Talk:Caliphate/Archive 1

Please allow this page time to develop as a separate 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)

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)

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. " 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 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)

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: 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)

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

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

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 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)

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)

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"

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)

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: 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.

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)

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.

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.
 * 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 - "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)

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)

AKP
a sebtence incorrectly describes the akp as islamist, though this is claimed by some/many. it also states that its ultimate goal is establisment of the caliphate, this however is totally unfounded

Fair enough Aaliyah Stevens 15:13, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I think this is a worthy of being nominated as a GA
This is the broadest and fairly indept overview on the Caliphate I've seen without any political hijacking Zcaky06 15:29, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

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)


 * I have removed this from the lead: Andrew Hammond reports that medieval caliphates "enjoyed scientific and military superiority globally - both absent today". (Middle East Online, (statement under heading picture) ) because it doesn't belong there. Arrow740 03:45, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Relevance of 2.2 "Position of George W Bush"?
Section 2.1 identifies entities that seek to restore the caliphate, and it seems informative, But section 2.2 regarding the opinions of several high ranking U.S. officials regarding a caliphate restoration seems out of place -- more commentary on the notion than central fact, and highly granular in scope compared to the rest of the article.

Perhaps section 2.2 should be moved to a separate article regarding caliphate restoration movement and criticism? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.70.174.255 (talk • contribs)


 * I agree, that's why I've removed it. &lt;&lt;-armon-&gt;&gt; 09:47, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I see your point, but no other article exists at the moment, and if we are to follow your logic we should remove most of the history sections too and leave only the concept. This article is about the caliphate, and has to include what the white house thinks of such a notion, and what Muslim groups a campaigning for it. This is not beyond the scope of the article. Also if you look at wiki policies, you cannot delete refenced sections without agreement here in discussion first. I would like to see a wiki policy to justify such a deletion, until then the section should stay, there is no urgent need to remove it Aaliyah Stevens 12:19, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Let's make an article then. The issue is too peripheral. Theissue seems too much like an excuse to claim there's a war against islam. Is no one objects in the next week or so I will create the arcile and a link to it--BoogaLouie 15:30, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * This paragraph:
 * Donald Rumsfeld said U.S. allies should increase military spending to prevent the creation of a "global extremist Islamic empire." (Rumsfeld: Iran regime sponsors terrorism ABC News)
 * does not seem to be relevent to the article. "global extremist Islamic empire." is not the same as a Caliphate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BoogaLouie (talk • contribs) 20:36, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I've changed the subsection title to "opposition". I don't know if we need another article yet, but it does need to be expanded beyond the position of the US pres. There's likely streams of thought within Islam which are opposed to reestablishing a Caliphate (or at least the Islamists version of it). This should also be included. &lt;&lt;-armon-&gt;&gt; 09:32, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Primary Evidence
Sorry if this annoys anybody, but I've removed this section because it really isn't appropriate for a WP article. We're not supposed to using primary sources, but rather reliable secondary sources. Some of this section appears to be secondary sources, but we need to work them into the main body of the text in order to give the reader an overview. &lt;&lt;-armon-&gt;&gt; 09:57, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Armon, there is no wikipedia policy on not using primary sources that are used by the experts in the field. your reference to reliable secondary sources in wikipedia policy is declared at the top as NOT a policy but a guide, and even then contains no such assertion. It stays until it is discussed further and agreed, again there is no need to rush and wipe out whole swathes of an article without solid policy to guide us and without consultation. Aaliyah Stevens 12:23, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * ...then the issue is WP:OR. This is what the entire section of "primary evidence" was. The point in using secondary sources is to avoid OR. &lt;&lt;-armon-&gt;&gt; 09:23, 6 October 2007 (UTC)


 * This does not really looks like OR to me because the large segment in question includes also citations of Islamic scholars. Besides, any primary sources can be used per WP:SOURCE. One can cite Quran or Bible. Why not? However, the deletion by Armon partly makes sense, because the segment with large Quran citations negatively affect the readability of the whole article. It is already too large. I would suggest creating a new article, something like Islamic theories of Caliphate where all this content belongs, whereas this article would refer to Islamic theories only briefly.Biophys 02:49, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


 * To clarify. If you use a list of primary evidence, quotes from religious texts, which advance a particular theological interpretation, we'll have either an OR, or a NPOV problem. Aside the readability and length issues, it appeared to me to be advancing the idea that a Caliphate is the only legitimate form of Islamic government. This may even be the consensus view within Islamic scholarship (though we'd need to make clear whether it's Sunni or Shia, or both) -I don't presume to be an expert. However, we need some secondary sources which summarize and explain it. &lt;&lt;-armon-&gt;&gt; 01:27, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I think you may be right here. Indeed, a theological interpretation of religious texts is not something wikipedians should be doing. It is better to use secondary sources.Biophys 17:06, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

OK secondary sources such as statemnts of traditional / classical islamic scholars?

Arab Caliphate
The article of that name serves no purpose. It contains the same information as this one. Furthermore, it creates the problem of the name: is it Arab or Islamic Caliphate? Arab or Islamic Empire? Str1977 (talk) 11:43, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * There is so far no consensus for this merge. Take a look at Ottoman Caliphate for an example of a non-Arab Caliphate.Bless sins (talk) 14:59, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Dou you have any substantial reasons for opposing this?
 * As for your link, take a look at Ummayad Caliphate, Abbasid Caliphate, Fatimid Caliphate. Also consider that there is no article non-Arab Caliphate.
 * Arab Caliphate serves no purpose that this article doesn't already fulfill.
 * So, unless you are bringing on actual reasons for retaining a separate article I am implementing the merge again. We can keep on discussing this but for now, as no objection at all was raised, the merge will remain. Str1977 (talk) 15:09, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Please note that the "ottoman caliphate" is not called "turk Caliphate", or "turkish caliphate", so why should there be an article called "arab caliphate"?! The "arab" caliphates are appropriately called by their proper names respectively such as the "rashidun", the "fatimid", the "Abbasi" and "Ummayid". Aaliyah Stevens (talk) 15:48, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Economy and Banking
This is an article on the Caliphate not what Isloamic world.net and Hizb ut-Tahrir would like the caliphate to be. Economy and Banking section is pure fantasy and POV--Leroy65X 14:42, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

where does huzb uttahreer come into that section without reference? if the material is referenced then it can be included? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.201.190.57 (talk) 00:16, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

The section on economy and banking is generic Islamic concepts of economics. Can you deny any of the principles exist, e.g. the forbidding of riba? If all of the points are referenced, and they state who argues for what, I can't see a problem. Aaliyah Stevens (talk) 15:50, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

The Almohade Caliphate
I noticed that this article does not mention the Almohad Caliphate. I see no reason that given the above it should not be mentioned. It has political and religious authority. It was the Caliphate responsible for the preservation of Muslim ruel in Al Andalus for a few hundred years. It seems to me to be very important to history for that reason. --71.201.225.194 (talk) 00:15, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

The Fatimid Caliphate
Any discussion of Caliphate cannot exclude the Fatimid Caliphate primarily established in Eypt whose contributions are central to so many of our modern institutions. The Ismaili Fatimid Caliphate established the al-Azhar University as an innovative instituion of higher learning that is considered as a model for the modern University. Pedagogical methods and practices of the time are still prevalent in universities across the world, including the custom of donning graduation gowns. A good starting resource would be the discussions by Marshall Hodgson in "The Venture of Islam. ^^^^ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Transformer2 (talk • contribs) 15:11, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

End of the Caliphate
Caliphate. Omar did claim authority over all Muslims and the statement that he is no longer the head of the Taliban has no evidence behind it. 202.169.183.252 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 11:01, 4 November 2008 (UTC).

Word order?
Imam al-Mu'minīn (إمام المؤمنين),   now when I cut and paste this,  the word order changes ! Have a look on the main page and the "iman" bit is first. How does that work then ?Eregli bob (talk) 06:33, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

tagging "stray from topic"
This has been aded to several section:

The sections at the end of the article have much material that might qualify as "nice things that happened during some of the caliphates," or "how an ideal Islamic poltical/economic system might be run", but that don't belong in an article on the caliphate.

An example at random: "Early forms of proto-capitalism and free markets were present in the Caliphate". This belong in an islamic hsitory article perhaps but not this one. --BoogaLouie (talk) 23:44, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

woah!!! i am legend id a good movie! caliphs made that as well, even though thats hard to beleive —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.100.169.26 (talk) 15:55, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Intro not accessible enough
A concern on the intro: It seems to me to presume significant understanding of the subject matter and is not sufficiently simple enough for general audiences (i.e. audiences who might know nothing about Islam and its history). On principle, the introduction of any article should be very accessible to all audiences whereas some sub-sections might be a little more involved.

The current intro reads


 * The caliphate (from the Arabic خليفة or khilāfa) represented the political leadership of the Muslim Ummah. The head of state's position (caliph) is based on the notion of a successor to the Islamic prophet Muhammad's political authority.


 * Sunni Islam dictates that the caliph should be selected by Shura[1], elected by Muslims ...


 * The caliphate was the only form of governance that had full approval in traditional Islamic theology, and "is the core political concept of Sunni Islam, by the consensus of the Muslim majority in the early centuries."[2]

For somebody completely unfamiliar with the term it is difficult to glean that this is referring to a form of government. Perhaps something more along the lines of the following might be appropriate.


 * The term caliphate (from the Arabic خليفة or khilāfa) refers to a traditional form of government based on the religion of Islam. The term is also sometimes used to refer to a state which implements such a government. This form of government is based on the principle that there is a single unified nation of Muslim believers, the Ummah, led by a head of state, the caliph, who is a successor to the Islamic prophet Muhammad's political authority.


 * Historically there have been many states claiming to be led by caliphates, some existing simultaneously. Sunni Islam dictates that the caliph should be selected by Shura ...


 * In traditional Islamic theology the caliphate was the only form of governance that had full sanction and "is the core political concept of Sunni Islam, by the consensus of the Muslim majority in the early centuries." (John O. Voll: Professor of Islamic history at Georgetown University Revivalism, Shi‘a Style)

Note that the last paragraph is essentially the same except that I reordered clauses slightly. The paragraph comes a little close to sounding like it is saying that the caliphate is the only valid type of government for Muslims. Reordering the clauses clarifies this a little.

--Mcorazao (talk) 21:02, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Since I didn't get any feedback I took the liberty of introducing the changes. Please feel free to change as you see fit.
 * --Mcorazao (talk) 18:58, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

transcription
The beginning of the article transcribes خليفة as "khilāfa". I don't think that this is right. The arabic word consists of the 5 letters kh,l,i,f,a. The vowel between kh and l is short (I guess, a short a), the vowel between l and f is a long i: ي

194.24.138.3 (talk) 20:09, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Fixed by : khilafa is خلافة, not  خليفة   .  Thanks!
 * 194.24.138.3 (talk) 21:40, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Papacy
I noticed that certain Muslim writers have compared to Caliphate to the medieval Papacy and its associated Papal States, with the present Holy See/Vatican being a contemporary extension of that Papacy. It would be interesting if we could have a footnote on these kinds of comparisons somewhere in the article. ADM (talk) 10:38, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

The text has been copied and pasted from Hizb-Ut-Tahrir literature —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.229.242.53 (talk) 14:24, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Why does "Arab Empire" redirect here?
I wanted information on when the Arab empire spread to Africa, there's no such information available. This article seems to focus completely on the rulers and not on the actions of the Empire at all. Can we please get an Empire Article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.158.199.138 (talk) 08:22, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Thhere was no such thing as an "Arab Empire" it was always multi-ethnic, and Muslim, not Arab. The Abbasids were largely dominated by Persians, the Ottomans were Turks. Only the Ummayads were Arab, and even then in Spain the people were spanish, and ruled by Spaniards of Ummayad descent. It is like describing the secular British Empire as the Christian Empire, only being the opposite concept Aaliyah Stevens (talk)


 * this is not correct, there has always been an arab empire, ruled by arabs, regardless of the different ethnicities it had, whe you talk about the mongol empire, it included tens of different ethnicities, who were all under the mongol rule, same with the Arab Empire, the Abbasids were Arabs, the Ummayids, the rashiduns, the Fatimids, were all arabs, even the Ayubids, was an Arab empire.

the article of arab Empire MUST be remade. this is rediculous, the topic, arab empire, is completely differen from the topic caliphet. the caliphet is a system, while the Arab empire, was a state. plus does that mean we shoule eliminate the ottoman empire? Arab League User (talk) 23:29, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Umayyads, 7th–8th centuries: contradiction between text and diagram
The text of this section states that Muslim rule spread through Persia under the Umayyads, but the diagram shows Persia already within the area controlled by the earlier Rashidun Caliphs. 67.164.98.127 (talk) 07:01, 30 October 2009 (UTC) Mark Hein 10/31/2009

Sharia-cracy
There is one correction and one commentary. 1. The term "Parliament" is not equivalent to majlis as shura since the members did not have authorities in legislating a law. They only function as bureau to collect citizens' claims, complaints, critics and advisement. 2.Quoting: "Islamists from the Muslim Brotherhood the largest Islamist movement and main oppostion in Egypt,  argue that Shura in the modern age is simply called democracy, and that Islam and the caliphate system is inherently democratic without the need for it to conform to western political notions [2]."

My remark: Caliphate IS NOT democracy. Caliphate is sharia-cracy which lack of its "act as divine" power attributed to democracy. In democracy parliament make subjective divine-level law applied to other people (hence they act as gods, Islam stringently forbid a moslem act as god and its included as apostasy and violate "ISLAMIC HUMAN RIGHT"). Caliphate IS NOT necessarily theocracy, for the same above reason (caliph is not a sin-free,god avatar).

NB: 1. Sharia is a law revealed by God Allah to human through God's messengers-Muhammad being the last one,transmitted directly or indirectly by angel Jibril; in complete form Shariah al Islamiyah (loosely translated as: Islamic law). 2. I'm apologizing for broken English. Celestaion (talk) 12:00, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Life expectancy claims
See discussion at Talk:Islamic Golden Age. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Syncategoremata (talk • contribs) 12:05, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Can I collaborate with you?
Hey, can i collaborate with you on your admirable endeavours to present the reality of Islam? Can i have your email address to work with you Aaliyah? ThanksSamiprince (talk) 15:21, 4 August 2010 (UTC)Sami

Horrible English
Can we get this article edited by a native English speaker? I didn't get much past the opening paragraphs because it was impossible to follow. Just one example: viceregency is spelled wrong, and it doesn't mean "caretaker". In fact Vice-regent, which I think is the word the writer was looking for, doesn't even mean “care taker”, it means someone who rules on behalf of a regent (king). On a similar note the word Caliphate in English, is derived from the word Caliph in English, which in turn is derived from Arabic. The article suggests a direct derivation, as if "-ate, -at" is not a common word ending in English, as in "triumvirate" or "Secretariat". More importantly watch the run-on sentences!!! They are a chore to make sense of. I hope someday to be able to read beyond the opening paragraph into an article fit for Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.16.146.33 (talk) 16:07, 10 September 2010 (UTC)


 * - -- - - - ''I've begun trying to do this Aaliyah Stevens (talk) 19:20, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

''

What does "dicate" mean?
There's this word "dicate" in the intro which I think has no meaning or none that I could find anyway. Could somebody please correct or explain better? Thanks94.71.132.77 (talk) 14:31, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

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)

Martin Rinehart here, and please accept my apologies if these remarks are not in good form. I believe that there is a confusion here caused by two distinct meanings of "caliphate". Some apply the term to the governance of the Muslim community immediately after the death of Muhammad sometimes referring specifically to the period of the first three caliphs. Others apply the term to a principle in the Muslim religion by which the Muslim world, and by implication the entire world, should be governed. Indeed there seems to be a dispute regarding the validity of the former (the period of the first caliphs) as representative of the latter. I leave that debate to those who understand its subtleties. This article, however, will be wobbly until we agree on the subject. Perhaps we need two articles? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MartinRinehart (talk • contribs) 19:33, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

CALIPHATE or ARAB EMPIRE
we have long been discussing this for a pretty long period of time now... Caliphate is a Religious sytem ruling that tha Arab Empire adopted... and then the Ottoman Empire... yet Clearly the Article about an Arab Empire was removed/redirected to here... regardless of the Fact that their WAS an Arab Empire... that was refferred to as the Empire of the Arabs, which with no doubt, like most otehr empires, included many ethnicities, but was primarly ruled, by Arabs, or Arabized people, thus called the Arab Empire, that stretched from the Rashidunes, and ended with the Mamluks, who had Turkish Origins (most of them), yet where Arabized, and Ethnically swiched to arabs, by adopting the language, culture, traditions, and all these things that make up a certain ethnic group... anyways... we need a vote to either recreate Arab Empire, and leave Caliphate as a Political System... or not...

For


 * Recreate - since i clearly find that the Arab Empire is a VERY differant topic than the Theocracy system, of Caliphet... their is a definate need for two articles here, ones that will probably equally big, since the Arab Empire would include parts of the Expansion into N. Africa, Spain, Persia, C. Asia and even China, and will include the Economic features, and the rulers of an Empire that had 5 main Dynasties included the Ummayids, Rashiduns, Abbasids, Fatimids, and Ayyubids, as well as smaller Dynasties, in the West of the Arab world, and in the East of the Arab world, the article will also include a section for the Arab Scientists of this era, and the economy, as well as Inventions, and the Rulers, and teh Crusades, and the sack of Baghdad, as well as the Empire's Most Important Cities, such as Cairo, Damascus, Basra, Kufa, Baghdad, Medina, Fes, Seville, Cordoba, Granada, Kairouan, Jerusalem, Hadramout, Fes, Marrakech, Oran, Mahdi, and other cities..

the Article wil definatly need to include the minorities of this Arab Empire, and how they were treated, and talk about dieseases, and freedom of speech, and many more things that the Article of Caliphate would be inapprorpiate to discuss in...

basically, the Ottoman Empire has a seperate Article, while the Arab Empire doesnt... just like the Chinese Empire, with differant Dynasties, has its own usefull article, the Arab Empire needs one as well...Arab League User (talk) 00:49, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Against


 * The "Caliphate" is the term which has always been used in English for the polity that existed from 632-1258 and which was ruled by the Rashidun, Umayyad, and Abbasid caliphs. The term "Arab Empire" is basically a neologism, and is pretty much never used in English.  The post-1260 Abbasid caliphs, along with the Ottoman sultans who, at some point or other (it's not completely clear when) took up the title of caliph, are clearly kind of a weak echo of the original caliphate, while other "caliphates," like the Fatimids or the Umayyads of Cordoba, are clearly secondary meanings.  Unless you can provide some evidence that the term "Arab Empire" is in common use in English, I don't see any grounds for such an article. john k (talk) 05:10, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

- Arab League User (talk) 00:49, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Against

There was no such thing as an Arab empire. The very definition of an Arab is itself under dispute, as it was only Islam which 'Arabized' people, who otherwise were egyptians, berbers, Iraqis, persians, phonecians, syriac, and nubians. The prophet Mohammad said that anyone who speaks Arabic is an Arab, hence Salman Al-Farsi was an Arab too. The empires of the Abbasids was largely a persian empire that spoke Arabic for religious reasons, the Mamluks and ottomans were the same. The basis for all of the so called "Arab Empires" was Islam. Without Islam they could not claim legitimacy for ruling, or expansion. Their very reason for existence was Islam, after all, the Rashidun period was ruled by the prophet Muhammad's disciples. You will find many claiphs who were non-Arab in origin, but you will not find a single non-Muslim Claiph, the very thought is an oxymoron. Hence the term claiphate and not Arab Empire, as the basis of the state was Islam. Keep in mind that the great scientific achievements of this era and the so called Arab or Islamic golden era were during the Abbasid Caliphate period. Many of the great scientists were not Arab, and of the 4 great masters of Sunni schools of law, only Imam Shafi'i was a true ethnic Arab, even Al-Ghazali was not an Arab, nor were great scientists like Al-Khwarizmi. Aaliyah Stevens (talk) 19:29, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

"The basis for all of the so called "Arab Empires" was Islam. Without Islam they could not claim legitimacy for ruling, or expansion." Could not, or should not? Chinggis Khan (aka Genghis) won quite a large empire simply because he could. It is commonly called the Mongolian empire. I have heard of the Islamic empire, but never the Arab empire. I think the latter in error writing for a Western, English-speaking audience. (And you are right about Al-Khwarizmi, but he's miles off topic and probably Persian, no?) — Preceding unsigned comment added by MartinRinehart (talk • contribs) 20:12, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Four Caliphates?
I come to this topic as a complete novice, so forgive my igorance. We are told near the start of the article that after the Rashidun "period", there were four Caliphates "The first dynasty was the Umayyad. This was followed by the Abbasid, the Fatimid, and finally the Ottoman Dynasty." However, the individual articles on the Umayyads and Abbasids state categorically in their opening sections that they were the second and third Caliphates, with the Rashidun as the first and the Ottomans as the fourth and last. I realise that the issues are not completely clear, and that they are discussed in the articles, but I think that it looks bad to have very important articles contradicting each other. Perhaps a little re-wording to make the claims made more qualified would help. Tigerboy1966 (talk) 00:21, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It depends on opinion, really. The Fatimid and the end of the Abbasid happened at the same time, but the Abbasid only had power over Iraq. The Fatimid isn't always counted because the Abbasid technically was still around, even though actual power was held by the Fatimid. It's not really clear-cut either way. 66.183.11.233 (talk) 22:30, 11 February 2011 (UTC) ( User:Zazaban, not logged in.)
 * It's simpler than that, actually. The Umayyad was the first dynasty but the second caliphate. The Rashidun Caliphate was not dynastic. --Tyrannus Mundi (talk) 09:55, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

"Taleban's emirate system" and "Qutb's hair splitting on democracy"
The complaint has been made by an anon who deleted several sentences that "This article is about the caliphate system, not Taleban's emirate system or Qutb's hair splitting on democracy, or how democracy is defined."

I can't agree. Opposing democracy and elections as un-Islamic is hardly hair splitting, and Qutb is a major if not the major influence among Sunni Islamists for whom reviving the caliphate is a very big deal.

OTOH, claiming that the Taleban's system was an "emirate system" not a "caliphate system," does seems like hair splitting. The Taliban amir was titled Amir-ul Momineen, the traditional title of the Caliph by his supporters, i.e. he was considered a caliph by his supporters. --Leroy65X 16:52, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

YOu need to provide evidence that Mullah Omar was considered Caliph by his supporterd not simply an Emir. And Nabhani / Qutb did not oppose elections, Qutb opposed democracy, there is a differnce between democracy and elections. look it up.82.26.71.11 22:08, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Would the disputants kindly explain the relevance of this dispute to the topic of the article? Many thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MartinRinehart (talk • contribs) 19:43, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

The section on the Taliban, like on the Ahmadiyya, requires removal. The Taliban is an extremely small, effectively defunct organization. Citing it here gives undue weight. -Farhan000 (talk) 14:40, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

4.3 Shi'a belief section contains irrelevant information describing Dawoodi Bohras's unity
Under the 4.3 Shi'a belief section, there is a paragraph describing how Dawoodi Bohras have unity, common culture and traditions across the globe despite coming from different countries. It begins as follows:

"The same was philosophy of Fatimid, and same being literally followed by Dawoodi Bohra's Dai in absence and on behalf of their hidden Imam.This is the result that Bohra have unity amongst them all over the world."

While the information in these paragraphs may be an accurate representation of the Bohra community's unity, it has nothing to do with the topic of Caliphate. The only point that is relevant to the subject of this article is that Bohras (and Shias) ''Shia group of Ismaili/ Fatimid/ Dawoodi Bohra believe in Imamate principle mentioned above, but they need not be ruler. ''

I have already tagged this part of the paragraph as straying from the main article. If no one objects, I shall go ahead and remove the irrelevant lines from the article in order to keep it to contrite.

Sfali16 (talk) 05:56, 3 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree, the Dawoodi Bohra modern leadership is unrelated to the historic Fatimid dynasty, and thus requires removal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Farhan000 (talk • contribs) 18:19, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Selection of Caliph
According to Sunni belief caliph by the Muslim community. Sunni Muslims developed the belief that the caliph is a temporal political ruler, appointed to rule within the bounds of Islamic law

'Objection' - how caliph is elected by islamic community as there is no practical islamic state now a days.

According to Shia believe Caliph should be elected on the basis of majority opinion, shura or election.

'Objection' - If caliph is elected by this method it would be Democracy (election} which is Shirk is Islam as ruler selected by people not by islamic method —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.152.33.150 (talk) 14:51, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Sunni believe that a Caliph is selected by the Muslims, Shia believe that he should be chosen by the previous Caliph.--BelalSaid (talk) 21:41, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Caliph selection
First of all, allow me to apologize to Runehelmet for reverting his edit without asking him about the recent dispute first - that wasn't prudent and it wouldn't have hurt me to simply bring things here first. I have returned the material which he felt should be included and tried to tone down the language of my edit as well. Obviously, if any other editors still take issue they are free to also be WP:BOLD and make necessary changes. I also hope we can hammer this out here and reach a compromise on the best way to word things.

My position - and perhaps my wording was non-neutral and thus didn't make my intent clear - was to represent what is the traditionally held position by Sunni scholars. Yes, the Caliph is chosen and elected by Shura, but there are conditions in the Sharia law other than being chosen. Ruling justly, ruling by the Sharia and not man-made laws, and so forth. In early Islam, one condition which was never contested regarding this elected ruler was that he be a descendant of Quraysh. I'm not an expert on Islamic law, but I am a hobbyist, and I have been tutored by half a dozen experts in Islamic studies. Prior to the Ottoman Empire, nobody claimed a Caliph could be non-Qurashi. Even the Fatimid and Almohad Caliphates had to fabricate made-up lineages traced back to Qurashi sub-tribes in order to legitimize their rule. I knew this for a long time, but I never had an interest in researching secondary sources for Wikipedia. While researching something else, I came upon a good one with page number and everything, so I included it.

To Runehelmet's credit, he brought up some good counterpoints but in order to avoid misrepresenting his position, I think it's better to let him express himself. I will emphasize again that I am sorry for reverting without clarifying first, and per WP:OWN any other editor is still free to revert my own edits and then explain here why. I will respond, of course, but I just want to make it clear that I was acting in good faith and it wasn't my intention to brush off the concerns of others. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:04, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
 * No hard feelings MezzoMezzo :) There is now nothing wrong with your recent edit, as it illustrates the view of the scholars. But I have still my doubts about the use of the word all, but let's leave that behind. We can leave the content now as it is. Regards. Runehelmet (talk) 18:01, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but didn't the Abbasids control all of the territories of the Ummayad Caliphate except for thr Iberian Peninsula?
I could have sworn that the last time I checked the articles on these two caliphates, the only differenc was that the Abbasids had no control over thr Iberian Peninsula due to the Ummayads controlling it. Am I wrong?Keeby101 (talk) 17:52, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Khilafat is not necessary an Islamic State
Alwihasan84 (talk) 00:07, 7 July 2010 (UTC)As we know that a state needs to accomplish three de facto and one de jure requirements to be established, as for Islamic State. But for the Khilafat, there are not necessary. Khilafat is just an Islamic organization lead by a Caliph who is also an Imam, to regulate the law of Islam to it's believer only, so the Shari'a can completely be implemented. The organizational mission is ultimately meant to manage economical activities (mu'ammala) of the members, in which is the muslims. Also, Khilafat only need just one, while Islamic State could be more.

As the consequences of this facts, Khilafat need not require a domain and a legality from another countries in the world, it can be established anytime in any place. It is not a threat or a subversive movement as it's only an economic organization, coated by Islamic Rules. Memberships of Khilafat is limited to muslims, so the Islamic Law is not meant to be forced to another believers in any way and any standpoint.

Da'wa as a medium of Islamic View propagation in this modern time thus not be targeted to non-muslims, because the world now has a different situations, it's different from the old times which was an embryonic phase of Islam. Now, Islam has grown vast and steady. In the old times, jihad by a form of holy war was only necessary to protect the persons who do da'wa from any threat from the foreigners, but now, it's not necessary.

Islamic Defense is divided by two purpose: to disciplining the implementation of Shari'a Islam among the muslims, and to protect the trade from any threat.

Don't we compare Khilafat to Islamic Dynasties, it's absolutely not a Khilafat, but an Islamic State! The leaders were not to be called as Calpih, they were Kings. The best suite for Khilafat was in the time of Rashidun period. In that time, all my descriptions of the Khilafat will be easily found.


 * Without some relevant sources for the claims, this appears to be an opinion/advocacy statement in violation of Wikipedia:NOTSOAPBOX. This same concern also applies to the entries above by Md. Nasireddin Ghani. Dialectric (talk) 12:50, 8 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Alwihasan84, respectfully, you are mixing up THE political Khilafah with the Sufi concept of Khilafah. The Khilafah, by its very nature, demands political autonomy. The Definition of Khilafa demands civil authority. The Sufi concept of Khilafah is something different, and unrelated to this page. This requires the moving of the Ahmadiyya Caliphate section. (Farhan000)  18:15, 19 September 2012 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Farhan000 (talk • contribs)


 * Farhan000, khilafah is not necessarily a political office, this is a grave misconception to which todays muslims have succumbed. Indeed the prophet is seen to be the khalifatullah (vicegerent of God on earth) Yet he was not the head of any state for about the first 13 years of declaring his prophethood. Yes, by the time of his death he became the head of state and statehood had come into the hands of Muslims and the rashidun caliphs continued to be the heads of state, but that too was limited to the state of Arabia (and perhaps by extension the lands governed by Muslims under them) whereas it is established that Islam had spread as far as India and China, under the rashidun caliphs. Howerever, Muslims living in these lands had their own local heads of state presumably while still retaining their religious/spiritual affiliation to the Rashidun caliphs at Medina/kufa. Thus, it is not essential for a khalifah to be the head of a state, khilafah is above all a religious/spiritual office, there to uphold, strengthen and spread Islam and the high spiritual and moral standards established by the prophet who was not merely a political leader but primarily a religious leader. Unfortunately today Muslims seek after the shell and ignore the kernal, they only want political/temporal power and care not for the religious and spiritual strength of islam.

Sirius86 (talk) 17:19, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Claims Fact or Fiction 21st Century Caliphate/ Global Caliphate RevivedCaliph
Israel have been warning of the emergence of a Global Caliphate in 21st Century, also CIA report released shows an inevitable reestablishment of the caliphate. the following article provides more info on it. http://thetruereligion.wordpress.com/2012/02/25/global-caliphate-revived-a-message-from-the-21st-century-caliphate/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.54.67.128 (talk) 13:40, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

there were many problems with that article that made it uncitable, including the fact it has recently been taken down for violating terms of use from the site. As well most of the claims of a global caliphate are from non academic sources, we need those to prove what you speak of not random blog posts from people SandeepSinghToor (talk) 22:15, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Article follows Political-Religious-Ideological Perspective
This article is totally POV It follows an ideological narrative that claims a continuity between distinct and separate states. It is a travesty of article – an example of religious people re-writing of history to fit their ideological interpretation of history. Modern scholarship shows that Islam was NOT fully formed at the time of Arab conquest but evolved with Arab empire. The Mamluk & Ottoman states were not continuation of an Islamic state but new states that happened to Islamic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.217.200.42 (talk) 00:09, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

According to the evidence Islam was mostly formed however was going through a relationship process where they didn't know how to implement religious law etc. Many of the contributors to this page including me are not Muslim and many are not religious, I see how you may see it as a biased article but you have to understand this point in Islamic history was a boom time like the renissabnce was for europe, there were many successes and advances from previous times as well as negative effects, we list both but neither the PErsians nor the Byzantines they expanded into where saintly states themselves. As for the continuity most of the first Caliphs were continuing with people inheriting or seizing it from other people or families, with the mongol invasion he was killed however the Ottomans seized the title of Caliph for the Sultan with the capture of Arabian territory, this is clearly written and shows there was a period of a few hundred years when no one really had the title. The role and interpretation of Islam changed over time however Islam was mostly formed by the 1000 year mark by most scholars opinions, after all if you have sources that fit feel free to add information or contradict sentences from one source with a scholar that disagrees with the other source SandeepSinghToor (talk) 22:22, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Infobox
User:Rajkumararslan, you are invited to discuss here why you would like to keep the country infobox. Here are my two cents: Caliphate was never a country or a state. It is a form of governance, as clearly stated in the article. Secondly, adding this huge infobox destroys the existing structure of the page, shifting many images out of place. --Peace world  14:18, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Is caliphate a right-wing authoritarian ideology?
Teaksmitty (talk) 04:54, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Well the closest comparison would be the pope however Caliphs do not claim to (generally) be able to communicate with God or be his representative but rather the head of the religion whose opinion on the Quran would be listened to, as for an ideology I don't know what it would be classified accordingly too as a Caliph does not even have to be head of state so it could just be a title held by someone in a nation who is respected by Religious followers, I would try an academic search premier for the Caliphate system if I were you to see if any scholars have provided details as to what the system could be classified as but since the Caliphate is so complex I don't think I could give you a straightforward answer other than think of a Pope like system in Islam or like the Theocracy of Iran where the ruler does not claim to talk to god but is supposed to be respected for opinion in religious terms, either of those could help you gain the answer you are looking for — Preceding unsigned comment added by SandeepSinghToor (talk • contribs) 22:01, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Prophet?
Why is Muhammad frequently referred to as "Prophet". Seems there is some religious contamination in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.88.203.41 (talk) 02:47, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It is like saying Saint. And there are many Mohammeds or refer to him as "Islam Prophet" Muhammad. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BelalSaid (talk • contribs) 21:43, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree with above post, its mostly a case of saying the prophet muhammad as his title not because of religious bias but because there are thousands of mohammeds and thats sort of how muslims and non muslims denote that one similar to saint nicholas over just nicholas — Preceding unsigned comment added by SandeepSinghToor (talk • contribs) 22:06, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Ahmadiyya Caliphate, 1908-present
Ahmadiyya are not considered Muslims by 99.9 percent of Muslim population beside propaganda section of British government. Ahmadiyya don't even live in Muslim majority countries...Its like establishing a United states government outside of its territory. Retarded "Ahmadiyya Caliphate, 1908-present" section should be relocated to its own page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Re-reconquista (talk • contribs) 18:27, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree they are not muslims by anyway. So this section must be removed from caliphate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Islamhistory123 (talk • contribs) 23:50, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Sunnis and Shiites see them as that, but they both don't agree with eachother, so how can one opinion be neutral?
 * If Ahmadiyyas call themselves such and Sunnis & Shiites don't agree, then what about how they can't consider eachother?
 * I am only speaking in a generalized fashion here—there needs to be neutral sources—not personal opinions. ~ Troy (talk) 23:54, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The article is about caliphates in general so the section should remain. However, it could do with some sources indicating that mainstream Islam does not recognise that they are a caliphate. Right now all we have is two unsourced claims that that the Ahmadiyya are not considered Muslim. It's not the role of Wikipedia to make a judgment that the Ahmadiyya are not Muslim and it's not a caliphate. Wikipedia just reports on what is but can present opposing views, especially if the mainstream supports that view. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 00:05, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Just take it out, it's not really a caliphate, which would have religious AND political power, and would be chosen by religious scholars, not self-declared, no matter what the heretics say. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.229.233.34 (talk) 16:21, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

While the language used here is reprehensible, the point is valid. Citing the Ahmadiyya "khilafah" is gives Undue weight. This requires removal or relocation. -Farhan000 (talk) 14:39, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

With clarity around the caliphate this year -- being a temporal rule or an archaic word for empire or kingdom -- the Ahmadiyya caliphate clearly does not qualify to be included in this list. The Ahmadiyya caliphate is more akin to the spiritual 'khalifas' of Sufi orders, where a disciple carries on the tradition of the teacher. Also, the page Khalifatul Masih and its link to Caliph are appropriate for the role of the Ahmadiyya 'khalifa'. Regardless of whether the Ahmadiyya are Muslims are not, and whether their leader is called 'khalifa', the word 'Caliphate' has almost always meant temporal political rule AliJaana (talk) 03:54, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

The Ottoman Caliph
Please read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Islamic_State_of_Iraq_and_the_Levant#Caliph_-_Caliphate_-_.22Worldwide_Caliphate.22. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 19:46, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

needs 21st century caliphate section
the expressed will of Boko Haram and isis/isil/is et al is a new caliphate. this long-dormant word has become headline material in the last year or so only because of the new caliphate movement. map images see these offsite examples: bit.ly/1vcPzrf, bit.ly/1rkdCGW , bit.ly/1qmwgY1  is this mentioned anywhere in the article? if so, i missed it. is the apparent exclusion of the new caliphate movement a POV issue? Cramyourspam (talk) 14:55, 19 August 2014 (UTC)


 * anyone? anyone? Cramyourspam (talk) 14:02, 5 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Go play with Worldwide Caliphate please. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 19:49, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Proposal to merge caliph here
A caliphate is an Islamic politico-religious leadership institution (or, by metonomy, a state legitimated by such an institution), while a caliph is a person who sits at the top of such an institution. These concepts overlap significantly and, as far as I can think, always occur together—if there's a caliph, then by definition there's a caliphate too. The current versions of these two articles overlap too: both cover (1) roots in the Qur'an and the hadith, (2) historical caliphates including the Rashidun, the Umayyads, the Abbasids, the Fatimids, and so on, and (3) more recently claims including the Ottomans, the Ahmadiyyas, and ISIS.

So it would save a lot of effort to merge them. Caliphate should be the destination since it has the broader title, and happens to be more comprehensive as well. —Neil P. Quinn (talk) 20:54, 25 October 2014 (UTC)