Keys to the Caliphate

I was unable to post last week due to technical difficulties, but we are back on track this week. Enjoy!

March 3, 1924 is a date that is seared into the collective consciousness of the Islamic world. That is the day that Mustafa Kemal Ataturk's government officially abolished the Caliphate and brought an end to the Islamic empire. What is not widely known is that a couple of attempts to continue the Caliphate were made after Ataturk abolished it. King Hussein bin Ali of Hejaz claimed the title of Caliph but held onto it for about a year before his dreams of empire were crushed by the ascendant Ibn Saud. The next year a summit was convened in Cairo to determine how to revive the Caliphate, but it was about as effective as an UN General Assembly meeting (I bet the speeches were about the same, too. "We all agree it was the fault of those nasty Jews. Wait, what are we talking about?") Muslims have yearned for a renewed Caliphate for almost a century, but recent events such as the so-called Arab Spring and the rise of Islamism in "secular" Turkey have sparked a discussion among jihadists and Western experts as to the possibility of a reestablished Caliphate. It was Osama bin Laden's dream to unite the Muslim world under the banner of a strong Caliph to challenge the West's superiority, a dream he shared with Islamists all over the world. While he is dead, there are many who are willing to take up his cause. In fact, al-Qaeda even established a timeline broken down into seven stages detailing how Islam would come to dominate the world. Stage Four involved the collapse of the Arab dictatorships throughout the Middle East and was predicted to take place between 2010-2013. That's a little spooky, considering that the document revealing this timeline came out six years ago and the whole "Arab Spring" thing just started last December. The Caliphate would officially be established in Stage Five and would then proceed to make open war on the non-Islamic world.

For the purposes of this article, I am going to skip the whole, "Will they? Won't they?" regarding the chances that a new Caliphate will be formed and will instead work under the assumption that it will. Who will be in charge of this united Muslim world, and where will the seat of power be located? The Caliphate is as much a spiritual entity as a political one. There are four countries that I believe are the strongest contenders for the throne, so to speak, each for a unique reason. Let's take a look at the contenders for the keys to the Caliphate. Here they are, in no particular order:

Turkey

At first it may seem the height of irony that the country which abolished the Caliphate would be the one to call a "do-over." But upon reflection, it would make sense. After all, the Ottoman Turks ruled the Islamic Empire at the zenith of its dominance and had control of the Caliphate for about four hundred years. Modern Turkey has a significant amount of military, economic, and diplomatic power. They have been showing increasing hostility to Israel, which is scoring them big points with Islamists around the world. The Turks are also adept at manipulating the international media and Western governments alike to supporting their points of view. The Turks also control major natural gas and oil pipelines from the East into Europe, giving them an extra bit of leverage in political negotiations or times of war. Turkey is a NATO member that boasts an impressively modern military. Turkey's strong resources, influence, and geographic location would make it a formidable challenger for the seat of the new Caliphate.

Egypt

Egypt has played a significant role in Islamic history, a role that historically-minded Muslims would likely take into account. Cairo was the home of the Fatimid Caliphate from 969 until 1171 and would be able to leverage that history into support from Shia Muslims. Egypt was also the center of the powerful Ayyubid dynasty founded by famed Islamic general Saladin. The connection to the man largely responsible for driving the Crusaders out of the Middle East would serve as a powerful propaganda tool (even Saddam Hussein tried to portray himself as a modern Saladin, which is bizarre considering Saladin is Kurdish). Fast forward to 1928 when Hassan al-Banna founded the Muslim Brotherhood, one of the oldest Islamist groups still in existence. The Muslim Brotherhood established the framework of Islamic revolution that has lasted for almost a hundred years and spawned huge numbers of copycats or splinter organizations. It is true that modern Egypt is not as strong as Turkey or as wealthy as Saudi Arabia. However, Egypt has really become the centerpiece of the Arab revolutions and Tahrir Square in particular has been cemented in the mythology of this new international Islamist movement. If, as I believe is possible, these revolutions are intended to bring about a Caliphate then the importance of both the Muslim Brotherhood and the Arab revolutionaries of Cairo should not be underestimated.

Saudi Arabia

Of course, one can never forget the desert sands of the Arabian Peninsula. Home to the founder of Islam itself and to the twin spiritual centers of Mecca and Medina, Saudi Arabia holds sway over the religious heart of Islam. Saudi Arabia was also the seat of power for the original Caliphate until Caliph Ali moved it to the Iraqi city of Kufa in 656. And, as mentioned before, the Caliphate survived in the Arabian Peninsula for a brief period after its official abolishment by the Turks.
Islamists may find the best way to get around the problems with the Saudi monarchy is to simply depose them, which would necessarily be a ghastly and dreadfully difficult business but one that could prove inevitable. Should a true Islamist government rise to power, or a coup within the monarchy that would place a more radical member of the royal family on the throne, Saudi Arabia could (and I believe would) put up quite a fight for the right to be the capital of the Caliphate.

Iran

Now, Iran is an interesting case. Persia was always more of an outpost than a real center of political power, despite the fact the Persian empire had been a formidable enemy and the area remained a flourishing cultural center. On a quick side note, both Iran and the Muslim Brotherhood have some interesting connections to the Nazis. Iran's real historical connection to a new Caliphate would be the tremendous efforts they have made in order to spread the Islamic revolution since 1979. While the Muslim Brotherhood was working toward the same goals, it was the Islamic Republic of Iran that really showed how a modern Islamic state could operate. Taking advantage of the Cold War, the Iranian government quickly spread their influence throughout the Middle East by supporting terrorist groups like Hezbollah. Under the leadership of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Iran has made no secret of its desire to acquire nuclear weapons and to drive the Israelis into the sea (which the politicians insist are mutually exclusive concepts). Iran has also been increasingly friendly with Russia and Venezuela, revealing a network of influence that truly spans the globe. The Iranian government also believes it is their task to help pave the way for the return of the Twelfth Imam, who would be the ruler of the entire Muslim world (and naturally a Caliph). One challenge that the Iranians face is the fact that they are Shia while the majority of the Muslim world is Sunni and it would be difficult to find common ground when establishing any sort of lasting Caliphate.

What do you think? Is there a country that I missed that you think should be on the list? Which country do you think is most likely to take control of a revived Caliphate? Do you think that a conflict for dominance could lead to open war? Don't forget to send me your Comments!

Updates: Hezbollah, Pakistan, Turkey, Oh My!

Instead of a normal article, this week I will be providing updates on some of the stories that I have covered in the past. These updates are organized in the order the original articles were posted.

Iran's Connections in the Western Hemisphere

It is common knowledge in counter-terrorism circles that Iran has been very interested in expanding their operations in the Western Hemisphere. The relationship between Iranian President Ahmadinejad and Venezuela's Hugo Chavez has grown even more chummy over the past few months. As the Western world finds itself increasingly under seige, Tehran and Caracas have bonded over their mutual dislike for anything resembling the culture and society that made the West great. Think of them as being the two old hecklers from "The Muppet Show," except they also like to chuck dynamite onto the stage as well to further destabilize the situation.

Iran's proxy Hezbollah has been busy, as well. They have spent several years securing a position in the Tri-Border Area of South America, something the U.S. intelligence community has been well aware of for quite some time. As mentioned in the original article, Hezbollah has established close ties to powerful drug cartels along the U.S.-Mexico border. The instability in Mexico is a great way for Hezbollah and other terrorist organizations to make money, purchase or sell weapons, and trade information and training with the cartels and each other. American and Mexican law enforcement have been tracking increased activity centered around drug and arms trading between terrorist groups and major cartels. To make matters worse, the Cubans have joined in on the game, opening their doors to Hezbollah to establish a real presence on the Caribbean island stragetically located only 90 miles away from the United States. As Iran strengthens its position in the backyard of the most powerful nation on Earth (you don't get to be the "Great Satan" for nothing) it is shocking to see so little attention paid to these stories by the rest of the media.

How Do You Solve A Problem Like Pakistan?

Oh, Pakistan. From your corrupt and strongly Islamist military to the near-constant hell you put your Christian population through, could we really have asked for a better ally? For those of you in the audience that are sarcasm-deficient, the answer is a resounding, "Yes!" Basically anybody would be a better ally at such a crucial moment (maybe even the Turks, though that ship is sailing fast). As America, and the world, prepares to remember the 10th anniversary of the 9-11 attacks, you can bet your bottom dollar (go ahead, it's not really worth much anyway) that right around the corner we'll be hearing about the 10th anniversary of the invasion of Afghanistan. While Iraq, the so-called "bad war," has all but wrapped up, Afghanistan continues to waste American lives, money, and resources. Why is that? Are the soldiers in Afghanistan just not as good as those sent to Iraq? Or could the huge safe zone along the border with Pakistan that allows Taliban troops to move with ease and lukewarm support from our supposed ally have something to do with it? Don't answer that, it was rhetorical.

In other fun news, an incident occured between Indian and Pakistani forces stationed in Kashmir on Wednesday. The Pakistani's claimed the Indians attacked them without provocation. We should trust them. I mean, it's not like they've lied to us in the past, snuck around our backs to get nukes, or sheltered the most wanted terrorist in the entire history of the world, right? Anyway, a showdown between Pakistan and India would not be in the interest of world peace, but it could provide yet another rallying cry for the global Caliphate that is slowly but surely coming together.

Islamists Flexing Their Muscles in Turkey

And finally, we come to Turkey. On the international front, Turkey's relationship with Israel has become rocky, to put it very mildly. They have expelled the Israeli ambassador because Israel has refused to apologize for the flotilla raid last year. Turkey has also said, in spite of a report from the UN which cleared Israel of illegal activity (I know, I had to read that one again, too), they will continue to demand an apology, compensation to the families of the nine people killed, and an official end to the Gaza blockade. In response, Israel laughed so hard that milk squirted out of their nose. Okay, I may have added that last part, but it wouldn't surprise me if it actually happened.

I mentioned in my previous article that, after Ataturk abolished the Caliphate, it was the constitutional mandate of the Turkish military to prevent the nation from falling back into the grip of Sharia and Islamism. Well, Prime Minister Erdogan will not let a little thing like that stand in his way. Very recently, the head of the Turkish armed forces decided to "retire" at the same time as the officers in charge of Turkey's ground, naval, and air forces. That would be equivilant to the entire Joint Chiefs of Staff deciding to spontaneously resign from their posts at the same time. From another perspective, it would be like the entire Supreme Court (as protectors of the Constitution) deciding to retire at the same time for no particular reason. But this little news story received so little attention I didn't even know about it until a couple of weeks ago. As the movement to restore the Caliphate gains steam, it is more than a little ironic that the same country that abolished the Caliphate is jockeying for position as a possible seat of power should a new one arise.

If you have anything you'd like to add to these stories, or perhaps something I may have overlooked, please leave me some Comments below.

Libya: Where Do We Go From Here?

2011 has been the year of revolution, particularly in the Muslim nations of the Middle East and North Africa that once formed the core of the Islamic Caliphate. The world watched as dictatorships once thought completely secure were toppled virtually overnight, first in Tunisia and then in Egypt. Things got a little more complicated when other heads of state refused to bow to the pressure of the mob. In particular, Libyan dictator Moammar Ghaddafi proved a little stubborn in the face of "rage and change." Now, thanks to military intervention by NATO, Ghaddafi has been kicked out of Tripoli and the rebels have seized control of the majority of the country. Yay us! Victory for the people over tyranny, and all that. What could possibly go wrong?

Since the beginning of NATO operations in Libya, one question has taken center stage (and refused to leave): why? Oddly enough, that seems to be the question that kept popping up during the NATO campaigns in Bosnia and the former Yugoslavia in the Clinton administration. Say what you want about Afghanistan and Iraq, but at least the leadership of both nations actually considered themselves to be our enemies. Libya presented no true threat to any external power, certainly not to any member state of NATO. The only real reason presented was the "responsibility to protect" doctrine adopted by the United Nations in 2005. Libya has been the first practical application of this doctrine, which states that it is the responsibility of the international community to intervene on behalf of oppressed people in a civil war/genocide situation. Of course, you don't see any movement to protect the citizens of Iran or Syria, so I guess the international community is allowed to be picky about who they want to save. It is very possible that this same doctrine could be used against Israel, to "protect" the Palestinians, or even the United States if a politically favored group puts forth the claim that they are being oppressed. Is this idea a bit paranoid? Maybe, but we have plenty of enemies in the UN that would love to use such techniques against us at the first opportunity.

Another problem with the so-called "kinetic military action" in Libya (like the Obama administration had to point out that the military action was, in fact, moving) is that it exposes just how thinly stretched NATO forces are. Military equipment broke down with alarming regularity, and the European members of the coalition actually started running out of precision munitions within the first month of military operations. More recently, the French aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle actually broke down and had to be withdrawn from the area of operation for repairs, putting a major dent in the French ability to project power to Libya. While the United States has not suffered problems anywhere near this magnitude (because, you know, we actually know what it takes to fight a war) the resources and manpower needed to stretch us out into a third theater of conflict are placing further strain on our military at perhaps the worst possible time.

Finally, there is little we can do but wait and see who will take over the oil-rich country. It has been widely known that the Libyan rebels were at least sympathetic to al-Qaeda, but just how sympathetic remains to be seen. It would be more than a little ironic for al-Qaeda, weak and on its last legs, to find a safe haven to rebuild in Libya thanks to the "brave" efforts of NATO. As the jails have been opened by the victorious rebels, hundreds of dangerous jihadists that were mingled in with the political prisoners have been released onto the streets of Tripoli. Of course, the Europeans don't care as long as they get access to exclusive trade deals with the new regime and access to Libya's oil. I guess as long as it's not an American conservative that wants to attack an oil-rich nation, it's completely fine with the international media.

It doesn't take a genius to realize there are forces at work with the situation in Libya that are unfriendly to the interests of the United States and her allies. That doesn't mean that the new rulers are necessarily worse for us than Ghaddafi. But we must be very careful regarding our next move, something the Obama administration has shown no signs of doing. Just one more domino in the Arab world, but one that could have profound consequences.

Anarchy in the UK

I realize this article is a little late to be immediately topical, but the underlying theme is too important to ignore and goes along with a theory I have been developing for quite a while. For all three of you who don't know what happened, violent riots broke out across the United Kingdom beginning a little over a week ago. The rioters were supposedly protesting a shooting by police officers on August 4th. The "protests" quickly spun out of control (or, from another perspective, did exactly what they were intended to do), leading to massive rioting, looting, arson attacks, muggings, and general lawlessness that left at least 5 people dead and over 200 injured. Of course, the leftist spin machine was out before the fires had really started to claim that the rioters were just "poor, underprivileged, oppressed, victims of (insert favorite -ism here)." In reality, many of the rioters were from the middle or even upper classes and were inspired to violence because, essentially, "everybody's doin' it" (just as a side note, if anyone, ever tries to convince you with that argument, you should simply run in the other direction as fast as you can).

A major problems, according to the British authorities, was the massive spike in gang activity during the riots. This is important because gangs have several characteristics that will feature heavily in the coming months and years. Most are based on racial lines (Caribbean gangs, Pakistani gangs, etc.) and as multi-cultural Europe breaks down I believe we will see more such divisions in even the non-criminal communities. In the United States we witnessed racially-motivated violence by mobs at the Wisconsin State Fair mere days before the British riots started. Gangs are also organized and can effectively control small patches of cities to the point where even the police are reluctant to enter without heavy firepower. Gangs also have the numbers to do a lot of damage with minimal equipment. Guns are extremely hard to find on the streets of London, but the gangs don't care. They can attack victims from all sides with knives, pipes, baseball (or cricket) bats, or their bare fists. What politicians on both sides of the Pond don't seem to understand is that people who are committed to pursuing violence will find a way around whatever petty rules are put in their way.

Something else is important to note: the backlash among the non-rioters. The police were seen as ineffective and useless. In a statement that would be laughable if not for the creepy Big-Brother (not the reality show, the 1984 one) vibe, British Prime Minister David Cameron has suggested shutting down any social networking sites at any time if the government feels that the site is being used to plan criminal activity. But worse than the overbearing but ultimately futile attempts by the government, I fear that we may see a wave of vigilante violence against gang members and other violent criminals very soon. Depending on how effective these counter-attacks are, we may even see some gangs taking the role of "defender of the neighborhood" to both maintain control of their territory and also to gain respect and support from normal civilians.

Among the loudest voices screaming for vigilante justice were from Britain's Muslim community. One of the worst cases of violence during the riots was a particularly nasty attack in Birmingham during which black gang members plowed a car into a crowd of people at full speed just to cause injury and death. Three brave young Muslim men, Haroon Jahan, Shazzad Ali, and Abdul Musavir, who were seeking to do nothing but protect their family's place of business from looters, were run down and died as a result. One man from the neighborhood who witnessed the scene threatened the gang members responsible with the following statement: "We'll hunt down these black men, cut off their heads and feed them to our dogs." While Tariq Jahan, Haroon's father, spoke out against retaliation, we will have to see which path is more popular in a Muslim community that believes that they are the only ones who can protect themselves (which, to be fair, is actually probably true).

So where does this leave the rest of us? Unfortunately, I believe that the recent acts of mob violence are a sure sign that Western civilization is unravelling. Now, before you call me an alarmist (or any mean name), I am not saying that civilization is collapsing. But there are loose threads in the fabric of our society, and every faction that seeks to destroy Western civilization and supplant it with their own misguided ideology has been pulling like crazy over the course of several decades. What we are seeing in the UK (and elsewhere) is simply the inevitable result. What's more, these events are also a warning to the rest of us. It is not too late for us. Why are the Islamists, Socialists, Communists, Fascists, and every other variety of -ist you can think of (okay, maybe not capitalists. Not most capitalists, anyway) teaming up to batter Western civilization from all sides? It is because they are afraid of us! There are still enough good, intellectually honest men and women from all over the world who are guided by the desire for true freedom (and the willingness to accept the responsibilities associated with those freedoms) to turn back the tide of evil that threatens to spill across the globe. But that can only happen if we have the wisdom to wake up and the courage to stand up for the cause of freedom.

Sorry for the Delays

I realize that two weeks have gone by without a new post from me. I've got several that I'm working on at the moment, but my schedule has been unusually hectic lately. I will have a new post up this Friday as well as a new poll on Monday. I will also be adding extra posts as time permits to make for the weeks that I missed. I apologize for the delays, but I hope you find that the wait has been worth it. Thanks for reading, and be sure to keep spreading the word if you like what I have to say. If you hate it, you can go ahead and keep it to yourself.

Why the Norway Murders Changed the Game

All right. I realize that this story has been examined ad nauseam in the media already, but I still had some thoughts and questions that I would like to bring to the table. For those of you who have been living under a rock (but strangely are able to make it to this blog), on July 22nd an explosion rocked downtown Oslo. As the Norwegian authorities scrambled to make sense of the devastation, a man dressed in a police uniform approached a political summer camp run by the Labor Party and began mercilessly slaughtering the children present. In total, about 76 people had been killed (though early reports had a higher number of dead) by both attacks. While a Muslim terrorist group initially claimed credit for the attack, it was soon discovered that the perpetrator was 32-year old Anders Behring Breivik, a native Norwegian who claimed that the attacks were in response to unchecked Muslim immigration. The apparent motive of the attacks was to draw attention to his "cause" and to spark similar acts of violence across Europe. As quick as the media have been to call Breivik a "Christian extremist," a number of prominent conservative thinkers including Bill O'Reilly and Ann Coulter have shown that this claim is irresponsible and intellectually dishonest. But this post is not about retreading what is by now old territory. Instead, I would simply like to make some observations and ask some questions that have still not been answered to my satisfaction. As such, there will be relatively few links to other websites. After all, if someone has the information that I want, I wouldn't need to ask the question.

The way I see it, there are two possible explanations for this attack. The first is that the radical nationalist elements in Europe have begun their counter-assault on the encroaching Islamist presence in their countries. This sort of thing, unfortunately, is frankly inevitable and will only continue to get worse as the sane elements of the anti-Jihad are demonized and ignored. People with good intentions will be pushed to violence because it will be the only recourse left to them by the ruling elites. By no means do I intend to excuse or justify any of these violent actions or those who commit them. On the contrary, I do what I do so that the sane people of the Western world can shake off the coma that has consumed their society before a violent conflict becomes necessary. But there are genuine monsters lurking on the edges of society that will take advantage of the chaos that is headed our way (and already started in some places) to commit truly hideous acts. This guy, in particular, has earned my ire for his almost comical misuse of the Knights Templar as a symbol to "purify" traditionally Christian lands. Seriously, how come no one has called him (or those who parrot the line) on this simple fact: the Knights Templar did not exist to kill Muslims, they existed to ensure safe travel to the Holy Land for Christian pilgrims. The "Knights Templar" that Breivik talks about are closer to a Dan Brown novel than historical reality.

The second possibility is one that I have heard (or read) no one considering: a false flag attack. A false flag attack occurs when one group attacks a second group but makes it look as if a third group was responsible. Before you dismiss me as a conspiracy theorist, I am not saying that I believe that this is the case, or even that it is likely, but the implications should be examined regardless. From the beginning, I have thought that Breivik seems to be a caricature of Christianity and the political right, spewing almost nonsensical statements that the media seizes upon without hesitation. To be fair, many in the left-leaning media view most right-wing Christians as closet psychopaths seeking to kill anyone different from themselves, so no one would expect them to find Breivik's statements to be ridiculously over-the-top. The man's "manifesto" was largely copied from the work of the Unabomber. The rest of Breivik's manifesto also presents a problem for those seeking to easily categorize him as a Christian fundamentalist as he lays out plans to work with "the enemies of the EU/US hegemony such as Iran (South Korea is unlikely), al-Qaeda, al-Shabaab or the rest of the devout factions of the Islamic Ummah with the intention for deployment of small nuclear, radiological, biological or chemical weapons in Western European capitals and other high priority locations" (pg. 959 of "A European Declaration of Independence). So the media tells us that Breivik wants to kill the first Muslim that he sees, yet he is actively planning on working with al-Qaeda, al-Shabaab, and Iran! Not to mention the fact that his Facebook and Twitter accounts, which provided the media with his earliest "pro-Christian" statements, had only been set up five days before the attack took place and such an attack would have taken much longer than a week to plan and organize. Adding to the discrepancies are his sudden ability to construct a relatively sophisticated explosive device (which, as the attempted Times Square bomber, the Underpants Bomber, and several other examples have proven, is not an easy task even with a moderate level of training).

No matter which scenario is correct, there is no doubt that the game has changed. I actually hope that this is a false flag attack by one of the "usual suspects" because that means that ordinary Europeans still have more time to prepare themselves morally and spiritually for the coming crisis. But if this was, as Breivik hoped, the first shot in some sort of war we will not have long to wait before another attack occurs. The explosive element of the Oslo attack at least suggests the hand of a larger group (not al-Qaeda sized, but larger than a kook with a chemistry set) which could possibly be operating internationally. Again this is speculative at the moment, but consider the situation that Europe is in right now. Communist revolutionaries are already active throughout Europe, especially in economically troubled nations like Greece or Portugal. Any reader of this blog knows (or is just a few clicks away from knowing) how active Islamist revolutionaries are throughout Europe. For example, a recent study showed that over the past five years every rape committed by a stranger (i.e., not incest) and in which the rapist was identified by the victim was by a Muslim immigrant and targeted almost exclusively native Norwegians. As the situation worsens, the ordinary people of Europe may seek protection from both of these groups and find their governments unable or unwilling to provide it. When that happens, nationalist "right-wing" (although the term is misleading when applied to European politics) revolutionaries will present themselves as a bastion against the barbarian hordes threatening to tear down European society. The moderate, sane voices will be drowned out (or eliminated) and the people of the Western world will find themselves increasingly squeezed from the center and toward one of these three anti-freedom factions as they struggle for dominance. Don't believe me? Take a look at Europe between the end of World War I and the start of World War II to find a situation eerily similar to our own (except we have the added bonus of radical Muslims blowing themselves up in major cities).

There's nothing like good news, and this post has been nothing like good news. I may not present a bright shiny future of hovercars and universal brotherhood, but I strive to tell you exactly what I believe may be headed our way. Please let me know your thoughts on the subject in the Comments section, and keep tuning in (metaphorically speaking) each week.

Temporary Delay

I realize that I did not post anything this past Friday. I am following the Oslo terrorism situation very closely and will have a related post up shortly. I simply did not wish to jump into the debate before the facts were settled and end up having to eat my words if proved incorrect. But even if the terrorist was not Islamic, there are still unanswered questions and important ramifications for the future of Europe's relationship with Islam. Hopefully I can have something up by Wednesday. If not, I will just make it this week's post. As always, thank you for reading. Please continue to tell your friends about The New Knighthood, and leave me a Comment if you have concerns, questions, or suggestions for later posts.