05-24-2007, 08:05 AM
We must remember two things,
1) The period of th Caliphate Rashadeen is the most ideal period in Islamic history, although ofcourse it is not comparable to that of the Prophet PBUH.
2) There is no point in comparing any of the other Muslim Kings/Caliphs/Maharajahs with the peiord of the Caliphate Rashadeen.
I think point one should be quite clear beyond any doubt, as Kamran has pointed out the Caliphs were after all humans, not prophets and to err is human. Having said that their personal as well as professional lives were beyond any blemish and so was their death (3 of the 4 being assasinated by way of one conspirasy or another). If we read through their times I cannot see how they would have done any better.
Hazarat Abu Bakr Siddique, led the Muslims at the most troubled time he re inforced the basics of Zakat and false prophets, that was the most critical time in the history of Islam post the Prophet PBUH (NAZOBILLAH I am not saying that things would have been undone but he held the fort and nullified any wrong concepts about the Prophet Muhammad PBUH) He was able to avert the 'Christening' of the Prophet Muhammad PBUH, as the Christians had once Hazrat Issa was removed from this world.
Hazrat Umar, was instrumental in putting in the foundations of the Islamic state, establishing a proper Army, formal taxes, welfare state (so as to the welfare benefit in some Scandanavian was referred to as the OMAR TAX until recently). He extended the Islamic Society to the borders they are today, upto Makran in the East, Bukhara and Samarkand in the North and Maghrib (Morocco) in the west. It laid the foundation of a state that made it possible to extend beyond its border and at one point in time boast major Muslim states in Spain, India.
Hazrat Usman's greatest contribution was to put in the official written Quran, quite the need in his day and age when the Islamic state was being extended beyond the realm of the 'Arabic speaking populace'
Hazrat Ali's time though the first instance of factional war (with Hazrat Ayesha) had its peaks and witheld all the idealistic rapport of the first three Caliphs, his time also laid the foundation of the tradition of Knowledge in jurisprudence and later science.
Secondly,
Thereafter, all we had were Monarchies, with the heads either called Caliphs or Sulatans or Shahs or Mahrajahs. Some where good models of government and other were not, in their capacity as Kingdoms and Fiefdoms they expanded their writ to other places (muslim or not) and this included all forms of massacare and pilferage (being quite the norm of the day)
In Mahmud of Ghaznavi, there were massacres of both non muslims and muslims to day that he was an idol detroyer is correct, to say that his intentions were purely Islamic is wrong, but he tipped the balance of power in the way of Muhammad Ghori who came in later to form the First Muslim Sultanat in India. By breaking into the most powerful economical and political base of the Clergy he helped achieve that, what it also did was strike terror in the hearts of the local Rajas,. who fell one after the other and so did their following generations to Muhammad Ghori. So he was a hero to us because he made it possible for Muslim rule and thereby provide a base for Muslim preachers.
Nadir Shah is another case in example, who ransacked Delhi (and in doing so killing the local populace on the way Hindu and Muslim alike) but broke the back of the Marathas, who never recovered thereafter. I am sure the demography of present day India would have been quite different if things had gone differently.
Lets not play into the hands of so called Western historians or policy makers or whatever, let's not forget the fact that the Civilised world were at each others throats just 60 years ago.. nuking civilians, gas chambers..... all Christians I must say, and well.. some Buddhist (see the irony there) so why beat about muslims on it,, we have nothing to be appologetic about.
1) The period of th Caliphate Rashadeen is the most ideal period in Islamic history, although ofcourse it is not comparable to that of the Prophet PBUH.
2) There is no point in comparing any of the other Muslim Kings/Caliphs/Maharajahs with the peiord of the Caliphate Rashadeen.
I think point one should be quite clear beyond any doubt, as Kamran has pointed out the Caliphs were after all humans, not prophets and to err is human. Having said that their personal as well as professional lives were beyond any blemish and so was their death (3 of the 4 being assasinated by way of one conspirasy or another). If we read through their times I cannot see how they would have done any better.
Hazarat Abu Bakr Siddique, led the Muslims at the most troubled time he re inforced the basics of Zakat and false prophets, that was the most critical time in the history of Islam post the Prophet PBUH (NAZOBILLAH I am not saying that things would have been undone but he held the fort and nullified any wrong concepts about the Prophet Muhammad PBUH) He was able to avert the 'Christening' of the Prophet Muhammad PBUH, as the Christians had once Hazrat Issa was removed from this world.
Hazrat Umar, was instrumental in putting in the foundations of the Islamic state, establishing a proper Army, formal taxes, welfare state (so as to the welfare benefit in some Scandanavian was referred to as the OMAR TAX until recently). He extended the Islamic Society to the borders they are today, upto Makran in the East, Bukhara and Samarkand in the North and Maghrib (Morocco) in the west. It laid the foundation of a state that made it possible to extend beyond its border and at one point in time boast major Muslim states in Spain, India.
Hazrat Usman's greatest contribution was to put in the official written Quran, quite the need in his day and age when the Islamic state was being extended beyond the realm of the 'Arabic speaking populace'
Hazrat Ali's time though the first instance of factional war (with Hazrat Ayesha) had its peaks and witheld all the idealistic rapport of the first three Caliphs, his time also laid the foundation of the tradition of Knowledge in jurisprudence and later science.
Secondly,
Thereafter, all we had were Monarchies, with the heads either called Caliphs or Sulatans or Shahs or Mahrajahs. Some where good models of government and other were not, in their capacity as Kingdoms and Fiefdoms they expanded their writ to other places (muslim or not) and this included all forms of massacare and pilferage (being quite the norm of the day)
In Mahmud of Ghaznavi, there were massacres of both non muslims and muslims to day that he was an idol detroyer is correct, to say that his intentions were purely Islamic is wrong, but he tipped the balance of power in the way of Muhammad Ghori who came in later to form the First Muslim Sultanat in India. By breaking into the most powerful economical and political base of the Clergy he helped achieve that, what it also did was strike terror in the hearts of the local Rajas,. who fell one after the other and so did their following generations to Muhammad Ghori. So he was a hero to us because he made it possible for Muslim rule and thereby provide a base for Muslim preachers.
Nadir Shah is another case in example, who ransacked Delhi (and in doing so killing the local populace on the way Hindu and Muslim alike) but broke the back of the Marathas, who never recovered thereafter. I am sure the demography of present day India would have been quite different if things had gone differently.
Lets not play into the hands of so called Western historians or policy makers or whatever, let's not forget the fact that the Civilised world were at each others throats just 60 years ago.. nuking civilians, gas chambers..... all Christians I must say, and well.. some Buddhist (see the irony there) so why beat about muslims on it,, we have nothing to be appologetic about.
