| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Jihad Watch | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Raymond Ibrahim | Robert Spencer |  |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
When I saw this article, "No middle ground" by Irfan Husain, this morning in Dawn (thanks to D.C. Watson), I realized that I had let go by the egregious piece by Osama Saeed to which it is replying, which appeared in The Guardian not too long ago. (Like so many other stories, I set it aside to reply to in detail later, but got overwhelmed by the rush of work and travel and never got back to it.) Saeed was essentially saying that the non-Muslim world should not be concerned or determined to resist the goal of Osama bin Laden and other jihadists everywhere -- reinstitution of the caliphate. He argued that it would be a good thing for Muslims and the rest of the world. Husain reminds him of a few things he left out.
IN a recent article in the Guardian titled “The return of the caliphate”, Osama Saeed argues that the restoration of the caliphate to unite the Muslim world is a desirable goal. In support of his argument, he cites the success of the European Union and the United States in forging political and economic unions.He conveniently forgets that both his examples are secular entities, whereas the caliph derived his authority from his designation as God’s vice-regent on earth. He also glosses over the inconvenient history of the caliphate which saw much intrigue and bloodshed. Indeed, after the sack of Baghdad by Halaku in 1258, the reigning caliph Khalifa Mustasim was killed, and his surviving Abbasid relatives sought refuge in Cairo. His uncle was appointed caliph in the Mamluk capital.
Subsequently, for the next 250 years or so, the caliph was a virtual prisoner in Cairo until the Ottomans anointed themselves the spiritual and temporal leaders of the Muslim world, and moved the caliphate to Istanbul. This institution was finally abolished in 1924 by Mustafa Kemal Pasha, the secular leader of the newly established Turkish republic, much to the consternation of Muslims around the world. Now, many Muslims think the answer to their current woes is the revival of the caliphate.
Leading this school of thought is Osama bin Laden and his bloodthirsty cohorts. But none of these extremists seem to have considered the practical difficulties in transforming their dream into reality. For starters, who would decide on a suitable candidate? Given the deep schisms that divide the Muslim world today, I cannot see how a consensus can be developed....
What are the other goals of Al Qaeda and similar groups? Apart from wishing to restore the caliphate, they also want to reverse the expulsion of the Muslims from Spain, as well as overthrow the rule of non-Muslims from countries where the faithful once held sway. These include India, Bosnia and Chechnya. And of course, Jews must be thrown out of Israel. They also want to see the removal of all kings, generals and sundry rulers currently running Muslim countries. It goes without saying that all other Muslim sects with the exception of a Salafi interpretation of the faith have to be destroyed.
In the long term, the whole world must be converted to Islam, and Sharia must be the law governing everybody. Understandably, the rest of the world is not very enthusiastic about these plans. Fortunately, we live in a very diverse world, and we are all enriched as a result. The thought of a homogeneous world in which there is imposed uniformity of thought is a repulsive one, no matter which ideology motivates it.
Converted or subjugated, of course. Read it all.
Posted by Robert at November 12, 2005 5:45 AM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
A living nightmare awaits us all aided and abetted by the Useful Idiots on the left and our institutions. Islamists are using the well known Troyskyist practice of "entryism" to great effect. They have even penetrated the Monarchy judging from the prounouncements of Useful Idiot Chaz. Well, we know what happened to the entryists in the British Labour Movement in the eighties. They were forcibly expelled from the ranks one by one and now languish in obscurity. Such is the lemming like rush to aid the Islamists today though, that I doubt anything will happen until the crescent is flying over the Houses of Parliament.
Posted by: londongirl![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/nav-commenters.gif)
at November 12, 2005 6:07 AM
Sorry, I've made some typing errors - Trotskyists and pronouncements.
Posted by: londongirl at November 12, 2005 6:09 AM
"...wishing to restore the caliphate, they also want to reverse the expulsion of the Muslims from Spain,"..
Well, looks like they are 'reversing' it already. Spain is being overrun by Mohammedans right now and it if it continues they will get what they call 'Al Andaluz..'
But that doesn't mean it stops. How about Sicily? How about much of Greece? Is it only the romantic desire to 'own' the Alahmbra?
Hardly.
From Chechnya to Mindanao, from East-Timor to Israel, from Albania to Ireland, from Africa to Southern-Thailand to Bali, Sulawesi and some Islands in the Caribic.
You name it: Wherever you allow Mohammedans to settle, the Jihad must be fought against the infidels. Thats the "LAW", their law, Islamic law.
We have to make sure that doesn't happen.
Posted by: sheik yer'mami at November 12, 2005 6:13 AM
The real reason behind Muslim extremism is this. Imagine you are a muslim, for the moment completely cut your connections with your own culture. Now look at the world. All the major countries in the world, America, and Europe, to you they are all Christian and Infidel countrys. You then see how weak and deprived the 'muslim' countries are, and how military inferior they are to the western countries. Things must not be like this!! Islam must be stronger! You feel ashamed. What the islamists really want is to be feared, to be seen as a dangerous force on the earth, and they want everything to be dictated by Islam. I certainly do not personally agree with this statement, but it is this partly, and rather than the quran that has caused all these problems.
Posted by: The Englishman at November 12, 2005 6:31 AM
Can there be solutions to absolutist threats which are not themselves absolutist in nature? If rational thought, debate, and cooperative compromise are rejected by one party, and seen as signs of moral decadence, weakness, and counter to the authentic human condition, and a modern, liberal society constructed around democratic and rational values is held in contempt, what solutions can there be, to threats both from without and within, that do not themselves slide into fascism themselves?
Fascism holds that the individual is subjugated to the greater good, that individual rights compromise, weaken, and pollute the "nation", be it political or religious, that the individual serves, indeed has no higher and heroic calling than sacrifice to, "the nation", not the other way around. Free will, individual rights, self determination, and critical thought have no place in a fascist world. Seen as the symptoms of an inauthentic, materialistic, and importantly, a "soulless" society, without "roots" or traditions to guide it, these attributes are ruthlessly targeted as the toxic cancers threatening the "pureness" and "noblility" of the more "authentic" fascist state, bound as it is to the soil, the mythic past, and it's particular god-cult.
If the aim is not just spreading Islam across the world, but the destruction of Modernism, capitalism, and liberal democracy, then it is not just a religious, political, or diplomatic quandry, the solution of which has merely escaped us to date, but a life and death struggle, the outcome of which will determine whether we, our children, and theirs stand as free men and women, or grovel on our knees as enlightened civilization is swept into the dustbin of history.
Throughout history, Modernist man has been the exception rather than the rule. Throughout history, Modernism has been the rider saddled to the Fascist beast, sometimes enraging it while struggling to subdue it without getting killed in the process.
Throughout history, there has been no time or place where mens lives were not ultimately diminished by Fascism, regardless of its name. This is no different.
at November 12, 2005 9:57 AM
Maybe revival of the caliphate might not be such a bad idea. It could be set up in the Hejaz, that strip of hardpan desert along the Red Sea coast on the Arabian peninsula that includes Mecca and Medina. The northeastern quadrant of Arabia could be set up as a sort of global commons like the Pacific Ocean and the international community can decide together what to do with the one and only natural resource that is extracted from it. Meanwhile, the caliph and his army of muftis can assemble in Mecca to argue ad nauseum over how many angels accompanied Muhammad on his night journey.
The caliphate can become its own state like the Vatican. He can live in a palace and cerimoniously sweep the Kaaba once a year.
Muslims living in dar al Harb who cannot swear or demonstrate with their words and actions, allegiance to the ideals of the societies in which they are immersed, could be offered transportation free of charge to the caliphal state where they would be happy and free to enjoy the fruits of a pure shari'a society, the true Promised Muslim Homeland.
Failure of the Muslim state to abide by international law could be dealt with in the usual way by the international community: warnings, letters, diplomatic visits, Security Council debates, barbed wire, and eventually, very loud noises, very, very, loud booming noises and lots of dust in the atmosphere and very deep holes in the ground put there by angry neighbors in the international village.
So let there be a caliphate. Let there be a caliphal state. Until you have a state to call your own, you simply cannot rise up out of the primative tribal condition that imprisons you. Aspiring to statehood is a noble and worthy cause. Mecca and the patch of desert around it would do nicely. We could welcome the Muslim state into the community of nations as a parent would welcome a child. But like all children who misbehave, it may be necessary that it be spanked on occasion. That's why we invented institutions like the United States Marine Corps.
Posted by: Hulegu Khan at November 12, 2005 10:00 AM
Hulegu Khan;
To bastardise an Oscar Wilde quote,
"The US Marine Corp is an institution, and anyone who wishes to mess with them, deserves an institution."
Posted by: t-ham at November 12, 2005 10:10 AM
The Englishman posted above:
"What the islamists really want is to be feared, to be seen as a dangerous force on the earth, and they want everything to be dictated by Islam. I certainly do not personally agree with this statement, but it is this partly, and rather than the quran that has caused all these problems."
A bit of advice old chap; perhaps you ought read the quran.
Contained therein you will find, in its entirety, the very basis for all that you say the islamists "really want".
Posted by: Anthony at November 12, 2005 10:43 AM
I would bet 10 years worth of income that OBL is probably angling for the position of caliphate. If he succeds and the caliphiate is re-established, then like the Soviet revolution before him, the founder/leaders will be ousted and purged, and a newer, more brutal entity will take over, pay lip service to the idealogies that gave him his power and try to take over the world.
Posted by: JadeDragoness at November 12, 2005 11:41 AM
with a caliphate maybe then the west can easily identify an enemy. right now they have plausable deniability. with a caliphate we could take his words and use them to our advantage.
Posted by: jimmytheclaw at November 12, 2005 1:22 PM
The West already knows which states are supporting "terrorism," but chooses not to confront them directly because of political and economic reasons. This isn't rocket science. The jihadists are acting out the mandates of their handlers back in Saudi Arabia or Iran who are also funding their violence.
Posted by: epg at November 12, 2005 1:50 PM
JadeDragoness hit upon the only thing desireable about the khalifate, in my opinion, which is that fierce rivalries will come to the fore, and would-be hitlers will be at one another's throats, in the rich tradition of othman and the offspring of abu-bekr. Moreover, it might be unworkable for bin-laden (if he is alive), zwahari or zarquari to rule the ummah from a cave in pakistan, or from safe-houses in iran or syria. There are still some debts unpaid, and any exposure could quickly help balance the books.
Posted by: Infidel33 at November 12, 2005 4:45 PM
JadeDragoness:
I think OBL has already copped the title of Caliph as he dubbed Al-Zarqawi Emir of Iraq. Given that three of the four "righteous Calips" were all assassinated by Muslims, maybe that's not such a bad thing.
Posted by: waterdragon52 at November 12, 2005 7:54 PM
Maybe it is a good idea. We could state that we will support the return of the caliphate. In return, all Muslims (we can't really tell the good from the bad now can we) will return to those lands designated by treaty. Of course, you can't trust them to keep the terms, eventually they will try to expand, but they will at least be contained in a certain area instead of like the cancer they are today. Hey, I say we even support OBL. The other leaders in the Middle East will be in absolute terror. Most likely they will finally start crushing the more extreme elements in their coutries. For the trade of all Muslims leaving the West, I'm willing to accept the Caliphate.
Sometimes the worst thing you can do to your enemy is give him what he wants.
Posted by: Terrahawk at November 12, 2005 10:10 PM
If OBL has already declared himself "The Caliphate" why no go the whole nine yards and declare himself "The Sumpreme Mugwump of the Universe Because I'm Smart, Brave and So Darned Good-Looking." A huge meaningless title to match his huge meaningless ego.
Posted by: JadeDragoness at November 12, 2005 11:30 PM
From the article
Fortunately, we live in avery diverse world, and we are all enriched as a result. The thought of a homogeneous world in which there is imposed uniformity of thought is a repulsive one, no matter which ideology motivates it.
Very diverse world, just another way of saying multiculturalist.
The thought of a homogeneous world in which there is imposed uniformity of thought is a repulsive one, no matter which ideology motivates it.
Worth repeating over and over, for those who believe that their god, their religion, their values are the ONLY solution.
Problem for all of us, How to defeat the enemy without becoming that which we fear.
Posted by: Nariz at November 13, 2005 8:52 PM
Somehow I don't see you becoming Christian, nose. In which case you have nothing to fear- except islam.
Posted by: Gary at November 13, 2005 9:11 PM
(Note: The Comments section is provided in the interests of free speech only. It is mostly unmoderated, but comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying stand a chance of being deleted. The fact that any comment remains on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.)