Archive for June 14th, 2016

There was no greater war leader and strategist than Chinese military general Sun Tzu. His philosophy on how to be a great leader and ensure you win in work, management, and life is summed up in these 33 pieces of advice. They can all be applied by you in your job when you go back to work next week:

A leader leads by example, not by force.
You have to believe in yourself.
Appear weak when you are strong, and strong when you are weak.
If your enemy is secure at all points, be prepared for him. If he is in superior strength, evade him. If your opponent is temperamental, seek to irritate him. Pretend to be weak, that he may grow arrogant. If he is taking his ease, give him no rest. If his forces are united, separate them. If sovereign and subject are in accord, put division between them. Attack him where he is unprepared, appear where you are not expected.
The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting.
Supreme excellence consists of breaking the enemy’s resistance without fighting.
If the mind is willing, the flesh could go on and on without many things.
Victorious warriors win first and then go to war, while defeated warriors go to war first and then seek to win.
To know your Enemy, you must become your Enemy.
Keep your friends close, and your enemies closer.

Can you imagine what I would do if I could do all I can?
Even the finest sword plunged into salt water will eventually rust.
Engage people with what they expect; it is what they are able to discern and confirms their projections. It settles them into predictable patterns of response, occupying their minds while you wait for the extraordinary moment — that which they cannot anticipate.
If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.
Thus we may know that there are five essentials for victory:

1 He will win who knows when to fight and when not to fight.

2 He will win who knows how to handle both superior and inferior forces.

3 He will win whose army is animated by the same spirit throughout all its ranks.

4 He will win who, prepared himself, waits to take the enemy unprepared.

5 He will win who has military capacity and is not interfered with by the sovereign.

Be extremely subtle, even to the point of formlessness. Be extremely mysterious, even to the point of soundlessness. Thereby you can be the director of the opponent’s fate.
Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory. Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat.
There are not more than five musical notes, yet the combinations of these five give rise to more melodies than can ever be heard.There are not more than five primary colors, yet in combination they produce more hues than can ever been seen.There are not more than five cardinal tastes, yet combinations of them yield more flavors than can ever be tasted.
Opportunities multiply as they are seized.
When the enemy is relaxed, make them toil. When full, starve them. When settled, make them move.
Know yourself and you will win all battles.
Move swift as the Wind and closely-formed as the Wood. Attack like the Fire and be still as the Mountain.
Let your plans be dark and impenetrable as night, and when you move, fall like a thunderbolt.
When strong, avoid them. If of high morale, depress them. Seem humble to fill them with conceit. If at ease, exhaust them. If united, separate them. Attack their weaknesses. Emerge to their surprise.
All warfare is based on deception. Hence, when able to attack, we must seem unable; when using our forces, we must seem inactive; when we are near, we must make the enemy believe we are far away; when far away, we must make him believe we are near.
There is no instance of a country having benefited from prolonged warfare.
The greatest victory is that which requires no battle.
Treat your men as you would your own beloved sons. And they will follow you into the deepest valley.
Build your opponent a golden bridge to retreat across.
All warfare is based on deception.
When you surround an army, leave an outlet free. Do not press a desperate foe too hard.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/ericjackson/2014/05/23/sun-tzus-33-best-pieces-of-leadership-advice/#e964cf934966

President Barack Obama is a Radical Islamic President (RIP) that will be replaced by Donald J. Trump on Inauguration Day January 20, 2017.

Radical Islamic Terrorist Jihadists Goal

World Islamic State Under Sharia Law

The Caliphate

Happy Birthday to America’s Last Hope ”PRESIDENT DONALD JOHN TRUMP” Born JUNE 14, 1946

You’re a Grand Old Flag

You’re A Grand Old Flag 2016 Updated – Sing A Long For Kids

State of the Cartoonion: Baby Boomers in the White House

FULL: Donald Trump Greensboro NC Birthday Rally 6-14-2016 Greensboro Coliseum Complex [HD]

Trump: Obama Was ‘More Angry at Me Than He Was at the Shooter’ (FULL SPEECH AND EVENT) On 70th birthday, Donald Trump is holding a Greensboro rally Today June 14th, 2016 Donald J. Trump for President Rally ‘Make America Great Again’ at Greensboro Coliseum Complex, North Carolina, Stump for Trump’ Girls
GREENSBORO, N.C. — Donald Trump is making his first public appearance in North Carolina in three months and his first since becoming the Republicans’ presumptive presidential nominee.
Trump was slated to speak at the Greensboro Coliseum on Tuesday night, the same day as his 70th birthday.

Hindu Nationalists Celebrate Trump’s Birthday

Trump: Clinton Policies ‘Wrong’ on Fighting Terrorism

Why Trump, Clinton Debate ‘Radical Islamic Terror’

President Obama tried to justify his refusal to use the term “radical Islamic terror

Obama: Orlando Killer Was Angry, Disturbed, Unstable

DHS whistleblower speaks out about jihad in America

Krauthammer’s Take: Obama ‘Deliberately Trying to Deny’ Radical Islam Ideology of Terrorists

Orlando shooting sparks debate over global threat of ISIS

The Great Deception New World Order & Muslim Brotherhood

Obama Behind Muslim Brotherhood Caliphate Conspiracy

Robert Spencer on Why ISIS is Islamic

Robert Spencer, author of 13 books on Islam and Director of Jihad Watch spoke to a local gathering of ACT! for America, to give his thoughts on Why ISIS is Islamic.

Al Qaeda has been replaced with the “JV” team, ISIS, as the world’s leading terrorist organization. Our government seems incapable of identifying the growing threat of radical Islamists and is unwilling even to name it. Robert shows, using the Quran, why ISIS is Islamic, and why so many other seemingly benign Islamic groups fail to live up to the true nature of the Quran and life of Muhammad. He lays out this growing threat and what we need to know about their doctrine, goals, and strategies, if we are to have any hope in destroying them!

Robert Spencer: The Theological Aspects of Islam That Lead to Jihad

The Brutal Truth About Islam (Hindu Must Watch)-Robert Spencer

Orlando Gunman’s Dad Not Camera-Shy in Wake of Killings

Furious Obama blasts ‘yapping’ Trump over proposed Muslim ban

Radical Islam: The Most Dangerous Ideology

What ISIS Wants

The Islamic State (Full Length)

Fighting the Islamic State with Iraq’s Golden Division: The Road to Fallujah

CNN – Blindsided How ISIS Shook the World

Islamic State – history channel documentary – Who Is REALLY Behind ISIS?

Islam | Real Truth Behind islam – Full Documentary

Three Stages of Jihad

Jihad proceeds in stages. Stage One: Stealth Jihad. Stage Two: Defensive Jihad. Stage Three: Offensive Jihad.

Why Do People Become Islamic Extremists?

The Jihadist Next Door

Shariamerica: Islam, Obama, and the Establishment Clause

Andrew McCarthy: “The Grand Jihad: How Islam and the Left Sabotage America”

The Third Jihad – Radical Islam’s Vision for America – (A Clarion Project Film)

Published on Nov 21, 2012

(http://www.clarionproject.org) The Third Jihad is a film that exposes the threat that Islamic extremism poses to the American way of life. In 1988, the FBI discovered a secret Muslim Brotherhood document which laid out their plans to replace the Constitution with Islamic Sharia law. (Original document accepted as evidence in Holy Land terror financing trial: http://www.clarionproject.org/Muslim_…)

The document stated that “The Ikhwan [Muslim Brotherhood] must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and ‘sabotaging’ its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers…”

One person who dared to speak out about the Islamist threat is Dr. Zuhdi Jasser, a devout Muslim-American who served as an officer in the U.S. navy and also as a physician to the US Congress.

After the FBI released the radical Islamist manifesto describing how to destroy America from within, Dr. Jasser decided to investigate.

The Third Jihad is about what he discovered.

Clarion Project brings together Middle East experts, scholars, human rights activists and Muslims to promote tolerance and moderation and challenge extremism.

Check out Clarion Project’s website to learn more: http://www.clarionproject.org

100% Video Proof of Radical Muslim Terrorist Training Camps in America – Bill O’Reilly

The Suppressed & Hidden History of Islam

THE HISTORY OF THE TURKISH AND OTTOMAN EMPIRE –

Discovery History Ancient Culture (full documentary)

Islam: Empire of Faith [PBS Documentary]

PJTV — Islamic Terrorism: Why Is It So Hard For Liberals to Just Say It?

Why We Are Afraid, A 1400 Year Secret, by Dr Bill Warner

Three Quran Verses Every Christian Should Know

Robert Spencer The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam and the Crusades II

Tell The Truth About Islam

How Gay Is Islam?

Islamic Sexuality A Survey Of Evil

Gays Must Die Says Speaker At Orlando Mosque – WFTV 9 Orlando Report

Imam tells ‘gay Muslim’ that he should be executed

Trump Says Muslim Immigrant Ban Needed

Arrest Expected Soon Of Alleged Accomplice In Orlando Terror Attack

Arrest Expected Soon Of Alleged Accomplice In Orlando Terror AttackWitness: Radical Islamic Terrorist Wasn’t Alone

Globalist, Leftists Use Orlando Terror to Attack 2nd Amendment.

Full remarks by President Obama on donald trump 14/06/2016

News Updates | Donald J. Trump says he will ban people from countries

How Will the Orlando Massacre Affect Trump-Clinton Race?

Donald Trump Address The Nation Manchester Saint Anselm College New Hampshire

DONALD TRUMP FULL INTERVIEW WITH BILL O’REILLY – (6/13/2016) MONDAY, JUNE 13, 2016

10 Countries And Their Shocking Death Penalty Laws

The Middle East Problem

Political Playback: Trump is not the first to accuse rivals of “stealing the nomination”

Ike V. Taft (1952)

Tribute To Senator Robert Taft (1953)

Sen. Robert A. Taft Tribute!

Sen. Robert Taft on government intervention

Republican National Convention To Name Presidential Nominee For 1964 (1964)

Barry Goldwater: “Extremism in the defense of liberty…”

Ronald Reagan: A Time For Choosing (1964: Warns Of NWO)

This is why Donald Trump deserves to be president! – MUST SEE COMPILATION!

Published on Apr 20, 2016

The american people need to realize that Donald J. Trump is our last hope, he is the only person who is capable of saving america, and the western world as a whole from falling into the depths of despair due to globalist agendas and a crippling political correctness era.

These clips show Donald Trump from all the way back to 1986 up until present day and they do a fantastic job at demonstrating the kind of person Donald Trump is, and why he deserves to be the next president.

Patton Speech – George C. Scott – 1970

After F.B.I.’s Inquiry Into Omar Mateen, a Focus on What Else Could Be Done

By MATT APUZZO and ERIC LICHTBLAU JUNE 14, 2016

Police officers on Tuesday were on the scene of the shooting at the Pulse nightclub in Orlando, Fla., in which a gunman killed 49 people and wounded scores more. David Goldman/Associated Press

Every day, in F.B.I. offices around the country, agents leaf through classified counterterrorism documents on American citizens one last time. They reread informant reports and review surveillance logs. And then they close the case and walk away.

It is a weighty decision, one that supervisors closely review. But with up to 10,000 F.B.I. terrorism investigations open at any given time, there is little time for hand-wringing.

The nightclub shooting in Orlando, Fla., in which a gunman killed 49 people, has brought unusual attention to a seemingly mundane process. For 10 months, F.B.I. agents investigated the gunman, Omar Mateen, but closed the investigation after following a standard checklist. F.B.I. supervisors approved the decision. Managers in Washington, who can reverse any decision to close a case, were notified.

Officials said there was nothing particularly remarkable about the decision — until Sunday’s predawn shooting.n Tuesday, the F.B.I. was scrutinizing Mr. Mateen’s computer use, trying to learn how much his wife knew before the attack. Attorney General Loretta Lynch pledged a thorough investigation that would also address “if there are lessons we can learn to prevent another tragedy.” But perhaps the biggest question raised by this episode — as it was after the Boston Marathon bombing in 2013 and the shooting in Garland, Tex., last year — is why the perpetrator’s behavior was alarming enough to attract the F.B.I.’s attention, but could not be stopped.

The answer is in part a reflection of American vigilance in the era of “see something, say something.” Tens of thousands of counterterrorism tips flow to the F.B.I. each year. Some are legitimate. Others come from vengeful ex-spouses or people casting suspicion on Arab-Americans.

Thousands of investigations are opened and closed. Right now, law enforcement officials say, the F.B.I. is investigating 1,000 potential “homegrown violent extremists,” the majority of whom are most likely tied to or inspired by the Islamic State. Fifty to 100 are considered the highest priority.

The flood of leads is so relentless that, years ago, counterterrorism agents hung an 18-inch section of fire hose outside their office suite in Northern Virginia as a symbol of their mission.

Intelligence agencies in Europe and the Middle East face similar challenges, particularly with the rise of the Islamic State. But in the United States, Americans enjoy the unique protections of the First and Second Amendments. Criticizing, or even hating, the American government is not a crime. Neither is declaring support for the Islamic State or buying a gun.

Noor Zahi Salman, the wife of Omar Mateen, the gunman. Officials are investigating whether she knew of his plans.

The number of agents working on terrorism cases is classified and changes with the threat, but across the country it amounts to several thousand, along with countless analysts. Sorting out angry Americans talking tough from would-be terrorists is among their biggest challenges.

In Mr. Mateen’s case, co-workers said in 2013 that he had boasted of ties to the terrorist groups Hezbollah and Al Qaeda. The remarks prompted the local sheriff to request his removal from the St. Lucie County Courthouse in Fort Pierce, Fla., where he worked as a security guard. The security contractor transferred him to work at a residential golfing community, and the sheriff alerted the F.B.I.

Government officials said his claim had been dubious from the beginning. Hezbollah is a Shiite group; Al Qaeda is Sunni. But agents opened what is known as a preliminary investigation. They secretly followed him and monitored his movements. They interviewed him twice, and dispatched an informant to get close to him in an investigation that spanned nearly a year.

“I think the F.B.I. has an incredibly hard job, because this guy seems like a lone wolf,” said Caroline Fredrickson, the president of the American Constitution Society, a frequent critic of the agency. “He was an American citizen born in the United States. Law enforcement has been working its butt off to figure out what else could be done.”

This dilemma is not new, but it has become more acute in recent years. For years after the 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, the F.B.I. used Al Qaeda’s rigid hierarchy against the terrorist group. Government experts knew how plots were hatched and who approved them. They knew the terrorism pedigree of the key figures, and monitored travel to watch for people training in camps.

Today, the Islamic State encourages anyone to take up arms in its name. Travel and training are unnecessary. Veteran counterterrorism agents ruefully note that the difference between America’s latest school shooting and its latest terrorist attack is whether the gunman praised the Islamic State — regardless of whether he had any actual ties to the group.

Preventing those attacks is a fundamentally different mission, said James W. McJunkin, a former senior F.B.I. official who oversaw terrorism cases for years during Al Qaeda’s heyday. “It’s the counterterrorism equivalent of ‘How do you prevent someone from robbing a liquor store?’” he said.

After receiving a briefing Tuesday from investigators, Representative Adam B. Schiff, Democrat of California, said Mr. Mateen appeared to have been motivated by a mixture of violent radicalization and hatred for gays and lesbians. “The picture is filling in, though there are still a lot of unanswered questions,” he said.

Among those questions is whether Mr. Mateen’s wife knew about his plans. His wife, Noor Zahi Salman, told the F.B.I. that she had driven him to the Pulse nightclub at some point before the attack and that she had been with him when he bought ammunition, a senior law enforcement official said. She said she had tried to talk him out of waging an attack, the official said.

Her statements were first reported by NBC News.

“There’s an indication that she was with him in certain parts of the process, and we’re sorting through it,” said the official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the investigation is at an early stage. “We don’t know what’s true and what’s not.”

The condominium complex in Fort Pierce, Fla., where Mr. Mateen lived. Joe Skipper/European Pressphoto Agency

Ms. Salman is not in custody, the official said. While a person who withholds knowledge of a crime could face criminal charges, she is not facing imminent arrest, and no decisions have been made on whether she might be prosecuted, the official said.

Neighbors of Ms. Salman’s parents in Rodeo, Calif, who are of Palestiniandescent, said she had grown up in a Muslim household. She and her sisters were not allowed to drive, they said. They said they understood Mr. Mateen to be a controlling husband who frequently forbade his wife to visit her family.

As the F.B.I. pieces together details of Mr. Mateen’s life, lawmakers and lobbyists are already questioning whether the authorities missed any leads. Senator Charles E. Grassley, Republican of Iowa and chairman of the Judiciary Committee, sent a letter to Obama administration officials demanding information about Mr. Mateen, his family and the dates he was on a terrorism watch list.

James B. Comey, the F.B.I. director, has said Mr. Mateen was on a watch list during his investigation. Once it was closed, he was removed from the list, as is required. “We don’t keep people under investigation indefinitely,” he said.

Even if Mr. Mateen had remained on the watch list, it would not have stopped him from buying a gun. Congress blocked an attempt last year to give the F.B.I. the power to block gun sales to people on terrorism watch lists.

Had he been on a watch list, however, agents would have been alerted to the gun sale. “Certainly in retrospect in this case we would have liked to have known about it,” Deputy Attorney General Sally Q. Yates said. She said the Justice Department would consider a new policy in which the F.B.I. is alerted on gun sales to people who were previously under investigation for terrorism.

The National Rifle Association moved quickly to quash discussion of new gun policies. In a piece for USA Today, Chris W. Cox, the group’s executive director, blamed the federal authorities for not doing more to stop Mr. Mateen. “His former co-workers reported violent and racist comments,” Mr. Cox wrote. “Unfortunately, the Obama administration’s political correctness prevented anything from being done about it.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/15/us/politics/noor-zahi-salman-omar-mateen.html?_r=0

Killing Homosexuals Is Not ISIS Law, It Is Muslim Law

by ANDREW C. MCCARTHY June 12, 2016

For nearly 25 years, we’ve been clinging to the fiction that groups such as ISIS are anti-Islamic.

Various reports indicate that the death toll from the jihadist attack overnight at a popular gay club in Orlando may exceed 50 people, with more than 50 others wounded. The terrorist’s identity has been reported: He is Omar Mateen, a 29-year-old American citizen and devout Muslim from Fort Pierce, Fla., the son of immigrants from Afghanistan.

The FBI has indicated that Mateen, who was killed in a shootout with police at about 5 a.m., was an Islamic extremist. Representative Peter King (R., N.Y.), who chairs the House Homeland Security Committee, says the shooter was “trained in the use of weapons.” As we have noted here many times, military training is generally the key that separates competent terrorists from wannabes. But whether actual or would-be jihadists, these Muslims are motivated by Islamic supremacism, the belief that sharia, Islam’s ancient, totalitarian law, must be imposed on society.

Based on all this, there is abundant Washington and media speculation that the attack is “ISIS-inspired.” This is consistent with the bipartisan, government-approved inanity we have been following for a quarter-century, what I often call the political class’s concoction of “An Islam of Their Very Own.” It goes something like this:

Islam is a religion of peace, period. End of discussion. “Violent extremist” outfits such as ISIS and al-Qaeda kill wantonly, with no real ideological motivation. ISIS and al-Qaeda are thus not Islamic, but actually anti-Islamic — and if they cite Islamic scripture to justify their atrocities, they are “hijacking” and “perverting” Islam. Because we must see these groups as “anti-Islam” rather than Islam, it is acceptable to call a mass-murder attack “terrorism” only if law-enforcement develops some plausible tie to these groups. Otherwise, if a Muslim is involved, stick with “workplace violence” and the like. Finally when an attack committed by a Muslim is too obviously terrorism to deny, call it “ISIS-inspired,” or “al-Qaeda-inspired,” or “Hamas political resistance,” etc. — but by all means do not, absolutely do not, ascribe it to Islam in any way shape or form.

This is idiocy. Will today’s event, the worst mass shooting in American history, help us see that?

We need to consider separately Islam and its sharia law.

There are various ways to interpret Islamic scripture in order to attempt to evolve it out of violence. This, of course, does not change the fact that supremacist, fundamentalist Islam is a legitimate, mainstream, virulently anti-Western interpretation of Islam; but it does at least mean that there can be other mainstream versions of Islam that reject violence and Islam’s politico-legal system.

Sharia, on the other hand, is basically set in stone. (Or should I say “stoning”?) Even most Islamic reformers acknowledge that it badly needs reform — not that it can be reinterpreted, but that it needs to be changed. Its provisions and especially its draconian punishments were largely fixed a millennium ago.

The mandate that homosexuals be killed is not from ISIS or al-Qaeda. It is from sharia — which draws on Muslim scripture.

As I’ve observed several times, an English version of the classic sharia manual Reliance of the Traveller has been endorsed by scholars of al-Azhar University, the seat of Sunni Islamic learning since the tenth century; by the International Institute of Islamic Thought, a Muslim Brotherhood think tank that is influential in Washington; and by other influential Islamic governments and commentators.

Here is its teaching on homosexuality, found in the chapter on “Enormities” — the most grave offenses:

Sec. p17.0: SODOMY AND LESBIANISM

Sec. p17.1: In more than one place in the Holy Koran, Allah recounts to us the story of Lot’s people, and how He destroyed them for their wicked practice. There is consensus among both Muslims and the followers of all other religions that sodomy is an enormity. It is even viler and uglier than adultery [AM: which is punished brutally, including by death].

Sec. p17.2: Allah Most High says: “Do you approach the males of humanity, leaving the wives Allah has created for you? But you are a people who transgress” (Koran 26:165-66).

Sec. p17.3: The Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) said:

“Kill the one who sodomizes and the one who lets it be done to him.”

“May Allah curse him who does what Lot’s people did.”

“Lesbianism by women is adultery between them.”

As I noted many times, Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi may be Sunni Islam’s most influential living sharia jurist. Here, as reported by the Middle East Forum, is Qaradawi’s teaching on homosexuality:

We must be aware that in regulating the sexual drive Islam has prohibited not only illicit sexual relations and all what leads to them, but also the sexual deviation known as homosexuality. This perverted act is a reversal of the natural order, a corruption of man’s sexuality, and a crime against the rights of females. (The same applies equally to the case of lesbianism.)

The spread of this depraved practice in a society disrupts its natural life pattern and makes those who practice it slaves to their lusts, depriving them of decent taste, decent morals, and a decent manner of living. The story of the people of Prophet Lut (Lot), peace be upon him, as narrated in the Koran should be sufficient for us. Prophet Lut’s people were addicted to this shameless depravity, abandoning natural, pure, lawful relations with women in the pursuit of this unnatural, foul, and illicit practice. That is why their Prophet Lut, peace be on him, told them, “What! Of all creatures, do you approach males and leave the spouses whom your Lord has created for you? Indeed, you are people transgressing (all limits)!” (Koran, 26: 165–166)

The strangest expression of these peoples’ perversity of nature, lack of guidance, depravity of morals, and aberration of taste was their attitude toward the guests of Prophet Lut, peace be upon him. [Here follows a digression on the story of Lot as related in the Koran. —Eds.]

Muslim jurists have held differing opinions concerning the punishment for this abominable practice. Should it be the same as the punishment for fornication, or should both the active and passive participants be put to death? While such punishments may seem cruel, they have been suggested to maintain the purity of the Islamic society and to keep it clean of perverted elements.

Since the American invasion of Iraq in 2003, there has been no shortage of praise for Ayatollah Ali Sistani, whom the Bush administration frequently lauded as a “moderate” and a supporter of “democracy.” (We critics countered that Sistani is a fundamentalist sharia-supremacist who supported “democracy” — meaning popular vote — in a Muslim-majority society because that was the most direct, efficient way to impose sharia.) Sistani is as influential a Shiite sharia authority as there is. As I have previously recounted, when asked, “What is [Islam’s] judgment on sodomy and lesbianism?” Sistani replied: “Forbidden. Those involved in the act should be punished. In fact, sodomites should be killed in the worst manner possible.”

Yup, let it sink in: “killed in the worst manner possible.”

The inspiration for Muslims to brutalize and mass murder gay people does not come from ISIS. It is deeply rooted in Islamic law, affirmed by many of Islam’s most renowned scholars. This is why, wherever sharia is the law, homosexuals are persecuted and killed. See, for instance, this 2014 Washington Post report listing ten Muslim countries where homosexuality may be punished by death (Yemen, Iran, Mauritania, Nigeria, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, United Arab Emirates, and Iraq — notwithstanding its new, U.S.-supported constitution).

Note, again, that Omar Mateen is the American-born son of immigrants from Afghanistan, where homosexuality may also be punished by death — notwithstanding American nation-building efforts there for the last 15 years.

As I have argued before, while a categorical ban on Muslim immigration would be bad policy, our immigration law must distinguish between Islam the religion and Islamism, the sharia-supremacist political ideology, which tends to grow strong support wherever Muslims form a critical mass. There absolutely should be severe restrictions on immigration from countries, regions, and communities (e.g., in Europe) in which sharia standards are de jure or de facto imposed.

The problem with mass immigration from sharia enclaves is not merely that trained terrorists may infiltrate the immigrant population. It is that sharia-adherent, assimilation-resistant Muslims will form sharia enclaves in the U.S., as they have throughout Europe, where young Muslims will be “radicalized” under our noses in the years to come.

Today, we have gotten another glimpse of radicalization, which is not “homegrown” but rather fueled by a foreign, anti-American, anti-liberty ideology.

— Andrew C. McCarthy is as senior policy fellow at the National Review Institute and a contributing editor of National Review.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/436505/mass-shooting-florida-anti-gay-violence-rooted-muslim-law

Caliphate

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

(Redirected from Caliphates)

“Caliph” redirects here. For the ship, see USS Caliph (SP-272).

This article needs attention from an expert on the subject. Please add a reason or a talk parameter to this template to explain the issue with the article. Consider associating this request with aWikiProject. (September 2014)

Caliphate خِلافة

Main caliphates[show]
Parallel caliphates[show]
Islam portal
v t e

Islam
Part of a series on

Beliefs [show]
Practices [show]
Texts and laws [show]
History [hide] Timeline Muhammad Ahl al-Bayt Sahabah Rashidun Imamate Caliphate Spread of Islam Slavery
Denominations [show]
Culture and society [show]
Related topics [show]
Islam portal
v t e

Part of the Politics series

Basic forms of government

Power structure

Power source

Authoritarian state
Autocracy Despotism Illiberal democracy Semi-authoritarian Dictatorship Totalitarianism
Democracy
Direct Representative Semi others
Monarchy
Absolute Constitutional Legalist
Oligarchy
Aristocracy Military junta Plutocracy Stratocracy Timocracy Theocracy Kritarchy Particracy
Other
Republic Anarchy Anocracy Minarchy

Politics portal

A caliphate (Arabic: خِلافة‎‎ khilāfa) is an area containing an Islamic steward known as a caliph (Arabic: خَليفة‎‎ khalīfah pronunciation (help·info))—a person considered a religious successor to the Islamic prophet,Muhammad (Muhammad ibn ʿAbdullāh), and a leader of the entire Muslim community.^[1] The Rashidun caliphs, who directly succeeded Muhammad as leaders of the Muslim community, were chosen through shura, a process of community consultation that some consider loosely to be an early form of Islamic democracy.^[2] During the history of Islam after the Rashidun period, many Muslim states, almost all of them hereditary monarchies, have claimed to be caliphates.^[1] Even though caliphs were thought to go back to Muhammad, they were not thought of as having the same prophetic power as he did.^[3]

The Sunni branch of Islam stipulates that, as a head of state, a caliph should be elected by Muslims or their representatives.^[4] Followers of Shia Islam, however, believe a caliph should be an Imam chosen by God from the Ahl al-Bayt (the “Family of the House”, Muhammad’s direct descendants).

Etymology

Before the advent of Islam, Arabian monarchs traditionally used the title malik (King, ruler), or another from the same root.^[1]

The term caliph (/ˈkeɪlɪf, ˈkælɪf/),^[5] derives from the Arabic word khalīfah (خَليفة, pronunciation (help·info)), which means “successor”, “steward”, or “deputy” and has traditionally been considered a shortening of either the term khalifat Allah (“successor to God”) orkhalifat rasul Allah (“successor of the messenger of God]”). However, studies of pre-Islamic texts suggest that the original meaning of the phrase was “successor selected by God.”^[1]

Rashidun Caliphate (632–661)

Succession to Muhammad

Main articles: Succession to Muhammad and Rashidun Caliphate

In his book The Early Islamic Conquests (1981), Fred Donner argues that the standard Arabian practice at the time was for the prominent men of a kinship group, or tribe, to gather after a leader’s death and elect a leader from amongst themselves.^{[citation needed]}There was no specified procedure for this shura or consultation. Candidates were usually, but not necessarily, from the same lineage as the deceased leader. Capable men who would lead well were preferred over an ineffectual heir.

Sunni Muslims believe and confirm that Abu Bakr was chosen by the community and that this was the proper procedure. Sunnis further argue that a caliph should ideally be chosen by election or community consensus.

The Shia believe that Ali, the son-in-law and cousin of Muhammad, was chosen by Muhammad as his spiritual and temporal successor as the Mawla (the Imam and the Caliph) of all Muslims in the the event of Ghadir Khumm. Here Mohammad called upon the around 100,000 gathered returning pilgrims to give their bay’ah (oath of allegiance) to Ali in his very presence and thenceforth to proclaim the good news of Ali’s succession to his (Muhammad’s) leadership to all Muslims they should come across.

The caliph was often known as Amir al-Mu’minin (Arabic: أمير المؤمنين‎‎ “Commander of the Believers”). Muhammad established his capital in Medina; after he died, it remained the capital during the Rashidun Caliphate, before Kufa was reportedly made the capital by Caliph Ali. At times there have been rival claimant caliphs in different parts of the Islamic world, and divisions between the Shi’i and Sunni communities.

According to Sunni Muslims, the first caliph to be called Amir al-Mu’minin was Abu Bakr, followed by Umar, the second of the Rashidun. Uthman and Ali also were called by the same title, while the Shi’a consider Ali to have been the only truly legitimate caliph, of these four men.^[6]

After the first four caliphs, the Caliphate was claimed by the Umayyad Caliphate, the Abbasid Caliphate, and the Ottoman Empire, and for relatively short periods by other, competing dynasties in al-Andalus, North Africa, and Egypt. After the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, Mustafa Kemal Atatürk officially abolished the system of Caliphate in Islam (the Ottoman Empire) as part of his secular reforms and founded the Republic of Turkey in 1923. The Kings of Morocco still label themselves with the title Amir al-Mu’minin for theMoroccans, but lay no claim to the Caliphate.

Some Muslim countries, including Somalia, Indonesia and Malaysia, were never subject to the authority of a Caliphate, with the exception of Aceh, which briefly acknowledged Ottoman suzerainty.^[7] Consequently, these countries had their own, local, sultans or rulers who did not fully accept the authority of the Caliph.

Rashidun Caliphs

Main articles: Rashidun and Rashidun Caliphate

Rashidun Caliphate at its greatest extent, under Caliph Uthman’s rule

Abu Bakr, the first successor of Muhammad, nominated Umar as his successor on his deathbed. Umar, the second caliph, was killed by a Persian named Piruz Nahavandi. His successor, Uthman, was elected by a council of electors (majlis). Uthman was killed by members of a disaffected group. Ali then took control but was not universally accepted as caliph by the governors of Egypt, and later by some of his own guard. He faced two major rebellions and was assassinated by Abd-al-Rahman ibn Muljam, a Khawarij. Ali’s tumultuous rule lasted only five years. This period is known as the Fitna, or the first Islamic civil war. The followers of Ali later became the Shi’a (“shiaat Ali”, partisans of Ali.^[8] ) minority sect of Islam and reject the legitimacy of the first 3 caliphs. The followers of all four Rashidun Caliphs (Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman and Ali) became the majority Sunni sect.

Under the Rashidun each region (Sultanate, Wilayah, or Emirate) of the Caliphate had its own governor (Sultan, Wāli or Emir). Muawiyah, a relative of Uthman and governor (Wali) of Syria, succeeded Ali as Caliph. Muawiyah transformed the caliphate into a hereditary office, thus founding the Umayyad dynasty.

In areas which were previously under Sasanian Empire or Byzantine rule, the Caliphs lowered taxes, provided greater local autonomy (to their delegated governors), greater religious freedom for Jews, and some indigenousChristians, and brought peace to peoples demoralized and disaffected by the casualties and heavy taxation that resulted from the decades of Byzantine-Persian warfare.^[9]

Ali’s caliphate and the rise of the Umayyad dynasty

Ali’s reign was plagued by great turmoil and internal strife. Ali was faced with multiple rebellions and insurrections. The primary one came from a misunderstanding on the part of Mu’awiyah, the governor of Damascus. The Persians, taking advantage of this, infiltrated the two armies and attacked the other army causing chaos and internal hatred between the companions at the Battle of Siffin. The battle lasted several months, resulting in a stalemate. In order to avoid further bloodshed, Ali agreed to negotiate with Mu’awiyah. This caused a faction of approximately 4,000 people that would be known as the Kharijites, to abandon the fight. After defeating the Kharijites at the Battle of Nahrawan, Ali was later assassinated by the Kharijite Ibn Muljam. Ali’s son Hasan was elected as the next caliph, but handed his title to Mu’awiyah a few months later. Mu’awiyah became the fifth (or second by Shia reckoning) caliph, establishing the Umayyad Dynasty,^[10] named after the great-grandfather of Uthman and Mu’awiyah, Umayya ibn Abd Shams.^[11]

Umayyad Caliphate (661–750)

Main article: Umayyad Caliphate

The Caliphate, 622–750

Expansion under Muhammad, 622–632

Expansion during the Rashidun Caliphs, 632–661

Expansion during the Umayyad Caliphate, 661–750

Under the Umayyads, the Caliphate grew rapidly in territory, incorporating the Caucasus, Transoxiana, Sindh, the Maghreb and most of the Iberian Peninsula (Al-Andalus) into the Muslim world. At its greatest extent, the Umayyad Caliphate covered 5.17 million square miles (13,400,000 km²), making it the largest empire the world had yet seen, and the sixth-largest ever to exist in history.^[12]

Geographically, the empire was divided into several provinces, the borders of which changed numerous times during the Umayyad reign. Each province had a governor appointed by the caliph. However, for a variety of reasons, including that they were not elected by Shura and suggestions of impious behaviour, the Umayyad dynasty was not universally supported within the Muslim community. Some supported prominent early Muslims like Al-Zubayr; others felt that only members of Muhammad’s clan, the Banu Hashim, or his own lineage, the descendants of Ali, should rule.

There were numerous rebellions against the Umayyads, as well as splits within the Umayyad ranks (notably, the rivalry between Yaman and Qays). Allegedly, Shimr Ibn Thil-Jawshan killed Ali’s son Hussein and his family at theBattle of Karbala in 680, solidfying the Shia-Sunni split.^[8] Eventually, supporters of the Banu Hashim and the supporters of the lineage of Ali united to bring down the Umayyads in 750. However, the Shi‘at ‘Alī, “the Party of Ali”, were again disappointed when the Abbasid dynasty took power, as the Abbasids were descended from Muhammad’s uncle, ‘Abbas ibn ‘Abd al-Muttalib and not from Ali.

Abbasid Caliphate (750–1258, 1261–1517)

Main article: Abbasid Caliphate

Abbassid Caliphs at Baghdad

Al-Mustansiriya Universityin Baghdad

In 750, the Umayyad dynasty was overthrown by another family of Meccan origin, the Abbasids. Their time was marked by scientific, cultural and religious prosperity. Islamic art and music also flourished significantly during their reign. Their major city and capital Baghdad began to flourish as a center of knowledge, culture and trade. This period of cultural fruition ended in 1258 with the sack of Baghdad by the Mongols under Hulagu Khan. The Abbasid Caliphate had however lost its effective power outside Iraq already by c. 920.^[13] By 945, the loss of power became official when the Buyids conquered Baghdad and all of Iraq. The empire fell apart and its parts were ruled for the next century by local dynasties.^[14]

In the 9th century, the Abbasids created an army loyal only to their caliphate, composed predominantly of Turkic Cuman, Circassian, and Georgian slave origin known as Mamluks. By 1250 the Mamluks came to power in Egypt. The Mamluk army, though often viewed negatively, both helped and hurt the caliphate. Early on, it provided the government with a stable force to address domestic and foreign problems. However, creation of this foreign army and al-Mu’tasim’s transfer of the capital from Baghdad to Samarra created a division between the caliphate and the peoples they claimed to rule. In addition, the power of the Mamluks steadily grew until Ar-Radi (934–41) was constrained to hand over most of the royal functions to Muhammad ibn Ra’iq.

Under the Mamluk Sultanate of Cairo (1261–1517)

Main article: Mamluk Sultanate (Cairo)

In 1261, following the devastation of Baghdad at the hands of the Mongols, the Mamluk rulers of Egypt tried to gain legitimacy for their rule by declaring the re-establishment of the Abbasid caliphate in Cairo. The Abbasid caliphs in Egypt had little to no political power; they continued to maintain the symbols of authority, but their sway was confined to religious matters. The first Abbasid caliph of Cairo was Al-Mustansir (r. June–November 1261). The Abbasid caliphate of Cairo lasted until the time of Al-Mutawakkil III, who ruled as caliph from 1508 to 1516, then he was deposed briefly in 1516 by his predecessor Al-Mustamsik, but was restored again to the caliphate in 1517.

The Ottoman Great Sultan Selim I defeated the Mamluk Sultanate, and made Egypt part of the Ottoman Empire in 1517. Al-Mutawakkil III was captured together with his family and transported to Constantinople as a prisoner where he had a ceremonial role. He died in 1543, following his return to Cairo.^[15]

Parallel caliphates to the Abbasids

The Abbasid dynasty lost effective power over much of the Muslim realm by the first half of the tenth century.

The Shiʻa Ubayd Allah al-Mahdi Billah of the Fatimid dynasty, which claimed descent from Muhammad through his daughter, claimed the title of Caliph in 909, creating a separate line of caliphs in North Africa. Initially controlling Algeria, Tunisia and Libya, the Fatimid caliphs extended their rule for the next 150 years, taking Egypt and Palestine, before the Abbasid dynasty was able to turn the tide, limiting Fatimid rule to Egypt. The Fatimid dynasty finally ended in 1171.

The Umayyad dynasty, which had survived and come to rule over Al-Andalus, reclaimed the title of Caliph in 929, lasting until it was overthrown in 1031.

Fatimid Caliphate (909–1171)

Main article: Fatimid Caliphate

Map of the Fatimid Caliphate at its largest extent in the early 11th century

The Fatimid Caliphate was an Isma’ili Shi’i caliphate that spanned a vast area of the Arab world. Originally based in Tunisia, the Fatimid dynasty extended their rule across the Mediterranean coast of Africa, and ultimately made Egypt the centre of their caliphate. At its height, in addition to Egypt, the caliphate included varying areas of the Maghreb, Sicily, the Levant and the Hejaz .

The Fatimids established the Tunisian city of Mahdia and made it their capital city, before conquering Egypt, and building the city of Cairo there in 969. Thereafter, Cairo became the capital of the caliphate, with Egypt becoming the political, cultural and religious centre of the state. Islam scholar Louis Massignon dubbed the 4th century AH /10th century CE as the “Ismaili century in the history of Islam”.^[16]

The term Fatimite is sometimes used to refer to the citizens of this caliphate. The ruling elite of the state belonged to the Ismaili branch of Shi’ism. The leaders of the dynasty were Ismaili Imams and had a religious significance to Ismaili Muslims. They are also part of the chain of holders of the office of the Caliphate, as recognized by some Muslims. Therefore, this constitutes a rare period in history in which the descendants of Ali (hence the name Fatimid, referring to Ali’s wife Fatima) and the Caliphate were united to any degree, excepting the final period of the Rashidun Caliphate under Ali himself.

The caliphate was reputed to exercise a degree of religious tolerance towards non-Ismaili sects of Islam as well as towards Jews, Maltese Christians and Copts.^[17]

Umayyad Caliphate of Córdoba (929–1031)

Main articles: Emirate of Córdoba, Caliphate of Córdoba and Al-Andalus

Map of the Caliphate of Cordoba c. 1000

During the Umayyad dynasty, the Iberian Peninsula was an integral province of the Umayyad Caliphate ruling from Damascus. The Umayyads lost the position of Caliph in Damascus in 750, and Abd al-Rahman I became Emir of Córdoba in 756 after six years in exile. Intent on regaining power, he defeated the existing Islamic rulers of the area who defied Umayyad rule and united various local fiefdoms into an emirate.

Rulers of the emirate used the title “emir” or “sultan” until the 10th century, when Abd al-Rahman III was faced with the threat of invasion by the Fatimid Caliphate. To aid his fight against the invading Fatimids, who claimed the caliphate in opposition to the generally recognized Abbasid Caliph of Baghdad, Al-Mu’tadid, Abd al-Rahman III claimed the title of caliph himself. This helped Abd al-Rahman III gain prestige with his subjects, and the title was retained after the Fatimids were repulsed. The rule of the Caliphate is considered as the heyday of Muslim presence in the Iberian peninsula, before it fragmented into various taifas in the 11th century. This period was characterized by a remarkable flourishing in technology, trade and culture; many of the masterpieces of al-Andalus were constructed in this period.

Almohad Caliphate (1147–1269)

Main article: Almohad Caliphate

The Almohad Caliphate (Berber: Imweḥḥden, from Arabicالموحدونal-Muwaḥḥidun, “the Monotheists” or “the Unifiers”) was a Moroccan^[18]^[19]Berber Muslim movement founded in the 12th century.^[20]

The Almohad movement was started by Ibn Tumart among the Masmuda tribes of southern Morocco. The Almohads first established a Berber state in Tinmel in the Atlas Mountains in roughly 1120.^[20] The Almohads succeeded in overthrowing the Almoravid dynasty in governing Morocco by 1147, when Abd al-Mu’min (r. 1130-1163) conquered Marrakech and declared himself Caliph. They then extended their power over all of the Maghrebby 1159. Al-Andalus followed the fate of Africa and all Islamic Iberia was under Almohad rule by 1172.^[21]

The Almohad dominance of Iberia continued until 1212, when Muhammad al-Nasir (1199–1214) was defeated at the Battle of Las Navas de Tolosa in the Sierra Morena by an alliance of the Christian princes of Castile, Aragon, Navarre and Portugal. Nearly all of theMoorish dominions in Iberia were lost soon after, with the great Moorish cities of Córdoba and Seville falling to the Christians in 1236 and 1248, respectively.

The Almohads continued to rule in northern Africa until the piecemeal loss of territory through the revolt of tribes and districts enabled the rise of their most effective enemies, the Marinid dynasty, in 1215. The last representative of the line, Idris al-Wathiq, was reduced to the possession of Marrakesh, where he was murdered by a slave in 1269; the Marinids seized Marrakesh, ending the Almohad domination of the Western Maghreb.

Ottoman Caliphate (1517–1924)

Main articles: Ottoman Empire and Ottoman Caliphate

The caliphate was claimed by the sultans of the Ottoman Empire beginning with Murad I (reigned 1362 to 1389),^[22] while recognizing no authority on the part of the Abbasid caliphs of the Mamluk-ruled Cairo. Hence the seat of the caliphate moved to the Ottoman capital of Edirne. In 1453, after Mehmed the Conqueror‘s conquest of Constantinople, the seat of the Ottomans moved to Constantinople, present-day Istanbul. In 1517, the Ottoman sultan Selim I defeated and annexed the Mamluk Sultanate of Cairo into his empire.^[23]^[24] Through conquering and unifying Muslim lands, Selim I became the defender of the Holy Cities of Mecca and Medina, which further strengthened the Ottoman claim to the caliphate in the Muslim world. Ottomans gradually came to be viewed as the de facto leaders and representatives of the Islamic world. However, the earlier Ottoman caliphs did not officially bear the title of caliph in their documents of state, inscriptions, or coinage.^[24] It was only when the Ottoman Empire fell into a decline that the claim to caliphate was discovered by the sultans to have a practical use, since it gave them prestige among Sunni Muslims.^[25]

According to Barthold, the first time the title of “caliph” was used as a political instead of symbolic religious title by the Ottomans was the Treaty of Küçük Kaynarca with the Russian Empire in 1774, when the Empire retained moral authority on territory whose sovereignty was ceded to the Russian Empire.

The British supported and propagated the view that the Ottomans were Caliphs of Islam among Muslims in British India and the Ottoman Sultans helped the British by issuing pronouncements to the Muslims of India telling them to support British rule from Sultan Ali III and Sultan Abdülmecid I.^[26]

The outcome of the Russo-Turkish War of 1768–74 was disastrous for the Ottomans. Large territories, including those with large Muslim populations, such as Crimea, were lost to the Russian Empire. However, the Ottomans under Abdul Hamid I claimed a diplomatic victory by being allowed to remain the religious leaders of Muslims in the now-independent Crimea as part of the peace treaty: in return Russia became the official protector of Christians in Ottoman territory.

Around 1880 Sultan Abdul Hamid II reasserted the title as a way of countering Russian expansion into Muslim lands. His claim was most fervently accepted by the Muslims of British India. By the eve of World War I, the Ottoman state, despite its weakness relative to Europe, represented the largest and most powerful independent Islamic political entity. The sultan also enjoyed some authority beyond the borders of his shrinking empire as caliph of Muslims in Egypt, India, and Central Asia.

In 1899 John Hay, U.S. Secretary of State, asked the American ambassador to Ottoman Turkey, Oscar Straus, to approach Sultan Abdul Hamid II to use his position as caliph to order the Tausūg people of the Sultanate of Sulu in the Philippines to submit to American suzerainty and American military rule; the Sultan obliged them and wrote the letter which was sent to Sulu via Mecca. As a result, the “Sulu Mohammedans … refused to join the insurrectionists and had placed themselves under the control of our army, thereby recognizing American sovereignty.”^[27]^[27]^[28]

Abolition of the Caliphate (1924)

Further information: Atatürk’s Reforms

This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (December 2012)(Learn how and when to remove this template message)

Abdülmecid II was the last Caliph of Islam from the Ottoman dynasty.

After the Armistice of Mudros of October 1918 with the military occupation of Constantinople and Treaty of Versailles (1919), the position of the Ottomans was uncertain. The movement to protect or restore the Ottomans gained force after the Treaty of Sèvres (August 1920) which imposed the partitioning of the Ottoman Empire and gave Greece a powerful position in Anatolia, to the distress of the Turks. They called for help and the movement was the result. The movement had collapsed by late 1922.

[hide]Part of a series on: Islamism
Fundamentals[show]
Concepts[hide] Caliphate Democracy Ijma Islamic calendar Islamic republic Islamic state Jihad Sharia Shura Ummah Pan-Islamism Caliphalism
Influences[show]
Manifestations[show]
Movements[show]
Key texts[show]
Key ideologues[show]
Related topics [show]
Politics portal Islam portal
v t e

On March 3, 1924, the first President of the Turkish Republic, Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, as part of Atatürk’s Reforms, constitutionally abolished the institution of the caliphate.^[23] Its powers within Turkey were transferred to the Grand National Assembly of Turkey, the parliament of the newly formed Turkish Republic. The title was then claimed by Hussein bin Ali, Sharif of Mecca of Hejaz, leader of the Arab Revolt, but his kingdom was defeated and annexed by ibn Saud in 1925.

A summit was convened at Cairo in 1926 to discuss the revival of the Caliphate, but most Muslim countries did not participate and no action was taken to implement the summit’s resolutions.

Though the title Ameer al-Mumineen was adopted by the King of Morocco and by Mohammed Omar, former head of the Taliban of Afghanistan, neither claimed any legal standing or authority over Muslims outside the borders of their respective countries.

Since the end of the Ottoman Empire, occasional demonstrations have been held calling for the reestablishment of the Caliphate. Organisations which call for the re-establishment of the Caliphate include Hizb ut-Tahrirand the Muslim Brotherhood.^[29]

Sokoto Caliphate (1804–1903)

Main article: Sokoto Caliphate

The Sokoto Caliphate was an Islamic state in what is now Nigeria led by Usman dan Fodio. Founded during the Fulani War in the early 19th century, it controlled one of the most powerful empires in sub-Saharan Africaprior to European conquest and colonization. The caliphate remained extant through the colonial period and afterwards, though with reduced power.^{[citation needed]} The current head of the Sokoto Caliphate is Sa’adu Abubakar.

Khilafat Movement (1919–24)

Main article: Khilafat Movement

The Khilafat Movement was launched by Muslims in British India to defend the Ottoman Caliphate at the end of the First World War and it spread throughout the British colonial territories. It was strong in British India where it formed a rallying point for some Indian Muslims as one of many anti-British Indian political movements. Its leaders included Mohammad Ali Jouhar, his brother Shawkat Ali, and Abul Kalam Azad, Mukhtar Ahmed Ansari, and Barrister Muhammad Jan Abbasi. For a time it was supported by Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, who was a member of the Central Khilafat Committee.^[30]^[31] However, the movement lost its momentum after the arrest or flight of its leaders, and a series of offshoots splintered off from the main organization.

Sharifian Caliphate (1924–25)

Main article: Sharifian Caliphate

The Sharifian Caliphate (Arabic: خلافة شريفية‎‎) was an Arab caliphate proclaimed by the Sharifian rulers of Hejaz in 1924, in lieu of the Ottoman Caliphate. The idea of the Sharifian Caliphate had been floating around since at least the 15th century.^[32] Toward the end of the 19th century, it started to gain importance due to the decline of the Ottoman Empire, which was heavily defeated in the Russo-Turkish War of 1877–78. There is little evidence, however, that the idea of a Sharifian Caliphate ever gained wide grassroots support in the Middle East or anywhere else for that matter.^[33]

Non-political caliphates

Though non-political, some Sufi orders and the Ahmadiyya movement^[34] define themselves as caliphates. Their leaders are thus commonly referred to as khalifas (caliphs).

Sufi caliphates[edit]

In Sufism, tariqas (orders) are led by spiritual leaders (khilafah ruhaniyyah), the main khalifas, who nominate local khalifas to organize zaouias.^[35]

Sufi caliphates are not necessarily hereditary. Khalifas are aimed to serve the silsilah in relation to spiritual responsibilities and to propagate the teachings of the tariqa.

Ahmadiyya Caliphate (1908-present)

The Ahmadiyya flag, first designed in 1939, during the leadership of the Second Caliph.

Main article: Ahmadiyya Caliphate

The Ahmadiyya Muslim Community is an Islamic revivalist movement founded in 1889 by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad of Qadian, India, who claimed to be the promised Messiah and Mahdi, awaited by Muslims. He also claimed to be a follower-prophet subordinate to Muhammad the prophet of Islam. After his death in 1908, his first successor, Hakeem Noor-ud-Din became the caliph of the community and assumed the title ofKhalifatul Masih (Successor or Caliph of the Messiah).

Ahmadi Muslims believe that the Ahmadiyya Caliphate established after the passing of the community’s founder is the re-establishment of the Rashidun Caliphate.^[36] The Ahmadiyya caliphate has spanned over a century, seen five caliphs and continues to operate under this structure, with the caliph having overall authority for all religious and organizational matters. According to Ahmadiyya thought, it is not essential for a caliph to be the head of a state, rather the religious and organisational significance of the caliphate is emphasised. It is above all a religious office, with the purpose to uphold, strengthen and spread Islam and maintain the high moral standards within the Muslim community established by Muhammad, who was not merely a political leader but primarily a religious leader. The caliphate is understood as a system dealing with the organisation of believers and relating to the administration (nizām) of the Muslim community whether or not it involves a governmental role.^[37] Being based on the ‘precepts of Prophethood’, the institution of caliphate can therefore, like prophethood, exist and flourish without a state.^[38] If a caliph does happen to bear governmental authority as a head of state, it is incidental and subsidiary in relation to his overall function as caliph which is applicable to believers transnationally and not limited to one particular state or political entity. The system of caliphate in Islam, thus understood, transcends national sovereignty and ethnic divide, forming a universal supra-national entity.^[39]^[40] According to Ahmadi Muslims, the caliphate seeks to establish God’s authority on earth and the caliph strives to uphold that authority within the community of followers. It is required that the caliph carry out his duties through consultation and taking into consideration the views of the members of the Majlis-ash-Shura (consultative body). However, it is not incumbent upon him to always accept the views and recommendations of the members. The caliph has overall authority for all religious and organisational matters and is bound to decide and act in accordance with the Qur’an and sunnah.

After Hakeem Noor-ud-Din, the first caliph, the title of the Ahmadiyya caliph continued under Mirza Mahmud Ahmad, who led the community for over 50 years. Following him were Mirza Nasir Ahmad and then Mirza Tahir Ahmad who were the third and fourth caliphs respectively. The current caliph is Mirza Masroor Ahmad, who lives in London^[41] with a following of 10 to 20 million in over 200 countries and territories of the world.^[42]

Religious basis

Further information: Political aspects of Islam and Divisions of the world in Islam

Qur’an

The Quran uses the term khalifa twice. First, in al-Baqara, 30, it refers to God creating humanity as his khalifa on Earth. Second, in Sad, 26, it addresses King David as God’s khalifa and reminds him of his obligation to rule with justice.^[43]

Quran

Text[show]
Content[show]
Reading [show]
Translations [show]
History [show]
Exegesis [show]
Related[show]
Category Islam portal Wikipedia book
v t e

In addition, the following excerpt from the Quran, known as the ‘Istikhlaf Verse’, is used by some to argue for a Quranic basis for Caliphate:

God has promised those of you who have attained to faith and do righteous deeds that, of a certainty, He will make them Khulifa on earth, even as He caused [some of] those who lived before them to becomeKhulifa; and that, of a certainty, He will firmly establish for them the religion which He has been pleased to bestow on them; and that, of a certainty, He will cause their erstwhile state of fear to be replaced by a sense of security [seeing that] they worship Me [alone], not ascribing divine powers to aught beside Me. But all who, after [having understood] this, choose to deny the truth – it is they, they who are truly iniquitous!” (An-Nur, 55)

In the above verse, the word Khulifa (the plural of Khalifa) has been variously translated as “successors” and “ones who accede to power”.

Small subsections of Sunni Islamism argue that to govern a state by Sharia is, by definition, to rule via the Caliphate, and use the following verses to sustain their claim.

So govern between the people by that which God has revealed (Islam), and follow not their vain desires, beware of them in case they seduce you from just some part of that which God has revealed to you

— ^{[Quran 005:049]}

O you who believe! Obey God, and obey the messenger and then those among you who are in authority; and if you have a dispute concerning any matter, refer it to God and the messenger’s rulings, if you are (in truth) believers in God and the Last Day. That is better and more seemly in the end.

— ^{[Quran 004:059]}

Hadith

The following hadith from Musnad Ahmad ibn Hanbal can be understood to prophesy two eras of Caliphate (both on the lines/precepts of prophethood).

Hadhrat Huzaifa narrated that the Messenger of Allah said: Prophethood will remain among you as long as Allah wills. Then Caliphate (Khilafah) on the lines of Prophethood shall commence, and remain as long as Allah wills. Then corrupt/erosive monarchy would take place, and it will remain as long as Allah wills. After that, despotic kingship would emerge, and it will remain as long as Allah wills. Then, the Caliphate (Khilafah) shall come once again based on the precept ofProphethood.^[44]^{[page needed]}

In the above, the first era of Caliphate is commonly accepted by Muslims to be that of the Rashidun Caliphate.

Nafi’a reported saying:

It has been reported on the authority of Nafi, that ‘Abdullah b. Umar paid a visit to Abdullah b. Muti’ in the days (when atrocities were perpetrated on the People Of Medina) at Harra in the time of Yazid b. Mu’awiya. Ibn Muti’ said: Place a pillow for Abu ‘Abd al-Rahman (family name of ‘Abdullah b. ‘Umar). But the latter said: I have not come to sit with you. I have come to you to tell you a tradition I heard from the Messenger of Allah. I heard him say: One who withdraws his band from obedience (to the Amir) will find no argument (in his defence) when he stands before Allah on the Day of Judgment, and one who dies without having bound himself by an oath of allegiance (to an Amir) will die the death of one belonging to the days of Jahiliyyah. – Sahih Muslim, Book 020, Hadith 4562.

Hisham ibn Urwah reported on the authority of Abu Saleh on the authority of Abu Hurairah that Muhammad said:

Leaders will take charge of you after me, where the pious (one) will lead you with his piety and the impious (one) with his impiety, so only listen to them and obey them in everything which conforms with the truth (Islam). If they act rightly it is for your credit, and if they acted wrongly it is counted for you and against them.

Muslim narrated on the authority of al-A’araj, on the authority of Abu Hurairah, that Muhammad said:

Behold, the Imam (Caliph) is but a shield from behind whom the people fight and by whom they defend themselves.

Muslim reported on the authority of Abdel Aziz al-Muqrin, who said:

I accompanied Abu Hurairah for five years and heard him talking of Muhammd’s saying: The Prophets ruled over the children of Israel, whenever a Prophet died another Prophet succeeded him, but there will be no Prophet after me. There will beKhalifahs and they will number many. They asked: What then do you order us? He said: Fulfil the bay’ah(transaction/sale) to them one after the other and give them their due. Surely God will ask them about what He entrusted them with.

Prophesied Caliphate of the Mahdî

For information about Caliph the Mahdî, and his prophesied Deputy `Îsâ (Jesus), see “Mahdi“, “Jesus in Islam“, “Islamic eschatology” (Section Islamic eschatology#Major figures), and “Second Coming” (Section Second Coming#Islam).

The Sahaba of Muhammad

Al-Habbab Ibn ul-Munthir said, when the Sahaba met in the wake of the death of Muhammad, (at the thaqifa hall) of Bani Sa’ida:

Let there be one Amir from us and one Amir from you (meaning one from the Ansar and one from the Mohajireen).

Upon this Abu Bakr replied:

It is forbidden for Muslims to have two Amirs (rulers)…

Then he got up and addressed the Muslims.^[45]^[46]^[47]^[48]^[49]^[50]^{[page needed]}

It has additionally been reported^[51] that Abu Bakr went on to say on the day of Al-Saqifa:

It is forbidden for Muslims to have two Amirs for this would cause differences in their affairs and concepts, their unity would be divided and disputes would break out amongst them. The Sunnah would then be abandoned, the bida’a (innovations) would spread and Fitna would grow, and that is in no one’s interests.

The Sahaba agreed to this and selected Abu Bakr as their first Khaleef. Habbab ibn Mundhir who suggested the idea of two Ameers corrected himself and was the first to give Abu Bakr the Bay’ah. This indicates an Ijma as-Sahaba of all of the Sahaba. Ali ibni abi Talib, who was attending the body of Muhammad at the time, also consented to this.

Imam Ali whom the Shia revere said:^[52]

People must have an Amir…where the believer works under his Imara (rule) and under which the unbeliever would also benefit, until his rule ended by the end of his life (ajal), the booty (fay’i) would be gathered, the enemy would be fought, the routes would be made safe, the strong one will return what he took from the weak till the tyrant would be contained, and not bother anyone.

Sayings of Islamic theologians

Al-Mawardi says:^[53]

It is forbidden for the Ummah (Muslim world) to have two leaders at the same time.

Al-Nawawi says:^[54]

It is forbidden to give an oath to two leaders or more, even in different parts of the world and even if they are far apart.

Ahmad al-Qalqashandi says:^[55]

It is forbidden to appoint two leaders at the same time.

Ibn Hazm says:^[56]

It is permitted to have only one leader (of the Muslims) in the whole of the world.

Al-sha’rani says:^[57]

It is forbidden for Muslims to have in the whole world and at the same time two leaders whether in agreement or discord.

Abd al-Jabbar ibn Ahmad (a Mu’tazela scholar), says:^[58]

It is forbidden to give the oath to more than one.

Al-Joziri says:^[59]

The Imams (scholars of the four schools of thought)- may Allah have mercy on them- agree that the Caliphate is an obligation, and that the Muslims must appoint a leader who would implement the injunctions of the religion, and give the oppressed justice against the oppressors. It is forbidden for Muslims to have two leaders in the world whether in agreement or discord.

The Shia schools of thought and others expressed the same opinion about this.^[60]^[61]^[62]^[63] However, the Shia school of thought believe that the leader (Imam) must not be appointed by the Islamic ummah, but must be appointed by God.

Al-Qurtubi said in his Tafsir^[64] of the verse, “Indeed, man is made upon this earth a Caliph”^[65] that:

This Ayah is a source in the selection of an Imaam, and a Khaleef, he is listened to and he is obeyed, for the word is united through him, and the Ahkam (laws) of the Caliph are implemented through him, and there is no difference regarding the obligation of that between the Ummah, nor between the Imams except what is narrated about al-Asam, the Mu’tazzili …

Al-Qurtubi also said:

The Khilafah is the pillar upon which other pillars rest

An-Nawawi said:^[66]

(The scholars) consented that it is an obligation upon the Muslims to select a Khalif

Al-Ghazali when writing of the potential consequences of losing the Caliphate said:^[67]

The judges will be suspended, the Wilayaat (provinces) will be nullified, … the decrees of those in authority will not be executed and all the people will be on the verge of Haraam

Ibn Taymiyyah said^[68]^{[page needed]}:

It is obligatory to know that the office in charge of commanding over the people (ie: the post of the Khaleefah) is one of the greatest obligations of the Deen. In fact, there is no establishment of the Deen except by it….this is the opinion of the salaf, such as al-Fadl ibn ‘Iyaad, Ahmad ibn Hanbal and others

Period of dormancy

Main article: Pan-Islamism

Further information: Islamism and Islamic revival

Once the subject of intense conflict and rivalry amongst Muslim rulers, the caliphate laid dormant and largely unclaimed since the 1920s. For the vast majority of Muslims the caliph as leader of the ummah, “is cherished both as memory and ideal”^[69] as a time when Muslims “enjoyed scientific and military superiority globally”.^[70] The Islamic prophet Muhammad is reported to have prophesied:

Prophethood will remain with you for as long as Allah wills it to remain, then Allah will raise it up whenever he wills to raise it up. Afterwards, there will be a Caliphate that follows the guidance of Prophethood remaining with you for as long as Allah wills it to remain. Then, He will raise it up whenever He wills to raise it up. Afterwards, there will be a reign of violently oppressive rule and it will remain with you for as long as Allah wills it to remain. Then, there will be a reign of tyrannical rule and it will remain for as long as Allah wills it to remain. Then, Allah will raise it up whenever He wills to raise it up. Then, there will be a Caliphate that follows the guidance of Prophethood.

— As-Silsilah As-Sahihah, vol. 1, no. 5

Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (2014–present)

Main article: Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant

Map of ISIL’s claimed Caliphate at its extent in May 2015

The group Tanzim Qaidat al-Jihad fi Bilad al-Rafidayn formed as an affiliate of Al-Qaeda network of Islamist militants during the Iraq War. The group eventually expanded into Syria and rose to prominence as the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) during the Syrian Civil War. In the summer of 2014, the group launched the Northern Iraq offensive, seizing the city of Mosul.^[71]^[72] The group declared itself a caliphate under Abu Bakr al-Baghdadion June 29, 2014 and renamed itself as the “Islamic State”.^[73]^[74]^[75]

ISIL’s claim to be the highest authority of Muslims has not been widely recognized beyond the territory it controls with 10 million people,^[76] and the group has been at war with armed forces including the Iraqi Army, the Syrian Army, the Free Syrian Army, Al-Nusra Front, and Iraqi Kurdistan‘s Peshmerga and People’s Protection Units (YPG) along with a 60 nation coalition in its efforts to establish a de facto state on Iraqi and Syrian territory.^[77]

Ahmadiyya view

Further information: Khalifatul Masih

The members of the Ahmadiyya community believe that the Ahmadiyya Caliphate (Arabic: Khilāfah) is the continuation of the Islamic Caliphate, first being the Rāshidūn (rightly guided) Caliphate (of Righteous Caliphs). This is believed to have been suspended with Ali, the son-in-law of Muhammad and re-established with the appearance of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad (1835-1908, the founder of the movement) whom Ahmadis identify as the Promised Messiah and Mahdi.

Ahmadis maintain that in accordance with Quranic verses (such as ^{[Quran 24:55]}) and numerous ahadith on the issue, Khilāfah can only be established by God Himself and is a divine blessing given to those who believe and work righteousness and uphold the unity of God, therefore any movement to establish the Khilāfah centered on human endeavours alone is bound to fail, particularly when the condition of the people diverges from the ‘precepts of prophethood’ and they are as a result disunited, their inability to establish aKhilāfah caused fundamentally by the lack of righteousness in them. Although the khalifa is elected it is believed that God himself directs the hearts of believers towards an individual. Thus the khalifa is designated neither necessarily by right (i.e. the rightful or competent one in the eyes of the people at that time) nor merely by election but primarily by God.^[78]

According to Ahmadiyya thought, a khalifa need not be the head of a state; rather the Ahmadiyya community emphasises the spiritual and organisational significance of the Khilāfah. It is primarily a religious/spiritual office, with the purpose of upholding, strengthening and spreading Islam and of maintaining the high spiritual and moral standards within the global community established by Muhammad – who was not merely a political leader but primarily a religious leader. If a khalifa does happen to bear governmental authority as a head of state, it is incidental and subsidiary in relation to his overall function as khalifa which is applicable to believers transnationally and not limited to one particular state.^[79]^[80]

Ahmadi Muslims believe that God has assured them that this Caliphate will endure to the end of time, depending on their righteousness and faith in God. The Khalifa provides unity, security, moral direction and progress for the community. It is required that the Khalifa carry out his duties through consultation and taking into consideration the views of the members of the Shura (consultative body). However, it is not incumbent upon him to always accept the views and recommendations of the members. The Khalifatul Masih has overall authority for all religious and organisational matters and is bound to decide and act in accordance with the Qur’an and sunnah.

Islamic call

A number of Islamist political parties and mujahideen called for the restoration of the caliphate by uniting Muslim nations, either through political action (e.g., Hizb ut-Tahrir), or through force (e.g., al-Qaeda).^[81] Various Islamist movements gained momentum in recent years with the ultimate aim of establishing a Caliphate. In 2014, ISIL/ISIS made a claim to re-establishing the Caliphate. Those advocating the re-establishment of a Caliphate differed in their methodology and approach. Some^[who?] were locally oriented, mainstream political parties that had no apparent transnational objectives.^{[citation needed]}

Abul A’la Maududi believed the caliph was not just an individual ruler who had to be restored, but was man’s representation of God‘s authority on Earth:

Khilafa means representative. Man, according to Islam is the representative of “people”, His (God’s) viceregent; that is to say, by virtue of the powers delegated to him, and within the limits prescribed by the Qu’ran and the teaching of the prophet, the caliph is required to exercise Divine authority.^[82]

The Muslim Brotherhood advocates pan-Islamic unity and the implementation of Islamic law. Founder Hassan al-Banna wrote about the restoration of the Caliphate.^[83]

One transnational group whose ideology was based specifically on restoring the caliphate as a pan-Islamic state is Hizb ut-Tahrir (literally, “Party of Liberation”). It is particularly strong in Central Asia and Europe and is growing in strength in the Arab world. It is based on the claim that Muslims can prove that God exists^[84] and that the Qur’an is the word of God.^[85]^[86] Hizb ut-Tahrir’s stated strategy is a non-violent political and intellectual struggle.

In Southeast Asia, groups such as Jemaah Islamiyah aimed to establish a Caliphate across Indonesia, Malaysia, Brunei and parts of Thailand, the Philippines and Cambodia.

al-Qaeda’s Caliphate goals

Main article: al-Qaeda

Al-Qaeda has as one of its clearly stated goals the re-establishment of a caliphate.^[87] Its former leader, Osama bin Laden, called for Muslims to “establish the righteous caliphate of our umma”.^[88]Al-Qaeda chiefs released a statement in 2005, under which, in what they call “phase five” there will be “an Islamic state, or caliphate”.^[89] Al-Qaeda has named its Internet newscast from Iraq “The Voice of the Caliphate”.^[90] According to author and Egyptian native Lawrence Wright, Ayman al-Zawahiri, bin Laden’s mentor and al-Qaeda’s second-in-command until 2011, once “sought to restore the caliphate… which had formally ended in 1924 following the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire but which had not exercised real power since the thirteenth century.” Zawahiri believes that once the caliphate is re-established, Egypt would become a rallying point for the rest of the Islamic world, leading the jihad against the West. “Then history would make a new turn, God willing”, Zawahiri later wrote, “in the opposite direction against the empire of the United States and the world’s Jewish government”.^[91]

Opposition

Scholar Olivier Roy writes that “early on, Islamists replace the concept of the caliphate … with that of the emir.” There were a number of reasons including “that according to the classical authors, a caliph must be a member of the tribe of the Prophet (the Quraysh) … moreover, caliphs ruled societies that the Islamists do not consider to have been Islamic (the Ottoman Empire).”^[92] This is not the view of the majority of Islamist groups, as both the Muslim Brotherhood and Hizb ut-Tahrir view the Ottoman state as a caliphate.^[93]^[94]

Government

Electing or appointing a Caliph

In his book The Early Islamic Conquests (1981), Fred Donner argues that the standard Arabian practice during the early Caliphates was for the prominent men of a kinship group, or tribe, to gather after a leader’s death and elect a leader from amongst themselves, although there was no specified procedure for this shura, or consultative assembly. Candidates were usually from the same lineage as the deceased leader, but they were not necessarily his sons. Capable men who would lead well were preferred over an ineffectual direct heir, as there was no basis in the majority Sunni view that the head of state or governor should be chosen based on lineage alone.

This argument is advanced by Sunni Muslims, who believe that Muhammad’s companion Abu Bakr was elected by the community and that this was the proper procedure. They further argue that a caliph is ideally chosen by election or community consensus.

Traditionally, Sunni Muslim madhhabs all agreed that a Caliph must be a descendant of the Quraysh.^[95]Al-Baqillani has said that the leader of the Muslims simply should be from the majority. The founder of the biggest Sunni legal school, Abu Hanifa, also wrote that the Caliph must be chosen by the majority.^[4]

Sunni belief

Following the death of Muhammad, a meeting took place at Saqifah. At that meeting, Abu Bakr was elected caliph by the Muslim community. Sunni Muslims developed the belief that the caliph is a temporal political ruler, appointed to rule within the bounds of Islamic law (Sharia). The job of adjudicating orthodoxy and Islamic law was left to mujtahids, legal specialists collectively called the Ulama. Many Muslims call the first four caliphs the Rashidun, meaning the Rightly-Guided, because they are believed to have followed the Qur’an and the sunnah (example) of Muhammad.^{[citation needed]}

Shi’a belief

Main articles: Succession to Muhammad, Shia Islam and Imamah (Shia doctrine)

The Shia believe in the Imamate, a principle by which rulers are Imams who are divinely chosen, infallible, and sinless and must come from the Ahl al-Bayt regardless of majority opinion, shura or election. They claim that before his death, Muhammad had given many indications, in the hadith of the pond of Khumm in particular, that he considered Ali, his cousin and son-in-law, as his successor. For the Twelvers, Ali and his eleven descendants, the twelve Imams, are believed to have been considered, even before their birth, as the only valid Islamic rulers appointed and decreed by God.

Main article: Islamic Government: Governance of the Jurist

After these Twelve Imams, the potential Caliphs, had passed, and in the absence of the possibility of a government headed by their Imams, some Twelvers believe it was necessary that a system of Shi’i Islamic government based on the Guardianship of the Islamic Jurist be developed, due to the need for some form of government, where an Islamic jurist or faqih rules Muslims, suffices. However this idea, developed by the marja’Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini and established in Iran, is not universally accepted among the Shia.

Ismailis believe in the Imamate principle mentioned above, but they need not be secular rulers as well.

The Nizari continue to have a living Imam; the current Imam is the Aga Khan.
The Taiyabi Ismaili have, since the year 1130, followed the Imam’s chief officer, the Dai al-Mutlaq, as they believe the Imams are in a state of hiding.

Majlis al-Shura (parliament)

See also: Majlis-ash-Shura, Shura, and Majlis

Traditional Sunni Islamic lawyers agree that shura, loosely translated as “consultation of the people”, is a function of the caliphate. The Majlis al-Shura (literally “consultative assembly”) or parliament was a representation of this idea of consultative governance. The importance of this is premised by the following verses of the Qur’an:

“…those who answer the call of their Lord and establish the prayer; and who conduct their affairs by Shura [are loved by God].”^[42:38]
“…consult them (the people) in their affairs. Then when you have taken a decision (from them), put your trust in Allah”^[3:159]

The majlis is also the means to elect a new caliph.^[4] Al-Mawardi has written that members of the majlis should satisfy three conditions: they must be just, have enough knowledge to distinguish a good caliph from a bad one, and have sufficient wisdom and judgment to select the best caliph. Al-Mawardi also said that in emergencies when there is no caliphate and no majlis, the people themselves should create a majlis and select a list of candidates for caliph; then the majlis should select a caliph from the list of candidates.^[4]

Some Islamist interpretations of the role of the Majlis al-Shura are the following: In an analysis of the shura chapter of the Qur’an, Islamist author Sayyid Qutb argues that Islam only requires the ruler to consult with some of the representatives of the ruled and govern within the context of the Sharia. Taqiuddin al-Nabhani, the founder of a transnational political movement devoted to the revival of the Caliphate, writes that although the Shura is an important part of “the ruling structure” of the Islamic caliphate, “(it is) not one of its pillars”, meaning that its neglect would not make a Caliph’s rule un-Islamic such as to justify a rebellion. However, the Muslim Brotherhood, the largest Islamic movement in Egypt, has toned down these Islamist views by accepting in principle that in the modern age the Majlis al-Shura is democracy but during its governance of Egypt in 2013, the Muslim Brotherhood did not put that principle into practice.

Accountability of rulers

Sunni Islamic lawyers have commented on when it is permissible to disobey, impeach or remove rulers in the Caliphate. This is usually when the rulers are not meeting their obligations to the public under Islam.

Al-Mawardi said that if the rulers meet their Islamic responsibilities to the public the people must obey their laws, but a Caliph or ruler who becomes either unjust or severely ineffective must be impeached via the Majlis al-Shura. Similarly, Al-Baghdadi^{[clarification needed]}believed that if the rulers do not uphold justice, the ummah via the majlis should warn them, and a Caliph who does not heed the warning can be impeached. Al-Juwayni argued that Islam is the goal of the ummah, so any ruler who deviates from this goal must be impeached. Al-Ghazali believed that oppression by a caliph is sufficient grounds for impeachment. Rather than just relying on impeachment, Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani stated that the people have an obligation to rebel if the caliph begins to act with no regard for Islamic law. Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani said that to ignore such a situation is haraam and those who cannot revolt from inside the caliphate should launch a struggle from outside. Al-Asqalani used two ayahs from the Qur’an to justify this:

“…And they (the sinners on qiyama) will say, ‘Our Lord! We obeyed our leaders and our chiefs, and they misled us from the right path. Our Lord! Give them (the leaders) double the punishment you give us and curse them with a very great curse’…”^[33:67–68]

Islamic lawyers commented that when the rulers refuse to step down after being impeached through the Majlis, becoming dictators through the support of a corrupt army, if the majority is in agreement they have the option to launch a revolution. Many noted that this option is to be exercised only after factoring in the potential cost of life.^[4]

Rule of law

Economy

Main article: Islamic economics in the world

See also: Islamic capitalism and Bayt al-mal

During the Muslim Agricultural Revolution, the Caliphate understood that real incentives were needed to increase productivity and wealth and thus enhance tax revenues. A social transformation took place as a result of changing land ownership^[99] giving individuals of any gender,^[100]ethnic or religious background the right to buy, sell, mortgage, and inherit land for farming or any other purpose. Based on the Quran, signatures were required on contracts for every major financial transaction concerning agriculture, industry,commerce, and employment. Copies of the contract were usually kept by both parties involved.^[99]

There are similarities between Islamic economics and leftist or socialist economic policies. Islamic jurists have argued that privatization of the origin of oil, gas, and other fire-producing fuels, agricultural land, and water is forbidden. The principle of public or joint ownership has been drawn by Muslim jurists from the following hadith of Muhammad:

Ibn Abbas reported that the Messenger of Allah said: “All Muslims are partners in three things- in water, herbage and fire.” (Narrated in Abu Daud, & Ibn Majah)^[101] Anas added to the above hadith, “Its price is Haram (forbidden).”^{[citation needed]}

Jurists have argued by qiyas that the above restriction on privatization can be extended to all essential resources that benefit the community as a whole.^{[citation needed]}

Aside from similarities to socialism, early forms of proto-capitalism and free markets were present in the Caliphate,^[102] since an early market economy and early form of merchant capitalism developed between the 8th and 12th centuries, which some refer to as “Islamic capitalism”.^[103] A vigorous monetary economy developed based on the circulation of a stable high-value currency (the dinar) and the integration of previously independent monetary areas. Business techniques and forms of business organization employed during this time included early contracts, bills of exchange, long-distance international trade, early forms of partnership (mufawada) such as limited partnerships (mudaraba), and early forms of credit, debt, profit, loss, capital (al-mal), capital accumulation (nama al-mal),^[104]circulating capital, capital expenditure, revenue, cheques, promissory notes,^[105]trusts (waqf), startup companies,^[106]savings accounts, transactional accounts, pawning, loaning, exchange rates, bankers, money changers, ledgers, deposits, assignments, the double-entry bookkeeping system,^[107] and lawsuits.^[108]Organizational enterprises similar to corporations independent from the state also existed in the medieval Islamic world.^[109]^[110] Many of these concepts were adopted and further advanced in medieval Europe from the 13th century onwards.^[104]

The concepts of welfare and pension were introduced in early Islamic law as forms of Zakat (charity), one of the Five Pillars of Islam, since the time of the Rashidun caliph Umar in the 7th century. The taxes (including Zakat and Jizya) collected in the treasury (Bayt al-mal) of an Islamic government were used to provide income for the needy, including the poor, elderly, orphans, widows, and the disabled. According to the Islamic jurist Al-Ghazali (Algazel, 1058–1111), the government was also expected to stockpile food supplies in every region in case a disaster or famine occurred.^{[citation needed]}

The demographics of medieval Islamic society varied in some significant aspects from other agricultural societies, including a decline in birth rates as well as a change in life expectancy. Other traditional agrarian societies are estimated to have had an average life expectancy of 20 to 25 years,^[111] while ancient Rome and medieval Europe are estimated at 20 to 30 years.^[112] The life expectancy of Islamic society diverged from that of other traditional agrarian societies, with several studies on the lifespans of Islamic scholarsconcluding that members of this occupational group enjoyed a life expectancy between 69 and 75 years.^[113] Such studies have given the following estimates for the average lifespans of religious scholars at various times and places: 72.8 years in the Middle East, 69–75 years in 11th century Islamic Spain,^[114] 75 years in 12th century Persia,^[115] and 59–72 years in 13th century Persia.^[116] However, Maya Shatzmiller considers these religious scholars to be a misleading sample who are not representative of the general population.^[117] Conrad I. Lawrence estimates the average lifespan in the early Islamic Caliphate to be above 35 years for the general population.^[118]

The early Islamic Empire also had the highest literacy rates among pre-modern societies, alongside the city of classical Athens in the 4th century BC,^[119] and later, China after the introduction of printing from the 10th century.^[120] One factor for the relatively high literacy rates in the early Islamic Empire was its parent-driven educational marketplace, as the state did not systematically subsidize educational services until the introduction of state funding under Nizam al-Mulk in the 11th century.^[121] Another factor was the diffusion of paper from China,^[122] which led to an efflorescence of books and written culture in Islamic society; thus papermaking technology transformed Islamic society (and later, the rest of Afro-Eurasia) from an oral to scribal culture, comparable to the later shifts from scribal to typographic culture, and from typographic culture to the Internet.^[123] Other factors include the widespread use of paper books in Islamic society (more so than any other previously existing society), the study and memorization of the Qur’an, flourishingcommercial activity, and the emergence of the Maktab and Madrasah educational institutions.^[124]

Difference between caliphate and democracy

Source of legislation

In a democracy, laws are made by an assembly elected by the people; in a caliphate, the sources of legislation are supposed to be the Qur’an and the Sunnah۔ Concerning the supremacy of God in making laws rather than people, the Qur’an states:

Say, “Allah is most knowing of how long they remained. He has [knowledge of] the unseen [aspects] of the heavens and the earth. How Seeing is He and how Hearing! They have not besides Him any protector, and He shares not His legislation with anyone.” (18:26)

“Legislation is not but for Allah”. (12:40)

[We said], “O David, indeed We have made you a caliph upon the earth, so judge between the people in truth and do not follow [your own] desire, as it will lead you astray from the way of Allah.” Indeed, those who go astray from the way of Allah will have a severe punishment for having forgotten the Day of Account. (38:26)

Concerning the dangers of following the will of the people (rather than the will of God as expressed in the Qur’an and the sunnah), the Qur’an states:

And if you obey most of those upon the earth, they will mislead you from the way of Allah . They follow not except assumption, and they are not but falsifying. (2:116)

but most of the people do not know. (12:40)

And indeed, many among the people, of Our signs, are heedless. (10:92)

And indeed, many among the people are defiantly disobedient. Then is it the judgement of [the time of] ignorance they desire? But who is better than Allah in judgement for a people who are certain [in faith]. (5:49-50)

Or do they say, “In him is madness?” Rather, he brought them the truth, but most of them, to the truth, are averse. But if the Truth had followed their inclinations, the heavens and the earth and whoever is in them would have been ruined. Rather, We have brought them their message, but they, from their message, are turning away. (23:70-71)

And indeed do many lead [others] astray through their [own] inclinations without knowledge. Indeed, your Lord – He is most knowing of the transgressors. (2:119)

While in a democracy, people vote for members of their representative assembly (and may impact legislation through direct votes in referenda), in a caliphate popular feedback is provided through a consultative group (shura), although this happened rarely in the historical caliphates. The Qur’an mentions this:

And those who have responded to their lord and established prayer and whose affair is [determined by] consultation among themselves, and from what We have provided them, they spend. (42:38)

Selection of the leader

In a democracy, the head of government is elected (directly or indirectly) by the people and must meet requirements established in legislation. A democratic leader is answerable to the people.

A candidate for caliph must meet the conditions described in the Qur’an and the Sunnah, which are as follows:

He must be a Muslim.
He must be an adult (past puberty)
He must be male.
He must be sane.
He must be just (عادل ‘aadil).
He must not be a faasiq (فاسق), that is, someone publicly known to be a sinner.
He must be capable of carrying the responsibility of a Caliph.

The right to choose a leader belongs to the Muslim public, generally known as the Muslim Ummah (أمة مسلمة) referring to all Muslims as a single group. The non-Muslim residents of the caliphate do not have any voice in this matter. The Muslim Ummah may choose a leader through any of the following means.

If a caliph is given the pledge of allegiance by Ahl al hal wal ‘aqd (أهل الحل والعقد), which signifies the people of authority and influence. These are the people whom the public listens to, and who represent the public. If they give the pledge of allegiance (Bay’ah) to any one person, he has been enacted the caliph. This is how Abu Bakr, the first caliph was chosen.
The Muslim public may delegate their right to choose to a person who they believe will make the right decision. If this person then pledges allegiance to anyone, he is enacted the caliph. Omar, the second caliph, was chosen this way by Abu Bakr when the public asked him to choose his successor. Otherwise, a caliph does not have the right to choose his successor.
The caliph may be elected by general election. This was the mode of succession of Uthman, the third caliph.
If a large group of Muslims pledges allegiance to a person, he is enacted caliph. This was the mode of succession of Ali, the fourth caliph.

The above are the only valid ways by which a caliph may accede to the caliphate. The determining factor of the enactment of a person’s caliphate is the Bay’ah, of which there are two versions: Bay’atul In’iqaad (بيعة الإنعقاد), the pledge of enactment is the Bay’ah that enacts that Caliphate of a Caliph, and it is not required to be given by all Muslims, as detailed in the above four points. Bay’atul Itaa’ah (بيعة الإطاعة), the pledge of obedience is the pledge given by the general (Muslim) public. It may not always be given explicitly by every Muslim, but it is an individual obligation (Fard فرض) for every Muslim.

The Caliph, once enacted, serves for life, unless a change in his situation causes him to no longer fulfill the seven aforementioned conditions, or if he begins to defy the Quran and Sunnah in his rule, or fails to implement the Shari’ah. In this case, the Chief Justice, known as Qadi al Qudat (قاضي القضاة) is authorized to depose him. If he insists on remaining in power, he must be deposed forcefully, which becomes a duty upon Muslims.

There may be only one Caliph at a time (in the world). Anyone who declares himself Caliph while there is an existing Caliph is subject to execution by Shari’ah Law. Obedience to the Caliph is a duty upon every Muslim, as long as the Caliph does not issue any commands such that obedience would entail disobedience to Allah or His Messenger. Moreover, if the Caliph becomes subject to deposition, the Bay’ah contract is considered voided, and obedience is no longer required of Muslims.

Notable caliphs

For a more comprehensive list, see List of Caliphs.

Rashidun (“Righteously Guided”)
- Abu Bakr, first Rashidun Caliph. Subdued rebel tribes in the Ridda wars.
- Umar (Umar ibn al-Khattab), second Rashidun Caliph. During his reign, the Islamic empire expanded to include Egypt, Jerusalem and Persia.
- Uthman Ibn Affan, third Rashidun Caliph. The various written copies of the Qur’an were standardized under his direction. Killed by rebels.
- Ali (Ali ibn Abu Talib), fourth Rashidun Caliph. Considered by Shi’a Muslims however to be the first Imam. His reign was fraught with internal conflict, with Muawiyah ibn Abi Sufyan (Muawiyah I) and Amr ibn al-As controlling the Levant and Egypt regions independently of Ali.
Hasan ibn Ali, fifth Caliph. Considered as “rightly guided” by several historians. He abdicated his right to the caliphate in favour of Muawiyah I in order to end the potential for ruinous civil war.
Muawiyah I, first caliph of the Umayyad dynasty. Muawiyah instituted dynastic rule by appointing his son Yazid I as his successor, a trend that would continue through subsequent caliphates.
Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz (Umar II), Umayyad caliph who is considered one of the finest rulers in Muslim history. He is also considered by some (mainly Sunnis) to be among the “rightly guided” caliphs.
Harun al-Rashid, Abbasid caliph during whose reign Baghdad became the world’s prominent centre of trade, learning, and culture. Harun is the subject of many stories in the famous One Thousand and One Nights. He established the legendary library Bayt al-Hikma (“House of Wisdom”).
Al-Ma’mun, a great Abbasid patron of Islamic philosophy and science.
Mehmed II, an Ottoman caliph who brought an end to the Byzantine Empire.
Suleiman the Magnificent, an Ottoman caliph during whose reign the Ottoman Empire reached its zenith.
Abdul Hamid II, last Ottoman caliph to rule with independent, absolute power.
Abdülmecid II, last caliph of the Ottoman dynasty. Nominally the 37th Head of the Ottoman dynasty.

Did Eisenhower Steal the Presidency?

Posted on January 11, 2012 by David Meyer

According to popular legend, Dwight Eisenhower was a shoo-in for the Presidency in 1952. He won the Republican primary on the first ballot by a large margin. He then proceeded to crush Adlai Stevenson in the general election. But in truth, he came very close to losing the primary race and only prevailed thanks to some questionable tactics. Did Eisenhower steal the nomination and thus, the Presidency?

General Eisenhower versus “Mr. Republican”?

In the aftermath of World War II, General Eisenhower was immensely popular with Americans and both parties courted him as a Presidential candidate. Initially, “Ike” showed little interest. However, that changed when he met Robert Taft, aka “Mr. Republican.”

Taft was the leader of the Old Right wing of the Republican Party (a mantle now carried by Dr. Ron Paul). He believed in reducing the size of government and supported a policy of non-interventionism. But his opposition to the Cold War didn’t sit well with Eisenhower. At the same time, the Democrats looked particularly vulnerable thanks to public disgust with corruption in President Truman’s administration. Many people thought that the Republican nominee, regardless of who it was, would easily win the Presidency.

Although Eisenhower had yet to commit to the race, his name was put forth on the New Hampshire ballot by Thomas Dewey, Taft’s arch rival. He didn’t campaign. He hadn’t even expressed his opinion on political issues. And yet, he won convincingly. Shortly afterward, Eisenhower decided to throw his hat into the ring.

The Race for the Republican Nomination?

The campaign that followed was one of the most bitter and hotly contested races in history. Eisenhower enjoyed tremendous popularity and attracted tons of new voters to the party who were derisively referred to as “Republicans for a Day.” But Taft was popular as well. In addition, he faced a structural advantage. Back then, the majority of convention delegates were chosen by caucuses. And most of those caucuses were controlled by Taft supporters. As the Republican Convention neared, Taft had 530 delegates to Ike’s 427. Still, although Taft was in control, he was short of the 604 delegates needed to secure the nomination.

Eisenhower’s team swiftly accused Taft of stealing delegates from Texas, Louisiana, and Georgia. Supposedly, Taft supporters had kept Eisenhower voters from participating in these caucuses. The voters proceeded to form their own pro-Eisenhower delegations, which resulted in conflicting delegations being sent to the Republican Convention. Taft’s team offered a compromise split of the delegates but Ike’s people refused, believing that they could use the issue to their advantage at the Convention.

The 1952 Republican Convention?

In July 1952, the Convention opened. Taft had every reason to be optimistic. Besides his lead in delegates, the committees were largely controlled by his team. But Ike’s people were prepared. They quickly proposed the “Fair Play” rule, which would forbid contested delegates from participating in roll call votes. Taft’s team badly mishandled the parliamentary issue and as a result, lost the fight. This vote remains controversial today as many people believe that third-place candidate Earl Warren’s decision to support “Fair Play” was influenced by Eisenhower offering him a position on the Supreme Court.

With Taft’s delegates forced to sit on the sidelines, Eisenhower had the numerical advantage for the remainder of the roll call votes. This led to a series of votes in which Taft’s contested delegates were rejected and Eisenhower’s were approved. Still, Taft thought he had a chance. Even with the newfound delegates, Eisenhower seemed likely to garner just 560 votes, well short of 604. But during the first roll call vote, Ike took 595 votes to just 500 for Taft thanks to the support from several uncommitted delegations. Recognizing a patronage opportunity, Minnesota party leaders quickly switched their 20 votes to Eisenhower and the battle was over. Others followed suit and Eisenhower ended up winning on the first ballot by a vote of 845 to 280 (with an additional 77 delegates supporting Earl Warren).

Guerrilla Explorer’s Analysis

So, did Eisenhower steal the primary election and thus, the Presidency? He didn’t do anything illegal. Still, his victory can be attributed largely to parliamentary trickery that kept Taft’s delegates from having a voice at the Convention. It’s possible that Eisenhower deserved those delegates in the first place although Taft vigorously denied any wrongdoing. It should also be noted that Taft won the popular vote handily, with 2.8 million votes to just 2.1 million votes for Ike. Still, he wasn’t the clear favorite since this represented just 35.8% of all votes.

The various Republican factions were clearly divided over their choices in 1952. But after the Convention, they joined forces and thus propelled Eisenhower to the Presidency in a landslide. As for Taft, he fell sick soon after the Convention and passed away in 1953. His death, coupled with Ike’s victory, marked the end of the Old Right wing of the Republican Party and the subsequent rise of the Conservative movement.

http://www.davidmeyercreations.com/mysteries-of-history/did-eisenhower-steal-the-presidency/

Archive for June 14th, 2016

Raymond T. Pronk

Blog Subscription

RSS Links

Pages

Categories

Search

Search

Blog Stats

Calendar

Archives

Pages

Categories

Blogroll

Word Press

Blog Subscription

Search

Blogroll

Word Press