This is a guest post by Ibn Khaldun
****
In a recent interview with ‘AltMuslim’, Scotland’s resident entry level Islamist Osama Saeed sought to do with the Caliphate what Nick Griffin is doing with his racial prejudice, i.e. using more ‘saleable’ terms to make the idea sound more appealing to a modern Western audience. When pressed on the issue Osama said:
All that I was saying was the Caliphate can be consistent with democratic norms and human rights norms. I think to say the opposite of that is effectively saying that Islam is problematic and not compatible with these things. I also think it’s complicated internationally. I’m not advocating that we need one big superstate, because there are territorial integrities to take into account.
But if Muslim countries decided that they wanted creative cooperation, bring down trade barriers in the same way that Europeans do within the EU and the United States does [internally], that’s a laudable aim. I don’t see that there’s anything wrong with that. You’ve effectively got a significant international structure there. It’s just about talking about in modern terms
The above statement is loaded with assumptions. Firstly, the Caliphate is not an intrinsic part of Islam, so criticising it does not mean ‘Islam is problematic’. Secondly, if he is just concerned about trade barriers then why use the word ‘Caliphate’ at all. You can bring down trade barriers and even have common defence pacts without a Caliphate. You can have Muslim unity on certain issues without a Caliphate. Either Osama doesn’t know what the word ‘Caliphate’ means or refers to, in which case he is ignorant, or he is merely attempting to make the idea sound appealing to a modern audience. Given his past associations with Islamist groups like the MAB, I would go for the latter.
My objections to the idea of a ‘Caliphate’ are based on the fact that most Islamists like Osama use the term to refer to an expansionist state that will seek to enforce a strict interpretation of Sharia on its citizens. Terms like ‘democracy’ and ‘human rights’ are simply thrown in to pacify casual observers whilst the emphasis on a Caliphate reassures his Islamist allies that he remains committed to the cause. As Osama himself says, he is simply ‘talking about it in modern terms’.
4 Comments
“I also think it’s complicated internationally. I’m not advocating that we need one big superstate, because there are territorial integrities to take into account.”
Not advocating one big superstate? Oh ok, that’s a relief . Carry on with advocating the Caliphate as one small mono-state, then. Any proposals on where you want to set that up specifically, Osama?
If he wants an EU style set up then why talk about the ‘Caliphate’. EU states are still independent. He is actually calling for an Islamist alliance of states run by Islamist nutters.
Also, why unify and breakdown trade barriers along religious lines? How does the fact that Europeans and Americans do it compare with a religion doing it? Is Osama presenting the world with a choice, either be European, American or Muslim?
will the Ahmadiyas be included?
Also, have you guys seen this: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article6638568.ece
- wonder what the Wahabis and Jihadis will have to say to this..