Bush and the Caliphate
Karl Vick of the Washington Post does his readers an enormous favor by explaining the idea of the Sunni Muslim caliphate, its history, and why many Sunnis want it revived.
The article also contains a critique of Bush's recent speech in which he warned of the caliphate ideology of al-Qaeda, saying it wished to establish the institution from Spain to Indonesia. The problem is that a caliphate is an ideal for many Muslims who have little sympathy with al-Qaeda, and framing the conflict as America versus a revived caliphate alienates them.
There are different conceptions of the caliphate, sort of a Sunni papacy. At some points in history the caliph was both a temporal and a spiritual leader. But over time there was a separation of religion and state of sorts in medieval Islam, and civil rulers such as the Buyids or Seljuks exercised material rule, reducing the caliphs of the tenth through thirteenth centuries to largely a spiritual function. The Mongols ended the caliphate in 1258. The Ottoman sultans attempted to revive it from 1880, though their claim was not universally accepted. Ataturk abolished this revived caliphate in 1924. There were big debates in places like Egypt about whether Sunni Muslims needed a caliphate, and then then king of Egypt put his hat in the ring as a contender for caliph. But modern nationalism was taking hold, and the nationalist leaders of countries such as Egypt had no desire to see an alternative power center created. So the caliphate lapsed again, to the dismay of Muslim nationalists such as the Muslim Brotherhood and Hizb al-Tahrir, who want it recreated.
Vick writes:
' Some experts warn that such a reservoir of feeling illustrates the risk of framing the Iraq war as a contest of ideologies.
"I think the smart thing to do if you're the president of the United States is to sort of de-Islamicize the problem," said Kirstine Sinclair, a University of Southern Denmark researcher who co-wrote a book on Hizb ut-Tahrir. "Talk about security risks instead. When you talk about expanding the war on terror to talk about states with an Islamist agenda or even the caliphate, you stir up emotions and you're actually creating the clash of civilizations."
Numerous polls show the U.S.-led wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have sharpened solidarity among Muslims and antipathy toward Americans. "To tell you the truth, I don't see even see them as humans anymore. America is a pig," said Orel, who is in his eighties. The trend appears greatest among the very people whom the radicals aim to mobilize. '
The US government has a policy on al-Qaeda, which is that it must be destroyed as a movement. But it needn't have a policy on the caliphate per se, which is the Sunni Muslims' business.

|
6 Comments:
I had an article on the calipahte and the future of the Muslim world published in the Guardian recently. See more at http://www.osamasaeed.org/osama/2005/11/return_of_the_c.html
WaPo on Caliphate: too little, too late
Yes, Karl Vick's article is very interesting and informative, one can be glad that WaPo finally makes this info available for general American reader. Late is certainly better than never! Nevertheless, I don't feel particularly enthusiastic about this move.
First, simple wiki check confirms that it already has most of the material. This only confirms the simple rule: to avoid confusion, always check news stories with wiki. The consequence of this rule for the journalists is that, to be taken seriously, they better check wiki and other Internet sources for themselves.
Second, and most importantly, the right time for this article was exactly 4 years ago, in the late 2001 - early 2002 - when "Bin Laden" hysteria was getting steam. Then it was critical to know what exactly ideas of Islam and in what way are obfuscated by the Qutbists! But now, when the war rages in Iraq, the war on Iran is being designed and neocons routinely compare the Koran with Mein Kampf, - getting into delicate details of Caliphate history is ridiculously late.
Now it time to say simply and clearly that historical religious notions starting from Caliphate and Greater Israel need to be kept completely separate from politics and secular ideology. Clerical involvement in political and especially military decisions is extremely dangerous, and the fact that another side does this, cannot justify the West fighting essentially religious war in the ME.
Anyway, again, better late than never, thanks for making sense from time to time, WaPo.
1. WaPo. Karl Vick. Reunified Islam: Unlikely but Not Entirely Radical
2. Wiki on Caliph
Juan -
Please commment on recent news reports such as http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/01/14/wiran14.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/01/14/ixworld.html
that speculate that the President of Iran is expecting the imminent return of the Mahdi (the Islamic "Messiah") and that this supposed expectation explains his apparent eagerness for confrontation with the West.
Conversely a Middle East specialist on PBS stated that the real reason the pot is boiling over at this particular time is that since Iran is riding high on oil profits, and the U.S. is pinned down in Iraq, and since they also believe the ultimate goal of not only the US but it's NATO allies is the overthrow of the current government, the Iranians calculate that now is the time for them to make their move.
Either, both, or neither explanation?
Bush's pronouncements on the Caliphate are based on the larger neocon bigotry that the united States is on the Right side in a Civil War within Islam...
If there is what can be described as a "civil war" within Islam, it is extremely pedestrian to claim that there are only two sides - a Right side and a Wrong side...
In reality, there are more than a dozen different interpretations of fundamentalist Islam... Al Qaeda is only a Cold War gimmick invented by the Reaganites that has, somehow, managed to survive as a multinational anti-West movement (given that the anti-Soviet Afghan movement was also largely an anti-West movement)...
However, in the most narrow terms, the idea of a Caliphate is deeply offensive to evangelicals like el Presidente Bush, because in his heart of hearts, as in the hearts of his core support group of millions of Evangelicals, his closest held dream is of a global Christian state.
As with the Muslim radicals he fights, Bush's foremost challenge is that he must first establish that religious state in his own country. Surely, if there is a "civil war" raging in Islam, then there is also one simmering between the church and the state in Bush's Ummrikka.
Either the stupidity of this Administration knows no bounds--a distinct possibility--or they actually want to create a clash of civilizations, and they actually wanted all the looting after the invasion because they thought it would weaken the country, and they actually want civil war, because they hope a bunch of weak fiefdoms will have less bargaining power when selling oil.
Wait a sec. Cross out "or." *And* they actually want all the crap.
I brought up this topic (bush Administration Misuses the Word "Caliphate") ten days ago. Personally, as a Muslim, I'm like most of my Muslim brothers and sisters in that the re-establishment of a Caliphate is nice but certainly not a high priority. Personally (as I state in my post), I'd rather see an organization (along the lines of the EU) developed in place of a Caliphate. But that the ummah needs to unite together under some form of leadership to resolve problems, absolutely, I agree with that idea 100%.
Post a Comment
<< Home