Should there be a caliphate?

[The Islamic Caliphate of the Balkans]

What was the "last one"?
The Rashidun, Abbasids?

Nope, the last declared "Islamic Caliphate" with a Caliph known to most as the Islamic State.

Or do you mean ISIS? In which case, they aren't Muslims by any measure. They're apostates and they deserved what they got.

By your measure perhaps, they certainly thought they were muslims, so why should I not believe them?

No, the last caliphate was the Ottoman Empire, and by 1908 it was a parliamentary monarchy. Not mentioning that during its last 400 years it was partly owned by Greeks.

Quite a few grand vizirs were SERBIAN.

Atatürk was half Macedonian.

The Sultan had only power over the muslim population, Christians and Jewish were ruled by religious representatives named by the Sultan.

[Resilient Acceleration]

Nor will it be desireable. Why the fuck should I or my country obey a random bearded boomer from faraway Mecca or Istanbul? We're not economically connected, and our relationship with the US and China is far more important.

You're Indonesian, correct? Your people are Muslim. If you are not a Muslim, then you are a minority. By the laws of democracy which I can only assume you support, the needs of the majority are above those of the minority. That's ignoring the economic and political benefit your region could have from unification with a Caliphate. I don't even see why you're adverse to the idea on the basis of not being Muslim given the fact a Caliphate, as I've stated, does not have to be a theocracy by itself.

Well you’d need to get the support of a handful of Muslim countries (say, Jordan, Lebanon, Malaysia, Indonesia and Turkey).
Jordan might support it because a Hashemite would probably be chosen as Caliph.
Lebanon, Malaysia, Indonesia and Turkey don’t have unaccountable rulers so if a caliphate was a popular idea a politician could be elected on that platform.

Also between them the nations I’ve mentioned have enough power to put encourage other nations to be in the caliphate with semi-independent states for defence and economic cooperation (like how the USA started)

Each nation that supports the caliphate would be another domino till eventually it covers all Muslim-majority countries
(As well as countries like Bosnia where they would be a majority if it wasn’t for genocide/settlers).

Indonesian here. The idea of khilafah is a national security threat that already plunge our diverse country into horrific civil wars multiple times, the government view them as an even bigger threat to peace than Papuan separatism and spend a large amount of resources in the prevention. The largest Muslim organization in the world and in here, the NU, is established in 1912 specifically to fight against Arab-sourced Wahhabist fundamentalism and protect Indonesia's unique secular-pluralistic national identity. No.

If you're a random Indonesian, chances are you'll be fighting against the establishment of a supranational state seeking to claim authority over your land.

[Insaanistan]

In Sunni Islam?

Shia Islam didn't recognise the Ottomans as Caliphs; nor did the Ibadis, for that matter, but they typically get forgotten. Poor Ibadis.

Breaking News: while Sunnis and Shiās were busy arguing, Ibadis take over Makkah and Madina.

[The Islamic Caliphate of the Balkans]

It DEPENDS.

If it is like the Ottoman Empire, with a strong POLITICAL POWER separated from the religious one, yes. Also we will have to negotiate with only one muslim voice and not 25.

[Fatimida]

You're Indonesian, correct? Your people are Muslim. If you are not a Muslim, then you are a minority. By the laws of democracy which I can only assume you support, the needs of the majority are above those of the minority. That's ignoring the economic and political benefit your region could have from unification with a Caliphate. I don't even see why you're adverse to the idea on the basis of not being Muslim given the fact a Caliphate, as I've stated, does not have to be a theocracy by itself.

Indonesian here. The idea of khilafah is a national security threat that already plunge our diverse country into horrific civil wars multiple times, the government view them as an even bigger threat to peace than Papuan separatism and spend a large amount of resources in the prevention. The largest Muslim organization in the world and in here, the NU, is established in 1912 specifically to fight against Arab-sourced Wahhabist fundamentalism and protect Indonesia's unique secular-pluralistic national identity. No.

If you're a random Indonesian, chances are you'll be fighting against the establishment of a supranational state seeking to claim authority over tour land.

I can only assume you're trying to point me to the rest of your post, so I'll bite; give me a reason why a Caliphate is a "even bigger threat than Papuan seperatism" and why Indonesia should divide itself from the rest of Islam.
edit in response to an edit: why? You're trying to imply Indonesia is going to be Islamic Vietnam, I'm assuming?

[Muzehnaya]

Not unless you’re bringing Abu Bakr, Ūmar, Ūthman and Āli back to life, dude. Any Caliphate one would try to establish is not viable. From the nationalistic and sectarian differences exacerbated by colonialism to the discrimination towards minorities faiths in certain Muslim countries, no Caliphate like the Rashidun will exist again. 3 of the 4 Rashidun caliphs were assassinated. Salahuddin died penniless, and Ulu Hakan Abdulhamid II was overthrown (and those two had their fair share of criticizable actions.)

While I agree with the end of this post, the thread asked whether there SHOULD be, not whether it's viable. Which I don't think it is by wordly means.

Yeah. While I agree that the presence of one would be good, it's simply unfeasible in the circumstances we live in.

[Rusozak]

Well the only people in recent times that have been trying to make a caliphate are internationally condemned and despised by all so, I'm thinking no.

[Bears Armed]

The Ottomans conquered the entire Islamic world and went even farther than that.

Nope. Their rule never included Oman, Iran, Turan, Afghanistan, the Muslim part of [in the broader sense] 'India', Malaya, the Muslim parts of the East Indies, Zanzibar, or some Muslim-controlled parts of mainland Africa, at the least... and even within the parts of it that they did [at least nominally] control there was at least one rival caliphate -- albeit a short-lived one -- namely that of the Mahdists in the Sudan... which the British, not the Ottomans, defeated & [politically] replaced. Even in the solely religious aspect, their authority was recognised only by some of the mainstream Sunni groups (i..e not the Salafists, or whatever the "acceptable" term for those is nowadays, for example) and not also by the Ibadi, Shiites, Ahmadiya, or other non-Sunni sects.

[Arisyan]

Noooooo! There definitely should not. It would end terribly, and theocracies in general suck. My reaction would be the same for any other religion.

[Fatimida]

The Ottomans conquered the entire Islamic world and went even farther than that.

Nope. Their rule never included Oman, Iran, Turan, Afghanistan, the Muslim part of [in the broader sense] 'India', Malaya, the Muslim parts of the East Indies, Zanzibar, or some Muslim-controlled parts of mainland Africa, at the least... and even within the parts of it that they did [at least nominally] control there was at least one rival caliphate -- albeit a short-lived one -- namely that of the Mahdists in the Sudan... which the British, not the Ottomans, defeated & [politically] replaced. Even in the solely religious aspect, their authority was recognised only by some of the mainstream Sunni groups (i..e not the Salafists, or whatever the "acceptable" term for those is nowadays, for example) and not also by the Ibadi, Shiites, Ahmadiya, or other non-Sunni sects.

I corrected myself after saying that.

[The Archregimancy]

Shia Islam didn't recognise the Ottomans as Caliphs; nor did the Ibadis, for that matter, but they typically get forgotten. Poor Ibadis.

Ibadis are apostates but that's an entirely different discussion that I'm not going into here.

I'm not an expert on late-Ottoman history,

Clearly.

but weren't the Persians (at the least) aligned with the Central Powers?

The Ottomans were aligned with the Central Powers, not the Persians. The Ottoman Empire declared war against the Allies, on the same side as the German and Habsburg Empires.

At the time of the First World War, Qajar Persia was largely divided between Russian and British spheres of influence under a 1907 treaty; it tried to stay neutral during the war, but an Ottoman invasion of Persia under the auspices of the Central Powers led to a series of campaigns between the Ottomans and Russians on Persian territory, with the Qajars largely bystanders in the broader conflict.

[Jolthig]

My dear friends, the caliphate has already been here for the last 113 years. Alhamdulilah.

Its not the typical caliphate as commonly portrayed but a deep reflection of the spiritual truths behind this with the help of Allah does make one conclude this is the truth.

https://youtu.be/NQErICgt4SM

The Ahmadiyya Caliphate is full of blessings that even non-Ahmadis and non-Muslims who have met our Caliph testify to.

[Bears Armed]

Is the Ottoman Empire not technically classed as the last Caliphate?

Sort of. They were the last Islamic state to have reasonably widespread support for a claim to a caliphate directly descended from the heirs to Muhammed (PBUH). But it wasn't a clear claim; it was based on conquering the Egyptian Mamluks, who had maintained a shadowy Abbasid caliphate in Cairo from 1261 after the 1258 sack of Baghdad had ended the main Abbasid line. But the Ottoman claim was never universally recognised, and the Ottomans themselves were fairly slack about consistently claiming the title until their final century.

There were a couple of unsuccessful attempts to claim the title of Caliph after the 1924 abolition of the Ottoman office, notably the brief attempt by the Hashemite rulers of the Hejaz shortly before they were evicted by the House of Saud, but these didn't come to anything.

And the Nizam of Hyderabad had hopes...

[Resilient Acceleration]

If you're a random Indonesian, chances are you'll be fighting against the establishment of a supranational state seeking to claim authority over tour land.

I can only assume you're trying to point me to the rest of your post, so I'll bite; give me a reason why a Caliphate is a "even bigger threat than Papuan seperatism" and why Indonesia should divide itself from the rest of Islam.
edit in response to an edit: why? You're trying to imply Indonesia is going to be Islamic Vietnam, I'm assuming?

At least from a support point of view, the image is pretty clear. Only 9.2% supports the replacement of the official Pamcasila secular ideology with an Islam-based one, 78.4% agrees with the government decision to ban the radical Hizbut Tahrir not because they support terrorism, but simply because they're the largest organized supporters of a khilafah, and 75% are convinced that the country will go into civil war if Islamic laws (not necessarily a supranational khilafah) is implemented. Importantly, the distribution of Muslims is not uniform. Non-muslims are concentrated on the eastern half of the country, and we already have near-genocides between Muslims and Christians in 1999 during a period of instability after the fall of the military dictatorship.

[Fatimida]

My dear friends, the caliphate has already been here for the last 113 years. Alhamdulilah.

Its not the typical caliphate as commonly portrayed but a deep reflection of the spiritual truths behind this with the help of Allah does make one conclude this is the truth.

https://youtu.be/NQErICgt4SM

The Ahmadiyya Caliphate is full of blessings that even non-Ahmadis and non-Muslims who have met our Caliph testify to.

Off topic, but that is another possibility for a Caliphate that is feasible, one similar to the Ahmadi Caliph.
And, again off topic, he is a wonderful man. I have never met him nor plan to but from what I know, he is a wonderful example of what a Caliph should be. As salamu alaykum.
Back to the topic, the Ahmadi Caliph is not the Caliph of all Muslims. He is only recongnized as Caliph by a small sect and that sect is seen as heretical by most Muslims. A Caliph should be non-sectarian because sectarianism is what divided our Ummah in the first place.

[Fatimida]

I can only assume you're trying to point me to the rest of your post, so I'll bite; give me a reason why a Caliphate is a "even bigger threat than Papuan seperatism" and why Indonesia should divide itself from the rest of Islam.
edit in response to an edit: why? You're trying to imply Indonesia is going to be Islamic Vietnam, I'm assuming?

At least from a support point of view, the image is pretty clear. Only 9.2% supports the replacement of the official Pamcasila secular ideology with an Islam-based one, 78.4% agrees with the government decision to ban the radical Hizbut Tahrir not because they support terrorism, but simply because they're the largest organized supporters of a khilafah, and 75% are convinced that the country will go into civil war if Islamic laws (not necessarily a supranational khilafah) is implemented. Importantly, the distribution of Muslims is not uniform. Non-muslims are concentrated on the eastern half of the country, and we already have near-genocides between Muslims and Christians in 1999 during a period of instability after the fall of the military dictatorship.

Sources for all of the polls you mentioned?
And for the last part, the Christian areas do not have to be part of the Caliphate. A Caliphate, if it's a political one, should be solely in control of Muslim majority areas. Diversity helps noone, especially in a state like a Caliphate.

[Resilient Acceleration]

At least from a support point of view, the image is pretty clear. Only 9.2% supports the replacement of the official Pamcasila secular ideology with an Islam-based one, 78.4% agrees with the government decision to ban the radical Hizbut Tahrir not because they support terrorism, but simply because they're the largest organized supporters of a khilafah, and 75% are convinced that the country will go into civil war if Islamic laws (not necessarily a supranational khilafah) is implemented. Importantly, the distribution of Muslims is not uniform. Non-muslims are concentrated on the eastern half of the country, and we already have near-genocides between Muslims and Christians in 1999 during a period of instability after the fall of the military dictatorship.

Sources for all of the polls you mentioned?
And for the last part, the Christian areas do not have to be part of the Caliphate. A Caliphate, if it's a political one, should be solely in control of Muslim majority areas. Diversity helps noone, especially in a state like a Caliphate.

I mean, it's in Indonesian, although more recent surveys during the election years (which saw a substantial increase in radicalism) suggest that the figure of those who support sharia law is 13% while those who supports the khilafah is 4.7%. But there you have it. Most Indonesians, particularly on the "Muslim majority areas" of heartland Java, are far far more nationalist than they are Islamist (of which they are not). Asking us to give up half the country for no reason after the reformation periods delivered incredible success and peace throughout the country (except Papua, which tbh is another story not really related to religious issues) isn't going to end well.

[Immortan Khan]

At least from a support point of view, the image is pretty clear. Only 9.2% supports the replacement of the official Pamcasila secular ideology with an Islam-based one, 78.4% agrees with the government decision to ban the radical Hizbut Tahrir not because they support terrorism, but simply because they're the largest organized supporters of a khilafah, and 75% are convinced that the country will go into civil war if Islamic laws (not necessarily a supranational khilafah) is implemented. Importantly, the distribution of Muslims is not uniform. Non-muslims are concentrated on the eastern half of the country, and we already have near-genocides between Muslims and Christians in 1999 during a period of instability after the fall of the military dictatorship.

Sources for all of the polls you mentioned?
And for the last part, the Christian areas do not have to be part of the Caliphate. A Caliphate, if it's a political one, should be solely in control of Muslim majority areas. Diversity helps noone, especially in a state like a Caliphate.

What happens to majority non-Muslim areas within majority Islam areas however? Eg there are towns and villages in places like Pakistan that are majority Christian.

[Ideal Britain]

Sources for all of the polls you mentioned?
And for the last part, the Christian areas do not have to be part of the Caliphate. A Caliphate, if it's a political one, should be solely in control of Muslim majority areas. Diversity helps noone, especially in a state like a Caliphate.

What happens to majority non-Muslim areas within majority Islam areas however? Eg there are towns and villages in places like Pakistan that are majority Christian.

They could be able to vote. Choose whether to be part of the caliphate.

[Ethel mermania]

Only for one reason:

Vatican city - caliphate sports matches.

Holy war comes to the soccer pitch!

[Resilient Acceleration]

What happens to majority non-Muslim areas within majority Islam areas however? Eg there are towns and villages in places like Pakistan that are majority Christian.

They could be able to vote. Choose whether to be part of the caliphate.

Inb4 horrific border gore, repeat of the 1947 Indian partition disaster, and the geopolitical trainwreck that results from it.

[Fatimida]

Sources for all of the polls you mentioned?
And for the last part, the Christian areas do not have to be part of the Caliphate. A Caliphate, if it's a political one, should be solely in control of Muslim majority areas. Diversity helps noone, especially in a state like a Caliphate.

I mean, it's in Indonesian, although more recent surveys during the election years (which saw a substantial increase in radicalism) suggest that the figure of those who support sharia law is 13% while those who supports the khilafah is 4.7%. But there you have it. Most Indonesians, particularly on the "Muslim majority areas" of heartland Java, are far far more nationalist than they are Islamist (of which they are not). Asking us to give up half the country for no reason after the reformation periods delivered incredible success and peace throughout the country (except Papua, which tbh is another story not really related to religious issues) isn't going to end well.

Then you don't have to be part of the Caliphate. Those who want to be can move to it. Suitable compromise to me and it beats a war or Vietnam 2.0 which is what you implied earlier.

[Fatimida]

Sources for all of the polls you mentioned?
And for the last part, the Christian areas do not have to be part of the Caliphate. A Caliphate, if it's a political one, should be solely in control of Muslim majority areas. Diversity helps noone, especially in a state like a Caliphate.

What happens to majority non-Muslim areas within majority Islam areas however? Eg there are towns and villages in places like Pakistan that are majority Christian.

Are there entire regions that aren't Muslim in Pakistan, like there is in Indonesia? No. Exceptions shouldn't be made on the basis of towns/villages but on the basis of region, be it a political one or a historical one (like Sham)

[Immortan Khan]

For those that are not, the best way is the ideals of Muhammad Ali Jinnah, Qaid-e-Azam: a state under Muslim rule where all are tolerated.

Abso-fucking-lutely not. Pakistan is one of the worst countries to live in as a non-Muslim. Just last year their putrid God forsaken court system legitimized the abduction and forced conversion of a 13 year old Christian girl and just a month ago turned a blind eye towards Christian shrines that were meant for Christian healthcare workers and patients being taken over by Muslim healthcare workers and forced to become Muslim sites.

[Ideal Britain]

They could be able to vote. Choose whether to be part of the caliphate.

Inb4 horrific border gore, repeat of the 1947 Indian partition disaster, and the geopolitical trainwreck that results from it.

The partition disaster happened due to the lack of central authority (e.g. if Scotland became independent there wouldn’t be a bloodbath because authority is centralised).

Also how would a “geopolitical train wreck” be worse than what the Palestinians are dealing with?