You are probably familiar with the phrase "Islam means peace", a response to the linkages of Islam with violence. Similarly, perhaps the most common statement from Muslims since September 11, 2001 is "jihad does not mean holy war, but struggle." Now Muslim apologists in the United States have found a new term to correct. Speaking of al-Qa'ida and "violent Sunni extremists" in September of 2006, President Bush stated, "They hope to establish a violent political utopia across the Middle East, which they call a "caliphate" – where all would be ruled according to their hateful ideology." Some months later, in a May 2007 press conference, the President said of al-Qa'ida, "Their strategy is to drive us out of the Middle East. They have made it abundantly clear what they want. They want to establish a caliphate. They want to spread their ideology. They want safe haven from which to launch attacks." While the accuracy or inaccuracy, methods, and ambitions of the President's claims are the subject of a separate discussion for a different forum, his use of the term "caliphate", which obliged immediate response from many a Muslim speaker and activist, deserves comment.

The Qur'an states that God created Adam in particular and the human race in general to be His khalīfa (caliph) on the earth. The term "caliph" has been used throughout Muslim history to refer to various persons of authority, be they monarchical political leaders or the heads of revivalist and/or Sufi movements. Scholars have sometimes used the term in referencing the Sunni outlook on the golden age of Muslim history, that of the Rightly Guided Caliphs who succeeded the Prophet Muhammad.

While popular definition of the term indicates a sort of vicegerency of the Divine or successorship to the Prophets, the moral, social, political, and economic dimensions of this role have been thoroughly explored. A common topic of Muslim Student Association lectures, for example, is the construction and constitution of a theoretical, ideal Islamic way of life – whether as society or as polity – and the term used in such lectures is caliphate. Political Islamists use the term to reference the establishment of an Islamic polity, commonly regarded as the "Islamic State." They sometimes refer mournfully to March 3, 1924 as the moment of the final demise of the Caliphate: the abolition of the Ottomans. The majority of these Islamists are non-violent; more importantly, few have any connection to al-Qa'ida.

As an anti-occupation resistance movement, the Indian subcontinent saw the rise of a "Khelafat Movement" to fight off the British colonizers. A non-Muslim member of this movement went on to attain his own global notoriety: M. K. Gandhi. Recently, scholars such as Professor Amina Wadud have placed focus not on the political or liberatory meanings of the term, but on the aspect of moral agency. Others still have embraced the zeitgeist and directed attention to the role of the human race in caring for the environment: These Muslims call on congregants to fulfill their roles as caliphs of the earth.

The term, then, is a robust and multidimensional one. But the President's remarks – emblematic of the widespread characterization of Islam as uniquely connected to violence and authoritarianism (a characterization that is sometimes opportunist, sometimes bigoted, but consistently myopic) – have compelled what is now becoming the most common use of the term by Muslims in the United States: the apologetic use. It is the same tune that we have heard for over a century of Islam in America. In the same way that jihad does not mean "holy war" but "struggle", caliphate does not mean "authoritarian state" but "God's vice-regency."

Thus, the President has perpetuated a theme by adding a new word to a growing lexicon of hate. Likewise, the apologists are responding in a familiar way, necessarily diminishing the complexity of a term to counter its flagrant misappropriation: Yesterday it was jihad; today it is caliphate; no doubt tomorrow will see a different term. As the Muslim populations of America actively work to develop their indigenous Islam, the challenge will involve determining – in the face of this rhetorical contest – exactly what types of caliphs they seek to be. This writer intends to continue using the term caliphate. That is his jihad.

Even though this U.S. administration has no standards when it comes to truth and credibility, we ourselves should hold to a higher standard. It was NOT Bush per se, who first began to use the term "caliphate". Rather, Rumsfeld (or whoever his speechwriters were at the time) first appropriated the term as a way of trying to discredit the nascent Iraqi insurgency and its political goals and motivations:

http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/12/11/news/letter.php

What he has actually ended up doing, rather clumsily, is made this something that Muslims themselves (who were previously unaware of this idea) include this as something to chant and include as a slogan in opposition to U.S. policies in the region:

http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0510/p01s04-wome.html

http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/world/2008/01/02/caliph-wanted.html

what is also left out in all of this, is that the U.S. govt. historically DID have relations and interactions with the caliphate when it existed. Abraham Lincoln after all signed a treaty with it on Feb. 25th 1862, here are some interesting links on this:

http://the-caliphate.blogspot.com/2006/11/americas-warm-relations-with-caliphate.html

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/diplomacy/ottomans/ot1862.htm

Lastly the sad part is, like "Jihad" and "dhimmi" this term is appropriated by those who have nothing but malice and hatred for all things Muslim and Islam. So it is now used as a pejorative way of insulting Muslims and a way to instill fear in a populace to get them to rally and support whatever political position or cause is being touted at the time. It is up to Muslims to reclaim that definition, for if they don't define themselves, as Karl Rove used to say, "we will define our political opponents for them".

regards,
kw

Dear Mr. Mozaffar,

With all due respect sir, the goal of Al-Qaeda and groups like Hizb ut-Tahrir and Al-Mujahiroun, supposedly disbanded, and here in the United States the Muslim American Society with it's connection to Ikhwan al-muslimeen is the restoration of the Caliphate for the formers and the Islamization of America. If you doubt this please refer to the their HT's website and the Chicago Tribune article of September 22, 2007.

Islam divides the world in the Dar al-Salaam and Dar al-Harb. Lands not under muslim rule, specifically where sharia is not implemented, is Dar al-Harb, the House of War. It is to gained for Islam, whether through dawah, persuasion and even Jihad, not the greater Jihad but the lesser, Holy War. The Jihad section of Sharia is explicit when it states it the responsibility of the Khalif is to wage war against the Jews, Christians, and Sabaens so the Islam reigns supreme. Al-Qaeda's 20 year goal is the destruction of the United States so that the impediment to re-establishing Islam as the "only religion worthy of worship" is fulfilled.

Currently, jihad today is a defensive one. Members of HT have said that once Islam is strong enough, it will go from a defensive to an offensive. Sharia is specific when it states that offensive Jihad cannot be called except by the Khalif. Their motives and objectives are inseparable. Bin Laden's is no different.

You may label President's Bush use of the word hateful or bigoted but historically the Caliphate is the symbol of Islamic power and Allah's divine will that the world be Islamic and ruled by it.

As a non-muslim, I have no desire to live in an Islamic state nor would I wish my fellow Christians either, though we are seeing the imposition of it in Nigeria and Sudan with violent and genocidal consequences. Muslims may believe that dhimmitude is some sort of benevolent "second class" citizen status but history points out that it is nothing but religious apartheid. And when non-muslims in the West see demonstrations like this in Britain, why should we not call Jihad and the Caliphate for what it is, violence and domination.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=B_kyNIevsIs&feature=related

It was interesting watching the demonstration. I realized that there can be no compromise between a liberal, democratic society and Islam. As a Christian, my religion is mocked in songs, by comedians, movies, and art. We don't burn down the Art Museum and trash the movie theatre or issue religious decrees calling for person to be beheaded. We might picket or write letters but nothing on the scale of the violence and destruction that these muslims called for.

They live in a society that gives them the freedom to assemble, the freedom to espouse killing and the destruction of countries in the Europe i.e. freedom of speech, the very thing they are demonstrating against. They are protected by police of all things. They're verbal demonstrations of hatred and vile comments are tolerated by British society.

The tragic thing is is that they are confirming the views that non-muslims have of muslims, Islam, and Mohammed through cartoons. They are not introspective enough to see this and they don't see that they are denying others the very freedom that they have but seem to believe they have the right to do this at the exclusion of others who are doing it pictorially.

I wish you success with your PhD thesis.

Best regards,

Salams kwaleed,

Just to be clear, I didn't indicate that GWB was the first to use the term. That he was the first or not is immaterial to the point anyways, no? Regarding the reference to the csmonitor article, the chants were present long before GWB made any reference to the term. But, thank you for the Abraham Lincoln references. They are very interesting.

Dear ND,

Just to be clear, we do agree that there are plenty of Muslims who are engaging in acts of violence that violate the traditions of every religion on the planet, especially Islam. Likewise, there are plenty of Christians who are engaging in acts of violence that violate the traditions of every religion on the planet, especially Christianity.

But, your characterizations beyond that are unfortunate, and I hope that you do reconsider what you've state above. There are two problems. The immediate problem is that your comments have nothing to do with my post. My post is about the nature of power brokers to invoke cognitive frames, which apologists respond to, thus reifying them.

The second problem, however, is that you are engaging in the same cognitive framing. It is really quite disappointing, no? It is already unfortunate that we forget that Europe -- gave us World War I (40 Million Casualties), World War II (60 Million Deaths), the Holocaust and the Genocide of the Bosnians. Remember that the latter took place just a few years ago. Please do not continue to dishonor those who died and suffered in this way.

Thus, what I call on you to do is to conduct yourself Christ-like, by preaching peace and love, because what you are doing is obviously something else.

If you are ever in the Chicago area, please do drop me a line, and I would hope to take you out to dinner and develop a friendship.

Thank you, both of you for your posts.

May God bless you.

Omer M

Yes, I would have to agree in some respects with Omer. While it is easy to revile Muslims and their so-called "intolerance" and their ideas of a Caliphate, anybody doing so, should provide an alternative example of what they consider a practical tolerant society.

Is it England or United States ND is refering to??? They may be very tolerant of their own citizens, but what they have done to peoples outside of their borders over the past 300 years should send shudders down any God-fearing person's spine. Justice and Equity and Freedom are apparently only good for their own citizens, that is called racism btw.

I would have to disagree with Omer in his use of the WWI and WWII as examples. Especially WWII, whereby a Nazi regime was mainly responsible for death and destruction, and the Allied forces had to assemble their armies and declare jihad against the Germans. One cannot consider the Allied forces as the 'cause' of war and destruction. It was the facist Nazis with their own unique ideology who are responsible for the 2nd World War.

There is no doubt the Americans benefitted greatly from the war effort and owe a lot of their post WW-II economic and technological boom to the fruits of the war, some may say the modern industrial-military complex there is a direct result of this, but one can hardly blame the Americans for benefitting from the war. They fought for peace and they benefitted fortituously from their ensuing sacrifices.

Human beings in the middle, hijacked by the extremes. Maybe Muslims of the world should just declare a Caliphate, elect our own leaders, and then have the various governments dissolve into regional administrators. Maybe its easy as collective will, one singular earnest duaa, and that final directed action from all of us. Maybe the extremes will just cower if we reclaimed our identity for ourselves.

>> Maybe Muslims of the world should just declare a Caliphate <<

Caliphate, eh? Peace on Earth??? Well, well. The early caliphate was not exactly a model lovefest. Sahaba going at each other, even members of the family of the Prophet (pbuh). Killings, civil war. If the Sahaba cannot string together 50 years of peace and prosperity, what chance do you suppose today's Muslims have??

Besides, we already have a caliphate!!! Its called OPEC. Take away the oil and what do Muslims collectively contribute to medicine and industry in the world? Nothing. So, in that sense, the important Muslim contributions to the world are already caliphated. The rest, Muslim nations killing and undermining each other, that would be the same if the whole lot was organized under a more formal moniker of CALIPHATE. Same as the good old days.

I noticed only after reading that this was originally published for a non-Muslim audience. I was hoping to see some discussion in the article about how us American Muslims should view the concept of Caliphate as Omer so well said, "actively work to develop their indigenous Islam"? I see the beginnings of a hint in how Omer terms it as a vice-regency, almsot a stewardship in the environmentalist sense of as used in the field of corporate ethics (don't laugh, such a field does exist). Am I sensing you correctly, Omer?