ISIS – Caliphate or Pretenders?

ISIS has been operating in both Syria and Iraq for a few years; however they have shot to prominence in June 2014 due to its claim of having established a Caliphate on territory constituted from both countries. Whilst the Caliphate is a revered institution in both in Islamic scholarship as well as the sentiment of the Muslim masses as cited by numerous polls, the claims of ISIS have only found small pockets of support around the world.

A key discussion point has been the viability of the State declared by ISIS, particularly focussing on the aspect of security. ISIS asserts that the hard power of its authority as a Caliphate is derived from the bayah (pledge of allegiance) sworn to it by the influential Sunni tribes in Iraq, giving it effective control of the territories of these tribes and beyond. The Sunni tribes are known to be significant players in the region, being pivotal in the Anbar insurgency during the American occupation of Iraq and infamous for switching sides from Al Qaeda to help the American effort to drive them out of their lands.

Concerns of vulnerability to attack by foreign powers are addressed by drawing parallels with the historic Islamic State established in Medina in the 7^th Century, when the Muslims received the support of only two key tribes of the town. The great powers of the time were the Eastern Roman (Byzantine) Empire and the Sassanid (Persian) Empire, which it is claimed that if they were to have attacked the nascent Islamic State in Medina it would have been destroyed. Are these claims based on solid reasoning?

There seems to be an implicit assumption that the Roman and Persian empires themselves were in a reality where they were focused on the area in which Medina existed, therefore able to influence the security of the region.

This is simply not the case, as they were both busy fighting each other and left much of the Arabian Peninsula to their tribal allies to deal with. Even this was so that the tribes maintained a buffer zone against their own empires. We know this from documented history as well as from the Quran itself, where in Surah Ar-Rum the ongoing battles between the Romans and Persians, including the then impending Roman victory, is discussed.

Therefore the battles that the Islamic State in Medina took part in during the early years were between powers of a similar order of magnitude, rather than a couple of tribes against hundreds of thousands of men.

The region of Iraq today, as well as for much of the previous 25 years, has directly been the focus of Western aggression through a hugely destructive war, an almost decade long implementation of sanctions, followed by another hugely destructive war, followed by an almost decade long occupation. After the occupation itself has ended, America has left in place its political system as well as a core security team in key areas such as Irbil and Baghdad, retaining influence in the area.

The Sunni tribes, whilst having the ability to decide security on a local level, are not able to do so in the context of modern states. In other words, whilst they may be instrumental in deciding which group or tribe can exist in the area, they do not possess the might to repel an attack by a foreign force such as America by any stretch of the imagination to the extent that they can guarantee security for an independent political vision.

This then leads one to question America's silence over ISIS's advance in both Syria and the Sunni region of Iraq yet its immediate and strong reaction to potential advances on the Kurdish areas as well as Baghdad.

Moreover, there is a well publicized school of thought within American thinking which discusses the fragmentation of the Middle East and the breaking of Sykes-Picot borders by America itself. In addition, the fact that ISIS can suddenly capture a huge amount of wealth and American weaponry as well as the entire city of Mosul, where no shot was fired, without the US batting so much as an eyelid leads to further questions. Add in to this the horrific nature of many of ISIS's "PR" releases which are highly sectarian in nature.

When viewed in this wider context ISIS not only are revealed to by far short of attaining the capability of a secure state, their actions and deeds are highly suspicious and curiously in line with overarching American objectives for the region. The bonus of exploiting the deeply respected and cherished institution of the Caliphate can only be a propaganda coup for those that wish to see it buried in the books of history forever, given that the apparent merciless nature of the treatment of non-Muslims and Muslims disagreeing with ISIS would revolt the majority of the world, Muslim or non-Muslim.

Muhammad Asim

Twitter: @AsimWriter

Published on 22nd August 2014 on Asia Times Online as ISIS: Caliphate or pretenders?

The toppling of Morsi is a blow for Secularism

“Any customer can have a car painted any color that he wants so long as it is black" – Henry Ford

The ouster of Mohamed Morsi as President of Egypt in a coup d’état by the military will reverberate not only across the political landscape of the ancient land but that of the entire Muslim world. Morsi, whilst viewed globally as a barely acceptable face of political Islam, represented but a segment of a wider movement in the Muslim world calling for the implementation of Shariah law by the State.

Numerous polls have shown overwhelming support amongst the global Muslim populace for making Shariah the official law of the land. The latest of such research is that of the Washington based Pew Research organisation entitled ‘The World’s Muslims; Religion, Politics and Society’ which was released on April 30, 2013. The poll found that in 25 of the countries surveyed the majority of Muslims supported Shariah being the law of the land. Notable findings were Iraq (91%), Malaysia (86%), Niger (86%), Pakistan (84%), Morocco (83%), Bangladesh (82%), Egypt (74%), Jordan (71%) and Nigeria (71%). What is intriguing about these findings is not just the level of such support but the amount of diversity amongst the respondents gives pause for thought; whether one finds themselves in Africa, the Middle East, South or South East Asia, they would find a consistent political ambition amongst the people.

So why has Morsi been rejected in Egypt? To the uninitiated a bearded man from a party, whose name drips with Islamic symbolism born in the nationalistic aftermath that followed the collapse of the Ottoman Caliphate, which for many years adopted the slogan ‘Islam is the solution’ would be the realisation of anyone who desires Shariah law.

On a superficial level the Morsi government failed to address the economic malaise faced by Egypt leading to mass discontent. Yet there is also a deeper answer hiding in plain sight; the Muslim Brotherhood had not only forsaken Islamic politics decades ago but became the champion of democratisation, predicated on secular thought, across the Muslim world. Its actions subsequent to the demise of Hosni Mubarak epitomise its wandering political compass, which have compounded Egypt’s woes.

Early on in the revolution it was quick to distance itself from championing the mass movement, which many interpreted as a sign that it was projecting a moderated stance to the global media lest Western states decided to intervene against it. This was designed as much for the consumption of world as it was for the military, the real power behind the Egyptian throne.

Appropriate noises were made about wanting a civil state rather than an Islamic one which led the Brotherhood being allowed to contest the elections as the Freedom and Justice Party. Many supporters ignored this call due to a mixture of viewing it as political subterfuge and holding the idea that an Islamic state could be achieved from within a secular democratic setup by gradual implementation of Islamic principles. Once in power, rather than using this success at the ballot box as a mandate for political change, the Brotherhood ended up continuing many of the key policies and ideological direction of the Mubarak era.

Economically it was unable to address the issue of resource distribution, with the military and Mubarak era governments controlling up to 40% of the economy. As these elites moved wealth out of the country, the Egyptian Pound plummeted leading to a widening trade deficit as Egypt attempted to service its energy and food imports using a weakened currency. Out of ideas, Morsi turned to the IMF for interest based loans. All of these policies were born of the crucible of economic liberalism, with no Islamic economic policies such as the introduction of a bi-metallic backed currency, the abolition of natural resource monopolies or the shifting of the tax burden from income and consumption to capital and produce in sight.

In terms of foreign policy the army ensured that Egypt continued to support the goals of its benefactor, America, rather than reflect public sentiment in Egypt. This lead to the reaffirmation of the Camp David accords, blocking the tunnels to Gaza and mostly silence on the issue of the Syrian revolution. This ran counter to the expected dropping of national borders to unify with other Muslim countries to create a wider Islamic union and the removal of Western supported dictators in the Arab world by supplying political/military support to other revolutions in the region.

Despite unending compromise on practically every major issue to placate Western states abroad and secularists at home, the Brotherhood was still ejected from power. This will leave many supporters of not just the Brotherhood directly but the politics of gradualism and participation in a democratic process with much to think about. If democracy cannot tolerate the will of the people if it happens to be Islamic, then is it truly just a mechanism for representing popular opinion or is it a system unable to function without the values of secular liberalism being implemented? Is it really the political equivalent of Henry Ford’s choice of colour?

The ramifications of the answer to this question would be important not just to the fate of Egyptian politics but to that of the entire Muslim world. The Muslim Brotherhood has inspired many movements in the Muslim world which have espoused political participation in democracy rather than an attempt at radical change to establish an Islamic State. If the Brotherhood can be tossed aside, despite decades of work and masses of support on its home turf, how can such a system hold any hope for meaningful change?

Lessons learned from Egypt would suggest that any real change requires the backing of the armed forces rather than a conflict with them or a simple change of face on the political front. Further, it would seem that regardless of how much political Islam compromises it would never be perceived as sufficient by secular segments of society, so why try at all?

The coming months and years could see the biggest drop in adoption democracy amongst the proponents of Shariah law across the Muslim world. Ironically, this would have been precipitated by a coup backed by secularists and implicitly by Western powers to rid one country of any influence of political Islam.

Muhammad Asim

Twitter: @AsimWriter

Published on 8th July 2013 in The Nation (Pakistan) as Morsi’s toppling: a blow for secularism

Lessons from the European Union for the Muslim World

The desire for Unity in the Muslim world is strong and growing. Many surveys and opinion polls have suggested an increasing number of Muslims from countries as far apart as Egypt to Pakistan want to establish laws based on Sharia and desire unification of Muslim countries. Indeed there is a growing trend to attribute this call of unity to Islamic scripture rather than ideas of Pan-Arabism or some sort of socialist union. The discussion of how to implement such unity is now a hot topic of contention amongst many circles. A 2007 poll called “Muslim Public Opinion on US Policy, Attacks on Civilians and al Qaeda” by WorldPublicOpinion.Org revealed that an overall average 65% of people across the Muslim world support the goal to “unify all Islamic countries in to a single Islamic State or caliphate”.

An enthusiastic debate is being played out across the Muslim world and beyond as to how the unification of over 50 countries and territories should take place. One of the suggestions has been for all Muslim countries to enter in to a Muslim Union. In particular, there has been some discussion that this Union should be modelled after the European Union (EU).

Given that the EU has managed to bring together countries that little more than half a century ago were killing each other by the million this argument deserves to be examined. In addition the current global financial storm that is buffeting the EU gives us an opportunity to examine the robustness of such a union in the face of stern challenges.

The thinking behind this original European project was that closer integration between different European states would lead to an increase in prosperity and thus prevent another outbreak of war. Preceding the EU were three organisations which were set up during the Cold War era. These were the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC), whose aim was to create a single market for the coal and steel industries on the continent – the key industries for war, in order to establish prosperity amongst the different nations. The European Economic Community (EEC) existed as a general customs and economic cooperation body, which went on to become the single market. Also, the European Atomic Energy Community (EAEC) existed to facilitate cooperation on nuclear energy between member states. Crucially, these organisations were a platform for the Capitalist European states to come together on the basis of their common ideological bond for mutual gain. Communist nations in Europe were excluded from the club.

After the Cold War, the EU succeeded these three organisations to create a common market to facilitate trade between countries in Europe by standardising laws to ensure the free movement of people, goods, services and capital. A bigger economic bloc would emerge to provide all nations with more power than they would have individually on the global scene. Together, European nations would be able to get better trade deals with international partners such as the USA and Russia. This increased financial power would bring more political influence in the world without the individual colonial baggage that many European nations carried from the preceding centuries.

Expansion of the EU has been driven by dual political and economic reasons. Richer nations like Germany would be able to gain access to cheaper labour whilst at the same time integrating its state politically and economically with the destiny of the rest of the continent, making it less likely to go to war with its neighbours. Poorer countries would be able to obtain financing for their domestic programmes at cheaper rates of interest due to the power of the Euro, which would be backed by the clout of the German Mark and hence, the German economy. Poorer nations would also gain access to bigger markets which would present no tariffs or other obstacles for trade, enabling them to earn wealth. In turn richer nations would able to produce and sell goods locally at lower costs and in a bigger market.

Politically, the EU would also be able to draw in the former Warsaw Pact and Soviet Union republics with the promise of a better economic future and thus check the power of Russia. Ostensibly there to spread democracy, expanding the EU would allow countries like Germany and France to gain more influence in an innocuous manner in Eastern Europe. Former Communist states were promised a slice of Capitalist nirvana by joining the EU, thus ideologically and politically realigning these countries.

Practically, though the EU has implemented a recognisable form of governance in the form of a Parliament and courts, the most prominent feature of the EU is the single market which in turn has spawned the Euro. Supplementing this is the legislative dimension which applies to all member states to support the market. This includes rules on the transfer of people between member states, job opportunities, contribution of subsidies to the Union and distribution of grants

This all would seem to work well in theory but there are many practical problems. The issue of EU citizens being able to work anywhere in the EU raises domestic concerns within individual member states about the rights of local citizens to jobs. This also leads to concerns about immigration and the impact this would have on local services such as healthcare and potential changes in culture due to an influx of foreign people. Many also object to their money being spent on people from other countries, such as the UK paying farming subsidies to France under the EU Common Agricultural Policy (CAP).

These difficult issues, as well as others, are tolerated as long as the original Capitalist ideal of economic benefit for the country can be justified, as this is the raison d’être of the EU. Despite different countries within the EU operating slightly different models of Capitalism, such as the French model being more state interventionist whilst the British model is more free market oriented, member states are committed to the EU as long as the individual states continue to reap benefits.

However since its inception the EU has not faced a real challenge until the recent global financial crisis and this has revealed massive fault lines. The financial indiscretions of some nations like Greece have plunged the Euro Zone in to crisis, with the problem affecting a larger group of countries as well. Portugal, Italy, Ireland, Greece and Spain, collectively known as the PIIGS, have thrown the single currency in to crisis with Great Britain also teetering on the brink outside of the single currency.

Greece’s massive debt is a threat to the EU’s integrity. If it defaults then this will severely damage not only the Euro but the Union as a whole. Other PIIGS states will question the value of remaining in the EU if when things get tough they are abandoned. If any of them decides to leave then the EU as an economic and political project would be a failure. Practically, Greece is not at liberty to enact a UK style rescue by printing more currency as the Euro is not within its sovereign control. This leaves a massive political headache for both Greece and the EU.

The only viable solution seems to be that Greece would agree to a combination of massive spending cuts and rise in taxes in exchange for a bailout from the EU and other institutions. The ramifications of this are that the burden of Greece’s debt shall essentially be spread amongst the EU and citizens of other countries shall in essence have to help pay off this debt. This will merely address the short term problem without addressing the underlying fundamental problem with the structure of the EU that has led to this conundrum. This is just dealing with the problems of Greece, not addressing the rest of the PIIGS who are in a similar predicament.

The issue with the EU is that it has evolved beyond a simple common market whose aim was to provide an easy trading zone for all members and simple ‘prosperity for all’. With the introduction of a single currency and legislation that overrides certain aspects of national law the EU has taken on aspects of a sovereign State. The problem is that this pseudo polity conflicts with established nation states that constitute it. You have a situation where more and more power is being transferred to a central foreign body but there is no central government to provide overall direction for the member states.

The EU has slowly been moving towards this direction but this is highly contentious. By establishing a central budgetary authority each member nation would give up the ability to set their own domestic budgets. This would impact areas such as health, education, military, science, technology and others. This would alter the very essence of national politics as local politicians would no longer have the ability to determine the direction of the country. Essentially, it would mean each member deconstructing the nation state and giving up its sovereignty to become a province of the larger European super state.

Without the implementation of a unified government and the establishment of a formal EU super state, the EU only serves to entrench differences between member states rather than to unify them. EU rules and legislation are drafted not in the interests of the EU but are influenced by each member state to maximise their own individual benefit, even at the expense of others. Such a model is destined to fail to bring unity to different nations. Fundamentally, the idea of a political union contradicts the raison d’être of the EU’s foundation which was economic benefit for each individual sovereign nation state.

For the Muslim world, the desire for unity does not stem from the Capitalist aspiration of European states to benefit from each other economically. The unification of the Muslim world is an ideological stance directed by Islam itself for the sake of establishing political unity. The model of unification requires the adoption of a common ideological basis, Islam, rather than the pursuit of economic gain.

The purpose of this unified polity is to establish Islam as a ruling authority in the form of a State body. In addition, the history of the Muslim world is classically a unified one with varying levels of autonomy granted by a singular central authority. Separate Muslim countries are a relatively new reality, with every single Muslim state having being created by a vacating European colonial power in the 20^th Century.

Attempts have been made to re-establish some level of unity in the Muslim world in the form of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference (OIC) and the Arab League. These however merely serve as cultural clubs or discussion forums, not bringing the unification of politics, economy, law and resources that is now being demanded in the Muslim world. Neither has any power to issue legally binding decisions which would directly impact the lives of citizens of their member states.

Crucially, the member states of these organisations do not share a common basis upon which to interact with each other apart from loose cultural affiliation. Member states being run as theocracies, dictatorships, democracies, emirates and monarchies which varyingly implement Capitalism and Socialism with certain aspects of Islamic law. Due to the lack of a common ideology, meaningful unity of any form is impossible between these member states.

Historically, unity in the Muslim world has been achieved via the model of the Caliphate. This model, which was established 13 years after the Islam began, does not follow the gradualist approach of the EU. The Caliphate as a point of ideology unifies the interests of its various provinces, whereas the EU preserves divisions between different nation states. This is because the Caliphate is established upon Islam as a ruling ideology to which it calls other peoples and states to. The ability to unite not only the disparate warring tribes of Arabia but also foreign peoples such as the Persians, Egyptians, Anatolians and Central Asians in a short space of time was one of the stand out features of the historic Caliphate.

The obstacles in the Muslim world preventing political unity are the ruling authorities which do not Islam as a comprehensive ideology nor express a desire to abandon the nation state. An economic unification in an EU type model would not address this fundamental obstacle in the Muslim world. Just as the EU does, this type of Muslim Union would serve to entrench political differences and confirm the nation state rather than establish unity amongst the different Muslim peoples. Indeed practically such a union would not even be possible as the Muslim countries do not share a common ideological basis, Islamic or otherwise, with which to interface with each other.

The way to establish a lasting union for Muslims would be to establish a State with Islam as its ideological basis. This State would unify interests by establishing political unity and implementing one model of governance across all of its territory, with a single leader settling any differences of opinion. European countries have no fundamental requirement to be united due to Capitalism. Therefore, the European Union model would not deliver the type unity desired by the Muslim masses worldwide leaving the Caliphate as the only viable alternative.

Muhammad Asim

Twitter: @AsimWriter

Published on 3rd June 2010 in The News (Jang Group, Pakistan) as
Caliphate – only viable alternative to EU model?