Islamic Super State: the 21st Century Caliphate Movement

Part One. Informaton from wikipedia page Caliphate

The term caliphate, "dominion of a caliph ('successor')" (from the Arabic خلافة or khilāfa, Turkish: Hilafet), refers to the first system of government established in Islam and represented the leader's unity of the Muslim Ummah (community)[clarification needed]. In theory, it is an aristocratic–constitutional republic[1] (the Constitution being the Constitution of Medina), which means that the head of state, the Caliph, and other officials are representatives of the people and of Islam and must govern according to constitutional and religious law, or Sharia. In its early days, it resembled elements of direct democracy (see shura) and an elective monarchy

The following excerpt from the Qur'an, known as the 'Istikhlaf Verse', is used by some to argue for a Quranic basis for Caliphate:
God has promised those of you who have attained to faith and do righteous deeds that, of a certainty, He will make them Khulifa on earth, even as He caused [some of] those who lived before them to become Khulifa; and that, of a certainty, He will firmly establish for them the religion which He has been pleased to bestow on them; and that, of a certainty, He will cause their erstwhile state of fear to be replaced by a sense of security [seeing that] they worship Me [alone], not ascribing divine powers to aught beside Me. But all who, after [having understood] this, choose to deny the truth – it is they, they who are truly iniquitous!" [24:55] (Surah Al-Nur, Verse 55)

Islamic history shows that large empire with one ruler(caliph) is the norm for the region post Muhammad. I briefly took Arabic classes, and my teacher said that most Arabs will identify with Islam before nation. Their theology contains a political element that Western thought opposes. In Islam, seperation of church and state is sacrilage. It is the natural state of Islam to be unified politically. The nation state structure we see on maps is largely a Western post colonial creation and doesn't properly reflect Islamic politics.

Part 2. Modern Movement

Now in the world today, the caliph movement is bound to gain momentum. America is an empire. The Eurozone is essentially a unified economic entity and has near equal influence to America. China is an emerging empire. India has a billion people.

The only logical response for the Islamic world is to unite in order to have a proportional influence on the world.

SPEAKING at a policy conference on Monday, 7 February, 2011 Benjamin Netanyahu spoke of the ambitions of radical Muslims of both Sunni and Shia persuasion to build a new Islamic kingdom of global dimensions.
Addressing the gathering in Jerusalem organised by the European Friends of Israel, Israel's Prime Minister spoke of:

-The expressed ambition of Shia and Sunni radical muslims to build a Islamic kingdom or “caliphate” that will encompass the Middle East and North Africa, and then Europe, and then North America, and then the entire world. Netanyahu did not say the caliphate would be achieved, but he rightly warned that this is what the Radicals want to achieve.

-The rise of an Iranian regime with nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles that can not only reach Israel but more and more of Europe.

-An Egypt that doesn’t develop into a peaceful, moderate, secular democracy with a prominent role for the military to provide stability and security but into one of two other scenarios: A) one in which “the Islamists exploit the[ir] influence to gradually take the country into a reverse direction, not towards modernity and reform but backward; or B) one in which “Egypt would go the way of Iran, where calls for progress would be silenced by a dark and violent repression that subjugates its own people and threatens everyone else.”

-Netanyahu did not say these threats would inevitably come to pass. To the contrary, he stated clearly, “The good news is that nothing is inevitable. We have the power to protect our common civilization, to roll back the forces of radicalism and to advance a secure peace. One of the keys to defeating this fanaticism is to be able to distinguish friends from enemies.”

link

The Muslim Brotherhood, majority party in Egypt has publicly advocated pan-Islamic ideology. Iran and Saudi Arabia are theocratic governments. This is a serious possibility.

And will their foreign policy follow scripture like this?

. Qur'an 9:29 " Fight those people of the Book (Jews and Christians) who do not believe in Allah and the Last Day, do not refrain from what has been prohibited by Allah and His Messenger and do not embrace the religion of truth (Al-Islam), until they pay Jizya (protection tax) with their own hands and feel themselves subdued."

Many here speak of the evils of the West. Surely, we realize that any inherent evil is magnified by influential capacity. Consider this influential capacity: Map of Muslim World

Nations, Muslim Pop, (% of total pop)

Indonesia 204,847,000 (88.1%)
Pakistan 178,097,000 (96.4%)
India 177,286,000 (14.6%)
Bangladesh 145,312,000 (90.4%)
Nigeria 75,728,000 (47.9%)
Iran 74,819,000 (99.6%)
Turkey 74,660,000 (98.6%)
Egypt 73,746,000 (90%)
Algeria 34,780,000 (98.2%)
Morocco 32,381,000 (99.9%)
Iraq 31,108,000 (98.9%)
Sudan 30,855,000 (97%) [82]

[83] [84]
Afghanistan 29,047,000 (99.8%)
Ethiopia 28,721,000 (33.8%)
Uzbekistan 26,833,000 (96.5%)
Saudi Arabia 25,493,000 (97.1%)
Yemen 24,023,000 (99.0%)
China 23,308,000 (1.8%)
Syria 20,895,000 (92.8%)
Malaysia 17,139,000 (61.4%)
Russia 16,379,000 (11.7%)
Niger 15,627,000 (98.3%)


The total GDP of 57 Muslim nations is US$6.2 trillions in nominal exchange rates as of 2011 IMF outlook

Total population is approximately 1.5 billion.

Finally, a site specifically devoted to the cause: www.khilafah.com...
That's the best resource to understand this issue. Today's daily Hadith:

If the pledge of allegiance is given to 2 rulers (Khalifatain), kill the latter of them.

So my questions are:

1.) Is it possible that fragmenting the Islamic world is the primary purpose of current war? Don't we have more to lose from a challenging empire than we have to gain from oil supply (often speculated motive)?

2.) Should a caliphate be allowed to form?

3.) What would be the significant effect if it did?

4.) Is the development of super states (America, China, Eurozone, possibly Islamic) a positive or negative on human society?

5.) Would a unified Islamic state be peaceful or jihadist?

6.) Is the ultimate clash inevitable, unavoidable?

7.) Speculations on relation to 9/11 or Obama?

8.) Am I missing any key points/questions?


Note: Speculative on many accounts. I, personally, don't see Islam or the West as primarily negative entities and maintain optimism with regard to progress of human global society. The argument presented is intended to spark discussion aiming to inform and present ideas helpful to the cause of a productive future relationship between Islamic and Western political units and progressive quality of life for the citizens of both.

reply to post by PatrickGarrow17

Many a flag and star should come to your thread. I appreciate the work you put into this and the time spent thinking it all through.

Thank you for bringing to light an issue I think will come to redefine the power structure of our world and in the not too distant future. They've had 'Super-Power' level Caliphates before (Super by any measure of the times they existed in). Multiple times, as I gather..... They're determined to see this come again.

Should it? Well it's not like anyone in greater Arabia cares whether we like it.. lol... but in general terms and

LONG term? Yeah... I think their Caliphate could be outstanding for the people and culture over there. Super-Power size and mass brings responsibility and accountability that simply isn't there for small nations where a single man can rule like a tyrant.

SHORT Term? I think THE MOST radical and violent of the Jihadi extreme of Islam is what currently forms the core of the movement to establish the Caliphate. As such, in the near term, I think it'll be hell and a nightmare for all involved. ....I just think long term, that will all work itself out by the people themselves over there...and become something positive for everyone there.

I believe self government is the right of all people.

If it is the will of the people to form a Caliphate, than so be it.

There are however some real doctrinal concerns based off humanitarian standards that would come with such a movement.

Free speech, freedom of expression, women rights.

Theocracies tend not to be the most free thinking open minded governments, I am sure we can point to several examples in history how this ends badly in regards to human rights.

Any such future government based on the Islamic ideals will have to go through much the same "maturing" process as other world religions.

Christianity and the crusades come to mind, the last thing we need is a push for a "global" Caliphate, which would be the next goal after establishing a regional one.

Great question and one Ive thought about often.

I live in Malaysia which is third last on your list of largest Muslim populations.
When I first got here I was worried about adapting and what ways I would need to adapt.

Having been here nearly 5 years now and having met many Muslims from all over the world I can honestly say the everyday majority Muslim is nothing to be scared of.
Most Muslims are about as Muslim as the average Aussie or American is Christian which is to say not very.

Its always the people in power who are the problem, I imagine most Muslims want to blow up westerners about as much as the average American wants to bomb Syria.

I think any group who wants power or influence is scary, it doesnt matter what they use an excuse its almost always about themsleves. People use politics, religion, charities you name it people will highjack it for their own ends so yes the thought of a Caliphate scares me but no more than and perhaps a bit less than the American empire does

Doesnt matter where your from, the color of your skin, race, religion etc etc people all want the same things from life which is to have a job where they earn enough to live comfortably and get their children a good education, meet someone to spend their lives with i.e marriage and just to be happy and healthy.

I think if we the little people focus more on what we all have in common instead of our differences, like the media want, the world would be a much better place


EDIT: forgot to answer your questions


1.) Is it possible that fragmenting the Islamic world is the primary purpose of current war? Don't we have more to lose from a challenging empire than we have to gain from oil supply (often speculated motive)?

maybe

2.) Should a caliphate be allowed to form?

Not sure

3.) What would be the significant effect if it did?

Most likely more Muslim nutters running around

4.) Is the development of super states (America, China, Eurozone, possibly Islamic) a positive or negative on human society?

5.) Would a unified Islamic state be peaceful or jihadist?

Im gonna guess Jihadist and the reason being is it would most likely be run by deeply religious types and Ive found it doesnt matter what religion they are from they are almost always complete fruit cakes

6.) Is the ultimate clash inevitable, unavoidable?

I hope not, I think Islam will adapt, the world is becoming smaller and young Muslims see our way of life and prefer it to their own

7.) Speculations on relation to 9/11 or Obama?

No idea what this means

8.) Am I missing any key points/questions?

Not that I can see

reply to post by benrl


Your post quickly outlines the main issues with Islamic government well.

Many elements of Sharia law clash with ideals of freedom considered essential to proper government in Western democracy. The role of women is a good example...

We've seen in history that people can be mobilized toward a violent cause with much less persuasion than is provided by Muslims in the Koran. Hitler convinced the Germans of a divine cause that proved to be atrocious, and he didn't have the advantage of a holy book established by an accepted prophet with more than 1300 years momentum.

Do people forfeit the right to govern themselves when their politics threaten the freedom of others? If the Middle East was on the brink of a jihadist caliphate under Osama bin Laden in the late 1990's, would it be justified to stage an attack (9/11) in order to recruit soldiers and fight a preventative war? (Hypothetical, not proposing as fact)

Kill 3,000 of your own to save tens of millions in a future war?

I'd also like to draw a parallel between Jihad and the Christian rapture. Don't Christians believe that a final war will be fought in which evil will be defeated once and for all, followed by a kingdom ruled by Christ?

Sounds like a final holy war followed by a theocratic monarchy, very similar to the Islamic vision...

reply to post by PatrickGarrow17



Well depends on your view of biblical eschatology.

Some believe in a literal rapture, some do not.

The war from a biblical perspective is supposed to be so one sided, where Israel has become a burdensome stone to all nations that they have no ally on this earth.

So much so that they rise up collectively to destroy it, at which point God will step in to stop it all.

reply to post by IkNOwSTuff


I completely agree with you. The "average" muslim people are actually pretty awesome and progressive people. Its the ones on the outer fringe or non-progressive that the media vision that is distributed that is the problem. I have worked with the Muslim community on and off for a while now, there is only one fellow that stands out that i would classify as "outer fringe" or non-progressive, he wasnt violent it was his views on women that really got to me. BUT that is personal experience of a single male vs the hundreds i have interacted with.

Same thing can apply to Christians on the outer fringe, do i need to mention the westborrow church? There are people sitting in this fringe that will cause greif and issues for the majority in that religious sect, and yes this should also include the non-religious folk also.

Should there be a "Super muslim state" - unsure at this time, you'd have to unite the several different 'flavors' of islam (unlikely, as some of the sects loathe each other, and classify them as heretics). Will there be one? Personally i doubt it. Look at indonesia, it has a MASSIVE population of Islamic faith, they still have western style laws that sure tilts toward Islamic, again opinion not fact.

reply to post by benrl


Same can be said of Jihad...

Many Muslims are pushing for jihad to be seen as a holy war fought within oneself, defeating your own inner demons.

It's unfortunate that the nature of seeking political power comes with a tendency toward fanaticism, so we see many people in leadership in all governments of all faiths that privately adhere to some radical ideology.

Look at all the speculation you see on this site regarding the Western establishment and possible links to Lucifer/Satan worship, or otherwise apocalyptic Biblical belief.

You might want to have a look at the Ottoman Empires legal system based on Hanafi, it is by far one of the more liberal schools of tradition. There millet system of governance was also fairly tolerant, Ottomans would allow Christians and Jews to govern themselves, just as long as there trial verdict did not specifically violate the empires law, a very enlightened people, just a shame our economies broke them.

I would have much rather lived under the Ottoman Empire system of governance than feudalistic states we live under now in the western world.

Oh and the Ottoman Empire was, by far the greatest Muslim "super state" to have ever existed, infact it was one of the greatest, longest lived Empires in the history of our planet. Worth a mention really.