democratic manner, rather than the method of hereditary succession it later became.

Today's challenge there fore is to find a manner that results in the office of the Caliph being an elected one, and what if any effects this would have on both the rise of Islam and its evolution as a religion.
 
It's really not that difficult, the original Rashidun Caliph's had a tribal form of democracy in which tribal elders would elect the Caliph. All you really have to do to prevent this is to continue this tradition, and it could easily evolve into an actual democracy.
To do this you'd need to avoid the start of the Shi'ite school of thought, and avoid Caliph Uthman's more 'kingly' aspects. I'd suggest making Ali the third Caliph and Uthman the fourth, and then perhaps Hussain or Hassan as fifth, and so on and so forth so the tradition of election is not decimated.
Obviously this would start off as an Arabian - Muslim only position, and then in later centuries be applicable to Arabised Levantines/Egyptians, then Persians, then Turks until ethnicity is no longer an issue.
However this is assuming the Rashidun Caliphate remains the sole Caliphate institution.
 
The big problem that such idea, that definitely existed IOTL (see Kharijite movements) would go against tribal structures and solidarities as well the strength that covers a dynastic power : especially with the power of Quraysh tribe taken from being related to Muhammad.

And that situation existed from the start : don't confuse elective with democratic. Shura on this matter was made trough a pretty much limited number of men, right since Abu Bakr's election.

Let's say that Banu 'Umayya are defeated by Ali, or that you prevent the First Fitna to degenerate totally somehow...Maybe that you'd keep an elective (more or less unformal) feature for the Caliphate (altough I'd point that both sides stressed a dynastic succession, eventually) especially in the case of an Imamate/Caliphate in the case of an Alid victory.
But I'd rather think that it would evolve as one ritualistic feature, as it did for most of technically elective imperium or monarchy elsewhere.

Your best chance of what would probably look more as a democratic Caliphate would be the success of a Sufrite or other "mid-way" Kharijite movement : for exemple they very short lived Berber Caliphate under Maysara al-Matghari and his successor Khalid ibn Hamid al-Zanati

Granted, it was election trough arms, with a caliphal position soon falling into oblivion, but maybe if Berbers takes Ifriqiya...It could somehow last longer.
It's not really likely (in fact, I don't think that's plausible in the long run), but I see few other opportunities having an early and popular elective Caliphate.
 
It's really not that difficult, the original Rashidun Caliph's had a tribal form of democracy in which tribal elders would elect the Caliph. All you really have to do to prevent this is to continue this tradition, and it could easily evolve into an actual democracy.
To do this you'd need to avoid the start of the Shi'ite school of thought, and avoid Caliph Uthman's more 'kingly' aspects. I'd suggest making Ali the third Caliph and Uthman the fourth, and then perhaps Hussain or Hassan as fifth, and so on and so forth so the tradition of election is not decimated.
Obviously this would start off as an Arabian - Muslim only position, and then in later centuries be applicable to Arabised Levantines/Egyptians, then Persians, then Turks until ethnicity is no longer an issue.
However this is assuming the Rashidun Caliphate remains the sole Caliphate institution.



Ali being the Caliph instead of Uthman might change the course of history, as in the Fitnah might not occur (this is debatable however). However, this does not remove the sentiments raging through areas like Kufa that Ali is more than just a Quryaish and Caliph but the regent of Muhammad and the Imam of all the Muslim. The Shi'i are far more complex than simply Ali not being the Caliph, and further not all Shi'i are like Zayydi which are basically apart of Ahl Sunnah except they say Ali was better than Abu Bakr.


Further this depends on the democracy we are talking about. Because in Islam there are several versions that one could be speaking of. While there is a Shura and the Ijma (consensus) is important, it is not the only grounds for the Caliph and the General Ummah is not the ones who decide the Caliph. The Caliph is decided by the Ahl ul-Hali wal Aqt (the people of influence, what this means differs among scholars), not the common Muslim. These people of influence usually refer to tribal leaders and Ulema, and these groups come to an Ijma amongst themselves. In this context, the Khilafah is a democracy or at least a limited monarchy (Abbasid and Umayyad).

With that all said, Biddah (innovation of the religion) is to be restricted by the Ulema and in general not permissible. Thus, the creation of liberal democracy as seen in the west, where the Sharia is a secondary penal code and the rights of man surpass the decree of Allah then the democracy is not permissible. There is more leg room in this, however it would take bringing a specific case to make an exception.

This also boils down, as many issues do, to Tawheed al-Haakimiyyah (Allah is the only legislator and judge). In this, the rulership is for Allah and his Deen (religion) alone and none can be a judge except him and one cannot judge without the use of the Quran and the Sunnah. Thus, democratic ideals no matter how fascinating cannot overcome the Deen in the worship due to Allah (Tawheed ul-Uluhiyyah) , which all the major scholars agree includes ruling (whether a Wilayet or a Caliph). The Khawarij fell into this in which they held the ideals of equality above the Deen and raised the flag of rebellion to the Khilafah proclaiming in essence a true democracy free from the Ijma of the Ulema and decided entirely by the Ummah.

I feel that the best possible ways to have more early democracies in the Ummah is to have more success from the Khawarij in taking land in Iraq and North Africa. Further, the Murji'ah, while never creating a state entity in the same vein as the Khawarij, could easily have created a similar style of democracy to that of the Khawarij. The real threats to the form of democracy that is permissible comes not from so called fundamentals, but from the tribal leaders and from the Mu'Tazila.
 
I should detail this topic at length, but I am very tired. (This is a thing I am supposed to teach undergrads about).
The notion of "Caliphate" is very complicated and in some ways slippery.
Generally speaking, dominant Sunni notions of Caliphate always held the title to be elective in principle. In Sunni Islam, inheritance of supreme power was never recognized as legally legitimate by itself. This is theory, and always was.
Practice worked pretty much otherwise.
The idea used to be that qualified people (religious scholars, in theory, leaders of the army, often, in practice) would choose the best qualified person as Caliph; the reasoning went on to state that if the Caliph in charge had chosen a succesor, then it was fine, since nobody was more qualified than the Caliph himself to make the choice. THIS is the legal coverage for hereditary Caliphate.
But this is elaborated in texts from the eleventh century AD, when the (Sunni Abbasid) Caliphate had almost entirely lost religious relevance, let alone temporal power.
 
Last edited:
Ali being the Caliph instead of Uthman might change the course of history, as in the Fitnah might not occur (this is debatable however). However, this does not remove the sentiments raging through areas like Kufa that Ali is more than just a Quryaish and Caliph but the regent of Muhammad and the Imam of all the Muslim. The Shi'i are far more complex than simply Ali not being the Caliph, and further not all Shi'i are like Zayydi which are basically apart of Ahl Sunnah except they say Ali was better than Abu Bakr.


Further this depends on the democracy we are talking about. Because in Islam there are several versions that one could be speaking of. While there is a Shura and the Ijma (consensus) is important, it is not the only grounds for the Caliph and the General Ummah is not the ones who decide the Caliph. The Caliph is decided by the Ahl ul-Hali wal Aqt (the people of influence, what this means differs among scholars), not the common Muslim. These people of influence usually refer to tribal leaders and Ulema, and these groups come to an Ijma amongst themselves. In this context, the Khilafah is a democracy or at least a limited monarchy (Abbasid and Umayyad).

With that all said, Biddah (innovation of the religion) is to be restricted by the Ulema and in general not permissible. Thus, the creation of liberal democracy as seen in the west, where the Sharia is a secondary penal code and the rights of man surpass the decree of Allah then the democracy is not permissible. There is more leg room in this, however it would take bringing a specific case to make an exception.

This also boils down, as many issues do, to Tawheed al-Haakimiyyah (Allah is the only legislator and judge). In this, the rulership is for Allah and his Deen (religion) alone and none can be a judge except him and one cannot judge without the use of the Quran and the Sunnah. Thus, democratic ideals no matter how fascinating cannot overcome the Deen in the worship due to Allah (Tawheed ul-Uluhiyyah) , which all the major scholars agree includes ruling (whether a Wilayet or a Caliph). The Khawarij fell into this in which they held the ideals of equality above the Deen and raised the flag of rebellion to the Khilafah proclaiming in essence a true democracy free from the Ijma of the Ulema and decided entirely by the Ummah.

I feel that the best possible ways to have more early democracies in the Ummah is to have more success from the Khawarij in taking land in Iraq and North Africa. Further, the Murji'ah, while never creating a state entity in the same vein as the Khawarij, could easily have created a similar style of democracy to that of the Khawarij. The real threats to the form of democracy that is permissible comes not from so called fundamentals, but from the tribal leaders and from the Mu'Tazila.

I don't really know much about Fiqh but I find it fascinating to hear about it. What about a scenario in which "The people of influence" becomes inclusive to the common people? Perhaps in a situation in which the Caliph himself relies on the support of the common people against a strong military/tribal aristocracy.
This could lead to a much more limited monarchy, which could in turn become a constitutional monarchy, with over 1400 years of possible PODs it is very possible.
 
I don't really know much about Fiqh but I find it fascinating to hear about it. What about a scenario in which "The people of influence" becomes inclusive to the common people? Perhaps in a situation in which the Caliph himself relies on the support of the common people against a strong military/tribal aristocracy.
This could lead to a much more limited monarchy, which could in turn become a constitutional monarchy, with over 1400 years of possible PODs it is very possible.



I suppose this is possible. A Caliph could become more inclusive during the 800s as a reaction to the rise of Mamluk regents and the power of the Mu'Tazila. If these groups go at it with a pious and strong Caliph, we could see a Caliph raise the common man and the two of the three major rebellious sects, the Murji'ah and the Khawarij. If these forces ally against a Saljuk/Mu'Tazila power base, then more freedom for the common man in regards to government participation and land reform is quite possible...
 
I feel that the best possible ways to have more early democracies in the Ummah is to have more success from the Khawarij in taking land in Iraq and North Africa. Further, the Murji'ah, while never creating a state entity in the same vein as the Khawarij, could easily have created a similar style of democracy to that of the Khawarij. The real threats to the form of democracy that is permissible comes not from so called fundamentals, but from the tribal leaders and from the Mu'Tazila.

I would say the opposite. Instead of more success taking land, have the opposite: Islam is much less successful in taking land, so the Caliph only ever rules Arabia, or better yet Medina. This would make maintaining a more or less democratic Caliphate (at least as democratic as anything was in that era) substantially easier, and perhaps even likely (if the Caliph is Caliph of Medina, then the opinion of the "common man" matters a lot more than if he can shuffle armies around from Egypt or Iraq to crush any unrest). In the premodern era, there are just too many centrifugal forces pushing at big republics for them to survive as republics for very long.
 
Workable Goblin, you have hit the nail on the head (there is a slight exception, though, the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth).

Off topic:
John7755, why are you praising the Khawarij?! I find this beyond the pale. Tell us then what you think of the new Khawarij in Daesh. Are you a modern Salafi? (I'm just curious how anyone in their right mind can claim that the Khawarij are the solution.)
 
John7755, why are you praising the Khawarij?! I find this beyond the pale. Tell us then what you think of the new Khawarij in Daesh. Are you a modern Salafi? (I'm just curious how anyone in their right mind can claim that the Khawarij are the solution.)

If it wasn't so painfully ignorant, I'd have just reported you and carried on.

But giving the vile accusation you're doing there against John7755 يوحنا, in particular, and against whole human groups in general, less for you than people on this thread, I'll try to correct this point.

Khawarij is a broad name (a litterary translation would be "sectarians", in the sense they cutted themselves out) given by their ennemies at first, for different groups that cut off Sunnah in the VIIth century.
Think about Protestant diversity to have an idea on how much diverse of a group we're talking there.

Even with the great porousity of Islamic schools until the end of the Golden Age, two khawarij may simply not share the same core beliefs.

In a sense, talking about Kharijism as a whole can be as misleading than talking about Protestantism as an unified group.

Roughly, some groups may be distinguished :

Azâriqa were particularily radical and violent, considering other Muslims as muchrik and eligible for raiding and warring against.
These in particular didn't really last : their own radicalism made them really vulnerable to outright extermination, but they might be the closer to what Daesh is today (up to killing prisoners as an act of faith, the imtihân)

Najadât which was a bit less radical than Azâriqa (especially on the necessity of the religious murder) knew more or less a similar fate.

Ṣufriyya, and close branches such as Nakkariyya, were clearly less dogmatics and much less violents even if they still opposed orthodox branches and saw political and military fight as legit.
They're partically responsible for the climate of religious/political ebullition in Maghrib and Ifriqiya in the Midlle-Ages : as less intransigants than the first brands (which was close ro Azariqa), they saw interest with allying with other Islamic polities against one other, which made them valuable but unreliable allies.

Eventually, Ibāḍiyya from what remains mostly of Khawarij nowadays, that is a puritain (morally and socially) society but pacifists and relatively open. Ibāḍī are so different from historical groups as Azâriqa that many claims not being Khawarij.

One shouldn't forget that Kharijism get a really bad rep from Islamic historians, as being often geopolitically marginal, refusing to abide by generally accepted political structures (even nominally, as it was current).

One comparing Khawarij as Daesh is clearly trying to define entiere religious groups as terrorist and bloodthirsty criminals, no matter the reality.
 
Catilina, of course I wasn't talkig of the Omani's I was talking of the famous Khawarij from the time of the First Fitna. When people usually talk of them this is what they have in mind. In those part of the Muslim world that aren't Wahhabi, Wahhabis are considered (accusatorily) neo-Khawarij for their tactics and ideas.

In another thread John7755 said the Saudis have "great ulema".

If it wasn't so painfully ignorant, I'd have just reported you and carried on.

I have said nothing vile except of Daesh and the Khawarij of the First Fitna, both groups wholeheartedly deserving of being looked upon unfavorably.

But I'll report you for issuing threats. Not cool. Cool to tell me I'm an idiot if you think so. Not cool to threaten to report me for imaginary things.
 
I would say the opposite. Instead of more success taking land, have the opposite: Islam is much less successful in taking land, so the Caliph only ever rules Arabia, or better yet Medina. This would make maintaining a more or less democratic Caliphate (at least as democratic as anything was in that era) substantially easier, and perhaps even likely (if the Caliph is Caliph of Medina, then the opinion of the "common man" matters a lot more than if he can shuffle armies around from Egypt or Iraq to crush any unrest). In the premodern era, there are just too many centrifugal forces pushing at big republics for them to survive as republics for very long.


When did I say the Khilafah must take land to become a "republic"? Further, are you aware that the Abbasid Khilafah was in free fall as far as territory after the Anarchy of Samara? It was not the megalithic empire you tend to think.
 
Last edited:
Workable Goblin, you have hit the nail on the head (there is a slight exception, though, the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth).

Off topic:
John7755, why are you praising the Khawarij?! I find this beyond the pale. Tell us then what you think of the new Khawarij in Daesh. Are you a modern Salafi? (I'm just curious how anyone in their right mind can claim that the Khawarij are the solution.)


Ha, so you feel that Salafi are Khawarij, it seems you know little of the Fiqh, so little, I do not feel to entertain why the Khawarij are a solution to some things. Especially when it comes to matters of the equality among the races in early Islam.

Also bring me evidence that Daesh is Khawarij.... They are deviant and upon the Biddah, but they are not among the Khawarij, those who are among the Khawarij are those who make blanket Takfir based on Kufr Asghar...
 
Catilina, of course I wasn't talkig of the Omani's I was talking of the famous Khawarij from the time of the First Fitna. When people usually talk of them this is what they have in mind. In those part of the Muslim world that aren't Wahhabi, Wahhabis are considered (accusatorily) neo-Khawarij for their tactics and ideas.

In another thread John7755 said the Saudis have "great ulema".



I have said nothing vile except of Daesh and the Khawarij of the First Fitna, both groups wholeheartedly deserving of being looked upon unfavorably.

But I'll report you for issuing threats. Not cool. Cool to tell me I'm an idiot if you think so. Not cool to threaten to report me for imaginary things.


Show me evidence that those upon the methodology of Ibn Baz, Shaykh Albani, Shaykh Uthaymeen, Shaykh Makhdali, Shaykh Abdullah ash-Shaykh, Shaykh Hanbali, Shaykh Ibn Taymiyyah, Shaykh Abdul Wahhab, etc are Khawarij.... You are the one making blanket Takfir, do not forget that the one who proclaims Takfir either recieves a blessing or is a Kaffir himself....


What nation has a greater Ulema than the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (المملكة العربية السعودية)?
 
Further, are you aware that the Abbasid Khilafah was in free fall as far as territory after the Anarchy of Samara? It was not the megalithic empire you tend to think.

I am, in fact, but by the Anarchy the principle of dynastic succession had been firmly entrenched by the Umayyads and Abbasids over more than two centuries, so it was very unlikely to be reversed at that point. Therefore the size of the Caliphate afterwards is irrelevant. What was important was the size of the Caliphate during the era of the Rightly Guided Caliphs, the Umayyad period, and the early Abbasid period. By expanding to conquer much of the Roman and Persian Empires, and stretching from the Indus to the Atlantic, it removed all of the conditions needed to sustain a republic during the pre-modern era, and substituted those favoring a monarchical principle. Even had the Umayyads not been, well, the Umayyads, it was going to be very difficult to maintain anything but the pretense of elections under those conditions.

The easiest way to have a republican Caliphate, as I said, would be to have Islam be far less successful against Mecca, just holding on but not able to overcome its opponent. If the Caliph only controls Medina, then, as I said, a republican constitution is far more likely than if he must contend with events across a third of Eurasia.
 
I am, in fact, but by the Anarchy the principle of dynastic succession had been firmly entrenched by the Umayyads and Abbasids over more than two centuries, so it was very unlikely to be reversed at that point. Therefore the size of the Caliphate afterwards is irrelevant. What was important was the size of the Caliphate during the era of the Rightly Guided Caliphs, the Umayyad period, and the early Abbasid period. By expanding to conquer much of the Roman and Persian Empires, and stretching from the Indus to the Atlantic, it removed all of the conditions needed to sustain a republic during the pre-modern era, and substituted those favoring a monarchical principle. Even had the Umayyads not been, well, the Umayyads, it was going to be very difficult to maintain anything but the pretense of elections under those conditions.

The easiest way to have a republican Caliphate, as I said, would be to have Islam be far less successful against Mecca, just holding on but not able to overcome its opponent. If the Caliph only controls Medina, then, as I said, a republican constitution is far more likely than if he must contend with events across a third of Eurasia.


I definitely understand the point you are making. It is perhaps correct that the Khilafah if remaining small and contained within a small space, would be more conducive to some form of plutocratic reform. However, from my readings, it is more clear that the ideals of a more equal Khilafah and the notion that the Caliph abd his Ulema were infallible came from the conquest of Arabia and subsequent territories. No reform would be made as all within the Caliphate would be relatives of the Sahaba and Hijazi Arabs, ideas that came later that would lead to a true republic were elsewhere, had the Caliphate remained in the Hijaz, the power of the Ulema and the infallibility of the Amir al-Mu'minin would be firm, these two would be a check against each other, however this is not a republic in the same sense.

1. The ideals as espoused by the Khawarij, beginning with Bedouin inhabiting the Najd up to Iraq where the first to espouse a seemingly more egalitarian tone. By this I am speaking on how in Islam it is forbidden to rebel against the Khilafah and traditionally go against the the Ulema and further to commit Biddah of the Deen changing the law and decree of Allah. These factors limit the growth of a true Democracy as power is held completely by either the Caliph and or the Ulema, who have no intention of sharing that power of Hukm.

"Oh you who believe, obey Allah and obey the messenger and those in authority among you" (Quran 4:59)



"The best of your rulers are those whom you love and they love you. You pray over them and they pray over you. The worst rulers are those whom you hate and they hate you. You curse them and they curse you". They said, 'O messenger of Allah (SAW) shall we fight them and oppose them over that?' He replied, 'No, not as long as they establish the prayer among you. If someone is appointed over person and he sees some act of disobedience to Allah from him, he should dislike what he does of disobedience to Allah but he should not remove his hand from obedience.'" -narrated by Hazrat Auf bin Malik (RA)

Shaykh Ibn Taymiyyah says:
"This clarifies that the leaders, who are the rulers and those in charge of the affairs, are to be disliked and rebuked whenever they bring an act of disobedience to Allah. However, one does not remove his hand from obedience to them for the sake of Allah. It also shows that some of them are righteous and others evil."


Now, with this said, the above is the Aqeedah in relation to the rebellion of Ahl Sunnah wa l'Jama'ah, rebellion and the removal of a leader for anything but Kufr Akbar is clear cut not permissible. If the Khilafah remains in Madinah, then these rulings go most likely unquestioned and the authority of the Ulema supreme.

The Khawarij on the other hand, supported a system in which the Khilafah and the Ulema were equals to the slave, claiming an Ethiopian slave was equal to the Amir al-Mu'minin in piety (in the traditional Fiqh this is false) and the Ulema was not infallible in their rulings. Further, they did not just speak on this but they acted, as was seen in the Zanj rebellion. Creating a highly inclusive form of system made up of the minorities in the Caliphate who were left behind by the "noble" Mu'Tazila and the Ulema. The first sign of Khawarij and in reality a libertarian sense of rejection of authority and infallibility comes from the Qurra tribe in its response to Muawiyah (they had refused the Zakat):


"How much you go on about the authority of the Quryaish! The Arabs were eating from the hilt of their swords while the Quryaish were nothing but merchants!" He then said, "As for the shelter you mentioned, when the shelter is pierced, then come to us."

This ideology of resistance to the Khilafah and the will to create a system different than the traditional Khilafah would not have existed had the Caliphate not expanded outside the mind of the traditional Hijazi Arab.

2. Other than the Khawarij, the Murji'ah arose as well from the Fitnah as a group. They proclaimed that no person, even the Ulema or the prophet himself could make Takfir. This led to a deep questioning of authority and the same will (but in another direction) for a new and more egalitarian system. This mode of thought seen in the Murji'ah would not exist had the Hijazi Caliphate not expanded into the Najd, Iraq, Syria, Iran and Africa.
 
Show me evidence that those upon the methodology of Ibn Baz, Shaykh Albani, Shaykh Uthaymeen, Shaykh Makhdali, Shaykh Abdullah ash-Shaykh, Shaykh Hanbali, Shaykh Ibn Taymiyyah, Shaykh Abdul Wahhab, etc are Khawarij.... You are the one making blanket Takfir, do not forget that the one who proclaims Takfir either recieves a blessing or is a Kaffir himself....

I cannot make any kind of takfir since I'm not Muslim. And no Muslim I've talked to ever said that the Wahhabis aren't Muslim. Just that they are not Sunni. You see, it's the Wahhabi who say that the Jaffari Shi'a and the Alevi and the Ismaili and so on aren't even Muslim. Traditional Sunnis recognise all these as Muslim, just not Sunni and they think the same for the Wahhabi.

By the way, if I were a Muslim telling me "one who proclaims Takfir either recieves a blessing or is a Kaffir himself" could have been interpreted as a threat on my life. What was your intention in telling me that?

Anyway, Daesh, however, while they aren't widely known for making blanket takfir (kind of difficult to notice that detail in people who do crucify other people all the time), they absolutely do make blanket takfir, and not just on Shi'a people, on all kinds of Sunnis as well. I've also seen on the net countless Wahhabis, self-proclaimed Muwahhidun, Ahl-e Hadith people and even people calling themselves just Salafi making blanket takfir on all sorts of people who are otherwise considered to be Sunni. Many people don't know the extent to which Wahhabism has influenced the current Salafi movement. In the past, "Salafi" was the name of a modernist-reformist movement in the Arab world. The Wahhabis had been always calling themselves "the Muslims" since they used to make blanket takfir on just about everyone and thought they are the only Muslim people in existance. After the 40's and 50's they swiched to calling themselves "Muwahhidun" (Monotheists). By the 70's or such the old "Salafi" modernist-reformist movement was almost dead and in the 80's the Wahhabis took over the name "Salafi" in order to gain wider appeal in the Sunni Muslim world. People might not know this.

As for the Sheykhs you mention, ask any Sunni (who's not a Wahhabi) though about Abdul Wahhab and they'll tell you he's never been a Sheykh, just an ignoramus. Bin Baz? Bin Baz argued almost to the end of his life that the earth is flat!

Ok, I'll give you Ibn Taymiyyah, the father of literalism. He was an important scholar in his own time, in his own circumstance. Crazy though to take his ideas and apply them today literally - it leads to bloody results. And, of course I won't say anything of Ahmed ibn Hanbal - he is the founder of a mezhep after all. But, again, a time and a place.

Edit: I'll add this, again, from what I've seen Muslims say of Wahhabis. Wahhabis are one of the many people responsible for the collapse of the Ottoman caliphate. Even in the 19th century, when the real Sunni ulema were becoming shahid against the British in India, the Wahhabis, supported by the British, were attacking the Ottoman state. Almost everyone at the time thought the Ottoman Sultans are the rightful Caliphs, even as far as Indonesia. Enough said.


What nation has a greater Ulema than the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (المملكة العربية السعودية)?

What is your opinion regarding the Saudi ulemas' support for the cutting of hands of thieves, and the killing of people for witchraft and the beheading of people for crimes deemed not so significant in other parts of the Muslim world?

Even after secularism, Turkey still has great ulema. We can add some ulema in Egypt, Bosnia, Malaysia, Pakistan, India. Of course Wahhabi people will regard rather badly the sort of people I'm talking about.
 
Last edited:
Heh, I can only think of one way to make the caliph a permanently elected title: an explicit Quranic verse or Hadith that makes it elective. 'Course, who elects and what method used can still evolve, but at least here it would prevent it being hereditary, though if it's a Hadith it could still be disputed by one sect or another...
 
I cannot make any kind of takfir since I'm not Muslim. And no Muslim I've talked to ever said that the Wahhabis aren't Muslim. Just that they are not Sunni. You see, it's the Wahhabi who say that the Jaffari Shi'a and the Alevi and the Ismaili and so on aren't even Muslim. Traditional Sunnis recognise all these as Muslim, just not Sunni and they think the same for the Wahhabi.

By the way, if I were a Muslim telling me "one who proclaims Takfir either recieves a blessing or is a Kaffir himself" could have been interpreted as a threat on my life. What was your intention in telling me that?

Anyway, Daesh, however, while they aren't widely known for making blanket takfir (kind of difficult to notice that detail in people who do crucify other people all the time), they absolutely do make blanket takfir, and not just on Shi'a people, on all kinds of Sunnis as well. I've also seen on the net countless Wahhabis, self-proclaimed Muwahhidun, Ahl-e Hadith people and even people calling themselves just Salafi making blanket takfir on all sorts of people who are otherwise considered to be Sunni. Many people don't know the extent to which Wahhabism has influenced the current Salafi movement. In the past, "Salafi" was the name of a modernist-reformist movement in the Arab world. The Wahhabis had been always calling themselves "the Muslims" since they used to make blanket takfir on just about everyone and thought they are the only Muslim people in existance. After the 40's and 50's they swiched to calling themselves "Muwahhidun" (Monotheists). By the 70's or such the old "Salafi" modernist-reformist movement was almost dead and in the 80's the Wahhabis took over the name "Salafi" in order to gain wider appeal in the Sunni Muslim world. People might not know this.

As for the Sheykhs you mention, ask any Sunni (who's not a Wahhabi) though about Abdul Wahhab and they'll tell you he's never been a Sheykh, just an ignoramus. Bin Baz? Bin Baz argued almost to the end of his life that the earth is flat!

Ok, I'll give you Ibn Taymiyyah, the father of literalism. He was an important scholar in his own time, in his own circumstance. Crazy though to take his ideas and apply them today literally - it leads to bloody results. And, of course I won't say anything of Ahmed ibn Hanbal - he is the founder of a mezhep after all. But, again, a time and a place.

Edit: I'll add this, again, from what I've seen Muslims say of Wahhabis. Wahhabis are one of the many people responsible for the collapse of the Ottoman caliphate. Even in the 19th century, when the real Sunni ulema were becoming shahid against the British in India, the Wahhabis, supported by the British, were attacking the Ottoman state. Almost everyone at the time thought the Ottoman Sultans are the rightful Caliphs, even as far as Indonesia. Enough said.




What is your opinion regarding the Saudi ulemas' support for the cutting of hands of thieves, and the killing of people for witchraft and the beheading of people for crimes deemed not so significant in other parts of the Muslim world?

Even after secularism, Turkey still has great ulema. We can add some ulema in Egypt, Bosnia, Malaysia, Pakistan, India. Of course Wahhabi people will regard rather badly the sort of people I'm talking about.

haha

Any one who says that Salafi are not among Ahl Sunnah wa l'Jama'ah must come with sufficient evidence on this Takfir. All those from among the Salafi who make Takfir do so with rigorous thought and study and only do so if it is from the Ulema. A self proclaimed Salafi like Abu Baraa or Abu Haleema are not Ulema and are upon the Biddah, and thus do not speak for Salafi in general. If your "Sunni" friends are so knowledgable on the Fiqh the perhaps they have evidence of Kufr of the Salafi instead of throwing out the word Wahhabi (which means nothing, no person claims to be a follower directly of him, perhaps you have them mixed up with the Sufi who love to do this :D).

Now of course Salafi make Takfir on those Shi'i you mentioned, just as we make Takfir on the Khawarij. If you make blanket Takfir upon the Sahaba regardless of Aqeedah, you are Mushriq. Now if you have read my posts before, you would know that I do not make blanket Takfir, I say that the entities and scholars among the major Shi'i groups are Mushriq Kaffir, while the layman might not be, he worships Allah and follows the Tawheed. There is a huge difference, anyone who has read the books of the scholars of old would know this.

Also where have you seen that Shi'i other than Zayydi are considered apart of Ahl Sunnah in the past? This is ridiculous....


I am not defending Daesh, but you obviously do not understand the terms. I said, Khawarij differ from Ahl Sunnah because they make Takfir because of Kufr Asghar (look up what that means...) where as Ahl Sunnah make Takfir on clear cut Kufr Akbar. Daesh, simply makes Takfir on rulers without sufficient evidence and do not apply the Shariah universally, as in Daesh has a strict view of the ruler but then has a normal view of the layman. This is Biddah the same as the Khawrij Biddah, just different. Btw, if your friends say Daesh is Kufr for punishment in the context of Shariah, they also have to make Takfir on thousands of Islamic rulers of the past including the Rashidun.



Abdul Wahhab was an ignorampus for urging Shi'i not to worship the grave? What was he so absurd about? Calling to the Tawheed is not absurd in Islam.

Does Ibn Baz's views on science invalidate his knowledge and works on the Fiqh? As well as being the first scholar to debate and denounce the views of Osama Bin Laden.



The Sultanate of Nejd was waging Jihad upon the Shi'i entities of Iraq on its border, where there was much tension and the Ottomans had little control. This is not unjust (in the Fiqh) , further, the Ottomans were losing their respect all over the Ummah, submitting to foreign powers, losing Egypt, killing its Dhimmi that it had a covenant of security with, etc... The Ottomans at this point were about as valid as the Abbasid during the days of Al-Nasir or the Umayyad in Qurtubah.


I am not going to give my opinion on this, as I do not want to be kicked again, however, find me evidence from the Quran and Sunnah that the application of the Shariah is unjust in Saudi Arabia (according to Islam).

I agree, Turkey, Egypt, Malaysia, Jordan, Palestine, etc have great Ulema, but that doesn't mean that they have produced the same amount of work in the Fiqh as those in Saudi Arabia.

A threat at your life? Perhaps a word of advice for (for someone I assumed Muslim) a big mouthed poster, looking to get points by yelling out Wahhabi as if it means much past an initial slander, who hasn't contributed to the discussion of the thread and simply is looking to take heads.
 
haha

Any one who says that Salafi are not among Ahl Sunnah wa l'Jama'ah must come with sufficient evidence on this Takfir.

This is exactly it: non-Salafi Sunnis do accept as Muslims people who aren't Sunni. Therefore when they claim someone isn't Sunni, it's not a takfir. In their minds Sunni Islam is the only "real/correct" Islam but even those with "deviant" ideas are muslim if they believe in one God and Muhammad as His last Prophet. Wahhabis identifiy Islam with Alh as-Sunnah wa 'l-Jama'ah and it with their own version of modern-day Salafism. (This is at least an implied takfir on anyone else who does not believe what they do.)

Anyway, you can believe whatever you want to believe, but it is a fact that during the high times of the Islamic civilisation, especially durin the Ottoman Empire and the Mughal Empire, it was the Sufis who shaped what, in the minds of most Muslims at the time, Islam was. And maybe it's news to you, but most Sunnis do make ziyaret to important graves.

I was going to ask you if you believed Gazi Mustafa Kemal Ataturk was a Muslim or a kaffir. Or if you believe that President Erdogan who wears ta'wiz/muska and is confirmed to have made ziyaret to several ermiş türbe's is a Muslim or not. But I won't because indeed, your views seem to be controversial to say the least. Thus my big mouth. I don't think that Turks should dictate what people in Saudi Arabia or anywhere view as correct Islam, but people who say "those who make ziyaret to graves are not Muslim", and thus exclude from the fold of Islam most self-professed Sunnis (Salafis are not that many!) are not good news if you ask me.
 
Last edited:
Top