Talk:Caliphate

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Caliphate article.
This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Article policies
Islam

This article is part of the WikiProject Islam, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Islam on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page so as to become familiar with the guidelines.
B This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale.

Article Grading:
The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.
A request has been made for this article to be peer reviewed by the Islam WikiProject.
WikiProject Turkey This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Turkey, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Turkey-related topics. Please visit the project page if you would like to participate. Happy editing!
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
To-do list for Caliphate: edit  · history  · watch  · refresh

No to-do list assigned; you can help us in improving the articles in the same category
Caliphate was a good article candidate, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. Once the objections listed below are addressed, the article can be renominated. You may also seek a review of the decision if you feel there was a mistake.

Date of review: 2007-03-02

Contents

[edit] Please allow this page time to develop as a seperate article from Caliph

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)

What is the point of merging the two when there is so much content? The institution of the ruler of a realm does not necessarily equal the realm itself. How would it be different from monarchy/monarch, county/count, bishop/diocese? I'm sure there are tons of similar examples, both secular and religious.
Peter Isotalo 13:35, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] KazakhPol removing referenced sentence of critic of Bush fears

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)

The issue is WP:NPOV's undue weight section. This criticism is not notable, and sourcing it to "Buzzle" is not reliable. If you are looking to cast George Bush in a negative way, at least do so in a less-obviously pov fashion. For example, a mention of the controversy over his use of Islamofascism would be appropriate here. KazakhPol 06:53, 14 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.

Please sign your posts with four tildas (~). The claim that "many Muslims view the war on terror as a war on Islam" is referenced to multiple surveys in the washington post [2] a credible source. If you can find a credible reputable source that cites surveys that the majority of muslims "have felt they were at war with the west for most of the 20th century" as you claim, please place this in a relevant wiki page, although i don't know how the latter would be relevant to this page. Aaliyah Stevens 10:08, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Seperation of Caliph article

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)

[edit] Capture by sect

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)

I am a major contributor to this article, please dont throw around wild accusations abouts 'sects' or people being members of HT. Please list specifically what you consider not to be NPOV, in detail and we can talk about it. There was, I suspect, some HT guys that had a seperate article on Khilafah, have a look at their version: [3] which was terribly POV, going on about definitions of dar-al-Islam etc I had to passify them by inclduing some of what they say (referenced) in this, but apart from that I can't see what is so HT about this? Please enlighten us, I do believe that all the quotes at the bottom are not necessarily needed, but they are referenced. Aaliyah Stevens 10:34, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Shawkani was Zaydi

Anonymouse user please do not delete that. Aaliyah Stevens 10:39, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Opening paragraph

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)

You are right, especially when it came to the ottomans, many parts were not politically unified centrally to the caliphate, however they were not the only caliphate, the whole of the then Muslim world was under the ummayads, and the abbasids initially. Also at times, despite a Muslim region being remote from the Caliphate, so not being politically unified with it, they paid nominal allegiance to the caliph, and in principle or theory still accepted the institution as the head of Islam. Thats why the wording was "it provided varying degrees of unity among the diverse nations that adopted Islam." However, I don't feel that strongly about your wording to revert it, I invite any more comments? Suggestions? Aaliyah Stevens 00:57, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA Failed

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)

Islam#History might be useful. --Aminz 07:46, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Federal or unitary?

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)

Yasir is right. This is an error and a flagrant one. No book on Islamic history I've ever read has described the caliphate as "federal". This is whitewash. --Leroy65X
The Caliphate had provinces that had their own governors, if it was not federal what was it?
A federal system is "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 Caliphate had no constitution, no division of law-making responsibility.
IOW, federal is a formal, deliberate division of power, not part of a time-honored, pre-modern waxing and waning of power from central monarchs to local powerholders. --Leroy65X 15:55, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Some of the provinces even had their own armies, so loose federation may be more accurate,
Throughout pre-modern and feudal history there have been empires where authority devolved to the local authorities as the power of the central imperial authority weakened. THis was natural, inevitable. It was much harder for central authority to exert authority over a province that might be weeks or months of horse travel away from the center. --Leroy65X 15:55, 15 March 2007 (UTC)


but please enlighten me as to why you believe it is not federal? The only Muslims I know who say it is not federal
I've never heard a Muslim (except you) talk about "federal" caliphates, but if some have they are misusing the term. --Leroy65X 15:55, 15 March 2007 (UTC)


is Hizb ut-Tahrir who twistingly over philosophise about the definition of federalism as a 'western' concept. We cannot allow one perty to dominate this article Aaliyah Stevens 14:40, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Also, to claim that most Muslims were governed by, Sultans, Emirs etc rather than a Caliph, is strange. 'Sultan' simply means authority and could refer or be used to imply the caliph or a local governor.
Yes Sultans, Emirs etc could just be a flunkies of the caliph, but the point is most of the time they were not. The sultan or emir was a title like king, shah, prince (which emir is often translated as of course). Most of the time the caliph was "titular," i.e. a figurehead.
Amir means ruler or commander, which is general term which could also be used to imply the caliph or a local governor,
The amirs of the emirates of the UAE are not just commanders or whatever they are small time monarchs. They are the remenants of many, many such rulers from before the 20th century. --Leroy65X 15:55, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Wali or Vizier. Most local Emirs or Sultans, needed approval from the central Caliph for legitimacy Aaliyah Stevens 13:14, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
If the caliphate had the power to grant or deny, yes. If he was figurehead it was a formality the caliph had no real control over. --Leroy65X 15:55, 15 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 Federalism = Split sovereignty
  • 2 Not all unions of states are federal e.g. EU

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:

  • 1 Dictionary.com: "pertaining to or of the nature of a union of states under a central government distinct from the individual governments of the separate states"
  • 2 American Heritage Dictionary -"Of, relating to, or being a form of government in which a union of states recognizes the sovereignty of a central authority while retaining certain residual powers of government."
  • 3 Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law - "of or constituting a form of government in which power is distributed between a central authority and a number of constituent territorial units (as states) a federal government"
  • 4 Merriam-Webster Dictionary - "formed by a compact between political units that surrender their individual sovereignty to a central authority but retain limited residuary powers of government"[4]

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)

I put it to you that you are trying to create a linguistic loophole for khilaafah being federal. The provinces recognize the khilaafah as the leader of the religion of the community but is there a "union"? a functioning government according to a constitution under the khilaafah?
Or is there a khilaafah "defending religious orthodoxy" from innnovation and urging the community to do this or that, with no governmental power to make them if they do not decide to? --Leroy65X 17:20, 15 March 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Power of the caliphate and "federalism"

"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 above describes a weakening and collapsing federation.
a "federation" in your mind. Its a weakening and collapsing state. Does anyone (or any historian) use the word "federation" to describe the caliphates except you? For everyone else it was a empire, or maybe just a state. --Leroy65X 16:53, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
The fact that it says that some provinces broke away, or almost broke away, and that others continued to be formally subservient to the Caliph, and the fact that it is spoken about in a tone that implies it was a union falling apart,
a "union" in your mind. Where does anyone else say a "union"? --Leroy65X 16:53, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
indicates that although historically the Khilaafah didn't always live up to the ideal of being an Islamic Union,
"Union" implies a bunch of states uniting into a larger body with a constitution, like the EU. What evidence do you have that states united to join a Caliphate?
A "federal" state implies one 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)
What evidence do you have that caliphate had a constitution or legislative bodies or deliberate division of power?
What evidence do you have the seperate regional armies run by people like Muhammad Ali was not just part of a time-honored, pre-modern waxing and waning of power from central monarchs to local powerholders?
it was supposed to be, but it wasn't ideal.
but what was the ideal? That the caliph rule justly obeying sharia law with Muslims and dhimmi obeying him? Or that there was a "federal government" as defined above?
That's why the words "to varying degrees throughout history" was used in the intro. I think there needs to be a distinction made between what the Khilaafa was and is in Islamic theology, during the first four, and how it didn't live up to the ideals after that during the dynasties. Aaliyah Stevens 10:08, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Of course, just don't invent a fantasy "federalism".

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.[5]

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)

[edit] Is the caliphate "federalist"?

This is the opening sentence of your article:

"A caliphate, (from the Arabic خلافة or khilaafah), is the federal system of political leadership of the Muslim world."

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:

  • 1) Where does it say in the Quran or Sunna that the caliph is to appoint what you call "federal" regional authorities? It may have been common practice and something you should mention later in the article. But put it in the first sentence? It seems, at best, very misleading.
  • 2) For a conqueror to divide up his territory into regions, putting his lieutenants in charge of the regions is no more "federalism" than is the granting of dukedoms, barronies, etc. to the successful commanders by a conquering European king. Federalism is not just 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."

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)


[edit] Imamate vs Caliphate

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.

Why don't you ask a Shia what they think of the caliphate before deleting my corrections? "Twelver Shi'ites consider the imams to be the only legitimate leaders of the community but accept the leadership of the highest clergy as the representatives of the Hidden Imam ..." (Historical Dictionary of Islam, 2001, p.72) --Leroy65X 22:52, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
I didn't say Shia didn't believe the caliphate existed. But Shia are not interested in the caliphate as "successors to the Prophet Muhammad's political authority." they believe imams are the successors. This is very basic knowledge. --Leroy65X 16:10, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

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,

Well I suppose (non-religious) Mexicans would be interested in the caliphate if the caliph is the president of Mexico. Then Mexico could be part of the caliphate. But neither Mexicans nor Shia are interested in the Caliphate as an institution. They are interested in (respectively) their president or their Imam. --Leroy65X 16:44, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

they believe the first 3 caliphs were usurpers, but not the 4th.

yes, we know all this.

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,

Is leadership of the ummah the same as the caliphate? Show us where Shia talk about the caliphate. --Leroy65X 22:52, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

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,

provinces?

as your quote from "Historical Dictionary of Islam" alludes to,

where?

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.

Not sure what you mean with this gobaldigoop but to the best of my knowledge it is very widely accepted that there are basically two kinds of shia political beliefs. Those who
1) believe velayat-e faqih means a leading jurist should rule Muslims and eventually the world; and Shia who
2) believe you should stay out of politics or do the best you can with the authorities in power until the madhi comes out of occultation and rules the world himself.
If you have any evidence to what you contend -- that shia and sunni both believe in caliphate but there is some slight difference between them over the criteria or power of the caliph -- show it. Otherwise this article looks like fantasy and an embarassment to wikipedia. --Leroy65X 22:52, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

This is all covered in a section of the article so whats the problem? Aaliyah Stevens 10:59, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Show me a mainstream Shia group that talks about the caliphate being the leader of Muslims and there'll be no problem. --Leroy65X 22:52, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
You obviously have not read the articles Imamah (Shia doctrine), or Vilayat-e Faqih. If what I am saying seems "gobaldigoop" to you, it is because you obviously lack a lot of background knowledge on this topic, and hence should not be so zealous with your limited knowledge. Now let's put this issue to rest:
1 The very meaning of the word Shia (Shiat'Ali) means Supporter of the Caliphate of Ali (and his desecendents).
2 Here is a quote from "The Shi'ite Encyclopedia", October 2001 revision, Chapter 3, part 1, called "The Major Difference Between the Shia and the Sunni":

"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.
The second issue has root into the first one. The Shia bound themselves to refer to Ahlul-Bayt for deriving the Sunnah of Prophet (PBUH&HF)."


You've found authoritiative sources and I just checked another source myself and I was wrong, Shia do talk about the caliphate, not just imamate.
But, a, there's still a problem. Look at your intro:
A caliphate, (from the Arabic خلافة or khilaafah), is the federal system of political 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; chosen or elected by the Muslims or their representatives.[1] 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. The caliphate is the only form of government that has full approval in early Sunni Islamic theology, and "is the core political concept of Sunni Islam, by the consensus of the Muslim majority in the early centuries."[2] Andrew Hammond reports that medieval caliphates "enjoyed scientific and military superiority globally - both absent today".[3]
"... chosen or elected by the Muslims or their representatives. ..."
" ... 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. ... "
Does this apply to Shia?
And if you look at the Vilayat-e Faqih article you will see it is NOT traditional shia doctrine, but a reasonably modern invention. Aaliyah Stevens 12:20, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Where did I say traditional Shia? I only said Shia.
Do you have any reply Stevens? Otherwise I'm going to start editing. --Leroy65X 21:18, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Community Vs. Nation? Ummah?

And community is a poor translation of Ummah.

No, community is commonly used. "In the context of Islam, the word ummah is used to mean the diaspora or 'Community of the Believers' (ummat al-mu'minin)" (from wikipedia article on ummah)
"Umma - The entire community of Moslems, those who have submitted themselves to Allah. (See also Islam.)" (from "Official Islam Glossary" http://uwacadweb.uwyo.edu/Religionet/er/islam/IGLOSSRY.HTM )
"Ummah - Ummah, community, or nation, is a special name given to Muslim brotherhood and unity" (from GLOSSARY OF ISLAMIC TERMS Compiled by Ishaq Zahid http://www.islam101.com/selections/glossaryUZ.html ) --Leroy65X 16:10, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Please do not argue these points if you don't know arabic. Aaliyah Stevens 11:49, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Please do not lectures editors about things you know very little about. --Leroy65X 16:10, 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)

"the system of political leadership of the Sunni Muslim community"
The statement says the Sunni Muslim community, not the Dearborn Sunni Muslim community, not Walthamstow Sunni Muslim community.
Nation might be used except in English Nation is used almost exclusively to mean a nation state, a state made up mostly of the speakers of one language, so it would be misleading. --Leroy65X 16:32, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Let's just use Ummah? It can explain itself in the link? Aaliyah Stevens 11:32, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Khilaafat Vs Khilafah

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)

Are you sure about that? We'll ask an arabic speaker but in Quranic Arabic the taa marbuta is pronounced whenever it is followed by another word.
Khilaafah gets 596 google hits. Add the taa marbuta for Khilaafat and you get 1,780 hits. I'd say you were outvoted. Leroy65X 16:10, 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 [6] 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)

OK, You're (mostly) right about that. I'll make one last comment on 'taa marbuta'
Yes Khilafah is more commonly used. Yes words like shari'at are spelled sharia not shari'at most of the time. But if you're a stickler for transliteration and do things like use a double a to indicate alif as apposed to fata than you will probably also use the taa marbuta, which is what the 1,780 hits and myself were doing.
end of any comment on 'taa marbuta.' —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Leroy65X (talk • contribs) 16:18, 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)

[edit] New Lead suggested as per above 3 sections

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)

Much better but there's still the problem that Shia would not agree with the statement: "the actual leadership of the Muslim world was held by successive caliphates to varying degrees in the Umayyad, Abbasid, and finally Ottoman dynasties." --Leroy65X 22:51, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Here's my proposal:

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.

or maybe

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.

--Leroy65X 23:01, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

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)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../c/a/l/Talk%7ECaliphate_39cc.html"