Turkish Parliament has Power to Reinstate Muslim Khalifa

Just for some background Valhall has already reported:

Caliphate (khalifa) literally means "Successor of the Prophet", but the position of primary Caliphate is that of ruler of a unified Islamic nation. It is the goal of Al-Qaeda and the various terrorist organizations working either under the umbrella of Al-Qaeda or in concert with it to fill this void. And if Al-Qaeda has their way, the position will be filled by a Wahabbi Caliphate, Osama bin Laden.

From 1451 - 1924 the Ottoman Empire Caliphate represented the largest and most powerful independent Islamic political entity. In 1924 the Khilafah title and powers were transferred from the Ottoman family line to the Turkish Grand National Assembly (parliament).

Wikipedia states:

The Turkish Direktorate of Religious Affairs (The Diyanet) still fulfills the duties of the khalifa within Turkey. There is no longer one symbolic ruler of the Muslims, which is considered by some to be a violation of the Islamic legislations, the Shariah.

Now at the very bottom of the Wikipedia article it is also pointed out:

Because the Caliph title is currently unused, it could be used again if the Turkish parliament were to decide.

Here are the three ways a Caliph may be chosen:

There are three ways in which the Muslim ummah may choose a new Khalifa. However, in all three cases, the people are obligated to give the new Khalifa their bay'a once the process of choosing him is over. People can send representatives to give their bay'a if the population is large. The three ways of choosing the Khalifa are by selection, by nomination, and by force.

1) By selection. The Khalifa is selected by a group of the best, most Islamically knowledgeable people in the society (not by a general vote of everyone). This group is called the Majlis-Ash-Shura (Arabic for "consultative council"). The members of the Majlis-ash-Shura are chosen from experts who are learned in Islam, and they in turn choose the Khalifa. If the society as a whole rejects their choice, the Majlis-ash-Shura must find out why, perhaps negotiate with the people, and in general try to resolve the problem - however, this situation has never occurred. The Majlis-ash-Shura must have at least three people by the definition of a jama'a (a group of three or more people). The Muslim scholar Al-Mawardi has noted that in the emergency case of no Khalifa and no Majlis-ash-Shura (the situation today), the people should create two parties: one being the Majlis-ash-Shura, and the other being a list of candidates for the Khalifa. The Majlis-ash-Shura then selects a Khalifa from the list of candidates.

2) By nomination. The current Khalifa may nominate his successor, the next Khalifa (as Abu Bakr did with Umar). The people have to accept him just as in the first case. If the old Khalifa appoints someone unworthy out of ulterior motives, the people must reject that appointee.

3) By force. If the current Khalifa forces someone on the people to be the next Khalifa, but that person is righteous, the people must accept him as long as he remains righteous. Similarly, if there is no Khalifa (again, the situation today), it is permitted for someone to forcibly seize power and declare himself the Khalifa if he guarantees to abide by his responsibilities under Islam.

So Osama bin Laden is trying to instal a Wahabbi Caliphate by force, when it is technically possible for the Turkish parliament to instal a more moderate Caliphate through selection. The question then becomes would the Arab world accept a Turkish Caliphate. In my opinion if it was brought about in the right way then I believe the majority of Islamics would, since the majority disagree with radical Wahabbi and Salafism followed by Al-Qaeda. I also believe this would dissolve at least some support for Al-Qaeda's campaign.

-raven

www.abovetopsecret.com...

doublt post it looks like, including this for reference, might as well keep all responses in one thread

double post it looks like

ya sorry, the other one is locked so use this one.

-raven

There is a great deal of animosity between the Turks and the Arabs. With the intense movements taking place in the Arab countries, it would be hard to think they would accept a Turkish Caliphate. The Turks might very well install a Caliphate - in an attempt to preempt an Arabic one, but the Arabs would most likely reject it. And then there are a number of things that could happen from all that. Which is a whole nother thread and very interesting things to consider!

it would be hard to think they would accept a Turkish Caliphate

I think they would have an easier time accepting a selected Turkish Caliphate then a Wahabbi style Caliphate forced upon them by OBL. Though I agree neither would go over well in the long-term. The majority of Muslims are NOT radicals.

It would be pretty humorous to see OBL's face if a Turkish Caliphate is installed though, lol. One hell of a slap in the face.

-raven

Given that the Turkish parliament could theoretically reinstate someone as Caliph at any time, the question becomes whether they should do so or not. On first glance, installing a new caliph would appear to thwart bin Laden's alleged plans to become Caliph (I haven't seen anything that explicitly says this, but his actions do seem consistent with that goal) Claiming the Caliphate would look very silly on bin Laden's part if someone had already beat him to it.

However, think about this for a moment. Suppose that the Turkish parliament did choose a new Caliph. Osama is NOT going to be happy about this, and he certainly has both the means, the will, and the track record that indicate he would almost certainly express his displeasure quite violently in another attack. If Turkey chose a new Caliph, that would be tantamount to painting a giant bullseye across the entire country for Al-Qaida. The reaction of other Muslims to a new Caliph would also have to be considered. A lot of people think of Muslims as all the same, or maybe group them into Sunni/Shiite, but they are actually quite a diverse people, with members all around the globe in numerous sects. I can't imagine that anyone could be chosen that would please them all.

On the other hand, perhaps it would be a good idea if a new Caliph was chosen. Having a world leader would certainly strengthen the Islamic cause, and give them a prominent spokesperson in the world. The actions of a few (i.e. bin Laden & Al-Qaida) have unjustly tainted the image of Islam in the minds of many, especially in the United States. The Caliph in Islam roughly corresponds to the Pope in Catholicism. Try to imagine the Catholic church without a chief official. That is what Islam is like right now. They need a representative on the world stage, especially at this time. No matter who was chosen, they would certainly be better than a terrorist who has murdered thousands of innocents.

There are reasons on both sides of the question to choose a Caliph or not; obviously many more than I can get into here. In any event, I don't see the choosing of a Caliph as happening any time soon. Might be something to keep an eye on, though, because this would affect everyone, not just Muslims .

[transplanted from the other thread on this subject that was locked]
Muslims in Ottoman Territories were more than helpful in collaborating with teh Allies to bring about the downfall of the Empire. I think most of them are as wary of turkish control as they are of anglo-american control. Some groups, like the Kurds, are violently opposed to any extension of turkish control. The Armenians, whom the Turks under the Ottoman Empire nearly exterminated, would also be more that a little opposed to it (of course, they aren't muslims tho.)

Originally posted by raven2012

it would be hard to think they would accept a Turkish Caliphate

I think they would have an easier time accepting a selected Turkish Caliphate then a Wahabbi style Caliphate forced upon them by OBL.

The Caliph is supposed to be a descendant of mohammed himself. Th e Sunni/Shia seperation is over what line in particular leads to the caliph. They Turks can't, for example, just pick anyone, they have to at least make a plausible case for actual decendancy.
A turkish backed caliph wouldn't for example be an ethnic turk. I get the impression that strong rulers have simply used the title to advance their own agendas tho, rather than being actual 'succesors' to mohammed.

But Bin Ladin apparently isn't a pure wahabbist, he seems to be thought of as going somewhat beyond wahhabism.

On first glance, installing a new caliph would appear to thwart bin Laden's alleged plans to become Caliph

I don't get the impression that bin ladin looks to have himself made the Caliph of islam. The caliph isn't quite the same as, say, the pope, and I think the bin ladin line would haave serious problems establishing themselves as sucessors to mohammed. Bin ladin might have a better chance athaving people recognize him as the mahdi tho. Of course that would mean that they also recognize that its the end of the world too (as far as I understand it).

They Turks can't, for example, just pick anyone, they have to at least make a plausible case for actual decendancy.

Well I don't know for sure but I assume the way it would work is the Khalifa title and powers would be transferred back from the Turkish Grand National Assembly to the Majlis-Ash-Shura (consultative council), which would have already been chosen by "experts who are learned in Islam", who would then in tern transfer the title and powers to the Khalifa who the Majlis-Ash-Shura selects.

You can find the prerequisites to becoming the Khalifa here:
www.usc.edu...

-raven

Originally posted by Nygdan


The Caliph is supposed to be a descendant of mohammed himself.

No.nononononono. I have read no where that there is any descendency requirements whatsoever.

From my original Flight to 911 article:

At any given time, the Khalifa may be chosen in three ways:

quote:
1. By selection. The Khalifa is selected by a group of the best, most Islamically knowledgeable people in the society (not by a general vote of everyone). This groups is called the Majlis-Ash-Shura (Arabic for "consultative council"). The members of the Majlis-ash-Shura are chosen from experts who are learned in Islam, and they in turn choose the Khalifa.
2. By nomination. The current Khalifa may nominate his successor, the next Khalifa (as Abu Bakr did with Umar). The people have to accept him just as in the first case.
3. By force. If the current Khalifa forces some one on the people to be the next Khalifa, but that person is righteous, the people must accept him as long as he remains righteous. Similarly, if there is no Khalifa (again, the situation today), it is permitted for someone to forcibly seize power and declare himself the Khalifa if he guarantees to abide by his responsibilities under Islam.(8)

source: www.usc.edu...

In all my research I never saw any statement that tied qualifying for Caliphate to a bloodline. And the last Caliphate was not in anyway related to the first Caliphates to my knowledge.

Do not forget Turkey is attempting to enter the EU. They will not do anything that may jepordise that.

I think technically it is possible for the Turkish parliament to have the Khalifa reinstated, but the bottom line is the reaction of the Arab world is to unpredictable.

-raven

Originally posted by Valhall
And the last Caliphate was not in anyway related to the first Caliphates to my knowledge.

I understand that the turkish caliphate and other caliphates don't actually make this claim, and apparently wouldn't have to do that now. However the original split was over this line no, the shia sunni split?