Started By
Message
locked post

The myth of the Caliphate

Posted on 7/10/14 at 1:06 pm
Posted by Bayou Sam
Istanbul
Member since Aug 2009
5921 posts
Posted on 7/10/14 at 1:06 pm
Nice article in Al-Jazeera: LINK

quote:

Caliph or Khalifa in Arabic, is used in Islamic tradition to connote theological successors to prophets. According to Sunni Muslims, the prophet of Islam had four "Rightly Guided" caliphs; subsequent caliphs were principally political leaders. A myth developed with the abolition of the Ottoman Caliphate in 1924, which advocated that to restore Islamic power it was necessary to unite all Muslims under a single caliphate.

Osama bin Laden lamented in a speech that the Muslim world had been deprived of a caliphate since the Ottomans. Few Muslims noticed the amusing irony in his comments. His Wahhabi-Saudi compatriots had revolted against the Ottomans, and hence that very caliphate.

The Ottoman caliphate coincided with the Safavid caliphate and the Mughal Empire, which occasionally claimed a caliphate. The Ottomans and the Safavids even went to war with each other. So, the idea of Islamic unity under a political caliphate, rather than a prophetic one, has no basis in history. Until Muslim scholars make that point clear, the uneducated will continue to be radicalised by false political notions.



And the rousing conclusion:

quote:

Muslims will always be attracted to the idea of restoring the dignity and leadership of their faith. They can best do this by reading history and pondering over the Quran. When Europe was gripped by centuries of violent religious bigotry, the 17th century English philosopher John Locke wrote enviously about the way in which Christians of all sects and Jews were able to worship freely in the Ottoman realm. The Quran goes beyond tolerance by making recognition of all religions an article of faith in Islam.

The most powerful weapon against extremist ideology is the knowledge that Islamic empires were not exclusively sustained by powerful armies - as was the case of Rome - nor supported by a strong naval fleet, as was the case in the British Empire. The sun set on Islamic power when it handed leadership over to the West in building societies dedicated to pluralism and knowledge - values that Islamic theology champions more highly than a martial jihad.
Posted by BobBoucher
Member since Jan 2008
16726 posts
Posted on 7/10/14 at 1:18 pm to
enlightening
Posted by Bayou Sam
Istanbul
Member since Aug 2009
5921 posts
Posted on 7/10/14 at 2:41 pm to
At least one person apparently does not agree
Posted by CroakaBait
Gulf Coast of the Land Mass
Member since Nov 2013
3974 posts
Posted on 7/10/14 at 3:19 pm to
quote:

Christians of all sects and Jews were able to worship freely in the Ottoman realm.

John Locke's dumb arse never met my Catholic Croatian ancestors who were enslaved by these frickers.
Posted by HempHead
Big Sky Country
Member since Mar 2011
55446 posts
Posted on 7/10/14 at 3:33 pm to
quote:

John Locke's dumb arse


Posted by OleWar
Troy H. Middleton Library
Member since Mar 2008
5828 posts
Posted on 7/10/14 at 3:38 pm to
quote:

Islamic empires were not exclusively sustained by powerful armies


I don't think that is true. The Ottomans had one of the most powerful militaries the world had ever seen. It declined because it militarily declined. The Ottoman Empire was lost because of the First World War and a belief by the Turks that governing Arabs wan't worth it.
Posted by joshnorris14
Florida
Member since Jan 2009
45213 posts
Posted on 7/10/14 at 3:42 pm to
quote:

John Locke's dumb arse never met my Catholic Croatian ancestors who were enslaved by these frickers.



An anecdote doesn't disprove of the reality that Christians were openly christian in the Ottoman empire.
Posted by OleWar
Troy H. Middleton Library
Member since Mar 2008
5828 posts
Posted on 7/10/14 at 3:46 pm to
quote:

Christians were openly christian


But their male children were abducted and forced into military slavery. Christians living on their borders were abducted and sold into slavery. And there were few economic rights for Christians.
Posted by themunch
Earth. maybe
Member since Jan 2007
64655 posts
Posted on 7/10/14 at 3:48 pm to
Al-muslim news
Posted by ChewyDante
Member since Jan 2007
16918 posts
Posted on 7/10/14 at 4:06 pm to
If you find yourself referring to John Locke as a "dumbass," then you can for sure assume that you've made an error in critical thinking somewhere. Just a piece of advice.
Posted by rcocke2
New Orleans
Member since Apr 2009
1690 posts
Posted on 7/10/14 at 4:39 pm to
quote:

But their male children were abducted and forced into military slavery. Christians living on their borders were abducted and sold into slavery. And there were few economic rights for Christians.


Wrong, wrong, wrong. Go read a standard history of Lebanon and the Syriac Orthodox (Antioch, 1st Christian Church established by Barnabas, St Paul.) and Maronites. These Christians were put in to positions of power in places like Tripoli and Tyre/Sidon because they were people of the Book, given dhimmi status (10% taxes doesnt sound bad when I pay +30%). In fact, were it not for the Ottoman Empire, the first Christians (Arameans, Assyrians, etc.)who know fall under the Eastern Rites would have disappeared. I've heard many diaspora Lebanese and Syriac Christians make this very point.
Posted by OleWar
Troy H. Middleton Library
Member since Mar 2008
5828 posts
Posted on 7/10/14 at 6:01 pm to
Lebanese and Syriac Christians say that because in the world of the Middle East, being ruled by Turks trumps being ruled by Arabs. The descendants of Greeks, South Slavs, Romanians and Armenians say otherwise.
Posted by Bayou Sam
Istanbul
Member since Aug 2009
5921 posts
Posted on 7/11/14 at 8:08 am to
quote:

The Ottomans had one of the most powerful militaries the world had ever seen. It declined because it militarily declined. The Ottoman Empire was lost because of the First World War and a belief by the Turks that governing Arabs wan't worth it.


That's partially true. But the Muslim empires were no Mongols--they were able to spread fast and stay there precisely because they enjoyed the consent of the governed thanks in part to their religious policy.
Posted by Bayou Sam
Istanbul
Member since Aug 2009
5921 posts
Posted on 7/11/14 at 8:22 am to
Yes, Christians were often enslaved by Turks. Guess what? Christians enslaved Muslims to work on their galleys too. Granted, their slavery wasn't as extensive, but Christendom was also far less powerful than the Islamic world, and so did less conquering. (You get slaves when you conquer or raid another religion's people)
Posted by La Place Mike
West Florida Republic
Member since Jan 2004
28804 posts
Posted on 7/11/14 at 8:29 am to
The article was kind of all over the place. I not sure what myth they were trying to dispel.
Posted by Bayou Sam
Istanbul
Member since Aug 2009
5921 posts
Posted on 7/11/14 at 8:47 am to
quote:

I not sure what myth they were trying to dispel.


I quoted it for you in the second sentence above.
Posted by La Place Mike
West Florida Republic
Member since Jan 2004
28804 posts
Posted on 7/11/14 at 9:02 am to
quote:

I quoted it for you in the second sentence above.

Do you mean the last two paragraphs you quoted? It really doesn't dispel a myth. It gives a reason why the Muslims lost control of portions Europe during one particular Caliph. The Muslims were out numbered and really had no choice but to play nice with the Christians in Europe. What is happening now is happening now and certainly not a myth.

It is a interesting article especially when it compares violent extremist to a pop boy band.

Posted by Bayou Sam
Istanbul
Member since Aug 2009
5921 posts
Posted on 7/11/14 at 9:10 am to
I don't understand your meaning. You said you didn't understand what myth the article was dispelling. That myth is spelled out in the second sentence of the quote. It's not an argument, but a thesis.

Seems to me the argument is that the Caliphate, in the sense of a divinely-ordained political order supposed to gather all Muslims into unity--is an invention of the second half of the 20th century, and that most radicals who follow this ideal are ignoramuses who don't know their history.
Posted by RCDfan1950
United States
Member since Feb 2007
34907 posts
Posted on 7/11/14 at 9:27 am to
Yeah. Read Robert Spencer's "The Myth of Islamic Tolerance". No frills or spin or complex philosophy/theology. Just boring-assed historical facts aplenty!

Enjoy your 'dhimmitude', BS.

Posted by La Place Mike
West Florida Republic
Member since Jan 2004
28804 posts
Posted on 7/11/14 at 9:38 am to
quote:

Seems to me the argument is that the Caliphate, in the sense of a divinely-ordained political order supposed to gather all Muslims into unity--is an invention of the second half of the 20th century, and that most radicals who follow this ideal are ignoramuses who don't know their history.
I don't see it as a myth being dispelled because I don't see where a myth previously existed. There were Caliphates in the past and, according to the writer, over time the definition of what a Caliphate is has changed. Maybe I'm just being nit picky. Any way it is an interesting article



This post was edited on 7/11/14 at 9:44 am
first pageprev pagePage 1 of 2Next pagelast page

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookTwitterInstagram