Betrayers of the Inheritance (2) – Resistance Scholars vs Regime Scholars

The difference between the scholars of resistance and the scholars of the regime is not one of interpretation. It is one of allegiance. The scholars of the regime have allied themselves with the nation-state, with its borders, treaties, and strategic partnerships. They invoke fiqh only to neuter obligation, to convert jihad into illegal activism, and to criminalize solidarity as sedition. Their invocations of "wisdom" serve only to excuse cowardice.

Let’s Be Real – A Response

Dr Reza Pankhurst critiques the podcast with Dr. Yasir Qadhi, arguing that real change for the Muslim ummah cannot come from within the current world order, which serves Western interests. The establishment of an Islamic state (Khilafa) is deemed crucial for defending and uniting Muslims, contrasting YQ's view of it as a low-priority, idealistic goal.

The Caliphate Deniers

(The following is a section reproduced with minor edits from an article originally published in the academic journal Political Theology 11.6 (2010) 826-845) "Muslim secularists" - or the subset within them of "Caliphate deniers", being those who profess a Muslim belief but consider that Islam has nothing to say about the State, that any conception … Continue reading The Caliphate Deniers

Caliphate Contentions (7): The West won’t allow for a Caliphate –  Fatalism as Ideology and The Myth of Geopolitical Impossibility

Arguing that the West won't allow the emergence of a Caliphate is not a fiqhī evaluation, but a surrender to the dominant international order - a worldview that elevates the invincibility of global hegemons above the command of the Creator. Such a posture is not realism, but rather despair and cowardice masquerading as maturity.

The Devil’s Deception: Dubai

One of the clearest dividing lines between sincerity and hypocrisy, between a sign of īmān and a sign of kufr, between political insight and wilful ignorance, is where one stands with regard to the UAE regime. Hatred for this regime has become a marker of concern for the Ummah, of clarity, and of Islamic consciousness—whereas love or even tolerance for it is rapidly emerging as a sign of nifāq, of ideological confusion, and of moral failure.

Reexamining the Caliphate: Authority and Political Theory

The essay by Reza Pankhurst explores the decline of the caliphate up until its formal abolition in 1924, highlighting its transformation from a powerful institution to a mere symbolic figurehead. The caliphate originally served as a centralized political authority in Islam but became hereditary over time. Pankhurst discusses the historical and theoretical frameworks surrounding the caliphate, including differing views on its selection, authority, and legitimacy. The analysis reveals the complex evolution of Islamic political theory regarding governance, reflecting waning popular involvement in leadership selection and advocating for a potentially reformed model grounded in the original principles of shared authority among Muslims.