Conference to re-establish a Muslim Caliphate

[Che Guava]

I didn't realize that there was still interest in creating somethign of this sort...

Islamists urge caliphate revival


Some 100,000 Islamists have met in the Indonesian capital, Jakarta, to press for the re-establishment of a caliphate across the Muslim world.

The Islamist group Hizb ut-Tahrir - which organised the conference - said it had been the largest gathering of Muslim activists from around the world.

However, the group is illegal in many countries and key speakers have been stopped from entering Indonesia.

A caliphate - or single state for Muslims - last existed in 1924.

Hizb ut-Tahrir regards this as the ideal form of government, because it follows what it believes are the laws of God as set out in the Koran, rather than laws designed by man.

The group says it seeks to set up a caliphate by non-violent means - but many experts see it as ideologically close to jihadist groups.

It is banned in most of the Middle East and parts of Europe.

The BBC's Lucy Williamson in Jakarta says that of the estimated 100,000 people packing the stadium hired for the event, the overwhelming majority were women, who have travelled from across Indonesia to attend.

If the audience turnout was impressive, not so the speakers lined up to address the crowd, our correspondent adds.

One by one, over the past few days, seven of the delegates invited to speak have dropped out.

Barred

Controversial Indonesian cleric Abu Bakar Ba'asyir was asked to stay away on security grounds, while three national leaders cancelled at the last minute.

The Palestinian delegate was unable to leave the Palestinian Territories, and representatives from Britain and Australia landed in Jakarta on Friday but were refused permission to enter the country.

Hizb ut-Tahrir's spokesman in Indonesia said he was disappointed about these problems and said that the Indonesian authorities had not told the group why its speakers had been barred.

Hizb ut-Tahrir - or Liberation Party - was founded in Jerusalem in the 1950s by Palestinian religious scholar Taqiuddin an-Nabhani.

Today it has a mainly clandestine following in the Middle East, a large presence in Central Asia - where hundreds of its members have been jailed - and active supporters in the West, including London, which is believed to be one of its main bases.

Many experts see it as ideologically close to jihadist groups, and suspect its commitment to peaceful means is purely tactical.

link

Well, that certainly would be one heck of a state, now wouldn't it?

I know that this is more of a pipe dream than anything, but it still makes one think about the possible effects of 'muslim internationalism', should it take off more as a philosophy...

 

[brennan]

I think i'm right in saying that there's been a bit of a fuss about Hizb ut Tahrir in the UK. Many people think they should be banned but they're not.

 

[Lockesdonkey]

Any realistic Muslim Caliphate would be more like a Muslim Pope than a political empire. They might give the Khalifah a sub-neighborhood in Cairo, Damascus, or (if he has a death wish) Baghdad to serve as his personal capital, but that's it.

 

[Che Guava]

Any realistic Muslim Caliphate would be more like a Muslim Pope than a political empire. They might give the Khalifah a sub-neighborhood in Cairo, Damascus, or (if he has a death wish) Baghdad to serve as his personal capital, but that's it.

Y'know, this might not be a bad idea if it worked out more like the papcy. Giving islam more of a 'head' might be useful for negotiations with the west, India, etc, and, in turn, peacemaking.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Y'know, this might not be a bad idea if it worked out more like the papcy. Giving islam more of a 'head' might be useful for negotiations with the west, India, etc, and, in turn, peacemaking.

Right, because Catholic nations give a hoot what the Pope says...

 

[Snowball]

I foresee a major oil crisis is this ever happens.

 

[Babbler]

Even a "Popist" Caliphate would unrealistic and undesirable, never mind a "real" Caliphate.

 

[GenMarshall]

It would only create more problems. For the Shiites, It has to be descended from Mohammed's blood line.

 

[silver 2039]

It will not happen in the perceivable future the Islamic world is far too divided at this point with along religious, political, social, and economic lines for it to be possible.

 

[Lockesdonkey]

Right, because Catholic nations give a hoot what the Pope says...

Catholic nations don't. Catholics do. And Muslims would even more. A Khalifah could put a lid on the nastiness that often flies among Muslim peoples.

Even a "Popist" Caliphate would unrealistic and undesirable, never mind a "real" Caliphate.

Warrants?

It would only create more problems. For the Shiites, It has to be descended from Mohammed's blood line.

The new Khalifah would probably be Sunni-only; the Shiites already have their own hierarchy.

It will not happen in the perceivable future the Islamic world is far too divided at this point with along religious,

Quoi? The main thing uniting them is religion! If you're talking the Shiite countries: As I said, they likely wouldn't be included. If you're talking extremists: the idea of the Khalifah (in my view, though of course the extremists and maybe the folks at the conference have another idea) would be to give the Islamic center (people like Turkish PM Erdogan and his AKP) a figure with standing and charisma equal to or greater than those on the far ends of the spectrum.

political,

True, but how many Catholic countries are there? If it's just a religious figurehead, political agreement only needs to be minimal.

social

Are you talking about how there are many different Islamic societies? OK, that's also true, but why are you saying that that would be a bar to the creation of it?

and economic lines for it to be possible.

Now this really confuses me. Why would economic differences have anything to do with the creation of a religious institution?

 

[The Yankee]

Probably wouldn't be a huge deal even if it came to pass. The Ottoman Empire was the last established caliphate, as mentioned in the OP. The world kept going.

The only troubling part would be how close they may align with such jihadist groups, many of which may also have a stated goal of establishing a new caliphate.

 

[Bill3000]

The only troubling part would be how close they may align with such jihadist groups, many of which may also have a stated goal of establishing a new caliphate.

Yeah, but if there's a caliphate, then that'll remove one of their stated goals.

 

[The Yankee]

Yeah, but if there's a caliphate, then that'll remove one of their stated goals.

But it wouldn't stop the terrorists/radicals/militants.

 

[Bill3000]

But it wouldn't stop the terrorists/radicals/militants.

It'll make 'em less legitimate. Much like the alleged antipopes by the sedevacantists are less legitimate by the fact that there's a standing pope.

 

[Che Guava]

Many thanks to Bill3000 and The Yankee for denfending my position while I was absent: took the arguments right out of my mouth

The point is, most of the Sunni Muslim world (by far the largest group, and usually the denomination of those terrorists that seem to want to kill us) has no real central authority on thier religion, at least as far as I can tell. In that way, it is far easier for fanatics and extremists to gain supposed legitimacy with the populace. If there was a caliph, your average muslim could have a central authority to look to to better judge the viewpoints of thier local imam or jihadi recruiter.

If, for example, the Sunni Caliph proclaimed that violence is not the way to achieve islam's goal's and that efforts should be made to make peace with the west, I would imagine that the number of muslims joining extremists groups a la Muslim Brotherhood might decline, citing the judgements of thier central leader. Of course there is no guarantee that the new caliph would immediately move to make such an edict, but I would imagine it would be a lot easier to convince an individual in office of a particular viewpoint than trying to speak directly to muslim all over the world, asking for peace. The whole reason that ortganization slike al-quaeda have been so successful is that 'the snake has no head': there's no real central leadership, there's no one to bargain with, there's no focal point at all for progress. If muslims would like to give thier snake a head, I don't think we should be to quick to dismiss the possible benefits...

btw, another article from the BBC on why people support the Hizb ut-Tahrir. A few selected quotes:

"Maybe I chose Hizb ut-Tahrir because it unites the masses better than other Islamic organisation"

~Yani, Hizb ut-Tahrir member

"I think democracy is OK. But it's not enough. I think democracy in Indonesia should be supported by religious, ethical and moral values."

"Because this is a country where the majority of its citizens are religious people. So maybe not liberal democracy, but uncommon democracy; based on religious values - I say religious values, not necessarily Islamic values.

~Din Syamsuddin -leader of Indonesia's second largest Muslim organisation, Muhammadiyah.

"[A New viewpoint on the west] comes as a matter of course. I've come to believe that Muslims have the right to defend themselves when attacked, but we're not allowed to be aggressive against Westerners if they're not attacking us.

"The method used in Hizb ut-Tahrir is a change in thought patterns. We call it 'thought revolution'. When someone is given Islamic teaching - given the brilliant thinking of Islam - then they'll naturally undergo a thought revolution, and will see what is good and what is bad."

~Kholid, member of Hizb ut-Tahrir

A thought revolution in islam? Maybe that is something good...

 

[The Yankee]

That's exactly why most terrorist organizations are Sunni. There's are no centralized figures, like the Grand Ayatollahs of Shi'a Islam, to prevent someone like Osama bin Laden from establishing himself as some kind of religious authority.

Sure, there are various leaders in the Sunni community, but none really have the pull, official or otherwise, that any one of the Grand Ayatollahs have.

I don't think the establishment of a new Caliphate would necessarily cut the legs out from under this terrorist movement. It's not as if developments going their way have prevented these extremists from changing their tune; they just change their reasons. For instance, the United States pulled out most or all of its forces from Saudi Arabia.

Also consider that during the Ottoman Empire's last days, you had the Wahhabis scrambling to finish their conquests in Arabia. There's no reason to suspect that they would kowtow to a new Caliphate. Nor would I say that other countries, such as those in North Africa, would cede moral or political authority (assuming this new Caliphate is established somewhere in the Middle East).

That said, those excepts in the above post are nice and refreshing to see for a change. Not that there weren't already people with such viewpoints, but they seem lost in the shuffle.

 

[ParkCungHee]

Right, because Catholic nations give a hoot what the Pope says...

Solidarity.

Of course the idea of a single Islamic state is unattainable, it would be entirely unrealistic to do so even if they had the power to achieve it. Islam stretches from Mali to the Phillipines, with countless nations and cultures stretched between them. Fundementalist Islam has had its highest appeal in national liberation movements. Any attempt at Pan-Islam would be an even greater failure then Pan-Arabism (Which was comparatively reasonable).

 

[Elrohir]

Y'know, this might not be a bad idea if it worked out more like the papcy. Giving islam more of a 'head' might be useful for negotiations with the west, India, etc, and, in turn, peacemaking.

I doubt it. Either this Islamic "Pope" would be friendly towards the West, in which case he would be ignored at best, and attacked or assassinated at worst, by Sunni radicals, or else he would be unfriendly to the West, in which case he would be an enemy of the West who would probably make the situation worse.

Not to mention how Israel would feel if there was any serious attempt to unify all the Muslim nations around it under one leader. Overall, I don't think this is a good idea right now. Maybe at some point in the future, when there are fewer nuts out blowing people up.

 

[cubsfan6506]

There would be problem's. With the Shiites. They probaly would have a claim to isreal. A claim to part of india. Claims to pretty much everything.

 

[Ansar]

So, do they like, want to create a Muslim version of Israel?