|WikiProject Islam / Muslim history||(Rated Template-class)|
This template is under development. --Striver 10:24, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
There was no shadow caliphate
I would like to strongly dispute the listing of the Mamluk Sultanate (Cairo) as a "shadow caliphate" on this template from a historical perspective. At no point in history did this state or anyone associated with its leadership ever claim to be a Caliphate, and in fact on both the English and Arabic articles here on Wikipedia that isn't even insinuated. It's a clearly false claim, and I suspect there could be an element of religious bias behind it; there is a certain romanticism for many Muslims to imagine an unbroken chain of religious governance since the beginning and so perhaps some editors sought to fill in the gap between the Abbasids and Ottomans in a way that wouldn't leave any period of time without what they view as a caliphate. Or maybe that isn't a reason, though I suspect it is.
Whatever the reason, I strongly feel that this needs to be changed, and in fact I posit that the Mamluks should be removed from this template entirely. They did not claim to be a caliphate and no historians have claimed that about them. There are other issues as well - for example, why the other caliphates are merely considered contenders to the Abbasids when from an Islamic legal perspective the Abbasids and the others didn't fulfill all the conditions of Caliphate anyway - but that can be dealt with after this. I am going to be bold and simply remove the Mamluks myself. If anybody is concerned, please discuss things here - because I really can't imagine how someone could see a reason to include the Mamluks here. MezzoMezzo (talk) 06:39, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
I'm wondering on what basis some caliphates are considered "main" and others are considered "contenders." It seems totally arbitrary, as even in terms of length of reign, all three supposed "contenders" reigned for longer periods of time than the first two "main" states. This sectioning doesn't appear in mainstream literature I have found and it seems without real purpose or direction. I advocate remoing the distinction of "main" and "contender" as terminology without mainstream precedent.
In lieu of that, several things could be done. There is the possibility of sectioning off the first, second and last caliphates as they had no challengers, while containing the rest in a middle category as many of them existed contemporaneously with other claimaints to the caliphate and thus they were disputed. MezzoMezzo (talk) 12:01, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
- I agree same. The caliphates should should be specified as per its geographic location and time period.Rukn950 (talk) 16:47, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
Should ISIS/ISL be listed as a caliphate?
Should ISIS/ISL be listed as a caliphate? 09:12, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
- I suspect this is the caliphate most readers are interested in. King of all fruit (talk) 09:12, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
- All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 18:14, 31 July 2014 (UTC).
- Totally agree with Rich ; imho the same applies to Ahmadiyya --Omar-toons (talk) 03:39, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
- No, for the reasons above. So far reliable sources do make it clear that nobody else takes their claim seriously. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:50, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
- No, per Rich, et al. Couldn't find any RS to show they've been identified as a caliphate. SW3 5DL (talk) 03:54, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
- No ISIL is not calphate in true sense. it is insurgence with unrealistic and un-humanitarian agenda.Rukn950 (talk) 16:52, 7 August 2014 (UTC)