Caliphate and Mutazelite Islam

[unmerged(31994)]

OK, all much clearer now.

But surely the Ottomans could not simply 'take' the title if it were hereditary? There must be direct heirs of the lasts of the Abassids who could theaoretically claim the title. Assuming they were sufficiently orthodox, what would the average muslim think of this? Or is the whole notion of a Caliph simply outdated in most of the Islamic world?

The title was never "truly" hereditary.The First Muslim Caliphs were choosen by the public in Medina and Mecca until the time of Ali, when Muwayia "the founder of the ummayed dynasty" revolted and fought Ali.The Caliph was backstabbed by his supporters - the shia, this is a reason why Ali is a main character in their theology because they lament backstabbing him.

The Ummayeds ruled for less than a hundred years - they expanded the lands of Islam greatly, from the doors of China to Spain.But that all did not protect them from the fact that they were flamboyant and did many unislamic acts "in the eyes of the people" and they were terribly racist.The Abbasids revolted and established a new regime which lasted more or less for 500 years.They claimed to be Caliphs based on their bloodline to the Prophet.Of course, throughout the Islamic world rulers tended to declare themselves Caliphs, like the Ummayeds in Spain, the Fatamids in Egypt...etc

When the Ottomans came and conquered Egypt, they seemingly had the political and territorial control of a Great Islamic Power, and the Abbasid Caliph simply moved the title to the Ottoman Caliphs.

As for the Abbasids claiming the title - there are some who exist today by the way - but they have lost all historic rights to it....

Its not that the idea is outdated, but simply, how do we choose a new and proper Caliph?do we revert to the Republican form of choosing one like the first muslims, or go into autocratic governments?Whats the religious implications on the rest of Islam?Shia and Sunni?Turks, Arabs, Iranians?...etc.Its simply not an easy matter Im afraid.

 

[MattyG]

The title was never "truly" hereditary.The First Muslim Caliphs were choosen by the public in Medina and Mecca until the time of Ali, when Muwayia "the founder of the ummayed dynasty" revolted and fought Ali.The Caliph was backstabbed by his supporters - the shia, this is a reason why Ali is a main character in their theology because they lament backstabbing him.

The Ummayeds ruled for less than a hundred years - they expanded the lands of Islam greatly, from the doors of China to Spain.But that all did not protect them from the fact that they were flamboyant and did many unislamic acts "in the eyes of the people" and they were terribly racist.The Abbasids revolted and established a new regime which lasted more or less for 500 years.They claimed to be Caliphs based on their bloodline to the Prophet.Of course, throughout the Islamic world rulers tended to declare themselves Caliphs, like the Ummayeds in Spain, the Fatamids in Egypt...etc

When the Ottomans came and conquered Egypt, they seemingly had the political and territorial control of a Great Islamic Power, and the Abbasid Caliph simply moved the title to the Ottoman Caliphs.

As for the Abbasids claiming the title - there are some who exist today by the way - but they have lost all historic rights to it....

Its not that the idea is outdated, but simply, how do we choose a new and proper Caliph?do we revert to the Republican form of choosing one like the first muslims, or go into autocratic governments?Whats the religious implications on the rest of Islam?Shia and Sunni?Turks, Arabs, Iranians?...etc.Its simply not an easy matter Im afraid.

Thanks.

Yes, I can't really see the Islamic world coming to a consensus on something like that. As you say, best left alone and instead focus on the faith, public health, peace and all those other valuable tasks.