Thus the Khalife if need be one should have the highest standards of human qualities, be it a prince or a commoner, a black or a white, an Arab, a Persian or an Asian, his family and people surroundings him should qualify too!
It is no easy task to choose a Khalife or Supreme Leader of the Muslim Ummah, the qualities required are almost superhuman, that is why our prophet Mohammad was considered as the best of the best, not only by his pairs by mostly by god himself choosing him above all others, be it richer or physically stronger, they still lacked the general equilibrium of character, physique and spirit.
that was tribe and clan...not hereditary.
Although them being sons of Pious men,had the ability of becoming caliphs,and a caliph's son is not forbidden to be the successor as long as he has the required abilities.
we declined when we started building Palaces.
At the time of the First four caliphs,Masjid in Medina used to be full of gold and silver but there were no takers.
Such was their resilience against materialism.From top to bottom..The caliph took only that much which the lowest poorest person of his Country had..
That way he knew inside his house from his own experience that what type of difficulties the poor of his country were facing as he himself used to live that life.
when our Caliphs started living in Palaces,they disconnected from the poor and lost the plot.
Although insist that the Concept of a caliph is more spiritual than material......
A caliph is a "Walii" the one who has God on his side due to his own Piety and therefore is the Imposer of God's will on Beings.
And a caliph is the one who at all times wants his reward from God,not from people,so he is not greedy of worldly wealth.
This does not mean a caliph does not understand finances,we have proper guidelines on finances in meticulous details in Shariah.....But he does it all as a duty to God and God's creature without ever asking the people for any reward.
Last edited by Dreamreaper; 04-20-2012 at 03:42 AM.
So the difference between abu Bakr, Uthman , Omar and Ali (as) and later khalifes was in the numbers, diversity and space they had under their control.
The role and the simple way of life of the khalife should have stayed the same although with more riches for the people the khalife could have benefited too but modestly.
Since it was dangerous to live within people and reign over millions of them, intelligence was implemented to stay aware of the needs of the most needy of the Islamic society, but then khilafat was lost in internal battles for throne power while forgetting what kind of power it was supposed to be according to Islam.
Last edited by The SC; 04-20-2012 at 04:18 AM.
Caliphate does not depend on Caliph only..It depends on People too....
If people are bad , lone caliph cant do much...This was the major problem faced by later Caliphs...people were sinners and absconders of Islamic moral code and code of Practice.
For that reason i personally dont believe we the current era Muslims can create a Caliphate...
We wont find anybody who fits the bill for being a caliph..and most of us wont prove to be a good subject either..
As they say..Charity begins at home..I,me ,we ... need to improve ourselves first before even the talk of a Caliphate...
In short, they have complicated the religion of Islam so much that Islam is considered to be a backward religion (and rightfully so, in these scholar's interpratation).
The truth is, Quran does not mention any "form of governance". It just advises us to "engage in mutual consultation".
What is that? That is democracy. The western style of democracy is the ideal model, to be honest. In the Muslim world, today Iran's model is the closest to that.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)