Muslim yearning for caliphate and ISIS caliphate

ISIS (The Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham) or ISIL (The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant) has declared itself a Caliphate and named its leader as Caliph of all Muslims. The group spokesman said:

He is the imam and khalifah (Caliph) for the Muslims everywhere.......Accordingly, the "Iraq and Sham" (Levant) in the name of the Islamic State is henceforth removed from all official deliberations and communications, and the official name is the Islamic State from the date of this declaration.......It is incumbent upon all Muslims to pledge allegiance to (him) and support him...The legality of all emirates, groups, states, and organizations, becomes null by the expansion of the khalifah's authority and arrival of its troops to their areas.( See ISIS Declares Islamic 'Caliphate' And Calls On Groups To Pledge Allegiance)

Powerful words indeed. While president of Indonesia or Prime Minister of Pakistan, democratically elected leaders of around 200 million Muslims, would find it difficult to call themselves caliph of around 1.5 billion Muslims, ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, commander of fewer than fifteen thousand fighters, has claimed the coveted title. As Al-Qaida's rejection of ISIS shows, al-Baghdadi is not even an accepted leader of militant,trans-national, anti-West extremist Muslims in Iraq or Syria.  

Huff post quotes John Esposito, one of the most eminent scholars of Islam in the West, defining Caliphate in the following way (See What Is A Caliphate? ISIS Declaration Raises Questions) :

Historically, the caliph was the successor to the prophet, the political leader of the community, and therefore the head of the early transnational Islamic empire. That's important -- the idea of it being a transnational empire, that reflected the ummah, and transcended national boundaries.

Does it matter that al-Baghdadi has declared himself caliph? Some have argued that now more Muslim militants would be attracted to him. Fair point. But others have argued that this might be a disastrous outreach (See Jihadis in Iraq and Syria declare a caliphate? Why that's good).

Yesterday's declaration of a caliphate by the leading jihadi army in Iraq and Syria – and its demand that Muslims swear oaths of fealty to its leader – could prove the most disastrous piece of jihadi overreach since Al Qaeda in Iraq's routine use of torture and beheadings spurred a Sunni Arab backlash in 2006. 

The formerly Al Qaeda-linked jihadis are generally reported as going from strength to strength in Iraq, taking and holding cities like Mosul and Tikrit from the central government. But the success of the uprising in Iraq in the past month has rested heavily on the backs of Sunni Arab tribes and former Baathists with formal military training. And the grandiose announcement – a telegraphed intent to impose a harsh and regressive vision of Islam on as much territory as possible – is unlikely to make them happy.

I personally think this announcement does not matter much. Does al-Baghdadi become more legitimate or get more recruits? Some recruits but not much else. ISIS is a like a fringe of a fringe. Al-Baghdadi is a brutal callous killer and it is difficult to find many Muslims, except for the militants, giving his message any serious thought. As an NPR reporter described, even in his own country Iraq, he is considered a nut job. Most of the Muslim probably do not know who he is and those, who have heard of him, would most likely try to keep as much distance from him as possible. In conclusion, ISIS caliphate has not changed much on the ground or elsewhere. As Juan Cole explains in his brief history of Caliphate, hundreds of fringe groups have been claiming caliphate for probably more than a thousand years (See The Debacle of the Caliphates: Why al-Baghdadi’s Grandiosity doesn’t Matter).

What is a more interesting question is why Caliphate still mesmerizes many Muslims today. Why pine for a medieval government/empire? 

Nowadays, the Caliphate has captured the imagination of many Muslims worldwide mainly because they are concerned about the abject condition of the Muslim Ummah today. Despite a plethora of resources and around fifty independent Muslim-majority states in the world, Muslims are followers/lackeys, not leaders. Decisions about Muslims and Muslim-majority states are made by others in Washington, Moscow or Beijing and Muslim leaders (with a few exceptions) kowtow to these capitals, instead of charting their own independent course for the benefit of their own people.

Many Muslim relate these circumstances to the lack of unity among Muslims and hark back to the times when Muslims were successful and leading the world. It is commonly believed that under the erstwhile caliphate, Muslims were united as one nation, within one political state and that was why they were so successful. There is also the notion that caliphate is blessed by Allah. Many Muslims, therefore, desire a new caliphate so that there would be an Islamic renaissance and Islamic civilization would reach another apogee by the blessings of Allah. The message of Hizb-ul-Tahrir, one of the most prominent organizations trying to establish caliphate (Khilafah) today, shows the allied themes of current humiliation; success in the past; and renaissance under a new caliphate (See Hizb-e-Tahrir: About us)

Hizb ut-Tahrir is determined to work within the Ummah in order to implement Islam and achieve its objective by endeavouring to gain the leadership of the Islamic Ummah so that she could accept it as her leader, to implement Islam upon her and proceed with it in her struggle against the Kuffar and in the work towards the return of the Islamic State as it was before, the leading superpower in the world.....

The rise of Hizb ut-Tahrir was in response to Allah (swt)’s saying: T.M.Q. “And let there arise from amongst you a band that calls to the good and commands what is right and forbids what is evil and those are the ones who will attain felicity.” in order to revive the Islamic Ummah after the severe decline to which she has sunk, to liberate her from the thoughts, systems and rules of Kufr, its systems and from the hegemony and influence of the Kufr states,  and  in order to work towards establishing the Islamic Khilafah State so that the rules by what Allah (swt) has revealed returns to the realm of life.

While not denying that erstwhile caliphate was a big Muslim state and a big Muslim state now would probably be more powerful than numerous small Muslim states, the notion that all Muslims were united under caliphate is historically not true. Muslims were only under one caliphate for a quarter of a century during the time of first three Rasidun Caliphs and then again for some decades under Umayyads. The whole period of one united caliphate is less than one century compared to more than thirteen centuries of many Muslim states/caliphates constituting the Muslim ummah. So thinking that just because there is a caliphate, Muslims are united under it, is false.   

Ottoman Sultan and Caliph Suleiman, the magnificent (1494 - 1566)

Source: Poetic Voices of the Muslim World

Linking the glory of Islam/Muslims with caliphate is also problematic. It can be true, partially true or false depending on how glory is defined. Is it the military success or the social development or the cultural refinement or the control over maximum territory? In terms of military successes, united caliphate of the seventh century is unparalleled in Muslim history. However, the height of (comparative) social development and cultural refinement was achieved by the Muslims in the times of early Abbasids when the caliph ruled majority of Muslims but not all Muslims. There were many independent Muslim emirs/king/rulers, alongside Abbasid caliphate. Comparing Muslim history on the basis of territory under control, probably 16th and 17th centuries can be considered the height of Islamic grandeur, a time of more than dozen Muslim states/empires (not one united caliphate). 

As Dr Muhammad Iqbal (poet par excellence,  Muslim philosopher and one of the founding fathers of Pakistan) wrote supporting the decision of Ataturk to abolish caliphate, for most of its history caliphate has worked more as an empire than as an Islamic state. Therefore, its religious sanction is doubtful, to say the least:  

In its essence Islam is not Imperialism. In the abolition of the Caliphate which since the days of Omayyads had practically become a kind of Empire it is only the spirit of Islam that has worked out through the Ataturk. In order to understand the Turkish Ijtihad in the matter of the Caliphate we cannot but seek the guidance of Ibn-i-Khaldun—the great philosophical historian of Islam, and the father of modern history. I can do no better than quote here a passage from my Reconstruction:

Ibn-i-Khaldun, in his famous Prolegomena, mentions three distinct views of the idea of Universal Caliphate in Islam: (1) That Universal Imamate is a Divine institution and is consequently indispensable. (2) That it is merely a matter of expediency. (3) That there is no need of such an institution. The last view was taken by the Khawarij, the early republicans of Islam. It seems that modern Turkey has shifted from the first to the second view, i.e., to the view of the Muttazilla who regarded Universal Imamate as a matter of expediency only. The Turks argue that in our political thinking we must be guided by our past political experience which points unmistakably to the fact that the idea of Universal Imamate has failed in practice. It was a workable idea when the Empire of Islam was intact. Since the break-up of this Empire independent political units have arisen. The idea has ceased to be operative and cannot work as a living factor in the organization of modern Islam.

  

         

Iran and Israel: Changing Places?

Being two states based on religious nationalism and also critical for world peace and economy, Israel and Iran have been focus of this blog. So, it is fascinating to read a comparison of these two states. 

Two academics, one Iranian and the other Israeli, from the prestigious Stanford University have penned a wonderful op-ed in New York Times Sunday Review (See Are Iran and Israel trading places?). They argue that Iran and Israel are trading places in terms of religious nationalism, democracy, human rights and international acceptance. Iran is now considered undemocratic, authoritarian, radically religious nationalist and international pariah while Israel is considered democratic, liberal and is internationally accepted. Soon, however, Iran can become today's Israel and Israel today's Iran, if Israelis and Iranians do not change their current trajectories. 

Message of the authors is clear. While Israelis should change their trajectory, Iranians should stick to it.

After first listing the similarities between Iran and Israel (old civilizations; primarily non-Arab states in a mostly Arab region; and bastions of secular nationalism in the 1950s), Milani and Waismel-Manorapril contend that a critical cultural and demographic shift is happening and Israelis and Iranians are changing both inside their countries and outside. 

Iranian intellectuals, previously supporting religious authoritarianism, are now voicing their dissent against the regime. The argument that democracy and human rights are against Islam has been rejected. The patriarchal society established by the ruling elite, disproportionately old and male, has been challenged by Iranian women, who make up almost two-third of country’s science and engineering graduates. Gender apartheid has failed and Iranian women are asserting themselves. Birthrate in Iran is falling. Most of the Iranians are under thirty and believe in individual liberty. The rise of Mr. Rouhani and the current pragmatism is the consequence of these major changes. So, expect more pragmatism, democracy and better relations with the West. These trends inside Iran are supported by Iranian diaspora that is strong, liberal and increasingly successful.

Milani and Waismel-Manorapril then contrast this situation with Israel. While Iranian elite are moving toward West/US, Israeli elite are increasingly antagonistic as seen by their recent statements. These changes are again based on an underlying cultural and demographic shift. Orthodox Jews are gradually controlling the state that was once more liberal. Demographically, they have grown much faster as their average birthrate of 6.5 children per family is much more than the 2.6 children per family for the rest of Israelis. This change has obvious political consequences. Orthodox Jewish parties hold about around one-fourth of Knesset seats. They want to make Israel less democratic and more Jewish, with not many rights for its Arab population. Most of them are also against any agreement with the Palestinians and support settlements. Their support has been critical for continued expansion of settlements and rejection of any real peace deal. Internationally, these Israeli policies have led to increasingly strong support for the boycotts, divestment and sanctions (BDS) campaign against Israeli companies and institutions, an existential threat to Israel. Jewish diaspora is also changing and is becoming less religious and less uncritically pro-Israel. European and American Jews are mostly liberal and have difficulty accepting Israel's attitude toward Palestinians and its refusal to end occupation.

While I agree with much of Milani and Waismel-Manorapril's argument, there are few observations I want to make:

• Both Israel and Iran were not bastion of secularism in 1950s. Muhammad Reza Shah was for modernization but if secularism means separation of religion from politics, Shah clearly didn't want secularism. He used to pray at religious shrines; tell stories about how he had dreams in which he met Shia Imams; used to seek supplications from Tehran's prayer leader before going to foreign visits; and had no problems with the ascendancy of Shia sect. While his father (Reza Shah)'s regime can be called a 'bastion of secularism', his cannot. 
• Israel was even less of a bastion of secularism. Although, it was ruled by secular Jews, Judaism had a special place in Israel from the start. Israel's national anthem, language and flag and more particularly establishment of Chief Rabbinate clearly showed a tendency against secularism. Interestingly, it was in the 1950s that religious courts established their control over matters of marriage and divorce in Israel. So, while both countries have become more religious, they were not secular in 1950s.
• It is true that Iranians want a more liberal and open society but do they want a Western society? There is a difference and it should be recognized. Iranians maybe against their ruling clerics but they are also strongly nationalistic and this nationalism is largely based on West's injustice and its efforts to control Iran since 1850s. Therefore, expect better Iranian relations with the West but if Iranian felt they are being unjustly humiliated (again), then all bets are off. The recent refusal of the US government that it would not give visa to Iran's designated ambassador to the UN is one example how things can go the 'other' way.