Is an Islamic Caliphate a priority despite disagreements over details of creed and fiqh?

Establishing the Caliphate: An Obligation Despite Differences? The Quran establishes clear political obligations for Muslims. It commands Muslims to: "hold fast, all together, to the rope of Allah and be not divided among yourselves” (3:103). Classical scholars considered establishing Islamic governance - a Caliphate ruled by God’s law - as the means to fulfill this. So is re-establishing the Caliphate a priority today despite differences among Muslims? Evidences - The Quran obliges rule by what Allah has revealed, calls it a criterion above all else (5:44-47), and deems replacing it with man-made rule as disbelief (5:44). - The Sunnah shows the Companions maintained unified caliphal rule after Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم and considered it a duty. - Scholars like Al-Qurtubi, Al-Mawardi, Ibn Khaldun and more all considered establishing the Imamate (caliphate) obligatory. Key Points Unified governance is obligatory regardless of theological differences: - The purpose of governance is organizing collective affairs like security, economics, infrastructure etc which are worldly matters not requiring resolution of theological disputes. - Past caliphates functioned despite diversity in creed between rulers, scholarly institutions and the general public. Courts focused on orthopraxy not enforcing mandatory orthodoxy. - The caliph adjudicates policy disputes just as an imam in prayer leads everyone together despite differences in personal spiritual focus. Historical Precedent of Creedal Pluralism - While some periods saw rulers unsuccessfully attempt enforcing theological uniformity, mainstream historical practice was tolerance. - Leading scholars like Ibn Hanbal, Ibn Taymiyyah, Izz al-Din ibn Abd al-Salam (who served under different theological administrations) and others prohibited rebellion against rulers over creedal deviations less than explicit disbelief. - Administrations centered unity on governance by Shariah while allowing reasoned differences on disputed furu’ al-deen (secondary issues) not clear violations of definitive texts. Pragmatism Over Perfectionism Necessary - Aspiring for idealized religious uniformity risks greater harm than benefit as fitna from attempts at enforced ideological purity often result. - Islam’s vision of societal order balances pursuing moral truth and spiritual growth while recognizing human fallibility and gradual progress over time. - Forbearance in disputed issues enabled past stability and development; rigidness risks stagnation and discord. A pragmatic approach unitees governance allowing diversity. Fundamentals Before Details - While details of creed matter tremendously on a theological level, the obligation of Islamic rule mainly requires affirming fundamentals like God’s supreme authority and prophecy’s finality. - Therefore, calls for establishing or joining the Imamate cannot be dismissed by arguing over finer points disputed among scholars for centuries when core principles are agreed upon. In whole, the precedent of Islam’s political order has been unity in applying shariah governance despite diversity in legal methodology and reasoned pluralism in disputed aspects of theology, not enforcement of ideological uniformity amidst Muslims. Misconceptions Some argue that theological disputes prevent unity in governance over Muslims while others call for enforcing religious uniformity. However: - Enforcing creedal uniformity leads to civil strife (fitna), not progress - as proven by historical inquisitions. - Mainstream scholars like Ahmed Ibn Hanbal, Ibn Taymiyyah and others prohibited rebellion against rulers over theological deviations less than explicit disbelief. Conclusion Establishing Islamic governance is an clear scriptural obligation for Muslims. Despite creedal diversity, core Islamic beliefs can form the basis for political unity as they did in history. Forbearance enables progress; forcibly eliminating theological differences risks calamity. Just as Muslim states historically accommodated legal diversity through the judicial process while maintaining religious obligations in governance, so too can a future caliphate center political unity around agreed-upon creedal fundamentals while allowing reasoned differences to coexist.