Is anything preventing muslims from forming caliphate?
- Thread starter Mookie
- Start date
I think he means "what about Muslim Spain being lost to Christian Spain" as far as Muslim places being conquered by Christian.
And I think you could go even farther back, like Sicily.
The first imam was Ali, cousin and son-in-law of Muhammad. The next 10 (historical for the Twelvers Shi'ia) imams were his descendants.
The last imam was more than a thousand years ago. Since then there has been a "hidden imam" who will come as Mahdi to bring peace and justice in due time.
Other Shi'ia minority sects like the Zaydi (Fivers) or the Ismaili (Seveners) broke of from the Twelvers at some early point (only the first 4 imams are recognized by all sects) over the succession to the imamate.
There is just one thing preventing them from doing so even if a Caliphate is something all Muslims would want - all the fine details.
- Who is going to be Caliph?
- Where the capital is located
- How much actual power does the Caliph and his government have
- What religious tenets is the Caliphate based on
The United Arab Republic, which encompassed much smaller and less inhomogeneous area than this theoretical caliphate, has not worked out due to irreconcilable differences on similar questions.
Do you think Indonesians would want to be governed from Riad? Or Moroccans from Jacarta?
- Who is going to be Caliph?
- Where the capital is located
- How much actual power does the Caliph and his government have
- What religious tenets is the Caliphate based on
The United Arab Republic, which encompassed much smaller and less inhomogeneous area than this theoretical caliphate, has not worked out due to irreconcilable differences on similar questions.
Do you think Indonesians would want to be governed from Riad? Or Moroccans from Jacarta?
Since I was talking about Ottomans and in particular why the title of Caliph became again somehow significant in 1774, neither Spain nor Sicily should be invoked.
Mookie
Banned
-Due to Shia - Sunni divide, he will be elected for life from among the descendants of prophets family.
-The bicameral legislature is ellected by the people. Like in US, every state gets a set equal number of representatives in one, and a number based on population in the other.
-Caliph appoints the ministers.
-Mecca
-Secular and Religious authority is held by the Caliphate. Muslims outside of Caliphate also respond to caliph.
-Quran solely. The hadiths can be used as guidelines when something is unclear.
Dont underrestimate religion
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6PHw9LLsQI4
CthulhuFhtagn
Banned
-Due to Shia - Sunni divide, he will be elected for life from among the descendants of prophets family.
-The bicameral legislature is ellected by the people. Like in US, every state gets a set equal number of representatives in one, and a number based on population in the other.
-Caliph appoints the ministers.
-Mecca
-Secular and Religious authority is held by the Caliphate. Muslims outside of Caliphate also respond to caliph.
-Quran solely. The hadiths can be used as guidelines when something is unclear.
Dont underrestimate religion
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6PHw9LLsQI4
This is for an ASB timeline, right?
Mookie
Banned
Yes. I know they wont be able to overcome those differences but for the sake of it I tried to find a middle road
RousseauX
Donor
You might actually want to look at historical attempts at assembling the nationalist version of the sort of political entity you are thinking of during the 60s-70s.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Arab_Republic
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_League
Mookie
Banned
Nationalism in muslim countries never really and trully developed. There were some attempts to unite those people under national banner. But they dont see that as really important. Tribe, family, religion, safety is all more important than country there
RousseauX
Donor
Nationalism in muslim countries never really and trully developed. There were some attempts to unite those people under national banner. But they dont see that as really important. Tribe, family, religion, safety is all more important than country there
I simply disagree with this because it varies from region to region.
If you are talking about say, Libya or Afghanistan, then you are correct because the state was weak and never papered over tribal identities. To a lesser extent, this holds true for countries which formed in the 1920s such as Syria or Lebanon.
If you are talking about say, Iran or Turkey or even Egypt, where there have being the center of historical cohesive states, then those places are ultra-nationalistic. Even Iran, which had/has a theocratic government, is extremely nationalistic nowadays.
Mookie
Banned
Turkey went over Attaturk's nationalisation in which plenty of things were illegalized and forced. And Turkey is in near east.
As for Iran, its such simply due to circuimstances. Its a Shia country, surrounded by sunni's and built uppon an ancient civilization. But the colonial made countries, with arbitary straight borders are not like that. Syria, UAE, Saudi's, Egypt, Lybia, Tunissia, Algiers is in between due to their conflict with France. But then again, most of those people if you asked them to pick one - their nationality or their religion, I think the answer is quite clear.
The thing is it's never a matter of "pick one". You say "nationality or religion, pick one" and someone else will say "here's as much religion as you need and all the nationality you could want". Recent history is full of wars between even uniformly Arabic-speaking Sunni countries: Morocco vs Algeria (continued in Western Sahara), Egypt v Libya, Egypt v Yemen (egged on by Saudi Arabia), Iraq v Kuwait, Jordan v PLO etc. Religion wasn't a major feature in any of these wars AFAIK.
And nationalism is even more there with non arabic nations.... Look at the history of Iran.