It’s not achievable (today) because like a broken glass, Muslims are broken into many tiny fragments that can’t be put back together in a day. Why do you refuse to face reality and see that we’re broken into Sunna, Shica and hundred different shades of the two in between? How will education solve the problem? I’m not sure what is you understand by the concept of “educationâ€, because if we were of the same understanding you wouldn’t have asked this question. Nonetheless, I’ll try to explain: when someone is regarded as being “educated†it means that this person has searched for, acquired, was instructed and gained knowledge (this applies to life and not only schools). Your own party tries to educate people on the importance of the Khilafa,saaxib! Education will solve the problem by teaching different Muslims the importance of Khilafa and the futility of division and nationalism. Education should actually become your war cry.

Damn you, Northerner :mad: You had to comment on my easy job, you xaasid. I just came out of the most boring meeting, EVER. Four hours of figures and numbers. :mad: ** Stares at phone lovingly **

No this is a practical solution and no other "short term" solution is going to solve it, the Islamic way of life through establishing Khilafah is the only practical step. Show me a more practical step? The Khilafah is not a practical step in the current climate. Surely you already realise that? There are many hurdles and obstacles to establishing the Khilafah at the current time. We can work towards establishing it, like I said, we can create the conditions for it but we can’t shout and rant and hope it will happen. Your ideas are not practical at all. They’re not helpful either. They only muddy the water even more! As to saying eduication is the solution, its not, education is about preparing somebody to gain employment in society, not about changing it. I think that’s one of the failings of education these days. People view it as a means to an end not an end in itself. Education should be about the gaining of knowledge; it should not stop once you’ve acquired a job. I think this is what the brother above was talking about. This is also why we try to learn more about our religion. For if we followed the current understanding of education, none of us would learn much!

I was sitting staring at my screen and feeling really bored. I then started staring at my phone and willing it to ring. In my boredom, I decided to really stare at the phone and focus, therefore “making†it magically ring. I closed my eyes and wished for someone really interesting to be on the other side. It rang! I was startled! I quickly picked up and said an excited “HELLOâ€. A strange voice on the other side said hello back. I said, “Who are you?†She said “fine!†I said, “I didn’t ask how you were, man†she didn’t reply. I said “hello†again, she said, “Who is this?†I said, “YOU phoned me,†she said “Yes I did, so what?†I said “Why?†she said “to ask you if you want to take part in our survey†I said, “what survey?†she said “ the survey I’m going to ask you about†I said “sorry, wrong number†she said “no it’s not†I said “ do you know me better than me?†she said “why do you ask?†I didn’t know what to say! She said “ do you want to take part in our survey?†I said “no†she said, “do you mind telling me why not†I said “ because I’m bored and I’m waiting for someone to call me?†she said “ but our survey will not take much of your time! When are you expecting your phone call?†I said, “I don’t knowâ€. She didn’t say anything. I smiled. I said “ well, aren’t you going to say anything?†she sounded like she was taking a deep breath then said “ Do you want to take part in our survey?†I started giggling. She asked, “Why are you laughing?†I said, “I’m not laughing†she said, “ Is it my voice?†I said “what about your voice?†she said “do I sound funny?†I said, “I don’t knowâ€. She didn’t say anything. I didn’t say anything. A few seconds later, she said, “I’ve got to go, can I call you back later?†I said “okâ€. She said “byeâ€. I said “byeâ€. Just as I was about to put the phone down I heard her say, “What was your name again?†I picked the phone up to answer her but there was nobody on the other side. She was nice.

At the risk of irritating the two of you, I think you’re both “singing from the same hymn sheet†as it were.

I once knew a guy who never stopped cheating on his poor wife. He just kept on cheating and sleeping with other women at every given opportunity. She never noticed and kept on nagging him about other unrelated things. She spent most of her time in the kitchen and the phone while he was out cheating with every woman who’ll have him. Perfect couple they were. I suppose they were programmed that way, huh? :rolleyes:

From what I heard and read, business is the last thing Somalis need to worry themselves about. It seems that in most parts of “Somalia†the private sector is thriving. Factories of all kinds, private schools, hotels, airlines and telecommunication companies can all be found in Somalia despite the political uncertainty. If those back home are in anyway similar in their thought processes to the Somalis outside, I’d say that each sector of every industry would be fully congested by now! Somalia/Somaliland/Puntland is arguably the only place in the world that applies capitalism in its purest sense. No government intervention at all, the market sets the prices, regulations are at a minimum and private individuals control all the means of production!

For some strange reason, young girls don’t seem to complain from racism that much. It’s always guys and older people. The only occasion where I suffered from blatant racism was in my college days. On my first day in that college the lecturer called my white friend (who I knew before I even started that course) and told him to stay away from me because I’ll be a bad influence on him! I never even saw or knew that woman prior to that day. She was Australian (bloody convict). My friend of course, came back and told me everything she said to him. I confronted her and lodged a complaint but withdrew it when there was a possibility of her being suspended. I’m sure she hated my guts but she never ever tried it on again. My marks for her course work were always very high (not sure if it was her being sorry or me making an extra effort).

Let there be you, Let there be me. Let there be oysters Under the sea. Let there be wind, An occassional rain. Chile con carne, Sparkling champagne -- Let there be birds To sing in the trees, Someone to bless me Whenever I sneeze. Let there be cuckoos, A lark and a dove, But first of all, please -- Let there be a men’s section Let there be sheeko, mouran eyo dagaal Let there be a place we call maqaaxi... ** Walks away singing to himself **

^^ Yes, mistress. **Glad that he’s not a Sadomasochist** :rolleyes:

^^^ Stop flirting with the guy, shorty

Viking, With all due respect saaxib, this is not a new revelation. I agree with you wholeheartedly. This is not my objection to the thread. I’ve already stated my objections to Truth Seeker in this thread and many others before. We’ve heard the rhetoric millions of times; we can all recite it verbatim now. But we never get to hear many practical solutions (call them temporary if you have to). Is he saying let the Iraqis (and all the other Muslims who are in a bad way) suffer until the Khilafa arrives? In the absence of any halal foods we’re allowed to eat pork, in the absence of water we’re asked to do tayamum but why are we not permitted to use whatever solutions we can think of to ease our pain in the absence of Khilafa? Islam is a way of life, the lack of a Khilafa and the corruptness of the leaders do not mean everything has to stop and every action we commit in order to make our lives easier is a sin. Iraq, Somalia, Kashmir and the many other Muslim nations that are going through a hard time now need immediate help; they need practical solutions to their problems. The wringing of hands and saying “it’s all wrong because there is no Khilafa†does not help anybody.

Modesty, I don’t know how westernised you are. If you were, then your height is perfect for your husband to carry you over the threshold on your wedding day.

You do realise that the concept of “Khilafah†is not going to suddenly materialise tomorrow, don’t you? I agree with you on the concept and on our duty to work towards making it a reality. However, reading most of your analysis (or rather your party’s analysis) on the different news items, makes my blood boil. You don’t offer any solutions to the current problems. You put down any solutions anyone else attempts to enact. When you’re asked what should be done, you say Khilafa. Take your heads out of the sand and look at the carnage and suffering in the Muslim world. Case in point is Iraq: It’s a tricky situation. The resistance fighters (and many of the sinister elements) don’t agree with the existence of a puppet government. The majority of the Iraqi people don’t agree with the presence of the American army in their land. Things keep getting worse, the death toll is increasing and Muslims are killing fellow Muslims. A solution is needed. The Saudis came up with one but you pushed it aside because they’re collaborators. Qaddafi came up with one but you also pushed that one aside. What did you offer instead? Khilafa! Give me a break, saaxib. Islam is not words and dreams, it’s more practical than quoting a few ahadeeth and ayaat. What’s your PRACTICAL solution to these problems?

Don't smile, saaxib. Get Darman's father to beat that brother up for you instead.

Oh, another rant? So you want the Islamic armies to revolt against their tyrant leaders? What next? New, younger and more tyrannical leaders? These days, whenever someone has a message, they use the cloak of Islam. Islam is the true path, Islam is the right way. Islam has all the answers, Islam will set you free. Sometimes, all the rhetoric makes it sound as if Islam is a new religion that nobody had heard of before. Lets embrace it and start from scratch! Well, that’s not really true, is it? Islam is of course the right path. But, what interpretation of Islam are you advocating? The one that will try to help the immediate needs of the Iraqi people (even if it means cooperating with the enemy), or the one that can be twisted and cut to fit a particular agenda? Shouting and ranting about who’s treacherous and who’s not does not help anybody. Regurgitating the same old speeches isn’t going to safe the Iraqi people. So, how exactly are we going to help our brothers and sisters in Iraq? Please don’t say Khilafa again though.

Baashi, between the late 1800 to the middle of the 1900 most Muslim lands were ruled by French, British, Italians and even Belgians! Each nation had it’s own people to fight back and seek independence. We had our very own “Mad Mullahâ€, the North Africans had Omer Al Mukhtar, the Pakistanis had Jinnah, etc, etc.. All these wars caused the colonialists a logistical nightmare. They had to leave and install their puppet rulers (they were not always puppet rulers – Qaddafi was one of those that fought to liberate Libya for instance). The amazing thing about this was not the fighting though. It was the widespread intellectual discussion. The uniform agreement in every land that they want to get rid of the occupiers and control their own destinies! Once those discussions took place, heroic leaders emerged and fought to free their lands. We don’t have that now. Our discussions are stale. We reminisce about history (as I’m doing now). We blame the West for everything. The West might be able to control our actions but they can’t control our thoughts. We need to stop being victims and openly discuss ways to reform our societies. If it’s going to be Islamic and khilafa, so be it! If it’s going to be nationalistic, why not? Anything is better than the wilderness we reside in right now.

I advice you to read the history of the Ottoman Empire, saaxib! I also urge you to reconsider your definition of the concept of “Khilafaâ€. In the early days of the Empire, in the days of Suleiman the magnificent and the ten/twenty that followed him, the Ottoman Empire was great. It had its faults of course but on the whole, it resembled some sort of Islamic Khilafa. After these guys though, corruption became widespread, nepotism was the name of the game and the removal of Islam from judicial decisions was the norm. I could become really pedantic and say that the Ottoman khalifa was only a Khalifa by name. They fought the Egyptian Mamaleek to wrestle power from them; they usurped Iraq, Syria and most of the North African countries. They sent their cronies to run those places and abuse their own powers there. Even before the world war and the last days of the Empire, all this abuse led the Egyptians to revolt and seek independence(read about Mohammed Ali and Saad Zaghloul). Attaturk, the guy you single out as a traitor (which I suppose he was), only did what he thought was right for his people. He didn’t sell out to the Europeans; he fought to FREE Turkey from everyone (Ottomans or otherwise). The Khalifa has already introduced half of Mustafa Kamal’s secular laws even before the empire has been conquered. If holes need to be picked in most the Islamic Khalifas after the first four, there are plenty to pick. Winning wars, spreading Islam to far away lands and being altogether jolly chaps does not mean that these guys ruled by the Quran and Sunnah, saaxib. It’s all there for anyone with eyes to see but sentimentality keeps getting in the way.

Amiin. Amiin. I should be at her bedside. Darman, do me a favour and take your laptop to hospital the next time you visit her. Seriously though, pass her my best wishes for a speedy recovery insha Allah.

^^^ I know you probably took my previous point about King Fahad becoming a Khalifa as a joke (and I meant it to be so), but now I’m not so sure! Doesn’t the current Saudi government rule by the Quran and Sunnah? Read your history books about the Ottoman Empire, saaxib. If in doubt, avoid reading books by Western “Mostashriqeenâ€. You’ll see that the Ottoman Empire was in decline; you’ll see that they abused their powers and were not different to the King Fahads of our times. If you’re saying a Khilafa does not need bayah (sic) in order to be recognised as such, then your whole point is about having one leader of the Islamic world who loosely rules along Islamic principles (loosely being the operative word). Mustafa Kamal Attaturk was no worse than Sharrif Mecca or Sacad Zaghlol (sp?) of Egypt or Mohammed Ali Jinnah of Pakistan. They were all nationalistic leaders who put national identity before religious requirements. Attaturk gets the major blame because he put a dying giant out of it’s misery.

^^^ lol I only argue with her because she asks for it, saaxib. I mean look at that aviator of hers, look at the way the microphone is pointed towards you! She expects you to answer back. :rolleyes:

^^^Mummy and daddy would have a fit if I ever did that. Not to mention the discomfort it’ll cause my wife, girlfriend and mistress. :cool:

Truth Seeker, I will seek out those books you mentioned, insha Allah. But in my humble opinion, the Khilafa was destroyed the minute the Umayyad Empire started (with a brief break under the rule of Omer Bin Abdelaziz). Every Islamic Khilafa after that has been nothing but a dictatorship. Muslims ruled great parts of the world. We sent Islam far and wide but the Utopian concept of Khilafa that you speak of wasn’t really there. Many of those Khalifas ruled by force and set things up so that their children and their children’s children will rule after them. All the others not connected to the ruling Khalifa of the time resented that fact. When they had the chance to get rid of the Khalifa, they did and started their own dynasty. Give King Fahad a bit of power and we might as well call him a Khalifa (unless you prefer Husni Mubarak of course).

Everyone preaches about unity but never gives a step by step process (derived from Islam) of achieivng this. I dont see how you can say the method of Hizb ut Tahrir is confused (when i have given an overview) when you cannot give a counter argument or one from what the "MOsques" have have so called been pushing for years? what is confused about the method, explain! Im getting confused as to your points on one hand your saying we need to call for unity then you are saying khilafah is unity, you need to make your position clear. I apologise if i have misunderstood you. I’m saying it’s confused because it argues that once the Khilafa is in place, all the problems of the Muslims will disappear! The whole concept of Khilafa centres on the fact that the people “elect†a Khalifa. Otherwise, what stops you and me from wishing for a Muslim Sultan or king? In order to have a Khilafa we need to have a Muslim Ummah that is agreed and is working towards establishing such an entity. In order to have a Muslim Ummah that believes in this we need to work towards creating the conditions that will finally lead us to this goal. Where I think Hezb Et Tahrir gets confused is in their total emphasis on the West and western politics, troubles and shortcomings. None of the aforementioned things relates to the concept of Khilafa in anyway. Even the most ignorant of Muslims knows about these deficiencies of the western world, so why focus your energies on that? The reality is that the Khilfah will be established in one place and will then encompass all the muslim lands - a good example would be Salahuddin Ayubi, he achieved the same, took authority and then one by one retook controol of the muslim lands. Although I can’t recall him being a Khalifa as such (I might be wrong), in his days, he was more powerful than most other surrounding Muslim fiefdoms and scattered kingdoms. Right now, we have our own little dotted nations and we also have the West interfering in our affairs. The Khilafah being established in one place and then encompassing all the other Muslim lands will only take place if we work towards making these other lands more receptive to the concept. Like I said, the divisions of race, tribal affiliations and even religious sectarianism have always been there and still remain. Eradicate that; create the conditions for one Islamic nation and the Khilafa will be the logical natural progression. It does not work the other way round though.

The Muslims were untied until the British came and implnated the seeds of nationalism, they encouraged the Arabs to disassocite themselves from the Othmani (turk) Khilafah, they used a number of styles including there agents and NGO's. I guess your using the word “united†in its loosest possible form! The seeds were already there, saaxib. Arabs disliked Saldjuks without any help from any outside force. The division was already there, the Arabs only revolted when they knew there was a chance for them to declare their independence from the Turkish Ottomans. It’s sad but it’s true. The Ottoman Empire was in decline with lots of corruption and burecracy. The Arabs who felt they’re the “rightful†leaders of Muslims and Islam resented the Ottomans. The Sharrif of Mecca who was a Hashemite descendant wanted his sons to run Arab lands. One of his own descendants is the current king of Jordan (if I’m not mistaken). In most of the history of the Muslim empire these divisions have been apparent. When the Khalifa was strong they were kept under control but when the Khalifa was weak, as in the final days of the Abbasid, lots of little kingdoms sprung up and paid no heed to the Khalifa in Baghdad. So, if all these divisions were there more than 500 years before the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, what makes you think it’s the Brits that brought them about and made the Arabs hate the Ottomans all of a sudden? The West uses us but they only do so because we allow them to. They’re no angels but we always knew that anyway. Shifting the blame and placing it all on their backs is nothing but a cheap way of rewriting history.