Establish an "ISIS inspired caliphate?". Really? No.

One of the claims the ISD and PAP made about me was that I wanted to set up a violent, ISIS inspired caliphate and overthrow the “democratic” government.

I cannot help but be amused at the PAP referring to its rule as “democratic”.

Although I acknowledge that even North Korea refers to itself as the “Democratic People’s Republic of Korea”. And so did a lot of other communist states.

According to the PAP, I was “radicalised” to want to establish an “Islamic state” since 2001 after reading jihadi material. That was when I “stirred up controversy”.

The controversy was my advocacy for the right of hijab wearing girls to education.

But what was the source of my discussions of “caliphate”? Was it really because I was “radicalised” by “jihadi” material and ISIS?

Nope.

I was totally uninterested in the concept of caliphate until around 2009-2010.

In 2009, I enrolled in a Master of International Relations degree at La Trobe University. During the program, I learned European philosophy, international relations, history of the state system. I began to question what I previously thought was a natural order.

I learned that for thousands of years, rulers did not rule the land. They ruled the people. The land was simply where the people lived.

Similarly, the Caliph was known as Ameerul Mukminin (leader of the Believers). They governed the people. The territory was incidental to their rule. It extended as far as the leaders could secure the loyalty and acceptance of the people.

This changed in 1648 at the end of the 30 year war between the 6 lowland states in Western Europe and the Holy Roman Empire. An outcome of this war was the Treaty of Westphalia. For the first time, rulers had absolute power over their territory.

This system was then exported to the rest of the world during colonisation. This is the current system we live in.

And yet, it is only 400 years old. It is a recent creation, especially if we compare it to about 10,000 years of recorded human history.

My question was, is this is only way for us to organise ourselves? Can we imagine other political systems?

The need for change

During this time, I began reading on nation states in the Islamic world. One concern that I had was how so many Muslim societies were under severe oppression.

Some of these oppressions were by non-Muslim states such as Russia in Chechnya, China in East Turkistan, US in Afghanistan and Iraq, Israel in the Palestinian territories, Thailand in the southern states, Philippines on the Bangsamoro. Others were committed by Muslim regimes such as Egypt, Uzbekistan, Libya, Iraq/Afghanistan (again). There were just so much oppression going on.

And as I argued earlier, colonisation and state oppression is responsible for violence, militancy and terrorism. If we want to end such violence, we need to end colonisation and oppression. (Read here)

Is there a better way?

One problem for me is that the ummah is broken up into small, weak nation-states. These weak states are easy for external powers to control and colonise.

And yet, the same European states that created the system and sold it to us are now moving away from it.

Europe created the EU, and gathered the economic and political strengths of the continent into a united entity. For example, Belgium may not have much political or economic power. But as part of the EU, it is strong.

The questions for me were, how can it change and what should it change to? For the “what”, I was clear that the system should bring the Muslim community together while providing peace and security for everyone. It must be a system that recognised the rights of the different belief systems.

I developed the thought further during my PhD candidacy. I wanted to research how the Organisation of Islamic Conference (OIC) could develop a stronger, more cohesive unit. But it was impossible to get a supervisor in that area.

So I studied ASEAN’s regional integration. I researched ASEAN’s claim of becoming people-oriented and how it was changing/ does not change as an institution. The research allowed me to understand institutional stability and change and how ideas that were transmitted influenced how societies behave.

The Vatican/ Ideational Model

I developed two models of the united ummah, which I referred to as the Caliphate. The first was a Vatican/Ideational model. This model viewed the world as becoming more cosmopolitan. We are travelling more, living away from our original land. Territory and borders (for the individuals) are becoming less important.

When someone can be born in the US, live in the UK, and work on a campaign to save the Brazilian Amazon rainforest, how important are territorial states to his identity?

In such a situation, the laws that govern us are the ones we accept as individuals. If we can travel and live anywhere, should territorial laws remain the only way to organise society?

Or can we live in a political and legal system that we identify with, irrespective of location.

For Muslims who define themselves through Islam, that would mean the acceptance and legitimation of a caliphate. This caliphate may have a centre but be legitimate anywhere. Just like how the Roman Catholic leadership (the papacy) may be based in the Vatican but governs Catholics everywhere.

Will such a scenario really take place? I do not know. But I do not believe in being passive about it. The cliché is true: The world is changing. Why can’t we drive its change? Or at least influence it?

Even if it does happen, I doubt that it would be in my lifetime. But as I often said to my friends, Jean Monnet, the father of the European Union dreamed of a united Europe decades before it came into being. Why can’t we do the same?

An important consideration in this setup is the relationship between Muslims with each other and all the other religious/ non-religious groups. One key issue for me was that the identification must be voluntary.

The Caliphate, is just one of a group of nations that manages the affairs of its population. Other nations, representing their individual identities, whether represented by their belief systems or other sources of governance should co-exist. In a further elaboration, I hoped for the emergence of a federation of nations to manage these relationships and support effective and just governance.

These are of course, my hopes. The idea is not perfect. But my hope was to plant the seed so that we could view its possibility.

The EU Model

The second model is more current and less ambitious.

While the first model was totally democratic since it relied on personal identification, the second was state based.

It was an EU model. My argument was for Muslim states to come together and form a custom union, economic union and farther down the road, a political union. It is far down the road because most Muslim countries are still run by authoritarian/ dictatorial regimes. None of these regimes would be willing to surrender their power.

But the development of a custom union can happen. And from there, greater trade among Muslim states.

I did not expect either model to happen any time soon. And one evidence against its happening was my own feelings. I identified as a Singaporean and increasingly, as an Australian. I was willing to put myself in trouble for Singapore. Even as I abhorred violence, I used to say that if Singapore was ever in danger, I would be on the first plane, first ship, first sampan back to defend it.

I recognise that my identities were still very much tied to territorial states. And I was comfortable with that dilemma.

Those were my two models of the Caliphate. They were not inspired by ISIS. They were not violent in any way.

I was to learn later, how those models were distorted by the ISD beyond any resemblance to what I talked about.