\n\tThe beheading of journalist James Foley in August 2014 by the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL)1 riveted the attention of the Western world to
\n\tthe threat posed by radical Muslim groups.\n\t<\/p>\n
\n\tAlthough the majority of Muslims worldwide are surely civil, peace-loving citizens of their respective countries, such actions by ISIL raise the question,
\n\tIs the Muslim faith a menace to the world at large, or is such an allegation based on gross misunderstanding? An adequate answer includes consideration of
\n\tat least two factors: ISIL views regarding an Islamic caliphate and the nature of the Islamic faith itself with respect to shari\u2019a law.\n\t<\/p>\n
\n\tMichael J. Mazarr, professor of national security strategy at the U.S. National War College in Washington, D.C., and an adjunct professor in the Security
\n\tStudies Program at Georgetown University\u2019s School of Foreign Service, argues that radical Islam is a movement motivated by anti-modernist sentiments.\n\t<\/p>\n
\n\tAs logical and historically grounded as Mazarr\u2019s arguments appear, William J. Bennet and Seth Leibsohn counterargue that to view radical Islamism as a \n\t\u201cIf I am given a thousand lives, I will sacrifice them all for the sake of Allah fighting this cause, defending our lands, making the word of Allah supreme \n\tSo what is the Muslim caliphate to which he referred?\n\t<\/p>\n \n\tThe Arabic term khalifah<\/em> is used to denote \u201cthose who succeeded the prophet Muhammad as the real or nominal ruler of the Islamic world.\u201d7 After the death \n\tAfter the rightly guided caliphs, the Umayyad (A.D. 661-750) and Abbasid (750-1258) dynasties continued to govern the growing Islamic world through \n\tThe longest ruling of the later Islamic dynasties was the Ottoman rule (1281-1923). The strength of the caliphate ideology is demonstrated by Sultan \n\tIn 1922 the Turkish Grand National Assembly began to attack the Ottoman dynasty by abolishing the sultanate and leaving the caliphate intact to merely \n\tTo better understand the classical function of the caliph, Glenn E. Perry identifies the work, Al-ahkam al-sultaniyah<\/em> (principles of government), written \n\tThus, radical Islamists, whether motivated by purely religious reasons or by strong reactions against modernity, desire to reestablish an Islamic caliphate \n\tAlthough most Muslims currently show little interest in reestablishing a caliphate, with nearly 2 billion members worldwide out of a world population of <\/p>\n \n\tAlthough one may argue that dar-al-harb<\/em> is not a part of modern Islamic practice since Muslim countries are part of organizations that recognize the \n\tPaul Marshall explains how shari\u2019a should not be misunderstood as merely a legal code, but instead should be understood as including spiritual guidance for \n\tOne might legitimately ask, Is Islam really a religion of peace? The term Islam<\/em> \u201cis derived from the Arabic root s-l-m<\/em>, which means submission or peace. \n\tSince its inception Islam has engaged in conflict with other religious movements. In A.D. 610 Muhammad received a revelation he identified as coming from \n\tThe capture of Jerusalem in 639 by Muslims was a major precipitating event in the series of conflicts known as the Crusades. Muslims built the Dome of the \n\tAnd how were conquered Christians and Jews treated? \u201cThe people of the Book\u201d were given dhimmitude<\/em> status, meaning \u201cin the covenant of protection (dhimmah<\/em>) \n\tAdditionally, dhimmis<\/em> were obligated to maintain a submissive and respectful attitude toward Muslims. This included speaking to Muslims in a low voice, \n\tAlthough Islamic scholars may be divided in opinion regarding the application of regulations under dhimmitude<\/em>, there is certainly no question in the mind The beheading of journalist James Foley in August 2014 by the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL)1 riveted the attention of the Western world to the threat posed by radical Muslim groups. Although the majority of Muslims worldwide are surely civil, peace-loving citizens of their respective countries, such actions by ISIL raise the<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[304],"tags":[136],"class_list":["post-6289","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-january-february-2015","tag-january-february-2015"],"aioseo_notices":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.charming-bohr.160-238-31-172.plesk.page\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6289","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.charming-bohr.160-238-31-172.plesk.page\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.charming-bohr.160-238-31-172.plesk.page\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.charming-bohr.160-238-31-172.plesk.page\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.charming-bohr.160-238-31-172.plesk.page\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=6289"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.charming-bohr.160-238-31-172.plesk.page\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6289\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.charming-bohr.160-238-31-172.plesk.page\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=6289"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.charming-bohr.160-238-31-172.plesk.page\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=6289"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.charming-bohr.160-238-31-172.plesk.page\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=6289"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
\n\treaction to modernity is dangerously misleading. In The Fight of Our Lives<\/em>, they refocus the spotlight of the \u201cwar on terrorism\u201d from radical Islamists to
\n\tAmerican citizens. They express their concern that American citizens, initially alerted to national danger right after September 11, have now become
\n\tcomplacent in the ongoing war effort. They describe how \u201chard America,\u201d whose mantra of seeking to guard our nation, has lost its perceptive ability, and
\n\tis transforming into a \u201csoft America\u201d that values diversity at the expense of national security. Rather than seeing some elements of Islam, whether
\n\tdistorted or not, as the seedbed for radical Islamists, \u201csoft America\u201d wishes to downplay the latent, potential threat to our national safety.5 In support
\n\tof their contention, they quote Faisal Shahzad (the Times Square bomber) as he was sentenced in a New York court:\n\t<\/p>\n
\n\tover any religion or system. . . . Furthermore, brace yourselves, because the war with Muslims has just begun. Consider me only a first droplet of the
\n\tflood that will follow me. And only this time it\u2019s not imperial Japan or Germany, Vietnam or Russian Communism. This time it\u2019s the war against people who
\n\tbelieve in the book of Allah and follow the commandments, so this is a war against Allah. So let\u2019s see how you can defeat your Creator, which you can never
\n\tdo. Therefore, the defeat of U.S. is imminent and will happen in the near future, inshallah [\u201cAllah willing\u201d], which will only give rise to much awaited
\n\tMuslim caliphate, which is the only true world order.\u201d6\n\t<\/p>\n
\n\tIslamic Caliphate<\/strong>
\n\t<\/h2>\n
\n\tof Muhammad (A.D. 632), Abu Bakr, his father-in-law, succeeded him as leader of the Islamic movement. Abu Bakr and the following three caliphs who
\n\tsucceeded him are referred to as Rashidun<\/em> (rightly guided) caliphs. Some Islamic scholars claim the caliphate ended with these four caliphs, but generally
\n\tspeaking, recognition of a legitimate caliph to succeed Muhammad distinguishes the two main branches of Islamic followers. Sunni<\/em> Muslims recognize Abu Bakr
\n\tas the rightfully appointed caliph to succeed Muhammad. Contrariwise, Shia Muslims believe that Muhammad\u2019s son, Ali, was the rightful caliph who should
\n\thave succeeded him.\n\t<\/p>\n
\n\tcaliphs.8 Early in the Abbasid dynasty, military rulers governed by de facto power while yielding formal obeisance to the caliphate. By 1055, with the
\n\tconquest of Baghdad, a formal distinction between the caliph and sultans (the ones with power) began. Sultans valued the caliphate since it gave legitimacy
\n\tto their rule through \u201cdiplomas of investiture, robes of honor, and other symbols of authority from the caliph.\u201d9 Additionally, Islam had become so
\n\textensive geographically—entering Spain, northern Africa, Iran, and Mesopotamia, part of Afghanistan, Syria, and Anatolia—that governors presided over
\n\tsubterritories within a dynasty.\n\t<\/p>\n
\n\tAbdulaziz (ruled 1861-1876), who \u201crenewed stress on the claim to the caliphate . . . largely in response to the appeals of Muslims outside the empire,
\n\tespecially of refugees from countries that had fallen under non-Muslim rule. Under Sultan Abdulhamid II, who came to the throne in 1876, the claim to the
\n\tcaliphate (written into the constitution of the same year) emerged as a major instrument of the Ottoman\u2019s Pan-Islamic policy as well as of their absolutist
\n\trule at home. The sultan-caliph sent emissaries throughout the Islamic world to urge unity under his leadership, and his claim to the caliphate received
\n\tsupport wherever Muslims found European empires encroaching.\u201d10\n\t<\/p>\n
\n\tperform spiritual functions. This action was so highly debated and criticized, even by Muslims living outside of the Ottoman territory, that \u201cin March
\n\t1924, the assembly resolved the matter by abolishing the caliphate.\u201d11 Widespread shock ensued among Muslims, since the Ottoman dynasty had long claimed
\n\tlegitimacy to the caliphate. In the decades following the abolition of the caliphate, most Muslims have not shown great interest in a revival of it,
\n\tperhaps because of the divergence of interpretations regarding its implementation and function, as noted in the historical reaction of 1924. However, some
\n\tmore recent radical, militant Islamist groups—such as \u201cthe Islamic Liberation Party and its Egyptian offshoot, the Jihad Group\u201d12—as well as ISIL, have
\n\tcalled for its reestablishment. What is the real intent, then, of such an appeal?\n\t<\/p>\n
\n\tby al-Mawardi (c. 1058), as encompassing the best explanation of the religious role of the caliph. In Muslim political philosophy, since the role of the
\n\tstate is religious in nature, so must be that of the caliphate. Thus, the caliph\u2019s duties included \u201cenforcement of the law and defense and expansion of the
\n\trealm of Islam, distribution of funds (booty and alms), and the general supervision of the government.\u201d13 Under such guiding principles the caliph was
\n\tconcerned with dar-al-Islam<\/em> (Muslim-dominated territory) and how to expand it, as well as enforcing the shari\u2019a law (eternal law of Allah). He was properly
\n\tviewed as the \u201cguardian of the faith,\u201d combining both a religious and political role into one.14\n\t<\/p>\n
\n\tthat all Muslims would recognize and render allegiance to. Efforts of this type, naturally, include establishing Islam as the dominant, superior faith and
\n\tthe extension of dar-al-Islam<\/em> on a global scale.\n\t<\/p>\n
\n\tIslam and Shari\u2019a Law<\/strong>
\n\t<\/h2>\n
\n\talmost 7 billion, Muslims certainly merit consideration on the playing field of world politics. Speaking from a geographical perspective, Islam refers to
\n\tterritory under Islamic rule as dar-al-Islam<\/em>, and territory under non-Muslim control that borders Muslim territory as dar-al-harb, or \u201cterritory of war.\u201d15
\n\tDesignation of a region as dar-al-Islam requires that specific conditions exist, namely, that shari\u2019a be implemented and that Muslim sovereignty is
\n\testablished. Dar-al-harb<\/em> is so designated to indicate the need for the non-Muslims to convert to Islam and if noncompliant, then, through conquest, or war,
\n\tthe harbis (those who refuse to convert) are forced to embrace Islam.16\n\t<\/p>\n
\n\tnational sovereignty of non-Muslim nations, yet in theory dar-al-Islam<\/em> and dar-al-harb<\/em> will always remain part of Islamic faith, since such juridical
\n\tconcepts are part of the eternal law of Allah, known as shari\u2019a.\n\t<\/p>\n
\n\tMuslims. Thus understood, it more aptly means \u201cthe way\u201d in spiritual and legal matters for followers of Islam. Hence, any Muslim who speaks against shari\u2019a
\n\tis naturally considered as one who speaks against Islam itself. Marshall expresses his concern regarding shari\u2019a and the threat it poses to democratic
\n\tprinciples of equality, religious freedom, women\u2019s rights, etc., by noting how, even in moderate Islamic countries, \u201cextreme shari\u2019a grows because those
\n\twho oppose it can be vilified, ostracized, imprisoned, beaten, or killed.\u201d18\n\t<\/p>\n
\n\tMuslims are those who surrender to God\u2019s will or law and as a result, Muslims believe, are at peace with themselves and with God.\u201d19 However, in light of
\n\tIslam\u2019s history of persecuting non-Muslim religious groups, one may contemplate, \u201cIf two groups are in contention, peace can only be achieved if one of the
\n\ttwo acquiesces to the other, i.e., submission to Allah through adopting the Islamic faith.\u201d\n\t<\/p>\n
\n\tPersecution and Dhimmitude<\/strong><\/h2>\n
\n\tAllah through the archangel Jibrail (Gabriel).20 This was the beginning of a series of revelations lasting 22 years.21 These revelations were eventually
\n\tcollected and written down as the Quran. Muhammad preached from 610 to 622 in Mecca, a polytheistic society, but facing growing persecution, he and his
\n\tfollowers moved (Hijrah<\/em>) to Medina. After gaining more followers, Muhammad\u2019s forces returned and conquered Mecca in 630.22 In order to convert the pagans
\n\tof the Middle East, who worshipped a multitude of gods, Muhammed \u201cconsolidated Muslim rule over the remainder of Arabia through diplomatic and military
\n\tmeans and conversion.\u201d23 By A.D. 900, as Islam spread farther to the West, it subdued Jews and Christians, both groups recognized in the Quran as \u201cpeople
\n\tof the Book [the Bible].\u201d As monotheistic religions, these groups were treated differently by Muslim conquerors than polytheistic groups, which usually
\n\twere required to convert to Islam upon pain of death.24\n\t<\/p>\n
\n\tRock, which was completed in about 692 and became a place of frequent pilgrimage for Muslims. During the following three centuries, Christians were allowed
\n\taccess to Jerusalem for pilgrimages. However, by the turn of the millennium, access was denied, which sparked a strong Christian reaction. The Crusades, a
\n\tseries of religious battles between Christian and Muslim forces, were fought roughly from A.D. 1095 to 1291. Revisionist scholarship of modern times
\n\tportrays Christians as the aggressors who provoked these battles for selfish, economic advantages. Thomas F. Madden, however, associate professor and chair
\n\tof the History Department at St. Louis University, counters such a \u201cpolitically correct\u201d viewpoint.25 He explains that the Crusades were a Christian
\n\tresponse to protect religious believers and to secure sacred sites against Muslim aggression, which had already been occurring for several centuries.
\n\tRather than allowing Christianity to become obliterated through Muslim conquests, as Zoroastrianism had been, both Roman Catholic and Orthodox Christians
\n\tunited to defend Christian believers. After several Crusades, and with growing Muslim hegemony, the purpose of subsequent Crusades shifted from religiously
\n\tmotivated protection of Christianity to include a broader concern of protecting Europe itself from Muslim onslaughts.\n\t<\/p>\n
\n\twith the Muslim power\u201d26 and thus called dhimmi.<\/em> Dhimmis<\/em> were allowed to retain their faith and to practice it privately, but they were forbidden to make
\n\tconverts of Muslims. Dhimmis<\/em> did not have equal legal status with Muslims. They were required to pay a tributary tax in recognition of the protection given
\n\tto them by Muslims, known as jizyah.27 If the jizyah<\/em> could not be paid, then the children and wives of dhimmis<\/em> were taken as payment and forced into
\n\tslavery.28 Nowadays, Islamic scholars are divided in opinion regarding the correct understanding and application of the jizya<\/em>h.29 There is a disagreement
\n\tas to how to assert this in modern nation state Western systems.30\n\t<\/p>\n
\n\twith lowered eyes, and only when given permission to speak.31 In Persia and Yemen, during the early 1900s dhimmis were not allowed to build their homes
\n\thigher than those of Muslims as a sign of inferiority. Likewise, dhimmis<\/em> in Damascus during the fourteenth century were forced to build \u201cthe threshold of
\n\ttheir shops below street level so that they would always appear in an inferior position before a Muslim.\u201d32\n\t<\/p>\n
\n\tof the world regarding the extremist actions taken by radical Islamists toward dhimmis <\/em>(non-Muslims). In the modern Middle East, Eastern Europe, and
\n\tnorthern Africa, regions that once had Christian communities and churches have been under growing persecution by radical Muslim movements. In the October
\n\tissue of Voice of the Martyrs newsletter, the stories of Habila Adamu, \u201cNaomi,\u201d and \u201cDaniel\u201d describe the tragic, inhumane treatment they have suffered for
\n\tbeing Christians. Their persecutors are followers of Boko Haram, a militant Islamic group in Nigeria.33 Their plight highlights the condition of other
\n\tChristians in those areas, many of whom have died at the hands of their attackers.\n\t<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"