In Islamic legal theory, failure in implementation does not negate obligation. One does not abandon prayer because some pray without concentration, nor fasting because it is done without reflection. Similarly, the appointment of a Caliph is not annulled by the misconduct of rulers.
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 hadith stating that “the Caliphate after me will last thirty years” is a descriptive prophecy about the era of Prophetic-model Caliphate, not a prescriptive limitation on the Islamic obligation of political unity and leadership. The idea that Islam abandoned the concept of Caliphate after thirty years has no basis in classical jurisprudence, historical practice, or theological reasoning.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Rebellion and Islam - when the appointment of the Islamic rulers became akin to a hereditary process, was rebellion the natural outcome? And did restricting rebellion restrict the choice of the umma?
Hadith 34 Only the Imam is a shield, behind whom you fight and you protect yourself with, so if he orders by taqwa and is just then he has reward for that, and if he orders by other than that then it is against himself (Muslim) Commentary A: Imam Nawawi explained the shield as being … Continue reading The Imam is a Shield
Following on from our previous question to ChatGPT 4.0 - where we asked what could occur if a major oil producer such as Saudi Arabia mandated gold to be used to purchase oil rather than the dollar. Building on that scenario - we then asked what could occur if Saudi Arabic also replaced its current … Continue reading Implications of Selling Oil for Gold (2/3)