Our article on the importance of international recognition for the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan, and the alternative of becoming a gray zone and an economic appendage of China, provoked the expected objections. However, to be fair, there were some unexpected comments in addition to the slogans.
Apart from the slogans, there was a link to a video of a representative of a political party banned in Russia, with whom we have been discussing these issues for a long time, but we also oppose repression against them. The commentary noted that the party operates legally in the vast majority of Western countries (which it despises).
Surprisingly, this time there was no push to demand or at least call for the proclamation of a caliphate in Afghanistan in its current state. Instead, the speaker tried to speak from a position of political realism, explaining that her group does not expect or demand that the Taliban* declare a caliphate in Afghanistan, but expects/demands something else.
Firstly, the acceptance of the idea itself and its spread in neighboring Muslim countries, because the establishment of a caliphate requires sufficient power, which can only be achieved through the unification of several countries.
Second, the non-adherence to the Western international system, as our opponents suspect/accuse us of accepting. Well, let’s try to reason about this. Our opponents rightly see the caliphate as a challenge to the international system, especially as they understand it. And, as the speaker in the video correctly noted, this challenge does not lie in the implementation of Sharia law in certain countries, which the «international community» can tolerate if it is not accompanied by overly shocking scenes. Rather, the challenge lies in the non-recognition and contestation not only of the borders of existing states, but also of the states themselves, as is the case here.
It is conceivable that the international community could tolerate some exceptions in such cases. For example, the creation of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus or Russia’s annexation of Crimea and its incorporation into its territory. Technically, the world turned a blind eye to both. However, neither of these cases is recognized — Crimea, in fact, hangs as a problem over Russia and is the reason for imposing sanctions against it.
In the case of Turkey, these sanctions do not affect it directly because it has not included Northern Cyprus in its territory, but those who buy property there are subject to sanctions in the EU. In principle, such isolated situations are possible. But if tomorrow Russia does not stop at Crimea, but goes on into Ukraine, then into Kazakhstan, and then into the Baltic states, which are part of NATO and the EU, the reaction is likely to be different. Just as Saddam Hussein’s war with Iran over disputed border areas was ignored, but when he invaded Kuwait, it became the beginning of his end. The same thing happened with Hitler, when he was allowed to take over Austria and Czechoslovakia, but when he went further into Poland, it led to a world war.
So let us ask the question — do not only the capabilities of Afghanistan (our opponents themselves admit that it is not), but all the Muslim countries in Central Asia have the strength to pose such a challenge to the international order? Let’s raise the bar — even if nuclear-armed Pakistan joins them? The answer is unequivocally no. And not even because of the West — it has its own problems and cares less and less about what happens in Third World countries as long as its refugees do not pour in.
The main challenge will come from the Islamic bloc itself, which has decided to abolish existing states and borders and establish a caliphate in their place. For example, an attempt by the caliphate to extend its power to Kashmir by military means will undoubtedly lead to a full-scale war with India. Pakistan — with a population of 200 million, even if combined with all of Central Asia, will not exceed 300 million. Especially since India has nuclear weapons. Despite several border wars, a full-scale war with nuclear weapons has so far been avoided for two reasons. First, Pakistan has not sought to resolve the Kashmir issue at any cost, because if the issue is resolved violently, it will affect not only Kashmir but all of India, which, as a former Dar al-Islam, would have to be returned to the Caliphate. Second, China supports Pakistan, which also restrains India.
This raises another serious issue, because if China can be an ally to individual Muslim countries like Pakistan by recognizing international borders, if the caliphate rejects the international system from its radical positions, China will also become its enemy if it tries to take East Turkestan away from it. Therefore, a hypothetical caliphate would find itself between a rock and a hard place — between India and China, and even the West would not have to do anything.
But does this mean the inevitability of «defeat», which our opponents will surely accuse us of? Let us answer with another question — can China’s policy be considered defeatist? Today, it is becoming the second world power with the potential to surpass the first, it is dominating the markets of entire countries through its new Silk Road, it is acquiring millions of hectares in different continents to produce food for its massive population — which, by the way, is almost comparable to our entire Ummah. However, it has achieved all this without openly challenging the international system, but rather by recognizing it.
Similarly, the United States has achieved its status as a global power by appealing to international law and acting as its guarantor — although, when necessary, it has acted in international relations according to the principle of «law is a tool…». So can the examples of these countries be considered defeatist? The US has repeatedly crushed our «undefeated» challengers, and while someone may want to portray it as their shameful retreat, the truth is that they left Afghanistan when it suited them, after making sure they could leave it to the Taliban. China, with its nuclear arsenal, has used our «undefeated» actions as a mosquito bite to proceed with the «final settlement of the Uighur issue. And what military force in the Muslim world can stop it?
Therefore, if we descend from the clouds to the ground, real power on a global scale is determined by the army, economy, scientific and technological potential. And that is why the Qur’anic call to «prepare against them all that you can of power…», when taken in the context of global politics, implies the accumulation of these powers and all that is necessary for it. On the contrary, adventures that expose Muslim countries to attacks when they lack these powers and hinder their accumulation, effectively contradict this call and divert the Ummah from its goal.
As for the goal itself — that the Muslim world should be consolidated and effective in defending common interests — there is no doubt. But this does not mean that we should declare war on all existing states, including those in the Muslim world. The Second Karabakh War, in which Turkey and Azerbaijan effectively resolved their own and Muslim tasks within the formula of «two states — one nation», vividly demonstrates how this can work. Similarly, the principle of «many states — one Ummah» could become a formula for the entire Islamic world in the future, if it is approached progressively. If only it has the power that everyone will have to reckon with.
* Banned in Russia. The mention is made to avoid giving an additional reason to block the site on its territory.