Caliphate: Goal of some, history to others.
Fundamentalism in any form often has some very historical principles. The topic I want to bring to discussion is that of the Caliphate. The last Caliph that was actually considered to be legitimate in the eyes of the Ummah, or Islamic community was Mehmed VI of the Ottoman Empire. Currently, the title is dormant and is the subject of much debate in the intellectual discussions of Muslim scholars. Should the Caliphate be re-instated? Who would be the Caliph? How would he be appointed or elected etc? All of this is within the Sunni realm of Islam. Shi’as do not recognize the caliphate and therefore could care less. During the rule of the Ottomans, Persia and its Shah’s had understandable opposing interests. The Caliphate was abolished after WWI and was done away with just like the Ottoman Empire.
Nonetheless the debate is valid and I think to understand a cornerstone of how Islam became what it is today we need to look at the significance of the office, and what would happen if indeed it was re-instated. This may fall to the fringe of current international topics but I promise you there are some people out there who are seriously fighting for this cause. One notorious example would be Al-Qaeda and various other terrorist groups. Other more reasonable and legitimate voices are sprinkled through out the Islamic and Arab World and some cities in Europe, most notably Hizb ut-Tahrir in Britain.
Obviously, if a Caliph was chosen or appointed there would be controversy. it is safe to say that he would have trouble being legitimized by the pretenders to the Ottoman crown, who held numerous titles, Caliph being among them. Recognition issues aside, what would be the role of the new Caliph? Would his role be somewhat like that of the Pope or the Archbishop of Canterbury? Would his office be in Mecca or Al-Azhar? Would he have diplomatic recognition along with spiritual? Right now the Grand Muftis of the Islamic world are leaders in their respective countries. Far from being Caliphs, there are however respected international clerics with broad followings. Should he be chosen from among these folks? How would he be succeeded?
Here is where we may get sticky. I often hear Muslims and Arabic speaks say ‘Inshallah‘. Heck, I say it too when speaking Persian. It is recognized in many languages and regions of the World. Its almost as popular as ‘OK’ or ‘hello’. Inshallah, means God Willing in Arabic. I find myself saying it sparingly and hearing it sparingly. This bothers me a little. God, the All-Knowing, All-Seeing, All-Powerful clearly has a large part in the psyche and reasoning of many people. ” If it does or doesn’t happen its God’s will” type attitude can be very troublesome. People find comfort in thinking that their destinies and fates are completely in the hands of God and whatever happens to them or whatever position they find themselves is in deed the work and will of God. I know this is not totally true for everyone, but we like to think that what we don’t control directly or physically is beyond us and simply left to the fate of the All-Wise. That said, as I bring my reasoning back to the original subject, was it God’s will to do away with the Caliphate? Moreover, is it His to bring it back? Do people believe that through political and organizational efforts they can legitimately reconstitute a divine office?
I guess I have asked more questions that I answered and my goal is to indeed discuss and collect views on the matter to simply better understand it.
del.icio.us
BlogMemes
Digg
StumbleUpon
Technorati
Google
Reddit
Facebook
TwitThis
Mixx
Loading ...
It is interesting to hear politicians in the western world make coments on the return of the caliphate as something inevitable which will require thinking on their behalf on how to tackle it. Within the Muslim world, the question no longer remains “is the caliphate an outdated model of governance”, but rather some of the questions which you have alluded to.
Questions like economic policy on gas and oil- will it be state or private property; how will the caliphate tackle the sectarianism in Iraq and Pakistan, who would the caliphate build trade relations with; How will the caliphate look after no-muslims (minoroties) under its rule; What roles are available for women in Politics and governance; how would the caliphate operate internationally in representing the muslim world, and there are plenty of other questions which are currently being discussed on a grassroots level throughout the mulsim world.
According to the worldpublicopinion.org website, there is an increasing and overwhelming call to revive the caliphate state for the muslim world as a viable and cedible form of government with an electable and accountable ruler, independant judicairy and the establishment of the rule of law.
Leaders lke Bush and Blair, head of states with considerable influence internationally and vested interests in the muslim wolrd have themselves bought the discussion onto the table. It is now time for the Musim world to re-shape their political destiny and make a stance against colonial foreign aggression and create an apt environment for the return of the caliphate.
interesting blog, here are some links that might be useful to look over:
http://www.caliphate.eu/index.htm
and
http://the-caliphate.blogspot.com/
the key thing to keep in mind is that this *does* have a reference from texts of islam.
regards,
skh
Now, I’ve heard the term bandied about quite a bit, but let’s be serious here: Does anyone really believe that all the various Muslim countries that are Sunni will simply shrug off their respective governments to submit to the dictates of a pan-national religious body? For that matter, which school of thought would be followed? Would the Arabic Muslim world follow a Caliph from Malaysia, Pakistan, or the Horn of Africa? Even if the fundamental issue of somehow homogenizing the vast cultural richness that makes up Islam today were addressed to the point of making some sort of hierarchy, would there also be economic and military co-operation? A kind of Muslim NATO? Turkish, Libyian, or Pakistani bases in Saudi Arabia instead of American? Let’s be honest here: when people talk about a utopian uber-society where all the current political issues and inequities will just suddenly fade away, they usually do it because of an underlying belief that it will uplift their circumstances. It should be borne in mind that the power and wealth required to “establish the Caliphate” will have to come from the current ruling classes of the respective nations and societies, who seem rather reluctant to share it (hence the issues and inequities). Finally, while the administrative features of the Caliphate that Majed describes are admirable, to imagine that a conglomeration of societies will yield this where it is currently absent in many of the individual is, in my opinion, unrealistic.
Salaam to All!
An interesting topic of discussion - and a very important one, in my opinion.
In reply to “notsnowbound” about which school of thought will be followed, and where the capital would be etc, I would point out that there is 1300+ years of history that shows many schools of thought existed and many ethnic groups formed the vast territory which was the caliphate. These questions were not really an issue. The state functioned and progressed well.
As for the issue who can bring about this change, i disagree that it will have to come from the ruling classes. Again if we look at history we see thare has been a number of “revlutions” and changes that have come from bottom up.
I think that the opinions of the masses, and their desire for a Islamic system of governance is the catalyst that is required to bring about a caliphate.
I would point out that there is 1300+ years of history that shows many schools of thought existed and many ethnic groups formed the vast territory which was the caliphate. These questions were not really an issue. The state functioned and progressed well.
I’ll join in on this interesting topic. As a westerner, I would say that what we know as the Caliphate enjoyed its success mainly because it was an economic, globalized system that guaranteed peace for businessmen/traders who were willing to convert their localized, “pagan” faiths to a belief system that made sense for… free trade.
All of the great innovations of the Caliphate period (such as the check [or cheque in Britain], - where one could write on a piece of paper that money was available on demand, as long as the bearer had a signature) were due to a very proto-capitalistic period of experimentation within the Caliphate that made conducting business easier. Faith may have been a second thought for many in the Caliphate who might have put a bigger premium on the wealth they began accumulating… simply because everyone was in the same economic - Ummah.
In other words: the Caliphate was totally pro-capitalistic, pro-entrepreneur system of economic globalization, the very same kind of globalization that Islamists hate today.
For many within that kind of a new, exciting system in the ancient Caliphate, the religious angle was a secondary consideration. The money to be made was number one.
The mistake Islamists make today is to ignore the capitalistic roots of the concept of the Ummah, - and Islam, by extension - which were important causes of its popularity in ancient times.
Great point of view Finnpundit. I still have not seen a real answer to my question though.
What would happen if the Caliph was re-instated?
What would happen?
More riots..
More opposition..
More conflict in both thought and intention..
Back in the days of the Caliphs, the majority of people didn’t diversify in the way they treat their lifestyles, or adapt to the new world, rather small minorities that remains opposing the masses.. This me talking about the caliphates of the Ummayid, the Ottoman’s were much more corrupted, but the ummayad’s were the closest to the first caliphates..
However, now it’s different, the minorities are becoming localities and national parties, separated in thought and action from another locality in a neighboring nation..
Moreover, very few Arab countries, include my own, have instated the monarchy system to replace the caliphate.. It’s not the right way to go, since it also governs the several different religious ideologies in the peninsula, but it doesn’t have to go with Egypt and their presidency system in choosing who’s to rule (even there, in their elections, shadiness is a common key word)..
Reinstating the caliphate now seems more of a utopic idea, than just a solution to the confusion happening in the middle east, mentality wise..
We all can agree on peace, but we don’t all agree that a Sufi would rule over how Sunni’s preach in their Fridays.. Nor Shi’ites would agree to have a Christian arab party that is equally strong and influential.. How would a caliphate be elected then (Mobaya’a)..
I think we should reconsider our Arab relations, than to jump to one generalizing solution that would take longer time to execute properly and equally, than it is taking less time in trying to mind the differences and set a secular rule over the nations..
Caliphates have to add religion to their decisions, and as i said, that can even cause more trouble than it is labeled as “religious harmony”.. Monarchy already set the paths for the next millineum, and even they will suffer trouble if they let loose of what they should do other than what they WANT to do.. Secular ruling seems the best in practicality (separating religion from life matters), but i , myself, won’t settle for someone who doesn’t believe that Islam is a lifestyle AND a religion..
It’s just too much diversity..
Yours,
Lou..
Louai: “Reinstating the caliphate now seems more of a utopic idea”
No more than a generation ago, European communists would dream of (or commit terrorist acts in order to establish) world communism.
Nothing wrong in dreaming of a better world. But re-instating the caliphate ? I believe the Ottoman empire is a thing of the past.
Why not wait till we all are righteous Muslims/communists/humans ?
Then the brave new world will be there by itself.
What would happen if the Caliph was re-instated?
Other than continuous war?
Perhaps a clue could be derived from studying Iran. It pretends to be a Caliphate of sorts.
Aside from the crazy mullahcracy, we should bear in mind that an Islamist state tends to resemble a European welfare state. Indeed, Islam calls for the welfare of all in the Ummah, so it would follow that Islamists of the Caliphate would study the best practices of socialist welfare states.
There are generous welfare benefits for everyone within Iran, theoretically at least. In practise, of course, what happens is that demand for those benefits will outstrip supply, or the system’s ability to accommodate everyone. Shortages will emerge, and shortages usually manifest themselves as long waiting lists, whether it be for medical care, education, unemployment benefits, opportunities, and so on.
What the Caliphate would not be is the kind of free market it was in ancient times. The mullahs in charge simply would not condone so much power to the people. It would be a very anti-capitalistic entity and, as such, would eventually be bound to fail as a viable socio-political entity.
Realizing that, the Caliphate would most likely focus the Ummah’s energies on external enemies in order to distract the people, resulting in constant warfare that would most likely kill more Muslims than any of their enemies.
HalalHippie : Why not wait till we all are righteous Muslims/communists/humans ?
Then the brave new world will be there by itself.
That, along side this..
I think we should reconsider our Arab relations, than to jump to one generalizing solution that would take longer time to execute properly and equally, than it is taking less time in trying to mind the differences and set a secular rule over the nations..
- - -
The European communists have a better chance, because though they’re diverse, but they work as one.. Not favoring communism, but you get my point.. The Arab nations, within themselves, don’t agree on one thing.. Leading to the whole “better world” and expect a new ruling system would fix us.. We have to fix ourselves first, like you said..
Salaam All
When we view the world, the norms, the definitions, the history and the way forward we must take off the colonial blinkered glasses with which we see things. Since colonisation and the re-writing of world history and islamic thought we have come to believe most things islamic - especially the social aspects are backward and for the dark ages. This western education and culturalisation of the muslim world is an obstacle for muslims in having confidence that islam really can solve human problems.
Many people use the term “utopia” when describing the caliphate. As humans we will err and problems will occur - the question is how will a caliphate deal with these problems.
I live in the UK and can see the way western secularism deals with issues of drug abuse - give out clean needles to users. To deal with teenage pregnancies the schools hand out condoms.
Wherever people live there will be social and economic isses to deal with. It will not be a utopia but i beleive it will create a much more harmonous world than we have at the moment.
Islam on the other hand deals with the causes of such problems, and through the education system and media would culture people withg a different outlook in life than just maximising their sensual pleasures.
Also, the current regimes in the muslim world are not the benchmark for the ruling system of Islam, and using Saudi or Iran as an example of what the caliphate would look like or be similar to, is incorrect.
Ma’salaam
Has the media gone “CALIPHATE” mad?
National press, News stations, World Leaders, Blogs, websites; Hardly a day goes by without any reference being made to Caliphate. Worldwide, an attention is being given to this term. It is being debated in Political and Academic circles; from the West to the East.
British Prime Minister, Gordon Brown and his new cabinet have also entertained the discussion already. So what is the whole debate about? Why is this word on the tongues of politicians? Does it deserve any merit? Why the current infatuation with it?
The Brown government re-defined its approach in tackling ‘extremism’ in Britain in reaction to the unfortunate Glasgow events. It dropped the labels of ‘War on Terror’ and abstained from using ‘Islam’ and ‘Muslim’ in the public domain in making any reference to tackling ‘extremism’ and ”terrorism’. The rhetoric continued, however, with a new array of words utilised with similar implications. In an interview with BBC’s Andrew Marr on the Sunday AM show (Sunday 1/7/2007), Gordon Brown stated:
“The terrorist threat we’re dealing with is about a long term and sustained attack on the values that we represent…… And that’s why the cultural effort, almost similar to what happened during the Cold War in the nineteen forties, fifties and sixties when we had to mount a propaganda effort, if you like, to explain to people that our values represented the best of commitments to individual dignity, to liberty and to human life being taken seriously. And I think that’s what we are going to have to talk about in the next few years”
Hence, Gordon brown, interestingly began to allude that there is battle of ideas which need to be won and made some comparisons with Britain’s experience in tackling the ‘red threat’ in the past. No differently now, with the emergence in popularity for the caliphate in the Muslim world, Political Islam, which is the call to re-define the political landscape in the Muslim world for islamic Rule is now being maligned.
Tony Blair, the outgoing PM made reference to it as an ‘evil Ideology’ whilst Brown is now equating the desire for Shariah as non-negotiable under the auspices of subscribing to global values. Moving over to America, which has had a key foothold in the Muslim word for decades, it has also recognised Caliphate as a key issue deserving attention. On December 5th 2005, the then US Secretary of Defence, Donald Rumsfeld in remarks pertaining to the future of Iraq at John Hopkins University said
“Iraq would serve as the base of a new Islamic Caliphate to extend throughout the Middle East and which would threaten the legitimate governments in Europe, Africa, and Asia. This is their plan. They have said so. We make a terrible mistake if we fail to listen and learn”
Furthermore, The National Intelligence Council of the CIA issued a planning report in December 2004 setting out options for a resurgent China and a potentially strong Caliphate by the year 2020; a clear indication as to the seriousness by which America takes the re-establishment of the Khilafah.
The call for the implementation of the Islamic Shariah in the Muslim world has been on an increasing rise. A recent poll carried out by Maryland University , USA found that 70% of those polled favoured the implementation of Sharia in their lands.
After experimenting with a range of political models to try and answer many of the dire issues of poverty, corruption, illegal occupation, un-elected rulers, unaccountable governments, rule of law, debt, lack of economic progression, subjugation to international institutions, victims of foreign aggression; Muslims throughout the world are re-opening the debate to restore the Noble Khilafah (caliphate) as a model of governance which will put back on route our societies which have been de-railed through colonial designs and domination.
Now can there be anything wrong in defining your own political futures or are people stepping on the toes of some who have too many interests at stake if the caliphate re-emerges in those areas where oil, gas, minerals, gold, diamonds and water is in abundance?
taken from majeds blog
Maqsood,
I sure hope so! What would the caliphate look like, then?