Remember when Hulagu Khan was about to destroy Baghdad, a Caliph's envoy came from a city that was known at the time of al-Ma'mun, the city which was the centre of World civilization sent a stupid envoy who said: "If their Caliph is killed then the World and its contents will perish." Is that the teachings of Islam? The existence of that chronicle would have been in Baghdad at that time if the books in Bait al-Hikmah, the majority of which would have been books on magic, polytheism and doctrines, had not perished in the Tigris River; So now, these books will be labelled yellow books by Orthodox circles. We will now meet them as humans who claim to follow the teachings of the Prophet Muhammad SAW, as the most backward, most unreasonable, and most difficult to heal creatures on the face of the earth compared to the people of Hindustan today.
The Prophet Muhammad was a Prophet, but he never saw himself as superior to others in bureaucratic terms; he called his people friends (egalitarian). The Prophet Muhammad saw differences in positions as functional differences that cooperated in building civilization. If he lost his general, if he lost his weapons maker, if he lost his diplomacy expert, his trade expert, his war expert. That would cause losses to the civilization he built. Because the Prophet Muhammad SAW saw no caste difference between him and the weaver, even though he was the country's leader. Because without the weaver, his people would not be dressed, and without weapons experts, their weapons would be backward!. This rational Prophet only saw functional differences in the state's role, not caste differences. So they cannot say that the teachings of feudalism in theology, social and economic feudalism came from the teachings of a Prophet who was close to the people, who always decided by consensus like the villagers (where between him and Bilal, there was no class when deliberating). It was not in the Prophet's mind that he was higher than Bilal, that he was a human being with the "spirit of Muhammad" so that he became a half-god; the spirit of Muhammad was the substance of all life in the world. Remember brother, that the religion taught by the Prophet Muhammad was a teaching of liberation, a teaching that respects the nature of differences, a teaching that rejects all doctrines about blue blood, and a teaching that prioritizes quality and piety as a person's qualifications in working.
After dismantling feudalism in orthodox Islam, then understand the codification of the hadith, which makes your hadith book different from the hadith books here, and there is a cultural product, "a product of muamalah", so the difference in codification here and there is "ja'iz". Moreover, the codification has historical reasons and anthropological reasons why they did their codification of the hadith. For example, the birth of the book al-Kâfi, the book Ma La Yahdluruhu al-Faqih, the book al-Tahzib, and the book al-Istibshar were a historical inevitability. Therefore, the difference in sources of fiqh for Muslims until now is an inevitability that should not be a source of conflict, let alone takfiri. Until later in front of us, we have a new codification of hadith that criticizes the hadiths of the Prophet from all sources of hadith from various schools.
Until finally, the Muslim community has one source of hadith, as our shahada is also one. In order to achieve that, there must be a consensus (Je kunt mensen niet dwingen om op jou te lijken, omdat je denken veel logische fouten bevat. Het kan zijn dat jij de groep bent met de meeste kortsluiting). So, to achieve the unity of the Islamic World based on science, self-introspection is needed from each faction, especially the feudal orthodox Islamic faction, so that the deconstruction of the doctrines left by Salahuddin al-Ayubi about Islamic schools, schools of fiqh, old schools of thought can be criticized, then the reconstruction of the manual book of hadith occurs again, the big target of which is the reconstruction of all interpretations of Islamic teachings that are adjusted to the dialectics of the Modern World. This is the most logical radical solution to the radical problem of uniting the Islamic community in the future in one "law" after the beheading of "Sayidina Husein's head" in Karbala as the initial bell of the division of the Islamic community.
Because to have a common country we need the same legal basis. It is impossible for an Islamic state to exist without Islamic law that represents all groups; there is no Islamic law for all groups if there is no reconstruction of the hadith, reconstruction of the ushuliyah rules and reconstruction of Islamic law. Currently, we are indeed united in the matter of the shahada, although we may not yet have the same understanding of monotheism, let alone theology (kalam), and are "certainly stuck" in Islamic law. As long as the source of hadith of the Muslim community is not yet one, which means that the schools of thought in Islam seem to be a necessity/pluralism, then the establishment of an "Islamic State" now which "certainly" will be an takfiri Islamic state like that of the Umayyads, Abbasids, Ottomans to modern Islamic countries today which are intolerant of radical differences among them is "haram." Because an Islamic state must be established for the entire Muslim community, not a tool for certain groups from tyrannical circles to increase their prestige and then declare other Muslims infidels using the prerogative of power.
Imagine if in the past, in the Ottoman Empire, Mustafa, son of Suleyman the Magnificent, who was prepared to conquer Persia, had succeeded in ascending the throne like Saladin, then tens of thousands of hadiths that were not in the al-Sittah pole would have been destroyed from Persian libraries, like the books of mujtahids whose genealogy was not connected to the four schools of Sunni fiqh that Saladin destroyed after he took control of Egypt, which was the centre of the Sunni Islamic Caliphate at that time.
Now, our old wounds from tyrannies disguised as Islam in the past have given birth to people like Mustafa Kemal, who uphold the secularism of state law in Muslim-majority countries to detoxify the ideologies of deviant doctrines that have completely corrupted the minds of his people into becoming the backward people in the world. Wa makarụ wa makarallāh, now secularism is the best means until the Islamic community can create unity in its law again towards the prophecy of the unity of the Islamic community in an Islamic state-"minhajin Nubuwah".
References
Al-Baydawi, Abdullah. Tafsir al-Baydawi. Beirut: Dar al-Kutub al-Ilmiyah, 2001.
Al-Kulayni, Abu Ja'far Muhammad ibn Ya'qub. Al-Kafi. Beirut: Dar al-Adwa, 1983.
Al-Mufid, Muhammad ibn Muhammad. Al-Amali. Qom: Dar al-Adwa, 1982.
