Critical assumptions

The arguments presented by those advocating a return to an Islamic caliphate, or Khilafah, contain a number of implicit assumptions that are critical to the validity of their conclusions. These assumptions relate to the nature of Islam itself and that of the world order, in addition to the existing public opinion in the Muslim countries. It is the latter category of assumption that I'd like to examine here. Basically, the arguments' main planks are:

1. Muslims are fed up with their current rulers and states.
2. Muslims would welcome an Islamic dictatorship, providing it with the mandate and the support to allow it to sustain itself.
3. Muslims see Islam as a political ideology with (at least) a fairly well-defined ruling system.
4. Muslims view their borders as artificial, imposed by the West, divisive and haraam, and would support the new state's efforts to unite with its Muslim neighbours by annexing bordering countries.

In order for the caliphate movement to generate sufficient momentum for the return of the caliphate to become a political inevitability or even a realistic scenario in the short-term, each of the above statements must be true. I would question whether any of these statements is justified, given the current social and political conditions in the Muslim world.

This (i.e. the invalidity of these assumptions) would not necessarily preclude the establishment of a viable Khilafah-style state, but acknowledging this fact would help better define the necessary daawah and political work that advocates of such a system would need to pursue.

(to be continued, insha Allah)