Talk:Caliphate/Archive 2

Ahmadiyya Caliphate
Per revert here I invite User:Omar-toons for a discussion. Ahmadiyya Caliphate deserves to be mentioned here as it is the only Caliphate that is in existence for over a century which alone makes it noteworthy to be in the lead. --Peace world  08:51, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Ahmadiyya should not be mentioned for two reasons:
 * First, it is largely ignored by historians when talking about caliphates, only recognized as a Caliphate by itself and rejected/ignored by the majority of Muslims. That makes it a WP:FRINGE/WP:UNDUE case.
 * Second, it doesn't fit the definition of Caliphate (Khilafah) but instead it matches the definition of what could be described as "Spiritual Caliphate", such as many Sufi orders that predate Ahmadiyya (I give the example of the Tidjane Caliphate, in existence since the 18th century ). None of these (Ahmadiyya and Sufi tariqas) deserve to be mentioned in the lead since the only thing they share with Rashidun, Abbasids and Umayyads is the denomination Khilafah ("succession" in Arabic), nothing else.
 * --Omar-toons (talk) 19:37, 23 November 2014 (UTC)


 * In my opinion, the main issue isn't that the Ahmadiyya caliphate is rejected by most Muslims (although that's true, as it's true of other caliphates we discuss in the article, like the Fatimid or Córdoba caliphates). The main issue is that the prototypical caliphate is a government, not just a spiritual authority. So something like the Ahmadiyya caliphate isn't what most scholars are thinking of when they talk about caliphates. I can see the argument for briefly mentioning spiritual caliphates in the lede, but at least for the moment I agree with Omar-toons that that would be too much weight.—Neil P. Quinn (talk) 22:03, 23 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Irrespective of what the "mainstream" definition of a Caliphate/Caliph is, Ahmadiyya caliphate is referred as a caliphate per external sources, and therefore should be identified as such. For example, the recent guardian article published clearly refers to the Ahmadiyya leader as a caliph. Moreover, it is generally agreed that a caliphate in Islam is not just a political concept, but also has a religious aspect to it as well which is fulfilled by the Ahmadiyya caliphate, and hence is not an entirely a distinct reality. However, the point I was making above was the distinguishing factor that the Ahmadiyya caliphate is the only caliphate is existence for over a century which is a highly notable aspect and is itself a reason for mention in the lead. And to reply to Omar-toons, it is not fringe if it is the largest caliphate in existence with millions of members and with the most widespread adherents in the history of all Caliphates. --Peace world  21:10, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Upper or lower case ?
Should we use Caliph(ate) or caliph(ate) ? MPatel (talk•contribs) 00:26, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I would use caliph(ate) since it's a general term for a type of ruler(ship), much like monarch(y). Of course, it might be capitalized if you're using it as a title for a specific person, as in "Caliph Abd ar-Rahman III".—Neil P. Quinn (talk) 01:27, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

extremist?
The article says: 'In 2014 the extremist group Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant declared itself a caliphate'

Extremist by whose definition? And what would label it as extremist? Killing of people? How is that any different from previous caliphates? And when the quran (like the bible, but more explicitly) contains many verses that command the faithful to terrorize and kill unbelievers, how are they misinterpreting anything? They're not doing anything that Muhammad himself didn't do, such as having critics murdered and engaging in war, plus the practise of sex slavery (think Yezidi women) was also something that originated with Muhammad 80.56.229.71 (talk) 17:33, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Constant Revert Resolution
User:Omar-toons added the following to the article. "The Ahmadiyya is viewed as heretical by the majority of Muslims  due to the founder's claim to be the awaited messiah and a prophet. All Muslims hold the view that Muhammad was the final prophet, after Jesus, and no further prophet can come after him. Since the Ahmadiyya is rejected by mainstream Islam, its Caliphate is also rejected by mainstream Muslims." I am changing this to ""Many muslims consider the Ahmadiyyah to be non-muslim. Since they reject Ahmadiyyah, they also reject the Ahmadiyyah Khilafat." The reasons for this change are
 * 1)You used the term "majority" of muslisms. No survey you have provided shows that "the majority" of muslims were surveyed. Therefore I used the term Many which can be used for any large number.
 * 2)Your source does not state the reason for them being considered non-muslim.
 * 3)"ALL muslims" is POV. For according to WP policy of self definition, Ahmadis are also muslims, therefore "ALL muslims" does not hold. Also no survey has been taken from "all muslims"
 * 4)"mainstream Islam". This is ambiguos. Which Islam is mainstream? If you label Shia Islam as mainstream then ALL sunni related articles get rewritten with negative impact, same happens if you call Sunni Islam as "mainstream". Therefore instead of calling mainstream Islam I used the word opponents, this covers muslims and all others.

I hereby invite you to discuss this before reverting.FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 03:48, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * That is based on your own understanding of what is stated by these sources, that wouldn't convince anyone --Omar-toons (talk) 04:14, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * 1-We can reduce that to "Islam" instead of "the Majority of Muslims", that wouldn"t change anything in the meaning ;
 * 2-It is not the subject, but you can send a mail to its author to ask him ;
 * 3-"WP policy of self definition"? Where did you see that? ;
 * 4-see answ. to "2"
 * --Omar-toons (talk) 04:30, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * 1)Why would you change that to Islam? Who represents the entire Islam? This is even more POV and bizzare than before. I should be reverting on this alone.
 * 2)If this is not the subject then why did you include that information in your text? Blatant Original research and POV again.
 * 3)"self definition" means that a person can define his own self. If Ahmadis say they are muslims then according to WP they are muslims. simple as that. SO you cannot say that "ALL" muslims believe that no prophet can come after Muhammad SAW. You should look at these before talking about this. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard/Archive_32#Ahmadiyya
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard/Archive_33#Ahmadiyya
 * 4)Again you have given no definite answer. until this is resolved I will revert. Take it to the dispute resolution if you want to involve an admin for a more permanent solution.FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 06:29, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * 1- You can write an e-mail to Kaiyume Baksh, the author of "Islam and Other Major World Religions" (ref) and ask him, but until then, the source says it, that's all I need to know.
 * 2- As I said, you can send an e-mail to the author, we don't do WP:SYNTH.
 * 3- Per NPOV but not "self definition" (this last one doesn't exist among WP policies), if you have a source saying that, unlike what the current sources say, Ahmadiyya Caliphate is accepted and recognized by mainstream Islam, we can consider it otherwise. Btw, among WP policies, we can also talk about WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE.
 * 4- see answer no. 2
 * --Omar-toons (talk) 03:10, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The source does not say what you wrote that is what I said in the first sentence I wrote. Fringe has already been addressed, you cannot make that stick. Please refer to the discussion above ours. As ALL efforts have failed to make you understand, you can take this to an admin for arbitration as I, sure as the day, as going to revert all edits which fall under the above valid reasons. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 03:24, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry if this article in its version prior to your intervention didn't match your WP:SPA behavior. Sources say "mainstream Islam", you can't replace it by "many Muslims" (per WP:OR) unless you provide sources for that.
 * Also, we discuss the modification you want to make to a previous stable version, and WE DO NOT discuss it after (or based on) your edits, that's called WP:BOLD (and this policy actually exists). --Omar-toons (talk) 07:05, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Another thing: if you think sources are POV, YOU should bring sources giving different statements, not the opposite. --Omar-toons (talk) 07:09, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Omar-toons In all honesty I think you should first apply that policy to yourself before pointing it out to other editors. The mention of the Ahmadiyya Caliphate as the longest Caliphate in existance in the lead was pretty stable until your constant repeated reversion before I opened up a discussion above.
 * (3) Actually MOS:Identity serves the purpose of self-identification here. Besides, you cannot have "All Muslims consider Ahmadis to be Non-Muslims" and at the same time have "Ahmadiyya is and Islamic religious movement". That would be a logical contradiction, something which has to be kept in mind before looking at sources. Those sources that do say "Muslims consider Ahmadis to be Non-Muslims" or that "Islam considers Ahmadis to be Non-Muslims" is POV and such sources would have to be overlooked. It is true that significant number (whether majority or not) consider Ahmadis to be non-Muslims but that is solely a POV, a perspective. Similarly, the Ahmadiyya Caliphate (even if it had been political) is rejected as a consequence that many Muslims consider Ahmadis to be Non-Muslims. But rejecting a Caliphate is not the same thing as saying that such and such is not Caliphate. It is just not the Caliphate which many Muslims wish to follow, i.e. it is still is a Caliphate. --Peace world  10:40, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * @ --Peace world I have taken this for arbitration. Please give your input there if you can https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#footer

Hello User:Omar-toons, the other editors have provided some good reasons for their position. Could you please provide sources for the edit you wish to make and also state clearly the reasons which you feel make your edit appropriate. Thank you. Mbcap (talk) 11:50, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Hello Mbcap,
 * The sole, unique and sufficient reason is that sources are explicitely saying that "Ahmadiyya is rejected by mainstream or orthodox Islam " and that these "other editors" didn't provide any WP:RS saying the opposite.
 * If this is a NPOV issue, then they can provide sources supporting their claims, otherwise that would be a PoV-pushing case.
 * Also, I (we) can not discuss published material, if they think that the given sources are PoV-oriented this issue should then be fixed acccording to the NPOV policy as said above.
 * Oh and, Peaceworld111, there is no mention of "all Muslims" anywhere since I toke FreeatlastChitchat comment in consideration and removed it.
 * --Omar-toons (talk) 15:16, 3 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your reply Omar-toons. Firstly could you provide a link directly to the source in question that says "rejected by mainstream or orthodox Islam". Is it one source or many? There is also the issue of WP:RS to consider when making such a statement. Once the link is posted, we will need to judge the reliability of the source material or materials.


 * Secondly can you provide the actual wording of the sentence you wish to put in. I think it is something along the lines of "majority of muslims or mainstream muslims reject the ahmadiyya doctrine". An actual sentence would be useful.


 * Finally since this statement would be a statement of fact, you would need to provide verifiable evidence that the majority or mainstream muslims reject them in the form of an opinon poll. If there are no such sources then we cannot put it in as statement of fact. However, if the author(s) makes the statement in a reliable book then we can quote him in the article by saying, "according to the author Mr X so and so reject y". I shall wait for your reply. Mbcap (talk) 15:31, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * It's superflous writing "majority of muslims or mainstream muslims reject the ahmadiyya doctrine". We do not need to write "majority of Sunnis[Shias] reject the Shia[Sunni] doctrine". The point under discussion should be whether majority of Muslims consider Ahmadis to be Non-Muslims. According to Pew, page 93 40% of Bangladeshi Muslims consider Ahmadis to be Muslims as opposed to Non-Muslims which is 32%. Then we find statistics relating to Thailand, Indonesia, Malaysia, Pakistan which give higer proportion of people which identify Ahmadis as non-Muslims than Muslims. But we should also bear in mind that it is these countries where the Ahmadiyya persecution peaks, and thus cannot be said to represent the entire Muslim community, especially the more tolerant factions in places like Africa and EU. --Peace world  15:41, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Hello Mbcap,
 * Here are some sources and their links (among many other results to show up on Google Books/Scholar):
 * John M Duffey, in: Science and Religion: A Contemporary Perspective, p.51 (Wipf and Stock Publ., 2013), confirms that Ahmadiyya is rejected by mainstream Islam while giving his own PoV about the reasons of the rejection :
 * Kaiyume Baksh, in: Islam and Other Major World Religions, p.148 (Trafford Publ., 2007):
 * Markus Daechsel, in: Politics of Self-Expression: The Urdu Middleclass Milieu in Mid-Twentieth Century India and Pakistan, p.74 (Routledge, 2006):
 * John L. Esposito, in: The Oxford Dictionary of Islam, p.11 (Oxford University Press, 2004):
 * William Montgomery Watt, in: Islamic Fundamentalism and Modernity, p.58 (Routledge, 2013):
 * Simon Ross Valentine, in: Islam and the Ahmadiyya Jama'at: History, Belief, Practice, p.241 (Hurst Publ., 2008):
 * --Omar-toons (talk) 02:09, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * note: Mbcap, please be aware that, unlike what FreeatlastChitchat wrote, I didn't add the paragraph as explained here. --Omar-toons (talk) 08:01, 4 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Regardless of the persecution User:Peaceworld111, if there is no opinion poll that clearly demonstrates the statement, "Most Muslims consider reject ahmadiyya doctrine (or declare them non-muslim)", it simply cannot go into the article. Were you able to find any polls which declare that statement Peaceworld11? In consideration of individual opinion polls for each separate country, collecting each result from all the countries and synthesising information from it would constitute primary research so that also would not allow the statement to be in the article. We are only left with an author making that assertion. If it is a reliable book then we could possibly quote him. In this regard I am unfamiliar with policy so hopefully a more experienced editor can let us know if that would be allowed. Mbcap (talk) 01:09, 4 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Is the debate that "most Muslims don't consider Ahmadis Muslims"? If so, this has been discussed numerous times already with a number of sources citing that Ahmadis are Muslims. I believe at one point I read the Encyclopedia Britannia had been cited as a reference to show that Ahmadis are considered Muslim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.146.104.11 (talk) 01:40, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Mbcap, I already gave a reference to a survey carried out in 4 or 5 countries which suggests that a significant minority of Muslims (from those countries) consider Ahmadis as Muslims. In particular, it would be an over-generalization to write that "mainstream Islam considers Ahmadis as Non-Muslims". In fact, if you read page 88-89, we see that according to the survey a significant minority of Sunni's consider Shia's as Non-Muslims with greater proportion of them in Morocco, Palestinian territories, and Egypt considering Shia's to be Non-Muslims, while only a minority of Sunnis consider Shias as Muslim in various other countries. On page 90, you'll find a similar fate for the Sufis, who are also considered Non-Muslims by a significant number of Muslims. So if we were to write "majority of Muslims consider Ahmadis as Non-Muslims/heretical", we cannot run away from writing that "many Muslims consider Shia's and Sufi's to be Non-Muslims". In other words, you'll be facing a domino effect. In other words solely writing "mainstream Islam considers Ahmadis as Non-Muslims" is POV pushing. Besides it is not difficult to find multiple sources which attribute Shias/Sufis as heretical: "It is important to understand that Sunnis regard Shias as heretics and blasphemers" and the Sunnis, who consider themselves the orthodox Muslim denomination and regard the Shia as heretical denomination" and Orthodox clerics often despise Sufis considering them heretical and deviant Muslims" and Sunnis and Shia regard each other as heretical Non-Muslim" --Peace  world  10:37, 4 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Omar-toons your comment is in the wrong place. It should be below this editors comments; User talk:184.146.104.11 as reflected by the time-stamp. Please can this be corrected as soon as possible to preserve the context of the discussion.


 * User:Peaceworld111 you are right. A statement saying mainstream Islam rejects Ahmadiyya doctrine has no place here. This is simply due the fact that every sect rejects the doctrine of other sects, a point already alluded to by an editor previously. I agree with a previous statement in this talk page, saying the discussion should be whether the majority of Muslims consider Ahmadis Non-Muslim. This should be the only thing under discussion. Caliphates have been disputed in the past. For example the Fatimids were disputed by Sunnis but there is no mention of majority of Muslims rejecting Shia doctrine. For this reason I ask other editors if it would be wise to disregard all the above mentioned sources which claim majority of Muslims reject Ahmadiya doctrine (4 of the sources)? I think we should disregard the 4. Not because they are unreliable but because disregard for a doctrine is not a valuable addition to this article. That leaves us with 2:


 * John L. Esposito, in: The Oxford Dictionary of Islam, p.11 (Oxford University Press, 2004):


 * Simon Ross Valentine, in: Islam and the Ahmadiyya Jama'at: History, Belief, Practice, p.241 (Hurst Publ., 2008):


 * These two sources would the only ones to merit consideration for inclusion. Even if used, we can only include it as a quote or attribute the assertion to the respective author. I think these questions need to be asked:
 * Would the reader want to be told?
 * Are these reliable sources (WP:RS)?
 * Would inclusion be in line with WP:NPOV?
 * Why should it go in?
 * Why it should not?

Please can we drop the discussion about Ahmadiyya doctrine being rejected by majority of Muslims as I agree with Peaceworld that it has no place here for the reasons already mentioned. Omar-toons has provided what seem like reliable sources so we cannot discount all his points but a statement of fact saying they are viewed as Non-Muslim by majority of Muslims definitely cannot go in, as no opinion poll demonstrates such. The only consideration now is if it is appropriate to include the 2 above mentioned authors statements into the article. I shall await for the other editors input. Mbcap (talk) 14:36, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Many muslims consider the Ahmadiyyah to be non-muslim. Since they reject Ahmadiyyah, they also reject the Ahmadiyyah Khilafat.I suggested this as the most neutral text. I even added it, only to have omartoons revert it multiple times.FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 16:14, 4 January 2015 (UTC)


 * FreeatlastChitchat, thank you for your work, do you have it referenced? I think Omar-toons may have considered assuming good faith in an ideal world and not reverted you. Having said that, there is a dispute being discussed here so I think it is best to discuss what changes you would like to make here in the talk page first. Therefore could you provide the text you would like to incorporate and also provide references.


 * Lastly, I think your proposed wording (if referenced) is so similar to Omar-toons that I cannot distinguish which one is more appropriate. I think if Omar-toons still disputes your wording, you both may need to get another editor involved who has the experience and knowledge of wikipedia policy to arbitrate the dispute from that point onwards. My apologies. Mbcap (talk) 23:59, 4 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Sorry but I can't agree with that unless FreeatlastChitchat provides sources saying that "Ahmadiyya is rejected by "many" Muslims".
 * Actually, saying that it is rejected by "many Muslims" is misleading as the reader could understand it as "a few Muslims", "a certain number of Muslims", but certainly not the whole "mainstream Islam" (or "orthodox Islam", as written by Baksh), as it is actually the case. Otherwise, that would be a WP:SYNTH that I can't agree with.
 * Also, I see no reason to reject 4 (out of 6) sources ; this has to be decided on WP:RSN and WP:NPOVN, not here. --Omar-toons (talk) 02:26, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Omar-toons if FreeatlastChitchat's wording is WP:SYNTH, please explain how the current unreferenced wording in this statement on the article page is not the same, "Thus, its Caliphate is also rejected by mainstream Islam." Please could you provide a source for the current statement which has just been quoted. Thank you for reminding me of WP:SYNTH. I just read it and it puts all of this into perspective. The policy states;
 * "If no reliable source has combined the material in this way, it is original research."

This makes it a lot easier to go forward. I have inserted a citation needed template on the statement I just mentioned. I was not able to find any sources that combine statement A and B which are:
 * A)Majority of muslims consider ahmadiyya as non-muslim
 * B)Because of this (point A) the caliphate is rejected

Would any editors be kind enough to look for any sources that mention point A and B and combine them together to come up with a similar statement to; "majority of muslims think ahamdiyya are non-muslim, therefore the caliphate is rejected". If a source does not combine them in such a way, the entire rejection bit in the article will have to be deleted. In the meantime we can discuss the wording that would be acceptable to the relevant parties. Mbcap (talk) 03:02, 5 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Mbcap If you look at my first comment in this section you will see the reasons I have given for change of wording. I will highlight them here for you


 * 1)No survey has ever been conducted from "ALL" or "MAJORITY" of muslims. Therefore the words "ALL" and "MAJORITY" can never be used. otherwise it will be blatant WP:SYNTH and POV edit.
 * 2)Another rationale for not using the word "ALL" is that According to MOS:Identity Ahmadis are considered as muslims therefore you cannot say "ALL" muslims reject Ahmadiyyah without being ridiculously self contradictory.
 * 3)The words "MAINSTREAM ISLAM" are also clear WP:SYNTH and POV. Because there are 73 sects in Islam, each with a different view of what is mainstream and orthodox. It is not the job or the right of WP to announce which of them is following true Islam. An encyclopedia does not do that
 * 4)The reasons for thier being considered non-muslim by MANY muslims(not all or majority of mainstream) are many. Some reliable secondary sources say that thier peacefulness is the reason, others say its because they do not condone wholesale slaughter of non-muslims in the name of Jihad, so on and so forth. Therefore putting in just two reasons and avoiding others will be WP:SYNTH and borderline POV(I will of course assume good faith and not call it blatant POV but still). Therefore writing a reason here will open the floodgates for every editor to insert his/her POV. The place to write the reasons is the relevant pages of such, for example, in "JIHAD" under ahmadiyyah view you can go and write, "because of this reason they are rejected by many muslims". But it has no place here.FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 03:45, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

(a)Just to refer to what was said earlier by Mbcap, "Caliphates have been disputed in the past. For example the Fatimids were disputed by Sunnis but there is no mention of majority of Muslims rejecting Shia doctrine." But note also that there is no mention of majority (or any number) of Sunni Muslims considering the Shia Muslims to be Non-Muslims, eventhough I have provided multiple Book sources that do indicate that Sunni Muslims consider Shia to be deviant/heretical/Non-Muslims. Why should the Ahmadis be treated differently? In other words, why is it so important to write that certain Muslims consider Ahmadis to be Non-Muslims, and not write that certain Muslims consider Shias/Sufis to be Non-Muslims?

(b)When we say that some people reject a Caliphate, we mean that they refuse to follow it. Henceforth I differ with FreeatlastChitchat. The statement "Many muslims consider the Ahmadiyyah to be non-muslim. Since they reject Ahmadiyyah, they also reject the Ahmadiyya Caliphate". I have made it clear above that there are millions of non-Ahmadi Muslims who consider Ahmadis to be Muslims. Yet they are not subject to the Ahmadiyya Caliphate, and therefore by definition reject the Ahmadiyya Caliphate. Thus, it cannot be said that the Ahmadiyya Caliphate is rejected because many Muslims consider Ahmadis to be Non-Muslims.

(c) Based on the above, here is my proposal: Get rid of the entire paragraph. It is just not relevant to this article whether certain Muslims consider Ahmadis to be Non-Muslims. This article is about Caliphate. --Peace world  10:24, 5 January 2015 (UTC)


 * To be honest FreeatlastChichatatlast, you 4th point is purely opinion and does not merit consideration in regards to this dispute. I do not care if the statement is true or false. The only thing that matters is if what is asserted in the article is backed up by reliable sources. I am going to go ahead and delete the entire crticism section of ahmadiyya caliphate as I consider this to be the best course of action. My reason is that it does not meet wiki policy on WP:SYNTH and so the statement that "therefore the caliphate is also rejected" is left with no backing from any reliable source. No reliable source with the aforementioned statement exists and none have been provided during this discussion.


 * Where to go from here? I will leave it to you 3 to resolve the issue but the statement is not allowed to go in unless a reliable source can be found that clearly states; therefore the caliphate is rejected. Please let me know if I have made a mistake and I shall revert my deletion. Mbcap (talk) 14:54, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Mbcap I agree with you. And as three out of four agree this should be enough of a discussion.FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 07:34, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * As a newcomer to this debate (from DRN), I would agree that the entire paragraph should be deleted. I hope this helps. Hunc (talk) 11:33, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * If this dispute is still in progress, I've volunteered to arbitrate the DNR case. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 21:52, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * This dispute ended when I deleted the entire offending text IronMaidenRocks. I just did not close the discussion as I was an involved editor. If you feel this dispute has ended, I would be grateful if you could close it. Mbcap (talk) 21:59, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Ottoman Caliphate
User:Omar-toons, the older claimed date of 1453 CE (during Caliph Mehmed II's reign) as the starting year of the Ottoman Caliphate should stay in the article for consistency with other articles that agree with this date. I agree with your other edits though. Thanks, Khestwol (talk) 10:15, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Hello,
 * Before 1517 the caliphal charges were claimed by Ottomans, but the position was actually held by Abbasids. The Ottoman caliphate was actually effective only when the last Abbasid caliph "gave" these charges (and the relics) to Selim I, and when Ottomans conquered Jerusalem, Mecca and Medina (same year, if not mistaken).
 * A solution could be to split the Ottoman section into two parts: a first (1453-1517) to be added to the "Parallel caliphates" section, and a second one (1517-1924) to give details about the Ottoman (legitimate/effective/undisputed) caliphate that had succeeded to the Abbasid. What do you think about that?
 * --Omar-toons (talk) 10:51, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * All political power of the Abbasids had practically already ended in 1258 when Baghdad was devastated. In Cairo, when their nominal caliphate was established in 1261, they had very limited role, they had no real control, and were not widely recognized as leaders in the sense as they were before 1258. It was instead Mamluks who controlled everything in Egypt, Levant, and Hejaz. So in my opinion the dates for the start of the Ottoman Caliphate are right as they are now. Thanks, Khestwol (talk) 16:09, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, if Cairo-based Abbasids lost their political power to Mameluks, they kept all their religious powers and -that's the most important- Friday khutbas were still pronounced in their names in most Muslim territories (unlike Ottomans), as a continuity of the caliphate that started in 750.
 * My proposal is based on the fact that there could not be two or more "main caliphs", as Friday prayers can't be pronounced in the same time at the same place in more than one name, as HMecca and Medina were never controlled at the same time by different claimants to the Caliphate, and since the relics were kept by Abbasids (actually, we can say that "Abbasids were not overthrown by Ottomans until 1517", then there's no event that can let us say that caliphal legitimacy switched to the lztter).
 * The meaning is simple: as long as a Caliphate exists, its status could be challeged by other entities, but it can only lose this status if the challenger overthrow the Caliph and usurp his charges.
 * --Omar-toons (talk) 23:17, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Omar-toons, Khestwol: I think we may be approaching this from the wrong angle. As I understand it, particularly after the Rashidun era, the caliphate is pretty fuzzily-defined office, without universally agreed duties and rules of succession—more like the Mandate of Heaven than the Catholic papacy. So from a historical point of view, a caliphate existed only to the degree that people at the time believed it did, just like a 10 euro note only has value to the extent that people believe it does. That means in many cases we can't definitively say which caliphate is the "main" one (for example, the Fatimid or the Abbasid) or put exact dates on a caliphate's beginning or end.

Specifically about the Ottoman caliphate: the Ottomans themselves really only start claiming to be caliphs a couple hundred years after defeating the Mamluks. So I think both dates, 1453 and 1517, are a bit too simplistic. This quote from the Encyclopedia of Islam shows the complexity of the situation: At the same time, [the Ottoman sultans] recognised no authority on the part of the caliph of Cairo. This is seen in the episode when the sultan Selīm conquered Syria, then Egypt, making a prisoner of the caliph al-Mutawakkil, treating him with a complete lack of deference and exiling him to Constantinople. Al-Mutawakkil was unable to leave this involuntary exile until the reign of the sultan Sulaymān, returning to Egypt where he died in 950/1543; he made no further exercise of his functions as caliph, except in conferring the investiture on the governor Aḥmad Pas̲h̲a, a governor who had rebelled against the Ottoman sultan. The fact emerges clearly from the account of these events that the last ʿAbbāsid caliph was considered of negligible importance by the victorious Ottoman sultan.

On the other hand, not one of the historical accounts states in precise fashion that Selīm sought to take to himself the legacy of the caliphate to the extent that might be inferred from the late, popular versions which began to circulate at the end of the 18th century and were collected by Mouradgea d’Ohsson. There is no justification for the view that there was an official transfer of the caliphate to Constantinople. It is true that certain relics of the Prophet and of the Companions were transferred ¶ to the capital of the Ottoman empire; as for sultan Selīm and his successors, they never bore officially in documents of state, inscriptions and coinage, titles other than sulṭān and k̲h̲āḳān ; they did not use those of amīr al-muʾminīn or of imām. The only new title adopted by Selīm after the conquest of Egypt was that of k̲h̲ādim al-ḥaramayn [q.v.], which was in fact a title belonging to the Mamlūk sultans and not to the caliph.

—Dominique Sourdel, "The history of the institution of the caliphate" (1978)

I'm interested in your thoughts. Also, I'd be happy to get your input on the merge proposal above. —Neil P. Quinn (talk) 00:14, 3 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Omar-toons, Neil P. Quinn: Well I think in all sources I checked so far, I find that the title "caliph" had been already used by the Ottomans as a general title since the time of Murad I (1362–1389). For example see this source (last paragraph). Both the present dates in the article, 1453 and 1517, are wrong and I could not find them in any source. The starting Ottoman date should be fixed in the article to Murad I's reign (who started in c. 1362). Khestwol (talk) 14:53, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * For the record, the source Khestwol cited says: "as for 'caliph' (khalifa), this had been used by the Ottomans as a general title since the time of Murad I, as was the practice of many other Muslim rulers, the title having by then lost its original meaning." Good point—we should definitely add it to the section on the Ottomans. But I think this underscores why we should just stop trying to put firm dates on the various caliphates in this article; Murad I started to use the title, but nobody (then or now) really seems to consider it an important event. We should discuss all the facts (the use of the title, general Ottoman claims to leadership in the Muslim world, the myth of the transfer, Abdul Hamid II's Pan-Islamism, etc.) but we should not try to find black-and-white beginnings and endings where none exist.—Neil P. Quinn (talk) 22:57, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The dates are not fuzzy at all, because we have sources for everything and they all agree on dates. For example they all seem to agree Murad I was the first Ottoman caliph. The only problem is that the current article does not source its dates, rather its written with a POV (also, for example it seems to imply the Abbasid caliphate continued having authority after 1258 in Cairo, which is wrong) which can be easily fixed by adding refs to it and fixing info as per refs. And yes we should put dates, it gives us an idea on the timeline background of the caliphate and its contempotary states. There are some other issues too, but we rather fix the ones just mentioned as of now. Khestwol (talk) 05:12, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * but, as you correctly pointed out, not everyone who calls himself a "caliph" instantly becomes one; he has to be broadly acknowledged as such first. Consider the Mughals: they also used the title of ''khalifa" for many years, but no one speaks of a Mughal caliphate, since their claim never became widely accepted. For successful claimants like the Ottomans, that acceptance grew slowly over time, so it's almost always impossible to put any firm date on when it really grew wide enough to make them caliphs.
 * Along those lines, you say that sources all seem to agree that Murad I was the first Ottoman caliph. I haven't seen that; most modern historians don't worry about picking the "first", for the reason I just said, but older historians who did usually said Selim I, although like I said before that's based on a major historical misunderstanding. Can you point me to any sources saying Murad was not just the first known to use the title, but the first caliph?—Neil P. Quinn (talk) 15:35, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * You are absolutely right that in late middle ages and early modern era Ottomans were not the only dynasty to use the title caliph. There were also others. I think here we just need to mention the sultans which are accepted with the title caliph in areas under their rule or influence. If needed of course feel free to add other dynasties who can be sourced that they were accepted as caliphates. This is what this article is about. Now I am on mobile but I plan to fix the article "Ottoman Caliphate" (which also is unsourced at the moment) and this article and make them more sourced in few days, inshaallah. Thanks for the responses. Khestwol (talk) 18:31, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * It sounds like we agree that the article needs to describe all the complexities of the situation (and I also intend to help do that). I think we still disagree on dates in the headings (I think they're more misleading than useful, you feel the opposite), but I can live with them for now.—Neil P. Quinn (talk) 19:50, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Undue weight for the Ahmadi caliphate in the body of the article
Reading through this article it seems Ahmadis who represent a tiny minority of Muslims, have a concept of "caliph" different from the Sunni Muslim concept. Ahmadis are perhaps less than 0.5% of all Muslims (if I remember correctly) hence a tiny minority, as per WP:UNDUE can't we remove them from this article about Muslims? We can't mention all tiny minorities and their concepts so mentioning one makes this article imbalanced. Khestwol (talk) 18:40, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * @Khestwol (talk) We cannot remove the Ahmadi Muslim Caliphate from the article because they do not fall under the WP:UNDUE category. I think you misunderstood the reference to minority and confused yourself. The Ahmadiyyah Muslim community is one of the fastest growing and the most prolific Muslim communities of the world. Their being small in number is not an issue because their work makes them highly notable. Secondly this article is not about "views" of Caliphate, this article mentions all the Caliphates that have been established during the course of history in Islam. Also the basic Ahmadiyyah view of Caliphate does not differ from mainstream Islam 90% of the time. They believe in the Rashidun Caliphate as all Sunni muslims. Therefore we cannot remove thier mention from this article. I hope your confusion has been removed. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 05:46, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The Ahmadi "caliphate" does not have a government, ruler, or areas under political rule. Hence no similarity with historical caliphates. I can see that FreelastChitchat and Peaceworld are pushing for the inclusion of this tiny minority view of caliphate while a few users have said that an undue weight has been given to Ahmadis in the discussion above, but let us see what other editors have to say. Perhaps we can reach some consensus. Khestwol (talk) 12:03, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Did you read the article itself? let me copy paste some text here so that this confusion about "government, ruler and land" is also laid to rest as your notability confusion. The article clearly mentions that "Though non-political, many spiritual movements such as some Sufi orders and the Ahmadiyya define themselves as Caliphates (khilafah ruhaniyyah). Their spiritual leaders are thus commonly referred to as Khalifas". So even if the Ahmadiyyah Caliphate one day has the entire world population as its adherents they still may not have "government, ruler, or areas under political rule" because they do not consider it a prerequisite for being a Caliphate. Secondly the similarity between the Ahmadi Muslim Caliphate and historical Caliphates: You can pick up any book on any Sufi Saint and you will see that they nominated their Khalifa. This is a spiritual Caliphate dating back more than 1000 years. As Islam is itself 1400 years old then a similarity with Caliphates which have existed for 1000 years should be considered "similarity with historical caliphates". I hope This confusion is now also laid to rest.FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 14:10, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I have already heard your views and now only interested in what other editors think. With regards to the Sokoto Caliphate in the article that you seem to be pointing to as spiritual, please note that they also had a state and government and rulers, which is why it was a caliphate in historical sense. No historical caliphate in this article was similar to the modern Ahmadi (tiny minority) concept of a non-political caliphate that has been given an undue weight in this article. Khestwol (talk) 14:35, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Again I would like to refer to the article where it is written, Before the mention of Sokoto Caliphate, that "In Sufism, tariqas (orders) are led by spiritual leaders, the main Khalifas (Caliphs), who nominate local Khalifas to organize zaouias. Sufi Caliphates are not necessarily hereditary. Khalifas are aimed to serve the silsilah in relation to spiritual responsibilities and to propagate the teachings of the tariqa." I have still to see any Sufi Caliphate which had political power. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 18:50, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Khestwol I agree that entire mention of Ahmadiya caliphate should be deleted from this article page as the term "Ahmadiyya Caliphate" is a contradiction in itself. It wields no political office, land or an official state. It is given undue weight here and its "caliph" does not merit mention in the article as he holds no official position as part of a state. Mbcap (talk) 13:18, 7 February 2015 (UTC)


 * If it is a question of numbers, bear in mind that there are smaller Caliphates that will too have to be removed such as Almohad Caliphate, Emirate of Córdoba, Caliphate of Córdoba, Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, Sokoto Caliphate among others. If it is a question of whether the Ahmadiyya Caliphate is a caliphate, then per external sources, it is, albeit solely spiritual. --Peace world  13:56, 7 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I have said before that including the Ahmadiyya caliphate in the lede may be undue weight. However, I strongly feel that deleting it from the article would be a mistake. Yes, it is followed by a very small minority of Muslims (but possibly a majority of Muslims who follow any caliphate!) But whether or not it meets any of the various proposed definitions of "caliphate", it is part of the universe of things referred to using the term, and as such should be part of this article. Khestwol, you said "we can't mention all tiny minorities and their concepts so mentioning one makes this article imbalanced." Could you give some examples of other such minority concepts you see as being on the same level as the Ahmadiyya view?—Neil P. Quinn (talk) 17:04, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Hello,
 * I agree with Neil P. Quinn, Ahmadiyya should be kept, the only mention that should be added (we didn't get enough opinions on the discussion ebove) imho is that it is widely rejected by mainstream/orthodox Islam (it was there but was removed)... but this is another subjet that should be discussed separately.
 * Also, the section should be renamed "Ahmadiyya Caliphate" instead of "Ahmadiyya Muslim Caliphate" for two reasons:
 * First, the fact that Ahmadiyya is an Islamic sect is controversial, and describing it as "Muslim Caliphate" is POV ;
 * Second, even if we don't consider it POV, all caliphates are, per definition, "Muslim", then there is no need to add it to the title, otherwise we should rename all these caliphates (Umayyad Muslim Caliphate, Abbasid Muslim Caliphate, an so on).
 * Regards.
 * - User:Omar-toons(talk) 02:20, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * User:Omar-toons(talk) you have already made that point and it has been answered in the discussion above. What "new" information do you have for the insertion of this POV into this article? In my opinion I think you should not be part of this debate until the sock puppet investigation that you are under is over and unless you bring any new information to the table. Wikipedia never runs on the "number" of opinions, it always runs per its policies, and as the discussion above has shown that your POV insertion into the article is not required, it will not be added until you bring new information supporting it. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 04:48, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * First, I'm not under any SPI, and even if it was the case that is not a reason to reject a user's opinion. For information: Sockpuppet investigations/Omar-toons
 * Second, even if I already gave my opinion regarding that issue above, I am free to repeat it as long as it is closely linked to the current discussion.
 * Then, even if you don't like my opinion, here it is : I think that Ahmadiyya should be kept in this article only if it says that it is not recognized by the majoritiy of Muslims and/or by mainstream/orthodox Islam, otherwise I am in favor of WP:UNDUE.
 * --Omar-toons (talk) 17:59, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Presenting an opinion that has been rejected again and again seems irrelevant at best and kinda trollish at worst. I will let you pick whatever you want to label it. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 15:16, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

arabic spelling correct?
So the KH letter has a Kassra (Harakat - Arabic Diacretics, specifically Vowel Marks) attached to it. Pronunciation is definitely a Fathah (Arabic Diacretic). See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arabic_diacritics for discussion on these diacritics. I am not aware if the actual spelling is indeed with a Kassra, and colloquial pronunciation is incorrect, but can someone else double check this? 207.38.43.28 (talk) 23:38, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Dates
The removal of dates by was for neutrality of this article. I agreed with him. If anyone wants to add the dates back, we can add it in a way so that they are NPOV. For example, regarding the disagreement on the end of the Abbasids and the start of the Ottomans, the following may be a solution: What do you think about this method? If only we can have a consensus then we can add the dates back, preferably using the above method. Otherwise, we can also do fine without the dates in the section headings. Khestwol (talk) 15:32, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Abbasid Caliphate (750–1258/1517)
 * Ottoman Caliphate (1362/1517–1924)
 * I hope all editors can agree on this, because this method gives both the earliest and the latest possible dates for the end of the Abbasid caliphate and the start of the Ottoman caliphate. Since no one objected to it yet, I am adding it to the article. Khestwol (talk) 06:07, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Spiritual caliphates
The article has a section "Spiritual caliphates". This however is not a clear title for the section, because each of the caliphates mentioned in the article has claimed to be spiritual. Hence "spirituality" is not only exclusive to the 3 caliphates mentioned in that section. Perhaps that title can be changed to something like "Non-political caliphates", because such a title will be accurate and give more information about the section. Khestwol (talk) 06:14, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

- see above. Not a good idea :) Arminden (talk) 08:53, 11 May 2015 (UTC)Arminden

Periods
Hi everybody. I found the chronological separation into periods to be a bit unusual. A first edit was promptly (partially) reverted. Here my arguments for leaving it now as it is. I've put a lot of thought & research into this, will unfortunately not be able to continue the discussion (real life calling), but I do hope there will be some consensus once you read through what I've summed up here.

The "Early Islamic period" ends with the Abbasid caliph being forced to cede almost all of his worldly power around 920. Unless we make a distinction between "Early Caliphate" and "Early Islamic period", there is no reason to revert my edit. Does anybody have a reason for such a distinction? I looked for one and couldn't find any. It's also quite logical, with that event the caliphate as the united empire ruled not just in name by the companions of the Prophet and their descendants, comes to an end. Later attempts at recreating the unity are exactly that - later attempts. The material culture also changed in a substantial way once the Muslims became the majority within the realm around C12, among other factors.

But I looked it up again, and in Iraq the "early" imperial phase, call it however you like, ends without doubt with the Seljuk conquest (1055). In Iran some may go up to the Mongol conquest (c. 1221). In Jordan it's Early C7-11, Middle C12-14, Late(r) C15-20. Many call C10-14 the "Middle Islamic period", others place it (for Jordan for instance) between 1100-1650.

For those who start with other periodisations of the Ottoman Empire as such in mind: the early Ottomans appear in Anatolia in C13; globally, that's Middle Islamic period already, even if it's "early" for the Ottoman Turks. Doesn't contradict a scale designed for the Ottomans only, where "late" maybe only starts with the decline after Vienna II (1683).

I suggest we go broadly with with some adaptations:
 * Early Islamic Period, C7-10
 * Middle Islamic Period, C11-15
 * Late Islamic Period, C16-20

And since the page is about caliphates, not Islam per se, I see a good reason to apply following chronology:
 * Early Islamic Period, C7-10 -- largely united caliphate.
 * Parallel caliphates: Fatimids, Iberian caliphates (Umayyads and Almohads).
 * Cairo Abbasids -- actual power rests with the Mamluk sultan, but at least the core lands are again united and there is a "caliph" in place.
 * Ottomans -- leaving out further chronological distinctions, since the Porte created institutional continuity.

I changed the headings to reflect all this. I hope you can agree with me.

To save you from repeating my own search, see for

- the Levant: The Early Islamic Period in the Levant. 622 Mohammad... until: 1071–1098: Seljuk Turks briefly controlled the Levant before the arrival of the Crusaders. 

- Jerusalem: "Early Islamic Art in Jerusalem" mentions C7 until Fatimids (C10-11)

- Jordan, and: The Fortress of Raven – Karak in the Middle Islamic Period (1100-1650), Leiden/Boston. (part two: The Middle Islamic Ceramics from Karak)

- Syria & Iraq: "The transformation from the Early Islamic period to the Middle Islamic era during the 12th to 13th centuries...", "the blossoming in Islamic Syria and Northern Mesopotamia in the middle decades of the 11th century that characterized the Middle Islamic period." 

- Egypt and Syria: FRANK TROMBLEY, Cardiff University. Towns and their Territories in Egypt and Syria: An Interregional Comparison -- ... The paper will concentrate on two regions in Late Antiquity and the early Islamic period (ca . 501-900 C.E.), and DONALD WHITCOMB, The University of Chicago, Archaeology in “The Places where Men Pray Together” -- The study of the historical geography of the early Islamic city was the subject of a comprehensive monograph published in 2001, entitled The Places where Men Pray Together: Cities in Islamic Lands, Seventh through the Tenth Centuries. 

- Asia Minor (I guess): Asa Eger, The Islamic-Byzantine Frontier, p. 264 -- ... '''Middle Islamic/Middle Byz. period (tenth to fourteents centuries)'''

Arminden (talk) 20:56, 10 May 2015 (UTC)Arminden
 * thank you appreciate your efforts. I however am going to remove the "Early" categorization now. Because firstly, it is redundant and gives no new information. And secondly, we don't need the "Early" categorization when we already have the natural categorization i.e. Umayyad era, Abbasid era, and Ottoman era, etc. Also, "Abbasid Caliphate under the Mamluk Sultanate of Cairo" is more suitable as a subsection of the "Abbasid caliphate". They did not claim a separate line of caliphs from the Abbasids. Also, I am going to change the heading "Parallel caliphates" back to "Parallel caliphates to the Abbasids", and place them under the Abbasid era section. The phrase "Parallel caliphates" on its own without looking at it in the context of the Abbasids is nonsensical. The very reason they had been called "parallel" in the article was because they were parallel to the Abbasids and didn't recognize the Abbasid caliphal authority but instead claimed their own. The Fatimid caliphate, the Umayyad caliphate of Cordoba, and the Almohad caliphate are examples of such caliphates parallel to the Abbasids. Khestwol (talk) 05:38, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

-- Khestwol, that's a very nice solution for WP. I hope now it stays unchanged. I've learned the hard way that the common denominator for WP needs to be as formally neat as possible. Whoever first created the "early" vs. "later" classification knew Muslim history better than WP realities, and I tried to follow his thought and make it palatable. Nobody connects the Baghdad Abbasids with the Cairo ones (see for instance Britannica ), as little as they see the Vallachian Cantakuzenes as "Byzantine Emperors" just because they were descendant of the latter and some kind of rulers. The Caliphate lost virtually all its political power by C10 and the Abbasids disappeared from their capital Baghdad by 1258 altogether; the fact that some family descendants were used as puppets after that is utterly irrelevant and historically similar to the still-Umayyad "caliphate" of Cordoba: no significance to the much wider Muslim world, just a dynastic ambition. Same as the "emperor" of Byzantium at the time of the fall of Constantinople: kept the title while his "empire" was little larger than a single city. But putting more than strictly FORMAL information into the structure/classification of an article on WP will not stay unchallenged and seems to be an ultimately useless effort, it's an attempt at adding elements of analysis (quality of the Caliphate) to a plain enumeration of chronological facts (quantitative list). This is of course unacceptable for a real encyclopaedia like, say, the printed Britannica, but we're talking WP where consensus is the ultimate criterion. Democracy and academic knowledge don't mix, and WP has chosen the former.

I wouldn't though apply the "stay strictly formal" criterion to the "spiritual caliphates": that is a standard term quoted in Arabic, khilafah ruhaniyyah, so interpretations like "all caliphates claim to be spiritual", is not holding water. Existing terminology should be respected, or we're in trouble - more exactly, in Babylon, where everybody is making his own language according to logic - their own. Most Britons are in no way Britons (Celtic people), and the French are not Germanic Franks, Roman Catholics are not recognised as such (kata holos, universal) by any other Christian denomination, same as the Orthodox (ortho-doxos, having the right faith) etc., but nobody challenges the validity of the terms. That's why humanities and exact sciences don't mix well: "pure" logic doesn't apply.

Got carried away. Cheers, Arminden (talk) 08:50, 11 May 2015 (UTC)Arminden
 * I oppose the "(1362/1517–1924)" for Ottomans ; there's still no consensus for the 1362 (see Neil's comments : they claimed the Caliphate, that doesn't make their claim accepted by any population except Ottoman Turcs). --Omar-toons (talk) 16:27, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Why are u anti Ottoman? Khestwol (talk) 16:37, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry... what? Can you please keep your accusations for smbd else... somewhere else?
 * The fact is that no one recognized Ottomans as Caliphs before 1517, the same way Mughals, Marinids, Hafsids and Saadians aren't listed as Caliphs because people didn't recognize them outside of their borders when they claimed the title. --Omar-toons (talk) 23:23, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Folks, history isn't a matter of WP editors' consensus. Read some articles from real encyclopaedias, history books, whatever, but smth. with a real base of knowledge behind it. The family name of a puppet installed by an all-powerful sultan doesn't make a caliphate. It's not up to a group of nice people agreeing with each other to declare caliphates retroactively. WP declared it's not about "truth" because that's a subjective term, not because it's about rediscussing historic realities/hist. truth. This is NOT an exercise in democracy.Arminden (talk) 00:57, 12 May 2015 (UTC)Arminden

Please discuss Template talk:Caliphate
Please discuss Template talk:Caliphate --Peace world  10:59, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

About ISIL/ISIS
Why is Islamic State of Iraq and Levant considered a cilaphate despite being a terrorist organization? Roshu 01:50, 16 September 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roshu Bangal (talk • contribs)

Economics: I object to the statement that "There are similarities between Islamic economics and leftist or socialist economic policies." In my opinion this is nonsense, and I intend to delete this sentence next week unless th claim is substantiatedMumbo-jumbophobe (talk) 06:01, 30 October 2015 (UTC).

Animated GIF map
It seems like a strange choice to use that animated GIF as the main image for the page with no explanation. Are readers meant to wait for the slow progression from 632 AD to find out which areas are currently ruled as a caliphate -- the GIF is 32 seconds long and stops in 651 AD? It should be in the corresponding history section and replaced with a map that is more understandable and relevant. 62.255.239.70 (talk) 12:21, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

"Caliphates were thought to go back to Muhammad" -- what does this mean?
In the intro it says: "Even though Caliphates were thought to go back to Muhammad, they were not thought of as having the same prophetic power as he did." I don't understand what "going back to Muhammad" means. Is this sentence saying: even though Caliphates were thought of as being direct successors of Muhammad, they were not thought of as having the same...etc? Thank you. Roastporkbun (talk) 20:23, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth:
 * "Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the leader of the Islamic State and self-proclaimed caliph, claims to be a descendant of Muhammad. That's not surprising since most Sunni Muslims believe only a descendant from Muhammad's tribe can be caliph."
 * http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/markaz/posts/2015/09/10-isis-baghdadi-family-tree-mccants Kortoso (talk) 21:14, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Caliphate. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070416001259/http://www.quaid.gov.pk:80/politician6.htm to http://www.quaid.gov.pk/politician6.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 05:40, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Mu'awiyah
This edit, with an edit summary saying  caught my eye, and I've reverted it. The edit, which changed the thrust of a cite-supported assertion without citing a different source, seems to be WP:OR. Perhaps the assertion needs modification to give due weight to another POV but, if so, a supporting RS would need to be cited.

The source citation in the article here does not specify an ISBN, year, or edition of the cited book. I've looked in (revised edition of The Concise Encyclopedia of Islam), which is partially previewable online, but this is so far down in the weeds of detail about a topic where I have no expertise that  I'm not sure whether or not this source actually supports either of these POVs. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 11:43, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Undue weight / lead ISIL/ISIS/Daesh
This paragraph should probably be removed from the lead: "Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi's group the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) declared its governmental structure a 'caliphate' on June 29, 2014 after taking control of large swathes of territory in Syria (which for a prolonged period of time comprised over 50% of that country[5][6]) and Iraq.[7] Nevertheless, it is regarded by much of the Muslim world and Muslim scholars to be an illegitimate caliphate within the basis of Islam.[citation needed]" Having it in the lead gives it undue weight in comparison to all the rest of the caliphates mentioned in the article. In addition to this, I think the "non-political" section should be removed and the information in that section should b better integrated into the article so that it can be understood that besides ISIL's desire to declare themselves a caliphate, that there are other pre-existing caliphates that have been currently operating already. Centerone (talk) 14:36, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed on removing it from the lead. It shouldn't have such prominence alongside historical entities that lasted for centuries like the Abbasid caliphate and Ottoman Empire. Gazkthul (talk) 19:47, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * If people generally agree, can someone else do the edit? I don't feel I know enough about the subject to really make major edits to the article. Thanks. Centerone (talk) 14:11, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

IMO, considering that IS is the first large scale attempt to resurrect the caliphate that has had considerable success since the ottomans, I don't think its possible to give undue weight to it plus its wrong that most consider it illegitimate (in fact it has been established correctly), the reality is that hundreds of thousands of people in dozens of countries worldwide are pledging allegiance to baghdadi and attempting to set up provinces — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.244.77.96 (talk) 03:44, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comment. I certainly agree that IS should have a prominent section of their own within the article, but the lead itself basically is: 'this is what a caliphate is. this is what the two main branches of Islam believe about caliphates.' If one is going to include a sentence or two about IS in the lead, it would only be appropriate that every other caliphate got the same amount of space in the lead. That is why I said it gave it undue weight, at the time I wrote that, it changed the balance of the article and the relative importance of IS vs every other caliphate. Remember this is an encyclopedia, not a news source; in this case, just because it is current does not mean it is more important than what has come before it.  As far as legitimacy goes, the article no longer states that.  What I quoted above was simply what was in the article before, you can see there at that time that claim was in need of a citation in order to be included.  Legitimacy or not is a matter of opinion, and probably a whole bunch of Islamic scholarship that is necessary to make that sort of judgement. Centerone (talk) 08:10, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

right, it doesn't need a space in the lead. as for the question of legitimacy, this isn't an issue of whether someone likes them or thinks what they do is good, its simply whether it followed the procedure for electing a caliph and whether the caliph has the requirements as an individual

the ways this can be done are listed in this very article:

Selection of the leader

A candidate for caliph must meet the conditions described in the Qur'an and the Sunnah, which are as follows:

He must be a Muslim. He must be an adult (past puberty) He must be male. He must be sane. He must be just (عادل 'aadil). He must not be a faasiq (فاسق), that is, someone publicly known to be a sinner. He must be capable of carrying the responsibility of a Caliph. (i would add in here: must be from Quraysh, tribe of Muhammad)

If a caliph is given the pledge of allegiance by Ahl al hal wal 'aqd (أهل الحل والعقد), which signifies the people of authority and influence. These are the people whom the public listens to, and who represent the public. If they give the pledge of allegiance (Bay'ah) to any one person, he has been enacted the caliph. This is how Abu Bakr, the first caliph was chosen. The Muslim public may delegate their right to choose to a person who they believe will make the right decision. If this person then pledges allegiance to anyone, he is enacted the caliph. Omar, the second caliph, was chosen this way by Abu Bakr when the public asked him to choose his successor. Otherwise, a caliph does not have the right to choose his successor. The caliph may be elected by general election. This was the mode of succession of Uthman, the third caliph. If a large group of Muslims pledges allegiance to a person, he is enacted caliph. This was the mode of succession of Ali, the fourth caliph.

Now baghdadi fits the listed requirements of the individual, and it is the case that he was elected in the same way as the first caliph abu bakr

pledge of allegiance by Ahl al hal wal 'aqd (أهل الحل والعقد), which signifies the people of authority and influence. These are the people whom the public listens to, and who represent the public. If they give the pledge of allegiance (Bay'ah) to any one person, he has been enacted the caliph.

it was the case that baghdadi was given the pledge of allegiance by the shura council of the islamic state and the majority of tribes in Iraq, so he is legitimately the caliph


 * Abu Bakr fits none of those, he has broken several Muslim commands, he previously used to be an alcoholic so a known sinner, he clearly isn't sane, and he clearly isn't responsible. And being from the Quraysh tribe is not one of the requirements. Nor was Baghdadi elected by any council, nor is any tribes in Iraq obedient towards him. The most important requirement is that they must not care or want to be the king, if offered the position a rightous Caliph would always not want it due to the heavy burden that comes with it, which is a test. A shura council is is simply the arabic term for senate, the Iraqi senate nor any of the actual governors and statemen of Iraq ever approved of Bagdadi. The council that elects the next Caliph is a council created by the previous caliph. The last Islamic Caliphate would be the Ottoman Empire. One of the last requirements is that caliphates are accepted through kindness not through force. No Caliph was seen as a tyrant. It's like claiming North Korea is a democracy because their name if the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea


 * The only way a caliphate can be created today if all the muslims in the world all 1.6 billion voted for a king to rule them and the king got at least 95% of the vote. It is the opposite now where every Muslim does not accept the authority of Daesh, thus he simply isn't a caliph. Let alone that there is a big CIA/Mossad hand in Iraq and Syria, and no Islamic Caliphate would ever be a puppet of foreign intelligence agents.
 * 67.80.214.153 (talk) 01:21, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

All the caliphate are poitical and IS is not an exception. If you set up a dynasty, than your gonna have some opposition. Also many thought the ummayaid dynesty/caliphate was illegitimate. So IS should be included. It important. &#58;)×---&#91;&#61;&#61;&#61; (talk) 09:04, 12 October 2016 (UTC)


 * They all are normal human, nothing Divine in them. Besides shias see Abu bakkar as a traitor. So, was he a chalipa. If anyone has enough support than they can call themselves a "calipha". All just want money, power, wealth. Evan Mia khalifa can be a chalipa if she can get enough support. Anyone can break the rules for power. If aysha had won    the battle of Camal than she would also be a chalifa. So just like all of them IS should be included. &#58;)×---&#91;&#61;&#61;&#61; (talk) 09:10, 12 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Please discuss here if you think he should be removed. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:46, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
 * He is a wanted terrorist so please don't add him to the list of caliphs. There are thousands of reliable, secondary books that mention the medieval and early modern caliphs up to the Ottoman ones (1920s). So why are your adding the terrorist into the list? Do you have reliable, secondary sources for your claims? Khestwol (talk) 16:54, 12 November 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm coming late to this discussion. Whether or not we think al-Baghdadi is a legitimate caliph is besides the point. What this article should reflect is how its declaration of caliphate is treated in RSs on the subject. For example, Kennedy's new book devotes a couple of pages to it. I agree that the original passage was too long for the lead, but I think given the resonance this theme has had in world politics, the lead can stand a short statement like: "In 2014, ISIS's leader al-Baghdadi declared himself to be the caliph; his caliphal claim has been widely rejected in the Muslim world." Eperoton (talk) 02:24, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree with such a decision. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 11:16, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Your views? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:50, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

@:)×---[=== yes, in Islam, the position of caliph wasn't divine or something, because the caliphate isn't a theocracy.But legitimately speaking,in theory, you can't became the caliph just by having enough power.The caliph must be someone that the majority of the ENTIRE MUSLIM public approve of, it can be indirectly(through the Ahl al hal wal 'aqd (أهل الحل والعقد), which is elected by the people) or directly.The Umayyad, Abbasids and the Ottomans exercises de facto power over the majority of the Muslim population, which is why eventhough they're all were mostly undemocratic and were monarchy, the Muslim public accepted them.Someone like Al-Baghdadi cannot be one because he doesn't have the approval of most of the Muslim public. GrandSultanMaeltheGreat (talk) 07:14, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Need conditions of Khalif
Article needs the conditions that a person has to full-fil to be a Khalif. Verycuriousboy (talk) 09:37, 9 July 2019 (UTC)


 * If you have a WP:RELIABLESOURCE, you are welcome to be WP:BOLD and add it. Epistulae ad Familiares (talk) 12:54, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Please remove/change redirect
I have already added a link from the caliph disambiguation page to the khalifa page, as it wasn't there and I strongly believe that it is the most relevant page for anyone who searches for the term "Caliph". I would also have liked to change the redirect and edit relevant articles to reflect the change, but I'm not really a wikipedia editor so I don't have permissions to edit this page. I wouldn't want to leave an edit job half-complete so if someone else could do that for me it'd be great. Thanks 1.136.110.89 (talk) 00:59, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Islamic caliph name is Abu Bakr Siddiqui RA14 July 2021
Dear Concerns,

Please correct name of islamic caliph as Abu bakr Siddiqui RA.

the name written is not islamic caliph 119.73.121.69 (talk) 06:32, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — IVORK Talk 06:55, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

No Ahmadi is Caliph of Muslims
No Muslim sect consider Ahmadies as Muslims or their leader as the last prophet or the Caliph of Islam. Please correct this information.

Thanks MohKhan1618 (talk) 17:39, 24 July 2021 (UTC)


 * No change necessary. Any assertions the article makes about Ahmadiyya cover only Ahmadiyya, not all of Islam. —C.Fred (talk) 18:04, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 July 2021
This man is notthe caliph of islam, you need to remove this bullshit. 175.107.228.123 (talk) 19:23, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Pictogram voting comment.svg Note: Any assertions the article makes about Ahmadiyya cover only Ahmadiyya, not all of Islam. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:30, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Saladin never claimed to be a Caliph and by incorporating it into the Abbasid Caliphate, he cannot have been one. --Levin Isabo (talk) 16:05, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Meaning of Early / Middle / Late Islamic period
What do the terms Early / Middle / Late Islamic period mean? How are they defined? When do they start and end? They show up in articles about Jordan for instance, but I cannot find a periodisation offering the basic meaning. Are these terms mainstream, are they outdated, can they be used over larger parts of the Muslim world?

I will post this also on other relevant pages. The discussion should be held at Talk:Timeline of Islamic history (so not here). Thanks. Arminden (talk) 15:08, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 January 2022
Please amend the second paragraph. Here's the current code:

While the importance of the Caliphate as a political power fluctuated throughout history, the institution survived for over a thousand years. Often acting as little more than a symbolic figurehead, the formal office of Caliph remained from the death of Muhammad in 632 until the Ottoman Caliphate was formally dismantled in 1924. During the medieval period, three major caliphates succeeded each other: the Rashidun Caliphate (632–661), the Umayyad Caliphate (661–750), and the Abbasid Caliphate (750–1517). In the fourth major caliphate, the Ottoman Caliphate, the rulers of the Ottoman Empire claimed caliphal authority from 1517 and maintained Sunni Islam as the official religion. Throughout the history of Islam, a few other Muslim states, almost all hereditary monarchies, such as the Abbasid caliphs under protection of the Mamluk Sultanate (Cairo) and the Ayyubid Caliphate,  have claimed to be caliphates. The first caliph was Abu Bakr and the last caliph was Abdulmejid II.

Here's my requested change:

While the importance of the Caliphate as a political power fluctuated throughout the history of Islam, the institution survived for over a thousand years. Often acting as little more than a symbolic figurehead, the formal office of Caliph remained from the death of Muhammad in 632 until the Ottoman Caliphate was formally dismantled in 1924. During the medieval period, three major caliphates succeeded each other: the Rashidun Caliphate (632–661), the Umayyad Caliphate (661–750), and the Abbasid Caliphate (750–1517). In the fourth major caliphate, the Ottoman Caliphate, the rulers of the Ottoman Empire claimed caliphal authority from 1517 and maintained Sunni Islam as the official religion. A few other Muslim states, almost all hereditary monarchies, such as the Abbasid caliphs under protection of the Mamluk Sultanate (Cairo) and the Ayyubid Caliphate,  have claimed to be caliphates. The first caliph was Abu Bakr and the last caliph was Abdulmejid II.

It's basically just moving the "history of Islam" link and removing an unneeded line break. 122.150.71.249 (talk) 03:18, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ –– FormalDude  talk  10:32, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

"Political-religious"
Caliph = political succesor of the prophet of islam. Such caliph have no right to add to remove from or to amend the rligion. Inovation in rligious matter by non prophet people is seen a being sinful (bidaa). A figure like "islamic pope" is absolutely and unanimously aberrant in the sunni muslim commnity. such pope would be regarded as sinner and maybe even an heretic(kafir) for thinkng that he is a sucessor to a prophet on religious matters. My concern is that the wording "religiou-political"succesor might just give off the impression that an islamic pope is possible in sunni islam and that their name is caliph. 2001:861:E383:16F0:44C5:8C94:7B9B:D299 (talk) 00:28, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

The word "Caliph" is used in non-religious contexts as well. The word doesn't have to mean "religious leader" even though it's often used in the connotation of "religious leader". It's a word that's often used to mean "leader". The word doesn't mean "religious leader" or "religious" or "religious successor" in all contexts. I think it's okay to use the word "Caliph" in the context of political successor as well. It's just a word that means "leader" in a non-religious context. It doesn't mean "religious leader". The word "Caliph" can be used in the context of political leader as well as religious leader. I think it's okay to use the word "Caliph" in the context of political successor. 3skandar (talk) 11:34, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

The caliph should be called "political-religious successor" of Muhammad because the caliph is the political leader of the Islamic community and also the religious leader. The caliph has the responsibility of leading the community in both political and religious matters. 3skandar (talk) 11:49, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Fatimid
The fatimid caliphate was orriginaly based in Algeria not tunisia 86.69.237.239 (talk) 14:32, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 January 2023
elimnated eliminated 2603:8000:D300:D0F:4066:EB2:5FAF:9B2D (talk) 07:13, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ Thanks for reporting it! DMacks (talk) 07:29, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

"Caliphizing" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address a potential problem with the redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Caliphizing&redirect=no Caliphizing] and it has been listed for discussion. Readers of this page are welcome to participate at until a consensus is reached. Veverve (talk) 16:30, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

"Caliphizes" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address a potential problem with the redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Caliphizes&redirect=no Caliphizes] and it has been listed for discussion. Readers of this page are welcome to participate at until a consensus is reached. Veverve (talk) 16:30, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

"Caliphise" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address a potential problem with the redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Caliphise&redirect=no Caliphise] and it has been listed for discussion. Readers of this page are welcome to participate at until a consensus is reached. Veverve (talk) 16:30, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

"Muslim Empire" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address a potential problem with the redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Muslim_Empire&redirect=no Muslim Empire] and it has been listed for discussion. Readers of this page are welcome to participate at until a consensus is reached. Veverve (talk) 17:05, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

the Ayyubid where never a caliphate but rather a sultanate with a allegiance to the caliph in Bagdad
the Ayyubid where never a caliphate but rather a sultanate with a allegiance to the caliph in Bagdad Shad al hassan (talk) 14:35, 5 June 2023 (UTC)


 * True. Serious sources do not mix this up. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:58, 5 June 2023 (UTC)