Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Servant Corps]

Let's do this! Here is my absurdly long definition of Caliphate.

Spoiler: Caliphate (click to show/hide)

The Arabic term "Caliph" means "Successor". In most cases, it is used to mean that the person is succeeding Prophet Mohammed as the leader of the Islamic community.

According to "as-Sirah" of Ibnu Ishaq, during debates over how to organize the Islamic community after the death of Mohammed, Abu Bakr was reported to have said:

"It is forbidden for Muslims to have two Amirs for this would cause differences in their affairs and concepts, their unity would be divided and disputes would break out amongst them. The Sunnah would then be abandoned, the bida’a (innovations) would spread and Fitna would grow, and that is in no one’s interests."

Abu Bakr would later be appointed as the first Caliph of the Rashidun Caliphate. This reasoning would be generally accepted by many scholars within Islam, that there need to only be one leader running the Muslim world. There are also many hadiths (sayings of the Prophet Mohammed) that discuss about the Caliphates of the future and of the need for Muslims to follow the Caliph.

One hadith, quoted in the Book As-Siyasah As-Shr'eyah, states that Prophet Mohammed said, "If three are travelling, there must be a leader amongst them."

Another of these hadiths, in Sahih Muslim, is as follows:

It has been narrated by Abu Huraira that the Holy Prophet (may pceace be upon him) said: Banu Isra'il were ruled over by the Prophets. When one Prophet died, another succeeded him; but after me there is no prophet and there will be Caliphs and they will be quite large in number. His Companions said: What do you order us to do (in case we come to have more than one Caliph)? He said: The one to whom allegiance is sworn first has a supremacy over the others. Concede to them their due rights (i. e. obey them). God (Himself) will question them about the subjects whom He had entrusted to them.  (Book #020, Hadith #4543)

This is just a small sampling of evidence suggesting that the tradition of Caliphate has always been with Islam after Prophet Mohammed's death. Furthermore, this evidence suggest that obidence to the Caliphate is absolute, one cannot swear loyalty to more than one person (at least, in theory). Ideally, there should only be one Caliphate. This can be seen in this Hadith that is also in Sahih Muslim:

It has been narrated on the authority of Aba Sa'id al-Khudri that the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) said: When oath of allegiance has been taken for two Caliphs, kill the one for whom the oath was taken later.  (Book #020, Hadith #4568)

It is for this reason that I classify the various Shias Immamts as "Caliphates".  The Shias claim that certain people who have descended from Mohammed, via Ali ibn Abu Talib, are Imams who are both the spiritual and temporal leaders of the Muslim community. Failure to obey these leaders is tantamount to leaving Islam, according to these Shias. This belief that all Muslims must swear loyalty to the Imam mirror Sunnis' views that all Muslims must swear loyalty to the Sunni Caliph, and hence are two sides of the same coin.

However, this idea of a 'universal caliphate', which all Muslims swear loyalty to, has been argued against by Husyan Ibn Ali, the Emir of Mecca and Medina during WWI. The book "From Ottomanism to Arabism: Essays on the Origins of Arab Nationalism" (written by C. Ernest Dawn) provides a detail of Husyan ibn Ali's views on the Caliphate, which was a belief shared by many Muslims during the pre-WWI era:

"The caliphate, in the sense of the sole legitimate monarchy which embraced the Muslims of the world (i.e, the 'classical' or the 'universal' caliphate), had become extinct at a very early time. It was succeeded by series of temporal sovereignties which, if they enforced the holy law, were deserving of the appellation 'caliphate'. These temporal sovereignties, or caliphates, were by no means to be thought as the sole legitimate state for all Muslims, and their monarchs were not be regarded as 'caliphs'; in fact, there might be more than one caliphate in existence at any one time. Such a caliphate was the Ottoman state."

Husyan Ibn Ali was reported to have stated to Lawerence of Arabia on July 28th, 1917 that any idea of resurrecting a univerisal caliphate is "not only grammatically absurd but blasphemous". In 1923, after the Ottoman Caliphate was abolished, Husyan Ibn Ali would declare himself to be the Caliph.

I classify the caliphates in terms of the reason they made the claim to run a Caliphate (and a Caliphate may make mulitiple claims), but there may be other Caliphates out there that doesn't fit into these claims:
*Piety: They are pious.
*Selection by the Shura: They have been elected.
*Control over "Key Cities": They control very important cities.
*Inhertiance/Dynastic Succession: They have descended from another Caliph or from Muhammed's family.
*Madhi Claimant: They claim to be the Madhi.

[SirHoneyBadger]

Well, mind you that the (use of the) word "bint" would, in British English, be a slang term.

Which makes some sense, due to colonialism.

[puke]

what about California?  named for Caliph Haroon Rashid, or so is the word on the street.

This whole "united states" thing is just a minor civil uprising.  we'll have them put down shortly and restore the land to its righful orthodox order.

[SirHoneyBadger]

what about California?  named for Caliph Haroon Rashid, or so is the word on the street.

This whole "united states" thing is just a minor civil uprising.  we'll have them put down shortly and restore the land to its righful orthodox order.

The U.S. has only been going on for less than 250 years.
 
Considering the Moors were in Spain for almost 800 years, that American was "discovered" by Spanish explorers, and that California used to belong to Spain, you've got a point--it could just be some kind of big political cycle.

[Servant Corps]

At least two new Caliphates has been discovered, according to the Ibadi sect of Islam, located mostly in Oman. The Ibadi follow their own Imams (leaders), but view their sect as the only correct sect of Islam (those who are not Ibadi are called "those who reject God's grace"), altough this has since been relaxed in the modern day.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ibadi

Ibadis agree with Sunnis in approving of Abu Bakr and Umar ibn al-Khattab, whom they regard as the two rightly-guided Caliphs. They regard Uthman ibn Affan as having introduced bid'ah "innovations" into Islam, and approve of the revolt which overthrew him. They also approve of the first part of Ali's caliphate, and, like Shi'as, disapprove of Aisha's rebellion against him and also disapprove of Muawiya's revolt. However, they regard Ali's acceptance of arbitration at the Battle of Siffin against Muawiya's rebels as un-Islamic and as rendering him unfit for the Imamate, and they condemn Ali for killing the Muslims of an-Nahr in the Battle of Nahrawan.

In their belief, the fifth legitimate Caliph was Abdullah ibn Wahb al-Rasibi. All Caliphs from Muawiya onwards are regarded as tyrants except Umar ibn Abdul Aziz, on whom opinions differ. However, various later Ibadi leaders are recognized as true imams, including Abdullah ibn Yahya al-Kindi of South Arabia and the imams of the Rustamid dynasty in North Africa.

Caliphate 1:
--Rustamid Dynasty

Caliphate 2: The Omani Imamates
http://www.uga.edu/islam/ibadis.html

The righteous Imamate is a topic of great importance in Ibadi legal literature.  The Imam should be chosen for his knowledge and piety, without any regard to race or lineage.  He should be chosen by the elders of the community, who are also obligated to depose him if he acts unjustly.  The last “true Imam” to unite the entire country of Oman under his power was Ahmad ibn Sa‘id (ruled 1754-1783 CE), founder of the BuSa‘idi dynasty that remains in power to this day.  His descendants took the title not of Imam, with its connotations of religious leadership, but Sayyid, an honorific title held by any member of the royal family.  Later, they used the title Sultan, implying purely coercive power.  Thus they relinquished all pretense of spiritual authority, although they patronized Muslim scholars and promoted Islamic scholarship. Ibadi scholars were often actively engaged in trying to actualize the true Islamic state; they poured forth their longings in poetry, even as they elaborated the foundations of piety in lengthy works of jurisprudence.  The Ibadi scholars of Oman--and the Mzab valley of Algeria, although the linkage of Ibadism with Omani identity has necessarily made Oman the focus of Ibadi political aspirations--have not merely taught and studied: they have agitated, led revolts, elected Imams, and been the true leaders of Omani society,  as both moral exemplars and arbiters of power.  Shaykh Sa‘id ibn Khalfan al-Khalili (1811-1870), a mystic, poet and scholar of Arabic grammar and rhetoric who is credited with inaugurating Oman’s literary revival, is even more famous for his role in leading a rebellion against Sultan Turki and establishing the Imamate of ‘Azzan ibn Qays (1868-1871), which was overthrown only through British intervention.  Nur al-Din al-Salimi led a new Imamate movement in 1913, and forced his student, Salim ibn Rashid al-Kharusi, to accept the role of Imam on pain of death.  When Salim was assassinated in 1920, another of Salimi’s students, Muhammad ibn ‘Abdallah al-Khalili, grandson of the great Sa‘id ibn Khalfan al-Khalili, who was appointed to succeed him.  For seven years the British defended the Sultan in Muscat and eventually in 1920 arranged the so-called Treaty of Seeb, the formal agreement which ambiguously divided the authority of the “Sultan of Muscat and Oman” from that of the “Imam of the Muslims,” who ruled in the interior.  This division remained in force until Sultan Sa‘id ibn Taymur secured the allegiance of the tribes of the interior in the 1950's.

[puke]

this is a very educational thread.  please continue to update it.

[IndonesiaWarMinister]

True...


Wait what, agrees with Abu Bakr and Umar, but hates Usman (nepotism) and the second part of Ali
's reign? (arbitration).

...

[Servant Corps]

The following caliphates are considered "historically insignificant". That mean, they will not be in the book, on account on being so minor that their addition would be...rather demeaning...to those 'real' Caliphates. Sorry for the lack of citations.

*The Micronation of Kali (a one-state government, with the Caliph also being the Prime Minister) has since abolished itself. The Caliph made money through Forex trading (it's his job!), and due to the economic downturn, the Caliph has desired to retire from the Caliphate business until further notice. So, a caliphate has died as a result of the economic downturn.
*I did not mention the Second Life Caliphate of Al-Andaus (a progressive caliphate based on Shariah law), which I plan on visting eventually. They are in the process of overhauling their constitution. Video of their caliphate shows "non-Islamic behaviors" going on. Meanwhile, a website claims that they have an air force. Er...
*I have heard mention of the existence of the Male Caliphate of Brazil in the past, but now has gained more evidence of their existence. The Empire of Réunionhas made a speech arguing against the Caliphate of Brazil being admitted into "League of Micronations" (one of several UN-style bodies in the 'micronational' world). (This link actually links to a Yahoo! message board, so you could read the responses by the Caliphate too.) The actual speech by the Empire is in spoilers, in case Yahoo! decides to do a "purge".

Spoiler: Speech (click to show/hide)

The Holy Empire of Réunion could not remain silent while the vile nation known as "Male Caliphate of Brazil" tries, once again, to become a member of this respectful organization. Such micronation has proven to be of belligerent nature, endeavoring actions of espionage and pathetic verbal offenses against member-states.
       The "caliph" has not stopped, since the last time they attempted to enter this body, to behave like a childish fool, saying such stupidities as the old "Réunion is nazi"  or filthy offenses against the good people of Réunion, its monarchy and authorities.
       We must HALT this one more attempt; the "caliphate"  has proved not to be worthy to be amongst us, serious, good micronations once again, and thus should NOT be allowed to have a seat - be it effective or observer, for this league MUST NOT cope with their actions against some member-states and all micronationalism.
       That micronation is unworthy of being here, and their very presence here can damage the image of the League, and indeed turn this Body into the house of topsy turviness and chaos. Against that, Sirs and Madams, we must fight.  And this is why the Holy Empire of Réunion comes here, once again, proven the crimes and other hideous actions committed by the "caliph" and his followers, to ask that we, as one, VOTE AGAINST their membership, so that the league remains safe, now and forever, from the interference of those people, whose new actions against peace and order have again shown that their presence here is against the interests of the league and micronationalism in general.
       While some micronations sometimes learn and grow, as it seems to be the case with the "Participative Republic of Campos Bastos", whose representatives have apologized for their terrible offenses and crimes against micronationalism and Réunion, that "caliphate"  reiterates their hideous practices every new day.   Réunion wishes that, one day, Male will turn from a criminal State into an honourable one, and then we shall indeed  embrace them as our colleagues in this League.
         We trust that the allies and friends of Réunion, and even those with whom we do not agree so often will see the need, the URGENT need, for a response to all the crimes committed by Male, and that respond must be a loud NO to their presence amongst us.  And that response must come clear, so that the entire micronational world will realize that this is a serious body of serious nations, deeply committed to the cause of good micronationalism.

It appears that Réunion has succeded in stopping the Caliphate from joining the League of Micronations.

The Empire of Reunion mentioned on their main website that they have annexed and released the Male Caliphate, and has done this for several micronations (providing assistance to new nations, as a "micronational school"). The Male Caliphate has been referred to as a "daughter-nation", suggesting that this incident occurred after this "annex/release" process. Strangely, Reunion still calls the Male Caliphate for being a "criminal", when the only thing he did was claimed everyone was discriminating against him.

The name of the Caliph is "Caliph Arthur Abdulah de Jandira".
(EDIT: It seems that, the Caliph has annexed the United Kingdom of Sayed. It appears that the Caliphate of Brazil has annexed several micronations before. The Caliphate of Brazil is allegedly using this annexation to try and gain membership onto the League of Microantions, since the UK of Sayed was part of the LoM. Might be important to know.)
*Federal Caliphate of Earth. So Yeah. No information other than what's on this forum.

EDIT 2:
I also found a non-Caliphate defunct micronation, the Republic of Antverpia. It's dead, though, it was formed in the wake of 9/11 in order to try and show the "true face" of Islam.

[Servant Corps]

I have looked far and wide to find any evidence that the Almoravid Dynasty in Spain is in fact a Caliphate.

Sad to say, I cannot find this evidence.

All I found was that the Almoravid Dynasty recognized the Abbasid Dynasty as the rightful caliph, but that they also called themselves Commander of the Muslims. This could suggest that they saw themselves as autonomous, which might have been true, considering the Abbasid Dynasty was weak.

I think I have enough evidence to conclude that the Almohad Dynasty is a Caliphate though.

[Servant Corps]

I have found a website claiming that the Mughal Empire is a caliphate.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/india/mughal-caliphate.htm

While the website itself seemed unreliable, an Orientalist work also stated that the Mughal Empire was a caliphate, meaning that I should seriously study this.

[SirHoneyBadger]

The Mughal Empire is really quite interesting. You should enjoy whatever time you invest into studying it.

It existed at roughly the same time as the Ottoman Empire, in the Indian subcontinent, was founded by the semi-mythical Babur, and was ultimately responsible for the Taj Mahal's creation, built by Shah Jahan.

[Servant Corps]

This is another bump, because I really want to make sure I found all the (major) caliphates out there. I don't want to exclude anyone and portray a false version of history.

[SirHoneyBadger]

What was the historical situation with Islam in Mongolia? Was there any caliphate tradition going on in that part of the world, at any time? I know the Mongols had some serious conflicts going on with Islamic states, but with conflict often comes converts.

[thobal]

Haha, antiquated ethnical groupings are antiquated.

[Ampersand]

When the Mongol Empire was divided up into a series of Khanates across the Eurasian Steppe, most of the Khans did not adopt any particular religion, or at least nominally adhered to older Altaic Tengriist shamanistic traditions. The Khanates were primarily religiously tolerant. They had to be in order to control the vast populations and land areas they kept, as any large scale ethnic religious uprising would have been a major inconvenience, and they liked to take recruits from everyone. Plus, oppressed religious minorities may actually prefer life under them, and support the new regime in favor of the old.

The Ruling classes were not of any particular religion or another. The courts of the Khans commonly had Nestorian Christians and Muslims in them. Sartaq Khan of the Golden Horde, who ruled the Khanate for under a year before dying, was a Christian, and Blood Brother to Russian folk hero, Alexander Nevsky.

However, only a year after Sartaq came Berke Khan, who established Islam as the official faith of the Golden Horde, and many converts followed, though Christians and Animists were still very common. However, this conversion brought the Golden Horde into direct conflict with still nominally Tengriist ruler of the Ilkhanate in Persia, Hulagu Khan, who had the Abbasid Caliph killed.

In other words, the Khanates that converted to Islam were at least theoretically loyal to the Abbasid Caliph, and the foundation of a separate Caliph in the former Mongol Empire seems unlikely.