[Omer M. Mozaffar is a PhD student in Near Eastern Languages and Cultures at the University of Chicago, and teaches in the Asian Classics Curriculum at the University of Chicago's Graham School of General Studies. ]

The reader is surely familiar with the phrase "Islam means peace", a response to the linkages of Islam with violence. Similarly, perhaps the most common statement from Muslims since September 11, 2001 is "jihad does not mean holy war, but struggle." Now Muslim apologists in the United States have found a new term to correct. Speaking of al-Qa'ida and "violent Sunni extremists" in September of 2006, President Bush stated, "They hope to establish a violent political utopia across the Middle East, which they call a "Caliphate" – where all would be ruled according to their hateful ideology." Some months later, in a May 2007 press conference, the President said of al-Qa'ida, "Their strategy is to drive us out of the Middle East. They have made it abundantly clear what they want. They want to establish a caliphate. They want to spread their ideology. They want safe haven from which to launch attacks." While the accuracy or inaccuracy, methods, and ambitions of the President's claims are the subject of a separate discussion for a different forum, his use of the term "caliphate", which obliged immediate response from many a Muslim speaker and activist, deserves comment.

The Qur'an states that God created Adam in particular and the human race in general to be His khalīfa (caliph) on the earth. The term "caliph" has been used throughout Muslim history to refer to various persons of authority, be they monarchical political leaders or the heads of revivalist and/or Sufi movements. Scholars have sometimes used the term in referencing the Sunni outlook on the golden age of Muslim history, that of the Rightly Guided Caliphs who succeeded the Prophet Muhammad.

While popular definition of the term indicates a sort of vicegerency of the Divine or successorship to the Prophets, the moral, social, political, and economic dimensions of this role have been thoroughly explored. A common topic of Muslim Student Association lectures, for example, is the construction and constitution of a theoretical, ideal Islamic way of life – whether as society or as polity – and the term used in such lectures is caliphate. Political Islamists use the term to reference the establishment of an Islamic polity, commonly regarded as the "Islamic State." They sometimes refer mournfully to March 3, 1924 as the moment of the final demise of the Caliphate: the abolition of the Ottomans. The majority of these Islamists are non-violent; more importantly, few have any connection to al-Qa'ida.

As an anti-occupation resistance movement, the Indian subcontinent saw the rise of a "Khelafat Movement" to fight off the British colonizers. A non-Muslim member of this movement went on to attain his own global notoriety: M. K. Gandhi. Recently, scholars such as Professor Amina Wadud have placed focus not on the political or liberatory meanings of the term, but on the aspect of moral agency. Others still have embraced the zeitgeist and directed attention to the role of the human race in caring for the environment: These Muslims call on congregants to fulfill their roles as caliphs of the earth.

The term, then, is a robust and multidimensional one. But the President's remarks – emblematic of the widespread characterization of Islam as uniquely connected to violence and authoritarianism (a characterization that is sometimes opportunist, sometimes bigoted, but consistently myopic) – have compelled what is now becoming the most common use of the term by Muslims in the United States: the apologetic use. It is the same tune that we have heard for over a century of Islam in America. In the same way that jihad does not mean "holy war" but "struggle", caliphate does not mean "authoritarian state" but "God's vice-regency."

Thus, the President has perpetuated a theme by adding a new word to a growing lexicon of hate. Likewise, the apologists are responding in a familiar way, necessarily diminishing the complexity of a term to counter its flagrant misappropriation: Yesterday it was jihad; today it is caliphate; no doubt tomorrow will see a different term. As the Muslim populations of America actively work to develop their indigenous Islam, the challenge will involve determining – in the face of this rhetorical contest – exactly what types of caliphs they seek to be. This writer intends to continue using the term caliphate. That is his jihad.

Sally Gee - 3/12/2008

Or, in Mr Hamilton's case, so few sensible words and so little attempt to find some. Though he obviously seems to have found some time and a couple of tired brain cells to work out a symphony in cliche to create completely new anglo-saxon "unwords" as in, ""jihad" is irretrievably contaminated by the latest Islamic holy-warriors; it's now as radioactive as "sieg heil!""

What a guy! How low expectations would be of me if I had an IQ struggling to find itself in lower digits. Mr Hamilton manages to live down to these expectations however decreasingly miniscule we make them after each of his posts. What a performer! What a contender!

omar ibrahim baker - 3/9/2008

A measure of the inanity, of the utter idiocy, real or feigned, of militating against and demonizing the term " caliphate" is that the term itself, as such, is "ideologically" vacant.
The term , except for that very light Islamic veneer that is usually attached to it, is ideologically
"vacant" . .
It could, and often does, range from perfunctory lip service to hard “ideological” commitment.

Except that it purports to ensure a continuation of the rule of the Prophet through "caliphs" ( literally =successors) it could be an elective or hereditary or even "coup" grasp-able position.

It better have, though, that Islamic, slight colouration, and some other resemblances otherwise it could be “ideologically “ hard, soft or indeterminate.

The term as such bears no ideological content nor denotes any ideological orientation within Islam .

It is as ideologically " neutral" as monarchy or republicanism are .
It could be capitalistic, socialistic, conservative, liberal, reactionary or whatever its holder chooses to call his regime and do with it.

However the term is used by the President of the USA, no less, as the ugly, reprehensible and objectionable (seemingly to the death) face, or manifestation, of Islam.

The danger from such lack of precision and inattention to the real meaning, and implication, of words is the simplistic overgeneralization that always follows and the idiotic policies than ensue there from.

R.R. Hamilton - 3/8/2008

In the same way that jihad does not mean "holy war" but "struggle", sieg heil simply means "hail victory".

Sorry, but just as certain words were corrupted by the Nazis, "jihad" is irretrievably contaminated by the latest Islamic holy-warriors; it's now as radioactive as "sieg heil!". It's time for Muslims to search for a new word for "struggle", one that can never include a component of violence. ("Kampf" would be a bad choice.)

As far as caliphate, or "God's-regency", Christianity used to have this same notion -- called by them "divine right of kings". As a political idea, it's been outmoded for centuries. The thought that Muslims would seek to revive the idea of caliphate only resurrects concerns that they would drag us back a millenium in political science.