Inkwell: Authors and Artists

    

I don't want to derail the conversation, and we'd be very pleased to have
everybody stick around and continue this discussion as long as you are all
able to do so. This is a fascinating exploration, indeed.

Thank you, Sajjad and Farooq, for joining us, and Gerry for serving as
moderator here for the past two weeks. Though we've just launched a new
conversation with another writer elsewhere in this conference, this topic
will remain open indefinitely. So please feel free to carry on if you
want to. There's still so much to delve into!
  

    
Thank you for hosting this discussion and to all those who
participated. These types of discussions are an important step forward.
Thinking people will realise just how crucial these debates and
discussions are especially as interaction with the Muslim world will
shape international relations in the 21st century. I hope Sajjad's
magazine will achieve its  vision, and that people reading this will
aid the magazine in achieving its objectives. We are all responsible
for the reality and challenges facing us. Future generations depend
upon us taking up these challenges with wisdom and foresight.
  

    
Sajjad, I admire the way you handled that backlog of questions.  Just
in case any of our readers might be unaware, we are in different time
zones, so the discussion here often in progresses in fits and starts.

Farooq and Sajjad, each of you have stated that you believe the
Caliphate will be restored.  I am curious to know how you envision the
unfolding of events leading up to that.  For example, do you envision
that it is a matter of one nation adopting the concept first, and then,
upon seeing its success, other nations would follow suit?  Or do you
see it as a movement that would gradually gather momentum in various
nations simulataneously?
  

    

I just want to add my thanks. Sajjad, you diligently gave attention and
consideration to every question placed and that took a lot of work and a lot
of juggling. I appreciate the time and energy you've put into the
discussion.
  

    
I'd like to add my thanks to everyone as well, it has been very
stimulating. My colleagues and I have tens of ideas for future issues.
I personally have learnt many things in the last two weeks.

Specific thanks to Cynthia and Gerry for their hard work.
  

    
>Farooq and Sajjad, each of you have stated that you believe the
>Caliphate will be restored. I am curious to know how you envision
>the unfolding of events leading up to that. For example, do you
>envision that it is a matter of one nation adopting the concept
>first, and then,upon seeing its success, other nations would follow
>suit?  Or do you see it as a movement that would gradually gather
>momentum in various nations simulataneously?

A combination of both, what I currently see is a significant revival
in terms of support for an Islamic Caliphate across the Muslim world.
However what I believe is that it will initially be established in one
or maybe two places. Once established it will become a catalyst for
change in the rest of the Islamic world. However the onus is on the
Caliphate to rise to this challenge and appeal not just to Muslims, but
also to others who are disaffected with the current international
status quo
  

    

> In the same vein a well accepted principle is that occupied
> land cannot be bargained away, this would be considered appeasement.

This is absolutely a key point. 

If the parties in the Middle East can not find a way to live together
there will some day be a nuclear war. The land there has been conquered
and reconquered over the past few thousand years. The only sane way out is
to have all parties drop the conflicting claims and work on living
together as brothers and sisters.
  

    <scribbled by farooq Sat 29 Jan 05 05:52>
  

    
><farooq> has argued in <islam.ind.> that the existance of God can be
proven logically which follows in the broad tradition of such people
as St. Anselm and St. Thomas Aquinas. I don't think that can be done
successfully, outside of Pascal's wager, but he's following in a broad
tradition already trod by Christian philosphers<

That's not strictly true as we have discussed already but lets discuss
it further in the <islam.ind.> conference. 
  

    
which topic thread Farooq?
  

    
We can also continue the discussion here.  Though this topic is no
longer in the Inkwell spotlight, there's nothing to prevent it from
continuing here indefinitely.
  

    
>If the parties in the Middle East can not find a way to live
>together there will some day be a nuclear war. The land there has
>been conquered and reconquered over the past few thousand years. >The
only sane way out is to have all parties drop the conflicting >claims
and work on living together as brothers and sisters.

Gerry two points

1 I agree that people should live together but what system would this
be under. A secular state favoured by most Israelis or an Islamic state
favoured by a significant proportion of Muslims. My own view is that
historically the latter system accommodated both Jews and Muslims
without undue instability or oppression. Compare this with the chronic
situation since 1947 where effectively perpetual war has existed.

2 Secondly the principle of compromise is hardly applied consistently.
i.e the Iraqi annexation of Kuwait was reversed by the US lead
coalition, even though Kuwait historically as a nation didn't exist.
The Argentinian occupation of the Falkland Islands resulted in a
British armada despite the fact that the Falklands is a legacy of
British colonialism. Would US land be returned to the Native Indians in
the U.S. if they demanded it wholesale, I'm guessing probably not.

I know its a seductive notion to want peace, but peace at any price
just encourages future injustice. There has to be greater principles
surely!
  

    
(Sajjad, I think you meant Jerry rather than Gerry.)
  

    
Thanks Farooq and Sajjad for your time and effort here. It would be
interesting to see what would happen if a Caliphate you describe were
to emerge somewhere. I guess the question then is what are the
prospects of such a thing happening. They don't seem very good.
  

    
>which topic thread Farooq?<

Role of the mind discussion.
  

    
Thanks.
  

    

> I know its a seductive notion to want peace, but peace at any price
> just encourages future injustice. There has to be greater principles
> surely!

Life has been busy recently.

The history of the world is replete with groups of people conquering other
groups for political, economic and religious reasons.  The human race
needs to find a way other than war which tends to impose a different set
of injustices. To put it simply, it's time for the human race to grow up.
  

    
>It would be interesting to see what would happen if a Caliphate you
>describe were to emerge somewhere I guess the question then is what
>are the prospects of such a thing happening. They don't seem very
>good.

I respectfully disagree, I think the Caliphate's emergence is probably
imminent due to a number of factors

1 Widespread revulsion against authoritarian leaders in the Muslim
world and their external backers

2 The reemergence of a growing and powerful Islamic identity replacing
nationalism as the key bond in society. The concept of 'ummah' is now
strongly held across the Islamic world and the Muslim diaspora in the
West.

3 The inability of secular, liberal western values from gaining
traction (by the way elections in Iraq and Afghanistan should not be
seen as evidences of support for western policies. As I have said in
previous posts, elections are a core part of the Caliphate's political
system). It is not elections that distinguish distinct ideological
viewpoints but core values

4 The huge opposition to western interference and invasions of Muslim
countries

Though the above factors do not guarantee an early return of the
caliphate, they provide the necessary fertile conditions for it to
arrive.
  

    
>The human race needs to find a way other than war which tends to
>impose a different set of injustices. To put it simply, it's time >for
the human race to grow up.

Agree using force is not what I would want either and certainly not
before other options have been exhausted. But human history is also
characterised by the injustices of not using force as a last resort.
Germany in the 30's, Rwanda in the 80's are good examples of where
force used early enough may have prevented future injustices. Of course
I accept a discussion around the use of force devoid of the political
objectives that govern it would be spurious
  

    
>fertile conditions 

Can you be more specific as to where this might happen?
  

    

> But human history is also
> characterised by the injustices of not using force as a last resort.

All I can say is that what George Bush claimed. I agree with you in
theory, but the practice is fraught with counter-examples where that idea
was used to justify what many say is a bad decision.
  

    
The future isn't predictable, but my guess is that it's very likely
that some governments of Muslim countries will collapse, and that more
governments similar to Iran are a strong possibility.  But the
likelyhood that any of these governments would resemble the ideas
discussed here about a Caliphate is very low.  Revolutions make things
worse more often than not.  We tend to remember the successes.
  

    
>fertile conditions Can you be more specific as to where this might
happen?

Yes strong possibilities of political transformation in Egypt,
Pakistan, C Asia and Syria. But I believe there would be strong
resonance in most parts of the Muslim world
  

    
>All I can say is that what George Bush claimed. 

Hence my point re the futility of discussing force devoid of political
objectives. Most military force in the last 100 years has been used to
achieve purely economic benefits with the intention of exploitation.
I'm not sure that Bush would have wanted to use force to bring
'freedom' so desperately to the Middle East if it only grew carrots.
  

    
>Revolutions make things worse more often than not.  We tend to
>remember the successes.

This maybe the case, but revolutions that generally are not bloody or
violent tend to be more successful. The pre requisite to any
'successful' revolution is to win the war of ideas first. This is what
happened in the ex communist states in the late 80's.