| |
(The Dawn, Wednesday, Nov 16, 2005)
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.
Another thing Osama Saeed overlooks in his article is the vast
differences between different countries and peoples who are Muslims.
What does an Indonesian have in common with a Turk, apart from faith?The
truth is that religion is only one aspect of an individual’s identity.
Other equally important factors include language, ethnicity,
socio-economic status, education, and a whole slew of layers that
compose identity. To assume that just because somebody is born a Muslim,
he will automatically obey a distant figure who calls himself the caliph
is to ignore just how tenuous the authority of most of the past caliphs
actually was.
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.
Since 9/11, there have been sane voices asking for a dialogue with these
extremists. But the problem is that with such ludicrous demands — and
this is just a small sampling — how is negotiation possible? Indeed, by
their willingness to commit suicide for their extreme causes, they
ensure that no reasonable person can sit down with them for a rational
discussion. In their worldview, anybody disagreeing with them deserves
to die. This is hardly the basis for civilized debate and discourse.
People who subscribe to such views are clearly living in the past.
And, this past is distorted and viewed through the prism of selective
vision.
This brings us to a major problem with these extremists: they are
literalists who, apart from a rote learning of religious texts, have
read no history, economics or philosophy. They have no understanding of
culture and civilization, and are ill-equipped to deal with contemporary
issues. Seeing things in black and white, they cannot discern the many
shades of grey that are the dominant hues of the world.
Given these extreme and extremely irrational views, how can we reconcile
this jihadi culture with the rest of the world? The short answer is
that we can’t. Many moderates say that if issues like Palestine and
Kashmir are resolved, Islamic extremism will die down. The problem with
this
position is that the demands of Al Qaeda and its ilk go far beyond these
two issues.
In Britain today, there are Muslim groups who demand the rule of the
Sharia there. Do they seriously think this will happen? But while most
people dismiss this as crazy talk, they do not see how they can take
these extremists seriously. During George Galloway’s election campaign
in the Brick Lane constituency earlier this year, his speech was
disrupted by a group of Muslim extremists who loudly insisted that
elections were un-Islamic, and that anybody voting would go to hell.
The truth is that Islamic extremism is on a collision course with the
rest of the world. George Bush’s ‘war on terror’ has no foreseeable end.
As long as misguided young men are willing to die for the restoration of
the caliphate and all it implies, innocent people will die and the
backlash will continue painting all Muslims with the brush of extremism.
And as long as cynical religious leaders continue brainwashing young
zealots, they will go on blowing themselves up, taking many innocent
people with them.
In the West, there is a widespread misperception that somehow moderate
Muslims can influence these extremists into giving up terror as a
weapon. Nothing can be further from the truth. Reasonable people,
whether Muslim or not, have no credibility with groups like Al Qaeda.
In the eyes of Osama bin Laden and his band of terrorists, we are
irrelevant to their purpose. Either we are with them, or we are against
them. There is no middle ground. But until a middle ground is found, the
killing will continue.
|