One of the recurrent objections posed to those advocating for the restoration of the Caliphate is the assertion that the Muslim Ummah currently faces more “pressing” concerns such as poverty, illiteracy, gender disparities, or inadequate healthcare, and that attention should first be directed toward resolving these ostensibly more immediate social challenges before engaging in what is often derided as a “political idealism.” In this paradigm, the call for political unification under an Islamic state is dismissed as an impractical distraction from real-world suffering.
However, such a view reflects an epistemological framework grounded in liberal utilitarianism rather than Islamic normativity. It is a conceptual inversion that subordinates divine commands to contingent human assessments of utility and urgency. More significantly, this contention betrays a fundamental misapprehension of the function of the Caliphate itself – perceiving it as an extraneous political luxury rather than the central institutional mechanism ordained for enacting justice, guaranteeing public welfare, and preserving the Deen.
So if you delay or dismiss the Caliphate in favor of “urgent” needs, you’re thinking like a secularist, not like a Muslim rooted in divine law. You are upending the correct order by making Allah’s obligations subject to human opinion. And worst of all, you’re misunderstanding the caliphate itself – it’s not optional, it’s central to Islam’s implementation on Earth.
This contention will demonstrate that:
- Islamic obligations are indivisible and not suspended by competing societal demands;
- The caliphate constitutes a foundational precondition for structural reform, rather than a competitor to it;
- The Prophetic precedent and historical praxis of the righteous khulafa attest to the centrality of political leadership in addressing socio-economic ills;
- And finally, the liberal ordering of priorities not only misunderstands the Islamic worldview but systematically incapacitates genuine development within the ummah.
1. Divine Command and the Non-Postponement of Obligations
Within Islamic jurisprudence, obligations are defined not by utility but by the Shariah. The assertion that some duties may be delayed or suspended until others are fulfilled is without basis unless sanctioned by the textual sources. The Qur’anic verse:
فَاتَّقُوا اللَّهَ مَا اسْتَطَعْتُمْ
“So fear Allah as much as you are able…” (Qur’an 64:16)
And the narration:
“مَا نَهَيْتُكُمْ عَنْهُ فَاجْتَنِبُوهُ، وَمَا أَمَرْتُكُمْ بِهِ فَأْتُوا مِنْهُ مَا اسْتَطَعْتُمْ
What I have forbidden for you, avoid. What I have ordered you [to do], do as much of it as you can (Bukhari/ Muslim)
Convey similar meaning indicating that all obligations are to be fulfilled to the extent of capacity, not ranked according to a secular calculus of efficiency.
The appointment of a caliph is a collective obligation (fard kifayah) agreed upon by the consensus of the Companions, and cannot be suspended by appeals to other societal demands. It is the institutional prerequisite through which many of the very issues cited such as poverty, education, healthcare are addressed systematically.
2. Structural Problems Demand Structural Solutions
The socio-economic conditions cited as priorities are not natural disasters, but consequences of flawed political systems. Capitalist structures exacerbate inequality; nation-state borders fragment Muslim unity and obstruct coordinated development; education systems inculcate secular epistemologies detached from the Islamic worldview. These are structural issues that no amount of charity or individual activism can resolve within the current paradigms.
The Caliphate, in contrast, offers systemic remedies:
- Zakat, ʿushr, and kharaj provide institutionalised mechanisms of wealth redistribution;
- Education policy is directed toward fostering Islamic consciousness and civilisational self-confidence;
- Political unification enables strategic economic integration across the Ummah’s vast resources;
- The caliphate resists subservience to exploitative instruments like the IMF or WTO.
The hadith of the Prophet ﷺ:
الإمام جُنَّة، يُقاتَل من ورائه ويُتَّقى به
“The Imam is a shield, behind whom you fight and by whom you are protected.” (Bukhari)
underscores the role of the Imam not merely as a figurehead but as the operational centre of collective defence, governance, and provision.
3. The Prophetic Model: Governance as Social Reform
In Madinah, the Prophet ﷺ instituted governance prior to addressing economic or social disparities. The Constitution of Madinah forged political unity among rival tribes, zakat was structured as public finance, and order was maintained through rule of law grounded in revelation. The caliphate is the continuity of this model, not its negation. The Righteous Caliphs followed suit, addressing poverty, administering justice, and safeguarding the ummah through executive leadership.
4. Developmentalism and the Liberal Episteme
The prioritisation of issues like “education” or “poverty” independent of political change is rooted in a liberal ontology that reduces governance to a technocratic function, while presenting material development as the ultimate metric of success. Yet Islam’s vision of prosperity is integrally linked to the fear of Allah (taqwa) and the collective adherence to divine law. Barakah is not a product of GDP growth but of alignment with divine norms.
In other words – if you try to fix poverty or education without transforming the political system into one based on Islam (i.e. the caliphate), you’re accepting a secular liberal framework, even if you don’t realise it.
5. The Weaponisation of Social Problems Under Secular Regimes
Modern secular regimes have demonstrated a consistent pattern: poverty is instrumentalised to suppress dissent; education is employed as a vector of ideological reprogramming; moral decay is not merely permitted but sponsored; and national wealth is syphoned off to serve elite and foreign interests.
In such a framework, appeals to “priorities” become tools of pacification and distraction. They are not solutions but barriers to the systemic change that the Ummah so desperately requires. The caliphate, by contrast, reorients these concerns within an Islamic worldview and institutional apparatus.
6. Without the Caliphate, All Reform Is Fragmented
The question to those who ask to “solve poverty first” must be: Under what system? With what law? By whose authority? Piecemeal reform without a unifying political framework ensures the perpetuation of disunity, exploitation, and dependency. Only through unified leadership grounded in Islam can the energies of the ummah be directed coherently and safeguarded from co-optation.
Conclusion: Re-centring the Caliphate
The claim that the caliphate is a secondary concern fails to understand that it is the only viable framework through which real and just reform can occur. It is not a rival to education or healthcare – it is their guarantor. To delay its establishment in pursuit of these aims is to forfeit the very structure that makes them achievable on Islamic terms.
Thus, the caliphate must not be postponed in the name of progress – it must be prioritised so that true progress can be realised.
Dr. Reza Pankhurst is the author of The Inevitable Caliphate (Oxford University Press, 2012) and The Untold History of the Liberation Party (C Hurst & Co, 2016)