December 27, 2003
Khilafah: the new Evil Empire
Some time ago, I wrote a short essay which is related to and, in my opinion, clarifies the Bush Doctrine. Here is an excerpt from the introduction:
An evil ideology is violently spreading throughout the world. Its adherents inflict countless death, suffering, and destruction. Many countries have already fallen to it: from Mauritania and Sudan to Malaysia and Pakistan. The ideology’s influence is spreading quickly into the Free World, particularly Europe. Its goal is the establishment of a worldwide totalitarian state that will crush all human freedom and decency. By attaching itself to religion, the ideology has become more virulent than even Communism and Nazism.
Unfortunately, there is still no one commonly-used word to refer to the ideology. Without such a word, it is difficult to discuss it or even to think about it. This works in the ideology's favor: we see that, paradoxically, there is still no solid opposition to it in most places. The adherents of the ideology seek to create a worldwide totalitarian super-state which they call Khilafah. Because of this, I think it is proper to call the ideology Khilafism, and an adherent of the ideology either a Khilafi or a Khilafist.
Posted by Alex at December 27, 2003 07:22 PMYour terminology is far to restrictive in my opinion, Alex. It is religious fundamentalism, and yes it is world wide, including here in the U.S. Whatever religious philosophy they ascribe to themselves, be it Christian, Muslim, Hindu or whatever, it is the fundamentalists of each who take literally the passages of the religion’s text which states or implies, it is the one and only religion and it is an obligation of the faithful to convert the rest of the world.
The edicts of each religion also are very authoritarian, and if taken literally lead to authoritarian organization and implementation of strategies toward goal fulfillment.
Religion makes right, and right makes righteous, and might makes the unrighteous, righteous. Hence, strict adherence to the texts of almost all religions (Buddhism being an exception) leads to militaristic tactics being justified in the name of saving the unrighteous or destroying them if they won’t convert.
Education in all cultures leads the masses away from fundamentalism through rational education. Literally, rational. Meaning to use ratios, or weight this against that, prioritize, organize and implement in steps which are the most efficient to reach an end. Such rationalization leads away from fundamentalist thinking which accepts the word as the one and only way, not to be questioned, weighed, interpreted or viewed symbolically or anecdotally for greater understanding and meaning beyong the literal text. Thus, the long term solution to fundamentalism or Khalifism is education in the areas of math, science, and the humanities.
Heretical viewpoint I know… But, rational nonetheless.
Posted by: David R Remer at December 27, 2003 09:38 PMThe definitions of this new evil are too vague to be useful. To build them up into an enemy is to pit ourselves against a phantom we have no hope of getting a grasp on.
We shouldn’t be making such generalizations about the cultures. True, the philosophies of one man do influence so many others, but it would be like trying to oppose those who follow Plato, Neitzche, or Machiavelli.
We need to be more pragmatic about this, not try and make everything fit another overarching big picture of ours.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at December 28, 2003 03:33 PMA few notes on Khilafah.
There is an English word for Khilafah: Caliphate.
Although it was meant to be the State of the Faithful after the death of the Phophet, The Caliphate ended up being a Muslim equivalent of our Holy Roman Empire, a symbol, more than a real entity. Those advocating the Return of the Caliphate want the unification of the Ummah, or Community of the Believers, under one political entity. As oposed to Western tradition, in which a language (or ethnicity, or geography) defines a Nation, for advocates of the Caliphate it’s religion that does.
The Caliphate does not necessarily imply the extension of Islam to zones other than those inhabited by Muslims today. As opposed to Christianity or other Western religions, Islam does not proselitise. There are no such things as Muslim apostles or missionaries. Or Crusaders, for that matter. However, the Caliphate implies a degree of coertion: Muslims cannot opt out of the Caliphate.
‘Caliphate’ does contain elements contrary to our own Western values (the Hawks in the Pentagon seem to find this highly offensive), such as the prevalence of the Holy Word (Qu’ran) over the Laws of Man (I believe Mr. Bush would not find that too offensive!), and everything this implies for human rights as defined by Americans and Europeans. It’s worth keeping in mind that, as David points out, it’s FUNDAMENTALISM of all kinds that’s dangerous. Were CHRISTIAN fundamentalists left unchecked, some of our so-called Western values would go down the drain, no doubt.
It is wrong also to assume that the idea of Caliphate leads to terrorism: Jihad and Caliphate are different aspects of Islamic Fundamentalism. To Caliphate supporters, unifying Muslims under a flag is no different from unifying, say, Ireland. Wanting the latter does not make you an IRA terrorist. Nor implies you want to make an Irishman out of everyone else on the planet (not that it can be done!)
Caliphate supporters, as well as other strains of Islamic Fundamentalists draw upon the lack of credible political systems in their countries of origin. Democracy as they know it is a series of rigged elections and corrupt elites supported by the US and its allies, and impoverished, ignorant populations sitting on huge natural riches, the proceeds of which go to (you guessed it) the corrupt elites and Western companies.
The problem with the Caliphate is OIL. They simply would have too much of it!
Germán, Madrid, Spain
