Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsThe Debacle of the Caliphates: Why al-Baghdadi’s Grandiosity doesn’t Matter
Ibrahim al-Badri, a run-of-the-mill Sunni Iraqi cleric, gained a degree from the University of Baghdad at a time when pedagogy there had collapsed because of the Saddam Hussein dictatorship and international sanctions. After 2003 he took the name Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi and turned to a vicious and psychopathic violence involving blowing up children at ice cream shops and blowing up gerbils and garden snakes at pet shops and blowing up family weddings, then coming back and blowing up the resultant funerals. This man is one of the most infamous serial killers in modern history, with the blood of thousands on his hands, before whom Jeffrey Dahmer and Ted Bundy fade into insignificance.
Al-Baghdadi leads the so-called Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS or ISIL), which today changed its name just to the Islamic State. And its members made a pledge of fealty to al-Baghdadi as the caliph. Let us please call it the so-called Islamic State, since it bears all the resemblance to mainstream Islam that Japans Om Shinrikyo (which let sarin gas into the subway in 1995) bears to Buddhism.
...
After Alis assassination, the Umayyad kings ruled (661-750), and though some scholars have found that they claimed religious charisma, they were just Arab kings. A branch of the family of the Prophet tracing itself back to his uncle Abbas began making claims to rightful rule, however, and they were popular among the new converts from among the Persians in Iran, and in 750 they made a revolution against the Umayyads. They became the Abbasid caliphate, ruling until the Mongol conquest of Baghdad in 1258.
...
Although subsequent sultans or secular emperors sometimes were termed caliphs in flowery style by their courtiers, I cant find any evidence of anyone taking that sort of thing seriously. In the 18th century Ahmad al-Damanhuri, a rector of al-Azhar Seminary in Cairo, the foremost center of Sunni learning, wrote an essay in which he was frank that the caliphate ended in 1258, that the Mamluk shadow caliphate hadnt amounted to much, and that the Ottomans were kings, not caliphs. The Sunni caliphate had lapsed. He said, however, that some of the Ottomans were better and more just rulers, as secular monarchs, than some of the caliphs had been. I know of no reason to think that al-Damanhuris views werent the prevailing ones on the eve of Middle Eastern modernity. {Ahmad al-Damanhuri, al-Naf` al-ghazir fi salah al-Sultan wa al-wazir, Egyptian National Library, Taymur Ijtima`, MS 34, p. 10).
http://www.juancole.com/2014/06/caliphates-baghdadis-grandiosity.html
Al-Baghdadi leads the so-called Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS or ISIL), which today changed its name just to the Islamic State. And its members made a pledge of fealty to al-Baghdadi as the caliph. Let us please call it the so-called Islamic State, since it bears all the resemblance to mainstream Islam that Japans Om Shinrikyo (which let sarin gas into the subway in 1995) bears to Buddhism.
...
After Alis assassination, the Umayyad kings ruled (661-750), and though some scholars have found that they claimed religious charisma, they were just Arab kings. A branch of the family of the Prophet tracing itself back to his uncle Abbas began making claims to rightful rule, however, and they were popular among the new converts from among the Persians in Iran, and in 750 they made a revolution against the Umayyads. They became the Abbasid caliphate, ruling until the Mongol conquest of Baghdad in 1258.
...
Although subsequent sultans or secular emperors sometimes were termed caliphs in flowery style by their courtiers, I cant find any evidence of anyone taking that sort of thing seriously. In the 18th century Ahmad al-Damanhuri, a rector of al-Azhar Seminary in Cairo, the foremost center of Sunni learning, wrote an essay in which he was frank that the caliphate ended in 1258, that the Mamluk shadow caliphate hadnt amounted to much, and that the Ottomans were kings, not caliphs. The Sunni caliphate had lapsed. He said, however, that some of the Ottomans were better and more just rulers, as secular monarchs, than some of the caliphs had been. I know of no reason to think that al-Damanhuris views werent the prevailing ones on the eve of Middle Eastern modernity. {Ahmad al-Damanhuri, al-Naf` al-ghazir fi salah al-Sultan wa al-wazir, Egyptian National Library, Taymur Ijtima`, MS 34, p. 10).
http://www.juancole.com/2014/06/caliphates-baghdadis-grandiosity.html
Cole goes on to point out the use of 'caliph' under the late Ottoman empire, but he says that basically Muslims haven't paid real attention to it as a position since 1258, and there's little interest in it being revived, apart from a few fundamentalists with violent delusions of grandeur.
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
6 replies, 1016 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (6)
ReplyReply to this post
6 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
The Debacle of the Caliphates: Why al-Baghdadi’s Grandiosity doesn’t Matter (Original Post)
muriel_volestrangler
Jun 2014
OP
Important to keep this in mind as it will undoubtedly be marketed as a great threat to all.
morningfog
Jun 2014
#5
cali
(114,904 posts)1. Ah, glad to see Cole's opinion about this posted. Thanks.
cali
(114,904 posts)2. Ah, glad to see Cole's opinion about this posted. Thanks.
malaise
(268,969 posts)3. Very informative post
Thanks
Don't expect any nuanced analysis from the morons on cable TV/
Kurska
(5,739 posts)4. A caliph is essentially what you get if you cross a pope with a king.
The head of state and them head of a religion all rolled into one. He is indeed right when he says the Ottoman Sultans were not really viewed as the head of the Islamic faith during their existence.
I seriously doubt a very large number of Muslims view this guy as that.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)5. Important to keep this in mind as it will undoubtedly be marketed as a great threat to all.
CJCRANE
(18,184 posts)6. Has anyone seen al-Baghdadi in public?
Has he made any speeches?
The least they could is have a Caliphate debate before choosing the best candidate.