Of Caliphs
and the Caliphate: Setting the Record Straight
By Asma Afsaruddin
Many Muslims watch in horror
these days as some of the terms they associate
most positively with their religion are appropriated
by extremists and then fed back to Western media
with a negative spin. "Jihad" and "sharia"
were the first victims. Now "caliphate"
has met the same fate.
"Jihad" has traditionally referred to
the effort made by pious Muslims to better themselves
and the world around them through spiritual, mental,
educational and physical -- including military
-- means. But the extremists today use the term
only in the military sense, against anyone they
arbitrarily name as the enemy, including Muslims
they disagree with. Similarly, "sharia,"
an Arabic word meaning "the Way," refers
to broad moral and legal principles from which
specific laws may be created through human interpretation.
Mainstream Muslims regard the sharia as a source
of mercy and justice. A considerable number among
them insist that, outside of matters of worship,
much of it is subject to different interpretations
in different times and circumstances. The sharia
is not simply a collection of harsh punishments,
such as stoning for adultery and amputation of
hands for theft, nor does it necessarily dictate
inferior social status for women and religious
minorities. Yet thanks to the extremists, jihad
and sharia have entered the Western media primarily
as terms which point to essentially violent, merciless
and unchanging Islamic societies.
Now militants have tainted another cherished concept,
the caliphate, something they hope to recreate
in order to impose their bloody world order. Understandably,
this has caused concern in many circles. President
Bush recently raised the "specter" of
a revived caliphate, causing goose bumps to form
on the collective national epidermis. Others have
warned of the dire consequences of a universal
community of Muslims united under a single leader,
their caliph. This would inevitably lead to totalitarian
rule and a holy war against the West, an event
desired by mainstream Muslims, or so we are told.
For those who know anything about early Islamic
history, these characterizations are alarmist
and historically inaccurate. The caliphate for
which most Muslims have a high regard is specifically
that of the Rightly Guided caliphs. This is the
name given to the first four men who ruled the
community between 632-661 CE, after the death
of the Prophet Muhammad. As recorded in early
texts, the time of the Rightly Guided caliphs
represents certain cherished ideals.
For instance, these men who succeeded one another
were not related by blood and came to power through
some process of consultation. They admitted their
accountability publicly, as did Abu Bakr, the
first caliph, who asked the people to correct
him if he should fall into error. They became
fabled for their tolerance toward religious minorities
and respect for the rights of women. Thus Umar,
the second caliph, refused to pray in the Church
of the Resurrection in Jerusalem when invited
to do so by the patriarch there because he was
afraid that the site might later be wrongfully
claimed by Muslims as a mosque.
According to the ninth century historian Tabari,
Umar promised the Christians of Jerusalem that
their churches, crosses, lives and possessions
would be protected. Umar also appointed a woman
to the influential post of market inspector for
the city of Medina and entrusted his copy of the
Qur’an, which was the basis for the final
version, to a daughter and not to a son.
Many mainstream Muslims I know point to examples
such as these when they wax poetic about the Rightly
Guided caliphs.
But a very different Umar crops up later in history
as a kind of intolerant twin to the above. In
contrast to the caliph described by Tabari, this
Umar forbade Christians from repairing their churches
and imposed humiliating restrictions on the practice
of their faith, according to the terms of a treaty
called the Pact of Umar. Is this also the Umar
invoked by certain Muslims today? Certainly, and
particularly by extremist Muslims. He has been
used to justify discriminatory attitudes toward
non-Muslims at different points in history.
Interestingly, Umar's double does not make his
appearance in any historical source before roughly
the 11th century. The second, later Umar was clearly
invented in more sectarian, troubled times. Quest
for worldly power and social privilege sometimes
trumped fair treatment and justice and became
reflected in law. This has been the unhappy experience
of most societies of the world in relation to
women and minorities. In our own times, when a
Christian West is perceived by many to be on a
collision course with the world of Islam, the
alternative Umar's harsh decrees have been marshaled
to legitimize bigotry practiced by, and against,
Muslims.
So should mainstream Muslims today want a return
of the caliphate? They should -- but of the first
type as exemplified by the early, magnanimous
Umar, and in a metaphorical sense. Muslims should
indeed want a revival of many of the tolerant
and compassionate values and practices associated
with the Rightly Guided caliphs and their era.
We forget how much of modern Western political
and legal reform was predicated on a return to
the past for a selective retrieval of ideals.
It was an appeal to an idealized ancient Roman
republic that brought about the establishment
of representative government in the West after
centuries of despotism that had been justified
by some on religious grounds. More recently, it
was the privileging of Biblical insistence on
the dignity of human beings that focused attention
on human rights in the West.
Many of the values and practices associated with
the earliest Islamic caliphate could and can translate
into democratic governance, equal rights for women
and religious minorities and creation of civil
societies today. They set powerful historical
and legitimizing precedents for genuine reform
and revival in contemporary Islamic societies.
Rather than causing goose bumps, a responsible
and critical engagement with the past, including
the caliphate, on the part of reform-minded, forward-looking
Muslims should be cause for optimism. - New America
Media
(Editor's Note: Religious terms sacred to Muslims
have been misused by extremists and amplified
by Western media. First came "jihad,"
then "sharia" and now "caliphate."
The writer Asma Afsaruddin is associate professor
of Islamic studies at the University of Notre
Dame, South Bend, Ind., and author of "Excellence
and Precedence: Medieval Islamic Discourse on
Legitimate Leadership" and the forthcoming
"The First Muslims: A Short History.”)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
