The material above is a curious pastiche, which is barely recognisable, of actual positions held by the pupils of Shaykh Abdalqadir, may Allah protect him.
First, who would 'authorise' an amir? Ah! presumably a Caliph? If you believe that houses can be built starting from the chimney, proceeding to the roof, then the walls, then floors and foundations, I would suggest that a better way is to start with foundations.
As to the 'death in jahiliyyah', then that is clearly the literal wording of the relevant hadith. Perhaps you don't like that hadith and the other strong texts on amirate and bay'ah that are sometimes quoted.
As to membership of the branch of the Darqawi tariqah that Shaykh Abdalqadir represents being dependent on allegiance to an amir, that is quite simple: the shari'ah is 'over' the tariqah, and that is the teaching of the Shadhili-Darqawi tariqah (and I believe of the genuine Naqshabandi and other tariqahs of the people of Islam). If you want texts on that, I am happy to help insha'Allah. Therefore a precondition of being a mureed of Shaykh Abdalqadir is to have pledged allegiance to an amir and to be involved in the establishment of the deen outwardly.
As to the silly suggestion that only Ibn Khaldun's position on the Mahdi is of interest to us, that is certainly not my position, and I translated Ibn Khaldun's chapter from the Muqaddimah for Umar Vadillo's magisterial book.
I take the view that Imam at-Tahawi's view, Ibn Abi Zayd's view, al-Bukhari's view, Muslim's view, and Malik's view are important, for none of them mention the Mahdi by name in their hadith collections or aqidahs.
However, none of that amounts to a denial of the Mahdi; far from it. It means that the Mahdi is not an obligatory element of the aqidah of a Muslim in the way that the return of Sayyiduna 'Isa, peace be upon him, is, or at the best it is a matter that is not agreed upon among the 'ulama.
As to those who regularly announce that they are in intimate contact with the Mahdi, and that he is coming on such-and-such a day at such-and-such a time, and that the Last Day is going to happen on such-and-such a day at such-and-such a time, then if you wish to believe that, there is certainly nothing that I can do about it. You will not be the first people in history to have believed such a thing, and you might find the histories of such movements interesting. That was the next part of Ibn Khaldun's work: a history of the many movements even up to his time that had revolved around the re-appearance of the Mahdi.
Again, the sentence about Shaykh Illish's fatwa is a cynical mis-statement, and deliberately so, of our position.
What is interesting and important to us is the position of Imam Malik in the Mudawwanah in what he said about flous, and the ample material from the Muwatta and Mudawwanah on the nature of halal (and haram) trade, and the position of Abu Yusuf in his instructing Harun ar-Rashid not to collect the zakat in flous, and also the group of Ulama who in my hearing in the city of Potsdam endorsed our position on this matter and on the zakat, and then advised us, with some wisdom, about ways of going about it.
As to Shaykh Illish, may Allah be merciful to him, he is important to us, for he was an 'alim who held to the deen when traitors like Muhammad Abduh colluded with the British and issued his most abhorrent fatwa that interest is not usury! Presumably, then you are happy to be in such company if you do not like the company of the noble Illish.
Moreover, Illish also represents something important. Since ulama such as Abduh were subverted by banking and began to rewrite the shari'ah to fit in with the emerging new world order, then it has become more and more important to take our deen from ulama from before this rewriting, from before the colonial period, particularly as relates to trade, finance and zakat.
As to the silly assertion about amal, we are Malikis. Imam Malik is the Imam of all the people of hadith, his hadith being collected in all the sahih works that followed him by men who were pupils of his pupils, just as he is the Imam of the Imams in fiqh, having taught all of the other Imams either directly, as is the case with Imam Abu Hanifah, Imam Muhammad ibn al-Hasan ash-Shaybani, Imam Abu Yusuf, Imam ash-Shafi'i and through him Imam Ahmad, may Allah be pleased with all of them.
We hold to what Malik and the people of his school have always held, and what many of the early salaf held to: that hadith are misleading except to those who know fiqh, that the 'amal is more reliable than hadith, that one thousand transmitting from one thousand is more reliable than one transmitting from one, for by one transmitting from one the deen will be snatched from our hands. All of those are quotes from the salaf. Much of them are stated by Qadi Iyad in his books and many of the other Maliki ulama. You may find it uncomfortable to hear them, but what can I do about that?
But as to the hadith, there are no hadith higher and purer than the hadith of Imam Malik. Wherever he had one, Imam al-Bukhari began his chapter with a hadith from Malik. Ask whomever you will among the ulama from whatever school and you will find that Malik is the star in the science of hadith. And we are Malikis and adhere to what Malik adhered to. We by no means dismiss the hadith.
But that zakat is a fallen pillar is demonstrably true. Where are the collectors? Where are the amirs authorising the collectors? Where is the coinage (Abu Yusuf told Harun ar-Rashid that it had to be collected in gold and silver coins and NOT in flous). Why is it sent to the other side of the earth, and not spent on the local community, or the nearest community in the case where the local community has absolutely no need? (And anyone who tells you that there are no poor Muslims here is seriously in error).
Now, if you have some reasoned argument against any of the above points, rather than snide and cynical mis-statements of them, I would be very interested to hear them. Please bring arguments from the deen.
And Allah knows best.