Modern Caliphate?

I was pondering today, (yes I ponder ;) ) and I have a question for you all: what do you think the implications of a modern Caliphate would be in 2009? Just curious.

Thanks in advance!
 
Define "Caliphate". Which territory would it cover? Would let´s say Saudi Arabia renaming itself "Arabian Caliphate" change anything?
 
I meant the caliphate in the sense of a clerical organization that helps to unite the faith, rather than the temporal caliphate(Abbasid, Fatmid, Umayyid). Sorry that I was vague *facepalm*.
 

Wolfpaw

Banned
That would be difficult, given the divided nature of Islam.

On the one hand, a Sunni "caliph" would be a sort of spiritual figurehead, like the Pope in Rome. However, the caliph would have less control over temporal matters than the pope due to the lack of a hierarchical clergy in Sunni Islam.

The Shi'a caliphs would probably have more temporal power as Shi'ism has an exstensive and organized clergy, so I guess he would be more similar to the Pope than his Sunni counterpart.
 
That's not what I understood a caliphate to mean. I thought it was claiming the equivilent of Muhammud's political/secular power/authority.
 
The Shi'a caliphs would probably have more temporal power as Shi'ism has an exstensive and organized clergy, so I guess he would be more similar to the Pope than his Sunni counterpart.

There would be no Shi'ite caliph! The only caliph that the Shi'ites accept is Ali (the fourth caliph) whom they consider the only rightful successor of Muhammad.
 
There would be no Shi'ite caliph! The only caliph that the Shi'ites accept is Ali (the fourth caliph) whom they consider the only rightful successor of Muhammad.

Except that there WAS !


Fatimids were Shiite Caliphs, for a token of fact. The Shiites believe that it is only Ali and his descendants, that can be the rightful Caliph.
 
1) That would be difficult, given the currently to severely incohesive political composition of global muslim community.

2) On the one hand, a Sunni "caliph" would be a sort of spiritual figurehead, like the Pope in Rome. However, the caliph would have less control over temporal matters than the pope due to the lack of a hierarchical clergy in Sunni Islam.

3) The Shi'a caliphs would probably have more temporal power as Shi'ism has an exstensive and organized clergy, so I guess he would be more similar to the Pope than his Sunni counterpart.

1) Fixed for the sake of defending truth and justice.

Better be careful when bringing up the "divided nature" of Islam. Sure it's divided. But it's simply in a different mould of sense compared to Christians' case. The origins of Islamic denominational carving was, at the very least, virtually almost pure political, compared to the early Christians that actually were killing each other for very minor doctrinal differences. That's the "divided nature" of Islam, which actually allowing muslims of different denominations to perform Salat in one mosque, while Christians generally, if not at all, can't do any equivalent, or sort-of, or even other kinds of religious activity in their churches. And the really matter division in wide framed PoV is between Sunni and Shia really. Even that, there were times when the line that divides both denominations were simply blurry.

2) Ottoman Caliphs were the temporal and religious head over the whole global Sunni community except Morocco during their days. Remember the general colonial European paranoia of fear of Ottoman-backed conspiracy whenever they were dealing with vicious local muslims in India, Africa and Sumatra.
Related to point #1. Indeed though, the charisma of Ottoman Caliphal authority in Constantinople that was enforced through various multi-national Sufi Orders, was more or less the only real thing that united the Sunni muslims politically back then, even if only really loosely. Once that was gone, you'll have the current situation that has been the more or less the same since the death of Ottoman Caliphate.

3) The main point of this argument is maybe true, but the fact that Shiites are less numerous compared to Sunnis actually an important factor to support this argument.
 
Last edited:
In regard for the Sunni/shia divide, I've always imagine the Christian analogue would be, had Jesus and Mary Magdalene had offspring (damn you, Dan Brown!), the Christian analogue of Shi'ites would argue that only these descendants could ever become pope... :eek::confused:

In regard for the Ottomans, I was always under the impression that when it was in regard for caliphal power, the Ottomans were more "in name only" than exerting actual power beyond their own territories. Yes, I know of stories about how the Muslims in Southeast Asia or West Africa included the Ottoman sultan in their prayers, but the sultan didn't excert any direct influence there. Of course, there's a crucial different between Islam in Ottoman and modern days compared to those of the early caliphs, namely that today the vast majority of Muslims aren't Arabs, and that because of this, the early Caliphate enjoyed a much greater cohesion.
 
In regard for the Sunni/shia divide, I've always imagine the Christian analogue would be, had Jesus and Mary Magdalene had offspring (damn you, Dan Brown!), the Christian analogue of Shi'ites would argue that only these descendants could ever become pope... :eek::confused:

In regard for the Ottomans, I was always under the impression that when it was in regard for caliphal power, the Ottomans were more "in name only" than exerting actual power beyond their own territories. Yes, I know of stories about how the Muslims in Southeast Asia or West Africa included the Ottoman sultan in their prayers, but the sultan didn't excert any direct influence there. Of course, there's a crucial different between Islam in Ottoman and modern days compared to those of the early caliphs, namely that today the vast majority of Muslims aren't Arabs, and that because of this, the early Caliphate enjoyed a much greater cohesion.

Yeah, there were no direct influence at all in West Africa, India and South East Asia, but the point is the Ottoman Caliph DID hold temporal power over most Sunni muslims world wide, if only through Sufi Orders. In general, the Ottoman Caliphs held much more temporal power than the Popes of any era, especially because there is no concept of separation between state and religious authorities in Islam.

The influence exerted by Ottoman Caliphs through Sufi Orders on the Sunni muslims far beyond Ottoman direct rule's reach formed a very loose political cohesion at best. However there was the threat of European colonization during those days wasn't there ? Even without it, Ottoman influence in international affairs had been traditionally important, but without the present of European threat, maybe, maybe this method would be more fragile enough to be intercepted I guess...
 
Hmmm.... btw, I've been wondering in regard for the original premise of the thread: namely a Caliphate by 2009. The options are either having the last one (ie, the Ottoman sultans) continue, which requires a very different Turkey post-WWI, or a restored Caliphate. The latter I find very difficult in the environment of the 20th century, though.
 
Hmmm.... btw, I've been wondering in regard for the original premise of the thread: namely a Caliphate by 2009. The options are either having the last one (ie, the Ottoman sultans) continue, which requires a very different Turkey post-WWI, or a restored Caliphate. The latter I find very difficult in the environment of the 20th century, though.

Well, the easiest way to have a Caliphate by 2009 is simply by having Ottomans surviving. As for post-Ottoman, there was an attempt to claim Caliphal title by the Hashemites, by I don't know enough to say anything about how possible would that be to be realized.....
 
Top