with regard to the pro-Khomeini spin - can someone who is versed in such things verify that it is accurate?
"The holder of this title claims rulership over all Muslims. The Caliph combines four roles that are often distinct in the Western world. These roles are: Spiritual leader of Muslims, the one who guides Muslims in new matters, Religious leader of Muslims, the one who enforces Sharia, Political leader of Muslims, the one who conducts relations with other states and administers the government, Military leader of Muslims, the one who orders and conducts military affairs, in particular those regarding the conflict between dar al-Islam and dar al-Harb. In the Catholic Church, the first two are combined in the office of the Pope. The last two are combined in military dictatorships. Islam may be unique in being the only system to combine all four."
Someone needs to read about the history of the Papacy. The Papacy was once very politically involved, and we have had at least one "warrior pope".
List/Table
Shouldn't we have a list that covers all Caliphs from Abubakar to Abdul Mejid II. Something like:
<List moved to main page>--iFaqeer 06:28, Sep 28, 2004 (UTC)
Hasan
Hasan is often cited as the fifth caliph in many classical sources, for example the writings of Suyuti, however in reality he didn't rule as the actual caliph. I don't know where to list him, as he is not considered one of the Khalifa Rashidun nor is he an Umayyad. DigiBullet 14:53, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- I had listed him as the 5th, but someone removed him. I agree that listing him directly under "Khulfa-e-Rashidun", as I did, was not the ideal thing to do. My original intention was to have parallel table cells for overlapping or competing claims to being Caliph. I will see what I can do when I next edit the page.—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 20:14, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)
Ottomans
the first Ottoman sultan to claim the title of caliph was Muhammed i Sani, also known as Mehmed II and Fatih. Selim was his grandson. It is true that his grand son selim defeated the other two caliphs of the time, the Safavid Shah and the Mameluke empire.
The Turkish Parliament
Although the title of Caliph is currently unused, it could conceivably be used again if the Turkish parliament were to decide to reactivate it.
Who would be the Caliph? And does the Turkish parliament have the power to elect the Caliph over all Sunnis? And isn't religion separated from state in Turkey? - Lev 10:53, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- It would be disputed, certainly -- but what else is new? :) Let's say that, for whatever reason, the title "Pope" had passed out of favor a century ago and been officially placed in hibernation by the Italian government, which had overrun and militarily subdued the Vatican. Wouldn't you want to know that the mechanism (technically) existed to revive the title? The question "who would be the Pope" might be a secondary one for someone curious about the viability of *some unknown* modern figure re-establishing authority and legitimacy under the title "Pope." The fact that the title was transferred into a bureaucratic limbo, not abolished, is interesting to me, especially given the constant talk in the Islamic world about the viability, or lack of same, of a modern Caliph. Seems worth keeping. BrandonYusufToropov 11:26, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- First, I am not trying to say the statement is not interesting, but that it is wrong.
- Let's consider your hypothetical case. If Italian troops do not kill the Pope, the Catholic world will still acknowledge him as the Pope. If they do, a new Pope will not be elected for a merely technical reason – that the cardinals are under arrest. When all cardinals die, new ones can be elected and can meet outside Italy to elect a Pope. Therefore, the Italian government has not the power to permanently inactivate the title.
- The reason that the Turkish government could inactivate the title of Caliph is probably that he had no more actual power anyway, therefore the Moslems outside Turkey had no reason to keep supporting him. Now even if that government chooses to revive the office of Caliph, it cannot give anyone religious authority even over the Turkish Moslems, since it only has secular authority itself. Of course, it can revive the title, decreeing that X is henceforth to be called Caliph.
- I agree that the possibility of re-establishing the authority of Caliph at all is worth mentioning, and some info on the talk of the viability of a modern Caliph would also be appropriate.
- Lev 21:18, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- What makes the case different from my hypothetical is that the title had for quite a while been incapable of producing much respect in the Muslim world. (Recall that the Arabs revolted against the remnants of the "Caliphate" in WWI.). Be that as it may, Turkey's vote appears to have been the last gasp of the institution... yet the fact that the title has been placed in suspended animation -- rather than abolished outright -- is surely worthy of mention somewhere. The secular nature of Turkey's present government doesn't mean, of course, that it will always be so; remember that Islam is for some a failed empire with an enduring spiritual dimension, and for others a global governmental system in waiting. Thus a pan-Islamic governmental vision might (for instance) posit a federation of Muslim nations under a global Islamic authority, headed by a leader whose authority might be enhanced (though I doubt seriously that it would be sparked) by some kind of proclamation from the Turkish parliament. It's yet another drawn scenario, I realize, and highly unlikely, but what's intriguing to me about this is that the only thing anyone, Muslim or non-Muslim, appears to agree on is that the caliphate was last seen in Turkey. Given Islam's historic insistence that secular and religious distinctions are ultimately meaningless, Turkey's status as a secular government might be seen by imaginative Islamists as a "transitional phase." You recall how big the Marxists were on transitional phases, and how quick they were to declare them, often retroactively. :) BrandonYusufToropov 23:37, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Minor note about transliteration
I've noticed several arabic words ending in at-ta al-marbouta transliterated on wikipedia with an 'h' at the end (khalifah, sunnah, etc.). As a (mere) 2nd semester student of Arabic language, this strikes me as very odd - it'd make more sense if such words were transcribed as ending in -a or even -at; I was wondering if anyone more knowledgable than me could shed some light on this issue?