Talk:Caliphate

Caliph is not equal to King

The title of caliph is not equal to King tsar or Khan.

Marshall Hodgson, in (The Venture of Islam) he distinguishes the Caliphate from other monarchies like those of Umayyads or Abbasids who acts like king. He explains that the Caliphs authority was rooted in the religious obligation to uphold and spread Islamic principles, unlike a king whose authority rested on feudal or hereditary claims. So I think this like "The title of caliph, which was the equivalent of titles such as king, tsar, and khan in other parts of the world" should be removed. Therealbey (talk) 03:41, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Have you checked the sources already cited for the material as is, and can you explain the nature of the discrepancy? This is your fifth or so post about this, and it is getting tiring to re-explain how we cite an weight claims on Wikipedia. Monarchy merely means rule by one individual who serves for life, so your insistence that the caliphate was not one seems to rest on your confusion of monarchy with the more narrow paradigm of European feudalism. Remsense ‥ 论 03:44, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Moreover, many monarchies throughout history have a theological component to their legitimacy, and you seem to be focusing too narrowly on "equivalent" as such. No two political systems are identical, but your citations do not really make the current prose appear inappropriate. Remsense ‥ 论 04:02, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

i have provided source in the latest edit. Caliph in real is not similar to King he is the manager of Muslim community on the other hand king reflects that someone who lives luxurious life rule how he wants like it reflects a dictator. Therealbey (talk) 04:22, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Reread what I said, thanks. Given the arc of this conversation so far, it seems you are cherrypicking wording because you personally dislike the connotations of "monarch", which is an unacceptable POV to push on Wikipedia. Remsense ‥ 论 04:23, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

No it was something that is not correct according to how it was so to change that mistake I was trying for those days cuz Wikipedia is biggest and most reliable encyclopedia. Therealbey (talk) 04:36, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Your title is "equal", but the prose says "equivalent". In general, caliph is roughly as equivalent to any member of the list as any two members within the list are with each other, which all also have a great deal of historical variety. You are taking this statement far too strictly for what it actually says: if one would like more detail, they're free to read the rest of the article.Remsense ‥ 论 04:39, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

"If one would like more detail" if it's equivalent to King then most will not search for the detail. And it was not equivalent like it was a theocracy based on consultation. And Pope page don't says Pope is equivalent to King then why caliphs ? Both are religious and political title. Therealbey (talk) 05:20, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm not going to argue about what other articles do or don't say. If you can't make an argument based on what this one says vis a vis the sources it cites, then I'm done arguing about this. Remsense ‥ 论 05:22, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

@Therealbey, you can see here where a user introduced the monarchy wording without any source. I've reverted it to the state beforehand, is it acceptable to you? Remsense ‥ 论 05:33, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. I do appreciate it. Therealbey (talk) 05:43, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Sir, I add A line I think is suitable to tell about the caliphate in the heading as summary. I think it should be ok. Therealbey (talk) 05:50, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

It is not for the same reason I said so the very first time: just because it was consultative in the beginning does not mean it should be described as such. Remsense ‥ 论 06:15, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

As the heading in summery it should be there to signify what type of public office is it. If we add the shura page then from there ppl can know more about the system. I think it should added sir. Therealbey (talk) 06:18, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Sir, can I add that line "consultative governmental institution" ? It is need to explain the page in summary. Therealbey (talk) 06:40, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Again, that is not an accurate description of the caliphate throughout its entire history. Remsense ‥ 论 06:41, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

then what about "Consultation based institution or public office later absolute monarchy" Therealbey (talk) 06:46, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

The present definition is cited to multiple sources. Please supply additional sources that give differing high-level definitions if you think these aren't representative. Remsense ‥ 论 06:47, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

I have provided sources and changed little bit Therealbey (talk) 07:14, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

I do not understand why you keep making changes without asking me first. Remsense ‥ 论 07:41, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

And this is why I'm expecting you to propose changes first, because I can't really trust your proposals at face value: what on earth is https://fiveable.me, and why am I supposed to treat it as reliable? The journal article is not a broad tertiary source that gives a direct definition, it's instead focused on a very specific time in history. Tertiary sources I've read generally refrain from assigning any specific government type to the caliphate at-large, so please respect that and stop finding shortcuts to push your POV. I know you mean well, but this is getting tiring. Remsense ‥ 论 07:44, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

@Therealbey: per above, please propose changes here before making them, I am tired of the edit warring. Remsense ‥ 论 07:45, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

okay. Here is the source sir from AP news Therealbey (talk) 08:27, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

This is a news article, not something like a scholarly book or journal article. In any case, it reinforces that there is no consistency to the government type, and that the caliphate isn't even a purely political concept, as is detailed later in the article. The present definition seems the best to suit all notions; please consider accepting that. This article is 17k words long, and readers may learn more by reading past the very first sentence. Remsense ‥ 论 08:29, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Sir you also know it was a consultation based system but Wikipedia needs sources but this is the point which needs to be mentioned like mentioned in other governance systems. Yes Caliphate is not only political but religious but in both context leader is chosen by Shura and if you consider religiously then it should be mentioned must. It is not something I should accept or deny it is historical fact. For more sources –

Hugh Kennedy's "Caliphate: The History of an Idea" where he tells about Caliphate was known by a form of elective leadership where leaders were chosen based on consultation (Shura).

And Ahmad Al-Raysuni's "Al-Shura: The Qur’anic Principle of Consultation" explains that the system of shura was fundamental in the decision making process of the early caliphs.

And in the Quran (Ash-Shura 42:38) + Al-Imran (3:159) Therealbey (talk) 08:51, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

It is a broad concept, and the current definition correctly encompasses it. Further detail comes later. That is how writing works. Remsense ‥ 论 08:54, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Like it doesn't signify it's political system in summary but ok then can I edit those where it only tells that the caliphate was hereditary like "Throughout the history of Islam, a few other Muslim states, almost all of which were hereditary monarchies, have claimed to be caliphates." Therealbey (talk) 09:15, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

@Therealbey if you make changes to these articles I've specifically objected to again, I'm going to report you to ANI for edit warring. I am tired of this.

@Aybeg, your substantial changes to sourced material earlier this year and reversion just now were also fairly egregious. Please discuss here and cite your sources, not just other articles.. Remsense ‥ 论 17:37, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

What have I done? Therealbey (talk) 18:59, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

I specifically did not agree with the "first consultative, then hereditary" wording, and then you added it anyway behind my back. I know you mean well, but at this point you are not trying hard enough not to be disruptive. Remsense ‥ 论 19:56, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

@Therealbey Your attempts to push similar WP:OR at Rashidun Caliphate (e.g. , ) while you still have no consensus here is difficult to interpret as constructive behaviour, along with the edit-warring. I have warned you on your talk page one last time: you are at risk of being reported to administrators if this repeats or continues. Indeed, it may already be overdue. R Prazeres (talk) 20:45, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

It wasn't an empire sir. Therealbey (talk) 21:19, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

That's not your decision to make, and we're tired of telling you that over and over. Make arguments and editorial decisions based on what the most representative reliable sources say—preferably not websites you seemingly search for specifically because they seem like they support your preferred phrasing. That's backwards. We write what sources say, we don't start with a position and then find sources that say it. Remsense ‥ 论 21:35, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Okay. Sir kindly can you tell me where's the source there that says it was an empire? Like there was no Reliable or say-preferably sources even not a non reliable source so why you didn't edited before I started editing. Therealbey (talk) 22:33, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Also, I hate to ask this because I know you are just trying to be formal and professional, but could you please not call me sir in every reply? It makes me uncomfortable. Remsense ‥ 论 23:15, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

No. Not professional after my grammar though but okay if it doesn't make you comfortable I will stop calling you "Sir". Therealbey (talk) 06:08, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

It's a minor thing, I just figured it'd be okay if I asked. Thanks. Remsense ‥ 论 06:10, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi

Add Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi to the famous caliphs section. 109.43.48.211 (talk) 18:06, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

Clarification on wording and sourcing

@Pepperbeast

Special:Diff/1353132074

Just to clarify, I changed “many Muslims” to “the majority of ...” based on the cited wording.

If the source supports “many” more accurately, I’m happy to adjust. Could you point to the relevant part of the citation so we can align the wording with it?

Thanks. Q3YZFU5RM4X (talk) 18:35, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Famitid Caliphate as the fourth caliphate

I think the Fatimids should be mentioned as the fourth caliphate. aliphate, as there's a whole section about it in this article, and the description for the Famitid page says it's the fourth one. For sources, I'd suggest The Ventures of Islam, by Marshall Hodgson PortugueseWikiMan (talk) 16:04, 15 July 2026 (UTC)