The well known British historian, Edward Gibbon, describes the rise and expansion of Islam as: “one of the most memorable revolutions which has impressed a new and lasting character on the nations of the globe.”

A study of Gibbon's digression towards the East must be studied in detail because it was written at a relatively stable equilibrium between the East and the West.

Garth Fowden begins his review of this historian's work with these words:

Gibbon’s chapters on the Islamic worldremain little read and less studied. There arethree reasonsto regret this. First, it is perverse to ignore the views of a great historian on a matter that so preoccupies us. Secondly, by examining theorigins and expansion of Islam in the context of the decline and fall of the Roman Empire, Gibbon raised the question whether Christendom –Latin, Greek and Oriental –can be regarded as the sole legatee of Antiquity. Thirdly, the whole enterprise foreshadows our current concern with global history. Few individual historians before or since Gibbon have felt confident to tell the story of both RomesOld and New, the Umayyad and Abbasid Caliphates,and thekingdoms of the Islamic Commonwealth that sprouted onthe ruins of the Abbasid stateand beyond it in Turkish Central Asia, from the late ninth century onward.Yet only by addressing all these polities, and the peoples who constituted them, is it possibleto write the history of Eurasiain such a wayas to do justice to Asian as well as European perspectives.

Read the rest of this seminal paper.

A review of a book on a topic that we will cover more in the future. . .

The leadership of the Ahmadiyya (Qadiani group) has a penchant for exaggeration and shrillness when it comes to their country of origin – Pakistan.  To replenish the dwindling stock of tithe-payers in Western currencies, the family (Mirza) leadership of the cult resorts to controversy that can underline a claim of persecution and thus move poor Pakistani Qadianis to the West, where many educated ones will eventually leave the outlandish teachings of the cult.  And so the refugee-provocation cycle continues and ends up in riches for the Mirza family that has run this religious outfit for more than a century.

Meanwhile, poor Ahmadis remains marginalized in Pakistani society and much can be done by a sincere Qadiani leadership to help any incoming Pakistani government to relieve any discrimination that the group believes that it faces.  Instead, the Qadiani leadership welcomes every government with verbal jabs and slaps based on  half-truths.  This only makes the life of the common Ahmadi in Pakistan harder and only serves to increase the wealth of the Mirza family.

Once again with the July 2018 election of Imran Khan, the official spokesperson of the Ahmadiyya goes all out to provoke the incoming government, and it falls on us to dismantle the fallacies one by one and to convince the new government that the frantic tone should not be taken seriously and the followers of the cult be protected from the political miscalculations of their leadership.

Here is the opinion piece by the official spokesperson: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/global-opinions/wp/2018/07/29/imran-khan-must-help-end-the-persecution-of-pakistans-ahmadi-muslims/

Derogatory Introduction

1. 'athlete-turned-politician Imran Khan' – not the most accurate way to describe the former cricket captain of Pakistan who retired from sports 26 years ago and has been a philanthropist and politician for longer than he ever was a sportsman.
2. 'the Khan regime foreshadows immense hardship and violence for Pakistan’s religious minorities' – the words 'regime', 'immense' and 'violence' should be used for India, where the partner of the ruling government has vowed to 'eradicate Islam and Christianity from India by 2021.'

Stroke of a Pen?

a feat literally a pen stroke away . . . .  Thus, Khan can prove his commitment to justice by demanding a repeal of Pakistan’s second [constitutional] amendment . . . , the 1984 anti-Ahmadi ordinance mandating fines and arrest for Ahmadis identifying as Muslim, and the 1986 blasphemy law . . . .

Perhaps conditioned within a totalitarian cult, the author does not recognize the complexity and political will required to amend the Constitution (repeal means a new Act and a new constitutional amendment) or the frameworks built upon the Constitution.  These measures are neither popular nor required so the political will does not exit.  For purposes of the Constitution of Pakistan, Ahmadis of both Qadiani and Lahori groups are non-Muslim.  They can label themselves whatever they want within their private communications, but cannot self-advertise as Muslims in a Muslim-majority country and any laws based on the Constitution will not recognize them as Muslims – and that is how it is in many other Muslim countries in the world.  How naive to think that a stroke of the pen can change that!

The status of Ahmadis in many Muslim countries is similar to the differing status of Mormons and Scientologists in various Western jurisdictions.

History of Qadiani Political Misadventures

Pakistan witnessed an unprecedented monolithic political manipulation in the 1971 elections by the Ahmadi leadership, engineered by their future leader, Mirza Tahir Ahmad.  The group voted en bloc for the Pakistan People's Party (PPP) and later became embittered with the party when it won and would not accede to their unreasonable demands.  

A misguided show of strength by the cult, that turned violent at a train station, resulted in the judicial finding that the Qadiani leadership ran a 'state-within-a-state'.  After Parliamentary hearings where the Qadiani Ahmadi leader presented for days, the constitutional amendment that declared them non-Muslim was passed – a direct result of the political misadventures of the Mirza family.

Separate Voter List on Challenge

The Ahmadis are respectable first-class Pakistani citizens, but it appear from the hasty executive order of 2002 that the electoral stipulation for a separate list is to prevent future political shenanigans by the Qadiani leadership.  Thus, it empowers an Ahmadi Pakistani citizen to vote with their conscience and not by the whim and whip of their leader.  The separate list is not mandatory and does not bar an Ahmadi from voting for any candidate or party.  However, it can be useful to detect manipulation of the vote of an Ahmadi citizen by a religious cult leader as has happened in the past.

The current electoral rules regarding Ahmadi voters (not candidates) are not perfect and can be improved upon.  Any constructive ideas are welcome and we will advocate them if they address the concerns of the majority as well as the minority.  For starters, the Qadiani leadership can make a genuine commitment to allowing their followers freedom of conscience when it comes to elections.  Asking for a 'stroke of the pen' is too naive a request for the author and again reeks of political provocation.

Peculiar or a 'Cult Miracle'?

Peculiar but significant is that every Pakistani prime minister or president, from Benazir Bhutto to Nawaz Sharif, persecuted Ahmadi Muslims — and each ultimately succumbed to the extremism or corruption they enabled.

This statement gives a glimpse into the oft-spoken but never-written cult belief that every ruler of Pakistan will meet with ignominy until the legal status of the Ahmadis in Pakistan is reversed.  The author could not put it cogently so he lumped prime ministers and presidents together – whose respective powers have changed considerably – and Bhutto and Sharif were both prime ministers.

Extremism and corruption are steadily on the decline in Pakistan according to accepted international benchmarks.  This statement is nothing but political provocation that does not help the cause of the common Ahmadi in Pakistan.

On the other hand, accountability for the offshore companies and money laundering enabled by the Mirza family is nowhere to be seen, and the Qadiani leadership has been very silent about it.

The proverbial charity, especially for a religious organization, should begin at home.

Abu Hanifa is one of the earliest Imams of jurisprudence in the Islamic world. He had read up on a great many things on his road to outlining the first juridical framework of its kind within the nascent Islamic civilization.

Among that texts that he went through were 5,000 narrations (or 50 or 500 thousand according to some) attributed to the Prophet Muhammad (saw). These narrations are known as Ahadith (singular: hadith) According to later biographers, the Imam advised his son, Hammad, that out of this corpus, five contain the essence of the entire collection, and these five are fittingly abstract and sublime:

1. Deeds are by Intentions

Perhaps the most frequently transmitted and quoted narration, it predates the legal concept of mens rea (guilty intention) by 700 or so years.

Not all our intentions and thoughts come to fruition, sometimes thankfully. Similarly, not all our deeds turn out out to be the outcome of our true intentions. The intention is the cause of the deed and should be taken into account, in both moral and criminal matters.

2. Mind your own Business

Towards the perfection of one's faith in Islam is the attitude that the person leaves alone what doesn't concern them.

The aforementioned concern should not be construed in a narrow sense as some do: what is not of direct physical or spiritual benefit to the person should not be their concern. That would be a very selfish point of view and would certainly pleaese those in authority and power.

A dutiful social person would be interested in their community and state but their concern should be constructive and should not extend to matters that are best left alone. Matters left alone are usually those that will take care of themselves over time, or are matters of individual preference, freedom and taste.

3. Love For Others what you Love for yourself

Very similar to the 'Golden Rule', it is the foundation of equality, empathy and charity.

4. Right and Wrong are Clear

Stay away from temptation. Primarily, faith and the law have laid down the extremes of behaviour that definitely result in good and bad results. There is a gap between them where a person's own judgement is paramount, and that is where the more cautious will be happier. The remainder of this narration describes a shepherd whose cattle might be tempted by the green grass of a forbidden area.

5. The Harm of the Tongue and the Hand

"A Muslim is one from whose tongue and hands others are safe." With the obvious caveats, we all know that physical violence is not tolerated in a civilized society where the use of force has been ceded to a sovereign ruler. Avoiding physical violence is the minimum as the unrestricted use of the tongue is just as harmful.

Exactly five years ago, I engaged in a deep theological debate with Waqar Akbar Cheema on a mis-translation of a verse of the Quran 3:144. I am always very sensitive to scholars and writers not distinguishing between translation and commentary and doing nip, tuck and tweak with scripture in order to slowly guide their reader towards a pre-conceived point of view instead of a logical conclusion. While this deep-dive duel seemed unproductive at the time, it reinforced three points for me which have guided me ever since:

1. Separate prima facie translation from commentary and opinion.
2. Confront the facts just as you find them, and follow where the truth leads you.
3. Diversity of opinion, within parameters, is strength and not a weakness.

While re-reading Brother Cheema's responses to my articles today, I will ignore the ad hominem attacks on my faith and quote from the Tafseer of Muhammad bin Salih bin Uthaymeen, a giant of the Salafi world and whose exegesis is only a few years old.

The Original Issue was Simple

Cheema wrote:

Qur’an 3: 144 reads:

وَمَا مُحَمَّدٌ إِلَّا رَسُولٌ قَدْ خَلَتْ مِنْ قَبْلِهِ الرُّسُلُ أَفَإِنْ مَاتَ أَوْ قُتِلَ انْقَلَبْتُمْ عَلَى أَعْقَابِكُمْ

‘And Muhammad is but a messenger, there have been messengers before him. So, if he dies or is killed, would you turn back on your heels?’

I challenged that this was a non-standard translation, and Cheema said it was Taqi Usmani's English translation, which is not considered good at all. I presented the 6 well-known English translations including the Wahhabi Saudi-approved Sahih International:

As we have discussed before, one does not need to resort to mis-translating the Quran to prove one's point. While I respect others' opinion, Brother Waqar has . . . mistranslated of the Quran - which I have observed before in Brother's Waqar's work - slight 'tweaking' of English words -- this is not intellectual honesty. 'qad khalat' means exactly as 'passed away' when applied to humans. Here are ALL the translations of the verse from quran.com: (I hope that in order for me to keep an intellectual respect for his work, Brother Waqar would correct this or reference his translation).

MUHSIN KHAN: have passed away before him.
DR. GHALI: have already passed away before him.
SAHIH INTERNATIONAL: have passed on before him.
SHAKIR: have already passed away before him;
YUSUF ALI: that passed away before him.
PICKTHALL: have passed away before him.
Bewley and Abdul Haleem: translate the phrase as 'came and went'.

Now, Brother Cheema could have acknowledged and moved on and still proven his point that this verse is not definitive for all messengers. But he chose to dig in his heels and prove that Taqi Usmani's wrong translation of the idiom was right and all other translators are wrong. In doing so, he attacked my faith, but I took it as a sign of his weakness and I forgave him for the insult.

Five Articles

From the mistranslation, Brother Cheema tried to prove:

• . . . in the above verse the word (khalat) means death and he (Mirza) maintained that taking to mean otherwise was simply absurd. The fact of the matter, however, remains that his argument itself is totally absurd as it defies both the dictionary meaning and other usage of the word in the Holy Qur’an.
• It’s also wrong to say that when used for persons the word khala means death.
  The word ‘khalat’ in Qur’an 3:144 does not mean death and merely refers to something having been in the past.
• . . . evidence for the Islamic belief and not that of the Ahmadiyya

After a fruitless attempt at private conversation, I replied: Tracking Waqar Akbar Cheema on ‘qad khalat’

Brother Cheema's replies: https://www.letmeturnthetables.com/2011/07/qad-khalat-quran-3-144-part-1.html and https://www.letmeturnthetables.com/2011/07/qad-khalat-quran-3-144-part-2.html

Brother Cheema unfortunately accused me of defending Mirza while I was defending previous scholars and the Quran. For this I may not be able to forgive him.

I offered a compromise that at least some scholars have used that term, but the brothwer stuck to the wrong translation of Taqi Usmani. I then wrote two more : پانچ مفسرین نے ۳:۱۴۴ میں ‘قد خلت’ سے کیا سمجھا and The Great Dictionary Deception

Uthaymeen's Tafseer - Contemporary and Detailed

Uthaymeen has devoted many pages to 3:144 and he is a scholar whom Brother Cheema cannot disparage; although I don't hold Uthaymeen in high regard. It is clear like daylight that the meaning of 'qad khalat' is not controversial and it has no bearing on Jesus.

That is, the Messenger of Allah (saw) is a messenger before whom the messengers have passed away, so they died before him and among them are those that were killed as Allah says : "and [they] killed the prophets without right" (2:61). So when it was like that, did their nations, when their prophets died or were killed, abandoned their faiths? Answer: No, they did not abandon their faiths, and that is because these nations worshiped Allah ...

and followed their messengers, and the message of the messengers was not cut off by their death, but their message remained until another message came to abrogate it. Except that the message of the Prophet (saw) will not be abrogated as it is the last of the messages . . .

It is said "Muhammad is not but a messenger. [Other] messengers have passed on before him." When this is so, then did the messengers who preceded, and died or were killed -- did their nations turn their backs after them? No, but that the messages remained and the following remained . . .

[Among the fawaid is] (1) the declaration that the Messenger of Allah (saw) was a human whom death overcame as it overcame all the messengers. This is in His word: "Muhammad is not but a messenger. [Other] messengers have passed on before him. So if he was to die or be killed, ...? "

(3) . . . in His word "[Other] messengers have passed on before him." . . . previous messengers did not continue to exist -- they died or were killed . . . .

(4) An affirmation that Muhammad (saw) is the last of the messengers. In His word "[Other] messengers have passed on before him" the 'al' means everyone and he did not say 'messengers have passed away before him', but He said 'The messengers', and when it it was 'the messengers' -- all of them -- who passed away before him, it is compulsory then that He (Muhammad) should be the last of them.

Humble Request

I don't see any way out of this excellent exegesis by Uthaymeen, but I would really want to know if there is any way out. And I repeat, this established and idiomatic meaning has no bearing on Jesus, about whom Uthaymeen has explained excellently elsewhere.

Allah says, "O you who have believed, be persistently standing firm for Allah , witnesses in justice, and do not let the hatred of a people prevent you from being just. Be just; that is nearer to righteousness. And fear Allah ; indeed, Allah is Acquainted with what you do." (6:8)

An interesting article appeared in the Telegraph, titled "The conversion to Islam of Malcolm X is the wrong model for young black men."

Although the author, David Edward, cites historical events, he makes a serious error that fatally undermines his premise: historic slavery in Islamic territories was not primarily based on race suppression, but rather on prisoners of war. Generally,

• Many respected companions of the Prophet (peace be on him) were freed slaves and of African descent, including Bilal.
• Slavery was a substitute for prisoners-of-war, and by this design, it would die out naturally as peace reigned (Annemarie Schimmel and Fazlur Rahman)
• Slaves could work or buy their way out of slavery
• Freeing a slave (manumission) was considered an act of kindness an manumission was an expiation for many sins, especially for the rich.
• A slave who believed in Islam would generally be set free
• Freed slaves reached the highest ranks of society and government
• Slaves were allowed regular marriage with the consent of the owner and families were never torn apart. The Quran explicitly prohibits forcing slaves into extra-marital relations and encourages their marriage. Unmarried slave women were the mistresses of their masters and their offspring were not illegitimate
• Slaves fought in the military and at some point would be set free
• A slave could lead prayers in the mosque
• The food, care and clothing of a slave had to be equal to that of the family that owned him or her
• In the justice system, slaves would receive half the penalty for crimes but their evidence was also deemed less reliable

More information and references available on Wikipedia.

Slavery was an abominable institution and it flourished in every country before the advent of the industrial revolution and large-scale prisons.

Malcolm X, a well-read and thinking man, knew the history of slavery well. The inhumanity and cruelty that was practiced by Americans on the plantations of the South was not the same as the slavery that had been practiced in other parts of the world.

The author writes:

In his popular autobiography, Malcolm X puts the Christian faith of most blacks in the US down to the "white, Christian slave master injecting his religion into this Negro." Later he states that "America needs to understand Islam because this is the one religion that erases from its society the race problem."

By conflating 'racism' with 'history of slavery' -- which most young modern European and American readers would confuse these days -- the author does a disservice to history and to Malcolm X.

Jonathan Russell of the Quilliam Foundation has a logical premise on which he bases his piece about the signatories of the Joint UK Muslim Statement. It is indeed a valid assertion that the signatories did not offer any solutions.

When I read the joint statement, it did not appear to have any proposed solutions. Without mincing any words, the declaration appears to be a desperate call for attention as to how the British state is effectively marginalizing and criminalizing being Muslim. I wholeheartedly agree with the signatories and also believe that other Commonwealth states like Canada and Australia are following Britain blindly, and consequently, disturbing delicate community relations of millions of established Muslim families. "What you tear apart now may not heal for generations. Think before it is too late!" is the message that jumps out of the stark words.

Before the point-by-point analysis which Mr. Russell left out, it is fair to say that Quilliam cannot talk about Muslim representation on that list of scholars due to the pot-kettle-black problem. Quilliam has government connections but no community roots and many names on that list of signatories are respected individuals deeply embedded within the mainstream Muslim communities of Britain.

Here is what the signatories said:

1. "We reject the exploitation of Muslim issues and the ‘terror threat’ for political capital, in particular in the run up to a general election." All I ask for Mr. Russell is whether such scapegoating of vulnerable sections of society (welfare recipients, Muslims, Eastern Europeans) is not an established election cycle practice of politicians where they try to exceed each other in "nastiness". The Muslim problem is exactly the same as the non-existent Eastern European immigrant deluge of 1 January 2014.

2. "We deplore the continued public targeting of Muslims through endless ‘anti-terror’ laws. There have been around ten pieces of legislation since the year 2000, all giving huge powers to the state, which have fuelled a media hysteria even though in most cases no crime was committed." I could not find a single public case of a terrorist incident on UK soil that resulted in harm to life and property and that happened because the hands of law enforcement or a judge were tied due to insufficient legislation. If there are any, they should be cited. The incessant 'anti-terror' legislation with its incremental increase in number of days of detention and incremental erosions of privacy just keep the government and ministers in the news as 'tough on terror'. There is ample evidence that the politics-media-politics cycle is now self-perpetuating.

3. "We reject the portrayal of Muslims and the Muslim community as a security threat. ... witch-hunt ... McCarthyite ... signs of increased Islamic practice as signs of ‘radicalisation’." Well said! There is no established causal link between religious devoutness and likelihood of terrorism sympathies. The teenagers fleeing to ISIS are not your devout ones and their problems and symptoms need to be explored within the context of British culture.

4. "The expedient use of undefined and politically charged words like ‘radicalisation’ and ‘extremism’ is unacceptable as it criminalises legitimate political discourse and criticism of the stance of successive governments towards Muslims domestically and abroad. ... ." The infamous case of Moazzam Begg is enough proof.

5. "Similarly, it is unacceptable to label as ‘extremist’ numerous normative Islamic opinions on a variety of issues, founded on the Quran and Sunnah ... ." Remember when jihad in Afghanistan against Russia, and then in Bosnia was legitimate? How can the government muzzle an edict from the same scholars that jihad in Syria is not legitimate when the British government itself is opposed to the Syrian regime? Have we ever considered that maybe it is this dichotomy that de-legitimises the British government in the eyes of impressionable and idealistic youth who go to join militant groups.

6. Affirmation of British values. It should not be controversial.

7. "We affirm our concern about peace and security for all. We, however, refuse to be lectured on peace-building and harmony by a government that plays divisive politics and uses fear to elicit uncertainty in the general public, whilst maintaining support for dictators across the Muslim world, who continue to brutalise any legitimate political opposition to their tyranny." Ouch! Again, it is the semblance of hypocrisy that de-legitimizes the government's quest to stop young impressionable people from joining militant ranks.

8. Affirmation of British values. It should not be controversial.

9. Affirmation of British values. It should not be controversial.

There is a strong chance that the problems Mr. Russell enumerates, to which the signatories do not provide a solution, are not the problems that the signatories are trying to raise awareness about. If so, then perhaps both sides are talking past each other, not quite unlike the British government and British Muslims.

Imam Shehryar Shaikh presented the traditional concept of the caliphate in an interesting way.

Imam Shehryar’s grasp of the subject from a theological perspective is apparent from the way he analyzes current events and then uses his command of scripture to bring the concepts to the audience.

From the apostolic exhortation (EVANGELII GAUDIUM) of Pope Francis. Apostolic Exhortation on the Proclamation of the Gospel in Today’s World (24 November 2013) :

252. Our relationship with the followers of Islam has taken on great importance, since they are now significantly present in many traditionally Christian countries, where they can freely worship and become fully a part of society. We must never forget that they “profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, who will judge humanity on the last day”. (Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church Lumen Gentium, 16.)  The sacred writings of Islam have retained some Christian teachings; Jesus and Mary receive profound veneration and it is admirable to see how Muslims both young and old, men and women, make time for daily prayer and faithfully take part in religious services. Many of them also have a deep conviction that their life, in its entirety, is from God and for God. They also acknowledge the need to respond to God with an ethical commitment and with mercy towards those most in need.

253. In order to sustain dialogue with Islam, suitable training is essential for all involved, not only so that they can be solidly and joyfully grounded in their own identity, but so that they can also acknowledge the values of others, appreciate the concerns underlying their demands and shed light on shared beliefs. We Christians should embrace with affection and respect Muslim immigrants to our countries in the same way that we hope and ask to be received and respected in countries of Islamic tradition. I ask and I humbly entreat those countries to grant Christians freedom to worship and to practice their faith, in light of the freedom which followers of Islam enjoy in Western countries! Faced with disconcerting episodes of violent fundamentalism, our respect for true followers of Islam should lead us to avoid hateful generalisations, for authentic Islam and the proper reading of the Koran are opposed to every form of violence.

by Munir Saami

Munir Saami is a writer, public speaker, researcher and community activist who has a deep and thorough understanding of how historical and political issues impact everyday Muslims.

Munir Saami focused on ‘demystification’ of the caliphate and de-romanticized Succession (caliphate) by relentlessly breaking it down to succession decisions made in different ways over time.  His talk can be summarized as: *‘Nail down the succession suitable for modern times and you can have a Succession (caliphate) in the future for no single method, apart from dynastic, of succession in the past.’  *This is a point overlooked by many proponents of the caliphate.

by Dr. Nevin Reda

Dr. Nevin Reda is an assistant professor of Muslim Studies at Emmanuel College of Victoria University in the University of Toronto. Her main research area is the Qur’an, often in relation to Islamic law, the Bible or women. She is also a participant in the Sharia debates in Canada and in Egypt and has publications in both English and Arabic on the topic. Below is the presentation and the video recording of Dr. Reda discussing a Qur’an-based theology of democracy, showing some of the quandaries associated with political ideologies that call for the application of a Sharia-based caliphate today.

Presentation (with video) and Article by Dr. Tahir Qazi

Dr. Tahir Qazi is a writer and contributor to countercurrents.org, Patheos, Foreign Policy in Focus, South Asian Journal of Diplomacy, and has been a guest on political TV programmes.

Dr. Qazi talked about identity politics, evolution of the concept of state, and the search for identity in Muslim-majority countries – from a secular perspective.

By Javed Chaudry

Javed Chaudry is a political commentator, writer and frequent guest on political and social TV programmes. His articles have appeared on countercurrents.org.

Mr. Chaudry will present current geo-political realities and whether a Caliphate could fit into those realities or not.

By Daniel Pipes

Conference on “The Caliphate as a Political System: Historic Myth or Future Reality?”

August 16, 2014

I am delighted to address this timely event and thank Akber Choudhry for the opportunity to do so. I only regret that prior plans prevented me from delivering this short paper in person. I appreciate Sarah Choudhry’s willingness to read it for me. To begin:

Without warning, the ancient and long powerless institution of the caliphate returned to life on June 29, 2014. What does this event augur?

The classic concept of the caliphate – of a single successor to Muhammad ruling a unified Muslim state – lasted just over a century and expired with the emergence of two caliphs in 750 CE. The power of the caliphate collapsed in about the year 940 CE. After a prolonged, shadowy existence, the institution disappeared altogether in 1924. The only subsequent efforts at revival were trivial, such as the so-called Kalifatsstaat in Cologne, Germany. In other words, the caliphate has been inoperative for about a millennium and absent for about a century.

The group named the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria conquered the city of Mosul, population 1.7 million, in June; days later, it adopted the name Islamic State and declared the return of the caliphate. Its capital is the historic town of Raqqa, Syria (population just 220,000), which not-coincidentally served as the caliphate’s capital under Harun al-Rashid for 13 years. Under the authority of an Iraqi named Ibrahim Awwad Ibrahim, the new caliphate projects boundless ambition to rule the entire world (“east and west”) and to impose a uniquely primitive, fanatical, and violent form of Islamic law on everyone.

I have predicted that this Islamic State, despite its spectacular rise, will not survive: “confronted with hostility both from neighbors and its subject population, [it] will not last long.” At the same time, I expect it will leave a legacy:

No matter how calamitous the fate of Caliph Ibrahim and his grim crew, they have successfully resurrected a central institution of Islam, making the caliphate again a vibrant reality. Islamists around the world will treasure its moment of brutal glory and be inspired by it.

Looking ahead, here is my more specific forecast for the current caliphate’s legacy:

1. Now that the ice is broken, other ambitious Islamists will act more boldly by declaring themselves caliph. There may well be a proliferation of them in different regions, from Nigeria to Somalia to Afghanistan to Indonesia and beyond.
2. Declaring a caliphate has major implications, making it attractive to jihadis across the umma (the worldwide Muslim community) and compelling it to acquire sovereign control of territory.
3. The Saudi state has taken on a quasi-caliphal role since the formal disappearance of the Ottoman caliphate in 1924. With the emergence of the Raqqa caliphate, the Saudi king and his advisors will be sorely tempted to declare their own version. If the current “Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques” (as the Saudi king like to be called), who just turned 90, does not indulge this claim, his successors might well do so, thereby becoming the first caliphate in a recognized state.
4. The Islamic Republic of Iran, the great Shi`ite power, might well do the same, not wanting to be conceptually out-gunned by the Sunnis in Riyadh, thus becoming the second formal caliphal state.
5. This profusion of caliphs will further exacerbate the anarchy and internecine hostility among Muslim peoples.
6. Disillusion will quickly set in. Caliphates will not bring personal security, justice, economic growth, or cultural achievement. One after another, these self-declared universal states will collapse, be overrun, or let lapse their grandiose claims.
7. This caliphate-declaring madness will end some decades hence, with a return to roughly the pre-June 29, 2014, conditions. Looking back then on the caliphal eruption, it will appear as an anachronistic anomaly, an obstacle to modernizing the umma, and a bad dream.

In short, declaring the caliphate on June 29 was a major event; and the caliphate is an institution whose time has long passed and, therefore, whose revival bodes much trauma.

Mr. Pipes (DanielPipes.org) is president of the Middle East Forum. © 2014 by Daniel Pipes. All rights reserved.