Across the Islamic world support for the caliphate is a very real phenomenon, which deserves a serious and measured discussion. Sadly, Jean-Pierre Filiu dismisses the aspiration of millions of people as a fantasy and a dead end, against the evidence of history and of public opinion.
TEST
For over 50 years, Hizb ut-Tahrir [the Liberation Party] has used only non-violent political activism and intellectual means despite the harshest of repression, to win the support of people to the call to restore the caliphate as a political system in the Islamic world. In that time support for Islam’s political ideas has grown across the whole region. This year there were open public conferences in Lebanon, Yemen, Sudan, Ukraine, Palestine and, most significantly Indonesia where 100 000 people packed a Jakarta stadium debating and discussing the subject of the caliphate as a system of government.
The gathering of 100000 delegates – the majority of whom were women – is an impressive enough demonstration that support for the caliphate is actually mainstream, particularly when one considers it was in a country that is held up by western governments as a ‘model moderate Muslim state’. However, this is supported by empirical evidence from a variety of sources (University of Maryland 2007 and University of Jordan 2003 to name but two) that put levels of support for the caliphate and Shariah at over 70%. (The Maryland poll also shows an overwhelming majority opposes violence against civilians anywhere in the world, destroying the myth that support for a caliphate equates with a support for violence). Anyone who regular visits the Muslim world will testify that this powerfully correlates with mainstream opinion on the Muslim Street.
I believe there are several reasons why the support for the caliphate has grown. Firstly, the caliphate is deeply and inextricably rooted in Islamic thought. Islam defines detailed rules about governance, accountability, election of the ruler, consultation with citizens’ representatives, and legislation from the Shariah. The idea of the caliphate could not be abolished in 1924, despite Ataturk’s best efforts. Even prior to 1924 the Khilafat movement became a significant anti-colonial force in India. Filiu’s assertion that murder of three of the first four caliphs somehow devalues the caliphate as a political system is frankly ridiculous. Would anyone suggest that the value of the US political system altered because either Kennedy or Reagan were shot?
People in the Muslim world, like people the world over crave security, stability and justice. Increasingly, they have confidence that an Islamic system offers the best hope for this. For them the caliphate means not only unity with fellow Muslims, but also a just government where laws cannot be manipulated by dictators or oligarchs. This confidence is unsurprising since it is a system that is based on their beliefs and historical experience. It is only Islam that holds enough respect to build trust between government and people in a region so ravaged by decades of colonisation, occupation, corruption and tyranny. In places where no one queues for anything, people will line up in orderly straight lines when they hear the call to prayer. Even Orientalist writers recognised the ‘golden age’ of Islam which Filiu denies existed. Examples of governments being accounted and the rule of law being applicable to everyone – even the caliph – are numerous throughout Islamic history.
The real ghosts of the last century are the unfulfilled utopian promises that have been made that democracy can cure all. They haunt people’s memories along with the ghosts of failed nationalist and socialist experiments. What presently haunt people are variously occupation, monarchical and military dictatorships, and democratic administrations riddled with corruption. Almost all-governmental systems in the Muslim world have put the interests of external powers before the interests of the people. Those who are sceptical about associating religion with politics should consider that Europe’s history of bloody conflict between spiritual and temporal powers is not an appropriate analogy for the whole world. The Muslim world was more stable when the politics was based on Islam and descended into chaos when that link was severed.
It is correct that the abolition of the caliphate left the Muslim world effectively leaderless, the consequences of which are still being felt today. Britain and Germany were divided over policy toward the Ottoman caliphate in the early part of the twentieth century. Britain favoured a policy to support secessionist movements and so diminish the caliphate. Germany feared that this would destabilise the entire region and looked to a relationship of engagement. Far from learning from this major policy error, successive governments in Europe and America have felt their interests are best served by supporting unpopular and oppressive regimes, and declaring that the aspiration of Muslims for the caliphate is unacceptable.
Filiu may hope that “not too many people will fall under the spell of this ghost.” But his hopes do seem a little in vain. The CIA has made predictions of a re-emergence of the caliphate by 2020. The Foreign office has hosted seminars and discussions regarding the implications of its return. Poll after poll shows increased support for Islam, the caliphate and Shariah. Support for groups like Hizb ut-Tahrir grows, whilst confidence and support in ‘freedom and democracy’ has been all but destroyed by the war on terror. The question of how the western world learns to live with the caliphate is the one that needs serious inquiry and consideration, not denying or dismissing the aspirations of millions – as Filiu seems to do. Nor the stoking of fears and using the rhetoric of war as politicians both sides of the Atlantic do, effectively exacerbating an already large gulf that exists between the west and the Muslim Street.
Share
Comments
Print
