An existing generally accepted Caliph.

Do you guys think it is possible for us to have, post the abolition of the Ottoman Caliphate, a generally accepted Caliph. (by generally accepted I mean one that the majority of Sunni Muslims would agree that he was indeed the Caliph.) What would be the best opportunity for someone to gain this position an how might it effect things.
 
Last edited:
http://i-epistemology.net/v1/attachments/922_ajiss24-4-stripped - Khan - The Caliphate Question.pdf

"Hussein’s claim to pan-Islamic glory had many flaws, not the least being the general lack of enthusiasm by most Muslims for the caliphate in general and for the sharif in particular. The caliphate’s demise was essentially a fait
accompli. It was generally accepted among Muslims (perhaps less enthusiastically among some than others) that the new political order had no room for either a political or spiritual figurehead to replace the Ottoman sultan. The Indian Muslim position was staunchly anti-Hussein, regardless of the ultimate consequence for the caliphate. Efforts to recognize other caliphates also failed, as the general consensus was that if there were any desire among
Muslims to recognize a new caliph, that honor would remain with the
Turks."
 
Do you guys think it is possible for us to have, post the abolition of the Ottoman Caliphate, a generally accepted Caliph. (by generally accepted I mean one that the majority of Sunni Muslims would agree that he was indeed the Caliph.) What would be the best opportunity for someone to gain this position an how might it effect things.


The problem with this is that the Caliph must have generally accepted power and have the clear ability to enforce the Shariah upon the Ummah, collect the Zakat and establish the Hadood. I could give a more detailed response if you like, but essentially it is unlikely that some Caliph who hovers around the Islamic world would be accepted by a majority. Perhaps you could get a Caliph who was accepted by a particular area or nation in this manner. I could easily easy Mullah Omar accepting the title and being accepted by the vast majority in Afhanistan and a significant minority in Pakistan.
 

TinyTartar

Banned
Perhaps give Ibn Saud even more luck and skill than OTL, leading to him taking the entire Arabian peninsula?

The Hashemites had possibly the most legitimate claim to rule, but Saud was the one who was actually successful enough to take power. Perhaps he backs an anti-Hussein rebellion in Jordan and eventually takes over, adding Jordan to his kingdom, and gains enough British favor to take over Iraq? Its a stretch, but Saud was popular with most of the tribes and popular with the British. That combination gives him power to make claims that others cannot.
 
I also think the problem was the Turkish empire. It was outdated and repressive.

Looking at the book "A history of the Arabs people" by Albert Hourani, he is also analysing the Ottoman empire.

PS: the book is immensely detailed and concise but boring to read.

The shift to a Caliph based in Saudi might not go down well overall. True that the Saudi king's title is 'Guardian of the two mosque's' but a king might not be accepted in a Muslim setting as a Caliph as well.

Ivan
 
The problem with this is that the Caliph must have generally accepted power and have the clear ability to enforce the Shariah upon the Ummah, collect the Zakat and establish the Hadood. I could give a more detailed response if you like, but essentially it is unlikely that some Caliph who hovers around the Islamic world would be accepted by a majority. Perhaps you could get a Caliph who was accepted by a particular area or nation in this manner. I could easily easy Mullah Omar accepting the title and being accepted by the vast majority in Afhanistan and a significant minority in Pakistan.
So just how much territory will a Caliph have to have in order to be able to claim generally accepted power. I take it from this that a pope figure with solely religious authority is a no go, which I more or less realized, but just how much power would be necessary. I mean the Ottomans didn't rule the whole Muslim world and they were generally recognized. Or were they coasting on past glories?
 
So just how much territory will a Caliph have to have in order to be able to claim generally accepted power. I take it from this that a pope figure with solely religious authority is a no go, which I more or less realized, but just how much power would be necessary. I mean the Ottomans didn't rule the whole Muslim world and they were generally recognized. Or were they coasting on past glories?
Probably the latter. Roughly, I suspect that in order to gain the same level of recognition/ legitimacy, any post-Ottoman candidate for the caliphate would need to control even more territory than the Ottomans did during the late period, so something like Anatolia, the Mashriq (including the whole of the Arabian peninsula), Egypt, plus a bit more. That by itself puts it into ASB territory for any likely candidate such as the Saudis or Hashemites. There would be too much opposition even within the territory itself, let alone taking into account likely outside opposition from London and Paris.
 
I also think the problem was the Turkish empire. It was outdated and repressive.

Looking at the book "A history of the Arabs people" by Albert Hourani, he is also analysing the Ottoman empire.

PS: the book is immensely detailed and concise but boring to read.

The shift to a Caliph based in Saudi might not go down well overall. True that the Saudi king's title is 'Guardian of the two mosque's' but a king might not be accepted in a Muslim setting as a Caliph as well.

Ivan


King Salman has the best chance at the moment of being universally accepted but in all honesty I do not think he wants this to happen and understands well the difficulties entailed with such a title.
 
So just how much territory will a Caliph have to have in order to be able to claim generally accepted power. I take it from this that a pope figure with solely religious authority is a no go, which I more or less realized, but just how much power would be necessary. I mean the Ottomans didn't rule the whole Muslim world and they were generally recognized. Or were they coasting on past glories?


This is a very complex issue and there are significant disagreements amongst the Ulema and the Ummah on this issue.

The ideal held by a minority is that at any one period there can only be a single Islamic state and that this state no matter what or how large it is, is the Khilafah. This view comes from the deep seated belief amongst some that the Saudi kingdom is not Islamic and is a Munafiq entity and is not following the Shariah. This is the viewpoint of a large and widespread minority and is most famously held by ISIS and its supporters. ISIS in fact says that Makkah is the land of the Kuffar and Hijra to it is not allowed, the same as Hijra to America is forbidden.

The other more widespread view, is that the Khilafah must have power across the majority of the Ummah. Basically, the opinion that the state must have a clearly defined power and the ability to enforce the Shariah across the Ummah, not just a tiny area. Further, this requires a Bayait (pledge) to the Caliph by the people of influence (could be heads of states, tribal leaders, etc) of the regions in question.
 
Top