The Democratic Caliphate.

Thanks for the history lesson Sanguivorant!

So we won't get our titles

I'll take a look at the wiki link when I get enough time to read it carefully.

May I ask you how/why you know/like so much about muslin history?

And also what exactly Emir and Sultan mean? Is there a relation between Europen Nobility Ranks and Muslin Nobility Ranks?

well,what i know is that the nobility Rank in middle East way different than Nobility Ranks in Europe and i think sultan means king while emir means Prince

I am a Muslim myself, so to truly understand my religion, it is almost imperative that I learn its history and how Muslims have interacted with the religion over time.

I studied Muslim history after I learned some of Islam's basic tenets. What got me fascinated was hearing about 9/11 and I was curious as to how and why this happened.

While previously I was non practising, the more I studied Islam, the more I realized some of the major flaws of the Islamic Community. Did you know that Muslims have not been united for the last 1400 years when the Quran explicitly states the unity of Muslims is an absolute priority?

Anyhow, studying Muslim history and civilization helps me find out the various flaws that that the Muslim community at large have committed and why Muslim civilization went in to decline since 1200 AD. This engages my mind into thinking of potential solutions.

My dream is to one day have all Muslim majority countries be part of one political body, something between the EU and the federal system of the US. I can only dream, and play my fantasies out on a virtual image.

Emir means prince and Sultan means "owner of authority". Generally, the Sultan is like the Lord in European context and the Emir are like the earls. While the Sultan controlled military and taxed provinces, there were Emirs that held a certain territory as well as had an army and whatnot.

The Abbasid Caliphate was politically structured like this. In fact, the central Abbasid government rarely controlled anything outside of Baghdad. Emirs had much more sovereignty, as if the Abbasid inherited the "King of Kings" concept of the Persians.

The major negative of this form of system is that it divided the Muslims into various hereditary families and made their interests more important than the interests of the Ummah and the cause of Islam. A lot of those Emirs organized the Islamic religion to suit their needs, which involved encouraging religious authority that supported their rule and dismissing those who went against them.

Also, when it came to defending the Muslim community against the Mongol horde in 1218 A.D, the Abbasid government was incredibly inefficient at convincing the Emirs to lend aid, even though it is still Muslims that are being massacred. The Muslim community at large had more than enough resources to drive the Mongols out of even Persia, but the other Sultanates and Emirates did not see it a priority to protect Muslims outside of their territorial control.

Well,as a Muslim myself,i disagree.though i agree that their should be something like EU but NOT something as USA as i disagree with a federal government as each country should have its own law and government.and the main reason that we declined was that the Europeans saw our technology and used it to make it better.NOT that how we weren't united

Definitely an EU form of government is preferable, since the Muslim world is diverse and cannot have a strong federal government. However even that is purely hypothetical. Muslim are till fighting each other over petty stuff like the minor difference between Sunnis and Shia Islam.

European competition is a symptom of not only our disunity, but our lack of will to further the cause of Islam and our lack of exploration into the sciences. After the Mongol invasion, the Muslims for some reason stopped pondering about the world around them and developing technology. Part of that is due to a feeling of pride that many Muslims of the time felt. They felt that there is no need to improve and that they were perfect, so God punished them with greater competitors and made them the shame of the Earth.

But definitely, we cannot claim that European superiority was the major cause of the decline of Islam. When Japan encountered advanced Western technology, they quickly had the incentive to become competitive. Why didn't the Ottoman empire or any of the other sultans get the same feeling when they are directly bordering the West and witnessing their strength?

First of all,difference between Sunnis and Shia may seem small.but it isn't.like the differences between Protestants and Catholics.and the reason stopped developing was that they were too late. Christians hated them so they didn't help them.the other reason was that they focused on war and military rather than medicene and navies cause they already had good medicenes and no need for navals at the time and they had no interest in colonization due to middle east we mostly united and they didn't want new lands

In history, the battle of Manzikert was won by the Seljuk Turks who have managed to establish a foothold in Anatolia. In our history, the situation was much different.


To begin with, the Seljuk did not have to face a Byzantine army, because the Byzantines no longer existed as any significant entity by 1006 A.D, and only had control of the area around Constantinople. All they had to face was garrisons in that city, but even then their army supply was severely limited due to their failure to capture any city in Anatolia or Iraq:



In fact, in our history, all the Seljuks managed to do is form foraging expeditions, raiding parties and encampments all over the desert regions of the Middle East:


Siege of Constantinople, 1078 A.D:
The Seljuk armies were skilled at travelling in mountainous regions and at one point had the city of Anqarah cornered from the East and West:



Alp Arslan was with the Western flank. Seeing imminent defeat, Arslan decided to instead head West and try to take Constantinople, aware that garrisons are few. However, Arslan underestimated the nearly impenetrable walls:


His army consisted of his main force combined with some Buddhists who were promised the "Liberation of Anqarah". They planned to take Constantinople first and then return to take Anqarah and free it from the hands of the Muslims.

The city of Constaninople managed to defeat the Seljuk army, but is now severely weakened:



Is this an open opportunity for the Ummah?

Seriously, I learned more about arabian history here in one minute than in an entire school year.

much like I learned more about American history on RT's story and people learn about Indian history from my story . History based civ stories are good history teachers I guess .

Petition to take Konstantinoupolis (not Istanbul)!

Discuss in group. I see a great opportunity if we mobilize correctly.

Sanguivorant said:

Discuss in group. I see a great opportunity if we mobilize correctly.

Click to expand...

It would be a great addition to Al-Anadol, as he only got one city to manage.

I would just like to post stating that as a Muslim, I am glad to see a story like this. However, the Caliphs in early Islam, especially during the Rashidun caliphate weren't as powerless as you make him seem. Yes much of the day to day governing was taken care of by governors appointed by the caliph but the caliph had the power to do away with them if they abused their power.

Umar ibn Khattab , imo, probably the greatest leader Islam ever had, was strict about this

Umar felt it necessary that the officers be treated in a strict way as to prevent the possible greed for money that may lead them to corruption. During his reign, at the time of appointment, every officer was required to make the oath:
1.That he would not ride a Turkic horse (which was a symbol of pride).
2.That he would not wear fine clothes.
3.That he would not eat sifted flour.
4.That he would not keep a porter at his door.
5.That he would always keep his door open to the public.

Caliph Umar himself followed the above postulates strictly. During the reign of Uthman the state become more economically prosperous than ever before; the allowance of the citizens was increased by 25% and the economical condition of the ordinary person was more stable, which lead Caliph Uthman to revoke the 2nd and 3rd postulates of the oath. At the time of appointment a complete inventory of all the possessions of the person concerned was prepared and kept in record. If there was an unusual increase in the possessions of the office holder, he was immediately called to account, and the unlawful property was confiscated by the State. The principal officers were required to come to Mecca on the occasion of the hajj, during which people were free to present any complaint against them.

Click to expand...

From Wikipedia

#Umar

Would you stop it with the hashtags already? Even if you are doing it ironically it's not funny anymore, if it ever was.

#EndHashtags2014

#rage #stophashtaging #nomorehashtags #hashtags

Hey Manuus, I've been meaning to ask you. Where did you get the extra 20,000 karats of gold? I only gave you 50,000.

a typo I did some marketing and some investments and I gained 20.000 bucks!

I'm going to correct it.

We are missing Al-Most Rich VGL of Mecca, and Al-Random Player of Alexandria for the council. We are discussing the war plans and stuff. Where are you fellow councilmen? Your opinions are requested for the good government of the Caliphate.