I am reading a book entitled Chiefdom Madinah, the misunderstanding about Islamic Country. This book actually a dissertation of the author to get his PhD. I bought the book in 2015, but I have been so busy with this and that. My wife and sometimes discuss about democracy system and other type of country governances. I think this book is a good literary guide of understanding Islamic politics in history. Until 19th century, there were no Muslim thinkers conducting a criticism review about the establishment of Caliph/sultan dynasty, even though it was an established government system that Muslims all over the world know for centuries. This book reveals more about the system and its history especially about the Arabian Cape socio reality at the moment. Here in Indonesia, my beloved country, the issue about changing the Republic into Islamic country like Chiefdom Madinah is still on some people demand. So, despite the fact that I am busy with my home gardening project, this book is enriched my mind.
This does look interesting, I do enjoy reading treatises in government and political power structures. I must admit, I know very little about the Islamic Sultanate form of governing. Is it very different from current forms of governance?
yes, there's a big different gap between chiefdom Madinah Under Prophet Muhammad as a religious leader and his orientation for the islamic community in Madinah that time and the 4 caliphs after he passed away. the charter of madina which is known for the best practices for the humanitarian and peace treaty among the tribes there charter of medina which is now become the main reason for the khilafah fighters in Indonesia not really perfect to applies in the most diverse country of tribes, faith and languages such as Indonesia.
what's the different with the current form of governance? example on Indonesia as a Republic
The Islamic system of government is also not a republican system. Where the republican system stands on the pillars of the democratic system, whose sovereignty is evident in the hands of the people. It is the people who have the right to rule and make rules, including the people who then have the right to determine someone to become the ruler, and at the same time the right to fire him. The people are also entitled to make rules in the form of constitution and legislation, including the right to delete, modify and change it while While the system of Islamic rule stands on the pillars of the Islamic faith, as well as the laws of syara '. Where his sovereignty is in the hands of syara ', not in the hands of the people. In this case both the ummah and the caliphs are not entitled to make their own rules. Because the one who has the right to make the rule is Allah SWT alone. While the khalifah only has the right to adopt the laws to be made as a basic law and legislation from the book of Allah and His Messenger's sunnah. Similarly, the people do not have the right to sack the caliph. For those who have the right to dismiss the caliphate is the 'mere'. However, the people remain entitled to lift it. Because Islam has made power in the hands of the people. So people have the right to raise the people they choose and they want to be their representative. source
there's a lot to discuss in this matter, the book i read is only one of the millions articles to understand the history of Islamic state and calipathe. thank you for your attention.
Wow, thanks for the answer! I have a lot to learn about this!
Me too, I hope my words will not cause any problems, English is a foreign language to me. I have a lot to learn too, the world is changing anyway.