A criticism of the Caliphate

[robandrob1]

A Caliphate, for those who may not know, is an Islamic state ruled by a religious and political leader known as a Caliph or 'successor' to Muhammad.  It is championed by Islamist's as the ultimate form of divinely ordained governance, a political system that solved historical problems and which can also confront contemporary problems as well.  Different groups of Islamist's not only see the Caliphate's of the past through different lenses, they also envision a hypothetical  future Caliphate in different ways.  Hardcore Al Qaeda types usually champion the military power of the Caliphate, how it will be used as a vehicle to bring glory to the Muslims and conquer the world in the name of Islam.  The somewhat less fanatical Islamist's profess to believe that a modern Caliphate could have good relations with the rest of the world, however they still agree with the principle of a supreme religious scholar imposing Islamic law on the Muslim world.  These types usually emphasise the prosperity that the future Caliphate will bring to it's subjects and how it will protect the poorest members of society.  Given the grandiose claims being made about the Caliphate I think it's important that secularists are able to present a different narrative.  I don't profess to be a historian, but by doing some basic research I hope to expose the flaws of several historical Caliphate's and show that a modern Caliphate would be subject to the same frailties.

The Prophet of Islam, Muhammad, died without leaving a successor, as such it fell to a group of tribal and military leaders to decide who should lead the Muslim community.  This tribal 'council' eventually decided to pledge allegiance to Abu Bakr, Muhammad's father in law, who became the first Caliph.  However not everybody had the opportunity to give their opinion, Muhammad's corpse hadn't even been buried when tension and disagreement threatened to tear apart the Muslim community.  Some tribes wanted to dissolve the centralised state that Muhammad has established and declare their own independence, other tribes renounced Islam entirely and said that their pledge of allegiance was to Muhammad, not to his religion.  Meanwhile Shia Muslims insist that Ali, Muhammad's cousin and his rightful successor, was busy preparing Muhammad's body for burial when the tribal council made their decision. 

Abu Bakr's first task as Caliph was to deal with mass apostasy and rebellion among the Arabian tribes, the Muslim community had to fight a year long war just to prevent the nascent Islamic state from disintegrating.  If Muhammads rule was so just and equitable why did half of Arabia want to secede upon his death?   After putting down the insurrection Abu Bakr sent his armies to invade the Sassanid Empire, which encompassed modern day Iraq and Iran.  It's notable that Abu Bakr was the only one of the first four Caliph's to die peacefully.  He allegedly died of a fever and before his death he nominated Umar Ibn Al-Khattab to succeed him.  Umar continued the invasion of the Sassanid Empire and also invaded the Byzantine Empire.  The Muslims were relatively tolerant towards the people they conquered, which is in part how the Caliphate made it's money; tax.  Aside from the war booty and slaves that the Muslim armies returned with the invaders taxed their new subjects for the privelage of retaining their own religions and customs.  Needless to say the Persians weren't exactly grateful for this and in 644 Umar was assasinated by a Persian slave named Pirouz Nahavandi, who was captured following a battle with the Muslims.  Upon seeing Persian children who had been enslaved and taken to Medina Pirouz is quoted as saying "You have been enslaved at such a tender age. This Umar sees eaten my heart. I will take his heart out".  Islamists will frequently tell you about the good deeds of Umar, how he was generous to the poor and how he founded a welfare state, but conquering neighbouring countries and enslaving their children isn't a sustainable practise in the 21st century.  Apparently Pirouz didn't think it was fair in the 7th century either because he repeatedly stabbed Umar with a knife whilst he was praying. 

According to Muslim sources whilst Umar was on his deathbed he nominated six people to choose a successor from amongst themselves.  Meanwhile Umar's son, infuriated his father's imminent death, went on a killing spree, one of his victims being Pirouz Nahavandi's daughter.  Umar for his part ordered his son to be imprisoned and for his successor to decide his fate.  The tribal council eventually nominated Uthman ibn Affan to be the next Caliph.  Uthman continued the wars of conquest that his predecessors had started, but became unpopular in some circles due to alleged nepotism and corruption on his part.  Eventually a mob of hundreds of Muslims descended upon Uthman's house whereupon he was beaten to death, Uthman was only spared the indignity of having his corpse mutilated when his widows pleaded with the rioters to stop.  I'm somewhat baffled how Muslims can claim that Uthman was one of the greatest political leaders ever to live when he was himself beaten to death by a mob of hundreds of Muslims who accused him of being corrupt. 

The rebels who had assassinated Uthman were in favour of Ali succeeding him.  Although it was ultimately the people of Medina who chose Ali as their leader, support from the rioters who killed Uthman pretty much tainted his rule from day one.  Uthman's closest allies refused to pledge allegiance to Ali and ultimately fled to the levant where they launched a rebellion against his rule.  This culminated in a large battle between Ali's supporters and an army led by Aisha, Muhammad’s former child bride and now a widow.  Although Ali won this battle the Caliphate descended into civil war and he was ultimately assassinated, whilst he was praying, by a faction of rebel Muslims.  Ali had intended for his eldest son, Hasan, to succeed him, presumably an attempt to establish a monarchy.  To this day Shia Muslims persist in the belief that only members of Muhammads family can lead the Muslim world.  In the ensuing civil war Hasan was defeated by Muawiyah, an ally of the deceased Caliph Uthman.  When Muawiyah's assumed the role of Caliph he made it mandatory to curse Ali in Friday prayers and eventually passed on the title to his son.  Almost every Caliphate which followed since was a monarchy.  The Rashidun Caliphate had inherent weaknesses which would be carried forward to any modern Caliphate, the inability to depose a Caliph by peaceful means meant that armed rebellion was usually the only option.  The practise of Caliph's nominating their successors also left the system vulnerable to corruption and nepotism, the Caliphate's various civil wars and leadership disputes stand as a testament to this.  Islamist's can continue to embellish the Caliphate to make it look like a modern institution fit for the 21st century, but at it's heart it will always be either a tribal oligarchy or a fuedal monarchy. 

[StupidWiz]

This makes me recall of what I've learned about Caliphates a long time ago. Interesting right? That after Abu Bakr the following caliphs' lives ended in tragedy aka murdered. FYI, if you're doing tarwih prayer in Ramadhan month, every 2 rak'at are dedicated to each of these caliphs, starting with Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman and finally Ali. Although their story's full of brutality, the 4 of them are considered Muhammad's closest friends and are very respected among muslims.