- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
The myth of the Caliphate
Posted on 7/10/14 at 1:06 pm
Posted on 7/10/14 at 1:06 pm
Nice article in Al-Jazeera: LINK
And the rousing conclusion:
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 on 7/10/14 at 2:41 pm to BobBoucher
At least one person apparently does not agree
Posted on 7/10/14 at 3:19 pm to Bayou Sam
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 on 7/10/14 at 3:33 pm to CroakaBait
quote:
John Locke's dumb arse
Posted on 7/10/14 at 3:38 pm to Bayou Sam
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 on 7/10/14 at 3:42 pm to CroakaBait
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 on 7/10/14 at 3:46 pm to joshnorris14
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 on 7/10/14 at 4:06 pm to CroakaBait
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 on 7/10/14 at 4:39 pm to OleWar
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 on 7/10/14 at 6:01 pm to rcocke2
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 on 7/11/14 at 8:08 am to OleWar
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 on 7/11/14 at 8:22 am to OleWar
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 on 7/11/14 at 8:29 am to Bayou Sam
The article was kind of all over the place. I not sure what myth they were trying to dispel.
Posted on 7/11/14 at 8:47 am to La Place Mike
quote:
I not sure what myth they were trying to dispel.
I quoted it for you in the second sentence above.
Posted on 7/11/14 at 9:02 am to Bayou Sam
quote: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.
I quoted it for you in the second sentence above.
It is a interesting article especially when it compares violent extremist to a pop boy band.
Posted on 7/11/14 at 9:10 am to La Place Mike
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.
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 on 7/11/14 at 9:27 am to Bayou Sam
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.
Enjoy your 'dhimmitude', BS.
Posted on 7/11/14 at 9:38 am to Bayou Sam
quote: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
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.
This post was edited on 7/11/14 at 9:44 am
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News