Talk:Caliph

message: This is Wikipedia.  In religious matters there is a serious chronic difficulty about POV.  The post just above this one illustrates the difficulty. the only feasible cure seems to be rigid discipline.  This is a fairly good place to start. But we must begin by acknowledging at least two different and incompatible opinions about the subject "Caliph".  There is the traditional Muslim history and there is the history of non-Muslim skeptical scholars.  And, of course, both of these two groups have many internal conflicting subgroups. I count myself as among the skeptics.
I would say that "Caliph" was a title adopted by the rulers of the Muslim empire around the year 75 (from my memory. I should research the exact date it first appears on a coin).  Prior to that date, and for a long time afterward, the rulers used the titles "Slave of Allah" (Arabic Abd Allah) and "emir of the believers" (Arabic amir al-muminun") referencing the inscriptions of which I believe the earliest is from the year 48.  Muslim tradition, in my skeptical view, retroverted the title back the immediate successors of Muhammad. 
According to Muslim tradition the immediate successors of Muhammad were Abu Bakr, then Umar, then Uthman and then Ali.  the skeptical view is that there is no evidence (outside of Muslim tradition) for Abu Bakr or Umar, minimal evidence for Uthman and clear evidence that Ali should not be considered the ruler of the empire. (this can be referenced but at the moment I am unsure where).  After these four, whom Muslim tradition calls rightfully-guided (I don't remember the Arabic) the Empire was ruled by Mu'awiya followed in dynastic fashion by other members of Mu'awiya's clan the Ummaya.  The rule of Mu'awiya's son Yazid and grandson Mu'awiya II was contested by Abd Allan ibn al-Zubayr who claimed to be the Caliph and the succession was not settled until the victory of a different Umayid branch headed by Abd al-Malik ibn Marwan in the year 74.  I think the only reference that is need would be al-Tabari.
The Caliphate and the empire passed from Damascus to Baghdad in 750 when the Abbascid overthrew the Umayyids and remained there for a long time.  In 918 (or whenever it was) the independent ruler of Egypt declared himself  (cross-referring to the Fatamids) Caliph and that caliphate lasted until ???.  The Bagdad caliphs, long since reduced to figureheads, were terminated by the Mongols in 1240 (I am just guessing at all these dates) but a survivor fled to Egypt where the Caliphate was continued until 1515 when the Ottoman Emperor ??? seized Egpyt and declared himself Caliph. This situation endured until 1924 when the Turkish government abolished the Caliphate.  After an attempt to revive it in 1927 the Muslim community has had no Caliph.  Movements to recreate the Caliphate are common but none have attracted much support.
During the latter years several other Caliphates - most notably in Andalusia were declared but none have survived.
And that is about all I think should be in the article on Caliph.  The Fatamids and the Spanish caliphs deserve their own articles and shuld be referenced.  Maybe some of the others also.  There should be a list of Caliphs somewhere.  Currently it is in a separate article but I think it would be better attached here as an appendix.  Some notes about civil wars where the title was disputed would also be helpful DKleinecke (talk) 18:51, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: OVERALL CONSIDERATIONS

message: The history section of this article seems to mostly be a duplicate of Caliphate#History. That article is on the system, this article is on the leader's title. It seems redundant to be honest because the history of the states better serves an article on the specific system of administering states. The benefit and contribution of keeping this big, huge section here isn't clear. This article would be better served with further searching for reliable sources for the existing information in this article, much of which is overly wordy, totally unsourced and could possibly be unintentional POV pushing due to a lack of research. I suggest just removing all the subsections about specific states and leaving them in the article about the actual system of Caliphate, not this article on who a Caliph is. MezzoMezzo (talk) 12:07, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  The history section here seems redundant and is already on another article 

message: I assume Caliphs are addressed as "Your Holiness" in much the same way as the Pope? -- Kendrick7talk 02:21, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Form of address? 

message: Is the declaration of Caliphate by ISIS titular or not? For example, Muhammad Ahmad has controlled more territory than ISIS's Caliph Ibrahim but his usage of Caliph is considered as titular. I think considering Caliph Ibrahim as not titular is recentism bias. See Wikipedia:Recentism Kavas (talk) 20:20, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Caliph Ibrahim

message: This interprets two primary sources and provides no secondary sources. --NeilN talk to me 09:30, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: More importantly, it is not relevant to the article. Whether there are more Prophets or not is irrelevant. This article is about Caliphs. --Peaceworld 17:16, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

text: Do you have anything to add other than your religious prejudices? --NeilN talk to me 01:58, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I've something to say to everyone including you the most because you do not know how to evaluate an article at all but are simplistically cocooned into believing that you know everything there is to know about it in terms of NPOV, Synthesis, Secondary sources, etc., etc. You accuse me of PREJUDICE. Do you even know what is "Prejudice"? Your understanding of what I am saying with such clarity against both, the Ahmadiyya and the ISIS, is simply taken as "Religious Prejudice"! Do you know that the ISIS is so completely blinkered in its own understanding of Islam that they would murder every single Sunni Ahmadiyya and ALL Shias of every hue and color - woman, man and child - without the blink of an eyelid; and consider themselves as having earned God's gratitude for cleansing the earth of its vermin?
Let me tell you that I am a SHIA Nizari Ismaili Muslim and as any Ahmadiyya Sunni Muslim will tell you that Nizari Ismailis are another group who have been targeted by the Taliban militants in Afghanistan and Badakshan (Central Asia). Having said that now let me tell you clearly also that were I to be the Caliph of the Muslim Ummah I could not care less what the Ahmadiyya chiefs proclaim themselves to be but I would still welcome the Ahmadiyya back into the Muslim fold at the expense of antagonizing the entire Muslim world (does that sound like "prejudice" NeilN?). 
You ask, "Why you would do that?" The reason for doing that is because I for one believe that a MUSLIM is simply one who says the simplest, uncomplicated Muslim creed of Shahadah (the Muslim creed) that there is only one God and that Mohammad was his Prophet. That is how it was in the time of the Prophet and that is how I like it as a SHIA NIZARI. What each individual does after that is their own problem with the kind of God they believe in. Alas, that is not the way the Sunni and even the Shia majorities of this world think. The Nizaris have been persecuted through the centuries in every part of the Muslim world including Shia Persia (now aka Iran).
The world is neither intelligent nor generous but only run by rigid stupidity or self-interest. The Ahmadiyya were first targeted by Pakistan's Bhutto (who was thankfully hanged for his life's dirty dealings) and excommunicated from Islam with the open encouragement to Pakistan by Saudi Arabia and oil concessions. The world of Islam was "taught" to persecute the Ahmadiyya as a matter of course to gain God's blessings. Only recently in the last fortnight a dozen Ahmadiyya houses were burnt down by a Pakistani mob and 3 women and a child killed in Pakistan (with the police looking on totally unconcerned) incited by a cleric's relative on a most frivolous matter; and everyone of those involved in the arson, looting and murder went scot free. Let me repeat that - scot free. I feel extreme disgust at the Muslim Govt of Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and the rest of the Muslim world for perpetrating these pogroms on the Ahmadiyya.
When I was last in Seattle I even spoke to an Ahmadiyya that if they would only stop calling their founder a "Prophet" and instead call him something else (e.g. an "Imam") then there would be no longer any case against the Ahmadiyya as apostates or heretics to be targeted worldwide in the Muslim world. He actually consulted his higher-ups who blankly refused. The Ahmadiyya who live in the Western world forget that their people in the Muslim world suffer immensely for some of the hubris they exhibit in the FREE world. And this is why I say that the Ahmadiyya naming their chiefs as "Caliphs" following the "Rashidun Caliphs" (who were Caliphs of the entire Muslim world) is an extreme exhibition of hubris!
What do you do when you see this type of Ahmadiyya hubris in the face of Muslim rigidity? I feel sick to my stomach when I read these news items of how the Ahmadiyya are persecuted in the Muslim world. And that is why I beseech them to keep a low profile especially when they are wrong to put forward their chiefs as if they are the true Caliphs of the entire Muslim world!
As far as the article on Ahmadiyya Caliphate is concerned it is simply an article that is based on beliefs on both sides: The Ahmadiyya express the belief about their personal prophet and caliphs based on their own literature (therefore primary sources) and of no greater value to the Muslim sacred literature (the Quran and the Sayings of Prophet Mohammad) which are also primary sources. However the Quran and the Hadith have a far greater standing between the two types of primary sources - that should be obvious!
Since both are articulating BELIEFS therefore the article itself boils down to a matter of majority (in Wiki terms we call it "Consensus"). 
If it goes into "Dispute Resolution" then again the Ahmadiyya will be the losers because the logic of some minority EXCOMMUNICATED sect's chief self-assuming himself to be the Caliph of the entire Muslim world which has excommunicated him in the first place is so grotesque a logic put forward by the Ahmadiyya that it boggles my mind.
I look forward to the Ahmadiyya replying to my above points to help resolve the article's final editing with care and concern the way I have shown my care and concern for them (the Ahmadiyya) by writing in such detail (having taken the time and effort which I can hardly spare). I have no axes to grind whatsoever in this most absurd of absurd issues and I can easily walk away from it all. Salim e-a ebrahim (talk) 07:14, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

text: No Wikipedia editor needs to reply to your personal observations as talk pages are not forums. If you persist in treating this page as such by expounding on your personal views at length that will be seen and treated as disruptive. Focus on listing and discussing pertinent sources, not your personal experiences as you've also done here. --NeilN talk to me 13:59, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

text: @User:Salim e-a ebrahim, what is relevant to the article is that Ahmadis are not considered Muslim by a significant proportion of the Muslim world and therefore their Caliphate is too unrecognised as a continuation of Rashidun Caliphate. Wikipedia is not the place to promote arguments. Adding verses from the Quran or the Hadith seems like an attempt to prove or to promote the view that Ahmadis are wrong and hence should be avoided. Believe me, there are numerous counter-examples which say otherwise and we do not want Wikipedia to be a directory of arguments and counter arguments. With due respect, as for keeping quiet, Wikipedia is not censored.--Peaceworld 17:48, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed change is [[WP:SYNTH|synthesis]] 

message: ::@NeilN: This is a warning to you to stop your abusing the Wiki and me in person as well as to cease your reverting war without any sense to it because you are simplistic in your thinking and do not know how to evaluate an edit.
1. You attacked and abused me calling me "RELIGIOUSLY PREJUDICED" and when I explained why I am not prejudiced at all, you call my explanation "DISRUPTIVE". 
2. You are completely ignorant of how to judge between 2 edits in terms of both having primary sources altho i tried my level best to explain how to do that also in what you pejoratively described as a "disruptive" explanation. Simply speaking the better primary sources win the battle and the Quran and the Hadith are far superior primary sources than the Ahmadiyya scriptural sources. After that it is one explanation versus the other and that was my final edit before you reverted it in an ignorant and obnoxious manner without even first putting forward your intention to do so on this talk page.
3. Then why did you start the talk page in the first place?. Salim e-a ebrahim (talk) 16:44, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Answer: Stop using primary sources. --NeilN talk to me 17:50, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: 07 August 2014 Ahmadiyya Caliphate

message: I added Boko Haram's claim that their area is part of a caliphate, but did not add their leader to the list of Caliphs. It's unclear to me if they are joining another organization, but I can find nothing saying that their leader is a caliph. If someone else has it, please amend my entry. 155.213.224.59 (talk) 15:36, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nigeria 

message: Please change "Caliph or khalifa is a title used for Islamic rulers who are considered politic-religious ..." to "Caliph or khalifa is a title used for Islamic rulers who are considered political-religious ..." (Obviously without the bold, I only add it to make the differences easier to see.) I believe that politic-religious is not a word, I couldn't find anything on Google relating to it. I'm unaware of the reasons behind the current spelling, thus I am simply asking to have it changed rather than outright changing it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Honnogakusha (talk • contribs) 
:  "Politic" has a different meaning in modern English. --NeilN talk to me 01:42, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed spelling change of opening sentence.