Ovamir Anjum’s refreshingly bold essay ‘Who Wants the Caliphate?’ (2019) is a wide-ranging reflection on various aspects of Muslim thinking about the caliphate. 1 Through a detailed argument for the desirability, feasibility and religious necessity of the caliphate, it takes aim at a ‘failure of imagination and intellectual courage’ that does not allow for ‘Islam to be Islam’ and calls for a broadening of thought beyond hegemonic categories such as the nation-state. In this short essay, we echo these views through a critical reflection on two types of contemporary narratives that counter the religious necessity, or preferably, the shar’i obligation, of the caliphate. We indicate how these are ultimately weak arguments, in no small part because they are still beholden to, or fail to venture beyond, dominant secular categories of thought and practice. On the particular aspect of the caliphate’s shar’i obligation, Anjum is clear that this is a matter of consensus: ‘All surviving Musl
"Thoughts are the greatest wealth of any nation."