Category Archives: Downfall of the Caliphate System

Understanding the Caliphate: Between Romanticism and Cynicism

Original Source:

It is an undeniable fact that the institution of the Caliphate played a central role throughout Islamic history from the death of the Prophet Muhammad (sall Allāhu alayhi wasallam) in 632CE to the abolishment of the Ottoman Empire on 3rd March 1924 CE.

This history which consists of 1,300 years of vast territorial expansion, economic prosperity and intellectual enlightenment is also known for its civil wars, dynastic power struggles and instances of oppressive rule. Therefore, Muslims should refrain from thinking that the history of Islām from the perspective of the Caliphate, empire or governance was faultless, and should avoid portraying it as a quasi-utopian civilisation.

However, my fellow co-religionists should also be wary of not accepting and promoting historical narratives framed by Islām’s ardent ideological detractors i.e. the orientalists, European colonialists, and Judeo-Christian supremacists. It is understandable that since the dawn of the War on Terror and the subsequent retaliatory attacks that have occurred in the West, Muslims have been under immense pressure to accept some of the toxic narratives pertaining to their faith and its alleged symbiotic relationship with terrorism. This subconscious and passive inferiority complex has been further cemented by the heinous crimes of the so-called “Islamic State” which was born out the US-led invasion of Iraq, and has claimed responsibility for numerous lone wolf attacks in mainland Europe. [1]

This tense socio-political environment has had an inevitable negative impact on how Muslims reconcile their religious identity with their place of birth or residence, as well as the mindset in which they attempt to understand their history, especially that of the Caliphate.

The Caliphate 
The Caliphate, or Khilāfah in Arabic, derives from the Arabic word khalaf, which means “successor”. Prophet Muhammad (sall Allāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam) being the final prophet of Allāh stated that the position of authority of the Muslim nation (Ummah) would be granted to Caliphs, as mentioned in the following ḥadīth:

“The children of Israel used to have their political affairs ruled by prophets. Whenever a prophet died another would succeed him. But there will be no prophet after me, instead there will be caliphs and they will number many.”The Companions asked, “What then do you order us?” Muhammad (sall Allāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam) said, “Fulfil allegiance to them one after the other. Give them their dues. Verily, Allāh will ask them about what He entrusted them with.” [2]

In short, the role of the Caliph was to act as Allāh’s vicegerent on earth, by ruling with the Divine law (Shariah) in totality, establishing prayer, collecting obligatory alms (zakāt), and conveying the message of Islām to the world. [3]

Naturally, these responsibilities became increasingly difficult and politicised from an administrative perspective as the Caliphate quickly expanded into large swathes of North Africa, Asia and the Mediterranean under the Rāshidūn and Umayyad Caliphates.

Whilst there were clear examples of rebellions, power struggles and usurpation of authority within the history of the Caliphate, prominent non-Muslim commentators have noted that it was never at the scale of the constant wars and instability that ravaged medieval Christian Europe. [4] 

For all its shortcomings, Muslim theologians and historians have noted that there was always some degree of striving towards Islamic orthodoxy or legitimacy via the key role played by Muslim scholars and judges in the day-to-day running of the Caliphate, albeit historical instances of misapplication of Shariah laws, principles and ethics.

Between romanticism and cynicism
The absence of a nuanced and balanced approach, which avoids falling into either Muslim romanticism or Western cynicism, in trying to understand the socio-political and religious dynamics of the Caliphate has been partly due to the tainted method in which orientalist academics have depicted Islamic history in general, as well as the psychological after-effects of European colonialism in former Ottoman territories. [5]

One of the prevailing arguments that was born out of the post-colonial era of secular nation statehood, which continues to trouble the Muslim psyche today, is the re-establishment of the Caliphate. Unfortunately, the political aspiration of Muslims yearning to see a return of the Caliphate has been meticulously depicted by War on Terror propaganda as the exclusive aim of Islamist extremists – both its violent and non-violent strands. [6] 

And this cannot be further from the truth based on research and surveys carried out in the Muslim world, which has shown high percentages of Muslims wanting to be governed by Shariah law and united with fellow Muslim majority countries as one state.[7][8] 

In addition to this, the irrefutable importance of the Caliphate stressed in Islamic source texts makes it nearly impossible for orientalists, modernists and secular liberal reformers to dismiss the concept of the Caliphate as a post-colonial dream of reactionary Islamists.

A common argument presented by the many critics of the Caliphate is that the institution itself has never been “united,” and this is usually substantiated by the fact that there were multiple (usually two) claimants to the Caliphate at one given time throughout Islamic history.[9] 

However, what trumps this fact is that the Prophet Muhammad clearly stated that there cannot be two caliphs, and he who makes the second claim should be killed:

“Whoever gives his oath of allegiance to a Caliph and gives him his hand and his heart, let him obey him as much as he can. If another one comes and disputes with him for leadership, kill the second one.” [10]

The majority of Sunni scholars throughout history up until today hold this position, which is based on the above ḥadīth (along with other supplementary evidences).[11][12] 

However, a minority of classical scholars, namely Shaykh Ibn Taymiyyah, made an exception to this rule due to the difficulties of governing over vast areas of land, poor communication, and to avoid bloodshed and instability. [13]

One Caliph for One Ummah
It is also interesting to note that during periods in Islamic history wherein contesting dynasties fought for power, land and the institution of the Caliphate, there seems to have been a general normative understanding of having one Caliph:

Mu’awiyah (raḍiy Allāhu ‘anhu) – the first Umayyad Caliph – never declared himself as Caliph or sought the bayah (pledge of allegiance) until after the death of Imām ‘Alī (raḍiy Allāhu ‘anhu), when his son Imām Hasan (raḍiy Allāhu ‘anhu) handed over the position to Mu’awiyah (raḍiy Allāhu ‘anhu) to avoid further disunity in 661CE.

– The first Abbasid Caliph, as-Saffah, waited until all the remaining Umayyad dynasty members were killed until he sought the pledge of allegiance and declared himself Caliph in 750 CE. [14]

– Yusuf b. Tashfin, the most prominent leader of the Almoravid dynasty, refused to declare himself as Caliph over the Maghreb and Spain because of the existence of the Abbasid Caliph in Baghdad. [15]

– At the pinnacle of the Mamluk Sultanate in Egypt, the Abbasid Caliphs were still recognised as the symbolic leaders of the Ummah, to the extent that specific religious duties were carried out by the Abbasids, like the declaration of the start of Ramaḍān and the two days of Eid. [16]

– The Seljuk Empire accepted the ceremonial position of the Abbasid Caliphate. They even fought for the restoration of the Abbasid Caliph, al-Qa’im, under Toghrul Beg in 1058 CE when the Fatimid agent Basasiri took control of Baghdad. [17]

– Successive Ayyubid sultans swore loyalty to the Abbasid Caliphate. [18] Most famously, Salahuddin al-Ayyubi’s biographer, Baha al-Din b. Shaddad, documented that one of the objectives of his military campaign was to realign the holy lands with the Abbasid Caliphate. [19]

– Sultan Selim I was the first Ottoman Caliph. He only declared himself Caliph and sought the bayah after the last Abbasid Caliph Al-Mutawakkil III was forced to abdicate his position by handing over the sword and mantle of the Prophet Muhammad (sall Allāhu alayhi wa sallam) in 1517 CE. [20]

– The Mughal Empire unequivocally acknowledged the Ottoman Caliphate. Just before his death, Mughal Emperor Humayun wrote an imperial letter to Sultan Sulaiman ‘the Magnificent’ addressing him as “Caliph of the Muslims”.[21] 

It was also widely documented that salutations and praises to the “Ottoman Caliphs” were common during the Jummah prayers across the Mughal Empire. [22]

Evidently, one can ascertain that even during times of competing and warring sultanates, there was an overarching acceptance of the institution of the Caliphate, albeit ceremonial and for political legitimacy. There was also a consistent acknowledgement of the ruling that there should only be one Caliph, hence the refusal or hesitancy of the aforementioned dynasties to make the claim and seek the bayah whilst a Caliph already existed. Whilst Persian, Turkic and Berber dynasties flourished, and in most cases out-powered the Abbasids (to the extent they could have easily invaded Baghdad at will) – there was never a second claim to the Caliphate made by these autonomous polities, or an effort to dethrone the Abbasids.

However, there were four significant instances where a second claim to the Caliphate was made during the existence of a formative Caliphate, which are worth noting:

The Umayyads declared a Caliphate in Cordoba between 929-1031CE.

– The Almohad dynasty declared a Caliphate over North Africa and Spain between 1121-1269CE. The Almohads were widely regarded as khawarij (a heretical sect) by many of their contemporaries. [23]

– The Fatimids declared a Caliphate between 909-1171CE, though they were widely rejected by the Sunni masses due to being Ismaili Shias. [24]

– The Sokoto Caliphate was declared by Usman dan Fodio in West Africa between 1804-1903 CE. This was a well-organised resistance movement against British colonial rule that did not stretch beyond modern day Nigeria.

The above Caliphates barely lasted 150 years, and with the exception to the Fatimids, none really made the claim to their Caliphate with the intention to overthrow or delegitimise the formative one; even when their expansionist aims were not restricted to lands that were under the direct authority of the Abbasids or the Ottomans. Their lack of longevity or their expansionist restrictions aside, the existence of two Caliphs at one given time was generally unjustifiable from a normative Islamic perspective.

Should history dictate right and wrong?
A manifestation of the inferiority complex mentioned earlier in this article, which has been exacerbated by the War on Terror and the constant blame game against Islam and Muslims, is the disproportionate cynicism many Muslims apply when trying to understand the complex history of the Caliphate, and more so, towards the aspiration of the Ummah to see its return today.

Therefore, it is not uncommon to read or hear Muslims cite examples of civil wars, rebellions, tyranny or misapplication of Shariah laws in the same condescending tone as orientalists and secular liberal reformers. Furthermore, it is as if the cynics among us regard historical events pertaining to the Caliphate as indicators or even evidence to what is ḥalāl and harām in relation to Islamic governance – forgetting that those who ruled the Muslim world after the Prophet Muhammad (sall Allāhu alayhi wa sallam) were human beings.

A few examples to stress the above point:

– Internal dynastic power struggles did not necessarily mean that the basic rights of the citizens of the Caliphate were not being met. For example: Feuding Ottoman princes seeking to overthrow or kill each other in Topkapi Palace did not mean their citizens in Bosnia, Syria and Jerusalem were not being fed, clothed and sheltered.

– Usurpation of power and civil wars did not mean that the Shariah was not being implemented and injustice was rife in the Muslim lands. For example: during the fitnah between Imām Alī (raḍiy Allāhu anhu) and Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (raḍiy Allāhu anhu), can we seriously say that justice was not upheld and the Shariah was not being implemented? Such a claim would be outrageous.

– How should Muslims measure the “success” of the Caliphate? Is it through the number of civil wars and rebellions, or its scientific and material achievements? Rather, our measurement of what made the Caliphate “successful” is whether it upheld justice, protected the basic rights and security of its citizens, carried the message of Islām beyond its realm, and if the laws and values of society were centred around Islām. If that is the case, then surely the history of the Caliphate should not be measured by civil wars and individual actions of Caliphs, but rather how closely it adhered to the Qur’ān and Sunnah in its day-to-day running internally and externally?

– Muslims should be able to distinguish between historical events and what Islamic source texts stipulate or indicate, and this is the responsibility of the ulama. Mu’awiyah (raḍiy Allāhu anhu) making the Caliphate into hereditary rule did not nullify him being a Caliph, in the same way that the bloody Abbasid revolution which overthrew the Umayyads was Islamically wrong, but it did not negate as-Saffah as a Caliph because he fulfilled the shari’ conditions to be the Caliph, he took authority by force, and was given the bayah by the Ahlul hali wal’aqd (people of power). So, just because hereditary kingship occurred and sitting Caliphs were overthrown, it did not make these events correct or permissible according to Islamic source texts.

– The existence of crimes, sins and debauchery in society does not nullify any Caliphates of the past from a fiqhi (legal) point of view. Crimes, sins, wars, power struggles and even treachery existed at the time of the Prophet (sall Allāhu alayhi wa sallam) and the Khulafah ar-Rashideen, and they were the best generation of Muslims.

– Another example of historical events not being evidences for what is ḥalāl and harām – even if a particular harām resulted in goodness, or a particular obligation resulted in harm, is the issue of having two Caliphs. Just because two claimants to the Caliphate occurred in Islamic history does not make it permissible to have two Caliphs today. Just because some Caliphs were tyrants whilst others were unimportant and useless, does not mean we reject the obligation of having a Caliphate today – whether it solves all the Ummah’s problems or not.

The above assumptions are becoming increasingly common amongst Muslims today – and sadly, it is expected given the hostile political climate of structural and institutional Islamophobia in the West, and the sophisticated subtlety of orientalist narratives that is spearheading the secular reformist movement. However, as a general principle, Muslims should always remember that history is ultimately written by the victors who subsequently influence or set the narratives about their respective opponents, which varies from over-exaggerating wrongdoings, the distortion of facts to outright fabrications. If liberal reformists, revisionists and orientalist historians claim that most or the entirety of the Caliphate’s history was not actually “Islamic” at all, but rather secular and Godless in nature, then the burden of proof is on them to present the authentic and reliable evidences where the Caliphate disregarded Islām as reference point for its governance.

To conclude, this summarised snapshot into the multi-layered complexities of the history of the Caliphate demonstrates how, even with all its shortcomings, the institution still strived towards Islamic orthodoxy with the inclusion of their respective schools of jurisprudence and theology playing a central role in its governance and social values. When studying and teaching Islamic history, or any history for that matter, students and teachers alike should try to avoid disproportionate romanticism and cynicism – and try to understand everything objectively within its correct sociopolitical and religious context. Admittedly, this is much easier said than done as we all (including myself) have ideological presuppositions and psychological complexes which influence the way we interpret and make sense of everything, including history.



[2] Sahih al-Bukhari

[3] Al-Ahkam al-Sultaniyya w’al Wilayat al-Diniyya– Imam Al-Mawardi [Translated by Professor Wafaa H. Wahba, Feb 2000]





[8] Gallup World Poll of Muslims, 2006.


[10] Sahih Muslim

[11] The 60 Sultaniyya, Abu Luqman Fathullah

[12] Classical Scholars on Khilafah:

[13] Majmu‘ Fatawa, Shaykh Ibn Taymiyya(Riyadh: Dar ‘Alam al-Kutub, 1991), 35:175-76.

[14] Kennedy, H. (2004). The prophet and the age of the caliphates. 2nd edition

[15] G. Stewart, Is the Caliph a Pope? in: The Muslim World, Volume 21, Issue 2

[16] A. Stilt, Kristen Islamic Law in Action: Authority, Discretion, and Everyday Experiences in Mamluk Egypt (2011) p.30

[17] Hoiberg, Dale H., ed. (2010). “Abbasid Dynasty”. Encyclopaedia Britannica. I: A-Ak – Bayes (15th ed.). Chicago, IL.

[18] Shillington, Kevin (2005), Encyclopaedia of African history, CRC Press, p.438

[19] The Rare and Excellent History of Saladin.Baha al-Din ibn Shaddad [Translated by D.S. Richards, Routledge November 2002]

[20] Drews, Robert (August 2011). “Chapter Thirty – The Ottoman Empire, Judaism, and Eastern Europe to 1648

[21] ‘Six Ottoman documents on Mughal-Ottoman relations’ by N.R. Farooqi in: Journal of Islamic Studies, Volume, Issue 1, p.32-48

[22] Ottoman-Mughal Political Relations Circa 1500-1923, Razi Ashraf

[23] Kitab Akhbar Al-Mahdi Ibn Tumart, Abu Bakr ibn Ali Baydhaq (Algiers 1982) p.68

[24] Amin Maalouf (1984). The Crusades Through Arab Eyes. Al Saqi Books. pp. 160–170


The Jordan Royal Family’s Role in the fall of True Caliphate and the Deception of Pseudo-Sufi’s Regarding Them

Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan (اَلمَمْلَكَة اَلأُرْدُنِيَّة اَلهَاشِمِيَّة) is in existence since 1921, and in its present form, only since 1948. The first Amir of this Kingdom, Abdullah I,  was a Saudi appointed and British approved Emir of Jordan who declared himself as King of Jordan in 1947.  We have provided a brief history of this dynasty in the following.

Hussein bin Ali (حسین بن علی) (1931 –1854) 

Hussein bin Ali was the Sharif and Emir of Makkah, during 1908 – 17, when he proclaimed himself King of Hejaz. He initiated the Arab Revolt in 1916 against the  Ottoman Empire (who were recognized as the upholders of Shariah throughout the Islamic World), during World War I thus causing the downfall of the Islamic Caliphate. 

The rise of Turkish nationalism under the Ottoman Empire, that culminated in the 1908 Young Turk Revolution, resulted in a rift between Hussein and the Ottoman revolutionaries. On 27 June 1916 Hussein issued a proclamation in which he announced himself the true leader of the Islamic faith and King of Hejaz.  This was a revolt against the Central authority of Ottoman Sultan Mehmed V, whom Hussein accused a puppet of the Young Turk administration (which was headed by a Donmeh Jew named Mustafa Kemal Ataturk). Numerous reasons were cited by Hussein to justify his action; which include alleged mistreatment of Arabs in Syria, and the controversial argument put forward by the Young Turks in 1909 that all religions were to be regarded as equal. 

The irony of the situation is, currently King Abdullah II of Jordan is doing the same thing, what Young Turks did in 1909.  He is also creating an atmosphere in the world where all religions are treated as authentic and equal.  He has issued Amman Messages (declarations) in 2005 in which he calls all Muslim Sects as true Muslims. He also calls Christians, Jews and Buddhists as believers on par with Muslims.  He misinterpreted Qur’anic verses and Ahadith to justify his actions.   

During World War I, Hussein, on the advice of his son Abdullah I,  began secret negotiations with the British Government and demanded that British recognize  and help in the formation of an Arab nation that include Hejaz and other adjacent territories. British agreed in principle, and then commenced the Arab revolt against Ottoman empire in 1916.

At the end of World War I, Arabs found themselves freed from Ottoman Sultanate rule causing division in the Ummah, but were held under the mandate colonial rule of France and the United Kingdom. When these mandates ended, the sons of Hussein; Abdullah I was made Emir of Transjordan (later Jordon),  and Faisal was made Emir of Syria & Iraq (later Iraq) by the British kuffar.

In 1924, when the Ottoman Caliphate was abolished, Hussein was defeated by Abdul aziz al-Saud forces in 1924.    

 Abdullah I bin al-Hussein ( عبد الله الأول بن الحسين ) ( 1951-1882 )

Abdullah I, born in Makkah, was the son of Sherif Hussein bin Ali, Sharif and Emir of Makkah in Ottomon Caliphate.  From 1909 to 1914, Abdullah I sat in the Ottoman legislature, as deputy for Hejaz. 

Around 1915, Abdullah-I hatched a conspiracy against Ottoman empire in collusion with British Government. During World War I,  he led guerrilla raids on Ottoman garrisons, in close cooperation with British Spy T. E. Lawrence and French Captain M.O.A. Raho and played a key role, as the main architect and planner of the end of Khilafah system in the Middle East.  

He attacked Ottoman garrison of Ta’if on 10 June 1916 and captured it on September 22, 1916. He then joined the siege of Madinah commanding a force of 4,000 men based to the East and North-East of the town. In early 1917, Abdullah ambushed an Ottoman convoy in the desert, and captured £ 20,000 worth of gold coins.

In August 1917, Abdullah worked closely with the French Captain Muhammand Ould Ali Raho in sabotaging and destroying Hijaz Railway. 

The most agonizing aspect in the History of Middle East is the establishment of the Jewish State Israel in Palestine.  Abdullah I  played a key role along with British and Jews in its formation. He supported the Peel Commission in 1937, which proposed that Palestine be split for a Jewish state Israel. 

In 1946–48, Abdullah-I openly participated in the partition of Palestine. Before Arab Israeli conflict, the British had essentially withdrawn their troops. The situation pushed the leaders of the neighboring Arab states to intervene, but their preparation was not finalized, and they could not assemble sufficient forces to turn the tide of the war. The majority of Palestinian Arab hopes lay with the Arab Legion of Trans-Jordan’s King Abdullah I, but he had no intention of creating a Palestinian Arab-run state, since he wanted to annex as much of the territory of the British Mandate for Palestine as he could. He was playing a double-game, being just as much in contact with the Jewish authorities as with the Arab League. He held secret meetings with the Jewish Agency (future Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir was among the delegates to these meetings) that came to a mutually agreed partition plan independently of the United Nations in November 1947. A part of Palestine was occupied by Israel and the remaining part was occupied by Jordan.  Rest is history.

Abdullah I became the Emir of Jordon during 1921-46.  He then declared himself King of Jordon and remained in power till 1951.  On July 20, 1951, Abdullah I,  while visiting Al-Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem, which was under Jordanian rule, was shot dead by “a Palestinian from the Husseini clan”.  

Talal bin Abdullah ( طلال بن عبد الله‎) (1909-1972)

Talal bin Abdullah came to power after the assassination of his Father King Abdullah I,  on July 20, 1951.  However, he was forced to surrender power to his son Hussein bin Talal  on 11 August 1952 on alleged health reasons.

Hussein bin Talal (حسين بن طلال‎) ( 1935 – 1999)

Hussein bin Talal rose to power after the abdication (removal) of his father, King Talal, in 1952.  His rein lasted till his death on February 7, 1999. Readers may be aware that King Hussein was very  infamous in the Arab world for his secret friendship and covert agreements with  Israel.

In the 1980s, King Hussein declared his brother as Crown Prince. Later he nominated his son Prince Ali bin Al Hussein, born to Queen Alia (third wife of King Hussein), but reportedly changed his mind around 1992 and seriously considered appointing one of his nephews as heir.

However, on his death bed, in an Intensive Care Unit, in a US hospital, critically ill from acute cancer, it was reported on January 25, 1999 that he named Abdullah II as his heir.  The King died on February 7, 1999.

Randa Habib, a woman journalist who was very close to King Hussein of Jordan, wrote a book about the inside story of King Hussein.  She disclosed that King Hussein was a womanizer.  He was a secret friend of Israel who used to give information to Israel about its Arab neighbors.  She also disclosed that before the 1973 war, King Hussain secretly informed Israel that Egypt and Syria were planning to attack Israel which help Israel to win that war.  She described the King as a very shrewd politicians

Abdullah II bin Hussein ( عبد الله الثاني بن الحسين‎)

Born on January 30,  1962, Abdullah II ascended the throne on February 7, 1999 upon the death of his father King Hussein.

He attended St Edmund’s School, Hindhead, Surrey, before moving to Deerfield Academy in Deerfield, Massachusetts. He joined the Royal Military Academy Sandhurst in 1980, was commissioned as a Second Lieutenant, and served as a troop commander in the 13th/18th Royal Hussars.  In 1982, King Abdullah II attended Pembroke College at Oxford University where he completed a one-year Special Training course in Middle Eastern Affairs. In 1987, he attended the Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service at Georgetown University in Washington, D.C.


It is alleged that King Abdullah II of Jordan is member of the Committee of 300 influential people in the world who govern the world via a three city state empire, in which the cities pay no taxes and obey their own laws.

(1) City of London Corporation – Financial power center, established in 1067

(2) District of Columbia – Military power center, established in 1871

(3) Vatican City – Religious power center, sovereign in 1929

The Committee uses a network of round-table groups, think tanks and secret Zionist societies which control the world’s largest financial institutions and governments. The most prominent of these groups include Chatham House, Bilderburg Group, Trilateral Commission, Council on Foreign Relations, Ditchley Foundation, Club of Rome, RAND Corporation, PNAC and  Freemasonry. 

The Committee of 300 controls the world economy via the City of London Corporation. The City of London Corporation is made up of 108 Livery Companies, the Worshipful Company of Fuellers and the Worshipful Company of Mercers are two of the most prominent.

 The Bank of International Settlements controls the worldwide banking system including the Federal Reserve System and the European Central Bank. The International Monetary Fund and the World Bank work to in-debt developing nations making them subservient to the developed nations of the world.

The Groups of 7, 20 and 30 act as financial regulators and middlemen serving Central Banks and Investment Banks. These regulators are unelected and empower the Financial Terrorists at the expense of the masses. The Investment Banks and financial services corporations gamble with their clients money with the reassurance that any losses will be paid by taxpayers.

The power behind the Committee of 300 is the Anglo-Jewish cousin-hood that dominate the financial and political systems of the world.

This cousin-hood includes the RothschildRockefeller, OppenheimerGoldsmidMocatta,MontefioreSassoonWarburg, Samuel, KadoorieFranklinWorms, Stern and Cohen families.

These families hold monopolies over the worldwide banking system, the oil and gas industry and the metals and mining industry. Through this domination of the financial markets they pull the strings of every government in the world. They also control the illegal drugs trade, human trafficking and illegal arms trafficking causing continuous pain and suffering worldwide.

The cousin-hood believes in a form of Babylonian Talmudic Judaism. The Babylonian Talmud and Shulchan Aruch contain the legal code which is the basis of today’s Judaism and Jewish law. In fact, Talmudic Judaism is primarily a legal system in a literal sense. It has little to do with religion and is more of an ancient political cult group with many followers who are not openly Jewish. This is why so many Jews openly claim to be Jewish and atheist at the same time.

The esoteric teachings for the higher Luciferian initiates are to be found in the Kabbalah. Inside the Kabbalah is contained the mysterious rites for evocations, the indications and keys to practices for conjuration of supernatural forces, the science of numbers and of astrology. The practical application of Kabbalist knowledge has been used through the ages by Talmudic Jews to gain influence both in the higher spheres of Gentile life and over the masses. 

King Abdullah II married to Queen Rania of Jordan.

Rania Al-Yassin was born in Kuwait to Palestinian parents from Tulkarm. She attended the New English School in Jabriya, Kuwait, then received a degree in Business Administration from the American University in Cairo. Upon her graduation from American University, she worked briefly in marketing for Citibank, followed by a job with Apple Inc. in Amman.  Known as a sharp dresser with expensive tastes for designer goods, she is a fixture in London society pages. She was ranked as the third most beautiful woman in the world by Harpers and Queen magazine in 2005.  

King Abdullah II net worth (personal wealth) is not disclosed in public domain, as is generally done in the cases of other rich monarchs around the Globe. (Like King Abdullah bin Abdulaziz of Saudi Arabia’s  net worth is estimated to be over 18 billion Dollars.

However, judging from his recent projects, and his lavish life style, King Abdullah II of Jordan’s  net worth could be among one of  the highest in the world. 

King Abdullah II is a big fan of Cinema.  In 2006, he partnered with the University of Southern California’s School of Cinematic Arts to create the Red Sea Institute of Cinematic Arts, in the coastal City of Aqaba.

King Abdullah’s mother,  Antoinette Avril Gardiner (Toni Gardiner), (born 1941), is the daughter of British Army Officer, Lieutenant-Colonel Walter Percy Gardner.

Toni Gardiner met King Hussein when she was working as Secretarial Assistant on the sets of the famous film  “Lawrence of Arabia” during its shooting in Jordon. Hussein took personal interest in the shooting and provided Jordanian Army personnel to work in the film because he had high regard for British Agent T.E. Lawrence, who helped his grandfather King Abdullah I to grab power.   

 On 25 May 1961, King Hussein married Toni Gardiner as his second wife and gave her the title of HRH Princess Muna al-Hussein. However, after 10 years of marriage, she divorced King Hussein on December 21, 1971.

After  divorce, she kept the title of ‘Princess of Jordan’ and remained in Jordan and continues to work till today. She works for whom and what is the nature of her work is not known to people and is not available in public domain.

Queen Noor, step-mother of King Abdullah II of Jordan;  the mother of Prince Hamza bin Hussain, the crown prince of Jordan between 1999-2004, is dating Carlos Slim Helu, a Maxican, the richest man in the world, worth US $ 69 billion.  

Some people people say that Jordanian rulers belong to Hashemite ( هاشمي ) or Banu Hashim clan of Quraish and direct descendants of Prophet Mohammad (صلى الله عليه و آله وسلم) therefore deserve respect.  We do respect all who are Ahle Bait and consider it mandatory on all Muslims of the world. 

But the history is witness that, till the early reign of Hussein bin Ali, who was Sharif and Emir of Makka, this family remained stead fast in Islam.  But, beginning the reign of Abdullah I, they deviated and started supporting the interests of British and Israel in the Arab World to an extent that Abdullah I helped in the formation of Israel by partitioning Palestine. Abdullah I also helped British and Wahhabi rise to power in Arabian Peninsula.  Jordanian Royal are also infamous in the Arab world for their secret friendship and covert agreements with Israel. 

The King has 4 children, the other two are Princess Salma (b 26 Sept 2000) and Prince Hashem (b 30 Jan, 2005).

Currently King Abdullah II is working for a Grand Zionist plan, against the commandments of Allah and His Prophet Mohammad (صلى الله عليه و آله وسلم) by his Amman Declarations; in which he considers Jews, Christians, Budhhists as Equal in religion with Islam. 

If a very popular Shaikh is doing something against the Sharia openly, then it is our duty to tell him (with due respect) and his followers about it and help him correct it.  If we keep quite, thinking that he is a big Shaikh, or a big King, then we will not be doing justice to him or his followers.


There is a well orchestrated conspiracy to declare King Abdullah II as Khalifa-e-Islam.  Nazim al-Haqqani has  already declared him the Khalifa-e-Islam. Some stories are being concocted to prove the legitimacy of this fake Khilafat (Caliphate) among Muslims. 

Click this link to read what Nazim Haqqani says about Abdullah II:

Also read the statements provided in the below link in which Nazim al-Haqqani declares that he has already given allegiance to King Abdullah II of Jordon. Nazim al-Haqqani also said that he has kissed the feet and hands of King Abdullah II.  (Astaghfirullah).  Nazim Al-Haqqani says that immediately 10 countries have been given to the King, that include where recent Zionist conspired revolutions have taken place.  He is encouraging the King to enter Syria and capture it immediately. Click here:

Its interesting to see such pseudo-Sufis like Nazim Haqqani who used to rant day and night on how Wahhabis and Al Saud destroyed the True Ottoman Caliphate but turn a blind eye to Jordanian authority who are equally responsible as Saud themselves, instead they make such corrupted leaders their “Khalifa al-Islam”!! such are their double-games, Indeed, Jordan Dinars seems to work better for these Pseudo-sufis!. May Allah give them Hidayah, Aameen

How the European Colonialists Conspired to Destroy the [real] Caliphate System

On Monday 3rd March 1924 (28th Rajab 1342AH), the world woke to the news that Mustafa Kemal in Turkey had officially abolished the Khilafah. That night Abdul-Mejid II, the last Khalifah of the Muslims, was bundled in to a car with a suitcase of clothes and money and exiled from Turkey, never to return. This is how 1342 years of Islamic rule ended. The following is a historical account of the actions of the colonial powers in first sowing the seeds of disunity amongst Muslims by implanting the idea of nationalism and then finally administering the destruction of the Khilafah state by their treacherous agents.

Turkey’s independence was officially recognised with the implementation of the Lausanne Treaty signed the year before on 24 July 1923. Britain and its allies withdrew all their troops that had occupied Turkey since the end of the First World War. In response to this, protests were made in the House of Commons to the British Foreign Secretary Lord Curzon, for recognising Turkey’s independence. Lord Curzon replied, “The situation now is that Turkey is dead and will never rise again, because we have destroyed its moral strength, the Caliphate and Islam.”

As admitted by Lord Curzon, Britain along with France played a pivotal role in destroying the Khilafah and carving up the Muslim lands between them. Their plans against the Khilafah were not just a reaction to the Khilafah siding with Germany in World War I. These plans were set in motion hundreds of years ago finally coming to fruition when the Uthmani Khilafah began to rapidly decline in the mid-eighteenth century.

The first attempt at destroying the unity of Islam came in the 11th century when Pope Urban II launched the first crusade to occupy Al-Quds. After 200 years of occupation the crusaders were finally defeated at the hands of Salahudeen Ayyubi (rahimahullah). In the 15th century Constantinople was conquered and the last stronghold of the Byzantine Empire defeated. Then in the 16th century the Islamic State swept across southern and eastern Europe carrying Islam to its peoples. Consequently millions of people in Albania, Yugoslavia, Bulgaria and other countries embraced Islam. After the siege of Vienna in 1529 Europe formed alliances to stop the Khilafah’s expansion in to Europe. It was at this point the crusaders animosity towards Islam and the Khilafah was revived and plans were hatched to deal with this “Oriental Problem” as it became known.

Count Henri Decastri, a French author wrote in his book entitled ‘Islam’ in 1896:
“I cannot imagine what the Muslims would say if they heard the tales of the mediaeval ages and understood what the Christian orators used to say in their hymns; all our hymns even those which emerged before the 12th century emanated from one concept which was the cause of the crusades, these hymns were filled with hatred towards the Muslims due to the total ignorance of their religion. As a result of those hymns and songs, hatred against that religion became fixed in people’s minds, and the erroneous ideas deeply rooted, some of which are still carried nowadays. Everyone used to regard the Muslims as polytheists, disbelievers, idol worshippers and apostates.”

After their defeat the crusaders realised that the cause of Muslims strength and resolve was the Islamic Aqeeda. As long as Muslims were strongly attached to Islam and the Qur’an the Khilafah could never be destroyed. This is why at the end of the 16th century they established the first missionary centre in Malta and made it their headquarters for launching a missionary onslaught against the Muslim world. This was the beginning of western culture entering the Muslim world by British, French and American Dajjaali missionaries.

These missionaries worked under the guise of educational and scientific institutions. Initially their effect on the Muslims was minimal. But during the 18th and 19th centuries when decline had set in to the Khilafah the missionaries managed to exploit weaknesses in the state and spread corrupted concepts to the people. In the 19th century, Beirut became the centre for missionary activity. During this time the missionaries exploited civil strife between Christians and Druze and later Christians and Muslims, with Britain siding with the Druze and France siding with the Christian Maronites.

The missionaries had two main objectives during this time.

1. To separate the Arabs from the Uthmani state
2. To alienate the Muslims from the bond of Islam

In 1875 the “Secret Association” was formed in Beirut in an attempt to encourage Arab nationalism among the people. Through declarations and leaflets it called for the political independence of the Arabs, especially those in Syria and Lebanon. Those in charge repeatedly accused Turkey in their literature of snatching the Islamic Khilafah from the Arabs, violating the Islamic Shari’ah, and abusing the Deen.

These seeds of Arab nationalism came to fruition in 1916 when Britain ordered its agent Sharif Hussein of Makkah to launch the Arab Revolt against the Uthmani Khilafah. This revolt was successful in dividing the Arab lands from the Khilafah and placing them under British and French mandates.

At the same time nationalism was being incited among the Turks. The Young Turks movement was established in 1889 on the basis of Turkish nationalism and achieved power in 1908 after ousting Khalifah Abdul-Hamid II. The traitor Mustafa Kemal who went on to abolish the Khilafah was a member of the Young Turks. This is why Mustafa Kemal later said: “Was it not because of the Khilafah, Islam and the clergy that the Turkish peasants fought and died for five centuries? It is high time Turkey looked after her own interests and ignored the Indians and the Arabs. Turkey should rid itself of leading the Muslims.”

Alongside the missionary activities Britain and France along with Russia began to directly colonise many parts of the Muslim world. This started during the mid- eighteenth century when in 1768 Catherine II of Russia fought the Khilafah and successfully occupied the lands of Southern Ukraine, Northern Caucasus, and Crimea which became incorporated in to the Russian Empire. France attacked Egypt and Britain began its occupation of India. In the 19th century France occupied North Africa and Britain occupied Egypt, Sudan and India. Gradually, the lands of the Khilafah were receding until the end of the 1st World war when all that was left was Turkey, which was occupied by allied troops under the command of a British general named Charles Harrington.

The division of the lands of the Khilafah was a deliberate agreement hatched by Britain and France in 1916 in the secret agreement known as Sykes-Picot. This plan was negotiated between French diplomat François Georges-Picot and British diplomatic advisor Mark Sykes. Under the agreement Britain was allocated control of Jordan, Iraq and a small area around Haifa. France was allocated control of South-eastern Turkey, Northern Iraq, Syria and Lebanon. The controlling powers were left free to decide on state boundaries within these areas. The Middle Eastern map today is the legacy of Sykes-Picot with the borders matching, Mr Sykes and Mr Picot’s lines drawn using a ruler over the former lands of the Khilafah.

In the years preceeding the destruction of the Khilafah, Britain played the most important role through nurturing its agent Mustafa Kemal. Through a number of political maneuvers aided by Britain, Mustafa Kemal was able to establish himself as an authority within Turkey. In 1922, the Lausanne conference was organised by the British foreign Secretary Lord Curzon to discuss Turkey’s independence. Turkey at that time was under the occupation of the allied forces with the institution of the Khilafah existing in all but name. During this conference Lord Curzon stipulated four conditions prior to recognising the independence of Turkey. These conditions were:

1. The total abolishment of the Khilafah
2. The expulsion of the Khalifah beyond the borders
3. The confiscation of its assets
4. Declaration that Turkey become a secular state

The success of the conference rested on the fulfilment of these four conditions. However, even with such foreign pressure many Muslims within Turkey still cherished the idea of Khilafah, which had served Islam so well for so many centuries and found it inconceivable that it could ever be abolished. Hence, Lord Curzon failed to secure these conditions and the conference wound up in failure. Yet, the cunning Lord Curzon on behalf of Britain did not give up. On the 3rd March 1924 Mustafa Kemal using force and terrorising his political opponents managed to push through the Abolition bill that would see the institution of Khilafah officially abolished.

For the colonialists powers destroying the Khilafah was not enough. They wanted to ensure that the Khilafah could never arise again among the Muslims.

Lord Curzon said, “We must put an end to anything which brings about any Islamic unity between the sons of the Muslims. As we have already succeeded in finishing off the Caliphate, so we must ensure that there will never arise again unity for the Muslims, whether it be intellectual or cultural unity.”

Therefore, they placed a number of obstacles in the path of re-establishing the Khilafah such as:

1. The introduction of the non-Islamic concepts in the Islamic world such as patriotism, nationalism, socialism and secularism and the colonialists encouragement of political movements based on these ideas

2. The presence of educational curriculum set up by the colonial powers, which have remained in tact for 80 years, that made the majority of the graduated young people and those in the educational institutions proceed in a direction contradictory to Islam

3. The economic strangulation of the Muslim world by western governments and companies such that the people live in abject poverty and are forced to focus solely upon feeding themselves and their families whilst turning away from the true role of the colonialists

4. The deliberate legacy of dividing the Muslim world around contentious borders and territories such that Muslims would permanently be engaged in petty issues

5. The creation of organisations such as the Arab League and later the Organisation of Islamic countries (OIC) that diluted the bonds of Islam, continued the disunity of the Muslim world whilst failing miserably to solve any problem or issue

6. The imposition of a foreign state, Israel, into the heart of the Muslim world that would spearhead the western powers assault upon defenceless Muslims while perpetuating the myth of Muslim inferiority

7. The presence in the Muslim countries of tyrant rulers whose allegiance is to their western masters; whom oppress and torture the Ummah; they are not from the Ummah and hate the Ummah just as much as the Ummah hates them.

Hobbes’ Folly: The Creation of Secularism and a new Intolerance


[By Abdullah al Andalusi]

Thomas Hobbes (1588 – 1679 AD) is renowned in Western history as being the father of modern Western Political Philosophy. His seminal book ‘Leviathan’ established the foundational ideas and concepts for what would later be called Secularism and Liberalism. Hobbes argues that the purpose of government is exclusively material, namely, the prevention of in-fighting and disorder between people.

Government was required because, according to Hobbes, ‘the time that men live without a common power to keep them all in awe, they are in that condition which is called war, and such a war as is of every man against every man’ (‘Leviathan’).

In Hobbes’ time, Christianity was heavily dominant in politics, with wars between kingdoms fought over different interpretations of Christianity – mainly on the question of whether or not the Catholic Church and Pope should have spiritual authority over Christians, and Christian kings.

Hobbes sought to find a solution to this by creating a philosophy derived from what he thought was universal observations of human nature, to establish politics upon a non-religious, material basis.

Thomas Hobbes, argued pragmatically that fallible priests can bring a bad reputation to religion, and basing a state on religion (or priests) would cause instability. People, he argued, would over time become disillusioned with Catholicism due to instances of corruption amongst priests, as well people falling into differences of interpretation, heresies and splinter factions. Hobbes argued that religion changes over time, but the state always stays the same, and so for the interest of maintaining the stability of the state, government should not be founded or justified by religion.

Hobbes argued that since religion causes controversies in society, the state should be founded on civil authority justified only by the material purpose of preventing fighting between people and disorder (this is called the ‘Argument from controversy’).

Therefore Hobbes basis is: if a ruler has power, he has authority and the right to obedience from his subjects, whether he is religious, Christian or not.

The Four Arguments of Thomas Hobbes

To effect his goal of giving Christians a purely material basis for obedience to government, Hobbes invoked the Bible claiming that only the Jews could have a ‘Kingdom of God’ ruled by religion.

But since the advent of Jesus, and his ascension to heaven, Christians were to wait for Jesus to return to establish a ‘Kingdom of God’ with him being the ruler of all Christians. In the meantime, before Jesus’ re-appearance, Hobbes argued that Christianity was merely ‘good counsel’ (advice), and should only be limited to persuading people to do good and be saved, not governing them (this is called ‘the Kingdom of God argument’).

Hobbes also argued that belief cannot be forced, and that people have no control over their own opinions, and must be convinced first through argument. Hobbes argued that forcing people to do good, would make many act hypocritically, and therefore be pointless as it still could not ‘save’ their souls. He argued it was better to not rule by religion, and therefore only the sincere of heart would answer the call to faith (this is called ‘The Argument from Hypocrisy’).

For the final main argument for Secularism, Hobbes invoked the fact that early Christians were commanded by Paul (who was not a companion of Jesus! ‘Eesa alaihissalaam) to obey their leaders and kings – who at the time of early Christianity would have been the non-Christian Pagan Roman kings (this is called the ‘Give unto Caesar argument’).


Consequently, based upon those four arguments, Hobbes claimed Christianity does not have a special right to government, nor does a government need to be Christian to be justified, but rather the material purpose of government, to prevent in-fighting and disorder, is the only purpose and justification for it.

That being said, Hobbes never prohibited government from implementing Christian laws, but rather he argued that the implementation of Christian law was at the discretion of the ruler and optional. Whether the ruler ruled with Christian law or not, or was himself a Christian or not, did not invalidate his right to rule – which is established his power, and the purpose of preventing in-fighting and chaos between the people.

Hobbes and the argument from Controversy

Hobbes was clearly a product of his time, and unfortunately based his conclusions on generalising the particular circumstances of his time e.g. English Civil War etc. He argued for the absolute authority of the ruler to enforce, by use of iron fist if necessary, people to live peacefully with each other.

Unfortunately, this does not take account of all factors which cause conflict.

Hobbes considered only what causes conflict between humans in a state before a society comes into existence (i.e. in a state of anarchy), and how differences in religion may cause wars. Hobbes, however, did not adequately address the other much more common causes of conflict within society. Factors which cause conflict include mostly materialistic-oriented things like pride, competition, greed, lust, desire for power, unjust economic system, corrupt government, oppression, factionalism, racism, fascism etc. Hobbes’ solution did not provide any means to regulate, restrain or replace this problems.

Strangely, Hobbes does not consider any way to prevent inter-state wars between countries. Most of the religious wars that occurred in Hobbes’ time were not civil wars excited by religion, but wars between kingdoms. In essence, Hobbes picked the fly and ignored the elephant.

Hobbes’ argument that religion changes, but the state does not, is not accurate. The state changes too, rulers change, culture changes, power and fortune changes, and people may split off into differing political factions and fight each other in civil wars for purely non-religious motives.

Unfortunately, since Hobbes was surrounded by religious wars, this really affected his thinking. Kind of like if a man has a bad experience in a relationship, he might be foolish to think that all women are bad.


Hobbes’ conclusions really don’t apply outside of Christianity (which he admitted). In Islam, the political leader, the Caliph, is viewed as a fallible human, and no one ever connected a Caliph to a manifestation of Islam, except where the Caliphs actions were in accordance with Islam. In Islam, the Caliph is not an intercessor between man and God, nor is the post divinely guided or sinless.

The wisdom of Islam, is that it does not give authority to one group of scholars or Imams over another to dictate and enforce doctrine (like Catholicism does). There is no established Church. This means that no one can ‘own’ Islam, for Islam is (to use a computer programming term) ‘open-source’, accessible and interpretable to anyone educated enough to do so.

This meant that the Ummah (Muslim community) always looked towards scholars who were not in the pay of the government, as being the most trusted ones to protect the intellectual continuation of Islam.

Scholars who were in the pay of government were never trusted as much as independents.


Islamic thought and jurisprudence is separated from any monopolised control by government, and the government is not under obligation to follow one particular Islamic school of thought over another. This means that Islamic government focuses only on the implementation of Islamic law, not enforcement of a particular doctrine (which leads to religious wars). It is free to adopt any interpretation of Islamic law on only political or social issues, or another, without requiring the Muslim community to believe in it – leaving the Caliphate’s policies open to public debate, constructive criticism and revision.

Of course, there were three Caliphs of the Mutazilah sect which tried to force their doctrines on people – but they were the exception (their sect was heavily influenced by European-Greek thought – enough said).

In conclusion, because Islam does not consider Caliphs, Islamic scholars as infallible, or intercessors between man and God, no one can harm the idea of Islam, but people can only harm their own reputation by failing to live up to Islamic ideals.

Thus, Islam demonstrates that Hobbes contentions are not universally true, which therefore render void his conclusions about religion in general.

Historically speaking, the longest running states and civilizations based upon some form of religious tradition, philosophy or belief, whether the Ottoman Caliphate, the Chinese civilization, the Persian civilisation have never faced the kind of schisms and wars, emanating from religion that europe experienced – but rather have always experienced political causes for strife. This fundamental fact, renders Hobbes’ generalisations – based upon his experience of the peculiar circumstances of renaissance Europe’s religious wars, a clear error.

Hobbes and his ‘Argument from Hypocrisy’

Although Hobbes admits that (his interpretation of) Christianity is the most suitable religion for the detachment of religious authority from government, it follows that his conclusions could not apply to other religions. For example, Islam isn’t merely ‘good counsel’ but also a ‘mercy to mankind’ by providing solutions for the causes of conflict within a society as well.

Islam aims to create an environment that appeals to the higher nature in man, and does not leave society free to appeal, encourage and reward man’s lesser natures – i.e. hypocrisy.

Islam actively aims to remove public corruption, not by focusing only on hypocrites, but by helping the majority of people who are not hypocrites, who desire to be good, but fail due to human weakness, and inadvertently affecting others.

A society organised to liberate the virtuous, is a society based on virtue. A society organised to liberate hypocrites, is a society based on hypocrisy.

What Hobbes misunderstood in his observations, is that revelation came not to guide hypocrites, but help good and sincere people.

Therefore, it does not compel hypocrites to become sincere, nor does it force non-Muslims to become Muslim, instead Islam creates an environment conducive to, and encouraging of virtue, while preventing hypocrites corrupting others in the society [i.e. the public sphere].

‘They [the Hypocrites] wish that you reject (Faith), and thus that you all become equal (like them). So, take not Auliya (protectors or friends) from them’ [Quran 4:89]

Islam’s solution, permits hypocrites to do what they like only in the private sphere of their homes (the penal system does not punish sins done in private), but in public, the environment is conditioned to help and encourage the majority who sincerely believe and desire to do good but are weak humans beings, prone to mistakes and temptations.

‘Allah desires that He should make light your burdens, [for] man is created weak ’ [Quran 4:28]


Lastly, Hobbes assumed that sincere people wouldn’t exist in a religious state, as they would in a materialistic-based state. The reality is that sincere people and hypocrites would exist in both states – however, while a religious based state would be more likely to promote excellence in sincere people, the materialistic-based state would reward people who have the least scruples and the most self-centered ambition (i.e. hypocrites), and force sincere people to compromise some of their virtues in order to compete.

Hobbes’ and his ‘Kingdom of God argument’

Hobbes argues that Jesus did not intend to rule the world during his lifetime, nor urge Christians to do the same. Christians, according to Hobbes, are to wait for the return of Jesus where he will establish his direct rule of the world. In the meantime Christians are merely meant to convert people to the faith and increase their numbers, and preach to fellow Christians, to become righteous. For this reason, Hobbes argued, Christianity does not have a right to rule, or obligation to attain government.

This argument misrepresents the New Testament, and Catholic doctrine. The term ‘Kingdom of God’ (or ‘Kingdom of Heaven’) has many meanings and uses in the Bible, from an earthly kingdom, to a state of mind, to Jesus himself, or a state of existence for a Christian community. The Catholic Church has always viewed itself as aiming at fully realising the Kingdom of God, which doesn’t need Jesus to actively be present to rule (since the ‘Holy Spirit’ was claimed to be guiding the Church). The Catholic Church’s aim was to prepare the way of his return to ‘active leadership’.

‘When…appeared as the one constituted as Lord, Christ and eternal Priest, and He poured out on His disciples the Spirit promised by the Father. From this source the [Catholic] Church, equipped with the gifts of its Founder and faithfully guarding His precepts of charity, humility and self-sacrifice, receives the mission to proclaim and to spread among all peoples the Kingdom of Christ and of God and to be, on earth, the initial budding forth of that kingdom. While it slowly grows, the Church strains toward the completed Kingdom and, with all its strength, hopes and desires to be united in glory with its King’. [Dogmatic Constitution of the Church, article 5]

The Catholic Church based this points quite credibly on a number of verses of the Bible, such as the command for Christians to actively seek the Kingdom of God:

‘But seek first the kingdom of God and his righteousness, and all these things will be added to you’. [Matthew 6:33]

Other verses of the Bible say the ‘Kingdom of God’ as an era, has already arrived!

‘If I cast out devils by the finger of God, then the kingdom of God has come upon you’. [Luke 11:20]


                 Temple Priest leads the faithful in worship in the Ancient Kingdom of Israel

Furthermore, Hobbes’ argument that the Kingdom of God is only for when Jesus returns, cannot apply to Islam (or Judaism of which does not consider the right to rule of the laws of Moses (Musa alaihissalaam), abrogated), since the Islamic concept of Caliphate (Arabic: Khilafah, lit. Vice-regency or Successorship) is a Kingdom of God, where God holds the position of king over the believers, and through his expressed Will (contained in the Qur’an and hadith), Muslims enact the laws and directly govern on his behalf as his vicegerents (khulafah).

‘Just think when your Lord said to the angels: Lo! I am about to place a vicegerent [i.e. man] on earth…’ [Quran 2:30]

‘The sovereignty of the skies and the earth belongs to Him [God] alone’ [Quran 9:116]

‘Verily, His [God’s] is the Creation and the Command’ [Quran 7:54]

The nature of Islam, Judaism and Catholic Christianity, runs contrary to premises of Hobbes’ arguments, which were based upon his protestant (anti-catholic) opinions.

As such, Islam, Judaism and Catholicism (in its original form) believe in a continuing and present need for a kingdom of God, and do not take away God’s sovereign right to govern government, society and individuals for the betterment of man in this life and the next.

Hobbes and his ‘Give unto Caesar argument’

Hobbes argues in his book ‘De Cive’ [‘On the citizen’] Chapter 11, that because Jesus told the Jews who asked him about paying roman taxes, that they should ‘give to Caesar what is Caesars, and to God what is God’s’ – that this means that Christians are subject to non-Christian authorities, as they are subject to Christian ones. Thereby arguing that religion has no justification to the ruler, and by implication no special right to rule.

This is easily refuted by a consideration that God’s owns the heavens and the earth, and the pagan Caesar has no authority over a Christian, that ever can be greater than God’s authority over him. So whatever a Christian owes a pagan leader, then he can give it to him, but only as long as he does not give what is God’s right alone.

Christians have argued that ‘give unto Caesar…’ is merely a clever answer by Jesus to speak the truth while avoiding the Roman occupation force from arresting him for rebellion. Either way, it is not an argument for Secularism – for the Jews at the time of Jesus lived under the revealed Law of Moses.

The Romans permitted this, because they were just interested in taxes, not spreading or imposing roman beliefs. And Rome wasn’t a secular state either – their pagan religion was part of their culture and informed their laws.

Hobbes argues that because Paul commanded Christians in the Christian New Testament to obey their rulers (who were pagan roman emperors), this means that Christianity does not have a special right to govern. Hobbes used this conclusion to argue that all Christians must obey the ruler, no matter what his doctrines, or what law he commands them with.

‘Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves’. [Paul’s letter to the Romans, chapter 13]

However, Hobbes didn’t consider that Peter, which the New Testament describes as an actual companion of Jesus, disobeyed the Jewish ruling authorities who had prohibited him from preaching, and preached in public against their orders, justifying it by saying:
“We must obey God rather than men” [Acts 5:29]

The mainstream Christian understanding (which is still Catholic) was that Christians are to be obedient to all rulers – unless they command Christians to go against God’s command. However, even then, Christians are never commanded to rise up and depose the leaders, but merely to not obey specific unjust commands.

That Christians can be non-violent under pagan rule, does not negate a ruler who converts to Christianity, having the
obligation to rule with the laws, values and principles found in the Bible. This is because, according to the New Testament, everything a Christian does must be for God, and based upon divine guidance.

Therefore Hobbes is incorrect to argue that Christianity has no right to government according to Christian teaching.

Suffice to say, due to it being based upon the Christian New Testament, the ‘give unto Caesar argument’ is meaningless outside of Christianity (and especially meaningless to Jews, who repeatedly rebelled against the Romans, to liberate their lands).

Hobbes’ and making religion conform to a new material world order (or The Origin of Secular Intolerance)


In Hobbes’ detachment of religion’s right to government, he left a problem which still haunts secular government and states till this day.

The problem was that for Hobbes’ secularism to work, religious people had to agree with Hobbes’ new role for religion, that the government derives its authority only from ruling, not implementing divine law.

But what if a sizeable population believed that God’s law should continue to be active in government? What if people disagreed with Hobbes’ arguments? How could they be ruled by a materialistic-based political authority who may not find divine law in their interest?

Hobbes answer was simple, the government in the interests of the ‘public good’, could control and restrict the beliefs and doctrines of its people:


‘It is annexed to the sovereignty to be judge of what opinions and doctrines are averse, and what conducing to peace; and consequently, on what occasions, how far, and what men are to be trusted withal in speaking to multitudes of people; and who shall examine the doctrines of all books before they be published’ [Leviathan, Chapter 18]

He continues with a justification:

‘For the actions of men proceed from their opinions, and in the well governing of opinions consists [in] the well governing of men’s actions in order to their peace and concord. And though in matter of doctrine nothing to be regarded but the truth, yet this is not repugnant to regulating of the same [in the interests of] peace…It belonged therefore to him that hath the sovereign power to be judge, or constitute all judges of opinions and doctrines, as a thing necessary to peace; thereby to prevent discord and civil war’ [Leviathan, Chapter 18]

At first glance, Hobbes’ arguments seem sensible – some doctrines can be controversial – however who can really judge that? What peace is being protected? Say if a religious doctrine runs rejects the practices of an unjust ruler, or rejects the policy of invading and attacking other countries for materialistic gain, or what if the ruler believes that ‘religion is poison’ (like Chairman Mao), or that a religious doctrine is a ‘threats’ because it undermines the Secular and Liberal culture? All religions that have doctrines contradicting these positions could be deemed a threat to ‘peace’ – Secular peace that is. Lastly, how is this different to the medieval Catholic Church’s approach to heretics, who by dint of their heresy, were also deemed ‘threats to the peace’ or ‘threats to the public good’, and needed to be controlled?

Catholicism’s heretics have now become Secularism’s ‘extremists’.

In Chapter 18 of Hobbes’ book, he considers that doctrines, even true ones, need to be regulated by the sovereign, if the sovereign deems that these doctrines are not conducive to civil peace. Of course, civil peace is defined by the ruler, and consequently, even if beliefs do not incite war, but merely hold the potential to cause community tensions, or run against the commonly accepted values underpinning a state, they can be viewed as a ‘threat’ by a secular ruler, and suppressed.

Hobbes’ was concerned that religions which may object to the rules and values of materialistic-based government, may disobey rules they deem unjust, which in Hobbes’ viewed, constituted a ‘threat’ to the state. He proposed that rulers are in effect the ultimate spiritual authority for all their citizens, since the citizens must accept the values of the ruler or ruling system – and it is the ruler, according to Hobbes, who authorises which beliefs and which doctrines are acceptable, and which are not [1] . The irony (again) of this is, while Hobbes’ advocates government to be detached from religious authority, he then re-attaches it again, but in the other direction, with religious given to government authority!

Hobbes’ insistence on the ruler controlling doctrines and beliefs, led to the problem that this would mean many religious believers would be forced to profess in public doctrines and beliefs they do not believe in or do things that go against what they believe in, or force them to hide their beliefs and keep them secret. To this Hobbes’ posited that there is no problem with that, as the ruler can’t force people to change the ideas in their heads – and doesn’t have to, as long as they keep those ideas only in their heads [2] . This ends up with the ironic position where Hobbes’ forces (sincere) people to become hypocrites! The very thing he argued that his solution (Secularism) would eliminate! As can be seen from history of Secularism since Hobbes, many religious communities and minorities have had to hide their beliefs in secret, or express their interests hiding the true reasons for them.

It is no wonder, that in the modern day, most Secular governments around the world have various means of controlling the doctrines and beliefs of its citizens. These can include creating a regional Church, like the Catholic Church of China, limiting platforms for religious speakers, restricting religious charities, arrests, fines, to funding religious organisations promoting state-approved interpretations of religion in many european countries, and middle-eastern countries.

People reading Hobbes may wonder if an alternative exists to controlling people’s doctrines and beliefs. The answer is that there have existed alternatives for thousands of years. In the Islamic Caliphate, the Islamic system granted autonomy to non-Muslims, and permitted non-Muslims to live under their own law systems, and be free from having any duty to obedience to the Caliph (whose authority is only over Muslims).

The only requirement from non-Muslims was abstaining from violence against Muslims, and for males to pay a tax to fund the border-military for their protection (which could be waived if they volunteered as a reservists).


The problem the Catholic Church faced with heretics, was the issue of the independent challenge to their authority. If someone could differ with established Church doctrines, then they were outside its authority, and therefore outside their political authority. This led the Catholic Church to expunge heresy where it could, in order to preserve their spiritual authority and therefore their political authority.

The Islamic Caliphate is not a spiritual authority for Muslims, but rather more of an obliged institution for the implementation of Islamic law. It cannot enforce opinions or doctrines beyond the commonly-agreed minimum required to be a Muslim (e.g. belief in God, Qur’an and in Muhammed (sallallaahu alaihi wasallam as the final Prophet of God).

As such, the Caliphate were not allowed by Islam to interfere with or oppress heretical sects merely for their beliefs – it was left up to Islamic scholars to refute heresies amongst themselves by force of argument.

The problem that the Catholic Church faced was that there were no explicit texts in Christian scripture granting the Church political authority over Christians.

This caused power struggles when it was challenged by the Protestants (and some irritated Catholic kings), as Christians could legitimately deny the Catholic Church’s political authority, without need to reject any explicit texts of scripture.

Although the question of which particular candidate could be Caliph had been contested at times throughout history, the institution of Caliphate has not, as it is a fundamental doctrine of Islam, of which all sects and schools of thought acknowledge as having legitimate political authority (only) over the Muslim community. Thus there was no need for the Caliphs to determine what doctrines were taught, and give permission to them, since whatever any Muslim believed, heretic or not, political obedience to the Caliph has always been an uncontested doctrine of Islam, being enunciated clearly in the teachings of the Muhammed (sallallaahu alaihi wasallam) [3]

The ancient Kingdom of Israel which ruled by Mosaic law, is in Judaism, similar in nature to the institution of a Caliphate, and also held as a fundamental doctrine of Judaism.

In summary while Islam and Judaism permitted citizens to believe and practice without government interference, Hobbes’ secular government does not.

                        In Summary

As we have seen, Thomas Hobbes is a product of his time, and his idea to found ruling on a purely material basis was borne out his scepticism of religious institutions and an attempted pragmatic solution to religious wars – which didn’t stop wars from continuing.

These formative ideas of Hobbes would later be known as Secularism, and provide the basis for the development of Liberalism.

However as has been shown, the conclusions of Hobbes are based upon a multitude of observational errors and inaccurate prejudices. The errors of Hobbes’ thinking are:

1. Hobbes’ argument assumes a purely material purpose for the state, i.e. material security, and neglects its other purposes. Whereas virtually all religions and Eastern and Greek philosophers argued that the purposes of government were also the protection and encouragement of virtue.

Historically, most religions and ancient philosophies do not coerce non-believers to embrace their beliefs. However, amongst a community of fellow believers, religion did successfully create a legal, social and political environment conducive to the attainment of its goals.

2. Hobbes’ belief that material-based authority of the ruler should be the basis for state because it is stable – is false. Consequently he neglects solving the most common cause of wars and strife, which historically have not been religion. The most common causes of wars have been greed, prejudice, access to resources, poverty, tyranny, international relations, political factionalism, political rivalry etc. Hobbes’ argument that states based upon religion, or a religious culture are unstable, belies history, where such states or civilisations have endured for hundreds or even thousands of years.

3. Much of Hobbes’ Biblical interpretation is a kind of Protestantism, and would consequently only be accepted by a section of protestant Christians. This means that Hobbes’ arguments are only applicable to some strands of Protestant Christianity, not Catholics or the other Abrahamic religions like Islam – or most other religions and ancient philosophies for that matter.

4. Hobbes’ use of the bible is a unstable basis to use as an authority for Christians to accept material government. There are so many ways to interpret the New Testament’s approach to political authority, which means Hobbes’ arguments are highly subjective and that it would not a stable enough basis to expect all Christians to agree with Hobbes. Hobbes argues that religion is not a stable basis for a state, because it can be interpreted in different ways and is prone to change, yet he too then uses his interpretation of a religion to justify to its adherents his new political order! The question is, what does Hobbes’ do if people don’t agree with his interpretations?

5. Hobbes’ arguments would (and have) still caused wars and civil wars as religious believers resisting his new world order would face oppression. As a consequence of 3) and 4), civil wars and civil strife would still occur as Hobbes grants permission to the ruler to control doctrines and beliefs he feels are not conducive to the ‘public good’ or that would challenge his authority or interests (even if the challenge was not a political threat). This again leads to oppression of minorities (or majorities) who do not embrace Hobbes’ newly assigned place for religion. This also leads to the wars between states that are religious and ones that are materialist.

6. Hobbes’ makes sincere people into hypocrites and hypocrisy open to influence the people. As mentioned, a state with a religious community that holds beliefs and doctrines which are deemed to challenge the values or authority of the secular state (even if the religious community are non-violent), have to hide their beliefs for fear of persecution, or seek their interests pretending it is for some other reason than their religious morality.

All the while those who are not hindered by the same morality, or are moved only to pursue self-centred may freely display their activities and beliefs – as long as they accept the ruler’s rule over them (which they would happily do). This flaw in Hobbes’ thought, actually refutes on the very reasons he put forward for a Secular state – namely the elimination of hypocrisy!


Hobbes’ resentment at the Catholic churches wars and suppression of Christian heretical factions, led to him trying to find a material basis for politics. As a result, he merely replaced religious-based authority with a materialistic-based political authority – which would war against and suppress religious adherents who refuse to accept Hobbes’ new role for religion. In essence, Hobbes’ merely swapped the position of the Catholic Church and elevated in its place, materialist political authorities. And so with great irony, the suppression of non-Catholic Christians was replaced with a broader suppression of virtually all religious communities who reject Hobbes’ materialistic political system (Secularism), and dare to preserve the political aspects of their religions.

Coming after Hobbes’, it is no surprise to find that the founders of the doctrine of ‘Free Speech’ and Secular Liberalism like John Milton [4] and John Locke [5] , and American founding fathers, John Jay [6] , and John Adams
[7] who are all famous for their advocacy of tolerance, would only permit toleration of protestant sects, but would outright declare the necessity the intolerance towards Catholics, or some discrimination against them.

In the end, Hobbes created a new classification of heretics to be oppressed and warred against. And today, it is no surprise that many Secular states exert some control, regulation and restriction over which beliefs and doctrines are taught within religious communities residing in Secular states. Secular authorities typically label those who hold opinions contrary to Secular Liberal morality as being ‘extremists’, which usually is a prelude for implementing a variety of suppressing measures. It is fair to say, the persecution of Medieval Catholicism’s ‘heretics’ has now moved on to the modern-day persecution of Secularism’s ‘extremists’.


And so Hobbes’ folly would go down in history, as not just the origin of Secularism’s totalitarian monopoly over politics, nor as the full unfettering of hypocrisy in society, but also as the birth of a new intolerance.


[1] ‘And first, we are to remember that the right of judging what doctrines are fit for peace, and to be taught the subjects, is in all Commonwealths [i.e. states] inseparably annexed…to the sovereign power civil, whether it be in one man [Autocracy] or in one assembly of men [Democracy]. For it is evident to the commonest capacity that men’s actions are derived from the opinions they have of the good or evil which from those actions redound unto themselves; and consequently, men that are once possessed of an opinion that their obedience to the sovereign power will be more hurtful to them than their disobedience will disobey the laws, and thereby overthrow the Commonwealth [i.e. state], and introduce confusion and civil war; for the avoiding whereof, all civil government was ordained. And therefore in all Commonwealths of the heathen [pagan/non-Christian], the sovereigns have had the name of pastors [spiritual leaders] of the people, because there was no subject that could lawfully teach the people, but by their permission and authority. This right of the heathen kings cannot be thought taken from them by their conversion to the faith of Christ..or…be deprived of the power necessary for the conservation of peace amongst their subjects and for their defence against foreign enemies. And therefore Christian kings are still the supreme pastors [spiritual leaders] of their people, and have power to ordain what pastors they please, to teach the[ir] Church, that is, to teach the people committed to their charge’. [Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan, Chapter 18]

[2] ‘ But what, may some object, if a king, or a senate, or other sovereign person forbid us to believe in Christ? To this I answer that such forbidding is of no effect; because belief and unbelief never follow men’s commands. Faith is a gift of God which man can neither give nor take away by promise of rewards or menaces of torture. And, if it be further asked, what if we be commanded by our lawful prince to say with our tongue we believe not; must we obey such command? Profession with the tongue is but an external thing, and no more than any other gesture whereby we signify our obedience; and wherein a Christian, holding firmly in his heart the faith of Christ, hath the same liberty which the prophet Elisha allowed to Naaman the Syrian. Naaman was converted in his heart to the God of Israel, for he saith, “Thy servant will henceforth offer neither burnt offering nor sacrifice unto other gods, but unto the Lord. In this thing the Lord pardon thy servant, that when my master goeth into the house of Rimmon to worship there, and he leaneth on my hand, and I bow myself in the house of Rimmon; when I bow myself in the house of Rimmon, the Lord pardon thy servant in this thing.” [II Kings, 5. 17, 18] This the Prophet approved, and bid him “Go in peace.” Here Naaman believed in his heart; but by bowing before the idol Rimmon, he denied the true God in effect as much as if he had done it with his lips. But then what shall we answer to our Saviour’s saying, “Whosoever denieth me before men, I will deny him before my Father which is in heaven?” [Matthew, 10. 33] This we may say, that whatsoever a subject, as Naaman was, is compelled to in obedience to his sovereign, and doth it not in order to his own mind, but in order to the laws of his country, that action is not his, but his sovereign’s; nor is it he that in this case denieth Christ before men, but his governor, and the law of his country. If any man shall accuse this doctrine as repugnant to true and unfeigned Christianity, I ask him, in case there should be a subject in any Christian Commonwealth that should be inwardly in his heart of the Mahomedan religion, whether if his sovereign command him to be present at the divine service of the Christian church, and that on pain of death, he think that Mahomedan obliged in conscience to suffer death for that cause, rather than to obey that command of his lawful prince. If he say he ought rather to [defy the prince and] suffer death, then he authorizeth all private men to disobey their princes in maintenance of their religion, true or false: if he say he ought to be obedient, then he alloweth to himself that which he denieth to another, contrary to the words of our Saviour, “Whatsoever you would that men should do unto you, that do ye unto them” [Luke, 6. 31] and contrary to the law of nature (which is the indubitable everlasting law of God), “Do not to another that which thou wouldest not he should do unto thee.’ [Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan, Chapter 42]

[3] Narrated Abu Huraira: The Prophet (sallallaahu alaihi wasallam) said, ‘The tribe of Israel used to be ruled and guided by prophets: Whenever a prophet died, another would take over his place. There will be no prophet after me, but there will be Caliphs who will increase in number.’ The people asked, ‘O Allah’s Apostle! What do you order us (to do)?’ He said, ‘Obey the one who will be given the pledge of allegiance first. Fulfil their (i.e. the Caliphs) rights, for Allah will ask them about (any shortcoming) in ruling those Allah has put under their guardianship.’ (Sahih Bukhari, Virtues and Merits of the Prophet (sallallaahu alaihi wasallam) and his Companions, Volume 4, Book 56, Number 661)”

It should be noted that the Prophet (sallallaahu alaihi wasallam) requested that Muslims give a pledge of allegiance, not belief in the Caliph, or that the Caliph is infallible.

[4] ‘ Yet if all cannot be of one mind, as who looks they should be? To this doubtless is more wholesome, more prudent, and more Christian that many be tolerated rather than all compelled. I mean not tolerated popery, and open superstition, which as it extirpates all religions eeeand civil supremacies, so itself should be extirpate, provided first that all charitable and compassionate means be used to win and regain the weak and the misled: that also which is impious or evil absolutely either against faith or manners no law can possibly permit, that intends not to unlaw itself’ [John Milton, Areopagitica]

Note, in this work he urges no toleration to Catholicism, but while making no specific comments about Islam, does equate Islam and Catholicism being the same.
‘nay it was first establisht and put in practice by Antichristian malice and mystery [i.e. Catholicism] on set purpose to extinguish, if it were possible, the light of [Protestant] Reformation, and to settle falshood; little differing from that policie wherewith the Turk upholds his Alcoran’ [John Milton, Areopagitica]

He was makes a passing remark about look at ancient Athenian society, which he remarked, had a government which was intolerant to Atheists.

‘But lest I should be condemn’d of introducing licence, while I oppose Licencing, I refuse not the paines to be so much Historicall, as will serve to shew what hath been done by ancient and famous Commonwealths, against this disorder, till the very time that this project of licencing crept out of the Inquisition, was catcht up by our Prelates, and hath caught some of our Presbyters. In Athens where Books and Wits were ever busier then in any other part of Greece, I finde but only two sorts of writings which the Magistrate car’d to take notice of; those either blasphemous and Atheisticall, or Libellous’ . [John Milton, Areopagitica]

[5] ‘That Church [e.g.. Catholicism] can have no right to be tolerated by the magistrate which is constituted upon such a foundation that all those who enter into it do thereby ipso facto deliver themselves up to the protection and service of another prince [e.g. the Pope]. For by this means the magistrate would give way to the settling of a foreign jurisdiction in his own country and suffer his own people to be listed, as it were, for soldiers against his own Government. Nor does the frivolous and fallacious distinction between the Court and the Church afford any remedy to this inconvenience; especially when both the one and the other are equally subject to the absolute authority of the same person, who has not only power to persuade the members of his Church to whatsoever he lists, either as purely religious, or in order thereunto, but can also enjoin it them on pain of eternal fire. It is ridiculous for any one to profess himself to be a Mahometan only in his religion, but in everything else a faithful subject to a Christian magistrate, whilst at the same time he acknowledges himself bound to yield blind obedience to the Mufti of Constantinople, who himself is entirely obedient to the Ottoman Emperor and frames the feigned oracles of that religion according to his pleasure. But this Mahometan living amongst Christians would yet more apparently renounce their government if he acknowledged the same person to be head of his Church who is the supreme magistrate in the state.

Lastly, those are not at all to be tolerated who deny the being of a God. Promises, covenants, and oaths, which are the bonds of human society, can have no hold upon an atheist. The taking away of God, though but even in thought, dissolves all; besides also, those that by their atheism undermine and destroy all religion, can have no pretence of religion whereupon to challenge the privilege of a toleration [John Locke, Letter Concerning Toleration]

[6] ‘Except the professors of the religion of the church of Rome, who ought not to hold lands in, or be admitted to a participation of the civil rights enjoyed by the members of this State, until such a time as the said professors shall appear in the supreme court of this State, and there most solemnly swear, that they verily believe in their consciences, that no pope, priest or foreign authority on earth, hath power to absolve the subjects of this State from their allegiance to the same. And further, that they renounce and believe to be false and wicked, the dangerous and damnable doctrine, that the pope, or any other earthly authority, have power to absolve men from sins, described in, and prohibited by the Holy Gospel of Jesus Christ; and particularly, that no pope, priest or foreign authority on earth, hath power to absolve them from the obligation of this oath’. [John Jay, Proposal for amendment of the New York Constitution, 1777]

[7] The famous founding father John Adams, although tolerating Catholics, made the requirement of Catholics to say an oath before taking any government position:
‘no foreign prince, person, prelate, state, or potentiate hath, or ought to have any jurisdiction, superiority, pre-eminence, authority, dispensing, or other power, in any matter civil, ecclesiastical, or spiritual, with this commonwealth: except the authority and power which is, or may be, vested by their constituents in the congress of the United States’ [Constitution of Massachusetts, 1780]

[8] After the fall of many Catholic countries to Secular Liberalism and Secular Fascism, the Catholic Church later reined back their political influence, and grudgingly accepted the Secular world order – eventually allowing Catholics to be fully tolerated in Secular countries.

Adopting Western Secularization: The Cause of Downfall of The Original Caliphate

[By Majlisul ‘Ulama of South Africa]

            WHAT IS KHILAAFAT??







“…When  We empower  them  on earth  (to rule),  they (the Mu’mineen) establish Salaat, pay Zakaat, command righteousness, and prohibit  evil” (Surah Hajj, aayat 41)

The  system  of  government  which  Allah  Ta’ala  has  ordained  for Muslims  long  before  creation  of  man  is  called  Khilaafat (Vicegerency).  In  this  system  Muslim  Man  has  been  divinely appointed  the  Vicegerent  (Representative)  of  Allah  Azza  Wa  Jal. Man  is  termed  the  Vicegerent  or  the  Khalifah,  the  Representative of  Allah  Azza  Wa  Jal  on  earth,  for  his  obligation  is  the administration  of  Allah’s  Law  on  earth  to  the  servants  of  Allah Ta’ala. 

Announcing  the  appointment  of  His  Vicegerent,  Allah  Azza  Wa Jal,  declared  to  His  Angels: “Verily,  I  shall  create  on  earth  a Khalifah.”  Allah’s  first  Khalifah  on  earth  was  Hadhrat  Aadam (alayhis  salaam).  Subsequently  all  those  who  had  administered Allah’s  Law  on  earth  were  His  Khulafa  (plural  of  Khalifah).  In relation  to  the  Ummah  of  Islam,  the  first  four  Khulafa  via  the agency  of  being  Rasulullah’s  representatives,  were  the  Khulafa  of Allah Ta’ala. The  system  of  administration  of  Allah’s  Law  on  earth  is  called Khilaafat.  True  and  perfect  Khilaafat  relative  to  this  Ummah consists  of  only  the  Khilaafat  of  the  first  Four  Khulafa-e-Raashideen,  and  of  the  Khilaafat  of  Hadhrat  Umar  Bin  Abdul Azeez  (rahmatullah  alayh)  who  is  known  as  Umar  The  Second. Whilst  the  Bani  Umayyah (Ummayads),  Abbaasi  (Abbasids)  and  Uthmaani (Ottoman)  Khilaafats  were  Islamic  systems  of  rule,  they  were  mere shadows of the real Khilaafat of the aforementioned Five Khulafa.

Thus,  when  Muslims  speak  of  Khilaafat,  the  only  model  which  is intended  and  which  comes  to  mind  is  the  Khilaafat  of  the  Khulafa-e-Raashideen.  It  is  not  the  khilaafat  of  the  Bani  Umayya  nor Abbaasi  reign  nor  the  rule  of  the  Ottomans  despite  the  validity  of their  Khilaafat.  Although  in  theory  the  Shariah  was  the  law  of these  three  Khilaafats,  the  Shariah  and  the  Sunnah  did  not dominate  government  as  it  had  during  the  Khilaafat  of  the Khulafa-e-Raashideen.  And  in  the  latter  days  of  the  Ottoman empire  the  Shariah  was  being  incrementally  displaced  and substituted by a policy of kufrization.

One  modernist  miscreant  known  as  Ishtiaq  Husain,  representing some  organization  of  deviation  called  Faith  Matters,  propagating his dystopian idea, writes in an article:

“Islamists  often  present  the  Ottoman  Empire  as  the  most  recent historical  precedent  of  their  dystopian  vision:  according  to  them  it was the perfect Islamic society with a model political system.”

The  miscreant  commenced  his  article  with  this  fundamental  error which  has  no  basis  in  the  Khilaafat  concept  of  those  who  ardently desire  and  pray  for  the  restoration  of  this  divine  system  of governance.  Since  his  very  first  fundamental  premises  on  which  he developed  his  corrupt  argument  is  a  fallacy,  the  entire  quotient emerging from the baseless premises is fallacious.

When  “Islamists”  speak  about  khilaafat,  the  reference  is  to  the Khilaafat  of  the  Khulafa-e-Raashideen,  not  to  the  khilaafat  of  Bani Umayyah  nor  the  khilaafat  of  Banu  Abbaas  nor  to  the  Ottoman khilaafat.  The  only  model  for  true  Muslims  is  the  Sunnah,  and  the only  Khilaafat  which  governed  according  to  the  Sunnah  was  the Khilaafat  of  the  Khulafa-e-Raashideen,  and  obedience  to  these Khulafa  is  a  Fardh  command  of  Islam.  In  this  regard  Rasulullah (sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam)  said:  “Make  incumbent  on  you  my Sunnah  and  the  Sunnah  of  the  Khulafa-e-Raashideen.”  The Ottoman  Empire  or  the  system  of  law  and  governance  of  the Ottoman  Empire  is  not  to  be  equated  to  the  Sunnah  or  to  the Khilaafat of the Khulafa-e-Raashideen.

In  his  misconceived  dystopia,  Mr.  Ishtiaq  Husain  avers:

“…..This  assertion  is  then  used  to  support  the  general  Islamist vision  within  which  the  establishment  of  an  Ottoman-style  empire, in  the  form  of  a  Caliphate,  or  ‘Khalifah’,  is  presented  as  being viable, achievable and much needed.” 

The  writer  has  spoken  in  riddles.  What  does  he  mean  by  an ‘Ottoman-style  empire”??  The  ideal  of  Muslims  is  not  an  ‘Ottoman-style  empire’  whatever  this  ambiguity  may  connote.  The  ideal  is the  Sunnah  which  is  encapsulated  in  the  Khilaafat  of  the  Khulafa-e-Raashideen.  By  no  stretch  of  Islamic  imagination  do  the  Ottoman Sultans    constitute    models  for  the  Ummah.    Our  models  are  Abu Bakr,  Umar (read this),  Uthmaan  and  Ali  (radhiyallahu  anhum),  not  the Ottoman  Sultans,  especially  the  final links  in  the  chain  who  were eliminated by Allah Ta’ala. 

When  a  reign  becomes  morally  corrupt,  Allah  Ta’ala  removes such  rulers  from  power.  The  fact  that  the  Ottoman  Empire disintegrated  and  was  finally  eliminated    is  the  evidence  for  Divine Chastisement  which  had  settled  on  the  Ottoman  rulers  who  had veered  sharply  from  the  Shariah  and  the  Path  of  true  Khilaafat. Stating  this  fact,  the  Qur’aan  Majeed  says:  “And,  if  you  turn  away (from  the  Deen),  He  (Allah)  will  substitute  you  with  another nation. Then they will not be like you.” (Muhammad, aayat 38)

The  writer  of  the  article  says:  “…..rather    than  implementing  the Shariah,  the  Ottomans  were  actually  attempting  to  secularise  their laws  and  state  institutions.  Secular  reforms  in  the  Ottoman  Empire can  be  traced  back  to  the  17th  century.  However,  this  paper focuses  on  the  period  of  reformation  better  known  as  the  Tanzimat (1839-1876).  During  this  period,  as  will  be  demonstrated, customary  and  religious  laws  were  either  abolished  or  repealed  in favour of secular European ones.”

The  Kufr  ‘Tanzimat’  interpolation  which  the  writer  discusses  is the  evidence  for  Allah’s  Wrath  and  Curse  which  ultimately eliminated  the  Ottoman  reign.  Since  the  ‘Tanzimat’ brought  the Ottomans  within  the  purview  of  the  following  Qur’aanic pronouncement,  the  Athaab  of  Allah  Ta’ala  humiliated  and destroyed them: “Those  who  do  not  rule  according  to  that  (Shariah)  revealed by Allah, verily they are the kaafiroon.”

Continuing  with  his  drivel,  the  writer  says:  “Islamist  activists  of various  stripes  seek  to  resists  reform  and  modernisation  in  the political  sense  by  employing  distorted  historical  facts  to  further their restrictive ideological goals.”

Here  the  writer  disgorges  absolute  drivel.  He  fails  to  understand the  nonsense  he  has  blurted  out.  Which  aspects  of  ‘modernisation’ do  the  Islamists  resist?  What  does  the  writer  mean  by  ‘reform’? For  his  benefit,  we  should  inform  that  the  Islamists  resist  western immorality,  atheism  and  crass  materialism  which  obliterates  the attitudes  of  altruism  and  moral  excellence    of  humanity.    These  are vices  spawned  by  westernism.  If  ‘modernization’  means  the adoption  of  western  culture,  then  undoubtedly,  all  Islamists vigorously    resist  such  Satanism.  Can  the  writer  cite  a  single Islamist  movement    who  resists  reform  and  modernization  in  the technological  and  industrial  spheres??  Do  the  Mujaahideen  and  all those  who  clamour  for  Khilaafat  resist  modern  technological equipment,  technological  progress  and  all  the  modern  amenities  of life  provided  by  technology??  What  precisely  are  the  reforms  and modernization  which  the  Islamists  resist??   With  such  ambiguity  the modernist  deviate  attempts  to  pull  wool  over  the  eyes  of  unsuspecting and unwary readers.

We  can  emphatically  maintain  that  there  is  not  a  single  Islamist who  resists  meaningful  reform  and  modernisation.  All  Islamists utilize  all  the  equipment  of  ‘modernization’.  However,  Islamists reject  and  resist  the  kufr  concepts  which  underlie  the  assertion  of the  writer.  By  ‘reform’  and  ‘modernization’  he  actually  means abandonment  of  the  Sunnah,  re-interpretation  of  Islam,  and  the adoption  of  western  culture  with  all  its  evils  and  vices.  That  is  the meaning  of  reform  and  modernization  which  the  writer  has  in mind.  It  is  the  Waajib  obligation  of  every  Muslim  to  vehemently resist  all  such  kufr  reforms  and  modernization  which  the  modernist munaafiqeen  propose.

The  writer  says:    “During  the  16th  century,  the  Ottoman  Empire was  at  its  peak  as  a  world  super  power,  but  by  the  mid-18th Century  it  had  considerably  weakened.  It  suffered  increasing losses  on  the  battlefields  and  its  territories  began  to  shrink. Internal  and  external  revolts  became  commonplace  and  the empire’s  collapse  seemed  imminent.  These  realities  pushed reformist  Sultans  and  influential  thinkers  to  look  for  new  solutions to the empire’s problems.”

Did  any  of  the    ‘new  solutions’  save  the  empire  from  collapse and  disintegration??    Or  did  any  of  the  ‘new  solutions’  instituted  by the  reformists  even  stem  the  tide  of  the  Ottoman  Empire’s  final demise??  (Also read: THE SAUD-ZIONIST-BRITISH ALLIANCE IN THE DESTRUCTION OF [REAL] KHALIFATE)

Allah Ta’ala states in His glorious Qur’aan:

“  Say:  ‘O  Allah!  It  is  You  (and  only  You)  Who  bestows  Mulk (political  power)  to  whomever  You  wish,  and  it  is  You  Who snatches  away  sovereignty  from  whomever  You  wish.    It  is  You Who  gives  honour  to  whomever  You  wish,    and  it  is  You  who humiliates  whomever  You    wish.  All  goodness  is  (only)  in  Your Hand, Verily You have power over all things.”  

Commensurate  with  the  extent  of  reformist  policies  and  laws  was the  disintegration  of  the  Ottoman  empire.  Far  from  saving  it  from its   demise,  the  kufr  reforms  hastened  its  demise.  There  is  no Islamist  who  desires  to  emulate  the  un-Islamic  governance  policies and ways of the  Ottomans.

With  the  increase  in  the  move  away  from  the  Shariah,    the    social and  political  problems  of  the  Ottomans  became  more  complex  and intractable  in  the  abyss  of  disintegration  and  demise  into  which they  were  sliding.  Far  from  applying  the  brakes  to  their  rapid decline,  the  reforms  only  hastened  the  doom  of  the  Ottoman empire.    Depicting  such  a  state  of  affairs,  the  Qur’aan  Majeed  says:

  “If  Allah  aids  you,    no  one  can  conquer  you,  and  if  He  withholds aid  from  you,  then  who  is  there  besides  Allah  who  can  help you??”

The  Europeanization  of   the  army  and  other  spheres    of  life  by the  Ottoman  rulers  ultimately  led  to  the  obliteration  of  Ottoman rule  by  the  Europeans  whom  the  Turks  were  emulating  and  aping. On  the  contrary,  we  see  the  old-fashioned  Taliban  fighting  and defeating  the  combined  might    of  the  super  powers  and  the  armies of  50  countries in  their  primitive  style.  That  is  because  they  have with them the nusrat (help) of Allah Ta’ala.

Justifying  the  setting  aside  of  Islam’s  Hudood  punishments,  the writer  stupidly  cites  Hadhrat  Umar  (radhiyallahu  anhu),  the  Second Khalifah of Islam.  Thus he falsely  contends: “Putting  aside  the  Hadd  (Islamic  punishments)    was  not  wholly unprecedented  for  the  Ottomans.  In  fact,  the  Hadd  punishment  for  stealing  had  been  suspended  before  by  the  2nd  Caliph  (leader)  of Islam  Umar  ibn  al-Khattaab,  a  companion  of  the  Prophet Muhammad (pbuh).”

This  is  a  blatant  LIE.  Ameerul  Mu’mineen,  Hadhrat  Umar (radhiyallahu  anhu)  did  not  set  aside  or  abrogate  the  Hadd  for stealing.  The  Hudood  are  governed  by  many  conditions.  A  Hadd punishment  cannot  be  meted  out  in  the  absence  of  the  fulfilment  of the  imperative  conditions  for  the  validity  of  Hudood.  In  any  case where  the  Hadd  was  not  applied,  it  was  on  account  of  the  absence of  the  imperative  conditions. Furthermore,  a  principle  governing all  Hudood  punishments  is  established  by  the  following  statement of  Rasulullah (sallallaahu  alayhi wasallam): 

“Hudood  are  warded  off  by  doubts.”    A  doubt  introduced  in  the case  cancels  the  Hadd  punishment.    Abstaining  from  issuing  the Hadd  sentence  in  a  specific  case  may  not  be  interpreted  as  ‘setting aside  the  Hadd  punishment.”  However,  such  cancellation  in specific  cases  should  not  be  misconstrued  and  understood  to  mean abrogation.

Every  abolition of  a  Shar’i injunction by  the  Ottomans was  an  act of  kufr  which  expelled  such  rulers  from  the  pale  of  Islam.  Thus  the abolition  of  Jizyah  and  the  Dhimmi  status  of  non-Muslim  citizens, and  all  other  laws  introduced  in  conflict  with  the  Shariah  were  all acts  of  kufr  which  ensured  the  ultimate  obliteration  of  the  Ottoman  reign.  The  Ottoman  reign  had  ceased  being  a  valid  Shar’i Khilaafat.  Hence,  in  Allah’s  Wisdom  there  was  a  need  for  its obliteration.    Abolition  of  the  Shariah  brought  about  the  ruin  and abolition of the Ottoman empire.

The  writer  of  the  article  states  about  the  Islamists:    “Their literature  portrays  the  Ottoman  Empire  as  a  shining  example  of  an Islamic  state,  due  to  its  apparent  adherence  to  fundamental  scriptural edicts.”

This  portrayal  is  undoubtedly  highly  erroneous.  The  Ottoman rule  in  its  era  of  decay  never  was    a  ‘shining  example  of  an  Islamic state’.  If  it  was,  Allah  Ta’ala  would  not  have    displaced  and eliminated  it.  Its  obliteration  is  the  effect  of  Allah’s  Wrath  which was  the  consequence  of  the  kufrization  policy  of  the  Ottoman rulers as is evidenced by the Tanzimat and other kufr reforms.

Any  ‘Islamist’  who  portrays  the  decadent  Ottomans  as  a  ‘shining example  of  an  Islamic  state’  is  an  ignoramus.  There  is  no  need  to present  the  Ottomans  for  the  ideal  of  KhilaafatKhilaafat  is  only the system  of  governance  established  by  the  Khulafa-e-Raashideen.  We  have  no  need  to  look  beyond  the  confines  of Khilaafat-e-Raashidah  of  the  Khulafa-e-Raashideen.  There  is  no better  system  of  government  for  the  world  than  the  system  of  the Khulafa-e-Raashideen.  The  reforms  which  advocate  a  parliament of  a  hundred  baboons  and  donkeys  is  a  shaitaani  system. There  is no  room  in  Islam  for  the  corrupt  systems  of  government  of  the kuffaar

The  writer  in  his  article  has  shown  that  the  Ottoman  empire, especially  in  its  era  of  decadence  and  demise  was  not  an  Islamic system  modelled  along  the  lines  of    the  Khilaafat    of  the  Khulafa-e-Raashideen.   In this respect he  has achieved  his  objective. We  are in  agreement  with  him  on  this  score.  If  there  are    ‘Islamists’  who present  the Ottoman  rule  as a  ‘shining  example  of  an  Islamic  state’, then  it  is  due  to  lamentable  ignorance.  The  writer’s  criticism    of such ignorant ‘Islamists’ is correct.

The  lesson  for  Muslims  to  learn  from  Turkey’s  kufrization policies  is  that  it  did  not  save  the  empire  from  being  obliterated.  The  Ottomans  had  turned  their  backs  on  the  Shariah,  so  Allah Ta’ala  removed  them.  They  had  failed  to  understand  that  the  very Shariah  in  vogue  during  the  era  of  the  Khilaafat    of  the  Khulafa-e-Raashideen  was  valid  for  their  era  and  will  remain  valid  until  the Day  of  Qiyaamah.  This  failure  brought  about  the  annihilation  of the  Ottoman  empire  which  was  not  a  true  Khilaafat  in  its  later stage.  The  Ottomans  had  sealed  their  own  doom  with  the displacement of  the Shariah and their  secularization.


“Allah  has promised those  who have  Imaan  among you and those who practise  virtuous deeds that   He will  most certainly make  then  khulafa on  earth   just as He had   made  those before  them  khulafa, and He will  certainly powerfully  establish  for  them  their Deen  which  He   has chosen for them, and He will replace  their fear   with peace. They worship Me and they do not associate anything with  Me (i.e. they  do not commit shirk). And those who commit  kufr thereafter, verily  they  are  the faasiqoon. (Surah Noor, aayat 55)

For  this  Ummat-e-Muslimah,  Allah  Ta’ala  had  beautifully fulfilled  His  promise.  During  the  Khilaafat  of  the  Khulafa-e-Raashideen,  within  a  short  period  of  a  couple  of  decades,  the denizens  of  the  desert,  the  Sahaabah,  had  raised  the  Standard  of Islam  on  the  hilltops  of  the  world.  A  vast  area  of  the  world  was brought  under  Islamic  domination.  The  Khilaafat  was  the  Rule  of Allah on earth.

After  the  fulfilment  of  the  divine  promise,  moral  decline  set  into the  Ummah.  Muslims  surrendered  themselves  to  opulence, extravagance,  indolence,  and  they  abandoned  the  objective  of  life which  is  the  Aakhirah.    With  their  moral  decadence,  they  drifted far,  very  far  from  Siraatul  Mustaqeem .  They  abandoned  the Sunnah  and  became  intellectually  stagnated.  In  fact,  they retrogressed  intellectually  and  morally.  In  their  state  of  advanced intellectual,  moral  and  spiritual  decomposition  they  failed  to understand  what  was  the  original  cause  of  their  glorious  success and victory.

When  their  Islamic  moorings  were  destroyed,  fear  overcame them.  They  began  losing  control  of  the  lands  they  once  dominated with  power  and  glory  in  the  name  of  Islam  and  on  behalf  of  Allah Azza  Wa  Jal.  The  Shariah  was  either  ignored,  interpolated  or banished.  Rudderless,  Muslims  looked  at  aliens  for  a  direction. When  they  saw  the  worldly  prosperity  and  progress  of  the  kuffaar, especially  the  western  kuffaar,  they  (the  morally  rotten  Muslims) began  to  believe  that  the  means  and  ways  of  the  kuffaar  were  the only road for success. 

Thus,  Muslims  looked  askance  at  the  West  for  direction  and directive.  They  appointed  the  Western  countries  to  be  their  leaders. Hence  Allah  Ta’ala  made  the  West  our  rulers.  The  Ottomans  and all  other  Muslim  entities  adopted  secularization  which  is  another name  for  kufrization.  The  Shariah  was  abandoned,  and  the Ottoman  Empire  sealed  its  doom  with  its  secularization  and westernization.  They  tried  to  westernize  and  secularize  Islam  and the  Ummah.  In  the  wake  of  this  satanic  policy  of  kufrization,  the Ottomans  lost  and  committed  suicide.  Allah  Ta’ala  terminated  the reign  of  the  Ottomans.  Ignominy  and  humiliation  were  their  end, and to this day the Ummah grovels in ignominy and humiliation. 

Despite  the  miserable  failure  of  westernization,  secularization and  kufrization  to  extricate  the  Ummah  from  its  morass  of  disgrace,  ‘Muslims’  still  remain  blind  to  the  causes  of  their  decline and  defeat.  This  is  because  they  are  no  longer  Muslims.  They  all come within the  scope  of  the Hadith:

“There  will dawn a time  when people will  gather in their Musaajid and perform  Salaat  while  not a single  one  (in the  crowd)  will be a Mu’min.”

It was  Kufrization  that  had destroyed the  Ottoman Empire.