Talk:Caliph/Archive 1

Hasan

Hasan is often cited as the fifth caliph in many classical sources, for example the writings of Suyuti, however in reality he didn't rule as the actual caliph. I don't know where to list him, as he is not considered one of the Khalifa Rashidun nor is he an Umayyad. DigiBullet 14:53, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I had listed him as the 5th, but someone removed him. I agree that listing him directly under "Khulfa-e-Rashidun", as I did, was not the ideal thing to do. My original intention was to have parallel table cells for overlapping or competing claims to being Caliph. I will see what I can do when I next edit the page.—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 20:14, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)

Hasan was never Caliph. He accepted the authority of Muawiyah, collected a pension from him, and lived a life of retirement. He belongs only in the Shi'a Imams list, not the caliphs.--A. S. A. 04:04, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)

He's in the caliph list right now, so I've marked him as "No actual reign, sometimes considered the 5th caliph". Hope someone knowledgeable (Faqeer?) will improve. Nvj

The Turkish Parliament

Although the title of Caliph is currently unused, it could conceivably be used again if the Turkish parliament were to decide to reactivate it.

Who would be the Caliph? And does the Turkish parliament have the power to elect the Caliph over all Sunnis? And isn't religion separated from state in Turkey? - Lev 10:53, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It would be disputed, certainly -- but what else is new?  :) Let's say that, for whatever reason, the title "Pope" had passed out of favor a century ago and been officially placed in hibernation by the Italian government, which had overrun and militarily subdued the Vatican. Wouldn't you want to know that the mechanism (technically) existed to revive the title? The question "who would be the Pope" might be a secondary one for someone curious about the viability of *some unknown* modern figure re-establishing authority and legitimacy under the title "Pope." The fact that the title was transferred into a bureaucratic limbo, not abolished, is interesting to me, especially given the constant talk in the Islamic world about the viability, or lack of same, of a modern Caliph. Seems worth keeping. BrandonYusufToropov 11:26, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

First, I am not trying to say the statement is not interesting, but that it is wrong.

Let's consider your hypothetical case. If Italian troops do not kill the Pope, the Catholic world will still acknowledge him as the Pope. If they do, a new Pope will not be elected for a merely technical reason – that the cardinals are under arrest. When all cardinals die, new ones can be elected and can meet outside Italy to elect a Pope. Therefore, the Italian government has not the power to permanently inactivate the title.

The reason that the Turkish government could inactivate the title of Caliph is probably that he had no more actual power anyway, therefore the Moslems outside Turkey had no reason to keep supporting him. Now even if that government chooses to revive the office of Caliph, it cannot give anyone religious authority even over the Turkish Moslems, since it only has secular authority itself. Of course, it can revive the title, decreeing that X is henceforth to be called Caliph.

I agree that the possibility of re-establishing the authority of Caliph at all is worth mentioning, and some info on the talk of the viability of a modern Caliph would also be appropriate.

Lev 21:18, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

What makes the case different from my hypothetical is that the title had for quite a while been incapable of producing much respect in the Muslim world. (Recall that the Arabs revolted against the remnants of the "Caliphate" in WWI.). Be that as it may, Turkey's vote appears to have been the last gasp of the institution... yet the fact that the title has been placed in suspended animation -- rather than abolished outright -- is surely worthy of mention somewhere. The secular nature of Turkey's present government doesn't mean, of course, that it will always be so; remember that Islam is for some a failed empire with an enduring spiritual dimension, and for others a global governmental system in waiting. Thus a pan-Islamic governmental vision might (for instance) posit a federation of Muslim nations under a global Islamic authority, headed by a leader whose authority might be enhanced (though I doubt seriously that it would be sparked) by some kind of proclamation from the Turkish parliament. It's yet another drawn scenario, I realize, and highly unlikely, but what's intriguing to me about this is that the only thing anyone, Muslim or non-Muslim, appears to agree on is that the caliphate was last seen in Turkey. Given Islam's historic insistence that secular and religious distinctions are ultimately meaningless, Turkey's status as a secular government might be seen by imaginative Islamists as a "transitional phase." You recall how big the Marxists were on transitional phases, and how quick they were to declare them, often retroactively. :) BrandonYusufToropov 23:37, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I was talking with Turkish friend the other day and he said that low-level political discourse in Ankara interpreted the Caliph as a kind of graven image. He added that this kind of thinking has shaped his perspective on religion in public life and basically drawn him away from political Islam, ala the Brotherhood, because it seemed to him to be ignorant of reality. I remarked that this was a typical Islamic rationale (the interpretation), but an atypical conclusion (because this is the Caliph). It seemed to me that the idea was basically a reintrepration of Islam vis-a-vis Turkish history - a kind of attempt to balance history and religion. Perhaps this is a reaction to political Islam? It struck me as particularly Western - or do I mean modern? --Vector4F 07:33, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

The main reason the Caliphate was abolished or put into abeyance was Ataturk's aversion to institutions holding back Turkey from becoming a modern European-style nation-state. When the Ottoman Sultanate was replaced by a Republic, the former Sultan continued to be regarded as Caliph, so in 1924 the Caliphate was abolished, in order to give Turkey a fresh start. It didn't really matter that there was no longer a Caliph, because political, military and social functions were already being served by existing governments of states with Muslim populations. The function of religious interpretation continued to be carried out by the Sheikh-al-Islam, based in Istanbul (abolished as a post in 1953).

As to the question of reviving the office of Caliph, it should be noted that the Turkish government does not posses the sole power to revive the office. The title was gained by the Ottoman Sultans once they had established themselves as the leading Sunni Muslim power of the age, just as Mameluke Egypt had appropriated the title under their aegis from the collapsed Abbasid Caliphate. In addition, no realistic claim could be made without control (or at least influence) over the two holy cities of Makkah (Mecca) and Madinah (Medina) and the annual Hajj pilgrimage. A claimant could establish legitimacy by performing the Hajj and appearing to be the Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques. Thus, the power to establish the office of Caliph would rest with any Muslim state or group of states which could demonstrate sufficient political and military authority and influence over the two holy cities.

Whilst Turkey could certainly demonstrate historic claims and some political and military authority, it would be an empty claim unless they somehow gain control of the holy cities. The current Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques (the King of Saudi Arabia) lacks genuine military prowess and would face considerable political opposition to a unilateral claim to the Caliphate, due mainly to the official Wahabbi ideology and the apparent influence of the much-demonised USA. The only realistic claim could be made by mutual consent between a majority of the Muslim countries (perhaps through a revitalised OIC or even the Arab League). That does not stop any individuals or groups from laying a claim. As with any public office, genuine claims depend on recognition so technically an average person off the street could proclaim themselves Caliph, but would have about the same international standing as the current Prince of Sealand 82.3.92.207 23:58, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Minor note about transliteration

I've noticed several arabic words ending in at-ta al-marbouta transliterated on wikipedia with an 'h' at the end (khalifah, sunnah, etc.). As a (mere) 2nd semester student of Arabic language, this strikes me as very odd - it'd make more sense if such words were transcribed as ending in -a or even -at; I was wondering if anyone more knowledgable than me could shed some light on this issue?

Its in the recitation rule or 'tajweed' that, the ta marbouta is recited as 'h' when the word (containing it) is at the end of recitation. Question: how to distinguish between normal ha, ta, and the ta marbouta, in transliteration? I think it's better to put the word in arabic script beside it. DiN 13:16, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

There is no uniformity in formal transliteration on the issue of "a" or "ah" representing a non-construct (idaafa) taa' marbuuta. In an idaafa, it should be written out with a t, as in sunnat al-nabi, madinat al-qahira, or what have you. Enc. of Islam and IJMES, two standards, don't use the h, but plenty of scholars do. john

ABOUT TURKEY

As to the Chronology of Caliphs; It is mentioned in the text that the institution of Caliphate may be rectivated. But historically with the establishment of the Republic of Turkey, Abolition of the "Caliph Institution" became a vital principle of the Turkish Republic. Therefore to think to revive it (Caliphate) means to end the Turkish Republic. It will be a huge wrong-information... So i think this idea is neither useful nor it can be a kind of information. It should be taken in history that the Caliphate institute -which started in early Islamic history- ended with Mustafa Kemal Ataturk's reforms. Also as to Sultan Mehmed II, he was not a Caliph (Khalifa); actually I think when Sultan Selim (who is in a later time than Mehmed II in chronologic line) was the first Ottoman Sultan who invaded Egypt in 1517 or so, and thus captured the State of Caliph. RecepY. 22 Mar 2005, Ankara

On the latter point, the article on the Ottoman say:

From 1517 onwards, the Ottoman Sultan was also the Caliph of Islam, and the Ottoman Empire was from 1517 until 1922 (or 1924) synonymous with the Caliphate, the Islamic State.

which I always thought accurate. However, since Mehmet II was the one under whom Constantinople came under Muslim rule, there might have been some kind of claim he made/was made for him...—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 18:49, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)

from 1937 onwards to today, indeed one of the primary principles of the republic of Turkey is /was secularism. However, it cannot be denied that between 1926-1937 the primary rule of law in the republic of Turkey was the shariah, and the religion of the state was Islam. Most muslims nowadays do not want a reinstatement of the khalifate, and indeed while the institution was active it was many times a source of conflict instead of a source of unity. For imperialist western powers it would be easier if there was a khalifate, so they could easily colonise all islamic countries at once by just attacking and enslaving the khalief or by colonising the khalifate state, instead of conquering one by one sequentially like they are now, first afganistan, then iraq, maybe then syria etc. --Kahraman 12:26, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

On the above points by Faqeer and RecepY, possession of Constantinople/Istanbul has never been a factor in claiming the office of Caliph. I mention in one of the preceding sections the actual requisites for laying claim - political/military prowess and control of the holy cities of Makkah and Madinah. Prior to the Ottoman Sultans, no Caliphate had control of the great city on the Bosphorus. So, rest easy RecepY, the Turkish Republic is unlikely to disappear even if a Caliphate were established.

On the point by Kahraman, ask most Muslims and you'll find that reinstatement of the Caliphate is not top of their priorities. What is top is social justice and everyday things like housing, employment, food, land ownership and the security of their families. All of these things can be and in most cases are provided by secular governments which is why there is so little support for crackpot groupings like al-Quaeda and Hizb-ut-Tahrir and their vile ilk. When these Jahil (ignoramuses) do seize power (like the Taliban) they show that they are only interested in the trappings of power rather than actual responsibilities of political office. The Taliban made no effort to establish healthcare, education or social welfare in Afghanistan in at least those areas which were distant from the Northern Alliance, beyond lining their own pockets (not that the present regime is much better). Equally, the USA is experiencing one of it's regular bouts of ignoramus-politics with this incompetent Chimpanzee-President (come on the man thinks Africa is a single country!) 82.3.92.207 00:35, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Removed comparison to pope

I removed the comparison of the Caliph to the Pope -- it's quite misleading and biased towards a Western European viewpoint. There was NEVER a Pope accepted as the leader of all Christians. For the first few centuries of the Christian faith, it was an extremely loosely coordinated movement, with local leaders meeting occasionally at councils to define doctrine. The Roman Catholics may argue that the Roman bishop was always the head of all Christians, but the Copts, the Greek Orthodox, etc., all would disagree. The Muslim nostalgia for an early period of unity and religious purity would really find its analogue in the various Christian attempts to return to the Christianity of Acts and the Pauline letters.

Also, the position of the Papacy vis-a-vis political power is not a single position. It varied over time. Comparing one complicated topic to another doesn't necessarily illuminate either -- unless you take a whole book to do the comparison. Zora 21:24, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I also think it is an invalid comparison but we should acknowledge that some comparisons have been made. There was never a Pope accepted as leader of all christendom, but many certainly made the claim that they were the soul legitimate leaders. The same can be said for Patriarchs of Constantinople after the great schism. Also, I don't think there was ever a single Caliph without some faction somewhere either contesting his claim or refusing his authority (For example: the Fattimid and Spanish Umayyads caliphates opposing the Abassids). Also, popes at various times held varying degrees of temporal power. Compare John Paul II with Julius II, and the Papal States.--AladdinSE 04:45, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Aladdin.—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 07:26, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)

I disagree with Aladdin, and think as Zora that the Papal comparison should be removed, as it is not as much the "worldly powers" of the pope that is taken in this comparison, as well as the spiritual leadership. And according to my knowledge, a Caliph was not a spiritual leader, as it was the Ulema who was responsible for the spiritual and sharia part of Islam, the Caliph mostly dealt with politics and military aspects.--Ameer 16:23, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Validity

I know my Sunni friend when I mentioned more than 4 caliphs gave me an incredulous look... so, what is commonly taught to Muslims about who are the Caliphs and should we mention that while the first four "rightly guided" ones are looked upon as legitimate leaders of the Muslim community (by Sunnis) that the rest are not. Also, during the fitna war thing... did not some support Ali and the others Bakr? so... were there some (before the Sunnis compromised and accepted all four) that would not have accepted Ali but would have the other three? I am confused on this issue. gren 03:21, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Western academics tend to call all the Umayyads and Abbasids caliphs. Islamic scholars may distinguish further, between leaders who ruled as kings (mlk, I think) and leaders who were religious exemplars as well. And yes, there were Sunni who did not accept Ali as one of the rightly guided caliphs. According to my books, Ali didn't get accepted into the Sunni canon until the 10th century CE. Until then, the list of caliphs went from Uthman to Muwaiya (sp?). Alos, under the Abbasids, most of the Umayyads were "demoted", except for Umar II, who was believed to have ruled righteously. Most of the Umayyad legal decisions that the Abbasids accepted as precedents were then credited to Umar II.

Who accepts who as a legitimate leader is complicated. Are Sunnis even in accord on this? Dunno. Crone's book God's Caliph is very interesting on these points. Zora 04:00, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

New sections

I added large new sections on how the Caliphate came to an end and contemporary Muslim attitudes toward the Caliphate. I am interested in hearing people's comments and critiques.

Note: All the edits from 23:08, 4 Jun 2005 to 16:15, 14 Jun 2005 are mine. BalancingAct 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• I think the 'Modern attitudes' section should probably include a mention of people who do claim to actively seek the restoration of the caliphate (ie Osama Bin-Laden), of course refraining from any politicizing...I'll try to write a draft sometime soon and put it here for review first. -Lance

---

Sorry it took me so long to notice your additions and respond.

The section on the demise of the caliphate seems OK, in and of itself, but it's too long and detailed. It throws the article off-balance. I'd suggest that you spin it off into Demise of the Ottoman caliphate. You can't just call it "the caliphate", because that would imply that the Ottomans were right in claiming it. I think that's arguable, and might well have many Muslims disputing it. Then we could link to that article from Caliphate and also from Turkish and Ottoman history articles.

The material re current views of the caliphate repeats earlier material and expands it a little. We should cut the earlier stuff down to one sentence and a pointer to the section.

When I have time (!) I'd like to add a section to the article re early Islamic views of the caliphate. Patricia Crone has written a fascinating book on this, called God's Caliph. She argues that the earliest Muslims had something more like a Shi'a view of the caliphate, or imamate -- the caliph or imam as a divinely-inspired religious leader, and obedience to the caliph as crucial to Islam. She suggests that it soon became clear that the caliphs were not going to be religious exemplars, and that the whole tradition of the Sunni ulema and shari'a emerged as a way to protect the religious elements of Islam from the caliph's arbitrary temporal power. Right now the article is the usual Sunni ulema party line.

Thanks for the work. I hope we can keep improving the article. With Islam so controversial these days, any bit of NPOV light shed on the topic is useful. Zora 05:16, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Religion and politics

I started the above page, following the setting up of Christianity and politics.

Can someone add suitable info from here (or link), and or start the Islam and politics (and any other similar pages). Jackiespeel 21:46, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Ali not accepted as rashidun immediately

I got that from Jonathan Berkey's book The Formation of Islam, I believe. I'll have to dig for the reference. I think the date was 930 CE, but I may be wrong on the exact date.

The Ummayads wouldn't have accepted him as a rightful caliph, since their founder fought against him. The Abbasids came to power on the strength of the desire for a caliph from the ahl-ul-beyt, the house of Muhammad, but they were descendents of Abbas, Muhammad's uncle. So they had reasons to favor the claims of Abbas rather than Ali to having been the rightful inheritor when Muhammad died. Zora 20:02, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

---

It's true that the Umayyads didn't acknowledge 'Ali as a legitimate Caliph; however, the source for the Sunni position on the matter is the Sunni scholarly tradition, not the official line of the Umayyads or Abbasids. From what I understand, all of the Sunnis' most prominent scholars such as Imam Abu Hanifa, Imam Shafi, Imam Malik, and Imam Hanbal (all of whom lived prior to 930 CE and resisted Umayyad or Abbasid rule in some form or another) held 'Ali in high esteem and considered him a rightful and righteous Caliph. BalancingAct 11:57, 6 Jul 2005 (UTC)

{{Islam}} for each "caliph"

This goes along with my post #Validity. I don't believe that any figure listed as caliph other than the first four played that big of a part in Islam itself and therefore should not have Allah attached to them. I have seen that some users have bee nadding Islam to all of the caliphs but I don't think it should be. To me this is like adding [1] to every European that claimed the divine right of kings. I want to know others opinion on this because I obviously can't just make my views policy, but to me... what I'm saying makes a lot of sense ~_~. Thoughts would be appreciated. gren グレン 08:00, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

I think all the caliphs that were the sahaba and/or in some way were prominent in the spread/influence of Islam during the time after Muhammad's (pbuh) death should have the template. As for others that were not as important, such as gren said, should not have a template, but rather just a link to Islam or the caliph article somewhere on the article, which ofcourse will not be hard. I looked through several of the caliph articles in the Ottoman and some other caliph sections, gren, and I could not find the template on most of them. Thanks - a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 15:01, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. Go for it! Zora 19:57, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Anon, it just seeemed to be a starting trend. I thought it was on more than it was... want to list for me which Ummayad leaders were sahaba? I personally wouldn't go into them (just because of the whole Yazid / Husayn thing) but... how far do you think it should go? Either names or until a certain date will do. gren グレン 21:09, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Personally, I think we should limit the list to only the rightly guided caliph. But then I think about Muawiyah, and I guess he should be listed with an islam template. I noticed that Ali uses the Islam template but other shia "imams" do not. Maybe a couple of templates could be created; one for shia and one for sunnis (leaders/sunni-caliph/shia-imams) - that would be about important historical figures. that approach would be better, safer. --JuanMuslim 20:22, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Major revision

I changed the intro and introduced a lot of academic material that wasn't there previously. I tried to be even-handed, but I may have privileged the academic view over the consensus Sunni view. Let's discuss it here. Zora 02:03, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Shi'a before the Abbasids

It's a Shi'a version of history to see the Shi'a, as they exist today, existing before the rise of the Abbasids to power. It is true that there were Rafidi, and then the Shi'at Ali, but they were a political faction, not necessarily a denomination. They worshipped with other Muslims and had no definitive doctrines, other than their belief that Ali should have been caliph and that he and his descendents stood for piety rather than worldliness. It's after the great disappointment of the Abbasid revolution that the Shi'a turned inward and, to a great extent following Ja'far, elaborated doctrines that sustained them throughout many centuries out of power. I rewrote the para re the Abbasid revolution to make that subtle but necessary point. Zora 03:04, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Claimants

Someone brought up the subject of claimants who didn't manage to establish a dynasty, or controlled only a small region. I set up a new section for this, did some copyediting, and started a list. Seems like a list of notable claimants could be useful. I could be wrong -- we might get bogged down in listing every Alid revolt against the Umayyads -- in which case we could either drop the section or create a breakout article. Zora 13:28, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Reasons for dormancy of caliphate

Dear anon, Wikipedia is not supposed to have opinions, we're just supposed to catalogue the opinions of others. While I agree with a lot of what you're writing, we really can't let this article become an essay about we think is true. Wikipedia doesn't take sides. Suppose we get someone here who believes that the world is going to heck because that's what will happen just before the Mahdi comes? Please do rewrite and add sources. Zora 04:21, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Which additions do you object to? User:BalancingAct 17:10, 18 December 2005

"European powers ... imposed oppressive economic and political systems predicated on notions of European racial superiority" comes quite close to the POV line, if not exceeding it. 12.144.193.66 20:33, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Is abbasid a place?

no. Pure inuyasha 01:20, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Umar II, "fifth Rashidoon", Sunnis, and the International historical record

Khalid!, you have placed, again, a "Sunni" limitation where it does not belong. The entry for Umar II already contained the phrase "(sometimes considered amongst Rashidun)." That means, this is not a universal acclamation. Now, when you insert a further limitation by saying "(sometimes considered amongst Rashidun by some Sunni's)" you obfuscate the fact that he was assigned this honorific as a nod to his world-renouwned piety. The first four caliphs are the real rashidoon, Umarr II is refered to as a "fifth" as a mark of respect, as in, he was so pious that he could have been a fifth rightly guided caliph. References to this honorary title (as opposed to the "real" titles of the first four) are to be found in international histories, so it is wrong to limit this reference to only Sunnis. --AladdinSE 13:51, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

That "sometimes" is giving the view that he is sometimes referred as the fifth rashidun by everyone, which is not true. The phrase is absolutely confusing, therefore it shuld be removed or explained that not all muslims agree with him having the title. I am removing it, untill a proper phrase is agreed upon --Khalid! 17:04, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

No, for the phrase to imply "referred as the fifth rashidun by everyone" then it would have to say everyone, and it doesn't. The whole shiite objection to the first three caliphs is quoted chapter and verse in every single related article. What you are doing here is going too far and is detrimental to factual accuracy. This honorific is famous, internationally. Stop limiting it to Sunnis. --AladdinSE 17:00, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Added Shia opposition to the title (given by ONLY sunnis to Umar II)--Khalid! 18:09, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

That's a much better way of putting it, because it does not imply that references to his being the fifth "Rashidoon" can only be found in Sunni histories. I reworded it slightly. "Strongly opposed" implies a personal objection to Umar II, whereas the Shi'a objection lies in the entire caliphal succession outside of the Prophet's Household. --AladdinSE 18:28, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Are the al sauds calpihs?

• Since they conquered hejaz, which was ruled by a guy who said he was a caliph, couldn't someone argue that they are caliphs? Pure inuyasha 00:48, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

The position of Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques was held by the ancestors of the current Hashemite dynasty of Jordan, until the Saudis overran their territory in the 1920's. There is a suspicion amongst some Sunni Muslims that the Kings of Saudi Arabia would like to be recognised as Caliphs, but the Saudi problem is a lack of genuine military muscle. On the flip side of the coin are potential claimants like Eqypt or Turkey, but without control of the Hajj their claim is unlikely to be recognised. Of course controlling the Hajj would mean military occupation of the Hejaz and that is unlikely to happen soon. 81.107.198.254 23:03, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Al Saud never claimed the title of caliph.

After the caliphate of the Ottomons was obolished, some egyptian scholars said that King Abdlu-Aziz, Ibn Saud, should claim the title but he refused because he did not think all muslims would agree with such a thing.

Add to that, that the Salafi enterpration of Islam, to which Ibn Saudi was a great supporter, says that the caliph must be from the tribe of Quraish, the Prophet's (PBUH) tribe, according to a hadith narrated by Abu Baker.

As for the title Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques, it was first held by Selim I when he conquered Hejaz and Egypt and it was inherted by all the Ottoman caliphs after him. As for the Saudi use of this title, it was royal decree issued by the late King Fahad to ban the use of the title "His Majesty" since the Arabic word for majesty, Jalalah جلالة is drived from from one of God's holy names in Islam. It has nothing to do with being caliph. Selim I was named caliph after the last shadow caliph in Egypt.Abo 3adel (talk) 07:51, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Article unreadable

The article is now so dense and long-winded as be unreadable. It needs to be broken up into smaller sections. Bullet-point lists should be used more extensively. It also seems to contain a great deal of pontification without ANY references whatsoever. We shouldn't be making sweeping judgments about history, about WHY something happened. I suspect that we've either got copyvios or original research happening here. I don't have time to delve into this now, but this article needs work. Zora 18:47, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I finally pruned ruthlessly. Once I took out what seems to have been someone's undergraduate essay on the history of Islam, the last section is a reasonable length. Zora 09:27, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Massive link pruning

Someone added a link to his blog! When I went to remove that, I found a lot of sub-standard links to various blogs, opinion pages, tiny movements, anti-Muslim sites, etc. I pruned all that down to two links! We need to expand the references and links section so that anyone investigating this topic has a good idea where to go next. I could add the Hugh Kennedy history of Islam I've been reading ... any other suggestions? Zora 09:29, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Oldwindybear's edits

OWB, I reverted your edits. I wasn't happy to do so, as they were clearly not vandalism, and were intended to enhance the article.

First, re "leader of the faithful". I'm not at all sure that it was Uthman. I'd have to check my copy of God's Caliph, a recent academic work on the caliphate, but I think it might have been Abu Bakr who first used that term.

Second, re the Mongol conquest -- that material was much too detailed for the scope of the article. We already have an article on the Battle of Baghdad (1258), where that material would fit nicely. Just be sure to reference it carefully. It would also be a good idea to look at more than one book, to make sure that all POVs are included. Zora 00:11, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Zora HI! I don't mind shifting them to the Battle of Bagdad, and they are heavily sourced, a lot more than one book. I must have erred if I left it as Uthman who first called himself "Commander of the Faithful" because if you check your copy of God's Caliph it should say that was Umar. I am glad you saw that the edits were not intended as vandalism -- far from it, they were intended to enhance how the Caliphate ended. (and Hulagu's cruelty was legendary, and shown in full force there!) I will bow to your work on this, and move it to the Battle of Bagdad. Take care! old windy bear 17:08, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Anon's edits

Anon, I reverted your edits. Your English seems shaky - is it your second language? -- and the one claim that I have had time to check was wrong. The Treaty of Kuchuk-Kainarji was in 1774, not 1773, and it did not constitute Russian recognition of the caliphate. It was a reciprocal agreement, in which both the Sultan and the Tsar were given rights to "protect" the interests of co-religionists in the other's territories. This doesn't constitute recognition of the caliphate. If you are going to make further edits, please discuss them here first so we can see if they are correct. Zora 00:23, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi there.Sorry about the anon edit. I forgot to login. I also edited the kucuk kaynarca agreement. As it stood, only the rights of the russian'tsars on ottoman christians were stated, while the ottoman calpih's rights on muslims in russia were ignored. It does constitue a new development. Even before the muslims in India, the muslims in Russia were the first to come under the political influence of the ottoman caliph, although they were outside of Ottoman borders.If you know Turkish, check out kucuk kaynarca in http://www.yeniumit.com.tr/konu.php?konu_id=251&yumit=bolum2 --Kahraman 22:34, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

the original source seems to be Barthold 1973: page 141 --Kahraman 22:48, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Caliph election

Is there election for Caliph ? Or is it just a hereditary position ?

--Siyac 12:59, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

There were many different methods of succession. Elections, hereditary , coup detat, military conquest.. Any type of human political method has been used, including a democratic parliament e.g. last couple of Ottoman caliphs--Kahraman 21:34, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Very harsh split of sunni shia in article

I think the current article makes it look like the shia split from the sunni and the groups never recognized each others caliphs. In reality, throughout history there were many cases where the majority of sunni and shia were both loyal to the same caliph. Or that a shia population was loyal to a sunni caliph, while sunni population were loyal to another group. E.g. , during WWI, in Iraq, the sunni tribes chose the british side, while the shia tribes stayed loyal to the Ottoman caliph, who was a sunni..--Kahraman 21:34, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Religion and politics

A few details from this article to the above page (or a link) - and can someone start off the Islam and politics (and other equivalent pages) please? Jackiespeel 21:49, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Description of Caliphate

I take objection to the description of Hizb ul Tahrir as wanting a "totalitarian" caliphate. I followed the link and searched on their website and they do not claim "totalitarian" as their motive. Indeed that terminology is used by their opponents. We must be really careful in describing organizations accuarately and not by sensationalist adjectives. Other than that single word "totalitarian" I find this article to be very good. Thanks Tyruler 19:21, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Just because they don't use the term, it doesn't necessarily mean it does not apply. Totalitarian is used to "describe modern regimes in which the state regulates nearly every aspect of public and private behavior". Sharia law is anti-democratic, non-pluralist, against human rights and intervenes in all spheres of private and public life in accordance with religious precepts. The argument that the term applies to HT is made in the aims section in the HT article. AJD 10:47, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

See discussion in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hizb_ut-Tahrir#Totalitarian.3F_Let_people_decide_that_themselves about the incorrect use of the word 'totalitarian'. 193.115.70.9 12:33, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

KazakhPol: I'm not Zora, and nothing i did was "completely innappropriate"

Why is adding: For main article see: Caliphate

And putting Caliphate under "see also" completely innappropriate? Aaliyah Stevens 10:10, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I see what you were trying to do, you made a mistake innocently reverting mine, instead of Zoras edits, I will revert Zora's blanket deletes as you tried. Thanks Aaliyah Stevens 10:15, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Tiny error

There is a small error in the very first paragraph. The Caliphs are referred to as "Khalifat ar-rasul Allah". In Arabic, that is grammatically incorrect. The "ar-" (the) should not be present. It should either be "Khalifat rasul Allah" (God's messenger's Caliphs) or simply "Khalifat ar-rasul" (Caliphs of the messenger / Caliphs of the prophet). Just thought I'd point this out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Forock (talk • contribs) 06:28, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Interwiki

The interwiki links of this article and the article Caliphate shouldn't coincide. Andres (talk) 10:46, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Wrong names..

I fixed one of the names under Claims to the caliphate. The first name should have been Abd-Allah ibn al-Zubayr. I corrected it. Abo 3adel (talk) 07:09, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I propose to merge the article Khalifa into this article. I believe they are basically the same thing. Any arguments? --Farzaneh (talk) 18:26, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Incomplete merge

Two months ago, this edit added several sections from another page, to the bottom of this page. Since then little has been done to tidy up the article, to bring it up to the usual standards that are applied to Wikipedia articles. It looks like it was a mergem attempt that just got dropped half way through. I would usually be bold and do it myself, but I lack the expertise in the subject matter to make a sensible go at completing the merge as it should be. Perhaps one of the regulars on this page could take a look into the matter. Astronaut (talk) 17:55, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Seljuq Caliph?

Al-Ghazali wrote the Nasihat al-Muluk for a Seljuq Sultan. The Seljuqs themselves never claimed the Caliphate. Changed "Caliph" to "Sultan." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.135.235.167 (talk) 16:56, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Cleanup/restructure

Three months later and still nothing has been done about the issue I raised above (see #Incomplete merge). I tagged the whole article as needing restructuring to bring this incorrectly merged section into the article properly, and I've tagged the point where the incorrect merge starts with cleanup-remainder. As I said above, I would normally try to do this myself, but I lack expertise in the subject matter to do it justice. Astronaut (talk) 17:17, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I have moved it up closer to the top of the article. Hopefully it will get noticed there by those who are more engaged in the topic than you or I. ←Spidern→ 05:33, 27 March 2009 (UTC)