Talk:Caliphate

Caliphate was not hereditary or monarchy

The caliphate is part of Islamic belief and according to Islam it is based on Shura (consultation) and the first 4 caliphs know as Rashidun caliphate was following the rule. The Rashidun Caliphate is also known As a holy caliphate. It shouldn't be on the basis of who are in the majority rather it's a spiritual thing it is a part of the religion and it should be according to how religion describe it. not like a normal state. It shouldn't be titled as Islamic monarchy rather it should be Consultation based Islamic theocracy Therealbey (talk) 18:38, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

That is not the characterization found in secular reliable sources. Regardless of how it is thought about in confessional contexts, we characterize it instead based on observable reality. Remsense ‥ 论 18:41, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

what do you mean by secular sources ? It's a practice and part of religion as mentioned in Hadith of Prophet Muhammad and the Shura (consultation) is in Quran. It isn't how you think it. It's not western or specially European system. If you don't know even the name Rashidun Caliphate was never actually used by them it was Called only Al-Khilafah or in English Caliphate. And even it didn't had a flag of country. It's law and constitution everything was Quran and sayings of Prophet Muhammad. And it is something that belongs to Islam according to Islam it should be continued in every century but for some reason it is not in the world for last 100 years. Yes there were some claimed caliph title like Umayyad, Abbasid and the Ottomans and they ruled it as hereditary but they are not the maker of this thing or rule it is Islam whom it's belongs to. Those empires just miss used them. So I think it should be titled in short description Consultation Based Islamic Theocracy and it's first line should be changed from (initially elective later absolute) to Shura (consultation) based system. And below somewhere it should be mention that some used this title or caliphate in other political system like hereditary. Therealbey (talk) 19:11, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Of course, the Rashidun caliphs were not a hereditary progression, but I find it impossible to argue against the empirical manifestation of heredity from the first Umayyad caliph onward. It is clearly the mechanism by which power passed from caliph to caliph for almost the entire historical period where there existed powerful states claiming the mantle of caliphate. Remsense ‥ 论 19:28, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes but as I said it's not possible Muawiyah changing islam right. For example if Christianity claims that Muhammad preached Christianity and according to you if we believe on the majority side then Christianity has more population has more than Islam's so according to your logic Muhammad preached Christianity is it correct ? You can use this argument in a political view but Caliphate isn't a political matter only rather a religious practices like thing and you can't change a religious teaching based on how it was used in history. Therealbey (talk) 19:42, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

You would need to cite reliable sources that agree with your premises and conclusions. Remsense ‥ 论 19:49, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Hadith of Caliphate (Sahih Bukhari 3455) this Hadith mentions about how Guiding the people by Prophet's had ended and now they will ruled by Caliphs and it shows how it's necessary when prophet says obey them in several Hadiths like sahih Muslim 1847 b and many more . And Quranic verse like 24:55 that is verse where it shows how important it is that God has promised to fulfill that thing. So there are many more Hadith and Quranic verse on caliphate and there is no doubt of it being a part of Islam. Therealbey (talk) 21:11, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Hadith are considered primary sources. We generally require recent secondary sources subject to secular academic peer review. Remsense ‥ 论 21:13, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

are you reading what I have written previously? Sir, it's a religious matter and religion scholars in Islam the Ulama can give opinion from them like Ibn Taymiyya who said –

It is obligatory to know that the office in charge of commanding over the people (ie: the post of the Khaleefah) is one of the greatest obligations of the Deen (Religion). In fact, there is no establishment of the Deen (Religion) except by it....this is the opinion of the salaf, such as Al-Fuḍayl ibn ‘Iyāḍ, Ahmad ibn Hanbal and others Therealbey (talk) 21:27, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Please reread my most recent comment. We do not cite primary sources about religious traditions, or most anything else. Remsense ‥ 论 21:28, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

is not actually traditional. things of Islam like 5 pillars of Islam, daily 5 prayers the Scriptures Quran. 124k prophets and Sahadah the caliphate is also a religious practice not a traditional culture or something. Like for example if Canada claimed to USA and go on a dictatorial path that doesn't make USA law and The United States as dictatorial. But caliphate is something sensitive and part of religion. And it's a rule of Shari'a that all Muslims in the world agrees. So taking the side of majority saying that empires of middle east like Umayyad or Abbasid or Ottomans claimed to Caliphs and then they ruled as dictatorial system but that doesn't make the whole constitution dictatorial. Like For example North Korea is known to be run by a dictatorial regime but is constitution still remains as democratic. So in the case of Caliphate the Constitution is Quran and Hadith. So if you look All the caliphates existed there constitution was Quran and Hadiths and according Quran and Hadith caliphate should be based on Shura (consultation) and all can be caliphs not like passing from father to son. And what Umayyads, Abbasids and Ottomans done was against the constitution (Quran and Hadith) so in modern sense we can say they were unconstitutional but constitution hasn't effected by their acts so Caliphate Page should be according to constitution not by which regime done what or not. Therealbey (talk) 22:14, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

You were given specific reasons citing site policy why you were not permitted to make those changes. You focused on my use of the word "tradition" and ignored the core substance of my point, which is that we need secondary sources, not primary ones. Do not do it again. Remsense ‥ 论 01:03, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

So if some sources say and some Islamic scholars say that there is No Quran need for Muslims then will Wikipedia update that Quran is no longer a Muslim scripture? Or some say that fasting is not needed in Islam will Wikipedia also update. Most probably no. Cuz it's a part of Islam no other has right to add or Change it's a religious things for all it's a religious practices. So why you do mot understand this isn't limited to a state its more spiritual thing one of the base of religion. Now if you need real time source then there is no prophet alive who can confirm you have to Trace back to prophet Muhammad. Therealbey (talk) 09:15, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

We reflect views proportional to their prominence in reliable sources, which are generally recent, secondary, and in this case academic and secular. Remsense ‥ 论 09:16, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

I think u didn't understand the argument. If work like in secular sources then ok delete the page of Islam, List of prayers and all the prayers everything related to Islam cuz it's not secular and it's a Islamic practice or any religious practice. Although those have proof in Quran but still not secular or secondary. Right?

It's a religious thing and you want proof of that from secular or secondary sources! .  ? Therealbey (talk) 16:19, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm telling you what site policy is, but I cannot force you to accept it. I recommend reading the pages I've linked, but otherwise it's up to you to make an effort to understand what they say. Remsense ‥ 论 18:06, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

So which sources it needs a book or website or something else. Therealbey (talk) 23:13, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

I recommend reading Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Remsense ‥ 论 23:15, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Historian like Patricia Crone and Michael Cook says that the hereditary nature of later caliphates reflects a departure from the early ideals of the caliphate indicating a shift toward dynastic rule.So it wasn't actually hereditary according to them it later some dynasty's claimed them self to be caliphs and you can even read what happened when Muawiyah declared his son to be next caliph. The son of Ali Ibn abi Talib the 4th Rashidun Caliph his son husayn also the grandchildren of Prophet Muhammad he refused to give allegiance to Yezid. Husayns stance shows a growing divide between those who supported the Umayyads and those who believed in the leadership based on merit and religious authority. Therealbey (talk) 23:29, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Right. So what those sources are saying is that the caliphate, for the vast majority of its existence—essentially its mature form in toto—was a hereditary monarchy. What you changed the article to would be totally contradictory to those sources. Remsense ‥ 论 00:23, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

So how is it contradictory? They said those Caliphates like umayyad, Abbasid or Ottoman reflects a departure from the early caliphate the main one which was based on its constitution Quran and Hadith.fred m Donner said the early Islamic community's original political structure, which was based on consultation and merit rather than heredity. He argues that the transition to dynastic rule was a significant shift away from the foundational principles. Therealbey (talk) 00:48, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

That means it's totally wrong to describe the caliphate as a consultation based theocracy in the short description and first sentence. In large part, it was not. Remsense ‥ 论 01:55, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

i am talking about caliphate is a religious practices and religion's part how could a religious principals change in later how people used it ? Does it make Sense? fred m Donner said the early Islamic community's original political structure, which was based on consultation and merit rather than heredity. If you want to to describe as who used it in large part then there should another page for that like (Hereditary Caliphate) or (Monarchy Caliphate) but the original should remain as it was . Caliphate is a religious thing and what is or how was caliphate is already decided by Quran and sayings of prophet Muhammad. It doesn't change it's original or the religion it self by who used it how . Like one was roman empire and other was roman republic so why not one page for both them ? Why not it say roman republic as a hereditary ? If they have distinct page the original caliphate page should remain as how Islam describes it and how it is actually cuz at the end it is Islam who invented it right. And for the Monarchys who claimed caliphate for them should be another page . Therealbey (talk) 13:48, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

No, it does not make sense. When you change the very first sentence of an article, you are privileging certain aspects—in this case, you are privileging the aspects that are important to you, weighing them way out of proportion to the other aspects described in our reliable sources. That is not acceptable. We will not publish what you feel is important to understand about the caliphate, or even what you know to be important about it. Instead, we will publish what reliable sources have to say about the caliphate, and we will emphasize certain aspects in proportion to how often our sources do so.Remsense ‥ 论 19:09, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

then describe it below somewhere. As I gave you sayings of the historians cuz those caliphates like Umayyads and Abbasids or Ottoman does not following the Rule or criteria of a caliphate. Like if we see those caliphates were monarchy not based on Shura and they had a post of wazir who was sometimes even powerful then the caliph where on the other hand Quran and Hadith reflects that power or leadership should be in hand of one not 2 or more. Then if we see the Ottomans was even worst they had an official post of Shaykh Al Islam who was for religions minister like for anything related to religion should be come from him. This was completely against of the rules of Islam. In Islam caliph isn't just a leader of a state he is much more a spiritual leader. It is like those caliphates just named themselves as caliphate and do nothing like a caliphate. I agree that they captured vast amount of lands but caliphate is religious thing it doesn't require a large land it is about who really manage the Muslim ummah (nation) by following Islam. Those caliphates like Umayyads, Abbasids or Ottoman didn't follow the requirements and rule to be a real caliphates. So that's why it is need to show what is actually an islamic caliphate is. If you portray those caliphates after Rashidun Caliphate then world will learn that this is what a Islamic caliphate is and will assume that Islamic principals support hereditary but Islam is actually against of it according to Hadith Quran. If if ppl really think this what is Islamic government system is then it will be very wrong. this how because of this lot of ppl will mislead and it is like adding and approving something that doesn't supported by religion itself but still teaching this what the religion's view is. Sir if you need further any kind of sources or something I can provide but it should be changed or else it will be very wrong to portray a religious belief by how it later used by some dynasty's. Therealbey (talk) 19:40, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Therealbey, I suggest you drop this point. You are clearly promoting your personal view and not what Wikipedia content policies require, as Remsense has repeated multiple times. Expanding the article with carefully sourced material to include additional significant perspectives is usually acceptable (if it respects WP:WEIGHT), but trying to deviate the overall points of the article to fit a specific point of view is usually not. Either change your proposal to something more constructive along those lines, or accept that your current proposal is not helpful for Wikipedia's purposes and move on. You won't convince more people by repeating the same point over and over. R Prazeres (talk) 21:11, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

I will very briefly summarize that, I think it is plausible that the underlying thrust of @Therealbey's concern has some validity: I think the lead could do to mention briefly that the caliphate had particular religious, not just political, character. The current lead only implies such a dimension existed. Remsense ‥ 论 21:14, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

R Prazeres, it's not my personal view only it's the view of Islam. The majority whole sunni sect of Islam believes that the Rashidun Caliphate was the Ture actual caliphate and almost whole Muslim in the world agrees that the Umayyad, Abbasid and the Ottomans were empire rather a Caliphate. Even the shias agree on it but they don't count first 3 Rashiduns as real caliphs . But both agree on Umayyads, Abbasid and Ottomans were more empire then a caliphate. Therealbey (talk) 21:32, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

@Remsense: agreed, like I said, no harm in expanding the article's scope (with reliable sources). Indeed, the concept of the caliphate is fairly complex in terms of its historical shifts and differing perspectives among various intellectuals, political regimes, branches of Islam, etc, and there are scholarly references that discuss these. Prioritizing a specific religious ideal as the primary or only presentation of the topic is clearly at odds with that goal.

@Therealbey: from what I've seen, you still seem to be insisting on the latter course of action rather than the former. I encourage you to change direction if you want to contribute constructively. R Prazeres (talk) 21:40, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

R Prazeres, Marshall Hodgson in The Venture of Islam, categorized the Umayyad and Abbasid periods as part of the broader 'Islamic Empires' rather than purely religious caliphate. He says that these dynasties ruled large diverse territories and used imperial models to maintain control over various ethnic and religious groups. There are more I can provide as source if you want. Therealbey (talk) 21:49, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't see how that's relevant here: there is no contradiction between a state ruled by a "caliph" being both a "caliphate" and an "empire". Again, this isn't what the sources say. R Prazeres (talk) 22:47, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

There is indeed a difference in an Islamic caliphate which is based on Shura and hereditary Caliphate based on father to son. Therealbey (talk) 22:50, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

@R Prazeres @Remsense what type of sources or evidence is needed to change that misleading content from Caliphate page ? Therealbey (talk) 15:46, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

A reliable source as described above directly making the claims and characterizations that you want to add to the article. Remsense ‥ 论 00:52, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

The Caliphate and Islamic Statehood: Formation, Fragmentation and Modern Interpretation in this book it explains all and The Caliphate of Man: Popular Sovereignty in Modern Islamic Thought by Andrew F. March examines how classical Islamic governance has been reinterpreted in modern Islamic political thought,and he rejecting the hereditary, monarchical rule of the Umayyads and Abbasid dynasty as they are inconsistent with Islamic governance of leadership so those were some more sources but I have given more previously plz look into them carefully. Therealbey (talk) 09:15, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Mamluk Sultanate and Ayyubid Sultanate didn't claimed caliphate

the Mamluk Sultanate and Ayyubid Sultanate, didn't claimed to be caliphates. Therealbey (talk) 22:04, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

In this regard, Therealbey is correct, and the article itself also doesn't make this claim. The Ayyubid and Mamluk sultans both theoretically recognized the Abbasid caliphs and did not claim this role for themselves. (In the Mamluks' case, the caliphs were symbolic figureheads kept under guard in Cairo, e.g. [1].) Maybe an alternate wording could clarify this, but it just seems confusing to mention this in the lead at the moment, so I'll remove it. R Prazeres (talk) 22:33, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Monarchy?

The first sentence of the article is using a lot of loaded phrases and is pretty eurocentric. I understand that there is a reasonable expectation of some bias on (English-speaking) Wikipedia, but the characterization of the Caliphate in this way just doesn't make any historical or spiritual sense. The notion of the caliphate as "Royal" authority is just incorrect, there are no sunni or shia versions that use the term "Mulk" (Royal Dominion) as a descriptive inherent to the caliphate. Scholars like Mohammad Fadel, Wael Hallaq and even premodern Sunni legist Al Mawardi show that this notion of Caliphate as monarchy to be incorrect. The notion of absolutism is just incorrect and there are a plethora of sources (both secular and islamic) that contradict this (Wael Hallaq's The Impossible State and Salman Sayyid's "Recalling the Caliphate" are very robust examples). The article's qualifier "(intially elective, later absolute)" is just anachronistic and wrong, there were several times when the caliph (specifically the Abbasids and the Fatimids) were at the helm of superior sultanates. There were also caliphates that were later on based on some form of elections still, like the Sokoto. I believe the introduction not only paints a very false and anachronistic view of the caliphate as an institution, but it also leads the reader to conclusions that are based on ignorance. Ilovedajjal (talk) 09:41, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

That what I also want to say [[2]] Therealbey (talk) 18:10, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Caliph is not equal to King

The title of caliph is not equal to King tsar or Khan.

Marshall Hodgson, in (The Venture of Islam) he distinguishes the Caliphate from other monarchies like those of Umayyads or Abbasids who acts like king. He explains that the Caliphs authority was rooted in the religious obligation to uphold and spread Islamic principles, unlike a king whose authority rested on feudal or hereditary claims. So I think this like "The title of caliph, which was the equivalent of titles such as king, tsar, and khan in other parts of the world" should be removed. Therealbey (talk) 03:41, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Have you checked the sources already cited for the material as is, and can you explain the nature of the discrepancy? This is your fifth or so post about this, and it is getting tiring to re-explain how we cite an weight claims on Wikipedia. Monarchy merely means rule by one individual who serves for life, so your insistence that the caliphate was not one seems to rest on your confusion of monarchy with the more narrow paradigm of European feudalism. Remsense ‥ 论 03:44, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Moreover, many monarchies throughout history have a theological component to their legitimacy, and you seem to be focusing too narrowly on "equivalent" as such. No two political systems are identical, but your citations do not really make the current prose appear inappropriate. Remsense ‥ 论 04:02, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

i have provided source in the latest edit. Caliph in real is not similar to King he is the manager of Muslim community on the other hand king reflects that someone who lives luxurious life rule how he wants like it reflects a dictator. Therealbey (talk) 04:22, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Reread what I said, thanks. Given the arc of this conversation so far, it seems you are cherrypicking wording because you personally dislike the connotations of "monarch", which is an unacceptable POV to push on Wikipedia. Remsense ‥ 论 04:23, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

No it was something that is not correct according to how it was so to change that mistake I was trying for those days cuz Wikipedia is biggest and most reliable encyclopedia. Therealbey (talk) 04:36, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Your title is "equal", but the prose says "equivalent". In general, caliph is roughly as equivalent to any member of the list as any two members within the list are with each other, which all also have a great deal of historical variety. You are taking this statement far too strictly for what it actually says: if one would like more detail, they're free to read the rest of the article.Remsense ‥ 论 04:39, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

"If one would like more detail" if it's equivalent to King then most will not search for the detail. And it was not equivalent like it was a theocracy based on consultation. And Pope page don't says Pope is equivalent to King then why caliphs ? Both are religious and political title. Therealbey (talk) 05:20, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm not going to argue about what other articles do or don't say. If you can't make an argument based on what this one says vis a vis the sources it cites, then I'm done arguing about this. Remsense ‥ 论 05:22, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

@Therealbey, you can see here where a user introduced the monarchy wording without any source. I've reverted it to the state beforehand, is it acceptable to you? Remsense ‥ 论 05:33, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. I do appreciate it. Therealbey (talk) 05:43, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Sir, I add A line I think is suitable to tell about the caliphate in the heading as summary. I think it should be ok. Therealbey (talk) 05:50, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

It is not for the same reason I said so the very first time: just because it was consultative in the beginning does not mean it should be described as such. Remsense ‥ 论 06:15, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

As the heading in summery it should be there to signify what type of public office is it. If we add the shura page then from there ppl can know more about the system. I think it should added sir. Therealbey (talk) 06:18, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Sir, can I add that line "consultative governmental institution" ? It is need to explain the page in summary. Therealbey (talk) 06:40, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Again, that is not an accurate description of the caliphate throughout its entire history. Remsense ‥ 论 06:41, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

then what about "Consultation based institution or public office later absolute monarchy" Therealbey (talk) 06:46, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

The present definition is cited to multiple sources. Please supply additional sources that give differing high-level definitions if you think these aren't representative. Remsense ‥ 论 06:47, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

I have provided sources and changed little bit Therealbey (talk) 07:14, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

I do not understand why you keep making changes without asking me first. Remsense ‥ 论 07:41, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

And this is why I'm expecting you to propose changes first, because I can't really trust your proposals at face value: what on earth is https://fiveable.me, and why am I supposed to treat it as reliable? The journal article is not a broad tertiary source that gives a direct definition, it's instead focused on a very specific time in history. Tertiary sources I've read generally refrain from assigning any specific government type to the caliphate at-large, so please respect that and stop finding shortcuts to push your POV. I know you mean well, but this is getting tiring. Remsense ‥ 论 07:44, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

@Therealbey: per above, please propose changes here before making them, I am tired of the edit warring. Remsense ‥ 论 07:45, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

okay. Here is the source sir from AP news Therealbey (talk) 08:27, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

This is a news article, not something like a scholarly book or journal article. In any case, it reinforces that there is no consistency to the government type, and that the caliphate isn't even a purely political concept, as is detailed later in the article. The present definition seems the best to suit all notions; please consider accepting that. This article is 17k words long, and readers may learn more by reading past the very first sentence. Remsense ‥ 论 08:29, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Sir you also know it was a consultation based system but Wikipedia needs sources but this is the point which needs to be mentioned like mentioned in other governance systems. Yes Caliphate is not only political but religious but in both context leader is chosen by Shura and if you consider religiously then it should be mentioned must. It is not something I should accept or deny it is historical fact. For more sources –

Hugh Kennedy's "Caliphate: The History of an Idea" where he tells about Caliphate was known by a form of elective leadership where leaders were chosen based on consultation (Shura).

And Ahmad Al-Raysuni's "Al-Shura: The Qur’anic Principle of Consultation" explains that the system of shura was fundamental in the decision making process of the early caliphs.

And in the Quran (Ash-Shura 42:38) + Al-Imran (3:159) Therealbey (talk) 08:51, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

It is a broad concept, and the current definition correctly encompasses it. Further detail comes later. That is how writing works. Remsense ‥ 论 08:54, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Like it doesn't signify it's political system in summary but ok then can I edit those where it only tells that the caliphate was hereditary like "Throughout the history of Islam, a few other Muslim states, almost all of which were hereditary monarchies, have claimed to be caliphates." Therealbey (talk) 09:15, 24 November 2024 (UTC)