“Role of Interfaith Dialogue on Peace Building and Conflict Resolutionz”
2010年12月9日 ファーテヒ大学 イスタンブル・トルコ
Liberation of the Earth through Spreading Rule of Law
- Reestablishing a new Caliphate from a Japanese Perspective
Dr. Hassan Ko Nakata, Professor, School of Theology, Doshisha University
Japan was the second country, after the Othmani Caliphate, which promulgated the idea of constitution, among non-Western countries. In 1890 the Meiji Emperor received a letter from Caliph Abdul Hamid II, brought by the Battleship Ertu˘grul, to the effect that both countries would promote mutual relations. At that time, both countries had suffered from the hegemony of Western colonialism and been trying to defend their political independence and civilizational identity, thus the victory of Japan over Russia in 1905 was accepted enthusiastically by the Othman Caliphate.
Now the Othman and Meiji regimes have finished, both countries face a similar critical situation under so-called “Globalization”, advocated mainly by the US and its allies, and have to respond.
In this historical context, I hope my presentation will be a Japanese response in the era of American hegemony under the name of “Globalization”, to the historical mission of Othman Caliphate for the liberation of nations colonialized by Western countries.
2. Caliphate for Liberation of the Earth
Contrary to the false globalization, which is in fact a new form of colonization by the USA, true globalization should be the liberation of the globe, the earth, and all human beings.
In Fiqh, Khalifah is the abbreviation of Khalifah Rasul Allah, i.e., the Successor to the Apostle of Allah (in ruling), not Khalifat-ullah, the vicegerent of Allah on the earth. However, the connotation of the vicegerent of Allah on the Earth has never been forgotten. Al-Qurtubi (d.1272) in his famous commentary on Qur’an says in regards to Surah 2:30: ‘This verse (“ I am going to create a vicegerent on the earth! Q:2:30) is the base for the appointment of Imam or Khalifah, Caliph, who is listened to and obeyed in order that the opinion would be agreed and rules of the people be carried on.’
Allah is the Lord of the heavens and the earth, Rabb al-Samawat wa-al-Ard. In this context, the term “al-Ard (the earth)” in Qur’an is always single, in contrast to “al-Samawat (heavens; plural)” . That is because the earth is one and indivisible, and Allah is the Lord of this one and indivisible earth, not any country, or “territorial nation state”.
Besides the famous verses “I am going to create a vicegerent on the earth! ”(2:30), and “O Dawūd, We have made you a vicegerent on earth, so judge between people with truth”(38:26), in which the singular form of Khalifah appears, there are verses in which the plural forms khala’if and khulafa’ are used, calling human beings as you like “Or the One who responds to a helpless person when He prays to Him and removes distress, and who makes you vicegerents(khulafa’) of the earth?”(27:62) and “It is He who made you the vicegerents(khala’if) of the earth”(6:165) . All these verses combine khalifah, khala’if and khulafa’ with al-Ard (the earth).
Human beings are vicegerents of Allah on the earth, meaning that they are in charge of the execution of the Divine Law of Justice on the earth. Allah is the sole Lord of the earth, thus human beings as his vicegerents should be united to apply the sole Divine Law, Shari`ah, all over the earth with Justice, without any discrimination by countries, or nations. We will return to the concept of Caliphate in details later.
In Islamic Scholarship, Khalifah, Imam, and Amiru-l-Mu’minin are synonymous. The name Caliphate is not important. What is important is its substance, i.e, supreme political authority and sole legitimate regime of Islam. But we call it as Caliphate only for sake of convenience.
3. Role of Turkey for Re-establishing Caliphate
Turkey would play a key role for establishing a new Caliphate, not only because it is situated geopolitically at the nexus between Western Europe and Muslim world but also because it had been one of the important political players in Europe since Franco-Turkish alliance was established in 1536 between the king of France Francis I and the Turkish ruler of the Ottoman Caliph Suleiman the Magnificent. At the same time it was the Caliphate, the supreme Islamic regime, that was called “the sick man of Europe” by the 19th century.
Therefore we should start our argument from confirming the fact of our “modern history” that the Othman Caliphate was the universal supreme government of Islam, whilst a member of the European community at the same time. Meaning it is not conjecture but a fact that the Caliphate as the Islamic universal supreme government is able to be a member of European society, in the very land of Turkey - historically, civilizationally and geopolitically.
Why not? There has never been genocidal wars between Othman Caliphate and the European countries, aimed at annihilating the enemy, as happened between Protestant and Catholic in European Wars of Religion in the 16th-17th centuries and the Second World War which resulted in around 20-30 millions of casualities in Europe alone. It is is true that “normal” wars occurred sporadically between the Othman Caliphate and European countries just as they happened between European countries, as they did between Muslim countries inside and outside Othman Caliphate.
Hence, we should not be deceived by the illusion of incompatibility of Turkish being of a member state of the EU and a Caliphate in the land of Turkey, as the Othman Caliphate had been an actor on European politico-diplomatic stage for centuries.
It is most desirable for the future of the human beings on the earth that Turkey be admitted to EU and at the same time a Caliphate be established in the land of Turkey.
The issue is: what kind of Caliphate is to be established? First we will look at the concept of Caliphate in Fiqh or classical Islamic jurisprudence.
4. Caliphate in Fiqh
Islamic law is said to be a archetypal jurist’s law alongside Roman law. Actually, while Roman law became law after its authorization by the Emperor and he is above the law, formulation of the Islamic law was independent from Caliph’s authorization. Indeed the jurists, Fuqaha’, rejected any interference from Caliph in its formation, and rejected declaring that the Caliph was above it.
“Islamic and common law thus shared the common characteristic in so far as both appealed to an law higher than the state”. Even Wikipedia (English,2010/11/13) admits that Caliph is not above Islamic law but under Islamic law, saying that in “ Islamic jurisprudence rule of law was formulated before the twelfth century, so that no official could claim to be above the law, not even the caliph.”
Islamic law is still valid for all Muslims, despite the fact that the rulers of the Western-made territorial nation states in the former Dar al-Islam, or Muslim World, have no longer enforced Islamic law, because the ruler has nothing to do with the formation of Islamic law, and consequently its validity is not dependent on its enforcement by the government.
Islamic Law is valid as far as it is taught by Fuqaha’. And classical text books of Fiqh are still being taught from elementary Schools, Kuttab and Madrasa’s to Universities as main reference books almost immune from state control all over Muslim countries. In spite of lack of application of Islamic law by governments, Islamic law is still valid for Muslims as we currently witness that billions of Muslims are observing rules of Islamic law without any compulsion from government, rather in spite of severe oppression from governments against observing them.
In classical Fiqh literatures, the obligation of establishing the Caliphate is not only an agreed upon consensus but also the most important matter of the religious duties as Ibn Hajar al-Haitami (d.1566) says; Companion of the Prophet agreed that election of the Imam (Caliph) after passing of the Prophetic Era is obligatory and considered it as the most important duty because they gave it the priority to His burial.
Among the contemporary jurists, Fuqaha’, there is still consensus that the establishment of the Caliphate is obligatory. Not only the most widely-read book of Fiqh (Islamic Jurisprudence) among the contemporary jurists, al-Fiqh al-Islami wa Adillatu-hu(11 vol.), written by Dr. Wahbah al-Zuhaili, but the most voluminous and authoritative Encyclopedia of Islamic law officially edited by the Ministry of Islamic Affairs of Kuwait and Supreme Council of Islamic Affairs of Arab Republic of Egypt, al-Mawsu‘ah al-Fiqhiyyah,(45 vol.)(http://islam.gov.kw/cms/index.php/mousoaa/, and it is endorsed by Ministry of Islamic Affairs of Kingdom of Saudi Arabia also, http://feqh.al-islam.com/bookhier.asp?DocID=100) declare definitely that the establishment of Caliphate, Nasb al-Imam, is obligatory.
After confirming the obligation of establishing Caliphate in classical Fiqh, we next try to explain the real characteristics of the Caliphate in terms of modern social siences.
1. Islamic Rule as “Rule of Law”
Caliphate, Khilafah, means succession to Nubuwwah, the mission of the Prophet Muhammad. So we must know first what the Prophetic mission in its complete form is. In a word, we can say that the Prophetic mission in its complete form is to expand the “Rule of Law” all over the world.
Here we say “Rule of law”, not “Rule of Islamic Law or Shari`ah”. It may require explanation. Now we try to argue that Islamic governance is nothing but the rule of law, moreover, that Islamic governance is the very Rule of Law and there is no rule of law except Islamic governance in the contemporary world.
A famous German legal philosopher Gustav Radbruch (d.1949) pointed out that the law has 3 mutually contradicting elements, Gleichheit (justice), Zweckmäßigkeit (purposiveness or effectiveness) and Rechtssicherheit（legal certainty), but the most fundamental is the legal certainty. The legal certainty means stability and predictability. The law should be unchanging and continuous to some ranges of time as well as understandable and well known to people.
As for the stability, the Islamic law system started to be formed around in 8-9 century and had been established around in the 12-13 century and has changed little since then. It remains unchanging and valid, thus it is still taught from the elementary school to the graduate school of the university in the Muslim world.
Comparing to Islamic law, only Common Law of England has some limited stability, but “the rule of law” had been established only late in 17 century thanks to the efforts of Lord Chief Justice Edward Coke (d.1634) and the like, and it had never ceased to be transformed until courts of law and equity were combined in 1873 and 1875 and the current features of the common law had been completed.
Criticizing the famous British legal positivist jurist John Austin's (d.1859) theory that law is the command of the sovereign backed by the threat of punishment, H. L. A. Hart (d.1992), one of the most influential legal philosophers of the 20th century, pointed out in his famous The Concept of Law that the ad hoc orders of the rulers cannot be called law. Such things like 12,000 yen flat-rate benefits enacted in 2008 under Aso Cabinet in Japan, 200 million dollar of bailout for AIG(American International Group), which was legislated under Obama government in 2009, do not deserve the name of law. Even if they were legislated by parliaments or Congress under the name of law, they are in reality nothing other than arbitrary ad hoc commandments of “men”. Nowadays there is no country where the true “rule of law” exists, even though there might be a Rechtsstaat which rules “by law”.
Western political thought can scarcely imagine form of the rule other than “rule of the man”, i.e., rule of the single person, monarchy or dictatorship, rule of the minority, aristocracy or oligarchy, and rule of the majority or democracy. The idea of “rule of law” only appeared quite recently in 17th century in England and even this new borne concept of “rule of law” has soon degenerated into “rule by law” or Rechtshtaat, or “rule of the commandments of the rulers” in our terminology. We can only find trace of concept of “rule of law” in Western political thought in the concept of “human rights” as supplement to “rule of man” of the democracy to complement its defects and to neutralize its evils.
It seems self-evident to Sunnite Muslims that Islamic rule is “Rule of Law” because the scholarship of Sunni Islam has elaborated its theory of Caliphate as “Rule of Law” counter-arguing Shiite Imamology which is typically “Rule of Man” of the divinely nominated infallible Imam.
As for the legal certainty as the predictability, Muslims are familiar with Islamic law, both substantial rules, Ahkam Taklifiyyah, and legal concepts, Ahkam Wad’iyyah, because the learning of Islamic law is obligatory on every Muslim. So it is not unusual that ordinary Muslim children learn classical texts books of Islamic law even in elementary school or junior high school.
Islamic rule is the “Rule of Law” and Prophetic mission in its complete form is to spread “Rule of Law to all over the world”.
2. Caliphate as spreading “Rule of the Law” all over the world.
Sunnite Caliphate has been the very Rule of Law since the first day of the reign of Abu Bakr, the first Caliph, as he clearly declared it in his inaugural speech;“as long as I follow Allah and His Apostle, follow me. Supposing I disobey Allah and His Apostle, it is not obligatory for you to follow me.”(narated by al-Tabari)
Prophetic mission in its complete form was to spread this “Rule of Law” to all over the world even with resort to military force, if possible. Allah says; "Fight those who do not believe in God, nor in the Last Day, and who do not forbid what God and His Messenger have forbidden, nor do they practice the religion of truth, from among of those who have been given the Scripture, until they pay the Jizyah tribute, readily being subdued.”(9:29) And al-Mugirah, a companion of the Prophet, said to the Persian army on the day of battle of Nihavand,; the Prophet who is the Apostle of our Lord ordered "Fight until you worship only Allah or you pay the tax (Jizyah)". ( al-Bukhahri).
Here we should not confuse between fighting for enforcing Islamic faith and fighting for spreading “Rule of Law”. The Islamic mission is fighting, Jihad, for spreading “Rule of Law”, not for enforcing Islamic faith.
If only the Jizyah tax is paid, fighting is no more allowed, even though they don’t embrace Islam. But fighting becomes inescapable when tax payment is refused. That is, the purpose of Jihad was admission of the Islam governance by tax payment, not conversion to Islam. In other words, spread the Islamic order of “Rule of Law” was the first priority which must be promoted even with military force.
The Muslim community started to perform their mission toward the whole world after the completion of the revelation to the Prophet Muhammad and the unification of the Arabian Peninsula under the banner of Islam. However, what was not allowed to refuse in confronting this mission and was to be forced even by military power was the payment of the Jizyah tax, not conversion to Islam. That is why we can say that the mission of Islam in its complete form is to spread this “Rule of Law” to all over the world even by resort to the military force, though there is no compulsion in the religion.
Therefore, Caliphate is defined as a political institution established for continuation of the Prophetic mission of spreading “Rule of Law” all over the world. Thus Caliphate is the governance of “Rule of Law”, the most stable divine law in the world, which liberates all the human beings from the rule of men and guarantees the security of life, property, and honor for all the inhabitants, ant this law-governed space is called Dar al-Islam or “House of Islam”, in which Caliph the head of the Ummah, rules according to Islamic law and plural religious communities coexist enjoying religious self-government. The fact that Caliph should be single symbolizes the unity of “Dar al-Islam” to guarantee the freedom of movement of human beings, commodities, money or capitals, and information. So the abolishment of borders which hinder the movement of the people is the indispensable essential part of Islamic governance. And the outside of this law-governed space, Dar al-Islam, is called Dar al-Harb, literally “House of War”, or “Lawless Land”.
7. Caliphate as Secular Governance
And this regime of Caliphate is rather "secular", although it may sound unexpectedly. Strictly speaking, the concept “secular” is so Western culture-laden that we can not apply it only to Islam but also any other religion like Judaism, Confucianism, Hinduism, and Buddhism, but we use it here just as a matter of convenience for comparative study.
The Western political sciences cannot describe the Islamic governance effectively with the analysis of the Religion-and-Politics-relation because of the lack of clear consciousness of difference of legal system and political system, but if we can differentiate them, it is rather obvious rather that Caliphate is "secular".
The Prophet Muhammad’s governance was based on "unity of Religion and Politics", thus "religious." The Prophet Muhammad was governing based on Allah’s revelation. That is, a political decision of the outbreak of war etc. was also made based on Divine Will. And much of revelation had taken the form of the individual command responding to each situation, a legal system had not been formed yet, a political system and legal system were still undifferentiated. That is, the Prophet Muhammad’s government is "religious", in the meaning that it was based on the transcendental authority of the divine will of a revelation of Allah to which common believers has no access except through him, and is based on the “unity of Politics and Religion” in the meaning that both of the law and the politics were based on his transcendental authority in the undifferentiated form because the legal system and the political system was still undifferentiated.
The Prophet Muhammad’s government was typical "hierocracy" or "theocracy" in terminology of Western political sciences in the meaning that the religious person who represents divine will governs. However, the revelation ceased since the death of the Prophet Muhammad, and the Caliph has no special access to the Divine Will. Thus there was no transcendental element in the Caliph’s political determination, it was carried out through the realistic worldly calculation of political interests, and it was completely the same with the Caliph’s subordinates.
In the 8th century of the infancy of the Islamic legal system, Fuqaha’, jurists as specialists of the Fiqh, Islamic law, appeared and Qudaa, official judges, came to be appointed out of such jurists since Abu Yusuf(d.798) took the position of Qadi, Islamic Judge, a famous disciple of Abu Hanifah(d.767) who himself staunchly rejected its position in spite of persecution. After this, although the idea that the Caliph inherits the judicial duty of the Prophet was not lost, it becomes a custom that the Caliph entrusts his judicial authority to jurists, Fuqaha’, thus executive power and judicial power has been divided completely.
The Islamic legal system is a legal system after all, in the same way that Common Law of Britain is a legal system, though in both of these law systems the law does not exist in the form of a “code” compiling laws enacted by the parliament, so both of them are neither irrational nor mysterious beyond the understanding by the reason, but completely rational, in the meaning that the function of both these legal systems has nothing to do with the divine inspiration, and what is needed is not an understanding by faith but an understanding by professional training of legal reasoning.
We can understand this more clearly, if we take into consideration the fact that the existence of the mystic called Sufi who receives the inspiration from Allah is recognized widely in the Islamic history, and among jurists there are a lot of such mystics or Sufis, but at the place of a judicial trial, such inspiration is never adopted as a proof.
The Islamic law was "secularized", after the system of Islamic law had been materialized and the jurists had become professionals. That is, the trial is not performed by the transcendental authority which receives the inspiration from Allah to which common people has no access, but by the jurist who receives special professional training of legal reasoning, based on the legal provisions found in the authoritative classics of Islamic jurisprudence to which any lettered man can refer.
The transcendental authority which has access to the divine will to which common people has no access, i.e., the religious authority which Western political science assumes, is in the hand of mystics called Sufis in Islam.
In Sunnite Islam, the Prophetic authority, is divided into political authority, “legal authority”, and “religious authority” in the narrow meaning, and succeeded by Caliph, Fuqaha’ and Sufis respectively.
That is, in Islam, law, religion, and politics are completely divided and the Caliphate is secular political regime separated from religion not only in its administration but in its jurisdiction.
8. Caliphate as a Pluralistic and Anti-totalitarian Regime
Moreover, the Islamic law is pluralistic because it is divided into “shared public” law which all the residents should obey and “religious” law which only Muslims should obey and admits for the other communities their autonomy according to their own religious law.
The Caliphate based on this pluralistic Islamic law is secular because it secures the safety to all the residents by ruling according to Islamic “shared public law” and leaves to Muslims and non-Muslim communities the self-government or autonomy in the domain of religion which contains not only a religious rite but family law, a dress code, etc.
Moreover, pluralistic Caliphate is anti-totalitarianism. All residents are not forced conversion to Islamic ideology, although the Caliphate is based on Islam. Non-Muslim are not required any inward commitments to Islam. It is sufficient for them to observe Islamic “public law” only externally. Even for Muslims, Caliphate does not interfere in the inside of their mind. The obligation of Caliphate is merely the enforcement of the “external” Islamic law.
Thus, the Caliphate does not interfere in individual’s “privacy” in private space as well as it does not interfere in ones interior faith. It is because Islam strictly prohibits revealing the hidden wrong, and inquiry and espionage by the Holy Qur’anic verse " And spy not "(49:12).
So the Caliphate is located just in the opposite poles of a police state. The Caliph only controls the infringement of the Islamic rules in public space, and he leaves the the individual act in private space to the final judgment of Allah.
Unlike the nation-state based on the totalitarianism, in the meaning that it presupposes that the “nation” is homogeneous entity, which kidnaps its children and confines them to brainwash with its official ideology during a certain period under the name of compulsory education, the education is not the job of Caliphate regime. In Islamic history, although Caliphs and kings built schools, Madrasah, it was not their “official” job but their personal or individual contribution. That is, in the Caliphate, education is left to the family and the society.
The political responsibility for the maintenance of security, order, and peace under the pluralistic and anti-totalitarian Caliphate is shared only among Muslims under Caliph according to their capability, contrary to the deceptive fabrication of national representative system of so-called "democratic" nation-state, in which it is to be assumed by all the citizens.
Under Caliphate non-Muslims are not required any political responsibility for the cause of Islam in which they do not believe but required only tax payment and outward observation of Islamic “shared public” law as “passive citizen”, while all the Muslims assume the responsibility for participation in the Caliphate as a judge, a soldier, etc. according to one’s capability as a “active citizen” because of his faith in the cause of Islam.
Such secular, anti-totalitarian and pluralistic Caliphate is the political system that enables the realization of the Islamic order which Muslim community has the mission to spread to the whole earth even with resort to military force.
9. Caliphate As an Antithesis of Territorial Nation State
We have already stated that Caliphate is global because Allah is the sole Lord of the earth and Shari`ah, His Divine Law, should be enforced all over the world. Now we emphasize that the concept of Caliphate contradicts the idea of “territorial nation state” definitely.
As we have mentioned, the uniqueness of Caliph symbolizes the unity of the lordship of Allah and His divine Law, Shari`ah, and the integrity of Muslim community, Ummah, and Muslim world, Dar al-Islam.
Fiqh prescribes the uniqueness of Caliph and strictly forbids its plurality, because the Prophet Muhammad said; “When the pledge of allegiance is given to two persons who are Caliphs, kill the second one." (Muslim)
It is worth mentioning here that the territorial nation state system is contradicting not only Islamic Caliphate but the ideal of the justice and the humanity which the West claims to advocate. The climate on the earth differs regionally, and there are also differences in its underground resources. Additionally, life in a particular area may be made temporarily difficult by a natural or manmade disaster. So, freedom of migration on the Earth is the first step to enabling the justice and equality of life among mankind. John Rawls (d.2002) argued that the unfairness is the situation, in which a rational person cannot choose, living under the veil of ignorance, i.e., without knowing whether he or she is part of the poor members or the rich. Without doubt, the contemporary “territorial nation state” system is unfair, in which the small number of nations of the advanced countries enjoy the wealth while the majority of human beings are forced to live inside the under developed countries separated by borders of “territorial nation state” from the advanced countries in order that they cannot immigrate, and number of the poor who live in starvation with less than 1 US dollar per day is 960 million, which any rational person can accept, assumed under the veil of ignorance.
Islamic rule includes security of the freedom of immigration. Ibn ‘Abbas explains Qur’anic verse "But was not God's earth spacious that you might have emigrated therein?. (4:97)” as; “‘My earth is spacious’ means ‘the land of al-Madinah is safe, so immigrate to it’.” Namely, al-Madinah, the infant Dar al-Islam should be the place to which all the Muslims can immigrate. The oneness of the Caliph symbolizes the oneness of the Islamic rule, and the Islamic rule secures the free movement of human beings and commodities within its territory, Dar al-Islam.
The earth belongs to nobody, but solely to Allah. No one is allowed to cut it into parts and restrict immigration within it. Islam not only rejects dividing the earth into territorial states which prevents freedom of movements for human beings, commodities, and money, but also dividing the human beings into nations each of which is supposed to be homogeneous and have loyalty to its territorial state.
Contrary to the ideology of the “territorial nation state” of modern Western Europe, Islam does not allow human beings to be divided into separate nations. This is because Allah created human beings as various ethnic groups so that they could know each other, as Allah says; "We have indeed created you from a male and a female, and made you nations and tribes that you may come to know one another.” (49:13), and the freedom of the immigration is the precondition for mutual-understanding. And Allah orders us to travel in the earth to learn the history of nature and the history of human beings by saying,; "... travel in the land and observe how He originated creation." (29:20), "...so travel in the land and behold how was the end of those who denied." (3:137, 6:11, 16:36). And Allah stressed the most important thing is neither nation nor tribe, but the piety by saying; “…surely the noblest of you, in Allah’s sight, is the one who is most pious of you….”(49:13)
In order to understand the true implication of Islamic globalism, we should reconsider the conception of nationalism in the light of Islam. Nationalism is a form of neo-tribalism born in Western Europe in the second half of the 18th century. And this tribalism is the very core concept of the main target which the Prophet Muhammad tried to eliminate, ie., Jahiliyah (pre-Islamic ignorance). This “tribalism” was called “Asabiyyah” by the Prophet.
He said; “Those who were killed under the flag of delusion which appeals for or support tribalism(`Asabiyyah) died the death of the Jahiliyyah (pre-Islamic ignorance)" (Hadith: Muslim) He also said, "Those who appealed for tribalism are not our fellows. And those who fought for tribalism are not our fellows. And those who died for tribalism are not our fellows.”(Being asked “What is tribalism?") He answered; “It is supporting your tribe in injustice." (Abu Dawud)
Tribalism was of the ideological background of the life for the Arabs of the Jahiliyyah（pre-Islamic ignorance), and the good tidings for all mankind was the advent of Islamic justice. Now the conquest of this "neo-tribalism" has become the major objective of the Islamic mission. In fact, this “neo-tribalism” of the modern Western nationalism is by far more dangerous than the ancient Jahiliyyah, because the modern Western nationalism is so totalitarian that all member of the “nation” are brainwashed by the nation state through the compulsory national education, every detail of their life is deeply involved with state control, and consequently they are alienated or dehumanized systematically by the “nation state”.
Therefore, global, anti-totalitarian and pluralistic Caliphate will bear the Islamic mission of liberating human beings and the earth from Jahiliyyah of the false ideology of the “territorial nation state”, i.e., the modern Western nationalism.
10. Co-existence of the Caliphate and the Outer World
When the Caliphate is established, what will be the relationship between this new Caliphate and the external world?
As already stated, the Caliphate should spread “Rule of Law” to all over the world, even with resort to military force, by Jihad, if it were possible. However, it seems unlikely that the newly reestablished Caliphate will rush into Jihad, waging a total, all out war against the entire the Outer world, Dar al-Harb or “House of War” by his initiative, because contemporary war methods contradict the instructions of Islam completely.
Indeed Islam does not reject war categorically. Islam predicts that there will always be jihads (wars) until the Last Day, as told in Hadith（word of the Prophet）; “Jihad will continue to be fought from the time Allah sent me until the last generation of my Ummah fight the Dajjl (Anti-Christ).” (Abu Dawud) This Hadith does not illustrate the militancy of Islam, rather it is the expression of its realistic view of war and peace. The Islamic view of war is realistic from two aspects. First, it is characterized by the cool realism that, (1) neither will wars cease nor will the world will be perfectly peaceful, because there will always be evil forces which try to hinder the rule of Islam, even by resorting to military action, and (2) Islam cannot win the final decisive victory against the evil forces in the normal run of history as long as there is no direct Divine intervention by means of the return of Jesus and advent of the Mahdi (therefore it suspends the Final War or Armageddon). From these points we could say that the inevitability of the necessary coexistence with other religions and civilization as “the reality” of this world is built in into the Islamic world view.
The concept of “war” in the time of the Prophet Muhammad is so different from the concept of “war” in this age that we might hesitate to call them both by the same name.
When Umah b Zaid, a companion of the Holy Prophet was going to kill a polytheist enemy of the Juhainah tribe during a battle, the man confessed; "There is no God other than Allah", but Usamah did not care and killed him anyway. The Holy Prophet heard the report later and scolded Usmah, saying, "Did you kill a person who confessed that there is no God other than Allah?" When Usamah answered, "He said so out of fear of my weapon", the Holy Prophet said, "Did you cut his breast open and hear that he said so?" (al-Bukhari, Ahmad) And the Prophet ordered the killing of the enemy but prohibited burning them to death, saying; “Tormenting by fire is not allowed for other than the Master of Fire" (al-Bukhari, Ahmad)
While in a contemporary war, soldiers are slaughtered indiscriminately by missiles, bombs, and heavy weapons, without having the opportunity to surrender, and without even seeing the face of the enemy who kills them. Not only soldiers, but even innocent civilians too are massacred through being caught up in the battle. In modern warfare this is called collateral damage, but in Islam it is a serious crime. Even if Muslims win such war, it can never be considered a desirable victory from an Islamic viewpoint. Although it might be unavoidable, if for example the "House of Islam" were to be invaded, to be forced to fight such a battle, it is quite unthinkable that the Caliph would initiate such war by himself for the purpose of expanding the Islamic domain.
Although Islam does not forbid war itself, it is a completely groundless fear that if the Caliphate were reestablished, it would soon start jihad to expand the Islamic mission, because contemporary warfare in which inhumane weapons of mass-destruction are used quite clearly opposes the war ethics of Islam.
Therefore the relation between the Caliphate, or the "House of Islam" and the external world might be “peace” by a cease-fire agreement in principle.
The reestablished Caliphate or Dar al-Islam, “House of Islam”, is open unconditionally for all Muslims to immigrate to, irrespective of their nation or race, and even non-Muslims are allowed to immigrate there if they agree to pay the tax and abide by Islamic “shared public” law among all citizens.
Conversely, there might be Muslims who do not like to live under the rule of Islamic law and might flee from the Caliphate. As stated above, Muslims should not live in an environment in which they cannot enforce Islamic law openly and should immigrate to the Caliphate in principle. However, this decision is left to the individual, and such a thing as "departure control" from the "House of Islam" by a "state" does not exist under Islamic law. Thus, probably the coming Caliphate in the "House of Islam" will vie with the external world concerning immigration under the cease-fire agreement, as to which area is more comfortable to live in.
We are now living in the age of “globalization”. The Caliphate, the legitimate Islamic polity, is “global” in principle, if we reinterpret duly its concept. The global, anti-totalitarian and pluralistic new Caliphate will bear the Islamic mission of liberating human beings and the earth from Jahiliyyah of the false ideology of the “territorial nation state”, i.e., the modern Western nationalism.
Turkey, the land of Othman Caliphate, one of the most vast and long-lasting empires in the human history in which co-existing of various religio-ethnic communities had been realized under the “Rule of Law” of Islam, seems the most suitable place for establishing New-Caliphate considering its geo-political and historical background of being situated at the center of Eurasian continent, as the nexus between Europe and Muslim World.