“There is no Islam without a Khilafah”

[There] you have it, according to the moderate Muslims I have talked with in recent months. Reporters who want to cover this debate must realize that, as one scholar told me: “It is all about Shariah.” Can Shariah come to the West? Will governments in the West allow that and, if they do, are the political leaders who back that development prepared to deal with its affects on public life?

There is no Islam . . . without a Khilafah

Advertisements
Tagged ,

8 thoughts on ““There is no Islam without a Khilafah”

  1. Thud says:

    How is this appreciatively different from, say, PromiseKeeper events and other political Christian events? I question calling these folks “moderate” Muslims — I’ve heard conservative Christians called “moderates” far too often to be taken in by that.

    Also: is it possible that there *are* moderate Muslims that want a Caliphate, but they view it much the same way moderate Catholics view the Pope? The Catholic Church, too, has a political head that rules on religious law; in a sense, there is already a Christian analogue to the Caliphate in place.

  2. gls says:

    “How is this appreciatively different from, say, PromiseKeeper events and other political Christian events?”
    In a sense, perhaps they’re not much different. However, in contemporary Christianity, we don’t see many people using the violent passages of the Bible to justify violence against non-Christians. Sure, there’s dominion theology, there’s the occasional abortion clinic bombing, and some portions of the Evangelical doctrine are downright violent, but as a whole, I just don’t see the parallel. When we see Christians killing ex-Christians for converting or have substantial portions of the Christian community calling for a return to Old Testament standards, complete with stoning, I’ll concede they’re more similar than alike.
    The bottom line, whether we liberals want to admit it or not, is that, worldwide, only Islam now has so much violence associated with it. If moderate Muslims don’t like that image, they should be working to change it — protesting terrorist attacks instead of calling for the imposition of Shariah might be a good start.
    “in a sense, there is already a Christian analogue to the Caliphate in place.”
    Where? The Vatican? The Catholic church — with its various problems with “rebellious” priests in the States and Liberation Theology in Latin America, plus virtual non-attendance in Europe — hardly counts, I think.

  3. Thud says:

    I just can’t help but think anti-Islamic language or whatever plays into the hands of religious extremists on our own side and continues to exacerbate the problem. I mean, what’s the end of this? There are many violent muslims, yes. If we’re going to target Islam itself, then how will we make progress against it? Holy war? Bomb Mecca? Criminalize a religion?

    We should save our critique — and legal / military action — for those actions which actually do us harm. Yes, the moderates and liberals should stand up and defend themselves. But we should not make their jobs more difficult by forcing them to defend themselves against us *and* the radical elements of their religion. We’re all smart enough to know there are Muslims willing to live and let live.

  4. gls says:

    “If we’re going to target Islam itself, then how will we make progress against it? Holy war? Bomb Mecca? Criminalize a religion?”
    I’m not saying we should target Islam. What I’m suggesting is that we need to take into account the very violent theology that permeates the Koran and the Hadith and act accordingly. If a group of Imams begins doing something on a plane that seems suspicious, we shouldn’t have to worry about offending moderate Muslim sensibilities, or, now, fear having a suit brought against us.
    “Racial profiling” some might say, or rather, “religious profiling.” Yet the simple fact is that no other religion in the world is so associated with terrorism as Islam.
    “Change Islam,” I would say. How so? A simple start would be for all these moderate Muslims who are indeed wanting to live and let life having mass protests after the recent failed attempts in the UK with people carrying signs saying, “Not in our name!” and similar. Maybe moderate Muslims could also picketing in London the next time extremists are shouting about how they love bin Laden and want to impose Shariah in Britain, saying, “You do not represent us!” Why not an outcry in the Muslim, made public, at how these extremists are hijacking the religion?
    In short, all I’m suggesting is that, if moderate Muslims are indeed the true representatives of the religion of peace, they need to make their voices heard. Silence means approval, goes the cliche, and in this case, that would be approval of a very deadly ideology.
    Addendum
    It’s more of this type of thing that I’d like to see.

  5. Thud says:

    Holding Muslims to another standard of behavior *is* targeting Islam. And profiling people who “look Muslim” isn’t constructive because it’s not as though Muslims have big blinking signs over their heads when they’re not in religious garb. (In fact, most of the middle-easterners I know are atheist.)

    This — and the condemnation of Islam in general — makes it more, not less difficult for moderate and liberal Muslims to deal with extremists in their midst. You’re making them choose between their religion and the people who treat them as sub-human. That’s not going to work. It’s just going to continue to radicalize them. Abuse is not the way to win friends and influence enemies.

  6. gls says:

    “Holding Muslims to another standard of behavior *is* targeting Islam.”

    How is this holding them to another standard? It’s holding them to the same standard: don’t commit acts of violence against innocents in an effort to promote your agenda.

    If Methodists began a terror campaign, my reaction would be the same. If atheists began such a campaign, I would react the same.

    Neither of these groups are, though. And why is that? While we might suggest various socio-economic reasons, one obvious reason that we’re not taking into account is that Methodism and atheism doesn’t have a history of teaching violent conflict. There are violent passages in the Bible, but virtually none use that as justification for violence against non-Christians. Atheism can be fairly intolerant of all religions, but there is no atheist manifesto saying that all believers should be wiped out.

    The Koran, however, does teach such things. And “moderate” Muslim groups like CAIR (I put the double quotes just for the reference
    to CAIR) do little to moderate that tendency in Islam. In fact, CAIR will not even say that Hamas is a terrorist organization. When asked if Hamas is a terrorist organzation, they will say, “The State Department classifies Hamas as a terrorist organization…” but never say, even when asked point-blank, “CAIR’s official position is that Hamas is a terrorist organization and not an accurate representation of Islam.”

    What are we to do with information like that? Sit on it? Pretend it doesn’t exist? Ignore it because it offends are sensibilities?

    “You’re making them choose between their religion and the people who treat them as sub-human.”

    How is it even treating them sub-human? If a disproportional section of their population is behaving sub-humanly, what are we to do? Treat them the same? If my religion (or lack thereof) had an increasingly growing problem with terrorism, I’d be angry at the non-believers who are committing these acts, not those who are trying to stop them and noticed, “You know, a lot of these attacks are coming from the non-believing population. Maybe we should do something about it.”

    The connection between terrorism and Islam is now fairly clear. It’s not to say that all Muslims are terrorists, but most terrorists are Muslim. I’m simply saying we need to take that into account, and thus, referring back to the article that started this whole thing, take special notice when not one but two conferences start talking about worldwide Caliphates.

  7. Thud says:

    If my religion (or lack thereof) had an increasingly growing problem with terrorism, I’d be angry at the non-believers who are committing these acts, not those who are trying to stop them and noticed, “You know, a lot of these attacks are coming from the non-believing population. Maybe we should do something about it.”

    And would you be saying to yourself “this is no more than I deserve because some atheists nominally connected to me blew up a building” when you’re being detained, strip-searched, and threatened with Quantanamo at a US airport because someone on the plane thought you went to the bathroom one too many times and you’re not wearing a cross?

  8. gls says:

    Of course I would be angry. And I think the steps you’re mentioning are going too far. There’s no need to threaten. Just check them. If I’m a believer of X and I’m being checked because so many other believers of X are committing violence, then I really think I’d be more angry at my fellow believers who are ruining the reputation of my religion than I would be at those checking me more thoroughly than other, non-x believers. There’s an enormous difference between extra precautions with a given group and what you’re talking about.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s