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.

I sure hope so! What would the caliphate look like, then?

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

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

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..

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.

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.

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..

What would happen if the Caliph was re-instated?

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.