Who gets to be Caliph?

[Armstrong]

---

---

Nice, agreed with that completely. Its just that the crux should stay the same: Submission to God and his book, Quran. After that it doesn't matter whether it is kingdom, nation state or caliphate or whatever.

Democracy, secularism, equal rights, science/technology, progress etc. are embedded in the Quran itself. Alas, how far are most 'Islamic' countries from the Quranic model! If only they followed the Quran.

Apart from that...I'd tend to agree !

[King Solomon]

Before the young turks revolution,how were the process by which ottoman caliphs were selected?

Elected by a "shura". "Shura" means "Consultation". A "Shura" is very similar or should I say, completely similar to the modern Parliament.

Basically, a "shura" will consist of the most highly educated people from all fields - science, arts, technology, strategic, political affairs etc. These are the people who elect the "Caliphs" or heads of state.

Shura - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

At present, the Iranian model of selecting president is very similar to the Islamic model. ("guardian council", "experts" and the Parliament combined are the "Shura")

Apart from that...I'd tend to agree !

Why brother? I did not mean the mechanism of separating state with religion - that is actually "atheism" in disguise of "secularism".

Secularism basically advocates equal rights for everyone to express their religious beliefs. God has declared "There is no compulsion in religion" in Quran. Also note the meaning of Sura Kafirun.

[Armstrong]

Why brother? I did not mean the mechanism of separating state with religion - that is actually "atheism" in disguise of "secularism".

Secularism basically advocates equal rights for everyone to express their religious beliefs. God has declared "There is no compulsion in religion" in Quran. Also note the meaning of Sura Kafirun.

No that is 'Religious and Legal Pluralism and Impartiality' ! Secularism is the absence of interference of religion in the affairs of the State which is to say in a Secular State one cannot table a resolution in the Parliament inspired from Religion !

[King Solomon]

No that is 'Religious and Legal Pluralism and Impartiality' ! Secularism is the absence of interference of religion in the affairs of the State which is to say in a Secular State one cannot table a resolution in the Parliament inspired from Religion !

That is why it is actually atheism in disguise. Atheism is "no belief in religion". If the state does not have any religious association, then basically it is an atheist state.

[humanfirst]

Elected by a "shura". "Shura" means "Consultation". A "Shura" is very similar or should I say, completely similar to the modern Parliament.

No brother you are wrong there..Ottomans simply made their eldest sons succeeding caliphs.
List of sultans of the Ottoman Empire - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[King Solomon]

No brother you are wrong there..Ottomans simply made their eldest sons succeeding caliphs.
List of sultans of the Ottoman Empire - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Well, our system got corrupted over time. But still, they had a "shura" by which they made decisions concerning the state - they were right about this part. Ideally a caliph shouldn't be elected like that, that is not the ideal system of electing head of states in an islamic state.

[Armstrong]

Elected by a "shura". "Shura" means "Consultation". A "Shura" is very similar or should I say, completely similar to the modern Parliament.

Basically, a "shura" will consist of the most highly educated people from all fields - science, arts, technology, strategic, political affairs etc. These are the people who elect the "Caliphs" or heads of state.

Shura - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

At present, the Iranian model of selecting president is very similar to the Islamic model. ("guardian council", "experts" and the Parliament combined are the "Shura")

Iqbal alluded to something similar in one of his couplets :

'Jamhoriyat woh tarze haqumat hai - Jiss mein admi ko gina karte hain toula nahin karte'

English : Democracy is that style of Government where People are Counted but not Weighed ! I.e How can a sweeper be equal in his opinion on how the govt. should or shouldn't be run when compared with someone with a Doctorate in Political Science ? However I don't prescribe to the exclusivity that the above illustration prescribes to. Iqbal's conceptualization of democracy, as I have understood it to be, would be a meritocracy moulded along the lines of the one practised in Singapore where only those who have shown their worth are eligible for office and go back to the people for mandate ! The second part of this is to bring the masses to such a degree of awareness that they can critically analyse their elected leaders and their performance the way reasonably informed people can and should !

That is why it is actually atheism in disguise. Atheism is "no belief in religion". If the state does not have any religious association, then basically it is an atheist state.

My friend...thats Secularism for you ! Or at least the definition of it that I've come across in my readings in Political Science !

[King Solomon]

Iqbal alluded to something similar in one of his couplets :

'Jamhoriyat woh tarze haqumat hai - Jiss mein admi ko gina karte hain toula nahin karte'

English : Democracy is that style of Government where People are Counted but not Weighed ! I.e How can a sweeper be equal in his opinion on how the govt. should or shouldn't be run when compared with someone with a Doctorate in Political Science ? However I don't prescribe to the exclusivity that the above illustration prescribes to. Iqbal's conceptualization of democracy, as I have understood it to be, would be a meritocracy moulded along the lines of the one practised in Singapore where only those who have shown their worth are eligible for office and go back to the people for mandate ! The second part of this is to bring the masses to such a degree of awareness that they can critically analyse their elected leaders and their performance the way reasonably informed people can and should !

I would dissent here because I believe Quran is superior to the thought of any scholar. I am not saying that the model you said is invalid, that is also valid as far as Quranic advice is concerned. However, the above Iranian model is also perfect as far as the advice of "mutual consultation" in Quran is concerned, because not anybody can run for president. If you notice carefully, the Guardian Council, which consists of experts and highly knowledgable individuals, selects who can run for President. it is not like, for example, pakistan where any rich guy can run for president.

As far as democracy is concerned, it is very much compatible with Islam's advice of "mutual consultation". The Iranian model fits perfectly. The model you suggested also fits. In fact, Europe adopted these values - freedom of speech, democracy, human rights, women's rights, equal rights, parliament etc all of these were imported from Quranic values. We would be surprised how compatible these western values are with the Quran, if we just study the Quran ourself without listening to any mullah.

This is why Ahmedinejad is a middle class individual, who holds PhD and served as a professor and lecturer in university... Is there such a qualified individual as president in most other muslim country?

[Armstrong]

I would dissent here because I believe Quran is superior to the thought of any scholar. I am not saying that the model you said is invalid, that is also valid as far as Quranic advice is concerned. However, the above Iranian model is also perfect as far as the advice of "mutual consultation" in Quran is concerned, because not anybody can run for president. If you notice carefully, the Guardian Council, which consists of experts and highly knowledgable individuals, selects who can run for President. it is not like, for example, pakistan where any rich guy can run for president.

As far as democracy is concerned, it is very much compatible with Islam's advice of "mutual consultation". The Iranian model fits perfectly. The model you suggested also fits. In fact, Europe adopted these values - freedom of speech, democracy, human rights, women's rights, equal rights, parliament etc all of these were imported from Quranic values. We would be surprised how compatible these western values are with the Quran, if we just study the Quran ourself without listening to any mullah.

This is why Ahmedinejad is a middle class individual, who holds PhD and served as a professor and lecturer in university... Is there such a qualified individual as president in most other muslim country?

Indeed but don't you think that there is a massive potential of abuse in a said group of people electing an individual on criterias that they are not answerable to the masses for ? Additionally, to the best of my knowledge, Islam is different from the other two Abrahamic Religions and their off-shoots because of an absence of a 'theocracy' and in the Iranian Model...thats exactly whats being practised because the Ayotallah is the last word whereas traditionally even Umar bin Khattab was routinely asked to clarify his actions and his dealings by the People and more so the Companions and the Scholars from amongst the People ! I believe in the Iranian Case, if I may, an element of Shi'ite Theological concept of 'Imamate' also comes into the fray ! And so I do not think that an absolute, unbridled theocracy makes for a good case when Islam says that the Muslims will sort out their affairs by 'Mutual Consultation' ! However admirable a person with Ahmedinajad's background becoming the President maybe....I wouldn't want a Wise Old Man, whom I cannot hold accountable by voting him out of the office, pass on his position to another Wise Old Man ! I dunno about you but such a Religious Monarchy seems like the namesake of a Theocracy !

[King Solomon]

Indeed but don't you think that there is a massive potential of abuse in a said group of people electing an individual on criterias that they are not answerable to the masses for ? Additionally, to the best of my knowledge, Islam is different from the other two Abrahamic Religions and their off-shoots because of an absence of a 'theocracy' and in the Iranian Model...thats exactly whats being practised because the Ayotallah is the last word whereas traditionally even Umar bin Khattab was routinely asked to clarify his actions and his dealings by the People and more so the Companions and the Scholars from amongst the People ! I believe in the Iranian Case, if I may, an element of Shi'ite Theological concept of 'Imamate' also comes into the fray ! And so I do not think that an absolute, unbridled theocracy makes for a good case when Islam says that the Muslims will sort out their affairs by 'Mutual Consultation' ! However admirable a person with Ahmedinajad's background becoming the President maybe....I wouldn't want a Wise Old Man, whom I cannot hold accountable by voting him out of the office, pass on his position to another Wise Old Man ! I dunno about you but such a Religious Monarchy seems like the namesake of a Theocracy !

It is not really theocracy. If you look at the diagram, the Guardian council and "Experts" are tasked to monitor the supreme leader for his actions. At least theoretically, the supreme leader can be removed if they deem it inappropriate. Just like Umar (ra) in his time. The supreme leader is not so "supreme" after all.

I don't know the shia concept which you talked about, so I cannot comment on the matter, sorry. But I judged it on the basis of what Quran says and the Iranian model is very much compatible with that.

[Armstrong]

It is not really theocracy. If you look at the diagram, the Guardian council and "Experts" are tasked to monitor the supreme leader for his actions. At least theoretically, the supreme leader can be removed if they deem it inappropriate. Just like Umar (ra) in his time.

I don't know the shia concept which you talked about, so I cannot comment on the matter, sorry.

Forget about the Shi'ite concept...those were my musings based on something I read written by Khomeni himself ! As for the rest of it...I suppose to each his own then ! I wouldn't want an unelected Guardian Council of Experts nominating and monitoring the Supreme Leader ! I'd much rather go for 'Collective Wisdom' that is manifested in Popular Will of the People instead ! Pakistan instituted a pre-condition of one having at least a Bachelor's Degree should they wish to run for office (though this failed miserably in practise with fake degrees popping up)...I'd rather this be raised further to a PhD !

[King Solomon]

Forget about the Shi'ite concept...those were my musings based on something I read written by Khomeni himself ! As for the rest of it...I suppose to each his own then ! I wouldn't want an unelected Guardian Council of Experts nominating and monitoring the Supreme Leader ! I'd much rather go for 'Collective Wisdom' that is manifested in Popular Will of the People instead ! Pakistan instituted a pre-condition of one having at least a Bachelor's Degree should they wish to run for office (though this failed miserably in practise with fake degrees popping up)...I'd rather this be raised further to a PhD !

Well, the Experts are voted in by the people themselves.. Believe me, I studied the political models of all Muslim countries. I have found the Iranian model to reflect the Quranic values the most closely of them all. Most countries do not have any form of practical accountability

Yes, that's exactly what iran does. The "Experts", guardian council are themselves highly educated in all fields. They give nomination to only those who are highly educated and capable of runing the country, like Ahmedinejad. Only these individuals can run for presidency and then get elected based on the votes of people.

[baqai]

Khalifa would neither be Sunni or Shia ... he would be MUSLIM ... these sects are created by men and are not in our religion

[Vassnti]

Everyone doged the question in arguments over what is a shura what is democracy, the question still remains who gets to be Caliph? If there can never be agreement on who then all the talk of fighting to establish the Caliphat is just so much hot air to get the gulible to go out and die for the profit of others.

[Armstrong]

---

---

Everyone doged the question in arguments over what is a shura what is democracy, the question still remains who gets to be Caliph? If there can never be agreement on who then all the talk of fighting to establish the Caliphat is just so much hot air to get the gulible to go out and die for the profit of others.

Dunno what your first two questions about 'Shura' and 'Democracy' are...they are pretty much self-explanatory ! One is a Body where a Consensus of Opinion is to be reached, a Parliament in other words; whereas the other is popular will ! As far as electing a Caliph is concerned...(I believe that I've explained my point of view) why is 'agreement' a prerequisite to electing a Leaders (or Caliph) for the Muslims when democratic principles entail consultation and majority will in everything from legislating to electing someone and never a complete agreement by all parties ? Try to see it in the same light as the election of the 'President' or the 'PM' of a country and things would seem a lot clearer !