This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
The two are distinct, one is an individual, the other is a system of governance Aaliyah Stevens 18:53, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
What exactly is the point of separating the two? --
Arabist
22:20, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
The separation of Caliph and Caliphate were rather unfortunate, since all previous discussion (46 kb) is now at talk:Caliph while the article redirects here, making all that discussion virtually unavailable. This is most unfortunate and needs to be solved by merging the talk pages or by upholding separate articles. I personally believe that the latter would be the most reasonable solution.
Peter Isotalo 13:41, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't have a problem with having a seperate entry for 'Caliph', actually that's how i expected it to be. Just as there is a difference between a republic and a president, there is a difference between a Caliph, and a Caliphate. Aaliyah Stevens 09:55, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
KazakhPOl, Please stop deleting this sentence, it is not my POV, it is giving the referenced opinion of others, if you want more citations of this view I can provide it!
"Commentators have criticised this approach, claiming that George Bush is seeking to replace the red menace with a new illusiory 'green menace' with an Appeal to fear. [1] " Aaliyah Stevens 17:12, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry, NBC are also referenced and commented on this isse, buzzle is just an extra reference, NBC alone are credible. I am not trying to cast Bush negatively, I am presenting his fears, and criticism of his fears of a caliphate, both which are referenced and relevant Aaliyah Stevens 10:08, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
This entire "reestablishment" section is badly in need of a POV flag. It reads completely from the POV of someone who is Muslim and cannot see how literally anyone else on earth would be deeply troubled by even the slightest hint of a desire to have a "global, pan-national, Islamic society under Islamic law" I mean seriously. The article makes any critics of this alarming concept out to be war-mongers, makes the claim that "many Muslims view the war on terror as a war on Islam" while conveniently leaving out the fact that "many Muslims" have felt they were "at war with the west" for most of the 20th century and generally reads as a subtle validation that the "global caliphate" is just fine. It's all so subtle that I'm not even sure how it can be fixed, but it certainly is not scholarly. Not that I'm surprised given the politics that are readily apparent in nearly any wiki entry that deals with radical movements.
I was unaware that this article had been split off. It seems to be a sneaky attempt to create an article for the propagation of Hizb ut Tahrir doctrine. This article, in its current state, is a disgrace to WP. Zora 20:57, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Anonymouse user please do not delete that. Aaliyah Stevens 10:39, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
I am sorry but this article needs to be sourced. Most sentences in this article are not sourced at the moment. You might want to use some sources used in other articles such as Islam. -- Aminz 07:40, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
W.R.T the use of the T at the end of Khilaafah, it is a taa marbuta which is not pronounced in arabic, it is a silent letter, and actually used as an H unless joining with an adjective. Aaliyah Stevens 10:33, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Listen Leroy, I have no gripes with you, I don't know you so let's be nice. Firstly I am a reasonably fluent Arabic speaker, and I can read and generally understand the Quran, please don't challenge me on this one, you will embarrass yourself. If you read what I said, again, "W.R.T the use of the T at the end of Khilaafah, it is a taa marbuta which is not pronounced in arabic, it is a silent letter,... unless joining with an adjective.". The only people who pronounce the 'taa marbuta' at the end of the word, when it is not joined with another word, are Urdu & Persian derived language speakers (Indian Subcontinent etc), in the Urdu language, Khilafah is Khilaafat. And if you want to use Google hits as a voter, you claimed that "Khilaafah gets 596 google hits. Add the taa marbuta for Khilaafat and you get 1,780 hits. I'd say you were outvoted.". Actually, if you do a search for the word Khilafah, you get 189,000 which outvotes Khilaafat by 100 times, and doubles the hits Khilafat gets. If that isn't evidence enough, read this [4] where is does not pronounce the taa marbuta on the end of a word (unless joining with another adjective). Aaliyah Stevens 10:33, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Arabic is primarily a phonetic language, and when we transliterate we do so phonetically to help the reader pronounce the words correctly. The only people in the world who pronounce Khilaafah as Khilaafat, are non-arabic speakers of Persian derived languages like Urdu. You will find that Khilaafat and Shariat is only used by non-Arabic (probably pakistani and urdu) websites. They also, instead of using an "Al" in the middle of words, use "e" e.g. Masjid al-Haram is correct, but they will say Masjid-e-Haram. Try googling that and see the results. Anyway, it's resolved now. Aaliyah Stevens 11:31, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
And community is a poor translation of Ummah.
Please do not argue these points if you don't know arabic. Aaliyah Stevens 11:49, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
OK, your own quotes says Ummah can mean, nation, Muslim diaspora, or worldwide/entire Community of the Believers. Shall we agree instead to use the word Ummah or 'global Islamic community'? Community on it's own sounds like my local neighborhood watch scheme :-) Aaliyah Stevens 11:02, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Let's just use Ummah? It can explain itself in the link? Aaliyah Stevens 11:32, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Apologies- I have never used Wikipedia before and dont know how to add comments- im sure im doing this wrong... I just wanted to point out an error in the article, the Caliphate is not a 'federal' state, as its ruling is singular, as opposed to a federal structure where certain aspects are centrally governed (foreign policy, some federal taxes etc), but much remains out of the remit of the federal government, which is alien to to caliphate as the caliph has complete authority, even local area wali's report directly to him. I think this phrase should be taken out as it is incorrect.
Yasir
Salams Yasir, to prove you point you need to cite or provide evidence of this. The simple definition of
federal is that a number of states get together to form a union. See the article on
federalism and let us know how the Caliphate doesn't match up to the definition.
Aaliyah Stevens
18:06, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Salaams, and thanks for replying to my comment. You could describe federalism as a union of states, but this on its own is not exactly correct, as there are many 'unions' which are not federal. For example the EU is a union, but is not at all federal and has never been referred to as such. This is because federalism has a distinct aspect, which is referred to in the second sentence of the Wiki article on federalism, ie that it is a union in which soveriegnity is divided between a central authority and each individual state- this is the key factor. This is not at all descriptive of an Islamic Caliphate, which in fact is by definition Unitary, ie all authority is centralised. (could you add a link to the wiki article on 'unitary state' as Im not sure how to do this, but it describes the differences between federal and unitary)
The fact that individual states can have its 'own' standing army in its borders is not related, the army is still under the authority of the Caliph, not the local Governor.
I hope this clarifies my point- regarding your request to cite evidence, what kind of evidence would be sifficient? Any classical book on Islamic Ruling will tell you this, Muwardi's 'Ahkam As-Sultanyiah' is a good example, but I do not know if there is an online reference for this. I think you can probably get Nabhani's 'Ruling System' book, but I would have to do some Googling first.
Yasir
Salams Yasir. Nabhani and hizb ut-tahrir are not a primary source for this article. I've got Ahkaam as-Sultaniyya and nowhere does it say in that book that the Khilafaah is not a federal government, in fact it indicates the opposite. I see your argument against the use of federalism based on these points:
1. Yes the wiki article does say "federalism is also used to describe a system of government in which sovereignty is constitutionally divided between a central governing authority and constituent political units (like states or provinces)". The key point here is ALSO, this is not exclusively the only form of federalism. 2. Not all unions are federal, I agree, e.g. the EU is not federal but for reasons which your argument is the opposite to; that 'because the Khilaafah's government is centrally strong, it can't be a federal'. The reason why the EU is not (yet) a federation is because a central government is not strong enough, and has no central constitution binding sovereignty on all nations, but when it is and will have a binding central constitution and basic law it will be a federation.
If you look at the definition of federal:
The fact that the khilaafah is a "union of states that recognizes the sovereignty of the central authority" of the Khaleef, which is "surrendered to" but that "residuary powers" remain distributed (to varying degrees in history) with the provinces or "emirs or Walis" is sufficient proof that the Khilafah is a federation with a strong central authority. Aaliyah Stevens 11:49, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
"Toward the end of the first century of Abbasid rule, the caliph was still in control of large parts of his realm, but his empire was not as extensive as it had been at the beginning of the dynasty, and it was rapidly shrinking. Some of the provinces were already becoming independent in all but name, and at the heart of the empire, the caliph had to cope with the increasing power of a new military force, Turkish `slave soldiers` drawn from the lands of the Central Asian steppe, force that in later decades contributed substantially to the political and economic weakness of the Abbasid state. This pattern of a shrinking state and the caliph's increasing dependence on military generals was to continue for much of subsequent Abbasid history." (italics added, Encyclopedia of Islam and Muslim World (2004) p.120)
Federalism at work?
"... during the Buyid occupation of Baghdad in the 9th and 10th centuries," the Caliphate "suffered the humiliation of being dominated by Shi'ite rulers." (from Historical Dictionary of Islam (2001))
"The Seljuk sultans and their wazirs were often far more powerful than the caliph or his officials, but they ... continued to be formally subservient to the caliph." (Encyclopedia of Islam and Muslim World (2004), p.120)
"Not all the caliphs during this period were equally helpless." There was al-Qadir, Al-Qa'im, al-Nasir, etc. "But such revivals were sporadic and they did not do very much to seriously stem the effects of the long decline the caliphate had already undergone." (Encyclopedia of Islam and Muslim World (2004), p.120-1)
The Ottomans sultans were caliphs, or at least proclaimed themselves caliphs, so the power and title were united there. But they also had trouble from provinces that were "independent in all but name." Muhammad Ali of Egypt, their titular viceroy, invaded Syria and defeated their armies in 1832 and 1839.
Was that an example of "federal government"? Or of the center weakening and local government taking power? -- Leroy65X 22:12, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
The deliberate division of power, legislation, and sovereignty is not the sole definition of federalism. As I have shown above the notion of a federal state is not a such a rigid, narrow political concept, but more like a noun to describe any government that has an overall central authority, and states or provinces within it, with their own subservient (to varying degrees) authorities or governors. The ideal, which was roughly manifested by the first four Caliphs, had provincial governors, with their own armies, and a remit to rule, however the Caliph has overall authority. E.G during Umar's Caliphate, Sa`ad ibn Abi Waqqas was governor of Iraq, Shurahbil ibn Hasana was governor of Jordan, Abu Ubaidah ibn al-Jarrah was governor of Syria, then Muawiya ibn Abu Sufyan was made governor of Syria, Amr ibn al-A'as was governor of Palestine, then Egypt. Proof for the fact that governors had their own powers within thier provinces, but that the Caliph was, in theory, the ultimate authority, is clear from a discussion between Muawiyya the governor of Syria, and Umar the Caliph: Muhammad ibn Jarir al-Tabari, a 10th century Sunni Islamic scholar writes:
Umar was in Damascus and Muawiya came to see him every day – mornings and evenings – bedecked in regal outfit, with splendidly caparisoned mounts and escorts. When Umar commented, rather acidly, upon his pageantry, he said that Syria was swarming with Roman spies, and it was necessary to impress them with the "glory" of Islam. His pageantry, he said, was only the outward emblem of that glory - the glory of Islam.
But Umar was not convinced, and remarked: "This is a trap laid by the slick and guileful man."
Muawiya answered: "Then I will do whatever you say, O Commander of the Faithful." ( History of the Prophets and Kings, Volume VI).
Leter Muawiyyah rebelled against Caliph Ali with the Army of the state/province of Syria:
(Previous caliph) Uthman's murder and the events surrounding it were a symptom, and also became a cause, of civil strife on a large scale. Ali (now Caliph) felt that the tragic situation was mainly due to inept governors. He therefore dismissed all the governors from Uthman's era and appointed new ones. All the governors excepting Muawiya, the governor of Syria, submitted to his orders. ..... Thus a battle between the army of Ali and the supporters of Aisha (backed by Muawiyya) took place. Aisha later realized her error of judgment and never forgave herself for it.
The situation in Hijaz (the province of Arabia in which Mecca and Medina are now located) became so troubled that Ali moved his capital to Iraq. Muawiya now openly rebelled against Ali and a fierce battle was fought between their armies. This battle was inconclusive, and Ali had to accept (& compromise with) the de-facto government of Muawiya in Syria (while maintaining his caliphate's authority).
However, even though the era of Ali's caliphate was marred by civil strife, he nevertheless introduced a number of reforms, particularly in the levying and collecting of revenues. [6]
Significantly WILLIAM MUIR/T. H. WEIR in "THE CALIPHATE, ITS RISE, DECLINE, AND FALL" A NEW AND REVISED EDITION, CHAPTER 1: DEATH OF MUHAMMAD, ELECTION OF ABU BEKR; Section "Abu Bekr's inaugural address" state that the Caliphate was like a "Presidency... which was ever in Islam the sign of chief command, whether in civil or in military life." Aaliyah Stevens 17:11, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
This is the opening sentence of your article:
This is a primary characteristic of the caliphate? If the world Muslim community unites a chooses a leader but that leader does not set up "federal" regional commands where his lieutenents rule with their own armies, then its not a caliphate?
Earlier I said the caliphate had regional rulers and armies because it was common for authority to devolve to local authorities when the power of central authority weakens. It looks like I was wrong and you are right that some of these regional authorities and armies were there from the gitgo. They didn't need any weakening of the center.
So that leaves two issues:
Federalism is a relatively modern concept, along with representative parliamentary democracy, popular sovereignty, universal education/literacy, etc. It implies a constitution. It implies central and local legislatures. And it implies the local residents, not conquering military leaders, are the ones who run these states/territorial units.
Federalism - "a constitutional system of government" where "law-making powers are divided between a central legislative body and divided between a central legislative body and legislatures in the states or territorial units making up the federation." (Blackwell Encyclopaedia of Political Thought, Blackwell Reference, 1987)
The objection has been raised by an editor that Shia do not believe in a Caliphate, but an Imamate. Firstly in arabic the terms Khilafah, Imamah, and Sultaniyah can refer to the same thing when referring to government, the only difference being that Imamah & sultaniyya can be subsets of Khilafaah, either as provinces or as a general term. The Shia believe in a Khilafah, but argue that only one of their 11 infallible Imams descended from Ali (12 in total) can be leader, and in the absence of these Imams classical Shia thought accepted refraining from politics and leaving the Khilaafah alone. Recently a new development called wilayet
I suggest you read up on Imamah (Shia doctrine), before messing with this article.
I have asked and do have many Shia friends. I didn't claim that you said Shia didn't believe the caliphate existed??? What I am saying is similar to you: Shia believe that only one of their 12 Imams can be a Caliph, AKA Imam. When a Caliph is one of the Shia Imams, as the 4th Caliph ‘Alī ibn Abī Tālib was, they consider it a legitimate Caliphate or Imamate. Please see Imamah (Shia doctrine). This article already addresses the Shia point of view under the "Electing or appointing a Caliph" section. What are we disagreeing about? Shias are "interested in the caliphate as "successors to the Prophet Muhammad's political authority" if the caliph is one of their Imams,
they believe the first 3 caliphs were usurpers, but not the 4th.
For example, just because you may believe GW Bush usurped power from Al Gore, so you reject the legitimacy of Bush, it doesn't mean you reject the whole institution of the US government,
hence they support and believed in the Caliphate of their first Imam Ali. For shia, when there is no Imam, they accept the notion of Vilayat-e Faqih in their provinces,
as your quote from "Historical Dictionary of Islam" alludes to,
or they refrain from politics, but they differ about this. Please do read up on Vilayat-e Faqih, and Imamah (Shia doctrine), and the first Caliph Shia supported ‘Alī ibn Abī Tālib. My point is that to claim that the Caliphate is purely a Sunni concept is wrong. The common denominator between Sunni and Shia is that the Caliph is at least the successor of Muhammads political authority, Shias add that their legitimate Caliphs or Imams also succeed with some of Muhammads religious authority too.
This is all covered in a section of the article so whats the problem? Aaliyah Stevens 10:59, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
"All the Muslims agree that Allah is One, Muhammad (PBUH&HF) is His last Prophet, the Quran is His last Book for mankind, and that one day Allah will resurrect all human beings, and they will be questioned about their beliefs and actions. There are, however, disagreements between the two schools in the following two areas:
- 1. The Caliphate (successorship/leadership) which the Shia believe is the right of the Imams of Ahlul-Bayt.
- 2. The (method for deriving) Islamic rules when there is no clear Quranic statement, nor is there a Hadith upon which Muslim schools have agreed.
a sebtence incorrectly describes the akp as islamist, though this is claimed by some/many. it also states that its ultimate goal is establisment of the caliphate, this however is totally unfounded
Fair enough Aaliyah Stevens 15:13, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
This is the broadest and fairly indept overview on the Caliphate I've seen without any political hijacking Zcaky06 15:29, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi Leroy, I'll drop the federal word, although I still believe that is what Muhammad set up, because he himself (i.e.Sunnah) appointed regional governors e.g. Muadh bin Jabal to Yemen, etc who continued to govern Yemen during Abu Bakr's Caliphate. ALso if you look in Kitab-al-Imara in Sahih Muslim hadith, it talks of provincial governors. Of course the words federalism, or even democracy are not used in the Quran or Sunnah, but e.g. in the case of democracy, it is clear that Sunni Islam was at least democratic in it's insistence on elections for a caliph, the word "elections" are clearly used Anyway, you decide.
Regarding mention of the ummayad, abbasid, ottomans. The sentence says "the actual leadership of the Muslim world was held by successive caliphates to varying degrees in the Umayyad, Abbasid, and finally Ottoman dynasties." So it's not necessarily what people wanted, but what happened in reality. The Shia supported the Abbasid coup against the Ummayads, and held many high positons in the government of the Abbasid Baghdad caliphate. Most Sunni's rejected the Ummayad legitimacy some even calling Yazid a Kafir. So I think this sentence is fine.
What do think of this new lead?:
A caliphate, (from the Arabic خلافة or khilaafah), is the Islamic form of government representing the political unity and leadership of the Muslim world. The head of state's position (Caliph) being based on the notion of a successor to the Prophet Muhammad's political authority; according to Sunnis elected by the people or their representatives[1], and according to Shia chosen from the Ahl ul-Bayt. From the time of Muhammad until 1924, the actual leadership of the Muslim world was held by successive caliphates to varying degrees in the Umayyad, Abbasid, and finally Ottoman dynasties.
Aaliyah Stevens 13:41, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
A caliphate, (from the Arabic خلافة or khilaafah), is the Islamic form of government representing the political unity and leadership of the Muslim world. The head of state's position (Caliph) being based on the notion of a successor to the Prophet Muhammad's political authority; according to Sunnis elected by the people or their representatives[1], and according to Shia chosen from the Ahl ul-Bayt. From the time of Muhammad until 1924, successive caliphates were held by the Umayyad, Abbasid, and finally Ottoman dynasties.
-- Leroy65X 23:01, 23 March 2007 (UTC)A caliphate, (from the Arabic خلافة or khilaafah), is the Islamic form of government representing the political unity and leadership of the Muslim world. The head of state's position (Caliph) being based on the notion of a successor to the Prophet Muhammad's political authority; according to Sunnis elected by the people or their representatives[1], and according to Shia chosen from the Ahl ul-Bayt. From the time of Muhammad until 1924, the actual leadership of the Sunni Muslim world was held to varying degrees by successive caliphates in the Umayyad, Abbasid, and finally Ottoman dynasties. Shia considered the Imam's descended from the Prophet's nephew Ali ibn Abi Talib to be the Prophet Muhammad's successors.
Your first one sound good. It's neater, cleaner, and a better summary. The second one only repeats the point about Ahlul-bayt. Feel free to adjust. Aaliyah Stevens 16:08, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Section 2.1 identifies entities that seek to restore the caliphate, and it seems informative, But section 2.2 regarding the opinions of several high ranking U.S. officials regarding a caliphate restoration seems out of place -- more commentary on the notion than central fact, and highly granular in scope compared to the rest of the article.
Perhaps section 2.2 should be moved to a separate article regarding caliphate restoration movement and criticism? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.70.174.255 ( talk • contribs)
I've changed the subsection title to "opposition". I don't know if we need another article yet, but it does need to be expanded beyond the position of the US pres. There's likely streams of thought within Islam which are opposed to reestablishing a Caliphate (or at least the Islamists version of it). This should also be included. <<-armon->> 09:32, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Sorry if this annoys anybody, but I've removed this section because it really isn't appropriate for a WP article. We're not supposed to using primary sources, but rather reliable secondary sources. Some of this section appears to be secondary sources, but we need to work them into the main body of the text in order to give the reader an overview. <<-armon->> 09:57, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Armon, there is no wikipedia policy on not using primary sources that are used by the experts in the field. your reference to reliable secondary sources in wikipedia policy is declared at the top as NOT a policy but a guide, and even then contains no such assertion. It stays until it is discussed further and agreed, again there is no need to rush and wipe out whole swathes of an article without solid policy to guide us and without consultation. Aaliyah Stevens 12:23, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
OK secondary sources such as statemnts of traditional / classical islamic scholars?
The article of that name serves no purpose. It contains the same information as this one. Furthermore, it creates the problem of the name: is it Arab or Islamic Caliphate? Arab or Islamic Empire? Str1977 (talk) 11:43, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Please note that the "ottoman caliphate" is not called "turk Caliphate", or "turkish caliphate", so why should there be an article called "arab caliphate"?! The "arab" caliphates are appropriately called by their proper names respectively such as the "rashidun", the "fatimid", the "Abbasi" and "Ummayid". Aaliyah Stevens ( talk) 15:48, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
This is an article on the Caliphate not what Isloamic world.net and Hizb ut-Tahrir would like the caliphate to be. Economy and Banking section is pure fantasy and POV-- Leroy65X 14:42, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
where does huzb uttahreer come into that section without reference? if the material is referenced then it can be included? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.201.190.57 ( talk) 00:16, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
The section on economy and banking is generic Islamic concepts of economics. Can you deny any of the principles exist, e.g. the forbidding of riba? If all of the points are referenced, and they state who argues for what, I can't see a problem. Aaliyah Stevens ( talk) 15:50, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
I noticed that this article does not mention the Almohad Caliphate. I see no reason that given the above it should not be mentioned. It has political and religious authority. It was the Caliphate responsible for the preservation of Muslim ruel in Al Andalus for a few hundred years. It seems to me to be very important to history for that reason. -- 71.201.225.194 ( talk) 00:15, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Any discussion of Caliphate cannot exclude the Fatimid Caliphate primarily established in Eypt whose contributions are central to so many of our modern institutions. The Ismaili Fatimid Caliphate established the al-Azhar University as an innovative instituion of higher learning that is considered as a model for the modern University. Pedagogical methods and practices of the time are still prevalent in universities across the world, including the custom of donning graduation gowns. A good starting resource would be the discussions by Marshall Hodgson in "The Venture of Islam. ^^^^ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Transformer2 ( talk • contribs) 15:11, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
Caliphate#End of the Caliphate. Omar did claim authority over all Muslims and the statement that he is no longer the head of the Taliban has no evidence behind it. 202.169.183.252 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 11:01, 4 November 2008 (UTC).
Imam al-Mu'minīn (إمام المؤمنين), now when I cut and paste this, the word order changes ! Have a look on the main page and the "iman" bit is first. How does that work then ? Eregli bob ( talk) 06:33, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
This has been aded to several section:
This section may contain material
not related to the topic of the article. |
The sections at the end of the article have much material that might qualify as "nice things that happened during some of the caliphates," or "how an ideal Islamic poltical/economic system might be run", but that don't belong in an article on the caliphate.
An example at random: "Early forms of proto-capitalism and free markets were present in the Caliphate". This belong in an islamic hsitory article perhaps but not this one. -- BoogaLouie ( talk) 23:44, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
woah!!! i am legend id a good movie! caliphs made that as well, even though thats hard to beleive —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.100.169.26 ( talk) 15:55, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
A concern on the intro: It seems to me to presume significant understanding of the subject matter and is not sufficiently simple enough for general audiences (i.e. audiences who might know nothing about Islam and its history). On principle, the introduction of any article should be very accessible to all audiences whereas some sub-sections might be a little more involved.
The current intro reads
For somebody completely unfamiliar with the term it is difficult to glean that this is referring to a form of government. Perhaps something more along the lines of the following might be appropriate.
Note that the last paragraph is essentially the same except that I reordered clauses slightly. The paragraph comes a little close to sounding like it is saying that the caliphate is the only valid type of government for Muslims. Reordering the clauses clarifies this a little.
-- Mcorazao ( talk) 21:02, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
The beginning of the article transcribes خليفة as "khilāfa". I don't think that this is right. The arabic word consists of the 5 letters kh,l,i,f,a. The vowel between kh and l is short (I guess, a short a), the vowel between l and f is a long i: ي
194.24.138.3 ( talk) 20:09, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
I noticed that certain Muslim writers have compared to Caliphate to the medieval Papacy and its associated Papal States, with the present Holy See/Vatican being a contemporary extension of that Papacy. It would be interesting if we could have a footnote on these kinds of comparisons somewhere in the article. [8] ADM ( talk) 10:38, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
The text has been copied and pasted from Hizb-Ut-Tahrir literature —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.229.242.53 ( talk) 14:24, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
I wanted information on when the Arab empire spread to Africa, there's no such information available. This article seems to focus completely on the rulers and not on the actions of the Empire at all. Can we please get an Empire Article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.158.199.138 ( talk) 08:22, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Thhere was no such thing as an "Arab Empire" it was always multi-ethnic, and Muslim, not Arab. The Abbasids were largely dominated by Persians, the Ottomans were Turks. Only the Ummayads were Arab, and even then in Spain the people were spanish, and ruled by Spaniards of Ummayad descent. It is like describing the secular British Empire as the Christian Empire, only being the opposite concept Aaliyah Stevens ( talk)
the article of arab Empire MUST be remade. this is rediculous, the topic, arab empire, is completely differen from the topic caliphet. the caliphet is a system, while the Arab empire, was a state. plus does that mean we shoule eliminate the ottoman empire? Arab League User ( talk) 23:29, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
The text of this section states that Muslim rule spread through Persia under the Umayyads, but the diagram shows Persia already within the area controlled by the earlier Rashidun Caliphs. 67.164.98.127 ( talk) 07:01, 30 October 2009 (UTC) Mark Hein 10/31/2009
There is one correction and one commentary. 1. The term "Parliament" is not equivalent to majlis as shura since the members did not have authorities in legislating a law. They only function as bureau to collect citizens' claims, complaints, critics and advisement. 2.Quoting: "Islamists from the Muslim Brotherhood the largest Islamist movement and main oppostion in Egypt, argue that Shura in the modern age is simply called democracy, and that Islam and the caliphate system is inherently democratic without the need for it to conform to western political notions [2]."
My remark: Caliphate IS NOT democracy. Caliphate is sharia-cracy which lack of its "act as divine" power attributed to democracy. In democracy parliament make subjective divine-level law applied to other people (hence they act as gods, Islam stringently forbid a moslem act as god and its included as apostasy and violate "ISLAMIC HUMAN RIGHT"). Caliphate IS NOT necessarily theocracy, for the same above reason (caliph is not a sin-free,god avatar).
NB: 1. Sharia is a law revealed by God Allah to human through God's messengers-Muhammad being the last one,transmitted directly or indirectly by angel Jibril; in complete form Shariah al Islamiyah (loosely translated as: Islamic law). 2. I'm apologizing for broken English. Celestaion ( talk) 12:00, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
See discussion at Talk:Islamic Golden Age#Claims on life expectancy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Syncategoremata ( talk • contribs) 12:05, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Hey, can i collaborate with you on your admirable endeavours to present the reality of Islam? Can i have your email address to work with you Aaliyah? Thanks Samiprince ( talk) 15:21, 4 August 2010 (UTC)Sami
Can we get this article edited by a native English speaker? I didn't get much past the opening paragraphs because it was impossible to follow. Just one example: viceregency is spelled wrong, and it doesn't mean "caretaker". In fact Vice-regent, which I think is the word the writer was looking for, doesn't even mean “care taker”, it means someone who rules on behalf of a regent (king). On a similar note the word Caliphate in English, is derived from the word Caliph in English, which in turn is derived from Arabic. The article suggests a direct derivation, as if "-ate, -at" is not a common word ending in English, as in "triumvirate" or "Secretariat". More importantly watch the run-on sentences!!! They are a chore to make sense of. I hope someday to be able to read beyond the opening paragraph into an article fit for Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.16.146.33 ( talk) 16:07, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
There's this word "dicate" in the intro which I think has no meaning or none that I could find anyway. Could somebody please correct or explain better? Thanks 94.71.132.77 ( talk) 14:31, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm a little troubled by the line: "From the time of Muhammad until 1924, it provided varying degrees of unity among the diverse nations that adopted Islam." This could be taken to mean that all the Muslim nations of the world were politically unified. But large portions of the Muslim world were never part of the Ottoman Empire at all.Sylvain1972 17:48, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Martin Rinehart here, and please accept my apologies if these remarks are not in good form. I believe that there is a confusion here caused by two distinct meanings of "caliphate". Some apply the term to the governance of the Muslim community immediately after the death of Muhammad sometimes referring specifically to the period of the first three caliphs. Others apply the term to a principle in the Muslim religion by which the Muslim world, and by implication the entire world, should be governed. Indeed there seems to be a dispute regarding the validity of the former (the period of the first caliphs) as representative of the latter. I leave that debate to those who understand its subtleties. This article, however, will be wobbly until we agree on the subject. Perhaps we need two articles? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MartinRinehart ( talk • contribs) 19:33, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
we have long been discussing this for a pretty long period of time now... Caliphate is a Religious sytem ruling that tha Arab Empire adopted... and then the Ottoman Empire... yet Clearly the Article about an Arab Empire was removed/redirected to here... regardless of the Fact that their WAS an Arab Empire... that was refferred to as the Empire of the Arabs, which with no doubt, like most otehr empires, included many ethnicities, but was primarly ruled, by Arabs, or Arabized people, thus called the Arab Empire, that stretched from the Rashidunes, and ended with the Mamluks, who had Turkish Origins (most of them), yet where Arabized, and Ethnically swiched to arabs, by adopting the language, culture, traditions, and all these things that make up a certain ethnic group... anyways... we need a vote to either recreate Arab Empire, and leave Caliphate as a Political System... or not...
For
the Article wil definatly need to include the minorities of this Arab Empire, and how they were treated, and talk about dieseases, and freedom of speech, and many more things that the Article of Caliphate would be inapprorpiate to discuss in...
basically, the Ottoman Empire has a seperate Article, while the Arab Empire doesnt... just like the Chinese Empire, with differant Dynasties, has its own usefull article, the Arab Empire needs one as well... Arab League User ( talk) 00:49, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Against
Arab League User ( talk) 00:49, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Against
There was no such thing as an Arab empire. The very definition of an Arab is itself under dispute, as it was only Islam which 'Arabized' people, who otherwise were egyptians, berbers, Iraqis, persians, phonecians, syriac, and nubians. The prophet Mohammad said that anyone who speaks Arabic is an Arab, hence Salman Al-Farsi was an Arab too. The empires of the Abbasids was largely a persian empire that spoke Arabic for religious reasons, the Mamluks and ottomans were the same. The basis for all of the so called "Arab Empires" was Islam. Without Islam they could not claim legitimacy for ruling, or expansion. Their very reason for existence was Islam, after all, the Rashidun period was ruled by the prophet Muhammad's disciples. You will find many claiphs who were non-Arab in origin, but you will not find a single non-Muslim Claiph, the very thought is an oxymoron. Hence the term claiphate and not Arab Empire, as the basis of the state was Islam. Keep in mind that the great scientific achievements of this era and the so called Arab or Islamic golden era were during the Abbasid Caliphate period. Many of the great scientists were not Arab, and of the 4 great masters of Sunni schools of law, only Imam Shafi'i was a true ethnic Arab, even Al-Ghazali was not an Arab, nor were great scientists like Al-Khwarizmi. Aaliyah Stevens ( talk) 19:29, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
"The basis for all of the so called "Arab Empires" was Islam. Without Islam they could not claim legitimacy for ruling, or expansion." Could not, or should not? Chinggis Khan (aka Genghis) won quite a large empire simply because he could. It is commonly called the Mongolian empire. I have heard of the Islamic empire, but never the Arab empire. I think the latter in error writing for a Western, English-speaking audience. (And you are right about Al-Khwarizmi, but he's miles off topic and probably Persian, no?) — Preceding unsigned comment added by MartinRinehart ( talk • contribs) 20:12, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
I come to this topic as a complete novice, so forgive my igorance. We are told near the start of the article that after the Rashidun "period", there were four Caliphates "The first dynasty was the Umayyad. This was followed by the Abbasid, the Fatimid, and finally the Ottoman Dynasty." However, the individual articles on the Umayyads and Abbasids state categorically in their opening sections that they were the second and third Caliphates, with the Rashidun as the first and the Ottomans as the fourth and last. I realise that the issues are not completely clear, and that they are discussed in the articles, but I think that it looks bad to have very important articles contradicting each other. Perhaps a little re-wording to make the claims made more qualified would help. Tigerboy1966 ( talk) 00:21, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
The complaint has been made by an anon who deleted several sentences that "This article is about the caliphate system, not Taleban's emirate system or Qutb's hair splitting on democracy, or how democracy is defined."
I can't agree. Opposing democracy and elections as un-Islamic is hardly hair splitting, and Qutb is a major if not the major influence among Sunni Islamists for whom reviving the caliphate is a very big deal.
OTOH, claiming that the Taleban's system was an "emirate system" not a "caliphate system," does seems like hair splitting. The Taliban amir was titled Amir-ul Momineen, the traditional title of the Caliph by his supporters, i.e. he was considered a caliph by his supporters. -- Leroy65X 16:52, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
YOu need to provide evidence that Mullah Omar was considered Caliph by his supporterd not simply an Emir. And Nabhani / Qutb did not oppose elections, Qutb opposed democracy, there is a differnce between democracy and elections. look it up. 82.26.71.11 22:08, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Would the disputants kindly explain the relevance of this dispute to the topic of the article? Many thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MartinRinehart ( talk • contribs) 19:43, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
The section on the Taliban, like on the Ahmadiyya, requires removal. The Taliban is an extremely small, effectively defunct organization. Citing it here gives undue weight. - Farhan000 ( talk) 14:40, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
Under the 4.3 Shi'a belief section, there is a paragraph describing how Dawoodi Bohras have unity, common culture and traditions across the globe despite coming from different countries. It begins as follows:
"The same was philosophy of Fatimid, and same being literally followed by Dawoodi Bohra's Dai in absence and on behalf of their hidden Imam.This is the result that Bohra have unity amongst them all over the world."
While the information in these paragraphs may be an accurate representation of the Bohra community's unity, it has nothing to do with the topic of Caliphate. The only point that is relevant to the subject of this article is that Bohras (and Shias) Shia group of Ismaili/ Fatimid/ Dawoodi Bohra believe in Imamate principle mentioned above, but they need not be ruler.
I have already tagged this part of the paragraph as straying from the main article. If no one objects, I shall go ahead and remove the irrelevant lines from the article in order to keep it to contrite.
Sfali16 ( talk) 05:56, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
According to Sunni belief caliph by the Muslim community. Sunni Muslims developed the belief that the caliph is a temporal political ruler, appointed to rule within the bounds of Islamic law
'Objection' - how caliph is elected by islamic community as there is no practical islamic state now a days.
According to Shia believe Caliph should be elected on the basis of majority opinion, shura or election.
'Objection' - If caliph is elected by this method it would be Democracy (election} which is Shirk is Islam as ruler selected by people not by islamic method —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.152.33.150 ( talk) 14:51, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
First of all, allow me to apologize to Runehelmet for reverting his edit without asking him about the recent dispute first - that wasn't prudent and it wouldn't have hurt me to simply bring things here first. I have returned the material which he felt should be included and tried to tone down the language of my edit as well. Obviously, if any other editors still take issue they are free to also be
WP:BOLD and make necessary changes. I also hope we can hammer this out here and reach a compromise on the best way to word things.
My position - and perhaps my wording was non-neutral and thus didn't make my intent clear - was to represent what is the traditionally held position by Sunni scholars. Yes, the Caliph is chosen and elected by Shura, but there are conditions in the Sharia law other than being chosen. Ruling justly, ruling by the Sharia and not man-made laws, and so forth. In early Islam, one condition which was never contested regarding this elected ruler was that he be a descendant of Quraysh. I'm not an expert on Islamic law, but I am a hobbyist, and I have been tutored by half a dozen experts in Islamic studies. Prior to the Ottoman Empire, nobody claimed a Caliph could be non-Qurashi. Even the Fatimid and Almohad Caliphates had to fabricate made-up lineages traced back to Qurashi sub-tribes in order to legitimize their rule. I knew this for a long time, but I never had an interest in researching secondary sources for Wikipedia. While researching something else, I came upon a good one with page number and everything, so I included it.
To Runehelmet's credit, he brought up some good counterpoints but in order to avoid misrepresenting his position, I think it's better to let him express himself. I will emphasize again that I am sorry for reverting without clarifying first, and per WP:OWN any other editor is still free to revert my own edits and then explain here why. I will respond, of course, but I just want to make it clear that I was acting in good faith and it wasn't my intention to brush off the concerns of others. MezzoMezzo ( talk) 04:04, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
I could have sworn that the last time I checked the articles on these two caliphates, the only differenc was that the Abbasids had no control over thr Iberian Peninsula due to the Ummayads controlling it. Am I wrong? Keeby101 ( talk) 17:52, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
Alwihasan84 (
talk)
00:07, 7 July 2010 (UTC)As we know that a state needs to accomplish three de facto and one de jure requirements to be established, as for Islamic State. But for the Khilafat, there are not necessary. Khilafat is just an Islamic organization lead by a Caliph who is also an Imam, to regulate the law of Islam to it's believer only, so the Shari'a can completely be implemented. The organizational mission is ultimately meant to manage economical activities (mu'ammala) of the members, in which is the muslims. Also, Khilafat only need just one, while Islamic State could be more.
As the consequences of this facts, Khilafat need not require a domain and a legality from another countries in the world, it can be established anytime in any place. It is not a threat or a subversive movement as it's only an economic organization, coated by Islamic Rules. Memberships of Khilafat is limited to muslims, so the Islamic Law is not meant to be forced to another believers in any way and any standpoint.
Da'wa as a medium of Islamic View propagation in this modern time thus not be targeted to non-muslims, because the world now has a different situations, it's different from the old times which was an embryonic phase of Islam. Now, Islam has grown vast and steady. In the old times, jihad by a form of holy war was only necessary to protect the persons who do da'wa from any threat from the foreigners, but now, it's not necessary.
Islamic Defense is divided by two purpose: to disciplining the implementation of Shari'a Islam among the muslims, and to protect the trade from any threat.
Don't we compare Khilafat to Islamic Dynasties, it's absolutely not a Khilafat, but an Islamic State! The leaders were not to be called as Calpih, they were Kings. The best suite for Khilafat was in the time of Rashidun period. In that time, all my descriptions of the Khilafat will be easily found.
Sirius86 ( talk) 17:19, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
Israel have been warning of the emergence of a Global Caliphate in 21st Century, also CIA report released shows an inevitable reestablishment of the caliphate. the following article provides more info on it. http://thetruereligion.wordpress.com/2012/02/25/global-caliphate-revived-a-message-from-the-21st-century-caliphate/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.54.67.128 ( talk) 13:40, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
there were many problems with that article that made it uncitable, including the fact it has recently been taken down for violating terms of use from the site. As well most of the claims of a global caliphate are from non academic sources, we need those to prove what you speak of not random blog posts from people SandeepSinghToor ( talk) 22:15, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
This article is totally POV It follows an ideological narrative that claims a continuity between distinct and separate states. It is a travesty of article – an example of religious people re-writing of history to fit their ideological interpretation of history. Modern scholarship shows that Islam was NOT fully formed at the time of Arab conquest but evolved with Arab empire. The Mamluk & Ottoman states were not continuation of an Islamic state but new states that happened to Islamic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.217.200.42 ( talk) 00:09, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
According to the evidence Islam was mostly formed however was going through a relationship process where they didn't know how to implement religious law etc. Many of the contributors to this page including me are not Muslim and many are not religious, I see how you may see it as a biased article but you have to understand this point in Islamic history was a boom time like the renissabnce was for europe, there were many successes and advances from previous times as well as negative effects, we list both but neither the PErsians nor the Byzantines they expanded into where saintly states themselves. As for the continuity most of the first Caliphs were continuing with people inheriting or seizing it from other people or families, with the mongol invasion he was killed however the Ottomans seized the title of Caliph for the Sultan with the capture of Arabian territory, this is clearly written and shows there was a period of a few hundred years when no one really had the title. The role and interpretation of Islam changed over time however Islam was mostly formed by the 1000 year mark by most scholars opinions, after all if you have sources that fit feel free to add information or contradict sentences from one source with a scholar that disagrees with the other source SandeepSinghToor ( talk) 22:22, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
User:Rajkumararslan, you are invited to discuss here why you would like to keep the country infobox. Here are my two cents: Caliphate was never a country or a state. It is a form of governance, as clearly stated in the article. Secondly, adding this huge infobox destroys the existing structure of the page, shifting many images out of place. --Peace world 14:18, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
Teaksmitty ( talk) 04:54, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
Well the closest comparison would be the pope however Caliphs do not claim to (generally) be able to communicate with God or be his representative but rather the head of the religion whose opinion on the Quran would be listened to, as for an ideology I don't know what it would be classified accordingly too as a Caliph does not even have to be head of state so it could just be a title held by someone in a nation who is respected by Religious followers, I would try an academic search premier for the Caliphate system if I were you to see if any scholars have provided details as to what the system could be classified as but since the Caliphate is so complex I don't think I could give you a straightforward answer other than think of a Pope like system in Islam or like the Theocracy of Iran where the ruler does not claim to talk to god but is supposed to be respected for opinion in religious terms, either of those could help you gain the answer you are looking for — Preceding unsigned comment added by SandeepSinghToor ( talk • contribs) 22:01, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Why is Muhammad frequently referred to as "Prophet". Seems there is some religious contamination in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.88.203.41 ( talk) 02:47, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
I agree with above post, its mostly a case of saying the prophet muhammad as his title not because of religious bias but because there are thousands of mohammeds and thats sort of how muslims and non muslims denote that one similar to saint nicholas over just nicholas — Preceding unsigned comment added by SandeepSinghToor ( talk • contribs) 22:06, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Ahmadiyya are not considered Muslims by 99.9 percent of Muslim population beside propaganda section of British government. Ahmadiyya don't even live in Muslim majority countries...Its like establishing a United states government outside of its territory. Retarded "Ahmadiyya Caliphate, 1908-present" section should be relocated to its own page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Re-reconquista ( talk • contribs) 18:27, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
I agree they are not muslims by anyway. So this section must be removed from caliphate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Islamhistory123 ( talk • contribs) 23:50, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Just take it out, it's not really a caliphate, which would have religious AND political power, and would be chosen by religious scholars, not self-declared, no matter what the heretics say. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.229.233.34 ( talk) 16:21, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
While the language used here is reprehensible, the point is valid. Citing the Ahmadiyya "khilafah" is gives Undue weight. This requires removal or relocation. - Farhan000 ( talk) 14:39, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
With clarity around the caliphate this year -- being a temporal rule or an archaic word for empire or kingdom -- the Ahmadiyya caliphate clearly does not qualify to be included in this list. The Ahmadiyya caliphate is more akin to the spiritual 'khalifas' of Sufi orders, where a disciple carries on the tradition of the teacher. Also, the page Khalifatul Masih and its link to Caliph are appropriate for the role of the Ahmadiyya 'khalifa'. Regardless of whether the Ahmadiyya are Muslims are not, and whether their leader is called 'khalifa', the word 'Caliphate' has almost always meant temporal political rule AliJaana ( talk) 03:54, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Please read /info/en/?search=Talk:Islamic_State_of_Iraq_and_the_Levant#Caliph_-_Caliphate_-_.22Worldwide_Caliphate.22. -- Why should I have a User Name? ( talk) 19:46, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
the expressed will of Boko Haram and isis/isil/is et al is a new caliphate. this long-dormant word has become headline material in the last year or so only because of the new caliphate movement. map images see these offsite examples: bit.ly/1vcPzrf , bit.ly/1rkdCGW , bit.ly/1qmwgY1 is this mentioned anywhere in the article? if so, i missed it. is the apparent exclusion of the new caliphate movement a POV issue? Cramyourspam ( talk) 14:55, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
A caliphate is an Islamic politico-religious leadership institution (or, by metonomy, a state legitimated by such an institution), while a caliph is a person who sits at the top of such an institution. These concepts overlap significantly and, as far as I can think, always occur together—if there's a caliph, then by definition there's a caliphate too. The current versions of these two articles overlap too: both cover (1) roots in the Qur'an and the hadith, (2) historical caliphates including the Rashidun, the Umayyads, the Abbasids, the Fatimids, and so on, and (3) more recently claims including the Ottomans, the Ahmadiyyas, and ISIS.
So it would save a lot of effort to merge them. Caliphate should be the destination since it has the broader title, and happens to be more comprehensive as well. — Neil P. Quinn ( talk) 20:54, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
The two are distinct, one is an individual, the other is a system of governance Aaliyah Stevens 18:53, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
What exactly is the point of separating the two? --
Arabist
22:20, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
The separation of Caliph and Caliphate were rather unfortunate, since all previous discussion (46 kb) is now at talk:Caliph while the article redirects here, making all that discussion virtually unavailable. This is most unfortunate and needs to be solved by merging the talk pages or by upholding separate articles. I personally believe that the latter would be the most reasonable solution.
Peter Isotalo 13:41, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't have a problem with having a seperate entry for 'Caliph', actually that's how i expected it to be. Just as there is a difference between a republic and a president, there is a difference between a Caliph, and a Caliphate. Aaliyah Stevens 09:55, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
KazakhPOl, Please stop deleting this sentence, it is not my POV, it is giving the referenced opinion of others, if you want more citations of this view I can provide it!
"Commentators have criticised this approach, claiming that George Bush is seeking to replace the red menace with a new illusiory 'green menace' with an Appeal to fear. [1] " Aaliyah Stevens 17:12, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry, NBC are also referenced and commented on this isse, buzzle is just an extra reference, NBC alone are credible. I am not trying to cast Bush negatively, I am presenting his fears, and criticism of his fears of a caliphate, both which are referenced and relevant Aaliyah Stevens 10:08, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
This entire "reestablishment" section is badly in need of a POV flag. It reads completely from the POV of someone who is Muslim and cannot see how literally anyone else on earth would be deeply troubled by even the slightest hint of a desire to have a "global, pan-national, Islamic society under Islamic law" I mean seriously. The article makes any critics of this alarming concept out to be war-mongers, makes the claim that "many Muslims view the war on terror as a war on Islam" while conveniently leaving out the fact that "many Muslims" have felt they were "at war with the west" for most of the 20th century and generally reads as a subtle validation that the "global caliphate" is just fine. It's all so subtle that I'm not even sure how it can be fixed, but it certainly is not scholarly. Not that I'm surprised given the politics that are readily apparent in nearly any wiki entry that deals with radical movements.
I was unaware that this article had been split off. It seems to be a sneaky attempt to create an article for the propagation of Hizb ut Tahrir doctrine. This article, in its current state, is a disgrace to WP. Zora 20:57, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Anonymouse user please do not delete that. Aaliyah Stevens 10:39, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
I am sorry but this article needs to be sourced. Most sentences in this article are not sourced at the moment. You might want to use some sources used in other articles such as Islam. -- Aminz 07:40, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
W.R.T the use of the T at the end of Khilaafah, it is a taa marbuta which is not pronounced in arabic, it is a silent letter, and actually used as an H unless joining with an adjective. Aaliyah Stevens 10:33, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Listen Leroy, I have no gripes with you, I don't know you so let's be nice. Firstly I am a reasonably fluent Arabic speaker, and I can read and generally understand the Quran, please don't challenge me on this one, you will embarrass yourself. If you read what I said, again, "W.R.T the use of the T at the end of Khilaafah, it is a taa marbuta which is not pronounced in arabic, it is a silent letter,... unless joining with an adjective.". The only people who pronounce the 'taa marbuta' at the end of the word, when it is not joined with another word, are Urdu & Persian derived language speakers (Indian Subcontinent etc), in the Urdu language, Khilafah is Khilaafat. And if you want to use Google hits as a voter, you claimed that "Khilaafah gets 596 google hits. Add the taa marbuta for Khilaafat and you get 1,780 hits. I'd say you were outvoted.". Actually, if you do a search for the word Khilafah, you get 189,000 which outvotes Khilaafat by 100 times, and doubles the hits Khilafat gets. If that isn't evidence enough, read this [4] where is does not pronounce the taa marbuta on the end of a word (unless joining with another adjective). Aaliyah Stevens 10:33, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Arabic is primarily a phonetic language, and when we transliterate we do so phonetically to help the reader pronounce the words correctly. The only people in the world who pronounce Khilaafah as Khilaafat, are non-arabic speakers of Persian derived languages like Urdu. You will find that Khilaafat and Shariat is only used by non-Arabic (probably pakistani and urdu) websites. They also, instead of using an "Al" in the middle of words, use "e" e.g. Masjid al-Haram is correct, but they will say Masjid-e-Haram. Try googling that and see the results. Anyway, it's resolved now. Aaliyah Stevens 11:31, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
And community is a poor translation of Ummah.
Please do not argue these points if you don't know arabic. Aaliyah Stevens 11:49, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
OK, your own quotes says Ummah can mean, nation, Muslim diaspora, or worldwide/entire Community of the Believers. Shall we agree instead to use the word Ummah or 'global Islamic community'? Community on it's own sounds like my local neighborhood watch scheme :-) Aaliyah Stevens 11:02, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Let's just use Ummah? It can explain itself in the link? Aaliyah Stevens 11:32, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Apologies- I have never used Wikipedia before and dont know how to add comments- im sure im doing this wrong... I just wanted to point out an error in the article, the Caliphate is not a 'federal' state, as its ruling is singular, as opposed to a federal structure where certain aspects are centrally governed (foreign policy, some federal taxes etc), but much remains out of the remit of the federal government, which is alien to to caliphate as the caliph has complete authority, even local area wali's report directly to him. I think this phrase should be taken out as it is incorrect.
Yasir
Salams Yasir, to prove you point you need to cite or provide evidence of this. The simple definition of
federal is that a number of states get together to form a union. See the article on
federalism and let us know how the Caliphate doesn't match up to the definition.
Aaliyah Stevens
18:06, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Salaams, and thanks for replying to my comment. You could describe federalism as a union of states, but this on its own is not exactly correct, as there are many 'unions' which are not federal. For example the EU is a union, but is not at all federal and has never been referred to as such. This is because federalism has a distinct aspect, which is referred to in the second sentence of the Wiki article on federalism, ie that it is a union in which soveriegnity is divided between a central authority and each individual state- this is the key factor. This is not at all descriptive of an Islamic Caliphate, which in fact is by definition Unitary, ie all authority is centralised. (could you add a link to the wiki article on 'unitary state' as Im not sure how to do this, but it describes the differences between federal and unitary)
The fact that individual states can have its 'own' standing army in its borders is not related, the army is still under the authority of the Caliph, not the local Governor.
I hope this clarifies my point- regarding your request to cite evidence, what kind of evidence would be sifficient? Any classical book on Islamic Ruling will tell you this, Muwardi's 'Ahkam As-Sultanyiah' is a good example, but I do not know if there is an online reference for this. I think you can probably get Nabhani's 'Ruling System' book, but I would have to do some Googling first.
Yasir
Salams Yasir. Nabhani and hizb ut-tahrir are not a primary source for this article. I've got Ahkaam as-Sultaniyya and nowhere does it say in that book that the Khilafaah is not a federal government, in fact it indicates the opposite. I see your argument against the use of federalism based on these points:
1. Yes the wiki article does say "federalism is also used to describe a system of government in which sovereignty is constitutionally divided between a central governing authority and constituent political units (like states or provinces)". The key point here is ALSO, this is not exclusively the only form of federalism. 2. Not all unions are federal, I agree, e.g. the EU is not federal but for reasons which your argument is the opposite to; that 'because the Khilaafah's government is centrally strong, it can't be a federal'. The reason why the EU is not (yet) a federation is because a central government is not strong enough, and has no central constitution binding sovereignty on all nations, but when it is and will have a binding central constitution and basic law it will be a federation.
If you look at the definition of federal:
The fact that the khilaafah is a "union of states that recognizes the sovereignty of the central authority" of the Khaleef, which is "surrendered to" but that "residuary powers" remain distributed (to varying degrees in history) with the provinces or "emirs or Walis" is sufficient proof that the Khilafah is a federation with a strong central authority. Aaliyah Stevens 11:49, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
"Toward the end of the first century of Abbasid rule, the caliph was still in control of large parts of his realm, but his empire was not as extensive as it had been at the beginning of the dynasty, and it was rapidly shrinking. Some of the provinces were already becoming independent in all but name, and at the heart of the empire, the caliph had to cope with the increasing power of a new military force, Turkish `slave soldiers` drawn from the lands of the Central Asian steppe, force that in later decades contributed substantially to the political and economic weakness of the Abbasid state. This pattern of a shrinking state and the caliph's increasing dependence on military generals was to continue for much of subsequent Abbasid history." (italics added, Encyclopedia of Islam and Muslim World (2004) p.120)
Federalism at work?
"... during the Buyid occupation of Baghdad in the 9th and 10th centuries," the Caliphate "suffered the humiliation of being dominated by Shi'ite rulers." (from Historical Dictionary of Islam (2001))
"The Seljuk sultans and their wazirs were often far more powerful than the caliph or his officials, but they ... continued to be formally subservient to the caliph." (Encyclopedia of Islam and Muslim World (2004), p.120)
"Not all the caliphs during this period were equally helpless." There was al-Qadir, Al-Qa'im, al-Nasir, etc. "But such revivals were sporadic and they did not do very much to seriously stem the effects of the long decline the caliphate had already undergone." (Encyclopedia of Islam and Muslim World (2004), p.120-1)
The Ottomans sultans were caliphs, or at least proclaimed themselves caliphs, so the power and title were united there. But they also had trouble from provinces that were "independent in all but name." Muhammad Ali of Egypt, their titular viceroy, invaded Syria and defeated their armies in 1832 and 1839.
Was that an example of "federal government"? Or of the center weakening and local government taking power? -- Leroy65X 22:12, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
The deliberate division of power, legislation, and sovereignty is not the sole definition of federalism. As I have shown above the notion of a federal state is not a such a rigid, narrow political concept, but more like a noun to describe any government that has an overall central authority, and states or provinces within it, with their own subservient (to varying degrees) authorities or governors. The ideal, which was roughly manifested by the first four Caliphs, had provincial governors, with their own armies, and a remit to rule, however the Caliph has overall authority. E.G during Umar's Caliphate, Sa`ad ibn Abi Waqqas was governor of Iraq, Shurahbil ibn Hasana was governor of Jordan, Abu Ubaidah ibn al-Jarrah was governor of Syria, then Muawiya ibn Abu Sufyan was made governor of Syria, Amr ibn al-A'as was governor of Palestine, then Egypt. Proof for the fact that governors had their own powers within thier provinces, but that the Caliph was, in theory, the ultimate authority, is clear from a discussion between Muawiyya the governor of Syria, and Umar the Caliph: Muhammad ibn Jarir al-Tabari, a 10th century Sunni Islamic scholar writes:
Umar was in Damascus and Muawiya came to see him every day – mornings and evenings – bedecked in regal outfit, with splendidly caparisoned mounts and escorts. When Umar commented, rather acidly, upon his pageantry, he said that Syria was swarming with Roman spies, and it was necessary to impress them with the "glory" of Islam. His pageantry, he said, was only the outward emblem of that glory - the glory of Islam.
But Umar was not convinced, and remarked: "This is a trap laid by the slick and guileful man."
Muawiya answered: "Then I will do whatever you say, O Commander of the Faithful." ( History of the Prophets and Kings, Volume VI).
Leter Muawiyyah rebelled against Caliph Ali with the Army of the state/province of Syria:
(Previous caliph) Uthman's murder and the events surrounding it were a symptom, and also became a cause, of civil strife on a large scale. Ali (now Caliph) felt that the tragic situation was mainly due to inept governors. He therefore dismissed all the governors from Uthman's era and appointed new ones. All the governors excepting Muawiya, the governor of Syria, submitted to his orders. ..... Thus a battle between the army of Ali and the supporters of Aisha (backed by Muawiyya) took place. Aisha later realized her error of judgment and never forgave herself for it.
The situation in Hijaz (the province of Arabia in which Mecca and Medina are now located) became so troubled that Ali moved his capital to Iraq. Muawiya now openly rebelled against Ali and a fierce battle was fought between their armies. This battle was inconclusive, and Ali had to accept (& compromise with) the de-facto government of Muawiya in Syria (while maintaining his caliphate's authority).
However, even though the era of Ali's caliphate was marred by civil strife, he nevertheless introduced a number of reforms, particularly in the levying and collecting of revenues. [6]
Significantly WILLIAM MUIR/T. H. WEIR in "THE CALIPHATE, ITS RISE, DECLINE, AND FALL" A NEW AND REVISED EDITION, CHAPTER 1: DEATH OF MUHAMMAD, ELECTION OF ABU BEKR; Section "Abu Bekr's inaugural address" state that the Caliphate was like a "Presidency... which was ever in Islam the sign of chief command, whether in civil or in military life." Aaliyah Stevens 17:11, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
This is the opening sentence of your article:
This is a primary characteristic of the caliphate? If the world Muslim community unites a chooses a leader but that leader does not set up "federal" regional commands where his lieutenents rule with their own armies, then its not a caliphate?
Earlier I said the caliphate had regional rulers and armies because it was common for authority to devolve to local authorities when the power of central authority weakens. It looks like I was wrong and you are right that some of these regional authorities and armies were there from the gitgo. They didn't need any weakening of the center.
So that leaves two issues:
Federalism is a relatively modern concept, along with representative parliamentary democracy, popular sovereignty, universal education/literacy, etc. It implies a constitution. It implies central and local legislatures. And it implies the local residents, not conquering military leaders, are the ones who run these states/territorial units.
Federalism - "a constitutional system of government" where "law-making powers are divided between a central legislative body and divided between a central legislative body and legislatures in the states or territorial units making up the federation." (Blackwell Encyclopaedia of Political Thought, Blackwell Reference, 1987)
The objection has been raised by an editor that Shia do not believe in a Caliphate, but an Imamate. Firstly in arabic the terms Khilafah, Imamah, and Sultaniyah can refer to the same thing when referring to government, the only difference being that Imamah & sultaniyya can be subsets of Khilafaah, either as provinces or as a general term. The Shia believe in a Khilafah, but argue that only one of their 11 infallible Imams descended from Ali (12 in total) can be leader, and in the absence of these Imams classical Shia thought accepted refraining from politics and leaving the Khilaafah alone. Recently a new development called wilayet
I suggest you read up on Imamah (Shia doctrine), before messing with this article.
I have asked and do have many Shia friends. I didn't claim that you said Shia didn't believe the caliphate existed??? What I am saying is similar to you: Shia believe that only one of their 12 Imams can be a Caliph, AKA Imam. When a Caliph is one of the Shia Imams, as the 4th Caliph ‘Alī ibn Abī Tālib was, they consider it a legitimate Caliphate or Imamate. Please see Imamah (Shia doctrine). This article already addresses the Shia point of view under the "Electing or appointing a Caliph" section. What are we disagreeing about? Shias are "interested in the caliphate as "successors to the Prophet Muhammad's political authority" if the caliph is one of their Imams,
they believe the first 3 caliphs were usurpers, but not the 4th.
For example, just because you may believe GW Bush usurped power from Al Gore, so you reject the legitimacy of Bush, it doesn't mean you reject the whole institution of the US government,
hence they support and believed in the Caliphate of their first Imam Ali. For shia, when there is no Imam, they accept the notion of Vilayat-e Faqih in their provinces,
as your quote from "Historical Dictionary of Islam" alludes to,
or they refrain from politics, but they differ about this. Please do read up on Vilayat-e Faqih, and Imamah (Shia doctrine), and the first Caliph Shia supported ‘Alī ibn Abī Tālib. My point is that to claim that the Caliphate is purely a Sunni concept is wrong. The common denominator between Sunni and Shia is that the Caliph is at least the successor of Muhammads political authority, Shias add that their legitimate Caliphs or Imams also succeed with some of Muhammads religious authority too.
This is all covered in a section of the article so whats the problem? Aaliyah Stevens 10:59, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
"All the Muslims agree that Allah is One, Muhammad (PBUH&HF) is His last Prophet, the Quran is His last Book for mankind, and that one day Allah will resurrect all human beings, and they will be questioned about their beliefs and actions. There are, however, disagreements between the two schools in the following two areas:
- 1. The Caliphate (successorship/leadership) which the Shia believe is the right of the Imams of Ahlul-Bayt.
- 2. The (method for deriving) Islamic rules when there is no clear Quranic statement, nor is there a Hadith upon which Muslim schools have agreed.
a sebtence incorrectly describes the akp as islamist, though this is claimed by some/many. it also states that its ultimate goal is establisment of the caliphate, this however is totally unfounded
Fair enough Aaliyah Stevens 15:13, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
This is the broadest and fairly indept overview on the Caliphate I've seen without any political hijacking Zcaky06 15:29, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi Leroy, I'll drop the federal word, although I still believe that is what Muhammad set up, because he himself (i.e.Sunnah) appointed regional governors e.g. Muadh bin Jabal to Yemen, etc who continued to govern Yemen during Abu Bakr's Caliphate. ALso if you look in Kitab-al-Imara in Sahih Muslim hadith, it talks of provincial governors. Of course the words federalism, or even democracy are not used in the Quran or Sunnah, but e.g. in the case of democracy, it is clear that Sunni Islam was at least democratic in it's insistence on elections for a caliph, the word "elections" are clearly used Anyway, you decide.
Regarding mention of the ummayad, abbasid, ottomans. The sentence says "the actual leadership of the Muslim world was held by successive caliphates to varying degrees in the Umayyad, Abbasid, and finally Ottoman dynasties." So it's not necessarily what people wanted, but what happened in reality. The Shia supported the Abbasid coup against the Ummayads, and held many high positons in the government of the Abbasid Baghdad caliphate. Most Sunni's rejected the Ummayad legitimacy some even calling Yazid a Kafir. So I think this sentence is fine.
What do think of this new lead?:
A caliphate, (from the Arabic خلافة or khilaafah), is the Islamic form of government representing the political unity and leadership of the Muslim world. The head of state's position (Caliph) being based on the notion of a successor to the Prophet Muhammad's political authority; according to Sunnis elected by the people or their representatives[1], and according to Shia chosen from the Ahl ul-Bayt. From the time of Muhammad until 1924, the actual leadership of the Muslim world was held by successive caliphates to varying degrees in the Umayyad, Abbasid, and finally Ottoman dynasties.
Aaliyah Stevens 13:41, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
A caliphate, (from the Arabic خلافة or khilaafah), is the Islamic form of government representing the political unity and leadership of the Muslim world. The head of state's position (Caliph) being based on the notion of a successor to the Prophet Muhammad's political authority; according to Sunnis elected by the people or their representatives[1], and according to Shia chosen from the Ahl ul-Bayt. From the time of Muhammad until 1924, successive caliphates were held by the Umayyad, Abbasid, and finally Ottoman dynasties.
-- Leroy65X 23:01, 23 March 2007 (UTC)A caliphate, (from the Arabic خلافة or khilaafah), is the Islamic form of government representing the political unity and leadership of the Muslim world. The head of state's position (Caliph) being based on the notion of a successor to the Prophet Muhammad's political authority; according to Sunnis elected by the people or their representatives[1], and according to Shia chosen from the Ahl ul-Bayt. From the time of Muhammad until 1924, the actual leadership of the Sunni Muslim world was held to varying degrees by successive caliphates in the Umayyad, Abbasid, and finally Ottoman dynasties. Shia considered the Imam's descended from the Prophet's nephew Ali ibn Abi Talib to be the Prophet Muhammad's successors.
Your first one sound good. It's neater, cleaner, and a better summary. The second one only repeats the point about Ahlul-bayt. Feel free to adjust. Aaliyah Stevens 16:08, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Section 2.1 identifies entities that seek to restore the caliphate, and it seems informative, But section 2.2 regarding the opinions of several high ranking U.S. officials regarding a caliphate restoration seems out of place -- more commentary on the notion than central fact, and highly granular in scope compared to the rest of the article.
Perhaps section 2.2 should be moved to a separate article regarding caliphate restoration movement and criticism? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.70.174.255 ( talk • contribs)
I've changed the subsection title to "opposition". I don't know if we need another article yet, but it does need to be expanded beyond the position of the US pres. There's likely streams of thought within Islam which are opposed to reestablishing a Caliphate (or at least the Islamists version of it). This should also be included. <<-armon->> 09:32, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Sorry if this annoys anybody, but I've removed this section because it really isn't appropriate for a WP article. We're not supposed to using primary sources, but rather reliable secondary sources. Some of this section appears to be secondary sources, but we need to work them into the main body of the text in order to give the reader an overview. <<-armon->> 09:57, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Armon, there is no wikipedia policy on not using primary sources that are used by the experts in the field. your reference to reliable secondary sources in wikipedia policy is declared at the top as NOT a policy but a guide, and even then contains no such assertion. It stays until it is discussed further and agreed, again there is no need to rush and wipe out whole swathes of an article without solid policy to guide us and without consultation. Aaliyah Stevens 12:23, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
OK secondary sources such as statemnts of traditional / classical islamic scholars?
The article of that name serves no purpose. It contains the same information as this one. Furthermore, it creates the problem of the name: is it Arab or Islamic Caliphate? Arab or Islamic Empire? Str1977 (talk) 11:43, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Please note that the "ottoman caliphate" is not called "turk Caliphate", or "turkish caliphate", so why should there be an article called "arab caliphate"?! The "arab" caliphates are appropriately called by their proper names respectively such as the "rashidun", the "fatimid", the "Abbasi" and "Ummayid". Aaliyah Stevens ( talk) 15:48, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
This is an article on the Caliphate not what Isloamic world.net and Hizb ut-Tahrir would like the caliphate to be. Economy and Banking section is pure fantasy and POV-- Leroy65X 14:42, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
where does huzb uttahreer come into that section without reference? if the material is referenced then it can be included? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.201.190.57 ( talk) 00:16, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
The section on economy and banking is generic Islamic concepts of economics. Can you deny any of the principles exist, e.g. the forbidding of riba? If all of the points are referenced, and they state who argues for what, I can't see a problem. Aaliyah Stevens ( talk) 15:50, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
I noticed that this article does not mention the Almohad Caliphate. I see no reason that given the above it should not be mentioned. It has political and religious authority. It was the Caliphate responsible for the preservation of Muslim ruel in Al Andalus for a few hundred years. It seems to me to be very important to history for that reason. -- 71.201.225.194 ( talk) 00:15, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Any discussion of Caliphate cannot exclude the Fatimid Caliphate primarily established in Eypt whose contributions are central to so many of our modern institutions. The Ismaili Fatimid Caliphate established the al-Azhar University as an innovative instituion of higher learning that is considered as a model for the modern University. Pedagogical methods and practices of the time are still prevalent in universities across the world, including the custom of donning graduation gowns. A good starting resource would be the discussions by Marshall Hodgson in "The Venture of Islam. ^^^^ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Transformer2 ( talk • contribs) 15:11, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
Caliphate#End of the Caliphate. Omar did claim authority over all Muslims and the statement that he is no longer the head of the Taliban has no evidence behind it. 202.169.183.252 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 11:01, 4 November 2008 (UTC).
Imam al-Mu'minīn (إمام المؤمنين), now when I cut and paste this, the word order changes ! Have a look on the main page and the "iman" bit is first. How does that work then ? Eregli bob ( talk) 06:33, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
This has been aded to several section:
This section may contain material
not related to the topic of the article. |
The sections at the end of the article have much material that might qualify as "nice things that happened during some of the caliphates," or "how an ideal Islamic poltical/economic system might be run", but that don't belong in an article on the caliphate.
An example at random: "Early forms of proto-capitalism and free markets were present in the Caliphate". This belong in an islamic hsitory article perhaps but not this one. -- BoogaLouie ( talk) 23:44, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
woah!!! i am legend id a good movie! caliphs made that as well, even though thats hard to beleive —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.100.169.26 ( talk) 15:55, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
A concern on the intro: It seems to me to presume significant understanding of the subject matter and is not sufficiently simple enough for general audiences (i.e. audiences who might know nothing about Islam and its history). On principle, the introduction of any article should be very accessible to all audiences whereas some sub-sections might be a little more involved.
The current intro reads
For somebody completely unfamiliar with the term it is difficult to glean that this is referring to a form of government. Perhaps something more along the lines of the following might be appropriate.
Note that the last paragraph is essentially the same except that I reordered clauses slightly. The paragraph comes a little close to sounding like it is saying that the caliphate is the only valid type of government for Muslims. Reordering the clauses clarifies this a little.
-- Mcorazao ( talk) 21:02, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
The beginning of the article transcribes خليفة as "khilāfa". I don't think that this is right. The arabic word consists of the 5 letters kh,l,i,f,a. The vowel between kh and l is short (I guess, a short a), the vowel between l and f is a long i: ي
194.24.138.3 ( talk) 20:09, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
I noticed that certain Muslim writers have compared to Caliphate to the medieval Papacy and its associated Papal States, with the present Holy See/Vatican being a contemporary extension of that Papacy. It would be interesting if we could have a footnote on these kinds of comparisons somewhere in the article. [8] ADM ( talk) 10:38, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
The text has been copied and pasted from Hizb-Ut-Tahrir literature —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.229.242.53 ( talk) 14:24, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
I wanted information on when the Arab empire spread to Africa, there's no such information available. This article seems to focus completely on the rulers and not on the actions of the Empire at all. Can we please get an Empire Article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.158.199.138 ( talk) 08:22, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Thhere was no such thing as an "Arab Empire" it was always multi-ethnic, and Muslim, not Arab. The Abbasids were largely dominated by Persians, the Ottomans were Turks. Only the Ummayads were Arab, and even then in Spain the people were spanish, and ruled by Spaniards of Ummayad descent. It is like describing the secular British Empire as the Christian Empire, only being the opposite concept Aaliyah Stevens ( talk)
the article of arab Empire MUST be remade. this is rediculous, the topic, arab empire, is completely differen from the topic caliphet. the caliphet is a system, while the Arab empire, was a state. plus does that mean we shoule eliminate the ottoman empire? Arab League User ( talk) 23:29, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
The text of this section states that Muslim rule spread through Persia under the Umayyads, but the diagram shows Persia already within the area controlled by the earlier Rashidun Caliphs. 67.164.98.127 ( talk) 07:01, 30 October 2009 (UTC) Mark Hein 10/31/2009
There is one correction and one commentary. 1. The term "Parliament" is not equivalent to majlis as shura since the members did not have authorities in legislating a law. They only function as bureau to collect citizens' claims, complaints, critics and advisement. 2.Quoting: "Islamists from the Muslim Brotherhood the largest Islamist movement and main oppostion in Egypt, argue that Shura in the modern age is simply called democracy, and that Islam and the caliphate system is inherently democratic without the need for it to conform to western political notions [2]."
My remark: Caliphate IS NOT democracy. Caliphate is sharia-cracy which lack of its "act as divine" power attributed to democracy. In democracy parliament make subjective divine-level law applied to other people (hence they act as gods, Islam stringently forbid a moslem act as god and its included as apostasy and violate "ISLAMIC HUMAN RIGHT"). Caliphate IS NOT necessarily theocracy, for the same above reason (caliph is not a sin-free,god avatar).
NB: 1. Sharia is a law revealed by God Allah to human through God's messengers-Muhammad being the last one,transmitted directly or indirectly by angel Jibril; in complete form Shariah al Islamiyah (loosely translated as: Islamic law). 2. I'm apologizing for broken English. Celestaion ( talk) 12:00, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
See discussion at Talk:Islamic Golden Age#Claims on life expectancy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Syncategoremata ( talk • contribs) 12:05, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Hey, can i collaborate with you on your admirable endeavours to present the reality of Islam? Can i have your email address to work with you Aaliyah? Thanks Samiprince ( talk) 15:21, 4 August 2010 (UTC)Sami
Can we get this article edited by a native English speaker? I didn't get much past the opening paragraphs because it was impossible to follow. Just one example: viceregency is spelled wrong, and it doesn't mean "caretaker". In fact Vice-regent, which I think is the word the writer was looking for, doesn't even mean “care taker”, it means someone who rules on behalf of a regent (king). On a similar note the word Caliphate in English, is derived from the word Caliph in English, which in turn is derived from Arabic. The article suggests a direct derivation, as if "-ate, -at" is not a common word ending in English, as in "triumvirate" or "Secretariat". More importantly watch the run-on sentences!!! They are a chore to make sense of. I hope someday to be able to read beyond the opening paragraph into an article fit for Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.16.146.33 ( talk) 16:07, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
There's this word "dicate" in the intro which I think has no meaning or none that I could find anyway. Could somebody please correct or explain better? Thanks 94.71.132.77 ( talk) 14:31, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm a little troubled by the line: "From the time of Muhammad until 1924, it provided varying degrees of unity among the diverse nations that adopted Islam." This could be taken to mean that all the Muslim nations of the world were politically unified. But large portions of the Muslim world were never part of the Ottoman Empire at all.Sylvain1972 17:48, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Martin Rinehart here, and please accept my apologies if these remarks are not in good form. I believe that there is a confusion here caused by two distinct meanings of "caliphate". Some apply the term to the governance of the Muslim community immediately after the death of Muhammad sometimes referring specifically to the period of the first three caliphs. Others apply the term to a principle in the Muslim religion by which the Muslim world, and by implication the entire world, should be governed. Indeed there seems to be a dispute regarding the validity of the former (the period of the first caliphs) as representative of the latter. I leave that debate to those who understand its subtleties. This article, however, will be wobbly until we agree on the subject. Perhaps we need two articles? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MartinRinehart ( talk • contribs) 19:33, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
we have long been discussing this for a pretty long period of time now... Caliphate is a Religious sytem ruling that tha Arab Empire adopted... and then the Ottoman Empire... yet Clearly the Article about an Arab Empire was removed/redirected to here... regardless of the Fact that their WAS an Arab Empire... that was refferred to as the Empire of the Arabs, which with no doubt, like most otehr empires, included many ethnicities, but was primarly ruled, by Arabs, or Arabized people, thus called the Arab Empire, that stretched from the Rashidunes, and ended with the Mamluks, who had Turkish Origins (most of them), yet where Arabized, and Ethnically swiched to arabs, by adopting the language, culture, traditions, and all these things that make up a certain ethnic group... anyways... we need a vote to either recreate Arab Empire, and leave Caliphate as a Political System... or not...
For
the Article wil definatly need to include the minorities of this Arab Empire, and how they were treated, and talk about dieseases, and freedom of speech, and many more things that the Article of Caliphate would be inapprorpiate to discuss in...
basically, the Ottoman Empire has a seperate Article, while the Arab Empire doesnt... just like the Chinese Empire, with differant Dynasties, has its own usefull article, the Arab Empire needs one as well... Arab League User ( talk) 00:49, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Against
Arab League User ( talk) 00:49, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Against
There was no such thing as an Arab empire. The very definition of an Arab is itself under dispute, as it was only Islam which 'Arabized' people, who otherwise were egyptians, berbers, Iraqis, persians, phonecians, syriac, and nubians. The prophet Mohammad said that anyone who speaks Arabic is an Arab, hence Salman Al-Farsi was an Arab too. The empires of the Abbasids was largely a persian empire that spoke Arabic for religious reasons, the Mamluks and ottomans were the same. The basis for all of the so called "Arab Empires" was Islam. Without Islam they could not claim legitimacy for ruling, or expansion. Their very reason for existence was Islam, after all, the Rashidun period was ruled by the prophet Muhammad's disciples. You will find many claiphs who were non-Arab in origin, but you will not find a single non-Muslim Claiph, the very thought is an oxymoron. Hence the term claiphate and not Arab Empire, as the basis of the state was Islam. Keep in mind that the great scientific achievements of this era and the so called Arab or Islamic golden era were during the Abbasid Caliphate period. Many of the great scientists were not Arab, and of the 4 great masters of Sunni schools of law, only Imam Shafi'i was a true ethnic Arab, even Al-Ghazali was not an Arab, nor were great scientists like Al-Khwarizmi. Aaliyah Stevens ( talk) 19:29, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
"The basis for all of the so called "Arab Empires" was Islam. Without Islam they could not claim legitimacy for ruling, or expansion." Could not, or should not? Chinggis Khan (aka Genghis) won quite a large empire simply because he could. It is commonly called the Mongolian empire. I have heard of the Islamic empire, but never the Arab empire. I think the latter in error writing for a Western, English-speaking audience. (And you are right about Al-Khwarizmi, but he's miles off topic and probably Persian, no?) — Preceding unsigned comment added by MartinRinehart ( talk • contribs) 20:12, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
I come to this topic as a complete novice, so forgive my igorance. We are told near the start of the article that after the Rashidun "period", there were four Caliphates "The first dynasty was the Umayyad. This was followed by the Abbasid, the Fatimid, and finally the Ottoman Dynasty." However, the individual articles on the Umayyads and Abbasids state categorically in their opening sections that they were the second and third Caliphates, with the Rashidun as the first and the Ottomans as the fourth and last. I realise that the issues are not completely clear, and that they are discussed in the articles, but I think that it looks bad to have very important articles contradicting each other. Perhaps a little re-wording to make the claims made more qualified would help. Tigerboy1966 ( talk) 00:21, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
The complaint has been made by an anon who deleted several sentences that "This article is about the caliphate system, not Taleban's emirate system or Qutb's hair splitting on democracy, or how democracy is defined."
I can't agree. Opposing democracy and elections as un-Islamic is hardly hair splitting, and Qutb is a major if not the major influence among Sunni Islamists for whom reviving the caliphate is a very big deal.
OTOH, claiming that the Taleban's system was an "emirate system" not a "caliphate system," does seems like hair splitting. The Taliban amir was titled Amir-ul Momineen, the traditional title of the Caliph by his supporters, i.e. he was considered a caliph by his supporters. -- Leroy65X 16:52, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
YOu need to provide evidence that Mullah Omar was considered Caliph by his supporterd not simply an Emir. And Nabhani / Qutb did not oppose elections, Qutb opposed democracy, there is a differnce between democracy and elections. look it up. 82.26.71.11 22:08, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Would the disputants kindly explain the relevance of this dispute to the topic of the article? Many thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MartinRinehart ( talk • contribs) 19:43, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
The section on the Taliban, like on the Ahmadiyya, requires removal. The Taliban is an extremely small, effectively defunct organization. Citing it here gives undue weight. - Farhan000 ( talk) 14:40, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
Under the 4.3 Shi'a belief section, there is a paragraph describing how Dawoodi Bohras have unity, common culture and traditions across the globe despite coming from different countries. It begins as follows:
"The same was philosophy of Fatimid, and same being literally followed by Dawoodi Bohra's Dai in absence and on behalf of their hidden Imam.This is the result that Bohra have unity amongst them all over the world."
While the information in these paragraphs may be an accurate representation of the Bohra community's unity, it has nothing to do with the topic of Caliphate. The only point that is relevant to the subject of this article is that Bohras (and Shias) Shia group of Ismaili/ Fatimid/ Dawoodi Bohra believe in Imamate principle mentioned above, but they need not be ruler.
I have already tagged this part of the paragraph as straying from the main article. If no one objects, I shall go ahead and remove the irrelevant lines from the article in order to keep it to contrite.
Sfali16 ( talk) 05:56, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
According to Sunni belief caliph by the Muslim community. Sunni Muslims developed the belief that the caliph is a temporal political ruler, appointed to rule within the bounds of Islamic law
'Objection' - how caliph is elected by islamic community as there is no practical islamic state now a days.
According to Shia believe Caliph should be elected on the basis of majority opinion, shura or election.
'Objection' - If caliph is elected by this method it would be Democracy (election} which is Shirk is Islam as ruler selected by people not by islamic method —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.152.33.150 ( talk) 14:51, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
First of all, allow me to apologize to Runehelmet for reverting his edit without asking him about the recent dispute first - that wasn't prudent and it wouldn't have hurt me to simply bring things here first. I have returned the material which he felt should be included and tried to tone down the language of my edit as well. Obviously, if any other editors still take issue they are free to also be
WP:BOLD and make necessary changes. I also hope we can hammer this out here and reach a compromise on the best way to word things.
My position - and perhaps my wording was non-neutral and thus didn't make my intent clear - was to represent what is the traditionally held position by Sunni scholars. Yes, the Caliph is chosen and elected by Shura, but there are conditions in the Sharia law other than being chosen. Ruling justly, ruling by the Sharia and not man-made laws, and so forth. In early Islam, one condition which was never contested regarding this elected ruler was that he be a descendant of Quraysh. I'm not an expert on Islamic law, but I am a hobbyist, and I have been tutored by half a dozen experts in Islamic studies. Prior to the Ottoman Empire, nobody claimed a Caliph could be non-Qurashi. Even the Fatimid and Almohad Caliphates had to fabricate made-up lineages traced back to Qurashi sub-tribes in order to legitimize their rule. I knew this for a long time, but I never had an interest in researching secondary sources for Wikipedia. While researching something else, I came upon a good one with page number and everything, so I included it.
To Runehelmet's credit, he brought up some good counterpoints but in order to avoid misrepresenting his position, I think it's better to let him express himself. I will emphasize again that I am sorry for reverting without clarifying first, and per WP:OWN any other editor is still free to revert my own edits and then explain here why. I will respond, of course, but I just want to make it clear that I was acting in good faith and it wasn't my intention to brush off the concerns of others. MezzoMezzo ( talk) 04:04, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
I could have sworn that the last time I checked the articles on these two caliphates, the only differenc was that the Abbasids had no control over thr Iberian Peninsula due to the Ummayads controlling it. Am I wrong? Keeby101 ( talk) 17:52, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
Alwihasan84 (
talk)
00:07, 7 July 2010 (UTC)As we know that a state needs to accomplish three de facto and one de jure requirements to be established, as for Islamic State. But for the Khilafat, there are not necessary. Khilafat is just an Islamic organization lead by a Caliph who is also an Imam, to regulate the law of Islam to it's believer only, so the Shari'a can completely be implemented. The organizational mission is ultimately meant to manage economical activities (mu'ammala) of the members, in which is the muslims. Also, Khilafat only need just one, while Islamic State could be more.
As the consequences of this facts, Khilafat need not require a domain and a legality from another countries in the world, it can be established anytime in any place. It is not a threat or a subversive movement as it's only an economic organization, coated by Islamic Rules. Memberships of Khilafat is limited to muslims, so the Islamic Law is not meant to be forced to another believers in any way and any standpoint.
Da'wa as a medium of Islamic View propagation in this modern time thus not be targeted to non-muslims, because the world now has a different situations, it's different from the old times which was an embryonic phase of Islam. Now, Islam has grown vast and steady. In the old times, jihad by a form of holy war was only necessary to protect the persons who do da'wa from any threat from the foreigners, but now, it's not necessary.
Islamic Defense is divided by two purpose: to disciplining the implementation of Shari'a Islam among the muslims, and to protect the trade from any threat.
Don't we compare Khilafat to Islamic Dynasties, it's absolutely not a Khilafat, but an Islamic State! The leaders were not to be called as Calpih, they were Kings. The best suite for Khilafat was in the time of Rashidun period. In that time, all my descriptions of the Khilafat will be easily found.
Sirius86 ( talk) 17:19, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
Israel have been warning of the emergence of a Global Caliphate in 21st Century, also CIA report released shows an inevitable reestablishment of the caliphate. the following article provides more info on it. http://thetruereligion.wordpress.com/2012/02/25/global-caliphate-revived-a-message-from-the-21st-century-caliphate/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.54.67.128 ( talk) 13:40, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
there were many problems with that article that made it uncitable, including the fact it has recently been taken down for violating terms of use from the site. As well most of the claims of a global caliphate are from non academic sources, we need those to prove what you speak of not random blog posts from people SandeepSinghToor ( talk) 22:15, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
This article is totally POV It follows an ideological narrative that claims a continuity between distinct and separate states. It is a travesty of article – an example of religious people re-writing of history to fit their ideological interpretation of history. Modern scholarship shows that Islam was NOT fully formed at the time of Arab conquest but evolved with Arab empire. The Mamluk & Ottoman states were not continuation of an Islamic state but new states that happened to Islamic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.217.200.42 ( talk) 00:09, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
According to the evidence Islam was mostly formed however was going through a relationship process where they didn't know how to implement religious law etc. Many of the contributors to this page including me are not Muslim and many are not religious, I see how you may see it as a biased article but you have to understand this point in Islamic history was a boom time like the renissabnce was for europe, there were many successes and advances from previous times as well as negative effects, we list both but neither the PErsians nor the Byzantines they expanded into where saintly states themselves. As for the continuity most of the first Caliphs were continuing with people inheriting or seizing it from other people or families, with the mongol invasion he was killed however the Ottomans seized the title of Caliph for the Sultan with the capture of Arabian territory, this is clearly written and shows there was a period of a few hundred years when no one really had the title. The role and interpretation of Islam changed over time however Islam was mostly formed by the 1000 year mark by most scholars opinions, after all if you have sources that fit feel free to add information or contradict sentences from one source with a scholar that disagrees with the other source SandeepSinghToor ( talk) 22:22, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
User:Rajkumararslan, you are invited to discuss here why you would like to keep the country infobox. Here are my two cents: Caliphate was never a country or a state. It is a form of governance, as clearly stated in the article. Secondly, adding this huge infobox destroys the existing structure of the page, shifting many images out of place. --Peace world 14:18, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
Teaksmitty ( talk) 04:54, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
Well the closest comparison would be the pope however Caliphs do not claim to (generally) be able to communicate with God or be his representative but rather the head of the religion whose opinion on the Quran would be listened to, as for an ideology I don't know what it would be classified accordingly too as a Caliph does not even have to be head of state so it could just be a title held by someone in a nation who is respected by Religious followers, I would try an academic search premier for the Caliphate system if I were you to see if any scholars have provided details as to what the system could be classified as but since the Caliphate is so complex I don't think I could give you a straightforward answer other than think of a Pope like system in Islam or like the Theocracy of Iran where the ruler does not claim to talk to god but is supposed to be respected for opinion in religious terms, either of those could help you gain the answer you are looking for — Preceding unsigned comment added by SandeepSinghToor ( talk • contribs) 22:01, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Why is Muhammad frequently referred to as "Prophet". Seems there is some religious contamination in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.88.203.41 ( talk) 02:47, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
I agree with above post, its mostly a case of saying the prophet muhammad as his title not because of religious bias but because there are thousands of mohammeds and thats sort of how muslims and non muslims denote that one similar to saint nicholas over just nicholas — Preceding unsigned comment added by SandeepSinghToor ( talk • contribs) 22:06, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Ahmadiyya are not considered Muslims by 99.9 percent of Muslim population beside propaganda section of British government. Ahmadiyya don't even live in Muslim majority countries...Its like establishing a United states government outside of its territory. Retarded "Ahmadiyya Caliphate, 1908-present" section should be relocated to its own page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Re-reconquista ( talk • contribs) 18:27, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
I agree they are not muslims by anyway. So this section must be removed from caliphate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Islamhistory123 ( talk • contribs) 23:50, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Just take it out, it's not really a caliphate, which would have religious AND political power, and would be chosen by religious scholars, not self-declared, no matter what the heretics say. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.229.233.34 ( talk) 16:21, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
While the language used here is reprehensible, the point is valid. Citing the Ahmadiyya "khilafah" is gives Undue weight. This requires removal or relocation. - Farhan000 ( talk) 14:39, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
With clarity around the caliphate this year -- being a temporal rule or an archaic word for empire or kingdom -- the Ahmadiyya caliphate clearly does not qualify to be included in this list. The Ahmadiyya caliphate is more akin to the spiritual 'khalifas' of Sufi orders, where a disciple carries on the tradition of the teacher. Also, the page Khalifatul Masih and its link to Caliph are appropriate for the role of the Ahmadiyya 'khalifa'. Regardless of whether the Ahmadiyya are Muslims are not, and whether their leader is called 'khalifa', the word 'Caliphate' has almost always meant temporal political rule AliJaana ( talk) 03:54, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Please read /info/en/?search=Talk:Islamic_State_of_Iraq_and_the_Levant#Caliph_-_Caliphate_-_.22Worldwide_Caliphate.22. -- Why should I have a User Name? ( talk) 19:46, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
the expressed will of Boko Haram and isis/isil/is et al is a new caliphate. this long-dormant word has become headline material in the last year or so only because of the new caliphate movement. map images see these offsite examples: bit.ly/1vcPzrf , bit.ly/1rkdCGW , bit.ly/1qmwgY1 is this mentioned anywhere in the article? if so, i missed it. is the apparent exclusion of the new caliphate movement a POV issue? Cramyourspam ( talk) 14:55, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
A caliphate is an Islamic politico-religious leadership institution (or, by metonomy, a state legitimated by such an institution), while a caliph is a person who sits at the top of such an institution. These concepts overlap significantly and, as far as I can think, always occur together—if there's a caliph, then by definition there's a caliphate too. The current versions of these two articles overlap too: both cover (1) roots in the Qur'an and the hadith, (2) historical caliphates including the Rashidun, the Umayyads, the Abbasids, the Fatimids, and so on, and (3) more recently claims including the Ottomans, the Ahmadiyyas, and ISIS.
So it would save a lot of effort to merge them. Caliphate should be the destination since it has the broader title, and happens to be more comprehensive as well. — Neil P. Quinn ( talk) 20:54, 25 October 2014 (UTC)