TFTD: During the 1292-year history of the Muslim Caliphate, the Caliph was never elected once.
Only the 3rd Caliph was subject to any sort of selection process. The 2nd Caliph was "pre-selected" in the lifetime of the incumbent, and from the 6th Caliph onwards, a form of pre-mature bay'ah preselection process was in place.
Q: Why do the Islamists insist Islam advocates free public elections?
(Rummani)
Yes, why is that?
Fundamentally, islamists adhere to their own special brand of non-cognisant pragmatism. They distort the fiqh to come to conclusions which suit their needs, or rather the needs of their socio-political situation as they see it. The islamists never disclose what they really think is true; tahriris don't go around proclaiming that they think jihadis are on a valid ijtihad do they? Rather, we find them concealing every half-truth and deviancy which they believe. They are not bright enough to realise that they are calling for the mass revival of despotism. However, they are aware that other people will think that despotism is what they are calling for, so what better way to insist that 'the caliphate' is representational then to insist it mandates a fair election process. It evidently hasn't occurred to any one of them that in their beloved history the representational system of which they speak SIMPLY DOES NOT EXIST! Either they should accept that they have innovated a new system (supranational, totalitarian, expansionist ‘representational’ despotism) and, therefore, discuss it in the sphere of political science on its practical benefits, or they should accept that they are calling for the old 'caliphate' (or historical models from the islamic lands) and that this old system is a system of non-representational despotism (or one that accepts non-representation at the very least).
They'll always say; "but that's just because islam was misimplemented by humans. The islamic system IS correct and the caliphate is representational..." blah blah blah. Lay off the crack guys. If there's no example of your system existing before then your system, self-evidently, doesn't exist.
A suitable précis for this discussion:
1. The old models in the Islamic lands accept non-representation and do not mandate voting
2. From the shallow legalistic (islamist) perspective you would have to conclude that non-representational (non-voting) systems do not lead to the ‘invalidity’ of the Islamic credentials of the state because there’s ijma of the sahaba on this
3. The contemporary model of the caliphate is not equivalent to what has been before, as evidence by their desire to make voting obligatory
4. The contemporary model of the caliphate is an expedient construct derived from the fiqh to suit the socio-political circumstances of the era in which it was created
5. The shallow legalistic perspective is a dominant force in the islamist mindset and the adoption fiqh on this basis leads to an unsavoury selection of views. This means that some of these views must be concealed from the masses otherwise the true deviant nature of the islamist ideology will be revealed and nobody will adopt it.
Guess what guys; the game's up.
Posted by: Dexter Morgan | 15 August 2007 at 01:56 PM
i do not understand what game is up.
it seems dexters comment is full of hatred for the islamic system of governence.
dexter if you dont believe in islam being political with a representative govt then what is your alternative. please offer solutions rather than vitriol.
Posted by: the chancellor impersonator | 15 August 2007 at 03:24 PM
the game is up and i better come clean. i was with a well known islamist group (HT)for years propogating the dawah with full conviction. unfortunatley things went wrong and i was kicked out of the jamaat.
due to my pride and arrogance i have made it my mission to fight the dawah to the best of my ability, and with this in mind i am doing my utmost to mislead the people on this website so they do not start carrying the call for khilafah.
my new mates are people like ed hussain, shiraz maher who the ummah despise but i dont care as long as i can mislead all those i talk to !!!
Posted by: chancellor impersonator | 15 August 2007 at 03:41 PM
Why? Because the Islamist ideology was devised/constructed/crafted in the 20th century, and could only be taken seriously if it stood up to a number of litmus tests, this being one of them.
I hasten to add that Islamism was devised by a group of extremely capable and well-meaning scholars.
Posted by: Postman Pat | 15 August 2007 at 04:59 PM
postman pat what is this litmus test that you so speakuth.
Posted by: chancellor impersonator | 15 August 2007 at 06:21 PM
why are you accusing me of being an impersonator.
who is this real chancellor you talk of. he should be sacked by the prime minister for fraud, deception and impersonation !!
Posted by: chancellor impersonator | 15 August 2007 at 08:05 PM
moderator thank you for telling people about the impersonator.
he was doing my head in !!
Posted by: chancellor impersonator | 15 August 2007 at 08:12 PM
I see you're enjoying yourselves; I'd love to join in the fun, but I'd much rather we all tried to address the issue presented, ie elections. Those who have something to contribute, please do. Those who want to play playground games, please forgive me if I subsequently remove your postings.
Posted by: *Moderator* | 15 August 2007 at 08:15 PM
now thats sorted lets get back to business of dawah.
i think people like ed hussain, shiraz maher and their ilk have sold out to the british govt. they seem to love going on tv and in the newspapers to attack muslims. why dont they express their hatred for what the western govts are doing to the muslim world.
maybe they love their macdonalds too much !
Posted by: chancellor impersonator | 15 August 2007 at 08:19 PM
moderator, can there not be more than 1 chancellor at anyone time or is the world not big enough for 2.
if you cannot have 2 chancellors at any onetime then how can muslims tolerate having more than 56 different rulers in the muslim world all at the same time.
Posted by: Chancellor Impersonator | 15 August 2007 at 08:33 PM
how do you know this was the REAL Chancellor ?
Posted by: Chancellor Impersonator | 15 August 2007 at 08:47 PM
"Chancellor impersonator"
Bro, I don't see why you refer to Dexter hating "THE Islamic system of governance" when it is nothing but an Ijtihad from amongst many??.....I pray that Alah helps you to see that at most Dexter doesn't like YOUR idea of an Islamic system. May Allah guide us all.
Posted by: Battle hardened | 16 August 2007 at 03:24 AM
dexter doesnt seem to like the idea of an islamic system full stop.
Posted by: Chancellor Impersonator | 16 August 2007 at 09:15 AM
No bro...you just aren't reading what he wrote properly. I suggest removing some of that emotion and trying to have a reasoned discussion.
Posted by: Battle hardened | 16 August 2007 at 01:29 PM
i have realised what i said . i agree with the impersonator that dexter seems to have an agenda and doesnt want any sort of islamic system !
Posted by: battle hardened | 16 August 2007 at 02:24 PM
Can you stop your childish impersonations and discuss the issues please? It doesn't achieve anything at all for you to pretend that you are people and then post comments which are clearly not contributing to the discussion.
Posted by: Battle Hardened | 21 August 2007 at 12:26 AM
are u the real battle hardened or the false one!
Posted by: | 21 August 2007 at 12:04 PM