From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


with regard to the pro-Khomeini spin - can someone who is versed in such things verify that it is accurate?

"The holder of this title claims rulership over all Muslims. The Caliph combines four roles that are often distinct in the Western world. These roles are: Spiritual leader of Muslims, the one who guides Muslims in new matters, Religious leader of Muslims, the one who enforces Sharia, Political leader of Muslims, the one who conducts relations with other states and administers the government, Military leader of Muslims, the one who orders and conducts military affairs, in particular those regarding the conflict between dar al-Islam and dar al-Harb. In the Catholic Church, the first two are combined in the office of the Pope. The last two are combined in military dictatorships. Islam may be unique in being the only system to combine all four."

Someone needs to read about the history of the Papacy. The Papacy was once very politically involved, and we have had at least one "warrior pope".

I disagree with this simplification and characterization of matters. In fact, all leaders combine all four roles listed above with varying emphasis. And in the west this was and still is worse. Take one example. The King/Queen of England was head of the Church of England, while Muslims have no church for the Caliph to rule over and historically the power was distinct after the first 4 caliphs. Second, the King of England enforced the laws of the state with all the power apparatus of a government, but the laws were mostly formulated by his will and decree. The Caliph also enforced the laws of the state, but the laws were not largely made by him but rather derived mostly by others from religious principles and texts acting as a modern constitution. Third, the King of England acted exactly as the Caliph in managing political issues within and foreign affairs without, as do all rulers. Fourth, all rulers are the ultimate commanders of the armed forces, be they of military background or not. This is true of all times. Even in modern day America, president Bush, or whoever, combines solidly the last 3 roles, and continuously gets involved with and shapes the first.A.Khalil 18:27, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)

"The title has been defunct since the Republic of Turkey abolished the Ottoman Caliphate in 1924, although some individuals and groups have called for its restoration.[2] (Hussein bin Ali, Sharif of Mecca and King of Hejaz, claimed the title briefly in 1924, and the Imams of Yemen had been using the title for centuries and continued to use the title till 1962.)" - This is actually not true. The leader of the Ahmadiyya Movement in Islam is (and has been since the death of their founder in the early 20th century) called a caliph. - 01:13 (EST), Aug. 31, 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk)


Shouldn't we have a list that covers all Caliphs from Abubakar to Abdul Mejid II. Something like: we should list all of the calpins

Headline text[edit]

<List moved to main page>--iFaqeer 06:28, Sep 28, 2004 (UTC)we should list


the first Ottoman sultan to claim the title of caliph was Muhammed i Sani, also known as Mehmed II and Fatih. Selim was his grandson. It is true that his grand son selim defeated the other two caliphs of the time, the Safavid Shah and the Mameluke empire.

What is that?[edit]

(in 712 and 712)

redirected from Arabian Empire[edit]

But an empire is more than the leaders. ----

Change required in Section Succession to Muhammad (PBUH) [1][edit]

Ibrahim, I reverted your edits on the caliph article. Here's why. You removed a note in a discussion of shura in pre-Islamic Arabia. The note said that members of the leading clan got extra consideration when it came time to choose leaders. That's supported by the work that Fred Donner has done, in his book The Early Arab Conquests. You weren't there, you don't know how it was, and a belief that it "shouldn't" be that way can't change the practices of people long dead. You removed the para on the Ibadi for the same reason, that you believe that all Sunnis share the Ibadi belief that lineage doesn't count. Really? Have you interviewed all the Sunni in the world?

WHEN there was a caliphate (as opposed to the later and incomplete Ottoman assumption of the role), when the choice of a caliph was a pressing issue, the Sunni DID agree that there was a noble clan, a leading clan, from which leaders should be chosen. That clan was the Quraysh. Only the Ibadis disagree with that. The Shi'a just took the lineage principle even further and said that it should not only be the Quraysh, it should be the descendents of Muhammad.

You may be one of the Muslims who believe that the caliphate should be revived. If so, your beliefs belong, as one POV (point of view), in the section on current attitudes towards the caliphate. They should not be allowed to thwart a look at what people of the past did or believed. Zora 18:36, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

First of all, I was not there and nor was the Author of the book you are referring and not even you. So please give some comments that make some sense. I know Sunni believes because I am Sunni. I believe that true Caliph was first 4 (known as Rashidun), later on they deviate. Some people called Musharaf as Caliph, do you want add his selection method in the article? So I request that pleeeese when you write about Caliphs then please mention the method that was adopted to select first 4 Caliph, instead of the method that deviate. When I said all Sunni believe that Caliph can be any one (not from Muhammad lineage), then it means that all groups in Sunni. (It was so intelligent of you to think that I mean each Sunni person). According to Sunni believes.
1) Abu Bakar was selected by Bait/vote of Sahabas.
2) A Caliph could be anyone (NOT necessary from Muhammad lineage).
See the misguided wording of the article. "They further argue that a caliph is ideally chosen by election or community consensus, even though the caliphate soon became a hereditary office, or the prize of the strongest general". See all four Caliphs was selected by voting/Bait of Sahabas. Hence Why to use word ideally and what is meant from "Soon", 1 day, 2 Months, 5 years or 20 years?. One should say something like that After Rashidun the method deviate, however the right method considered by most Muslim scholar was by Bait. Why you want to keep misguiding people? Do you want any book reference for letting me change the article? Because the book you are referring could have made mistakes in it and I being a Sunni should know better than a Christian and Buddhist. I will provide you a book reference and after that I will change the article this section drastically. It should be written in a clear cut way instead of the misguided way. Caliphate is my dream and I will not allow anyone to play with it (and misguide others).--- Faisal 09:43, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Faisal, please read some history. You can start by reading the article on Saqifah. Abu Bakr was not elected by a vote of all the companions; he was acclaimed by Umar at an ad hoc, unannounced gathering that included only some of the companions. (Ali wasn't even told.) Abu Bakr argued that only a man from the Quraysh could lead the Muslims: "... the Arabs will not recognize the rule of anyone but this tribe of Quraysh. They are the most central of the Arabs in lineage and abode." (Madelung, 1997, p. 31) -- taken mostly from Ibn Ishaq. All the caliphs -- Rashidun, Umayyads, and Abbasids -- were Quraysh. This was universally conceded to be a requirement for the caliphate.

Nor was Umar elected caliph. He was appointed by Abu Bakr when the latter was on his deathbed. The only "regular" shura was the one that elected Uthman (see The election of Uthman). Umar arranged for the shura before his death, naming the six men he thought worthy to succeed him, and saying that they must agree among themselves on one of them. (Not very democratic, eh?) Ali's "election" was highly irregular -- he was elevated by a mob after Uthman had been murdered. Arab forces were scattered across the new empire at that point, and the wishes of most of the remaining companions were completely ignored.

If you wish to restore the caliphate, under the rules you propose, of course you have a right to your own opinion. But you don't have a right to rewrite history in order to make it resemble the ideal order for which you long. You might be more successful in arguing for your ideal order if you did more historical research, so that you couldn't be refuted by anyone who had studied at an Islamic or Western university.

If you belong to a group planning to restore the caliphate, you can go to the article about that group, and make sure that the article is accurate or if there is no article, start one. Zora 10:47, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I have a critical exam of German language on 28th May, hence after 28th (or may be before 28th depending upon free time availability) I will reply you in detail and correct this article with lots of references. I will delete all the words like soon , ideally etc. One should never write such words in research papers or any good article. As these words have very relative meanings. I do not belong to any group except the group of Ummah. Do not worry I do not intend to rewrite the history but want to write it correctly and do not want that any of my brother is misguided by reading the wikipedia. I know Abu Bakar was nominated (which is great) and I know the differences between yucky democracy and Chilphate but remember that Abu Bakar had vote of the majority, I never said that all had voted for him or taken part in the voting. I do not like democracy were 5 thieves select a biggest thief among themselves as their leader. Hence wait and I will be back with lots of corrections. --- Faisal 19:19, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

POV statement needs to be adjusted or referenced[edit]

tThe statement below needs to be referenced or adjusted to meet the requirements of balance, and objectivity.

"Many Islamic religious scholars and institutions have struggled to define the applicability of centuries-old doctrines within the context of a modern society, and Islamic scholarship is generally thought to have failed to keep pace with scientific, technological, and social progress. Many questions on the form a modern Islamic caliphate would take, such as whether the concept of the caliphate is compatible with the modern nation-state construct"

Split into 2 articles: Caliphate and Caliph[edit]

I suggest Caliph (the head of state) should have a seperate entry to Caliphate, which is the form of government. If nobody objects I will begin by copying all the parts of this article into a seperate article on the Caliphate, and switch off the divert to 'Caliph'. The article on 'Caliph' should focus on the individual, his responsibilities, conditions of appointments, past caliphs, etc etc

While the article on Caliphate should focus on the system, and it's various policies, and branches, and past Caliphate states. Aaliyah Stevens


Weren't the Mughal emperors of India also holders of the title of Caliph?

Concept of Khilafat or Islamic Government.[edit]

Islam has been misunderstood and mistreated as a religion – as one of the world religions. The world has demeaned it by treating it as such. IT IS NOT A RELIGION AT ALL. Religion divides and does not unite mankind. Islam unites and does not divide mankind. It is the World –State. It is the world government run by the Muttaqin who are all self-realized and self-exalted men receiving inspiration and guidance from their Sole Sovereign, Allah. They are inspired not to govern but to serve the people of the world according to the mandate of the Universal Sovereign Allah – The mandate of the Code of Procedure as revealed and preserved in the Eternal Qur-aan, as illustrated in the Uswa-i-Hasanah and as amplified in the services of the Constructional Caliphs. Islam acknowledges only the Sovereignty of Allah to equalize, liberalize and fraternize mankind under the clarion blast of ALLAH AKBAR – the Sovereign Allah alone is Great. All other claimants to sovereignty are pretenders and rebels against the Din or the Government of Allah – in other words, against Islam. The Eternal Qur-aan commands the Muttaqin or the Warriors of Allah to wage and carry on a non-stop war till the world becomes one World-State and humanity becomes one brotherhood – equal and free united under the banner of One Universal Sovereign Allah (Al Qur-aan 2:193). This is the Tawhid proclaimed by Islam (….).

To define exactly:


Muttaqin are servants of Allah to serve the people and not to rule them. They are those who follow the Uswa-i-Hasaanah of the Prophet (S.M.) and the service-examples of the Constitutional Caliphs of Islam.

Islam is a World-State, and not a world religion. The world has demeaned Islam by treating it as a religion. Religion is subordinate to the state. It has no army. It has priesthood, unarmed and stingless and can be challenged by the state authority. It abases itself before the royalty. But Islam is armed truth. It is armed to crush all satanic forces and to make the justice of Sovereign Allah, the truth about Allah and the beauty of the harmony that is Islam – prevail upon the earth. Unarmed Islam is no Islam at all. Because it cannot enforce the justice of Allah, it cannot enforce its constitutional laws as they are in the Qur-aan. A state-religion is inconceivable in Islam. It is not meant to play a second fiddle to the state.

Mission of Islam :

Rab’i ibn ’Aamr, the envoy of Islam to Rustam, the commander-in-chief of the army of Iran at the battle of Qaadisiyah, presented the mission of Islam to be as follows:

To emancipate mankind – 1. From the slavery of man to man , and make them equal by making them all slaves of Allah alone; 2. From the tyranny of religions, and make them all equally subject to the justice of Islam; 3. From the narrow territorial divisions of the earth, and keep it wide open 9for free movements of mankind throughout the world to make it one World-Kingdom of Allah). [Al Badayah Wan Nihaaya - by Ibn Athir]

Tawhid is the eternal message of Islam. The central concept of Tawhid is “Allah is One and He likes Unity”. Its formula is Laa Ilaaha Illa-Allah, there is no sovereign except Allah. Its corollaries are one, Umamah – one world fraternity of mankind and one world kingdom of Allah.

The modus operandi is the second part of the formula of Tawhid – Muhammad-ur Rasulul-llah – Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah – the guide to show mankind how to implement the formula of Unity – of Tawhid. Therefore, by following the ideal pattern of service and sacrifice alone of the Messenger of Allah, the World unity and world peace can be attained and ensured permanently.

In the world polity of Islam, there is no human sovereign. The clarion trumpet of the Eternal Qur-aan is ALLAHU AKBAR – Allah alone is Great and all men as servants of Allah, are equal, and free and they constitute on Ummah. In the nobility of the state of Islam, the highest and the noblest among them is the one who is most dedicated to Tawhid, that is, to Sovereign Allah and the unity and welfare of mankind in the world kingdom of Allah (Al Qur-aan 49:137).

Such is the fundamental basis of the World Order of Islam. On the human side, it postulates a fundamental worth in human nature and an inescapable moral responsibility for every individual who must give an account to His Sovereign Master, on the Day of Judgment. Moreover, it postulates that men who accept the divine prescription should live together in a community embodying a fundamental pattern of justice.

In the modern age, the state of Islam does not exist anywhere in the world. How can it, therefore, play its role to save humanity from its imminent peril?

The state of Islam was in existence and full operation – and it was a reality in the diamond age of the Messenger of Allah (S.M.) and the golden age of the Constitutional Caliphs of Islam. It is now a matter of history.

There must therefore be a return to the culture which the Eternal Qur-aan upholds and promotes – a culture which is a synthesis of the heart and the brain, of sweetness and light, of beauty and truth, of art and science and of love and progress. There must be a spiritual integration of culture if mankind is to survive. And this is what this world of Islam of the Eternal Qur-aan promises. This Eternal Book is a restatement of universal truths and values. It is a fountain of inspiration for heroic deeds and valorous performances. “The spirit behind the social laws of the Qur-aan is the only right one and can prove immensely useful in building the new world. It is the greatest force working for unity in the war-torn and hate-ridden world.” – (H. Kaur).

No conflict in the state of Islam between authority and freedom:

To the westerners, who have invented the nation states, the national sovereignties and the atom bomb, law is a system of commands sanctioned by the majority of the elected representatives in a sovereign national assembly. A human sovereign majority elected by the promiscuous, unthinking and volatile multitude is totally alien to Islamic jurisprudence. In the western legal system, therefore, the problem of reconciling the authority of man with the freedom of man still remains a riddle unresolved. But in the world-order of Islam, the Sole Sovereign is Allah. There being no human ruler, there is no conflict in the state of Islam between authority and freedom. All men are equally free and equally entitled to respectable means of living in the world kingdom of Allah. The ‘Shariah’ which is the Islamic term for law comprehends the whole duty of man and covers all aspects of life, - spiritual, moral, political, economic, social and private,- private and public hygiene,- even courtesy and good manners.

[Excerpts collated from the writings of Muhammad Khalillur Rahman, the author of ‘The Warriors of Allah’, ‘The Intelligent Man’s guide to Islam’, ‘Freedom in Islam and Communism’, and ‘Nizm-i-Faqr’ in Urdu. He has also translated the Holy Qur’an in English under the title “ The Clarion Call of the Eternal Qur-aan” (1991).]


This is Wikipedia. In religious matters there is a serious chronic difficulty about POV. The post just above this one illustrates the difficulty. the only feasible cure seems to be rigid discipline. This is a fairly good place to start. But we must begin by acknowledging at least two different and incompatible opinions about the subject "Caliph". There is the traditional Muslim history and there is the history of non-Muslim skeptical scholars. And, of course, both of these two groups have many internal conflicting subgroups. I count myself as among the skeptics.

I would say that "Caliph" was a title adopted by the rulers of the Muslim empire around the year 75 (from my memory. I should research the exact date it first appears on a coin). Prior to that date, and for a long time afterward, the rulers used the titles "Slave of Allah" (Arabic Abd Allah) and "emir of the believers" (Arabic amir al-muminun") referencing the inscriptions of which I believe the earliest is from the year 48. Muslim tradition, in my skeptical view, retroverted the title back the immediate successors of Muhammad.

According to Muslim tradition the immediate successors of Muhammad were Abu Bakr, then Umar, then Uthman and then Ali. the skeptical view is that there is no evidence (outside of Muslim tradition) for Abu Bakr or Umar, minimal evidence for Uthman and clear evidence that Ali should not be considered the ruler of the empire. (this can be referenced but at the moment I am unsure where). After these four, whom Muslim tradition calls rightfully-guided (I don't remember the Arabic) the Empire was ruled by Mu'awiya followed in dynastic fashion by other members of Mu'awiya's clan the Ummaya. The rule of Mu'awiya's son Yazid and grandson Mu'awiya II was contested by Abd Allan ibn al-Zubayr who claimed to be the Caliph and the succession was not settled until the victory of a different Umayid branch headed by Abd al-Malik ibn Marwan in the year 74. I think the only reference that is need would be al-Tabari.

The Caliphate and the empire passed from Damascus to Baghdad in 750 when the Abbascid overthrew the Umayyids and remained there for a long time. In 918 (or whenever it was) the independent ruler of Egypt declared himself (cross-referring to the Fatamids) Caliph and that caliphate lasted until ???. The Bagdad caliphs, long since reduced to figureheads, were terminated by the Mongols in 1240 (I am just guessing at all these dates) but a survivor fled to Egypt where the Caliphate was continued until 1515 when the Ottoman Emperor ??? seized Egpyt and declared himself Caliph. This situation endured until 1924 when the Turkish government abolished the Caliphate. After an attempt to revive it in 1927 the Muslim community has had no Caliph. Movements to recreate the Caliphate are common but none have attracted much support. During the latter years several other Caliphates - most notably in Andalusia were declared but none have survived.

And that is about all I think should be in the article on Caliph. The Fatamids and the Spanish caliphs deserve their own articles and shuld be referenced. Maybe some of the others also. There should be a list of Caliphs somewhere. Currently it is in a separate article but I think it would be better attached here as an appendix. Some notes about civil wars where the title was disputed would also be helpful DKleinecke (talk) 18:51, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Afterthought: What I presented above is strictly a historical view. I think another section about the caliphate in religious thought should be included. It should be possible to say something concrete without getting involved in sectarian POV. DKleinecke (talk) 18:57, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

The history section here seems redundant and is already on another article[edit]

The history section of this article seems to mostly be a duplicate of Caliphate#History. That article is on the system, this article is on the leader's title. It seems redundant to be honest because the history of the states better serves an article on the specific system of administering states. The benefit and contribution of keeping this big, huge section here isn't clear. This article would be better served with further searching for reliable sources for the existing information in this article, much of which is overly wordy, totally unsourced and could possibly be unintentional POV pushing due to a lack of research. I suggest just removing all the subsections about specific states and leaving them in the article about the actual system of Caliphate, not this article on who a Caliph is. MezzoMezzo (talk) 12:07, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Form of address?[edit]

I assume Caliphs are addressed as "Your Holiness" in much the same way as the Pope? -- Kendrick7talk 02:21, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Caliph Ibrahim[edit]

Is the declaration of Caliphate by ISIS titular or not? For example, Muhammad Ahmad has controlled more territory than ISIS's Caliph Ibrahim but his usage of Caliph is considered as titular. I think considering Caliph Ibrahim as not titular is recentism bias. See Wikipedia:Recentism Kavas (talk) 20:20, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Proposed change is synthesis[edit]

This interprets two primary sources and provides no secondary sources. --NeilN talk to me 09:30, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

More importantly, it is not relevant to the article. Whether there are more Prophets or not is irrelevant. This article is about Caliphs. --Peaceworld 17:16, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

I disagree with Peaceworld111 in that altho the article is about "Caliphs" it is a given that in Islam these Caliphs came into being after Prophet Mohammad's death. Thus for the Ahmadiyya to completely ignore the fundamentals i.e. to assert they had their own Prophet after the death of Prophet Mohammad is against the belief system of the entire Muslim world. Thus for them to further assert that their own "Caliph" as the Caliph of the entire Muslim world (because that is what a Caliph is supposed to be) is the most absurd thing to assert - like an excommunicated person striving to be chief in the very same community that wants nothing to do with that person! Absurd isn't it? Therefore, clearly the Ahmadiyya "Caliph" is simply their own home-grown Caliph and meant for their own very small community of some 10 million or so (need proof for even that few). As such the Ahmadiyya should keep a low profile and not assert the hubris of leading the whole Muslim Ummah as if their "Caliphs" are the follow-up to the Rashidun Caliphs of post-Mohammad early Islamic times. I sincerely advise the Ahmadiyya editors to actually remove the post about their "Ahmadiyya Caliph" because the "Ahmadiyya Caliph" is a completely irrelevant "Caliph" to the topic on Caliph because he is simply a communal chief assuming the title of caliph without the consent of a billion plus people!! Salim e-a ebrahim (talk) 01:33, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

My above comment holds true also for the ISIS so-called "Caliph". The hubris of such an insignificant individual to assume the title of Caliph for the entire Muslim Ummah! These people are best ignored and should not even be given an entry on the topic of Caliph. Salim e-a ebrahim (talk) 01:39, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Do you have anything to add other than your religious prejudices? --NeilN talk to me 01:58, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I've something to say to everyone including you the most because you do not know how to evaluate an article at all but are simplistically cocooned into believing that you know everything there is to know about it in terms of NPOV, Synthesis, Secondary sources, etc., etc. You accuse me of PREJUDICE. Do you even know what is "Prejudice"? Your understanding of what I am saying with such clarity against both, the Ahmadiyya and the ISIS, is simply taken as "Religious Prejudice"! Do you know that the ISIS is so completely blinkered in its own understanding of Islam that they would murder every single Sunni Ahmadiyya and ALL Shias of every hue and color - woman, man and child - without the blink of an eyelid; and consider themselves as having earned God's gratitude for cleansing the earth of its vermin?

Let me tell you that I am a SHIA Nizari Ismaili Muslim and as any Ahmadiyya Sunni Muslim will tell you that Nizari Ismailis are another group who have been targeted by the Taliban militants in Afghanistan and Badakshan (Central Asia). Having said that now let me tell you clearly also that were I to be the Caliph of the Muslim Ummah I could not care less what the Ahmadiyya chiefs proclaim themselves to be but I would still welcome the Ahmadiyya back into the Muslim fold at the expense of antagonizing the entire Muslim world (does that sound like "prejudice" NeilN?).

You ask, "Why you would do that?" The reason for doing that is because I for one believe that a MUSLIM is simply one who says the simplest, uncomplicated Muslim creed of Shahadah (the Muslim creed) that there is only one God and that Mohammad was his Prophet. That is how it was in the time of the Prophet and that is how I like it as a SHIA NIZARI. What each individual does after that is their own problem with the kind of God they believe in. Alas, that is not the way the Sunni and even the Shia majorities of this world think. The Nizaris have been persecuted through the centuries in every part of the Muslim world including Shia Persia (now aka Iran).

The world is neither intelligent nor generous but only run by rigid stupidity or self-interest. The Ahmadiyya were first targeted by Pakistan's Bhutto (who was thankfully hanged for his life's dirty dealings) and excommunicated from Islam with the open encouragement to Pakistan by Saudi Arabia and oil concessions. The world of Islam was "taught" to persecute the Ahmadiyya as a matter of course to gain God's blessings. Only recently in the last fortnight a dozen Ahmadiyya houses were burnt down by a Pakistani mob and 3 women and a child killed in Pakistan (with the police looking on totally unconcerned) incited by a cleric's relative on a most frivolous matter; and everyone of those involved in the arson, looting and murder went scot free. Let me repeat that - scot free. I feel extreme disgust at the Muslim Govt of Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and the rest of the Muslim world for perpetrating these pogroms on the Ahmadiyya.

When I was last in Seattle I even spoke to an Ahmadiyya that if they would only stop calling their founder a "Prophet" and instead call him something else (e.g. an "Imam") then there would be no longer any case against the Ahmadiyya as apostates or heretics to be targeted worldwide in the Muslim world. He actually consulted his higher-ups who blankly refused. The Ahmadiyya who live in the Western world forget that their people in the Muslim world suffer immensely for some of the hubris they exhibit in the FREE world. And this is why I say that the Ahmadiyya naming their chiefs as "Caliphs" following the "Rashidun Caliphs" (who were Caliphs of the entire Muslim world) is an extreme exhibition of hubris!

What do you do when you see this type of Ahmadiyya hubris in the face of Muslim rigidity? I feel sick to my stomach when I read these news items of how the Ahmadiyya are persecuted in the Muslim world. And that is why I beseech them to keep a low profile especially when they are wrong to put forward their chiefs as if they are the true Caliphs of the entire Muslim world!

As far as the article on Ahmadiyya Caliphate is concerned it is simply an article that is based on beliefs on both sides: The Ahmadiyya express the belief about their personal prophet and caliphs based on their own literature (therefore primary sources) and of no greater value to the Muslim sacred literature (the Quran and the Sayings of Prophet Mohammad) which are also primary sources. However the Quran and the Hadith have a far greater standing between the two types of primary sources - that should be obvious!

Since both are articulating BELIEFS therefore the article itself boils down to a matter of majority (in Wiki terms we call it "Consensus").

If it goes into "Dispute Resolution" then again the Ahmadiyya will be the losers because the logic of some minority EXCOMMUNICATED sect's chief self-assuming himself to be the Caliph of the entire Muslim world which has excommunicated him in the first place is so grotesque a logic put forward by the Ahmadiyya that it boggles my mind.

I look forward to the Ahmadiyya replying to my above points to help resolve the article's final editing with care and concern the way I have shown my care and concern for them (the Ahmadiyya) by writing in such detail (having taken the time and effort which I can hardly spare). I have no axes to grind whatsoever in this most absurd of absurd issues and I can easily walk away from it all. Salim e-a ebrahim (talk) 07:14, 7 August 2014 (UTC) Salim e-a ebrahim (talk) 07:44, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

No Wikipedia editor needs to reply to your personal observations as talk pages are not forums. If you persist in treating this page as such by expounding on your personal views at length that will be seen and treated as disruptive. Focus on listing and discussing pertinent sources, not your personal experiences as you've also done here. --NeilN talk to me 13:59, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
@User:Salim e-a ebrahim, what is relevant to the article is that Ahmadis are not considered Muslim by a significant proportion of the Muslim world and therefore their Caliphate is too unrecognised as a continuation of Rashidun Caliphate. Wikipedia is not the place to promote arguments. Adding verses from the Quran or the Hadith seems like an attempt to prove or to promote the view that Ahmadis are wrong and hence should be avoided. Believe me, there are numerous counter-examples which say otherwise and we do not want Wikipedia to be a directory of arguments and counter arguments. With due respect, as for keeping quiet, Wikipedia is not censored.--Peaceworld 17:48, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

07 August 2014 Ahmadiyya Caliphate[edit]

@NeilN: This is a warning to you to stop your abusing the Wiki and me in person as well as to cease your reverting war without any sense to it because you are simplistic in your thinking and do not know how to evaluate an edit.

1. You attacked and abused me calling me "RELIGIOUSLY PREJUDICED" and when I explained why I am not prejudiced at all, you call my explanation "DISRUPTIVE". 2. You are completely ignorant of how to judge between 2 edits in terms of both having primary sources altho i tried my level best to explain how to do that also in what you pejoratively described as a "disruptive" explanation. Simply speaking the better primary sources win the battle and the Quran and the Hadith are far superior primary sources than the Ahmadiyya scriptural sources. After that it is one explanation versus the other and that was my final edit before you reverted it in an ignorant and obnoxious manner without even first putting forward your intention to do so on this talk page.

3. Then why did you start the talk page in the first place?. Salim e-a ebrahim (talk) 16:44, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Answer: Stop using primary sources. --NeilN talk to me 17:50, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

@NeilN: I have deleted my input because it amounts to an analysis &/or synthesis from primary sources as per the recommendation of the Dispute Resolution volunteer whose comment is shown here below:

General: case closed. Comment: Conduct dispute in part, premature in part. Parts 1, 2, 4, and 5 of the dispute overview refer to conduct and we do not handle conduct matters here at DRN. Part 3 does raise content issues, but the discussion of these issues at the article talk page seems to have almost nothing to do with Wikipedia. More to the point: neither of the competing edits illustrated in this diff (my revert is shown as the second one in the “diff”) are acceptable in Wikipedia. All Wikipedia material must be verified with an inline citation to a reliable source as defined by Wikipedia and must avoid, inter alia, original research and synthesis (which is a kind of original research). One version of this edit attempts to make a religious argument from analysis of primary material set out in the article. Since primary material absolutely cannot be interpreted or analyzed in any way that is clearly prohibited by Wikipedia by policy. The competing version, on the other hand, is wholly unsourced and also prohibited for that reason (and adding it back in after it has been removed violates BURDEN). The two paragraphs in which this edit war is taking place should be [citation needed] tagged and then deleted if citations are not added. — TransporterMan (TALK) 19:18, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Now it is up to you to take care of the remaining part of the DR comment Salim e-a ebrahim (talk) 12:43, 8 August 2014 (UTC)


I added Boko Haram's claim that their area is part of a caliphate, but did not add their leader to the list of Caliphs. It's unclear to me if they are joining another organization, but I can find nothing saying that their leader is a caliph. If someone else has it, please amend my entry. (talk) 15:36, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Proposed spelling change of opening sentence.[edit]

Please change "Caliph or khalifa is a title used for Islamic rulers who are considered politic-religious ..." to "Caliph or khalifa is a title used for Islamic rulers who are considered political-religious ..." (Obviously without the bold, I only add it to make the differences easier to see.) I believe that politic-religious is not a word, I couldn't find anything on Google relating to it. I'm unaware of the reasons behind the current spelling, thus I am simply asking to have it changed rather than outright changing it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Honnogakusha (talkcontribs)

@Honnogakusha:  Done "Politic" has a different meaning in modern English. --NeilN talk to me 01:42, 13 November 2014 (UTC)