The caliphate - First issue

“They stole the Caliphate”

and their hands were not cut off from the opposite side!

Many late historians became increasingly lenient with the emergence of the Ottoman Empire regarding the history of the title of the Caliphate and its transfer to the era of modern history, including neglecting the terms of the Caliphate and not checking their availability in the political application of this Islamic position. Thus, they manipulated the title and granted it to someone who did not deserve it, its legal concept, and it was emptied of its true meaning that it was created upon its appearance in the first Islamic state. The title of the Caliphate became subject to the convictions of the Sultans of the Turanian state and their whims. They use it when they saw the importance of being called the Caliphs. When the sultan was indifferent to it, it had no effect during his reign. Some of them were even dubbed the Sultan and the Caliph at the same time, to use whatever he wanted according to the requirements of the state and the situation. All this was to preserve his prestige in history and before the world, and lie to them as well. This has created confusion among historians in the overlap between the title of Sultan and Caliph. Historians have conflicted choices for them, so you see the same historian one time calling them caliphs and another time calling them sultans

In the Ottoman Empire, the "Caliphate" was subject to the whims of the sultans by seducing and intimidating historians.

From this, we can understand that some historians were not reluctant to grant the first Ottomans the title of caliphs, until the people accepted the claim that the last successors of the Banu al-Abbas in Cairo, Al-Mutawakkil ‘ala Allah, made a concession to Salim I (926 AH / 1520 AD). For them, the matter has become without a concept, conditions, or value for this position.

Forcing to recuse, not to abdicate:

As for the historical manner in which the title of Caliph was transferred to the Royal Court, there are no convincing reasons or logical explanations on which the relevant neutral researcher relies. However, the documented story about this was deceived by the collusion between the sultans and the subservience of historians to the prestige of the Ottoman Empire, which seems great in their eyes. Corruption and conspiracies lie within the Ottoman Empire and reveal its truth. These historians attribute the appointment of the Ottomans to the caliphs to the moment of Salim I’s seizure of Cairo, and the overthrow of the Mamluk state in (923 AH / 1517 AD). Later historians of them assert, inaccurately, that Al-Mutawakkil ‘ala Allah (Died: 950 AH / 1543 AD) ceded the Caliphate to Salim I. This matter and that incident have no validity in the historical sources that contemplated the event, as the narration in them is completely contrary to what has been mentioned, and opposes it at many times.

Historians have many sayings about this story. For example, the doctor Ali Hassoun asserts in his book on the Ottoman Empire that the Abbasid caliph gave up the Caliphate to Salim I and handed over the prophetic holdings: the banner and the Burdah, and that the Sharif of Mecca “Abu Numay bin Barakat” (Died: 992 AH / 1584 AD) came to Egypt and offered his obedience to the Sultan after he handed him over the Keys of the Two Holy Mosques. Thus, he says verbatim: “And from that time on he became the caliph of the Muslims.”. But Hassoun, in order to get away from the fact that Salim I insulted Al-Mutawakkil ‘ala Allah and dealt with him in a way not befitting the Abbasid Caliph of Qurayshi lineage, said that Al-Mutawakkil was sent to Istanbul with his family and some of the senior Mamluks, and when rumors spread between them, Salim was forced to imprison him.

The matter developed for Mansour Abdel Hakim, so that he said in his book that the Caliphate was open to the aspirations of all who sought it. He says that the idea of the Caliphate struck the dreams of Salim the First, so he sought to attack Egypt, the seat of the Abbasid Caliph, who gave up his right to Caliphate to Salim, even though Salim had declared himself caliph in Damascus before that. Abdul Hakim asserts that since that date, every Ottoman sultan has been called Amir Al Mo’menin and Caliph of Muslims, and from that time the Ottoman Empire moved from the Sultanate to the Caliphate.

A dream like a nightmare:

Wadih Abu Zaidoun has in his book: “Tarikh Al Imbratoriya Al Othmania Mn Al- Ta’sis Ela Al- Sokout,” an understanding of the Caliphate, its connotations, and its conditions that are unclear to him. This is because when he discussed the issue of Bayezid II (died: 918 AH / 1512 AD), the father of Salim and the problem of his sons and their disagreement, he addressed the topic with the children of Bayezid and the dilemma of the Caliphate (Abu Zaidoun, 2011). In another part of the book, he deliberately reversed the historical facts reported by contemporary sources of Salim I’s entry into Aleppo. He mentioned that the people of Aleppo did not allow the Mamluk army, which had withdrawn after the battle of Marj Dabiq in 922 AH / 1516 AD, to enter their city (Al-Rimal, 1998), but Salim entered it like the conquerors. On the contrary, the sources confirm the atrocities that Salim and his army practiced in Aleppo and all the other cities they entered after the ouster of the Mamluks, and that Aleppo was mainly affected by the betrayal of its ruler Khair bey, who agreed with Salim on the betrayal of Qansuh al-Ghuri (Died: 922 AH / 1516 AD). It is certain that his soldiers would conquer the city to the Ottomans without resistance, and the people did not welcome them completely (Abu Zaidoun). As for the succession of Salim I, he says about it: “Salim took the title of Caliphate and the Sultanate together, but this was not recognized except within the borders of the Ottoman Empire, and the Ottoman Caliph Sultan became the greatest figure in Islam at that time, as he inherited the status of the caliphs of Baghdad and the tsars of Byzantium together.”(Abu Zaidoun, 82 ,2011). He only mentioned the word “inherited” and did not refer to the abdication of the Caliphate. Rather, he mentioned that Salim had taken it for himself, as if it were a possession that he could take away. In another book, he says that one of the members of the court in the Ottoman Empire during the reign of Salim mentioned that Salim deserves the Caliphate, for seeing the Prophet Muhammad in his dream during his sleep when he decided to carry out his campaign against Egypt, and another dream of one of the Sultan’s friends, in which he saw – as he said – the following text: “While we were sitting at the threshold as the door was knocked, I went to look at the door, and found it opened, and behind it a large number of people whose faces were enlightened, and their parts were Arabic, and they were standing waiting, holding the banner and the weapon, and at the entrance to the door there were four people with their faces lit, and the banner was in the hand of one of them. As for the one who knocked on the door, he carried the Sultan’s white flag in his hand, and said to me: Do you know why we came here? This great crowd that you saw, they are the companions of the Prophet Muhammad and we are his messengers to you, and he recites Salim Khan the peace, and he says: Get up and faster, for you have been granted the service of the Two Holy Mosques, and the four people that you have seen are the Rightly Guided Caliphs, the first is Abu Bakr Al-Siddiq, the second of them is Umar Al-Faruq, and the third is Uthman, and I am Ali bin Abi Talib. Tell Salim Khan what I told you. Suddenly they were out of sight, and my family woke me up while I was sweating. “.

Dreams and visions have been accustomed to the readers and writers of Ottoman history since Artgrel (Died: 680 AH / 1281 AD) and his son Othman (Died: 726 AH / 1324 AD), founder of their emirate, to the reign of Abdul Hamid II (Died: 1336 AH / 1918 AD). As such dreams and visions are intended – always – to give sanctity to their family and their sultans, given that their sultanate is within the framework of the sacred divine truth. Regardless of the mention of visions and dreams and the extent of their validity, their contradictions and similarities throughout the history of the Ottomans make them abhorrent to the reader because through them they try to justify the sanctity that they surround themselves with.

Ali bin Abi Talib did not hand over the Caliphate to "Salim" except as a Turanian dream.

If we go back to a closer reading of this dream about the advent of the Rightly Guided Caliphs to Salim the First – assuming that it actually happened – we will find that Salim did not compare himself with the later caliphs, but jumped until he came after Ali bin Abi Talib. Because Ali, may Allah bless him, was the one who delivered the banner – as it was quoted from him – and that means that he surpassed Omar bin Abdulaziz (Died: 720 AH / 1320 AD). In addition to the fact that these dreams, which are closer to the fabrication orchestrated than the fact that they occurred in a dream, were intended by the Ottoman sultans. Thus, they want to confirm two important matters: The first is that what Salim did in terms of extracting the Caliphate falls within the framework of Islamic law, and that is the heart of concepts. The second thing is: incorrectly convincing people that the Ottomans were legitimate caliphs, just like the Rightly Guided Caliphs, Umayyads, and Abbasids, while they contradict one of the important conditions in the Quraishi lineage.

A return to Caliphate conditions:

If we moved to the Turkish historians they spared no effort in the abuse of the truth, with weak explanations for Caliphate transmission to the Ottomans. Here is the Turkish historian Khalil Inaljik (1437 Hijri- 2016 AD) says that the annexation of the Arabian region especially Mecca and Medina to the Ottoman empire is the reason why the Ottoman Empire became a Caliphate, and it moved from the concept of the border state to the concept of that its sultans considered themselves as the protectors of the Islamic world. This explanation is prosaic and courteous, this protection – As claimed by Inaljik- doesn’t mean necessarily a justification for describing their country as the caliph State – if it is in the ideal shape which is as they mention, not the imperfect historical reality.

For how is it consistent in reason and logic to this alleged protection and the failure of the Ottoman state to support the Muslims of Andalusia, turning a blind eye to the campaigns of the Portuguese and those who came after them from the Europeans to the Arab Gulf, and their neglect of the interior regions in the Arab world such as the middle of the Arabian Peninsula, which was not counted among the interests of the state. To face its fate for centuries, while the importance was focused on the important, commercially rich Arab regions.

There is another group of historians who are not different from the previous group in aspect of their target. They made rules for the Islamic Caliphate in proportion to the sultans of the Ottoman Empire. In addition, they agreed with their ambitions (The Sultrans Ambition). Like what Mohammed Al-Obaidy mentioned that the evidence is clear that the Islamic Caliphate it came after prophethood and prophecies. Also, it is a necessary fulfilled by the Ottoman empire.

It a duty in the Islamic law before any religious duty which fulfilled by the Ottoman empire from two aspects: The first, choosing wise people, Or the agreement of the Imam before, and because Al-Obaidi’s saying is in the orbit of the Ottoman Empire and within the political propaganda that it aspired to during the author’s period; His saying is not surprising in burying the truth, and in presenting and delaying religious duties according to political whim, and his saying is confirmed by the following: ” Allah permitted youth after ageing, health after illness, a lot happened to who will live in the heavens Sultan Sleem khan, Mohammed Abu AL Barakat sent him the keys of the two Holy Mosques when he was in Egypt so he was the first holder of this title Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques, then he pledged allegiance to the Caliphate – abandoning it – the third, last Abbasid caliph Al-Mutwakel Alla Allah in the Hagia Sophia mosque, to fill in the testimonies of the king’s men and common Muslims, and he was the first caliph of that good family, and that was in 922 and then it is still in its heels until now and still, Inshallah, to the end of time”.

Of course, everything that Al-Obeidi and Iinaljik said has nothing to do with the historical reality, and none of the contemporary historical sources of the event dealt with it, but rather a modern fabrication, and what was taught in history to justify the conquest of Sleem I of the Caliphate, as the Caliph Almutawakel Alla Allah did not concede to him with it. It does not mean that the two Holy Mosques are affiliated politically to the Ottoman state, their entitlement to the Caliphate, and if only such a matter was really a rule, the race in Islamic history over political control of the Two Holy Mosques became fierce and clear, but this matter was not in the terms of the Caliphate or its concept.

Contemporary sources are the most truthful:

This twisted variable course in writing the history of the Ottoman Empire may be justified by some as religious fervor and passion raged towards the attitude towards the colonial attack, given that European colonialism transformed concepts gradually until they were changed and replaced, and much of history was absent, and another history was placed in its place that did not depend on original sources, although the writings of some of them invoke these sources and they did not review or discuss them, which calls for the return of the analogue in all what was written in that era, a historian like Saeed Al-Ghamdi referred to these contemporary sources without reviewing and examining them accurately, as he says: The Ottoman sultans inherited the title of the Caliphate according to the consensus of most sources, and that in the early period of the Ottoman state; the sultans did not care to manifest the quality of the Caliphate, so the Caliphate lost its stature in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries for political, religious and other reasons, but the truth confirms the opposite of what Al-Ghamdi mentioned, and that many significant sources that lived in this era and documented it did not mention this inheritance, for example, Ibn Tulun, a contemporary of Salim I, used to begin documenting the events of each year with one saying, for example, while talking about the year (924 Hijri / 1518), he says: “I started, and the Caliph, Amir al-Mu’minin, who trusts in God, Abu Abdullah Muhammad ibn al-Mustamsek Bellah, Abi Al-Sabr Yaqoub al-Abbasi.” In reference to the Caliphate in the Abbasids did not leave them, and this continued throughout the reign of Salim I, who was called the king of the Romans, and if Al-Mutawakil had abdicated to Salim, Ibn Tulun would not have dared to continue describing Al-Mutawakil as the caliph and Amir al-Mu’minin,. In addition, Ibn Iyas did not mention (Died: 930 Hijri / 1524 AD) a contemporary of Salim’s occupation of Egypt in his book “Bada’i’ al-zuhur fi waqa’i’ al-duhur” as the title of the Caliphate was not associated with any Ottoman sultan, Also Muhammad al-Ghazi (Died: 1061 Hijri / 1651 AD) in his book “Al-Kwakeb Al-Sae’ra B’ayan Al-Me’a Al-Ashera.” When he translated for Salim I, he never referred to him as the Caliph, he just described him as the Sultan. In addition, Abd al-Malik al-Essami who referred (Died: 1111 Hijri / 1700 AD) in “Samt al-Nujoom al-Awali fi Anba’ al-Awa’il wa al-Tuwali” to Salim I as a king and a sultan.

Such evidence from the ancestral sources; contemporary to the ruling era of Salim I, along with others similar to it, which indicates beyond a reasonable doubt that the sources that emerged the Ottomans as caliphs were all written under the shade of the Ottoman Empire, as no historian would dare to write what provokes the Sultanate and the sultan who was being treated and described with some holiness.

In an attempt by some historians to defend the Ottoman Empire that it was subject to a fierce attack of hatred and fraud by the Europeans to distort it in the eyes of new generations, practicing the same error; but on the other hand; as confusion and causing ambiguity to the reader implies defamation of history, where emphasizing the Caliphate of the Ottoman Empire and placing it in a later historical context makes us marvel at this thesis that is far from scientific logic, which establishes the dismantling of history and discussing it in fragmented contexts instead of mixing them and losing intentions of the historical narrative, with the aim of serving a preconceived idea and a settled approach. Another team went to link the Caliphate with the Ottomans through the project of Abdul Hamid II; represented by the Islamic University because this project was an attempt by him to create a single association for Muslims under his rule to stand against the colonial movement, resist Arab nationalists, and his direction to strengthen the Caliphate and restore its prestige through this university, while it was possible for Abdul Hamid to pursue the idea of the Islamic University without confirming his Caliphate in which the conditions were not fulfilled in Sharia, in addition to not having a historical right

The Islamic University was a bridge to the title "Caliph".

The Caliphate was stolen from Abbasid Cairo to the non-Arab Ottoman; Istanbul, and it became like a fez that the Ottoman Sultan wears whenever he wants and desires, and a sword to be drawn out according to the situation and the condition, and even employed the title of “Caliph” politically against the outside hostile to the state of Istanbul and inside against the Arab renaissance and the aspirations of the Arab peoples to return to their original Arabness and their pure Islam, and he forgot that the truth cannot be stolen, otherwise it would not be a truth.

Kidnapped the Khalifa and Al-Khalifa

Salim the first”: he truste

the devil and killed the deceased

AlMotawakel Alah Allah

No one could have imagined that the Mongol would cause the Abbasid caliphate to fall twice, once by the Mongol Tatars led by Hulagu khan, and once by their Turkish cousins led by Salim the first, and in both times Islam was stabbed and Arabism was torn by the same knife as the primitive culture of the wilds.

In the first time, the inhabitants of Baghdad were awaken due to the march of the Mughal horses of the Central Asian Plains, on Wednesdays (656) of Safar correspondence to 14 February 1258 ( AD) on their demagogy shouts, they took away all that their hands and barbarism had to do, and then they took away the caliph, which was Almoatasembellah Abbasid, and then killed him and his family. They took Baghdad, the Islamic capital, which was one of the beautiful signs, killing its people to the death toll according to the historical sources estimated by about one million, and the destruction and pride of the sinner did not stop with this amount of poisoned blood, but set fire in the city in a high view to discover them. After they destroyed mosques and palaces, destroyed libraries by destroying their books and intellectual and scientific monument, either burned or thrown into the river, and Baghdad turned all over to the red color of the dark red, with its streets full of Arab and Muslim blood, and the water of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers, and it was full of books that were available. To mark this historic moment, the actual collapse of the Islamic Abbasid state after an unforgiven historical crime and never witnessed by Islamic history.

The historian Ibn al-Atheir al-Jazari described the fall of the caliphate as saying, “if he said, anyone, since the creation of God, his glory, and his Majesty, Adam, until now: The world did not get like it would have been true, but the dates did not include what it is like or what it does.”

Hulagu khan killed one million Iraqis . His grandson killed the entire Islamic caliphate.

Hulagu khan Khan continued his advance to the ALSHAM, taking Aleppo and then Damascus, then directing his hordes of foolish army to Egypt, but the Mamluk Sultan Qutuz stopped this advance by his victory in the famous battle of Ain Jalut (658 AH / 1260 AD) and thus repelled a war disaster that would eat the material and the moral in the Islamic countries, recording one The most important Islamic victories that changed the course of Islamic history and restored to it its human and civilized consideration.

Al-Jabarti: Boxes of intoxicants accompani ed the Caliph’s Soldiers

References:

Abd Al-Rahman Al-Jabarti (1998), Ajaib Al-Athar Fi LTarajim Wa-L-Akhbar, (Dar E Kotob Egyptian Press).

Similar to the confessions of former soldiers and spies in the modern era, which they present in front of television screens and write them down in the pages of books, the well-known Egyptian historian Abd al-Rahman al-Jabarti (died: 1825 G.), who witnessed the Ottoman governor in Egypt, Muhammad Ali Pasha, conveys the testimony of some of the soldiers of the military campaign of this governor on the Arab Peninsula in 1227 AH and their acknowledgment of the moral corruption of the army’s members. Al-Jabarti says, “We need to read it more than one time because of two things: first, its traditional language, and the second—to make sure of the integrity of our senses about the lies they told that do not coincide with the characteristics of Muslims, in order to reveal the truth about the false claim of the Ottomans to the Islamic Caliphate: “…Some of their elders, among those who claim righteousness and piety, said to me: ‘How on earth will victory become our ally while most of our soldiers are not true Muslims, and among them are those who do not follow a religion and do not abide by a doctrine. No call to prayer is sounded on our land; the obligatory prayers are not being performed; and the rituals of religion have no priority in their minds. And when it is time for the prayer, the muezzins call to prayer, and they organize rows behind one imam in reverence and submission. When the time for prayer along war time, the muezzin’s call to prayer and they pray the prayer of fear. So one group proceeds on fighting and the other stays behind a while to pray. And our soldiers are shocked by the call to fight the polytheists—the shaved-beards, the wrongdoers who commit fornication and homosexuality, the drinkers of alcohol, the abandoners of the prayer, who deal in usury, the murderers of souls, who accept the committal of forbidden sins. When preparing to bury murdered Ottoman soldiers, many of them were found to be uncircumcised. When they reached Badr and seized it —the villages and the horses— where it had the best of people in both manners and knowledge. But they plundered them and kidnapped their women, daughters, and children, along with their books. They used to rape them and sell them to one another and call them disbelievers and Kharijites. It was narrated that one of the righteous men of Badr asked an Ottoman soldier to return his wife back to him, so the soldier set a condition that he would sleep with the wife that night first and then give her back to him the next day. The unarmed soldiers went out to Suez with their chief, Khazindar Bonaparte, to continue to Yanbu Governorate with Toson Pasha.

References:

Abd Al-Rahman Al-Jabarti (1998), Ajaib Al-Athar Fi LTarajim Wa-L-Akhbar, (Dar E Kotob Egyptian Press).

Muslims did not understand the fall of the Abbasid caliphate, and felt that it would not be established after this calamity, and the extent of the destruction that befell its capital from killing its scientists, its opprescience and the descendants of Abbas behind it, destroying its civilizational components from the vocabulary of culture, thought and knowledge, and its lack of suitable means of life.

However, Qutz’s successor, the Sultan Bebars, revived the Islamic caliphate, returned the Abbasids to it, and moved it for the first time to Cairo after Baghdad became a monument after an eye and no longer has its place.

This revival and transfer was the status of the important event not only in the history of Egypt but in the history of the world because of the return of the spiritual and symbolic leader of the Islamic world.

Thus, the moral power and religious spirit of Muslims throughout the Earth and its enmages have returned, at a time when it was neither reasonable nor acceptable to them to make this position free as one of the main pillars of the Islamic political approach. The rebirth of the position of caliphate from Egypt also gave the “legitimacy” to the Kingdom of Malek, where they found their deluge and their historic document to rule the Islamic country through 17 of Abbas’s sons who came to the post of caliphate from its new headquarters in Cairo during 256 years.

Starting from their caliph al-Mustansir to their last successor, the caliph “who is Almotawakel allah allah III”, and throughout this period of Abbasid caliphate, the rule of the present-day “constitutional”.

The second time; about two and a half centuries later, the Ottoman Sultan Salim the first (the third Ottoman power) took the tour of his Mongol grandfather Hulagu khan, and went toward his political and economic evils and feeding toward the Arab countries, but this time from Istanbul. He led Gisha to Egypt, home of the Malek state, to avenge his Mongol ancestor after he turned the Ottoman attacks on Europe, and he triumphed on his way to the battle of “Marg Dabeq” near Aleppo, Syria, in the year 922AH/1516m.

He occupied Homs, Hama and Damascus, and after this invasion he declared that he was the caliph of the Muslims without equivocation, shame, or agreement from the Muslims over him as a caliph, then met the Mamluki army led by Sultan Qansuh al-Ghuri in the Battle of Ridania, and the Mamluki army showed courage and courage in defending his country but the Ottoman defender, he was defeated, Egypt entered, and he and his army wreaked havoc, destruction, and murder in its capital, Cairo, as he practiced murder when he ousted his father and killed his brothers and all their sons until he was overruled by competitors; and because the nature of the crimes embarrassed the rugby thieves.

The first one kidnapped the Abbasid caliph AlMotawakel Alah Allah III and his family and sent him to Istanbul, so that the Arabs do not gather around him and are based on the Ottoman state, and in Istanbul’s bright and luxury palaces, the biggest lie known in Islamic history is the lie of the succession of the Ottomans, the non-Arab Uighurs.

He was forced to declare his concession under threat of death from succession, to turn away from his death to the Ottoman Sultan and become his title “Muslim successor”, and once the Abbasid caliph did so until he was killed by the Ottoman Sultan to be the last to assume the Islamic caliphate “legitimacy”.He was forced to declare his concession under threat of death from succession, to turn away from his death to the Ottoman Sultan and become his title “Muslim successor”, and once the Abbasid caliph did so until he was killed by the Ottoman Sultan to be the last to assume the Islamic caliphate “legitimacy”.

He did not know what his family did after him, and Salim the first did not only do that, but he stole the monuments of the Prophet (May Allah bless him and grant him salvation) that were in the possession of the deceased Ali Allah, namely his “sword” and his honorable “apostle” without any right.

In order to move from its original Arab-Islamic homeland to a West in the Turkish countries that has not yet ended, and with the murder of the last Abbasid caliphs in 1534 – in Istanbul, the Abbasid caliphate is five centuries later fallen forever and with it the Islamic caliphate, and it has turned a visit and a cheering to the Ottomans until their end in 1924 AH.

In this way, the Islamic theorizing was the title of the stage, and the Ottoman sultans showed Islam and embraced racism, even if the time of their wars with the Arabs came to light, they invaded the simple hearts of the public with Islamic slogans, and occupied the Arab world countries by claiming unity and development even if they robbed their options and kept their money left for the triad of hunger, poverty and ignorance. It is fragile and full of its inhabitants, and free of dignified life, and when the world exposed Istanbul’s ugly face and began to hold it accountable and then to combat it in many parts, most of the Arab world was handed over to Western colonialism to ensure the safety of its people’s lives by the Berber successors.

Mamalik was more honorable than Uighur in protecting the Islamic caliphate

One thing that the true history has said and many did not realize that the Malek was honorable in protecting the Islamic caliphate, and they also did not dare to name themselves with “caliphs”.

The Abbasids made a great mistake than they thought of its consequences by bringing the Turkish to the state institutions and bringing them closer to them, who were wandering in the heart of Asia for war, conflict and theft, until they found a place presented to them in the court of the Islamic caliphate as “Servants” and “Clerks”, and found themselves before their ancestors’ love The first time they entered the Islamic land, they would not have satisfied their own cause but to assassinate everything that is Arab on their way, whether human, meaning, culture or even great value, such as the concept of “caliphate”.

It Had Commenced Full-fledged ... then Ended as a Mock and Sardonic

“Caliphate”
whose are not Caliphs

Nowadays, writing the word “Caliph”, i.e. Successor, and adding it, as a title, to the name of anyone is an infringement of the Islamic Sharia, unless the requirements of Caliphate are reverted into application. In the light thereof, there is a secular error related to the falsification of history, misinforming the public, and discreditable to the Islamic Caliphs who had held that Title by legitimate right and an underestimation to their stature, as their characteristics are over of other politicians in Islamic and Arab history. It goes even worse and as a “sin” When Caliphate is asked by one of the politicians or who is in a humbler rank than them. As the Sharia Rule apparently stated that: Whoever among people asks for it, i.e. Caliphate, he would be the least efficient and the least realizing of its concept. Accordingly, he is not fit to take it over. As Allah Almighty said: {That eternal Home in the Hereafter We reserve only for those who seek neither tyranny nor corruption on the earth. The ultimate outcome belongs only to the righteous} (Surah Al-Qasas: 83).

And in the noble Hadith, on the authority of Abu Musa Ash’ari (May Allah be pleased with him) reported: I called on the Prophet (PBUH) with two of my cousins. One of them said to him: “O Messenger of Allah (PBUH), appoint me governor of some land over which Allah has given you authority.” The other also requested for something of the same nature. Messenger of Allah (PBUH) said, “By Allah we do not appoint someone to this post who seeks it or someone who contends for it.” In accordance with this rule, the Caliphate is neither taken through demand nor through the war and fight but it is by Shura, i.e. by mutual consultation, among Muslims.

Caliphate has two dimensions: Religious and Secular; should they have been met, it would take place. However, if such dimensions have been split, it would be demolished.

The first practical application of Islamic Caliphate was during the era of the Rightly Guided Caliphs (40-11 AH\661-632 AD) may Allah be pleased with them; as they took it by the Shura, i.e. by mutual consultation, and they applied its electoral and Shura properties and they took care of Muslim House of Money trust; where nothing was neither disbursed and nor received except as stipulated in the Sharia.

However, as for after Ali bin Abi Talib (deceased: 40 AH\661 AD), a disagreement occurred on the matter of entitlement of Muawiya ibn Abi Sufyan (deceased: 60 AH\680 AD) to the Caliphate. Where the opinions that ruled that his era was an era of complete Islamic Caliphate, are persuasive and balanced opinions, considering that Al-Hassan bin Ali ceded the Caliphate to Muawiya after pledging allegiance of it to Al-Hassan.However, as for after Ali bin Abi Talib (deceased: 40 AH\661 AD), a disagreement occurred on the matter of entitlement of Muawiya ibn Abi Sufyan (deceased: 60 AH\680 AD) to the Caliphate. Where the opinions that ruled that his era was an era of complete Islamic Caliphate, are persuasive and balanced opinions, considering that Al-Hassan bin Ali ceded the Caliphate to Muawiya after pledging allegiance of it to Al-Hassan.

Thereafter, the matter remained controversial on the issue of the succession for the Caliphate, and the consensus of the people in authority. All these opinions and differences about the Islamic Caliphate were addressed by Jurists and Specialists in Sharia Policy through research and discussion; until Abu Al-Hassan Ali bin Muhammad bin Habib Al-Basri Al-Mawardi (deceased: 450 AH\1058 AD) defined seven conditions for Islamic Caliphate and he mentioned them in his book named “Al-Ahkam As-Sultaniyyah w’at wilayat al Dinniyya”, namely: justice; knowledge leading to diligence in calamities and rulings; healthy senses of hearing, sight and tongue; healthy organs from a lack that prevents the progression of movement and timely response; Opinion leading to control the people and manage their interests; courage and help leading to protect territories and Jihad, i.e. fighting enemies; and lineage that is to be from the Quraysh. These conditions that combine the religious exigencies and secular requirements are the most agreed among the diligent people of knowledge. Yet, this does not mean the illegality of any other presidency, though it adopted methods of governance other than the Caliphate. The most important is that it meets the principle of applying Sharia, protection, security, and other basic necessities that supposed to be the privileges of any Islamic Government. Nevertheless, the Islamic Caliphate as a post must meet such seven conditions. Therefore, any misalignment would transform it from a Caliphate to be merely a government

Definition of Caliphate:

..”Khalaf fulan fulanan” means someone came after another one and hit him beyond his back, “Istakhalaf fulanan men fulan” means to make him in his place, “Khalaf fulan fulanan” if he is his successor. It is said “Khalafuh fi qaumah khelafah” he became his successor in his people. The Holy Quran says: {Moses commanded his brother Aaron, “Take my place among my people,} (Al-A’raf: 142).

Legitimately, the Caliphate (Arabic:خِلافَة ِkhil fah) is known as the government that achieves the policy and management of the group in accordance with Islamic law and the application of the provisions of Islam. Therefore, Amani Saleh has referred to Al-Mawardi definition regarding the Caliphate concept as the succession of prophecy in guarding religion and managing the world policy. In the same context, Ibn Khaldun has defined Caliphate as it is the succession of the Shar’a holder in guarding religion, managing the world policy, and obliging all to apply Shara’ in their otherworldly and worldly interests. Amani Saleh has considered that ibn Khaldun’s concept was wiser and more controlled.

In this context, a Caliphate has two important dimensions: religious and secular. These two dimensions may agree or disagree, In case of agreement, the Caliphate shall happen on its terms, Otherwise, the government without a succession shall be occurred, In both cases, all Islamic nations follow either the Caliphate or the government, as long as The Shara’ is applied, and the people are prejudiced in accordance with God’s will.

The Caliphate in Sunnis and Shiites:

The most acute crisis about the concept of Caliphate was between Sunnis and Shiites. Every group has its interpretations, the Sunnis believe that the caliph shall be elected unanimously; however, the Shiites believe that Caliph is determined by a divine order. Moreover, Ali Al-Wardi (a Shiite) (died: 1416 Ah/1995AD) referred to something even further in Shi’a, saying: They believe that the caliph should be determined by revelation, like prophets and apostles, and thus, the caliph’s disobedience shall be achieved.The most acute crisis about the concept of Caliphate was between Sunnis and Shiites. Every group has its interpretations, the Sunnis believe that the caliph shall be elected unanimously; however, the Shiites believe that Caliph is determined by a divine order. Moreover, Ali Al-Wardi (a Shiite) (died: 1416 Ah/1995AD) referred to something even further in Shi’a, saying: They believe that the caliph should be determined by revelation, like prophets and apostles, and thus, the caliph’s disobedience shall be achieved.

Furthermore, Al-wardi quotes Dutchman Reinhard Dozy’s statement (died: 1300 AH / 1883 AD), who says: that Sunnis considers the Caliphate via their nomadic nature, which tends to democracy, while the Shiites are influenced by the sacred divine right theory and the Persian view attached to it. Contradicting with his quotation, Al-Wardi says that the difference between the two sects is not between democracy and slavery, but the difference is based on realism and idealism with regard to the concept of Caliphate.

Between Arabs and Persians, its conception is governed by denominational differences.

From the same point of view, the quotation of Al-Wardi from Dozy and his dissenting opinion begins to repeat the idea of difference between the two sects starting from the Caliphate and other subjects to the nature of the old and eternal conflict between Arabs and Persians. He considers that the Sunni view is in harmony with the Arabs’ nature and beliefs while the Shiites view emerges from a Persian view with its entire ancient legacy, which contradict with Arabs’ nature

Transforming to The Government:

By shedding light on the practical application of the term Caliphate, we can say that the Caliphate was applied in the Period of the Rightly-Guided Caliphs according to what is legally included, as well as with Muawiya bin Abi Sufyan, the matter of transferring the Caliphate to him was justified, but after that the matter was changed and deviated from the clear principle of the Caliphate, as the matters were disrupted by naming the crown prince, when it was entrusted to Yazid bin Muawiya Al-Baya’a during the reign of his father, and four years before his death, which means that consultation (shura) and pledge of allegiance became confined to one option. The people of Levant, Iraq and the Hijaz and had not pledge of allegiance to him after they compared him to othersBy shedding light on the practical application of the term Caliphate, we can say that the Caliphate was applied in the Period of the Rightly-Guided Caliphs according to what is legally included, as well as with Muawiya bin Abi Sufyan, the matter of transferring the Caliphate to him was justified, but after that the matter was changed and deviated from the clear principle of the Caliphate, as the matters were disrupted by naming the crown prince, when it was entrusted to Yazid bin Muawiya Al-Baya’a during the reign of his father, and four years before his death, which means that consultation (shura) and pledge of allegiance became confined to one option. The people of Levant, Iraq and the Hijaz and had not pledge of allegiance to him after they compared him to others

We can say that since the pledge of allegiance to Yazid with the Caliphate until the fall of the Abbasid Caliphate in Baghdad in (656 AH / 1258 AD), the Islamic Caliphate was not complete and clear, rather it was subjugated by personal and political interests, and it became only features of the first Caliphate, so the statement of Thomas Arnold (dies: 1349 AH / 1930 AD) depicts the reality of the Caliphate, as the act of Muawiya bin Abi Sufyan in terms of inheriting the Caliphate was a precedent until the last times of the Abbasid Period, as the caliphs declare the crown princes from their eldest sons or the best of their relatives. Thus; the oath of loyalty and obedience were made to them. Abdul Razzaq Al-Sanhouri (died: 1391 AH / 1971AD) supports Arnold view, as he differentiated between the Caliphate as a system and fact. He pointed out that the Caliphate had been weakened despite the strength of the Islamic state, then the Caliphate had deteriorated since the end of the Abbasid Al-Ma’moun’s Period (died: 218 AH / 833 AD) until it fell by the Mongols. All the more this deterioration deviated from the true concept of the Caliphate and its legal system, even it was gradually. The matters in the Caliphate system and the position of the caliph after Yazid bin Muawiyah were not as it became in the late Abbasid state from weakness, feebleness and poor policy. The major feature of this historical narrative of the Caliphate is that during the historical period extending from the Period of the Rightly guided Caliphs to the fall of the Abbasid state; The position of the caliph did not deviate from the lineage, which is considered one of the Caliphate’s conditions even in the period when the position of the caliph was a shadow caliph in Cairo during the Mamluk Period, when the Caliphate took place in the lineage of the Quraish from the Banu al -Abbas, after they came under the authority of the Mamluks, and after al-Zahir Baybars (died: 675 AH / 1277 AD had called the uncle of the last caliphs of Banu Al-Abbas, Ahmad ibn al-Caliph al-Zahir, nicknamed al-Mustansir Billah (died: 659 AH / 1261 AD), who fled from Baghdad to Cairo, he was appointed as shadow caliph. This Shadow position continued until the fall of the Mamluk state in (923 AH / 1517 AD), the number of the successors of the Banu al-Abbas in Cairo was 13

A number of historians, including al-Maqrizi (died: 845 AH / 1441 AD) and al-Suyuti (died: 911 AH / 1505 AD), indicated that the Abbasid caliphs in Cairo were as veils of the Mamluk sultans, as prestige, power, and politics were under the control of the Mamluks, and the caliphs were always with them. The matter developed as the Abbasids did not have the right to express an opinion, they spent their times amongst the princes and senior officials, beseeching them and asking for their loyalty, to the extent that Qalawun, the Mamluk Sultan arrested Caliph Al-Mustakfi Billah Sulayman bin Al-Hakim bi Amr Allah (died: 740 AH / 1340 AD) and imprisoned him, which suggests the powerlessness of the caliph before the Sultanate. This supports the saying that the Caliphate in Cairo during the Mamluk Period had not reflected the true image of the position of the Caliph in law; it was only to keep a position that people were bound to during previous centuries, and its impact began to fade away, and its importance is diminished until it became a formal position with time, given to those who offer their loyalty and blind obedience to the sultans. Thus; it does not differ from the different religious positions. The concept of the Caliphate was confined until it became nothing more than a spiritual and religious matter.

Therefore, the position of the Caliph went through different stages, as it started at the top hierarchy of power in the Islamic history, then it became worthless, useless and lost its gleam. It contradicted with the goals and lines for which it was planned, so the caliph does not observe his affairs as well as he observes the status of people and their interests, and those who allege it became a subject ridicule and sarcasm.

Play Video

Official petition:

The title of caliph, once it is bestowed upon the rulers in the ottoman political system, was subjected to the monarch’s own desire in addition to determining the actual need for it. This title serves as a means of delusion for the poor, the public, the hypocrites and those who are afraid of being confined or murdered. It is implemented by the monarch and his royal court when he desires to delusively relate himself to Islam in the times when he needs more support from the Muslim subjects. This situation regarding the title of caliph has been taken seriously into consideration in addition to being given an official dimension after the first ottoman constitution that was approved and officially signed by the Sultan Abdul-Hamid II in the beginning of his era (1909 /1327 – 1879 / 1293). He stresses that the title of caliph is very important and sacred one. Article No.4 in the first time written constitution in the history of the Ottoman Empire sets forth that:” the Sultan is the only one who is entitled to be given the title of the caliph and he is the protector of Islam and the king of all ottoman subjects to whom they look up to as their monarch”. Article No.5 continues that: “the same Sultan is sacred and he cannot be questioned for whatever he does or say”. This official focus on the importance of the title of the caliph appears after a long-era of feign sadness over the concept of “caliphate” by many politicized and non-biased historians. This caliphate was not either existed or even traced in the actual and real Islamic political system from the fall of Abbasid caliphate at the hands of Mongol Empire (1258 -656). It is noteworthy that this constitutional attention to this Islamic title is given in a counter- response to the expansion of the European colonization of the Arab world.

Abdul-Hamid II seeks to legally get the concept of caliphate, but he fails to do so.

This counter-response is seen as Istanbul’s sole attempt to benefit from the results of the religious enthusiasm that emotionally triggered the region’s peoples to upheaval against the European colonization of the Arab countries in addition to making use of the politicallytriggered emotions to not let the ottoman empire’s era come to an end. The ottoman dynasty is the only dynasty that can convince the Islamic world with its right to rule as there is no similar political alternative. This standpoint is totally opposed by the authority in Egypt, Morocco and Iran and it is heartily welcomed by the Muslims in India and some others in Africa who were mainly colonized.

Sacredness Acquisition:

Let’s go back in time a little bit, it is commonly said that Selim I is the first Sultan who was given the title of the “caliph” while Abdul-Hamid II is the first Sultan who has paid legally-based attention to the title. Abdul- Hamid I is the first Sultan who implicitly refers to it at the international apparatus when he negotiates with the Russians in the treaty of Kucuk Kaynarca (1774 -1188) as he stresses that the Muslim Asian tribes, who live at the borders of the Russian’s Crimean peninsula, are his subjects as he holds responsibility for all the Muslims around the world and he was granted this right in exchange for accepting the Russian Caesar’s custody of the Ottoman empire orthodox. Abdul-Hamid II’s actual attempt to politically apply the merits of the caliph title, while running his state’s affairs, was severely opposed by the Arabs and they refused to either stand by him or give him the pledge of allegiance. The Arabs’ refusal stems from their conviction that his caliphate is not similar to what the Islamic caliphate is all about religiously and historically. In other words, the history of the Ottoman Empire was full of corruption and obliquity and these characteristics contradict and violate the personal features to be a righteous caliph. The Arab society was divided into two conflicting sections: the first section was led by clergymen who represent the authority in Istanbul who find a political and religious way for Abdul-Hamid II to get out of this dilemma by abiding to a standpoint which says that he is the only one who is entitled to be a caliph to protect the Islamic society from the European colonization. Abdul-Hamid finds this idea a suitable way out of the caliphate problem, that’s why he likes this idea and goes in accordance with it by imposing the sacredness on the title of the caliph as seen in the constitution’s Article No.5 which sets forth that:” he is the sacred caliph who cannot be questioned for whatever he says or does”. It is also important to say that orthodox caliphs- May Allah be pleased with them- can be judged and questioned in addition that they were not above the law; however they were equal to their Muslims or non-Muslims subjects in abiding to the terms of Islamic jurisdiction.

Getting rid of Quraysh dynasty

The Ottomans’ obsession and their biased historians never cease to either say or do whatever it takes to protect the wooden chair in Turkey from the European attack on the Arab world and the various liberal Arab upheavals which seeks to totally get rid of Europeans and Ottomans as two similar enemies. In the year of (1891/1309) an oddly-strange book was written whose writer adopts an extremist methodology to hide the truth by deforming the image of Umayyad and Abbasid caliphates while beautifying the image of Ottomans as he says: ” It is not a secret that the Ottoman Empire didn’t do just like the Umayyad, Abbasid and Fatimid caliphates in confining the freedom of religion or torturing those who opposed its interests with regard to the issue of caliphate. Its scientists didn’t even exert an effort to neither manifest nor prove its own rights as these false rumors are kept to be passed down from a generation to another in addition to being transferred from one group to another. These rumors and lies always spread out anytime and anywhere in accordance with the status quo. If they are playing fair, that would be good for them and it would be also good for the public interest lest the tribulations are spread out and troubles evolve, but many scientists’ minds were deluded and manipulated and that is, of course, a non-curable disease”. This sweet flattery is considered as a historical fallacy of the realists and it neglects- according to the non-biased historical resources- the Ottoman’s weak and miserable status quo and the Umayyad and Abbasid caliphates’ real contributions to serve Islam and the Muslims. It is noteworthy that Umayyad and Abbasid caliphs were descendents of Quraysh dynasty and that is the most important characteristic of the legitimacy of the Islamic caliph. This term is the one which many contemporary historians of the Ottoman Empire or those who come after the fall of the Empire and they have no proof but to believe in the right of the Ottoman dynasty to put this term aside while relying on Khadija opinions and ill-proven thoughts that, simply, tries to change the religious characteristics and requirements of caliphate. This aim is done either by avoiding all historical resources or neglecting them altogether lest the historian feels ambivalent about his own options. The opposing historians who didn’t believe in the Ottomans’ caliphate and reject it at all are inflicted with this historical disease. Take, for example, what Muhammad EL-Ashmaway did in his book that is entitled “Islamic caliphate” when he depicts the incident of Selim I who Takes over the caliphate from the Abbasid caliph Al-Mutawakkil Ala Allah by saying: ” the one who wasn’t a caliph steps down to who never ever can be a caliph”. Although his sentence refers to a real dimension about the character of Al-Mutawakkil Ala Allah, it provides a wrong piece of information as it describes the incident of taking over the caliphate as a true one and this go in contradiction with the contemporary historical resources of Al-Mutawakkil and Selim. The author of the book stresses that the Ottoman Empire begins as a monarchy and it lasts as such and it is not a caliphate at all. The concept of Ottoman caliphate is nothing but a pretense to impose the control over its subjects in the name of religion in addition to nullify any attempt of opposition from the Islamic jurisdiction, that’s why Abdul-Hamid II realize that- according to the book entitled” Islamic caliphate”- there should be a consensus of the legitimacy of his Empire’s caliphate or he will not be able to rule as a caliph.

The solutions of Khadija Asfia lets others fall into political hypocrisy

An idiot sharing

There is another proof that Abdul-Hamid II wasn’t able to apply the terms of caliphate while running the state’s affairs is that his son Mahmoud II (1839-1255) didn’t pay much attention to the caliphate because he inherits the crown without being fully convinced although he only apply its terms legally. The son deals with the caliphate as either a plate of fruits when anyone can eat with him or a piece of clothing when anyone can dress with him interchangeably. He offers a weird initiative to the Padishah of Iran; Fattah Ali Shah EL-Kakagari (1834 /1250) to share the title of caliph with him at the first treaty of Erzurum (1823/1238) in an unprecedented incident that never occurred in the Islamic history which urges the caliphs to abide to this title. This incident shows that the title of the caliph wasn’t paid much attention from the Ottoman Sultans and that’s not because of their neglect but the reason for the less-paid attention is that the title of the caliph wasn’t designed for them in form and substance. They kept the title hoping for a change in the Arab and international political situation in addition to using it just as a means of propaganda.

Mahmoud II ( the idiot) offers the padishah of Iran to share the title of caliph with him

When we approach a little bit closer to another group of historians of those historical and emotional writing school-belonging researchers who come after the fall of the Ottoman Empire , so we will find quite different but desperate attempts to find a way out of the dilemma of ” Quaraysh dynasty”. These researchers were overwhelmed by the religious emotions which compels them that there should be a religious caliphate without knowing its requirements. They may know the requirements of the caliphate, but they prefer to adhere to the public interest and protect the region from either the wars or seeking to break free from the Ottoman oppressive Rule. These different attempts include what Amany EL-Ghazy wrote in her book about the Ottoman Empire. This book is derived from the viewpoints of the orientlists who deviate from the main requirements of the caliphate by changing its original concept. She says that the concept of the caliphate is somehow different from what it was in Abbasid era and it is concerned, in the Ottoman era, with pilgrimage roads, protecting the sacred places, defending Islam and Muslims and imposing the control of the Empire over them, therefore the Ottoman Sultan deserves to be bestowed the title of the caliph.

In the name of the false "Caliphate" "Salim" allowed his soldiers to marry the widow before her 'Iddah (waiting period) ende

This story, documented by the Egyptian historian Ibn Iyas (died: 930 AH / 1510 CE), can be appended to a terrifying and bloody documentary film about barbarism that occurred on the other side of the Nile, humiliating and violating human dignity, like the one recently produced by the current global film industry, which is about the Ottoman army more than 500 years ago, who was led by the Turanian Sultan Salim I and entered Cairo as an invader and occupier. Ibn Iyas narrates this setting that has nothing to do with the Islamic caliphate claimed by the Turkish Sultanate, after it had usurped it and insulted its value in Islamic legislation. He says: “One of the judges did not give permission for an Ottoman man to marry a woman who did not break her ‘Iddah (waiting period), so this man made a complaint against that judge. So Salim summoned the judge and beat him severely. Then they removed his headscarf and put in its place the stomach of cow with its inside filth, and they placed him above a donkey backwards to wander the streets of Cairo. Hence, Salim I issued a decree stating that “No Egyptian judge has the authority to make a marriage contract for an Ottoman man.” This support for racism and the devaluation of the judiciary by Salim I, who repudiated this decree himself from the seat of the Islamic Caliphate, whose most important condition for whoever is in charge of it is achieving justice and equality among people. Moreover, Ibn Iyas proceeded in narrating, recounting shameful facts about the Ottoman army in dealing with the Egyptian people, including that women were raped even in mosques, and that mercenary soldiers would kill the husband and marry his wife without completing or even starting her waiting period (‘Iddah). Salim I was not satisfied with that meanness in his dealings with Arab nationals during his miserable rule that is described by its low level leadership, let alone that he claimed to be “the Caliph of the Muslims.”

Unjustified Bloodshed

This type of writing is an obvious underestimation and a manifested neglect to defend the Ottoman caliphate by ignoring the holy Quran, Hadith, the definition and the concept of true Islamic caliphate. These writings goes in contradiction with the facts that the pilgrimage roads weren’t safe, the poor attention paid by the Turks to the two holy mosques throughout four decades and there is a very important thing about these ill-reasoned and not historically- supported documents neglect one necessary issue; namely having endorsed that the Ottoman Empire is an Islamic one- while undoubtedly believing in this fact- doesn’t mean that we believe that everything said about it is felony, deceit and plaint. The history witnesses the crimes committed by Selim I, Suleiman the magnificent and the other Sultans who committed diverse crimes in the era of Union and progress Association that cannot be forgotten from the historical memory. Many Turkish researchers based in Istanbul try to hide all these crimes and heap praise on them, just like what many researchers has done with Selim I, the sultan that all the resources directly or indirectly agree that he is an ill-minded and sadistic Sultan who finds his pleasure in torturing others or murdering anyone either a Muslim or non-Muslim and that is more simpler than exerting an effort to ask anyone if he is doing the right thing or not. Ibn Iyas gives us the manifested proof about him as he says: “During the stay of Ottoman’s son in Egypt, he didn’t sit at Salah Al-Din Al-Ayoubi Castle just like other kings, no one sees him at all, and he didn’t help an oppressed one from an oppressor at the court. He was indulged in his pleasures, such as intoxication and having sexual intercourses with the young boys. He also trusts his ministers to rule and take whatever decisions they like. Ottoman’s son was only seen by the public when Burji Dynasty is going to be murdered. No one is safe from his deceit in addition that his speech wasn’t understandable at all and he didn’t keep his word”. Ibn Iyas also added as a witness of this era the following:” His troops were starved on purpose and they were very mean and dirty as they ate their food while ridding their horses in the marketplaces. They were rubbish and debauched because they drunk wine in the streets in front of the public. In the holy month of Ramadan, they didn’t fast or pray in the mosques and they didn’t pray on Fridays except a few of them. They were also immoral and indecent as the troops, their generals and their ministers know nothing about discipline just like the animals”. There are many other bad descriptions and hideous documentations that can compel us to have faith and conviction in what the real Islamic caliphate has contributed to the prosperity of the mankind to refuse to call Selim I a caliph in honor of the prophet’s companions- May Allah be pleased with all of them. This also didn’t mean that Ottoman Empire Sultans were so bad, but there are many Sultans who do their best to serve their nations and subjects well. This essay is a defense of a genuine political methodology which says that the caliphate has religious, social, epistemological and economic results with which the Ottoman Sultans weren’t occupied and they didn’t make use of them except for some secular and personal reasons. The essay also tackles this genuine political methodology of the concept of caliphate to preserve the historical right and the precedence to apply the responsibilities of the caliphate while running the state’s affairs; that was something Abdul-Hamid II, his predecessors and his successors officially fail to do due to the darkness inside them that didn’t cope with the Islam’s great light.