You wrote:

hudhafah wrote:

in salauddins case it was about uniting the ummah which he did, how the rule went isnt were things are discussed but simply of the fact that he united all the ummah and countried together.

Actually no, he didn't. He united a *part* of the Arab world (and not the whole of it either). the left flank of the Arabian peninsula, Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon and Israel is what would have been covered (with maybe a segment of Sudan, Libya and Tunisia too).

To pretend that it was like the whole ummah is false and misinformation. It was just a large part of the arab world.

if you look into salauddins biography then youd see salauddin did unite the ummah, not just parts, whether he invaded all the lands or not it wasnt necessery cause even the lands he didnt invade gave him their support theirfore they were united,even many nonmuslims admit salauddin was the man who united the ummah again before its collapse again. So its not false info it is a correct info to which led to many muslim victories before its collapse again.

Joie de Vivre wrote:

hudhafah wrote:

if you argue in that sense then the whole world belongs to the muslims, when aadam AS came he was the only man who walked on earth theirfore everysingle country belongs to the muslims, so in that case it still belongs to us.

That seems something that a complete idiot might say, a real fool who should be laughed at because they are not only immune to reason but arrogant and proprietary, some nasty thicko the world threw up. But maybe you are well ahead of me. Can you see my problem with what you wrote?

looking at your reply we can see who the real idiot here is

I am not trying to knock his achievements - just trying to say that since people rarely qualify them, you never see the full extent of what was achieved.

He did unify many places and factions into a contiguous state.

But that is not the entirety of Muslim lands and nor does that say anything about the method of governing (which I know nothing about.)

This was the Ayubid Empire at its greatest size:

rakibm wrote:

Hizb - Ut - Tahir once came to my mosque handing out leaflets calling for an Islamic Caliphate. Do we really need to have a Caliphate? Can a caliphate really fit in within the 21st Century World?

it would be nice not to worry about where to pray your next salah.

You wrote:

I am not trying to knock his achievements - just trying to say that since people rarely qualify them, you never see the full extent of what was achieved.

He did unify many places and factions into a contiguous state.

But that is not the entirety of Muslim lands and nor does that say anything about the method of governing (which I know nothing about.)

This was the Ayubid Empire at its greatest size:

well you see even if salauddin didnt invade all the countries muslim were still united, at this point all muslim country were united once again and were ready to fight for one another, so whether he did invade or not didnt matter as they did get united. IT doesnt matter whether you invade or not but they did accept salauddin and his empire and were part of it as they did accept him

Have a look at Mosul.

[Deleted]

Sorry, wrong place x]

rakibm wrote:

Would you support the ruling of Dhimmis?

Historically this has been the situation in many Muslim caliphates.