Read on Twitter
With #ISIS's territorial control finally collapsing, question we need to ask: what kind of #caliphate was ISIS? Answer needs to be 3-fold +
+ Briefly:
1) How #Wahhabism relates to "real" caliphates
2) Demystifying historical caliphates
3) How #ISIS deviates from real caliphates+
1) How #Wahhabism relates to "real" caliphates
2) Demystifying historical caliphates
3) How #ISIS deviates from real caliphates+
+ ISIS scholars are right to trace group's ideology to Wahhabism, but no real connection between Wahhabism & historical caliphates, except +
+ Except that Wahab-inspired Suud dynasty attempted to supplant the real caliphate (Ottomans) in Holy Lands early 19th century. Result? +
+ Real caliph (Ottoman sultan) didn't like it, crushed Wahab-inspired movement, brought Suud prince to Istanbul & well, did some bad stuff +
+Also, some historians of Wahhabism argue al-Wahab-the-original didn't have a lot to say on caliphate as an institution, never cherished it+
+ So, original Wahhabism not obsessed w/ caliphates (never got along too). Obsession erupted after 1924, (Turkey abolishing caliphate)+
+ In short, while ISIS has ideological roots in Wahhabism, Wahhabism itself has not meshed well w/ real caliphates, never held one +
+ "De-mystifying historical caliphates" is not something #ISIS wants us to do. Why? Because there is no such thing as "ideal period." Nope +
+Common assumption: #ISIS refers to Rashidun period (four original caliphs). Yes and no. ISIS's period references are strategically blurred+
+ #ISIS picks and chooses period references depending on propaganda purposes of the time, & it warps temporality at will. Why? 2 reasons +
+1) Caliphate a powerful term, but power comes from its mystique & confusion surrounding it
2) No caliphate period was *that* idealizable+
2) No caliphate period was *that* idealizable+
+So #ISIS manipulates mystique & confusion surrounding term caliphate & doesn't want to commit itself to one period (cause none is perfect)+
+ So, how come no "ideal" caliphate period? Original 4: 3 fell to political competition. What about ever-conquering Umayyad Caliphate? +
+ Umayyads practically brutalized their way into Caliphate (e.g., beheading Prophet's grandson & leaving for public display, among others +
+ Worse, Umayyads "converted" caliphate into a dynastic institution, drew on #Jihad to expand their empire. Then, the *great* Abbasids... +
+ Abbasids are much applauded for science & conquest. In reality, they proved politically weak, eventually *crushed* by Mongols +
+ #Abbasid caliphs eventually *survived* under protection & at mercy of #Mamelukes (former slave soldiers), that is, until the #Ottomans +
+In 1517, Ottomans crushed Mamelukes & *made* the caliph transfer title to the person of Ottoman sultan. Yep, like transfer title of a car+
+Ottomans understood that title came w/ some prestige but no real political might, so they never actually tried to weaponize it, until...+
+ Until late 19th century, to save the dying Empire. Well, it didn't actually work out. Still the title Caliph *mesmerized* some Westerners+
+Especially Germans were mesmerized. During WWI, so the story goes, Germans said to Ottoman sultan: hey, dude, aren't you the Caliph... +
+... the leader of all Muslim, everywhere? So, why don't you declare global jihad on shared enemies, France and Britain? Ottomans: well, ok+
+ On paper (or West imagination), this was a great plan. More Muslims lived under France/UK than under Ottomans & if Caliph says "jihad!"..+
+Well, Caliph, leader of all Muslims, called jihad against France/UK. What happened? Not only nothing, many Muslims fought Caliph w/ FR&UK+
+ Eventually, modern Turkey abolished caliphate in 1924. Only after that early Islamists began to *imagine* a caliphate that never existed +
+In summary, no single period is "ideal," ISIS knows this but also understands mystique & imagination & ambiguity runs high around the term+
+#ISIS exploits the historical confusion about Caliphates. They refer to not a specific period, but to an imaginary caliphate never existed+
+Doing so, they cherry pick references. Speeches from Original 4, territorial reach from Umayyads, 1924/abolition from Ottomans and so on +
+ Finally, in what ways does #ISIS "deviates" from historical caliphates? This is more or less where my research concentrates. Basically: + 
+ So, briefly, how does #ISIS deviate from "real" caliphates? Real caliphates, say #Ottomans, professed "societal heterogeneity," that is +
+Historical caliphates like Ottomans preferred to rule over societal diversity, based not an *equality* for religious groups, but tolerance+
+ By contrast, #ISIS aims to "homogenize" society, in extremely sectarian terms. Paradoxically, societal vision is closer to nation-states+
+Different from many empires including caliphates, nation-states *ideally* strive for homogenizing societies in cultural &/or ethnic terms+
+In reality, nation-states don't push this to extremes. One modern case that went for extreme homogenization/purification is #NaziGermany +
+ In that sense, #ISIS is like Nazi Germany. Different from race/ethnicity, it aims to homogenize/purify society in sectarian terms +
+ Makes ISIS not a "real" caliphate, but in practice a #NaziCaliphate. May sound cheesy, but that's how #ISIS deviates from the real thing+
+ Irony: claiming a) itself a caliphate; b) to reject nationalism, #ISIS acts like extreme version of what it claims to defy: nation-state.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
