Should the Caliphate be revived?

my opinion is that muslims need a comman leader to represent all muslims similar to the pope in rome. reviving a caliph would be something really hard to do becouse:

1) the muslim countries around the world is vast nearly 60 countries. the caliph must have a common goal that doesnt offend any muslim country.

2)the caliph would need to protect the interest of all muslims around the world.

3)muslim countries need to protect the caliphate under all circumstances(union)

4)finally the caliph should not in any circumstances be under any influence of the west and america which is the hardest part.

 

who should be the caliph?

well in my opinion he should not be a turk or an arab to promote equality in muslims around the world. he needs a common capital city which needs to be central to the islamic world (Baghdad, Tehran, Damascus, Cairo, ankara or even should change locations)

 

Are we saying Caliphe who lead the Muslim world politically? or just a figure like the Pope?

Because uniting the Muslim world under a political caliph is impossible now, and to choose a Caliph who acts as a spiritual figure is not part of our Islamic heritage as we don't have a popacy. The Arabic Caliphs of the earlier muslim empires and the Turk caliphs of the later empires were seperate from religious constitutions and sometimes conflicted with religious figures, thus ensuring seperation of state and religion to an extend.

Plus, I'm not sure a spiritual caliph will have what job? He cannot be a religious leader of all nations because we don't believe in God's chosen leading person after the prophet. All opinions are considered and no religious hierarchy in that sense for Muslim (except for Shia, which is one of the main differences for that sect)

Edited by �ok ge�

 

well in Sunnie branch of islam there are no one figure than can be considered the main in religion, while the Shiea do , they call them Aayatullahs, i think there is 6 Aayatulahs alive now.

 

I want to be the Caliph instead of the Caliph!

The existence of a caliph that espouses peace would lessen the mliitarist propanganda of violent Islamic organizations.

I think he would support it.

finally the caliph should not in any circumstances be under any influence of the west and america which is the hardest part.

Well, how about Bin Laden?

(Baghdad, Tehran, Damascus, Cairo, ankara or even should change locations)

Because of a being a secular state, Turkish Republic will not recognize any caliphate.

And as a muslim, I don't want any caliph deciding what should muslims do.

We need something like the EU, an islamic union, like the one Jamal al Deen al Afghani advocated. Muslim countries would unit to serve other muslim countries, but at the current situation its next to impossible .

A central figure wouldn't work, imho.

Originally posted by Ottoman Emperor  Back before the Ottoman Empire was overthrown did all muslims see it as the sole caliphate?

well most muslim countries during world war 1 were under colonization  like india (pakistan), indonesia, central asia and north africa but still sent men and money to the ottoman empire showing there loyalty to the caliph. even some arabs fought side by side with the turks in iraq also showing there loyalty. but unfortunately this wasnt the case everywhere as some muslims didnt count the caliph of the "turks" and allied with british against the ottoman empire like the arabs in yemen.

Originally posted by oTToMAn_TurK  but unfortunately this wasnt the case everywhere as some muslims didnt count the caliph of the "turks" and allied with british against the ottoman empire like the arabs in yemen.

That is true. Some Arabs fought to protect the caliphate since it was clearly declared a Jihad war. However, the Jihad backing support failed for multiple reasons, one of the most is that it was not at all Jihad. Enver Pasha attacked the Russians and joined the central powers without the order of the caliph. The Ottomans wanted to regain lost lands and it was not a defense war as Jihad is typically for.  Other reasons, the rise of Arab nationalism inside Arab regions like Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and the brutal supression of it by Jamal Pasha, the governor of Syria. His unnecessary cruel policies fueled the rumors that Ottomans will supress all other ethnic nationalism but allow for young turks and turk nationalism.

Finally, Yemen always fought the Ottomans. The one who really turned against the Ottoman is the Sherrief of Mecca in 1916 by joining the British after being promised to rule a greater Arabia domain!

Originally posted by Ottoman Emperor  I remeber hearing that the British after World War I promised to protect the caliphate and not let it be abolished, is this true?

The British wanted a weak Ottoman administration, and that explains their support to the Ottomans when Ali Pasha of Egypt had his armies marshing twice to Istanbul, 2 das away actually in one incidence. So I  won't be suprised, it was the benifit of the British to keep the weak old caliphate, almost like a puppet after the war. Maybe abondoning the Caliphate that time was not a bad idea. Any thoughts?

 true

Oh wow,

  i didn't know Fizzil he was burried in Madina. You mean the last ottoman caliph who Ataturk exiled?

  i actually heared that not till 1989, his offsprings got the turkish citizenship. What did they use to be before?