Author: Jay Smith

THE KHILAFAH

1	Why is the issue of the Khilafah so important to Muslim youth today?

	The Khilafah is a concept important to Muslims who believe that it is the model of Allah’s kingdom which has been and will continue to be the prototype for all mankind.  Muslims point to Sura 24:55, and Sura 63:8, which state that Allah promises political power to those who submit to his will.  Thus, some believe they have a ‘divine right’ to implement political authority, in order to introduce an Islamic state, the ‘Khilafah’, as an alternative to the existing secular powers.
	To say a majority of Muslims seek such a state is probably incorrect.  Most Muslims living in the West are perfectly content with the existing secular environment they find here.  In fact a good number of them came to the West to flee corrupt or failing Islamic structures in their own countries.
	For many western Muslim youth, however, most of whom were born here, and so are not as sensitive to the failings of their ‘home countries’ as their parents are, the promise of an Islamic Khilafa takes on a new life.  They perceive themselves as impoverished in comparison to the wider community, and as a persecuted minority living in countries outside the jurisdiction of Islam.  For some, the promise of a Khilafah offers them a new hope.  When they look around them, and are disgusted by the immoral activities of many of their neighbours; when they find doors of opportunity closed to them because of racist tendencies; and when they travel to their ‘home countries’ to visit relatives, and see the disparagement in living standards, they look to Islam as a safe haven against these seeming evils, deriving from the larger Muslim community a sense of identity and purpose.
	It is this sense of loss and apprehension which a number of Islamic leaders, I believe, are now tapping into and using as a platform to create a new and enhanced identity amongst an impressionable and susceptible youth. They convene meetings on university campuses, and in local Islamic centres, where the West and Christianity are denounced and derided.  They print up and hand out reams of A-4 sized position statements on the advantages of replacing the current corrupt environment with that of Islam.  These position papers stipulate that whereas Christianity is a religion relegated to one day a week, Islam is a comprehensive faith, practised seven days a week, with solutions for every walk of life, be it political, social, economical, spiritual or scientific.  It is Islam, they say, which has created the foundation for much of the technological underpinnings of the modern Western scientific achievements.  They maintain that Islam, uniquely, has solutions for the social morass of Western urban culture, and that Islam, uniquely can bring about a cogent economic environment.
	But most significantly they contend that only Islam has and will again instill a just and equitable political environment for the West, one based on the model of the prophet himself.  These claims can be and are, I believe, quite seductive to the impressionable Muslim youth living in the squalid urban ethnic ghettos of Britain today, as they offer them an enhanced Muslim identity.  When couched in religious terminology, backed up with supposed religious documentation they can easily become an opiate for so many young Islamic men and women looking for a sense of purpose.
 	Unfortunately, those who fill their minds with grandeur fail to take stock of the present reality, nor of their own history, much of which is built on fantasy.  It is this fantasy of a just and workable Khilafah which we must focus our attention as Christians, critiquing not only its false premise, but offering as an alternative, a model of the true Biblical Kingdom of God.
2	A critique of the Khilafah model TODAY (PRESENT REALITY):

	This fantasy becomes patently evident when we ask whether there is a model for such a Khilafah today?  For if it is a primary goal for Muslims, then certainly it must be modelled somewhere for us to see and observe.  With approximately 55 countries which claim to be Islamic today, it stands to reason that there should be an example of a Khilafah amongst them; possibly in Saudi Arabia, or the Sudan, or the Taliban in Afghanistan, or even Pakistan?
	Yet, the answer given by Muslims is that there are no models today.  For all current Islamic countries are considered by Muslims living in the west as corrupt, and thus not worthy to be considered viable Islamic states.
	 This I find curious. As we have already mentioned, Allah promises political power if Muslims live in submission to his law.  Thus, if it is the intention of Allah for such a Khilafah, why is he not sufficiently capable to not only create such a state, but maintain it for perpetuity?  Why, after 1400 years can we find no true example of the Khilafah to observe?  Is Allah not able to keep his word?  Or could it be that the model itself is wrong, or perhaps outdated; or a pure fantasy?

3	A critique of their model at the BEGINNING (INITIAL REALITY):

	If one can not find an example of the Khilafah today, then on what if any is it modelled? 
	The answer always suggested is that indeed the Khilafah did exist, and to find it one need only return to the nascence of Islam, those initial years of the creation of Islam; from 622 AD, until 660 AD, what is popularly referred to as the period of the ‘rightly guided Caliphs’, or the ‘Rashidun’ period; beginning with the time of the prophet himself, and including the caliphates of Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman, and Ali.  It is during these approximate forty years, they say, the ‘golden period’ of Islam, that we can find the true Khilafah which will again be adopted or imposed on the west and the world, as Allah had originally intended.
	In order to know and understand this period we must investigate the ninth century Islamic Traditions, compiled by men such as Ibn Hisham (833 AD), Al Waqidi, Al Bukhari (870 AD), and Al Tabari (923 AD).  It is they who provide us with material on this initial model of Islam, an example patterned by the prophet Muhammad himself?
	It is important for us to observe such as model, not only because of its foundational importance for Muslims, but as a pattern concerning how the first Muslims treated the religious minorities, the Dhimmis in their midst?  This is the question which interests us as Christians, for if Muhammad is the archetype upon whom all Muslims are to base themselves, then it is important that we know how we will be treated as a minority in an Islamic Khilafa today.
	The answer is indeed troubling.  Take for example the treatment by Muhammad of the Jewish minority living in the city of Medina.  According to the Sira (biography) of the prophet, there were three Jewish tribes who lived in Medina during the time of the Hijra in 622 AD.  The treatment of these three Jewish tribes by Muhammad is not only revealing but disturbing:
	Between 624-627 AD, Muhammad evicted all three Jewish tribes who lived in Medina, first the Banu Kaynuka in 624, the Banu ‘L-Nadir in 625, and finally the Banu Qurayza in 627.  In fact the 800 males in the latter tribe were all beheaded, while their women and children were made captives.
	In 628 AD, Muhammad then attacked the town of Khaybar, defeated the Jews living there, and created the Dhimma Treaty, which became the model for the treatment of all Dhimmis (protected persons) from that time onwards (these stories can be found in Ibn Ishaq:524; Bukhari 2:41; 8,9,11,17,57).  The Dhimma Treaty stipulated that a half of all produce was to be given to the Muslims, that the Dhimmis were to provide for Muslim military forces, that they were to pay Jizya tax, that they were to provide for Muslims who asked for rooms in their Churches, and that this treaty could be broken at will by the Muslims, and the Dhimmis expelled or killed at any time.
	In 640 AD, the second caliph Umar, using this treaty as his authority, expelled the Jews and Christians from the Arabian peninsula, stating at the time that, “two religions shall not remain together in the peninsula of the Arabs” (Ibn Ishaq:525; Bukhari 2:41; Muslim 3:724).
	This then is the model we find during the time of the prophet himself.  It is a model which offered little for the three Jewish tribes living in Medina, and promised even less for both the Jews and Christians living in the Arabian peninsula of the seventh century.  If this is the ideal Khilafah Muslims look to as an paradigm for today, it holds little interest for either the Jews or Christians, or any minority indeed.  It is an appalling example and should be denounced for its barbarity and discriminatory nature.

4	A critique of their model over the LAST 1300 YEARS (PAST REALITY):

	One might contend in response that this scenario was exampled in the seventh century alone, that in subsequent centuries the Muslim Khilafah treated its minorities differently, that indeed Dhimmitude, as the name suggests, provided for the protection of those minorities under their jurisdiction, and if we should look at the historical record we would find the Islam Khilafah vindicated of guilt.  Yet, the historical record does no such thing.  Let us take for instance the Ottoman Empire, one of the greatest empires or Khilafahs of Islam, which existed from 1300 AD until 1924 AD.  It important that we look at this Khilafah for three reasons:
	1) The Muhajiroun party in England, and many other Muslims accept that this was the final Khilafah.
	2) It was under this Khilafah that the greatest number of Christians lived.
	3) It is the model which is the closest to our own time, including our own century, and therefore the best prototype of what we should expect if the Khilafah were adopted today.
	What we find is indeed upsetting, and reads like a catalogue of destruction and barbarity:
	Between 1300-1700 the Janissary Corps were formed and used by the Ottomans, made up of Christian boys who were kidnapped, drafted for life, forced to convert, and many times obliged to kill their families.
•	In 1683: the Ottomans burnt Christian villages in Austria, enslaved women, children, and working men; decapitated the sick and old; sacked churches; and trampled crucifixes (Peter Earle:261)
•	In 1822 the Ottomans massacred 27,000 Christian Greeks in Thessaly, Macedonia, Constantinople and the Aegean islands.
•	In 1842 the Ottomans killed 10,000 Assyrian Christian men, and enslaved 10,000 women and children (Death of a Nation pp.111-112)
•	In 1847 they decimated 30,000 Assyrian Christians
•	In 1860 the Ottomans slaughtered 28,900 Lebanese and Syrian Christians between the months of April-July.
•	In 1876 the Ottoman Muslims butchered 12,000 Bulgarian Christians (men, women, and children) in the month of May alone (Fisher:1040; Stokes:205)
•	In 1894-1896 under the auspices Abdul Hamid II, they wiped out over 300,000 Armenian and Assyrian Christians (Peacock:267-268).
•	In 1915 under the Islamic Ottoman Empire 1,500,000 Armenian and another 250,000 Assyrian Christians died while being deported.  The women were often raped and crucified, the children were enslaved, and churches were destroyed and made into barns (testimonial evidence as well as pictures are available on the internet).  The excuse by many Muslims today was that the Armenians were members of the Russian army; yet so were Muslim Turks, who were not touched; and there is no evidence that any Assyrian Christians fought with the Russians.  Furthermore 250,000 Christian Armenians fought in the Ottoman army (Lang and Walker:7).
•	In 1918 the Ottoman Empire, as one of its final acts exterminated another 15,000 Armenian Christians in Baku, using many of them for bayonet practice (Lang & Walker:8)
	What is most troubling for our current discussion, is that the Ottoman Khilafah killed its own Christian subjects (even the innocent) rather than protecting them, excusing their actions with easy and erroneous pretexts.  What’s to say the same could not be repeated in any future Khilafah here in Britain?
	Some will say that these statistics reflect an exercise in ethnic cleansing, yet we know that 200,000 of the Armenians in 1915 were left untouched, all of whom converted to Islam, and thus were spared for that reason alone!  It is obvious that the ‘genocide’ against the Christians living as Dhimmis under the Ottomans in the last two centuries, all of whom were bonafide citizens, had religious overtones; that the Christian Armenians and Assyrians were massacred not because of their ethnicity but due to their religious affiliation, and for that reason alone.  This has enormous implications for the possibility of any future Khilafah in Britain.

5	A critique of their model TOMORROW (FUTURE REALITY):
	
	If the model of a just and workable Khilafah is a fantasy of the past as well as the present, then can it be reproduced in Britain for the future?
	I believe the answer is an unqualified no, as the Khilafah was initially created by force.  When we look at the historical record we find that the Arabs of the Hijaz in Arabia were able within a space of 10 years able to conquer the great metropolitan areas of Basra, Baghdad, Damascus, and Jerusalem, using warfare, conquest, and aggression. 
	Should this ever be a model acceptable for Britain?  Certainly not, as it is based on a seventh century Arabian context, which is simply no longer tolerable in a twentieth century Britain.  Furthermore, the laws which would be imposed on the minorities of Britain would need to be derived from the those stipulated for minorities under Islamic Shariah laws.
	These laws are indeed revealing, and give us a snapshot of what we (i.e. Christians and other minorities) should expect if adopted by Britain in the future.  Consider:
1) Christian lives would be considered inferior, as it would be a capital offense to murder a Muslim, but not so if a Muslim murdered a Christian (Bukhari 9:50; Abu Dawud 2745)
2) Christian lives would be of less worth, since the blood rate of a Kafir would be half that of a Muslim (Maliki’s ‘Al-Risala’ 7498).
3) Christain women would be considered less honourable, as it would be only a capital offense if a Muslim woman were raped, but not vice versa (Maliki’s ‘Al-Risala’ 7520).
4) Christians would not be deemed to have any integrity, as any Christian testimony would be inferior to a Muslims, since they are considered to be dishonest and unreliable (Hanafi Manual, Al-Hedaya, vol.II, 4833).
5) There would be little reciprocity, since Christians would not be permitted to build any new Churches, and any repairs to existing churches would require government permission (Hanafi Manual, Al-Hedaya, vol.II, 4120)
6) Christians would not be considered capable to rule, as no Dhimmi would be permitted government posts (Mawdudi, The Meaning of the Qur’an, vol 2, page 186)
7) Taxation would be discriminatory, since the Jizyah Tax would be levied only on the non-Muslims, considered as a punishment, and levied with humiliation (i.e. with prostration) (Surah Tauba 9:29; Al-Hedaya, vol.II)
8) Islam would be above criticism, as cursing Muhammad would be considered a capital offense (i.e. Pakistan’s current 295-C law) (Maliki’s ‘Al-Risala’, 7512)
9) There would be no religious freedom, since all non-Abrahamic faiths would be banned (those not Christian, Jew or Zoroastrian) (Sura 9:28; Bukhari 4:393)
10) Apostates from Islam would be given three days to repent, after which time they would then be executed (Hanafi Manual, chap. IX, Al-Hedaya, vol.II).
	These are not laws or institutions anyone would willingly choose for themselves, nor are they laws which should therefore ever be imposed on others.  Yet, though we can conclude that the Islamic Khilafah is not a model worthy of implementing for Britain, do we Christians have an alternative model?

6	The CHRISTIAN ALTERNATIVE (GOD’S REALITY)?

	In order to answer the question, it is important to first delineate an important difference between Islam and Christianity.  In Islam, Mankind is considered to be innately good (S.30:30), and therefore can create a just environment, using the laws of Shariah, as well as divine guidance (Huda), led by the Ummah, or the Khalifa.
	Christianity, however, believes that Mankind is corrupt (Gen.3; Rom.6:23; 8:3).  Therefore, due to our evilness we cannot create an earthly kingdom which is just.
	In the Bible we find numerous examples of men who foolishly attempted to implement by themselves God’s kingdom.  Take the examples of Cain, Nimrod, Solomon, or more recently Constantine in the 4th century, the Reformation’s in 1500's (Calvin), and even the Church of England today.  These were all simple human attempts at creating their own security, using God’s name for their authority, much like Islam would like to do.
	God’s model, however, is quite different.  Often in the Old Testament God said, “I will be your God, and you will be my people”.  We find many examples where God reigned in peoples lives, fought their battles, and showed his power in their ministries; examples such as: Noah, Moses, Joshua, Gideon, David, and Elijah.
	As Christians we believe that we are sojourners in this world, that this is not our true home, for that will only be achieved with God, in heaven.  Thus we yearn and desire to be with Him.  Consequently, there is no need for a physical Kingdom of God here on earth, and that is why we do not look for, nor advocate a ‘Christian Khilafah’.
	Yet we do believe that the kingdom of God does exist, though not yet in its fullness.  It can be found wherever “two or three come together in [Christ's] name” (Matthew 18:20).  The true kingdom, however, will only be fully realised on the other side of death, when we can once again be in the presence of God for eternity.  Thus, until then, our security lies with the Holy Spirit.
	It is for that reason that we have historically thrived under persecution, as it is then that we are forced to relinquish our dependancy on our own securities, and rely totally on God who draws us back into a closer relationship with Him. 
	Therefore, we have no need for a Khilafah which is dependant on armies for its security, or on borders for its recognition.
	When we compare the two models, that of the Islamic Khilafah vs. the Christian Kingdom of God, we find interesting comparisons.  Consider the following:
	The Islamic Khilafah, identified as a visible, political, geographical state, which melds the sacred with the Secular; stands distinct from the Christian Kingdom of God which is identified as an invisible, personal, relational entity, separating the sacred from the Secular.
	The Islamic Khilafah modelled on a seventh century, fixed, Arabic, monolithic culture, based on rules & regulations which are rigid, brittle, and past their ‘sell-by’ date; forcing its adherents into a child-like infancy, is in direct contrast to the Christian Kingdom of God which is modelled on a contextual, fluid, universal, and transcending culture; a kingdom based on principles which are flexible, adaptive, and thus always applicable, allowing one unfettered maturity.
	The Islamic Khilafah created & maintained by man, established by force (both within the family, and the community), imposed on the unwilling (i.e. through Shari’ah, or Jihad), survives and thrives on power (for ‘those of our kind’, i.e. Muslims); whereas the Christian Kingdom of God is created and maintained by God, established by personal choice (not inherited), imposed on no-one, and survives and thrives on weakness (including the minorities in our midst).
	The Islamic Khilafah is dependant upon men whose obedience the world can see, exampled only by ‘super-men’ (the best, or the most able), deals with sin horizontally (by man’s ability, like a bandaid on a cancer); while the Christian Kingdom of God is dependant upon men whose obedience only God will know, exampled by ‘broken vessels’ (the weak, the marginated, and dispossessed), and deals with sin vertically (by God’s grace, through a cleansing of the heart).
	In the end the Islamic Khilafah is nothing more than a romantic dream, man’s temporal fantasy (with a paucity of examples), while the Christian Kingdom of God is a perfect reality, modelled wherever two or three are gathered in his name, with myriads of examples for the world to see and admire.
	Therefore, as Christians who come face-to-face with Muslims intent on introducing their Khilafah to the west, let’s not shirk from our responsibility to hold their model of Khilafah up to an historical critique.  Not only will it prove that much of what they claim is illusory, but that their Khilafah is simply not an option for the future, as God  never intended for such a kingdom on this earth, under man’s rule.
	Let’s then provide them with an adequate and justifiable alternative, the true Khilafah, that which truly comes from God, yet is not exhaustively found here on earth, nor at this time, due to the sinful nature of this world.  For God’s true Khilafah will be thoroughly realised for those who believe in Christ as their Lord and saviour, on the other side of death, where we can all be with our Lord once again, in His true kingdom, and in his presence for eternity.

Further Reading:

Earle, Peter, Vienna 1683, in History Makers magazine No. 6,  London, Marshall Cavendish, Sidgwick & Jackson, 1969 

Fisher, H. A. L., A History of Europe,  Edward Arnold, London, 1936 & 1965 

Fregosi, Paul, Jihad in the West, 'Muslim Conquests from the 7th to the 21st Centuries', synopsis on the internet at: http://debate.org.uk/topics/books/fregosi_jihad.html

Haneef, Suzanne, What everyone should know about Islam and Muslims, (Kazi Publications, Lahore, 1979 

Lang, D. M., and Walker, C.J., The Armenians,  Minority Rights Group, London, 1987

Marcus, Jacob, The Jew in the Medieval World: A Sourcebook, 315-1791,  New York: JPS, 1938

Peacock, H. L., A History of Modern Europe,  Heinemann, London, 1971 

Roy, Olivier, The Failure of Political Islam, I.B.Taurus publishers, London, 1994

Short, Walter, The Exclusion of the Jews and Christians from the Arabian Peninsular, on the internet at: http://debate.org.uk/topics/history/xstnc_7.html

Short, Walter, The Jizyah Tax: Equality And Dignity Under Islamic Law? on the internet at: http://debate.org.uk/topics/history/xstnc_5.html

Short, Walter, The Massacres of the Khilafah, on the internet at: http://debate.org.uk/topics/history/xstnc_6.html (for further source material, see:http://imia.cc.duth.gr/turkey/chro.e.html)
           
Smith, Michael Llewellyn, The Fall of Constantinople, in History Makers magazine No. 5,  London, Marshall Cavendish, Sidgwick & Jackson, 1969 

Stokes, Gwenneth and John, Europe 1850-1959, Longman, London, 1966 & 1969 

Ye’or, Bat, The Decline of Eastern Christianity under Islam,  Associated University Presses, USA, 1996