Hi Cote. Have been meaning to reply to your post but have been really busy. I realise the conversation has moved on and apologise in advance for derailing it again.
?Religion was between each man and God, with no need for an institution or leader in the middle. I happen to think that is a good thing.?
I also agree that it is a good thing to cut out the middle man between God and people. However the Caliph in Islam is not a middle man or intercessor between man and God. The role of the Caliph is to be a leader of the community of Muslims. Any community or country or society or organisation needs a head or leader in order to function in an organised fashion otherwise there would be anarchy. That is basic common sense. Even in a democracy you elect presidents and prime ministers who fulfill that role. Islamically the basic description of the job of the caliph is to be a just ruler. In the Quran it emphasises this in the verse that talks about the Prophet David who was the leader/king of the Jews in his lifetime.
?Oh Dâwud (Prophet David)! We have made you a caliph on earth. Then judge with justice.? Surah Saad, verse 26
Unlike the pope the caliph is not God?s representative on Earth and is not considered infallible or owed unquestionable allegiance or anything like that. The first caliph of Islam, Abu Bakr?s first speech gave a succinct explanation of his role and the relationship of the Muslim masses to the caliph.
"I have been given the authority over you, and I am not the best of you. If I do well, help me; and if I do wrong, set me right. Sincere regard for truth is loyalty and disregard for truth is treachery. The weak amongst you shall be strong with me until I have secured his rights, if God will; and the strong amongst you shall be weak with me until I have wrested from him the rights of others, if God will. Obey me so long as I obey God and His Messenger (Muhammad, pbuh). But if I disobey God and His Messenger, you owe me no obedience."
The institution of the caliphate for many centuries provided a measure of unity (not complete unity), security and stability in the Muslim World. For example the Ottoman Empire sent fleets of soldiers with arms to support Muslim rulers in East Africa and in Aceh against the European colonial powers. Its no wonder they plotted its demise as it enabled them to finally colonise some of its former territories such as Syria, Palestine and Iraq amongst others. Now am I saying that we need to reinstate the Ottoman empire. No way. It would be impossible and anyway I think it is delusional to portray it as some sort of ideal of Muslim governance as it certainly wasnt particularly in its later years. But a new system has to be set up to fill that gap.
?One person's "radical, unorthodox" is another's "normal". I honestly think it is a good thing that nobody is "policing" anyone's religion. If there has to be religion in the world, everyone should be free to practice it as he/she sees fit.?
I disagree that ?everyone? should be free to practice it in the way that they have interpreted it, in particular if the way they have interpreted it means that they are oppressing others or damaging the image/reputation of Islam. I am forever being made to answer for the abominable actions of the minority of extreme, radical muslim groups even though I despise what they do as do the vast majority of muslims in the world. It is in the interest of some people to take the actions of the worst group of Muslims to be representative of what Islam as a whole teaches to the extent that the Radicals and Extremists are actually described by some Western, Islamophobic commentators as being the true muslims, the ones who are practicing Islam properly. Rather then having to defend my religion against accusations of allowing ?honor killings? and ?fgm? and ?terrorism? etc I think it would be better to have some sort of organistion or authority that can speak for Muslims as a whole to say that yes there are people within our community who do xyz but the majority of us condemn that, do not agree with that interpretation and do not accept that their actions have anything to do with Islam. Does that make sense?
?Personally, I'd choose to live in Saddam's Iraq than Iran or in Saudi Arabia.?
It comes as no surprise that an athiest such as yourself would decline to live under a religious government. What does surprise me though is that you would rather live in Saddam Husseins Iraq. Really? How about if you were a Kurd living in Halabja in 1988, would living in Iraq really be preferable to living in Saudi then? Or how about if you were a Syrian in the town of Hama when Bashar Assad?s father was in power, would living in Iran with less freedoms really be a worse alternative then having your entire family slaughtered because they happen to be living in the wrong place at the wrong time?
?You seem to be assuming that religious governments are not dictatorial and they cannot possibly be corrupt. I assure you that is not the case.?
Maybe so but in the Middle East the secular, athiest despots like Saddam Hussein, Hafez al Assad, Muammar Gaddafi, Ben Ali, Gamal Abdel Nasser and the rest of their ilk have demonstrated much greater ruthlessness and contempt for their people then the Saudi rulers (not so familiar with Iran) who prefer to bribe their people in to submission. I would much rather live in Saudi Arabia where I could practice my religion without being treated like a criminal and live in peace and security then live in Tunisia under Ben Ali where my husband would have most probably been arrested, interogated and possibly tortured for attending the mosque daily to pray his five daily prayers; where I would not be allowed to access education or work because I wear a headscarf; or live in Syria where my 6 month old ds would have been slaughtered by the Syrian army with impunity. Don't kid yourself that these secular despots would have any more mercy for the non-religious. I spent a bit of time living in Egypt when Hosni Mubarak was in power. I shared a flat with several girls from different countries and also an Egyptian native. One of the girls in our flat had a minor altercation with another girl who subsequently called the police. I will never forget the reaction of the Egyptian girl who stayed with us when she heard the news. She packed all her bags as quickly as possible and made arrangements to stay somewhere else that night and warned us all to do the same. The rest of us who were staying in the flat were all from European countries and we could not understand why she was so afraid of the police coming to our flat when we had done nothing wrong and the incident was relatively minor but her behaviour panicked us enough that we all left the flat that night. Now this girl was not religious in the slightest. She worked in the fashion industry in Egypt and was thoroughly Westernised in appearance and in thought and yet even she was terrified of the Egyptian police. One of my teachers there told us about the last time she saw her son years earlier when he left the house before fajr to go and get breakfast for the family. He never came back as his journey back from the shops took him past a mosque that was being raided at the time and his reason and shopping bags were not a good enough excuse to the Egyptian security police for being out at that time and they arrested him and dragged him off. Would you really prefer to live under dictators like these (not the European variety like that of Monaco) then live in a democracy like Turkey that has an ?Islamist? party in power. If you live in a country where the government has decided that the religion practiced by over 90% of the population is the biggest threat to it then really what chance do you have of living a normal life?