Khanate vs Ilkanate vs Emirate vs Sultinate vs Caliphate

[Alex]

Looking at historical maps, I find these terms:
- Khanate (e.g., the Bulgar Khanate)
- Ilkanate (e.g., the Persian Ilkanate)
- Caliphate (e.g., the Abbasid Caliphate)
- Sultinate (e.g., the Delhi Sultanate)
- Emirate (e.g., the Sicilian Emirate)

Reading Wikipedia to make some sense out of the complexity, is
this focused summary close enough yet?

Khanate (Mongol kingdom?)
Ilkanate (Khanate tributary)
Caliphate (Islamic theocracy?)
Sultinate (Arab dictatorship?)
Emirate (Muslim kingdom?)

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by Alex
- Khanate (e.g., the Bulgar Khanate)
- Ilkanate (e.g., the Persian Ilkanate)
- Caliphate (e.g., the Abbasid Caliphate)
- Sultinate (e.g., the Delhi Sultanate)
- Emirate (e.g., the Sicilian Emirate)
Reading Wikipedia to make some sense out of the complexity, is
this focused summary close enough yet?
Khanate (Mongol kingdom?)
Ilkanate (Khanate tributary)
Caliphate (Islamic theocracy?)
Sultinate (Arab dictatorship?)
Emirate (Muslim kingdom?)

Sultanate

Actually, if you post this query in sci.lang, you'll get a full and
accurate answer from Yusuf Gursey (who will likely quote Encyclopaedia
of Islam for you).

[Alex]

Post by Peter T. Daniels
Actually, if you post this query in sci.lang, you'll get a full and
accurate answer from Yusuf Gursey (who will likely quote Encyclopaedia
of Islam for you).

The strange thing is that the Bulgar Khanate predates the Mongol hordes,
so, that's what started me on this quest...

Looking at historical maps, I find these terms:
- Khanate (e.g., the Bulgar Khanate)
- Ilkanate (e.g., the Persian Ilkanate)
- Caliphate (e.g., the Abbasid Caliphate)
- Sultinate (e.g., the Delhi Sultanate)
- Emirate (e.g., the Sicilian Emirate)

Reading Wikipedia to make some sense out of the complexity, is
this focused summary close enough yet?

Khanate (Mongol kingdom?)
Ilkanate (Khanate tributary)
Caliphate (Islamic theocracy?)
Sultinate (Arab dictatorship?)
Emirate (Muslim kingdom?)

[Don Phillipson]

Post by Alex

Post by Peter T. Daniels
Actually, if you post this query in sci.lang, you'll get a full and
accurate answer from Yusuf Gursey (who will likely quote Encyclopaedia
of Islam for you).

The strange thing is that the Bulgar Khanate predates the Mongol hordes,
so, that's what started me on this quest...
- Khanate (e.g., the Bulgar Khanate)
- Ilkanate (e.g., the Persian Ilkanate)
- Caliphate (e.g., the Abbasid Caliphate)
- Sultinate (e.g., the Delhi Sultanate)
- Emirate (e.g., the Sicilian Emirate)
Reading Wikipedia to make some sense out of the complexity, is
this focused summary close enough yet?
Khanate (Mongol kingdom?)
Ilkanate (Khanate tributary)
Caliphate (Islamic theocracy?)
Sultinate (Arab dictatorship?)
Emirate (Muslim kingdom?)

Because this problem has emerged before, it has probably
been solved before (not necessarily uniformly) e.g. in European
foreign ministries of the 19th century, among cartographers in the
20th, at the United Nations Organization, etc.

NB Sultan and sultanate are standard English spellings.

Your typography may be wrong in two respects.
-- Khan and khanate are used nowadays by non-Mongols.
-- How might we tell the difference between an "Arab dictatorship"
and a "Muslim kingdom:" these may turn out indistinguishable.
It may be helpful to calibrate functions and titles of the last Ottoman
empire (because several emperors claimed Caliph status) and then
to see which of these survive today.

[Yusuf B Gursey]

Post by Don Phillipson

Post by Alex

Post by Peter T. Daniels
Actually, if you post this query in sci.lang, you'll get a full and
accurate answer from Yusuf Gursey (who will likely quote Encyclopaedia
of Islam for you).

The strange thing is that the Bulgar Khanate predates the Mongol hordes,
so, that's what started me on this quest...
- Khanate (e.g., the Bulgar Khanate)
- Ilkanate (e.g., the Persian Ilkanate)
- Caliphate (e.g., the Abbasid Caliphate)
- Sultinate (e.g., the Delhi Sultanate)
- Emirate (e.g., the Sicilian Emirate)
Reading Wikipedia to make some sense out of the complexity, is
this focused summary close enough yet?
Khanate (Mongol kingdom?)
Ilkanate (Khanate tributary)
Caliphate (Islamic theocracy?)
Sultinate (Arab dictatorship?)
Emirate (Muslim kingdom?)

Because this problem has emerged before, it has probably
been solved before (not necessarily uniformly) e.g. in European
foreign ministries of the 19th century, among cartographers in the
20th, at the United Nations Organization, etc.
NB Sultan and sultanate are standard English spellings.
Your typography may be wrong in two respects.
-- Khan and khanate are used nowadays by non-Mongols.
-- How might we tell the difference between an "Arab dictatorship"

Arab dictatorship implies a nationalistic Arab dictatorship of
theoretical equals.

Post by Don Phillipson
and a "Muslim kingdom:" these may turn out indistinguishable.

"Muslim kingdom" implies a feudal class based monarchy of Muslims of
whatever ethnicity.

Post by Don Phillipson
It may be helpful to calibrate functions and titles of the last Ottoman
empire (because several emperors claimed Caliph status) and then
to see which of these survive today.

[Don Phillipson]

Arab dictatorship implies a nationalistic Arab dictatorship of theoretical
equals.

This would be a novelty. "Dictator" was a 20th century appelation
(in long-term politics) invoking a Roman (short-term) military appointment.
But neither the European 20th century nor Roman dictatorships ever
supposed their subjects were theoretically equal. (Most obviously, as
one-party states, the dictatorships allowed party members more privileges
than non-members.)

"Muslim kingdom" implies a feudal class based monarchy of Muslims of
whatever ethnicity.

This seems a non-standard use of "feudal," a strictly European social and
economic system of personal obligation. Most obviously, feudalism was
not class-based, although it appeared in a society with recognised social
classes (nobles, knights, clergy, peasants, serfs etc.) while generally
blind
to "ethnicity" (race, colour, language.) We might well agree a "Muslim
kingdom" was defined by special arrangements concerning duties or
money or race or class: but if these differed from the common elements
of feudalism (cf. no ordained Muslim clergy, let alone bishops as feudatory
lords) why call the Muslim state "feudal?"

[Yusuf B Gursey]

Post by Don Phillipson

Arab dictatorship implies a nationalistic Arab dictatorship of theoretical
equals.

This would be a novelty. "Dictator" was a 20th century appelation
(in long-term politics) invoking a Roman (short-term) military appointment.
But neither the European 20th century nor Roman dictatorships ever
supposed their subjects were theoretically equal. (Most obviously, as
one-party states, the dictatorships allowed party members more privileges
than non-members.)

but party membership is supposed to be acquired and earned, at least in
theory.

Post by Don Phillipson

"Muslim kingdom" implies a feudal class based monarchy of Muslims of
whatever ethnicity.

This seems a non-standard use of "feudal," a strictly European social and
economic system of personal obligation. Most obviously, feudalism was
not class-based, although it appeared in a society with recognised social

it depends on a permanent heirarchy of landowners and landtillers with
little or no rights to the land.

Post by Don Phillipson
classes (nobles, knights, clergy, peasants, serfs etc.) while generally blind
to "ethnicity" (race, colour, language.) We might well agree a "Muslim
kingdom" was defined by special arrangements concerning duties or
money or race or class: but if these differed from the common elements

why should race neccessarily be a feature of Muslim society? the Qur'an
and the traditions of the Prophet are quite explicitly anti-racist. of
course, racism does occur in Islmaic societies, but that is not a
neccessary consequence of the religion.

Post by Don Phillipson
of feudalism (cf. no ordained Muslim clergy, let alone bishops as feudatory
lords) why call the Muslim state "feudal?"

such a narrow definition of feudalism is not used in socio-economic
theory and I have read quite a bit of it. I happen to have read quite a
bit about feudalism (for want of a better word) in non-Christian
societies.

I am affraid we are using different sociological criteria.

[Dingbat]

Post by Yusuf B Gursey

Post by Don Phillipson

Post by Yusuf B Gursey
"Muslim kingdom" implies a feudal class based monarchy of Muslims of
whatever ethnicity.

This seems a non-standard use of "feudal," a strictly European social
and economic system of personal obligation. Most obviously, feudalism
was not class-based, although it appeared in a society with recognised
social ...

it depends on a permanent heirarchy of landowners and landtillers with
little or no rights to the land.

Landlords weren't landowners in Mughal India, but were still feudal overlords over (lesser landlords and) tillers. British India made them land owners.

[Robert Bannister]

Post by Don Phillipson

Arab dictatorship implies a nationalistic Arab dictatorship of theoretical
equals.

This would be a novelty. "Dictator" was a 20th century appelation
(in long-term politics) invoking a Roman (short-term) military appointment.
But neither the European 20th century nor Roman dictatorships ever
supposed their subjects were theoretically equal. (Most obviously, as
one-party states, the dictatorships allowed party members more privileges
than non-members.)

"Muslim kingdom" implies a feudal class based monarchy of Muslims of
whatever ethnicity.

This seems a non-standard use of "feudal," a strictly European social and
economic system of personal obligation. Most obviously, feudalism was
not class-based, although it appeared in a society with recognised social
classes (nobles, knights, clergy, peasants, serfs etc.) while generally
blind
to "ethnicity" (race, colour, language.) We might well agree a "Muslim
kingdom" was defined by special arrangements concerning duties or
money or race or class: but if these differed from the common elements
of feudalism (cf. no ordained Muslim clergy, let alone bishops as feudatory
lords) why call the Muslim state "feudal?"

Compare the 500 years of Turkish rule in eastern Europe. Generally, not
interested in race, colour or language, but divided everybody up by
religion, ignoring any sectarian differences.

[Yusuf B Gursey]

Post by Robert Bannister

Post by Don Phillipson

Arab dictatorship implies a nationalistic Arab dictatorship of theoretical
equals.

This would be a novelty. "Dictator" was a 20th century appelation
(in long-term politics) invoking a Roman (short-term) military appointment.
But neither the European 20th century nor Roman dictatorships ever
supposed their subjects were theoretically equal. (Most obviously, as
one-party states, the dictatorships allowed party members more privileges
than non-members.)

"Muslim kingdom" implies a feudal class based monarchy of Muslims of
whatever ethnicity.

This seems a non-standard use of "feudal," a strictly European social and
economic system of personal obligation. Most obviously, feudalism was
not class-based, although it appeared in a society with recognised social
classes (nobles, knights, clergy, peasants, serfs etc.) while generally
blind
to "ethnicity" (race, colour, language.) We might well agree a "Muslim
kingdom" was defined by special arrangements concerning duties or
money or race or class: but if these differed from the common elements
of feudalism (cf. no ordained Muslim clergy, let alone bishops as feudatory
lords) why call the Muslim state "feudal?"

Compare the 500 years of Turkish rule in eastern Europe. Generally, not
interested in race, colour or language, but divided everybody up by religion,
ignoring any sectarian differences.

the monophysite Christians were under the Armenian Patriarch of
Constantinople (an office created by Mehmed the Conqueror) the rest of
the Christians under the Greek Patriarch. in the 19th cent. Slavic
churches were recognized after an attempt by the Greek Patriarchate to
impose Greek. Armenian Catholics were recognized after a struggle and
with French support, and the Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch started
using Arabic with Russian support.

[António Marques]

Post by Yusuf B Gursey

Post by Robert Bannister

Post by Don Phillipson

Arab dictatorship implies a nationalistic Arab dictatorship of theoretical
equals.

This would be a novelty. "Dictator" was a 20th century appelation
(in long-term politics) invoking a Roman (short-term) military appointment.
But neither the European 20th century nor Roman dictatorships ever
supposed their subjects were theoretically equal. (Most obviously, as
one-party states, the dictatorships allowed party members more privileges
than non-members.)

"Muslim kingdom" implies a feudal class based monarchy of Muslims of
whatever ethnicity.

This seems a non-standard use of "feudal," a strictly European social and
economic system of personal obligation. Most obviously, feudalism was
not class-based, although it appeared in a society with recognised social
classes (nobles, knights, clergy, peasants, serfs etc.) while generally
blind
to "ethnicity" (race, colour, language.) We might well agree a "Muslim
kingdom" was defined by special arrangements concerning duties or
money or race or class: but if these differed from the common elements
of feudalism (cf. no ordained Muslim clergy, let alone bishops as feudatory
lords) why call the Muslim state "feudal?"

Compare the 500 years of Turkish rule in eastern Europe. Generally, not
interested in race, colour or language, but divided everybody up by
religion, ignoring any sectarian differences.

the monophysite Christians were under the Armenian Patriarch of
Constantinople

The Syrians and Egyptians too?

Post by Yusuf B Gursey
(an office created by Mehmed the Conqueror)

He had control of the other Armenian patriarchal cities, what prompted him
to get another one?

I guess you were talking about the Balkans only, but then you mentioned
Antiochia.

[Yusuf B Gursey]

Post by António Marques

Post by Yusuf B Gursey

Post by Robert Bannister

Post by Don Phillipson

Arab dictatorship implies a nationalistic Arab dictatorship of theoretical
equals.

This would be a novelty. "Dictator" was a 20th century appelation
(in long-term politics) invoking a Roman (short-term) military appointment.
But neither the European 20th century nor Roman dictatorships ever
supposed their subjects were theoretically equal. (Most obviously, as
one-party states, the dictatorships allowed party members more privileges
than non-members.)

"Muslim kingdom" implies a feudal class based monarchy of Muslims of
whatever ethnicity.

This seems a non-standard use of "feudal," a strictly European social and
economic system of personal obligation. Most obviously, feudalism was
not class-based, although it appeared in a society with recognised social
classes (nobles, knights, clergy, peasants, serfs etc.) while generally
blind
to "ethnicity" (race, colour, language.) We might well agree a "Muslim
kingdom" was defined by special arrangements concerning duties or
money or race or class: but if these differed from the common elements
of feudalism (cf. no ordained Muslim clergy, let alone bishops as feudatory
lords) why call the Muslim state "feudal?"

Compare the 500 years of Turkish rule in eastern Europe. Generally, not
interested in race, colour or language, but divided everybody up by
religion, ignoring any sectarian differences.

the monophysite Christians were under the Armenian Patriarch of
Constantinople

The Syrians and Egyptians too?

as far as I can tell, this later meant the Syrians and Copts as well,
though only in administrative matters. still, the status of the Coptic
Pope would be interesting.

Post by António Marques

Post by Yusuf B Gursey
(an office created by Mehmed the Conqueror)

He had control of the other Armenian patriarchal cities, what prompted him to
get another one?

the cities in the East were not yet under Ottoman control, and the
claims for primacy were competing.

Post by António Marques
I guess you were talking about the Balkans only, but then you mentioned
Antiochia.

[António Marques]

Post by António Marques

Post by Yusuf B Gursey
the monophysite Christians were under the Armenian Patriarch of
Constantinople

The Syrians and Egyptians too?

as far as I can tell, this later meant the Syrians and Copts as well, though
only in administrative matters. still, the status of the Coptic Pope would
be interesting.

Quite a curious issue, indeed.

[Yusuf B Gursey]

Post by António Marques
I guess you were talking about the Balkans only, but then you mentioned
Antiochia.

yes, I widened the scope of the topic.

[Arcadian Rises]

Post by Yusuf B Gursey

Post by António Marques
I guess you were talking about the Balkans only, but then you mentioned
Antiochia.

yes, I widened the scope of the topic.

Dear Mr. Gursey:

Is the name "Kahn" (a common Semitic name) originating from "khanate"? If it is, does it connote some noble, aristocratic origin, or an old family, like the Hebrew "Cohen"? And come to think of it, any connection with "Cohen"? , or just a phonetic similarity, like many other such coincidences occur in even totally unrelated languages.

[Jerry Friedman]

On Monday, August 12, 2013 11:43:48 AM UTC-6, Arcadian Rises wrote:

[Khans and sultans]

Post by Arcadian Rises
Is the name "Kahn" (a common Semitic name) originating from "khanate"? If it is, does it connote some noble, aristocratic origin, or an old family, like the Hebrew "Cohen"? And come to think of it, any connection with "Cohen"? , or just a phonetic similarity, like many other such coincidences occur in even totally unrelated languages.

"Kahn" is the German word for "boat". As a Jewish surname (unless it's
found in other Semitic languages), it is indeed usually a germanicization
of "Cohen", or so I've read.

[Robert Bannister]

Post by Yusuf B Gursey

Post by Robert Bannister

Post by Don Phillipson

Arab dictatorship implies a nationalistic Arab dictatorship of theoretical
equals.

This would be a novelty. "Dictator" was a 20th century appelation
(in long-term politics) invoking a Roman (short-term) military appointment.
But neither the European 20th century nor Roman dictatorships ever
supposed their subjects were theoretically equal. (Most obviously, as
one-party states, the dictatorships allowed party members more privileges
than non-members.)

"Muslim kingdom" implies a feudal class based monarchy of Muslims of
whatever ethnicity.

This seems a non-standard use of "feudal," a strictly European social and
economic system of personal obligation. Most obviously, feudalism was
not class-based, although it appeared in a society with recognised social
classes (nobles, knights, clergy, peasants, serfs etc.) while generally
blind
to "ethnicity" (race, colour, language.) We might well agree a "Muslim
kingdom" was defined by special arrangements concerning duties or
money or race or class: but if these differed from the common elements
of feudalism (cf. no ordained Muslim clergy, let alone bishops as feudatory
lords) why call the Muslim state "feudal?"

Compare the 500 years of Turkish rule in eastern Europe. Generally,
not interested in race, colour or language, but divided everybody up
by religion, ignoring any sectarian differences.

the monophysite Christians were under the Armenian Patriarch of
Constantinople (an office created by Mehmed the Conqueror) the rest of
the Christians under the Greek Patriarch. in the 19th cent. Slavic
churches were recognized after an attempt by the Greek Patriarchate to
impose Greek. Armenian Catholics were recognized after a struggle and
with French support, and the Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch started
using Arabic with Russian support.

Thank you. I didn't know that.

[Alex]

Post by Don Phillipson
Your typography may be wrong in two respects

Based on the lengthy and detailed prior post, I think
my characterization was wrong in quite a few respects!

It's going to be difficult to summarize the results
though, as they're all apparently the same thing, in different
ways.

[Yusuf B Gursey]

Post by Alex

Post by Peter T. Daniels
Actually, if you post this query in sci.lang, you'll get a full and
accurate answer from Yusuf Gursey (who will likely quote Encyclopaedia
of Islam for you).

yes, you may look up those titles in Enc. of Islam II. also there is
Bernard Lewis' "The Political Vocabulary of Islam" that explains some
of the titles in the proccess of explaining the ones that have survived

Post by Alex
The strange thing is that the Bulgar Khanate predates the Mongol hordes,
so, that's what started me on this quest...

it's not strange at all, as it was a title used by the steppe peoples
(mostly Turkic and Mongol) long before.

the Danube Bulghar rulers are known Byzantine records as *kanasubegi
which is etymologized as Turkic xa:n sü begi "khan" + beg (prince,
commander) of the army , but the intervening "a" has not been
satisfactorialy explained so far, although various Turkologists have
offered their solutions and some historians have recently resorted to
non-Turkic etymologies (I don't buy Omeljan Pritsak's claim of a
nominative in proto-Turkic). the steppe tradition allows use of
multiple titles, among the Khazars and some other Turkic peoples the
offices of the supreme, sacral, ruler (qaghan, which I will get to) and
that of army commander and day to day ruler were seperate, so perhaps
the Bulghar rulers wanted to show that they combined the offices. the
Volga Bulghars took the title of (in Arab records) of yIlta:wa:r Turkic
ilteber etymologized as "nation vanquisher" a relatively modest title,
as they were tributaries to the Khazars, their enemies and when they
adopted Islam and sought Caliphal protection took the Arabic title of
malik "king, monarch".

xa:n is definitely found in Old Turkic. it was a title of aristocratic
descent, while qa:*gh*a:n (so written in Old Turkic), was the title
used by the supreme ruler of the steppe empires. this dates firmly to
the Ruan Ruan (Pinyin), better known as the Asiatic Avars, but some
have argued from Chinese records to date it to the Xiong-nu (Asiatic
Huns). princes and other family members of the ruling house of the
qaghan bore it, and at times rulers of lesser states with enough clout
and claims of lineage took the title as well. claiming the title qaghan
was a more serious matter and if you couldn't match the neighboring
qaghan militarily it would mean serious trouble. after Chinggis, only
descendants of Chinggis from the male line could claim the title Khan
among Mongols and Eastern Turks, but the Ottomans took the title for
their own line, and produced the (legendary) history of the Turks
published by Rashiduddin al-Tabib for the Muslim (convert) Mongol
Ilkhanid ruler Ghazan Khan that listed the tribe of the Ottomans, the
QayI, as the highest Turkmen / Oghuz tribe,a nd had their own
chronicler state in so many words how noble their lineage was, that it
was the noble lineage of all the Turks (in this historiography,
approved by Ghazan, the Mongols were a branch of Turks that had
diverged eons ago) and in so many words were nobler than the lineage of
Chinggis, in Turkish Jengiz (modern orthography Cengiz). but they
recognized the title of "khan" for the Chinggisid Khan of Crimea, even
after he became an Ottoman vassal. the Crimean Khan also was allowed to
mint his own money under his name (something very siginificant in
Muslim tradition) and his lineage was to take over if the Ottomans
failed to produce an heir (something that was highly unlikely in the
Harem, and with all the cousins that were allowed in the line later,
but it was nearly put into effect by some plotters in the early 19th
cent.). in Central Asia, even Timur didn't take up the title of Khan,
as he was not a descendant of Chinggis, and maintained legitimacy by a
Chinggised puppet, Mahmud Khan. in Persian he is reffered as Amir
(ami:r, Emir), he married a Chinggisid princess and took to the title
Gur (Mongolian gur, (imperial) son in law) cf. Turkish Damad (persian
da:ma:d "son in law"), a title of prestige when applied to the dyansty
among Ottoman Turks as well. hence, in Uzbek: Gur Emir. subsequent
Timurids have the title Beg (cf. Ulugh Beg, the astronomer king).

xa:n was also a title given to deities, prophets in Old Turkic. Buddha >
Bud becomes Bur in the Chang'an (later and now Xi'an) dialect of mid
1st millenium Chinese and so Old Turkic burxa:n "Buddha" later also
"god", "God" or "idol" and in Middle Mongolian "Buddha" (used in
Ilkhanid Persian writings in that sense as well), continuing to the
present day.

Old Turkic inscriptions have qa*gh*an for the supreme ruler of the
steppes. Chinese sources give this title for the previous group, the
Ruan Ruan and rulers of China at the time from the same Xienbi
confederacy have that title as well (the Chinese ruler of the Mulan
story has that title, and his adversaries, which Mulan defeats are Ruan
Ruan, non-Sinified "barbarian" Xienbi). Clauson sees that title in the
Xiongnu. in Arabic sources have it as xa:qa:n but /q/ may represent the
voiced back velar stop g (rare in Turkic, the back allophone of /g/ was
normally spirint), which is the reflex of bedouin dialects Arabic, and
is listed among voiced consonants by Sibawayhi. the [x] and [*gh*] and
[q] are not carefully distinguished in Uighur script, Old Turkic runes
don't represent [x] (and some argue Altaicists and Turkologists argue
for three velar phonemes in the proto-language, all with back and front
allophones) and reconstructs *xa:ga:n. Turkish remembered this by its
Arabic spelling and survived as xa:qa:n (so in Ottoman script) >
ha:ka:n (modern orthgraphy Hakan), with the back allophone of /k/, but
also retaining length. When Old Turkic Empire (the Tu"rku"t or Tu"rk
Empire), this was adopted by their rulers, when they withdrew from
their brief rule in the Russian Steppe, the Khazars made a smooth
transition to rule and it seems they had a dynastic relation. The Tu"rk
had chased European Avars (it is said that they had adopted the Middle
Persian name of the Ruan Ruan Avar (there is some dispute as to their
ethnicity, most scholars assume Bulghar / Hunnic Turkic, one
recosntruction of an inscription is Asiatic Turkic, which Anatolian
Turkish developed out of) to Pannonia (Hungary) and were angry at their
adoption of the title Qaghan (in European sources Caganus) and the
Tu"rk asked the Byzantines for an alliance against them. the Kievan Rus
also used the title, and Omeljan Pritsak suspects a dyanstic alliance
between them and the Khazars.

the Uighurs were claiming to be the successor state of the Tu"rk and
they were the fist to recognize the supremacy of Chinggis and conferred
upon him the title. in Mongolian, the title qa:*gh*a:n appears as
qa:'a:n in Arabic script Middle Mongolian (Uighur script Classical
Mongolian is archaicizing and retains the velar fricative, at least in
writing). this is a regular development of Mongolian. further
developments in Mongolian are the spirintization of the velar stop and
the dropping of the hiatus so it later gets conflated with xa:n in
later Mongolian.

Post by Alex
- Khanate (e.g., the Bulgar Khanate)

see above.

Post by Alex
- Ilkanate (e.g., the Persian Ilkanate)

the Mongols of Iran, descendants of Hu"legu" (Hulagu) claimed the title
i:lx:an, bearing also "xa:n after their names. a naive etymology is
Turkic il (or él) "tribe" (but the political terms between the subject
people and the subject lands are fickle so in Turkish il, el refers
land) and xa:n or homophonous Turkic "peace" + "Khan". more likely the
Old Turkic ilig (a minor title) + xa:n. the Turkic rulers of Kashgar
(now in Xinjiang, China) who became Muslim independent of Arab
conquest, bore the title iligxa:n or ilekxa:n. their dialect was not
different from later Old Uighur, with Arabic instead of Chinese and
Sanskirt influence in literature.

Post by Alex
- Caliphate (e.g., the Abbasid Caliphate)

that which is ruled by the (or a) Caliph, Arabic xali:fa(t) which means
"successor" xali:f + the morphological feminine (probably as an
honorific). the short answer is that a Caliph is the successor of
Muhammad and head of the Muslim community. what it actually is depends
on the period in question and the sectarian veiwpoint, it is the single
most important cause of sectarian division in Islam. Islam has a
relatively simple theology the essential of which is tersely stated in
the Shahada, the slightly expanded "Amantu" (I believe in .,.) or the
short 4 verse Ikhlas Surah (Chapter 112) of the Qur'an. whether the
Qur'an is created or not is also question that later came up but this
can cut across the sectarian lines. the three divisions of Islam,
Sunni, Shia and Kharijite (repesented in moderate Ibadi form and never
numerous, the state religion in Oman and present as Berber pockets in
N. Africa) disagree on the caliphate, and the near identical issue of
the Imamate (Imam is the the leader of the Islamic community) and its
consequences.

right now the question of the Caliphate has been dropped by the world
Islamic community, although some seek to revive it, with various
intepretations.

I will leave it for a seperate post.

see also Enc. of Islam II "Khalifa" and "Imam".

Post by Alex
- Sultinate (e.g., the Delhi Sultanate)

Arabic salTana(t) , that lead by sulTa:n . sulTa:n was originally a
verbal noun noun meaning"power" but later it became a title. the
Abbasid Caliphs started devolving their powers handing local authority,
sulTa(t) in Arabic, to rulers invested with the title Sultan. the first
significant sultanate was that Aghlabids in former Roman province of
Africa ('ifriqiyya in Arabic), a bloated modern day Tunisia. The other
were the Persian speaking Samanids in Central Asia (later this area was
Turkified). Literary New Persian first developed there, while in Iran
direct Arab rule using Arabic and the Zoroastrian priests using Middle
Persian stiffled the development the literary use of the vernacular.
these states prolifierated as time went on, at the expense of the
authority of the caliph. they issued coins on the caliph's name but
also included their own name, the Friday Sermon, the Khutbah, was read
in the name of the caliph followed by their own name and title. then at
the beginning of the 11th century the Abbasid caliph was plagued by the
rise in power of a renegade Shia sultanate, the Buwayhids also known
as the Bu:yids and pro-Shia at his doorstep and suspicions of intrigue
from the Turkish soldiery at home. he called for intervention for a
Turkmen chieftain, Toghril, whose family, the Saljukids had adopted
Islam and was getting Arab support in his bid for power amongst the
Oghuz who had not been completely Islamized (the Ottomans were later to
make some propaganda about the Saljukid's lower status in the Turkmen
pecking order). Toghril restored Sunni Islam but at the price of the
Caliph having to acknowledge him as de facto ruler with many flattering
titles and he demanded and go the title Sultan. this made the title
Sultan one of great prestige. nevertheless, they were still in theory
just caretakers for the Caliph although the effective rulers. another
caveat was that Saljuks themselves devolved power to various princes,
begs atabegs (imperial tutors) or local rulers of various titles in a
feudal fashion. when the Crusaders came they found the arrangements
familiar and in that regard felt at home and exploited those alliances
to their advantage.

after the Mongol invasion, the Abbasid Caliphate was wiped out, but
members of the family sought refuge in Egypt then ruled by a succession
of manumated military slaves of Kypchak Turkic origin. the Abbasid line
kept the title of Caliph, gave prestige to the Mamluks that were not of
noble origin (only Baybars felt the need to concoct a pedigree for
himself), conferred them the title of Sultan and also handed out the
title to Mamluk allies which gave them diplomatic prestige.
nevertehless, Islamized and Turkified Mongols and Turkmen rulers
adopted the title for themeselves not waiting for caliphal investiture,
and the Muslim Mongols, rivals of the Mongols in the Middle East, added
that to their titles. these were usually strongly central rulers and
the title Sultan meant the equivalent of "Emperor".

Turkic titles or titles that Turkish had fully assimilated that were
not from Arabic or literary Persian were postposed according to Turkic
(and Mongolian) grammar. but Arabic and (with occasional exceptions)
literary Persian titles were preposed as they were in Arabic and
Persian. but for "Sultan" a postposed "Sultan" invariant for Arabic
gender was invented for Turkish reseverved for princes, princesses,
Queen Mothers or concubines that produced an heir or that the Sultan
married in public (which was very rare). in Islamic law offspring of
freemen and concubines are free with full status and inheritance
rights except in rare cases where the master would deny paternity. this
was not true for the Mongols who looked at the pedigree of the
matrilineal line as well. but later on, certainly in the 19th and early
20th cent. the title for princes was Efendi (postposed) from Greek
authente:s Byzantine [avthentis]. when the Sultanate was abolished and
the last Sultan escaped on a British warship a very short while after
in 1922, the next in line became caliph without any power (he was
sympathizer of the nationalists, fairly liberal in outlook and quite
unusual for a Muslim leader at the time an accomplished artistic
painter - his paintings can now be seen in Turkish museums), Abdülmecid
(II) carried the title Efendi postposed.


the first two Ottoman rulers had the title "Beg", the third (Murad I)
declared himself Sultan, and the fourth, was recognized as Sultan by
the nominal Abbasid Caliph in Egypt. this was also about the
time the ottoman rulers adopted the title "Khan" as well and this was
present in tughra (a Turkic word of obscure origin) or imperial
monogram in stylized Arabic script (the design being unique to the
Oghuz Turks which Anatolian Turks belong but adopted by the Kypchak
Mamluks as well).

Mehmed the Conqueror called himself Mehmed Khan, the Supreme Sultan and
the Great Khaqan (having the Turks and the rest of the Turkic world in
mind). After the conquest of Constantinople / Istanbul he also declared
himself Qaysar (qaySar), Arabic for Caesar, which he took seriously and
attmepted an expedition in Italy having Rome in mind. subsequent
Ottoman Sultans did not have use for Qaysar, except when dealing with
the Greek Patriarch. his victory proclamation over the Turkmen Uzun
Hasan in his eastern front was in Eastern Turkic and in Uighur script,
harking to the steppe tradition.

ottoman rulers after Selim I (the Grim, a controversial figure in
current Turkish politics), after his victory over the Azeri Turkophone
ruler Shah Ismail also adopted the title Shah. Sultan, Khakan, Shah,
Shahinshah were titles born by both the Ottomans and the rulers of
Iran, though the Ottomans were better known as soi rulers (of Turkmen
origin except the occasional Kurd or Afghan) better known as Shah. the
Ottoman rulers were popularly known by the Turks as "padishah" Persian
for "monarch".

Ottomans avoided Turkic and Arabic or Persian titles when reffering to
Christian rulers, except when flattering, either willingly or in
humiliating treaties under duress. Christian kings were called kIral,
kral from Slavic from German Karl (Charlemagne) or carefully
diplomatically chosen titles like Çar (char) for Czar. nowadays Turkish
uses kral for "king" regardless of religion.

modern Arab rulers avoid the title Sultan except in Oman. the Sultan of
Morocco became "king" in the post war period. the Khedive of Egypt
briefly declared himself "Sultan" during WWI when he broke all ties
with the Ottomans and he was under British domination, but soon changed
to "king". the Arabic word for "king" is malik, which is also the
generic term "monarch". malik in medieval times was not a high title.

"sultan" in the meaning of a local ruler survives in South Asia, the
title of the ruler of Brunei, various states of Malaysia and in
Northern Nigeria.

Post by Alex
- Emirate (e.g., the Sicilian Emirate)

'ami:r means "commander" in Classical Arabic, from 'amr meaning
command. from that we have "Admiral". 'ami:r al-baHr "commander of the
sea". 'ami:r al-mu'mini:n "Commander of the Faithful" is a caliphal
title. in this meaning we have the self declared "Islamic Amirate of
Afghanistan" by the Taliban, the leader having the title
ami:rulmu'mini:n (in the nominative), but it is understood that this is
limited to Afghanistan. it was also the title of local rulers. Modern
Arabic uses it to translate "Prince" with the feminine 'ami:ra(t) for
"Princess" and the rulers of Gulf countries are undestood to have that
rank. the words are also used for European Princes and Princesses,
including those of the British Royal Family. Arabs don't mind calling
European rulers with Arabic titles.

Post by Alex
Reading Wikipedia to make some sense out of the complexity, is
this focused summary close enough yet?
Khanate (Mongol kingdom?)

the Mongol Empire was called Yeke Monggol Ulus in Middle Mongolian and
Ulugh Mongol Ulus in Eastern Turkic, "Great Mongol Nation" ulus being
borowing from Old Turkic ulush, denoting a land but came to mean both
"people" and "land" hence "nation" in Mongolian. yeke became jeke (with
affricate). it was ruled by the Qa'an (see above, known to European
travelers as "the Great Khan"), but divided into speheres of control
amongst the descendants of the sons of Chinggis with the title Khan.
eventually the states became independent with the Qa'an being confined
to China and eventually overthrown.

Post by Alex
Ilkanate (Khanate tributary)

see aboive.

Post by Alex
Caliphate (Islamic theocracy?)

deal with next.

Post by Alex
Sultinate (Arab dictatorship?)

see above. not neccesarily Arab.


the Ottomans and the Safavids of Iran didn't call themselves sultanates
or whatever limited to some geographic area or ethnic background as
these entities had universal ambitions.


they reffered themselves with Arabic term dawla(t) etymologically said
to be from a "turn of rule" and said to be related to dawr "turn,
revolving". this implied a dynasty, what belonged to the "dawla(t)"
belonged to dynasty and as modern political science developed this
meant "state"

the land of the Empire was called mema^lik-i maHru^se-i osmaniyye "the
(well) protected Ottoman domains (or kingdoms)". this is Persian
annexation of Arabic words so for Safavid Iran just replace the last
word with safaviyya and some change in pronounciation of the vowels.

but the western border became fixed in the 17th century in a long
lasting treaty with the Ottomans with only minor adjustments to the
present. Iran was also unsuccesful in expanding eastwards having spread
Shia Islam within its borders and increasingly became resigned to
"Iran" in official usage as well, in the 19th cent. being known as
mama:lik-i maHru^sa-i i:ra:n (using the "classical" transcription of
vowels), "the (well) protected domains of Iran".

Post by Alex
Emirate (Muslim kingdom?)

"principality" ; except in very recent cases like the "Islamic Emirate
of Afghanistan".

kingdom in Arabic is mamlaka(t) which is a noun of place corresponding
to malik "king" and mulk "rule, dominion" ma:lik "lord, owner", milk
"property, real estate, ownership". but in Turkish, Persian (memleket,
mamlakat) etc. has now shifted "country". formerly it reffered to lower
hereditary subdivisions of an empire. perhaps that is why it survives
in colloquial Turkish in the frequent conversational meaning of "one's
home region or province".

pre-Islamic central Arabia was not conducive to formation of stable
kingdoms though occassionally kings and kingdoms popped up. Arab
kingdoms were found in the periphary, in Southern Greater Syria,
Southern Meopotamia (Iraq), and in increasingly Arabized South Arabia
(Yemen, Oman). just before Muhammad the Arab Persian client kings, the
Lakhmids exerted some influence but Central Arabia was mostly
independent, the oases being ruled by senates formed from local bigwigs
agreeing on a commander, 'ami:r . as class society developed later this
became hereditary.

[Alex]

Post by Yusuf B Gursey

Post by Alex
The strange thing is that the Bulgar Khanate predates the Mongol hordes,
so, that's what started me on this quest...

it's not strange at all, as it was a title used by the steppe peoples
(mostly Turkic and Mongol) long before ...

...

Post by Yusuf B Gursey
perhaps Bulghar rulers wanted to show that they combined the offices

...

Post by Yusuf B Gursey
after Chinggis, only descendants ... could claim the title Khan

...

Post by Yusuf B Gursey
even Timur didn't take up the title of Khan, as he was not a descendant
of Chinggis

This was a great explanation of how a "Khanate" could appear before
the onslaught of the Mongols! Thanks.

I had no idea that the word predated Genghis; but it makes sense that
it would have. It also made sense that future rulers couldn't use the
name except under strict (Mongolian) rules, although I had always
thought Timur "claimed" to be a descendant of the great Khan.

Even so, you've explained very nicely how the Bulgar Khanate can predate
the myriad khanates that erupted (mostly) after the death of Kublai Khan.

[Alex]

Post by Yusuf B Gursey

Post by Alex
- Caliphate (e.g., the Abbasid Caliphate)

the short answer is that a Caliph is the successor of
Muhammad and head of the Muslim community.

This makes sense, and, save for the detail, mirrors what
I had thought originally.

I guess it's only for Sunni Muslims though.

[Yusuf B Gursey]

Post by Alex

Post by Yusuf B Gursey

Post by Alex
- Caliphate (e.g., the Abbasid Caliphate)

the short answer is that a Caliph is the successor of
Muhammad and head of the Muslim community.

This makes sense, and, save for the detail, mirrors what
I had thought originally.
I guess it's only for Sunni Muslims though.

branches of Shia did have reigning Caliphs, the Fatimids. I'll explain
tomorrow.

[Yusuf B Gursey]

Post by Yusuf B Gursey

Post by Alex

Post by Peter T. Daniels
Actually, if you post this query in sci.lang, you'll get a full and
accurate answer from Yusuf Gursey (who will likely quote Encyclopaedia of
Islam for you).

- Caliphate (e.g., the Abbasid Caliphate)

that which is ruled by the (or a) Caliph, Arabic xali:fa(t) which means
"successor" xali:f + the morphological feminine (probably as an honorific).

or "deputy, representative"

Post by Yusuf B Gursey
the short answer is that a Caliph is the successor of Muhammad and head of
the Muslim community. what it actually is depends on the period in question
and the sectarian veiwpoint, it is the single most important cause of

a real answer means a history lesson.

after Muhammad died in 632 CE Abu Bakr (which was a nickname), a close
friend of MUhammad was declared his successor after a meeting of
notables and, Muslim tradition tells us, took the title xali:fat rasu:l
alla:h "deputy, successor of the Messenger of God". the word khalifa
occurs twice in the Qur'an, one in respect to Adam, the other with
respect to David being the deputy of God on Earth. there followed with
similar procedure Umar and Uthman. Uthman was an early convert to Islam
but of the clan that led the pagan opposition to Muhammad (but in the
end was reconciled to the new religion) and was unpopular, though his
compilation of the Qur'an came to be accepted by all. Ali, Muhammad's
cousin and son in law, had maintained that he was deserving and
promised the succession formed his own party or community to that end,
in Arabic Shi`a. Islam was on a war footing, putting down a rebellions
after Muhammad's death in Arabia and the conquest of Greater Syria and
Egypt from the Byzantines and the collapse of Sasanid Persia. so one
duties of the successor was directing the miltary effort. another was
to set the trappings of a state. these were temporal duties. religious
duties at this time were clarifying Muhammad's sayings, Umar and
especially Uthman ordered the compilation of the Qur'an. although
Uthman was controversial his compilation of the Qur'an gained
acceptance. but Uthman was murdered and many implicated Ali in the
murder. Ali declared himself caliph. Aisha, Muhammad's young favorite
wife had opposed Uthman but found Ali too radical and opposed Ali in
battle, on her camel. Muawiya was governor of Syria and son of the
leader Meccan pagans who had opposed Muhammad and was thus still the
representative of the class of rich merchants against which Islam had
arisen as a social phenomenon. he declared himself caliph, challenging
Ali's claim, vowing to avenge the murder of Uthman who was from his
clan and for whom he blamed Ali. the war did not go well for Ali and he
asked for arbitration after the battle of Siffin. a group declared that
his war with Muawiya was divinely ordained and was not upto Ali to ask
for arbitration and they revolted. Ali put down the revolt in his own
camp in a bloody manner. a survivor of his group killed Ali in revenge.
this group later formed the sect known as the Kharajites who believe
that Imamate, the leadership of the Muslim community, is by council and
merit. they uphold the intial legitmacy of Ali, that Uthman had lost
the right to Caliphate and reject Muawiya. Enc. of Islam II describes
their political theories thus: << the obligation on believers to
proclaim illegitimate and ipso facto deposed the imām who has gone off
the right path (this is how they justify their abandonment of `Alī
after his acceptance of the arbitration); on the other hand they
declare every believer who is morally and religiously irreproachable to
be capable of being raised by the vote of the community to the supreme
dignity of the imāmate, “even if he were a black slave”. The result is
that each of their leaders has been recognised by them as amīr
al-muʾminīn , although none of them had, among other things, the
qualification of ���urashī birth. Consequently the only other caliphs
besides their own that they recognise as legitimate are Abū Bakr and
ʿUmar (the latter is particularly venerated by them); ʿUthmān only
during the first six years of his reign; and `Alī till the battle of
���iffīn. >> amīr al-muʾminīn is a caliphal title meaning "commander of
the faithful" attested inscriptionaly first for Muawiya and
subsequently the one most occuring in coins.
Kharidjis exist as the moderate legal of Ibadis in power in Oman, where
there is an Ibadi Imam in additon to the Sultan. there are also pockets
of them in North Africa. the shia believe in the legitmacy of Ali and
his sons, Hasan and Husayn (the youngest. both their mothers being
Fatima, the daughter of the Prophet. they (except the Zaydis of Yemen)
beleive that (Ali, Hasan and Husayn) and a succession of the male line
of Husayn to have been divinely given the key to the correct
interpretion of the Qur'an. the overwhelming majority limit the number
at 12, and are known as Twelvers. they call them just Imams as those
after `Ali didn't hold temporal power. the 12th Imam died under
mysterious circumstances and the Twelver Shia await his return to
restore Islam against the injustices they see as perpetrated and
restrore `Ali's name in the Qur'an that they believe was erased from
the current canon. but the sixth Imam Ja`far survived his son and named
successor Ismail. a minority group believed in the legitimacy of the
Imamate of Ismail and his descendants nevertheless. in the Middle Ages
an Ismaili claimant seized power in Egypt and set up a state and
empire, known as Fatimid Caliphate. they are called Caliphs since they
held state power. dynastic disputes led to religious schisms. the
majority of Ismailis today are Nizaris. they set up a state in Iran in
the Middle Ages in the mountain stronghold of Alamut and had allied
castles in Syria. their detractors called them Assasins (Hashishiyya or
Hashshashiyyin) by the alledged use hashish amongst their elite
followers. there are minor sectarian differences amongst them but the
overwhelming majority recognize the Agha Khan in Pakistan as Imam.
there are also some non-Nizari Ismaili pockets, such as in Zanzibar.
Ismailism is filled with esoteric doctrine. the Zaydis (in Yemen)
recognize any Alid as capable of becoming Imam, theoreticaly the most
qualified and theoretically, not through a line of heredity. his title
was contingent on being just and upholding Islamic principles. but in
practice, the Zaydi Imams became a monarchy ruling Yemen until 1962
with a civil war with republican forces lasting until 1968. Zaydism is
the branch Shiism closest to the Sunnis.

roll back to Muawiya. he named his son as succsesor and had people take
an oath of loyalty to his son while he was while he was still alive.
this made the Caliphate into a monarchy, whereas previously it was an
oligarchy, the Caliph being chosen by a senate, as was the practice in
electing the leaders of most of the city states of pre-Islamic Arabia.
after Muawiya, there began a successions of Caliphs of his clan, the
Umayyad Caliphate, with the title khalifatu~lla:h, Vicar of God and
considered themselves arbiters in relIgious matters as well as rulers.
they were overthrown by the Abbasids, who said reclaimed the legitamicy
of the House of the Prophet, but they were descended from the uncle of
The Prophet, Abbas, rather Ali. they adopted the more modest title
khalifatu rasu:lallah, Vicar of the Messengar of God. in general, they
did not regard themselves the final arbitar in relgious matters leaving
that to the scholars. meanwhile, a surviving Ummayad set up his own
Caliphate in Muslim Spain. the Abbasid period also later saw Alid but
Sunni Caliphates set up in Morocco, and the King of Morocco still
claims that title. in the beginning of the 9th century the Abbasid
Caliph revived the idea of the Caliph as Imam, an arbitar in religious
matters, and upheld the doctrine of the created Qur'an through an
inquisition called the mi���na, testing or trial. incidentally this
philosophy remained popular amongst the great Islamic philosophers and
natural philosophers, but it was unpopular with the populace. afterward
this period matters of religion were relegated to the scholars. the
Sunni view of the Caliphate developed around then. the first four
Caliphs, Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman and Ali were the "Rightly Guided" and
their actions and sayings were binding as to a source of Islamic law.
the rest were legitimate but only as temporal rulers establishing
Islamic law, they were only sultanates. Muawiya and his son Yazid were
generally disliked, Ali revered but not to the extent of the Shia, his
sons Hasan and Husayn were martyrs and respected relgious figures but
not to the extent of the Shia. as the Abbasid Caliphate waned and
especially after the Abbasids became a shadow Caliphate under the
protection of the Mamluks of Egypt, the variosu sultans assumed
caliphal titles. Enc of Islam II "Imama" has:

<<

The duties of the imām were defined as: guarding the faith against
heterodoxy, enforcing law and justice between disputing parties,
dispensing legal punishments ( ���udūd ), protection of peace in the
territory of Islam and its defence against external enemies, conducting
the djihād against those resisting the supremacy of Islam, receiving
the legal alms, taxes, and the fifth of the booty, distributing the
revenue in accordance with the law, and the appointment of reliable and
sincere men in delegating authority.

... later Sunnī scholars often emphasized that the imāmate properly
belonged to the derived legal matters ( furū` ), not to the
fundamentals of religion ( u���ūl al-dīn ), even though traditionally it
was discussed in the u���ūl works rather than the expositions of the law.
This consideration, originally meant to counter the Shīʿī view placing
the imāmate at the core of religion, now served to mitigate the impact
of the realization that the imāmate in fact no longer existed. Late
Sunnī creeds commonly did not refer to the imāmate at all or mentioned
only the caliphate of the Rāshidūn.
there was also the debated condition as to whether the Caliph / Imam
had to be of the tribe of Quraysh, Muhammad's tribe. many political
thinkers like the great political scientist, sociologist and historian
Ibn Khaldun answered that this was a weak and not neccessary condition,
as it was prefferable to have a good ruler who was not of the Quraysh
as Caliph rather than a less qualified one that is. such thinking
allowed the sultans of Turkish, Persian or Chinggisid origin that
dominated Islam in the post-Mongol era to claim Caliphal titles. of
these the claim of the Ottoman Sultans was the most credible,
particularly after they put an end to the shadow Abbasid Caliphate in
Egypt after their conquest of Egypt. they were the major Muslim power
and controlled the holy cities of Mecca and Medina and the pilgrimage
route, as protecting the pilgrimage was one of the duties of the
Caliph. they also appropriated the holy relics including the alledged
banner of Muhammad. when deposing a sultan the coup makers appealed to
a scholar who would certify that under Islamic Law that a caliph who
committed such and such crimes had forfeited his right tthe title and
shoudl be deposed. in the end of the 18th cent, when the Ottomans lost
Crimea to the Russians under a humiliating treaty they saved face by
stipulating that the Friday sermon in mosques in Russia should be
continue to read the Friday sermon under their name as Caliph. at the
end of the 19th century the claim of caliphate was central to the
Pan-Islamist ideology of the tyrant Sultan Abdulhamid II.
Muslim revolts in Kashgar (Xinjiang, China) and Aceh (then Dutch East
Indies) sought Ottoman support and minted coins in the name of the
Ottoman Sultan / Caliph.

when the Arab Revolt broke out during WWI, the Sharif (descendant of
Ali through Hasan) of Mecca, Husayn (a Qurayshi) declared that the
House of Osman had done great service as Caliphs but had forfeited that
right by coming under the secularizing Young Turks. the ottoman Empire
was defeated and dismembered after WWI. the victorious nationalist
forces against the foreign occupation, under the authority of the Grand
National Assmebly of Turkey abolished the Sultanate, but allowed the
last sultan, Sultan Vahideddin (Vahdettin) to remain as caliph on
November 1, 1922. but this sultan had his image tarnished as a
collaborator and was clearly unwlecome, and he secretly escaped on a
Britsh warship on November 17. the next day the same Assembly elected
the successor Abdülmejid (Abdülmecid) as Caliph only. he was a
nationalist sympathizer and a rather accomplished painter. on October
29, 1923 the Republic was declared. on March 3, 1924 after obtaining
religious opinions that a Caliph without any temporal power was
meaningless (and this is true) the Assembly abolished the office of the
Caliphate and sent all members of the Ottoman dynasty into exile.
meanwhile Vahideddin was in poverty and exile in France, recognizing
neither his deposition as Sultan nor Caliph and at odds with his cousin
Abdülmecid and that wing of the exiled royals. at this opportunity
Sharif Husayn, now king of Hijaz (and by his account of all Arabs),
declared himself Caliph on March 5. he invited Vahideddin to the Hijaz
in hopes of obtaining bay`ah (recognition) to his caliphate. it is
unclear whether he actually got it, he claimed he did. Vahiddedin was
sick and badly nurished and the desert heat was making it worse and he
anxious to get away. but Husayn got no support from the Muslim world as
he was too pro-British. at any rate, he was defeated by pro-Saudi
forces in October. Abdüulmecid (he would have been Abdülmecid II) is
widely regarded as the last Caliph. the King of Morocco does not claim
any authority beyond his country with the title Commander of the
Faithful (this title was used by the Taliban as well). in 1926 an
international conference was on the question of the Caliphate and the
claims of some Muslim rulers to it, but not all Muslim countries
attended. the prevailing view is that the Caliphate was not done right
for a long time anyway and there is no serious movement to restore it,
some fringe jihadi groups excepted.

the current Pan-Islamic organization is the Organization of Islamic
Cooperation, originally the Organzitation of the Islamic Conference,
founded September 25, 1969. it includes all Muslim majority states
except Kosovo. Northern Cyprus is an obsever member under the name
Turkish cypriot State, as is Bosnia. it also includes several states
with a substantial Muslim minority including Russia with observer
status. it recognizes all principle sects as fully Muslim and has
adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in its charter. it is
recognized by the UN.

Post by Yusuf B Gursey
sectarian division in Islam. Islam has a relatively simple theology the
essential of which is tersely stated in the Shahada, the slightly expanded
"Amantu" (I believe in .,.) or the short 4 verse Ikhlas Surah (Chapter 112)
of the Qur'an. whether the Qur'an is created or not is also question that
later came up but this can cut across the sectarian lines. the three
divisions of Islam, Sunni, Shia and Kharijite (repesented in moderate Ibadi
form and never numerous, the state religion in Oman and present as Berber
pockets in N. Africa) disagree on the caliphate, and the near identical issue
of the Imamate (Imam is the the leader of the Islamic community) and its
consequences.
right now the question of the Caliphate has been dropped by the world Islamic
community, although some seek to revive it, with various intepretations.
I will leave it for a seperate post.
see also Enc. of Islam II "Khalifa" and "Imam".

[Alex]

Post by Alex
- Sultinate (e.g., the Delhi Sultanate)

sulTa:n ... originally ... meaning"power" ... later it became a title.

...

Abbasid Caliphs ... handing local authority, sulTa(t) in Arabic,
to rulers invested with the title Sultan.

...

Toghril restored Sunni Islam but at the price of the Caliph having
to acknowledge him as [with] ... the title Sultan. this made the title
Sultan one of great prestige. nevertheless, they were still in theory
just caretakers for the Caliph although the effective rulers.

...

the title Sultan meant the equivalent of "Emperor".

...

modern Arab rulers avoid the title Sultan except in Oman.

This was enlightening. The gist of it is that a Sultinate was a
theological kingdom derived from the Caliphates, which were deprecated
after the devastating Mongol invasions.

[Yusuf B Gursey]

Post by Alex

Post by Alex
- Sultinate (e.g., the Delhi Sultanate)

sulTa:n ... originally ... meaning"power" ... later it became a title. ...
Abbasid Caliphs ... handing local authority, sulTa(t) in Arabic,
to rulers invested with the title Sultan. ...
Toghril restored Sunni Islam but at the price of the Caliph having
to acknowledge him as [with] ... the title Sultan. this made the title
Sultan one of great prestige. nevertheless, they were still in theory
just caretakers for the Caliph although the effective rulers. ...
the title Sultan meant the equivalent of "Emperor". ...
modern Arab rulers avoid the title Sultan except in Oman.

This was enlightening. The gist of it is that a Sultinate was a
theological kingdom derived from the Caliphates, which were deprecated
after the devastating Mongol invasions.

the idea of a sultanate predates the Mongols by several centuries. the
Umayyad Caliphate was more centralized while the Abbasids devolved, for
their own reasons power to local potantates. Islamic Law says tax the
People of the Book (later extended to all religions)unless they
convert. fine, but what happens when people satrting to convert en
masse as a way of tax evasion? in the beginning you replenished the
armies with religiously loyal followers at least. but then there are
diminishing returns when the army reaches the saturation point. you
just lose tax money. the Umayyad answer was to tax the newly converting
nations anyway. for God's purpose they were Muslims and would go to
heaven but would still be heavily taxed on this Earth. what a bummer
for the conquered people. the Abbasids rose to power in the wake of a
revolution in the Eastern Persian speaking provinces, the Tajiks as we
now call them. in place the coffers were filled with secular
exploitation of the peasants in what amounted to a feudal structure.
that's where the sultanate's came in. and real power came to be in the
hands of the sultanates. then the Mongols destroyed the Caliphate. they
also "went native" and became Muslims, in the West that is. the
sultanates that developed in their wake used Asian statecraft theory
and made strongly centralized states. the sultans also kept the
theologians on a short leash and had them devise justifications for
reconciling Islamic law to their decrees which were known as qa:nu:n
Arabization of Greek canon. only Canon Law in the Islamic context meant
more secular law. Suleyman the Magnificient is known in Turkish as
Suleyman the Lawgiver, Kanu^ni^ in Modern Turkish orhtography. it's
also an alternate sobriquette of Mehmed the Conqueror.

[Alex]

Post by Alex
- Emirate (e.g., the Sicilian Emirate)

'ami:r means "commander" ... "Commander of the Faithful" ...
Modern Arabic uses it to translate "Prince" ...
rulers of Gulf countries are understood to have that rank.

This one turns out to be pretty easy to understand, even
by me.

[Odysseus]

<snip>

Post by Yusuf B Gursey

Post by Alex
- Sultinate (e.g., the Delhi Sultanate)

Arabic salTana(t) , that lead by sulTa:n . sulTa:n was originally a
verbal noun noun meaning"power" but later it became a title. [...]

I suppose "strongman", referring to a dictator, is similar -- but AFAIK
it's not an official title anywhere.

[Mac]

On Mon, 05 Aug 2013 17:29:31 -0600, Odysseus

Post by Odysseus
<snip>

Post by Yusuf B Gursey

Post by Alex
- Sultinate (e.g., the Delhi Sultanate)

Arabic salTana(t) , that lead by sulTa:n . sulTa:n was originally a
verbal noun noun meaning"power" but later it became a title. [...]

I suppose "strongman", referring to a dictator, is similar -- but AFAIK
it's not an official title anywhere.

Podesta?

[Odysseus]

Post by Mac
On Mon, 05 Aug 2013 17:29:31 -0600, Odysseus

Post by Odysseus
<snip>

Post by Yusuf B Gursey

Post by Alex
- Sultinate (e.g., the Delhi Sultanate)

Arabic salTana(t) , that lead by sulTa:n . sulTa:n was originally a
verbal noun noun meaning"power" but later it became a title. [...]

I suppose "strongman", referring to a dictator, is similar -- but AFAIK
it's not an official title anywhere.

Podesta?

Thanks, I hadn't heard of that title; I see it's for an Italian judicial
potentate.

[Robert Bannister]

Post by Odysseus
<snip>

Post by Yusuf B Gursey

Post by Alex
- Sultinate (e.g., the Delhi Sultanate)

Arabic salTana(t) , that lead by sulTa:n . sulTa:n was originally a
verbal noun noun meaning"power" but later it became a title. [...]

I suppose "strongman", referring to a dictator, is similar -- but AFAIK
it's not an official title anywhere.

The Sultan of Brunei is one, but there are several others in that region.

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by Robert Bannister

Post by Odysseus

Post by Yusuf B Gursey

Post by Alex
- Sultinate (e.g., the Delhi Sultanate)

Arabic salTana(t) , that lead by sulTa:n . sulTa:n was originally a
verbal noun noun meaning"power" but later it became a title. [...]

I suppose "strongman", referring to a dictator, is similar -- but AFAIK
it's not an official title anywhere.

The Sultan of Brunei is one, but there are several others in that region.

There really is a Sultan of Swat (the valley in Pakistan) -- it wasn't just
a nickname made up for Babe Ruth.

(But I think me meant "strongman" isn't official anywhere.)

[Odysseus]

Post by Robert Bannister

Post by Odysseus
<snip>

Post by Yusuf B Gursey

Post by Alex
- Sultinate (e.g., the Delhi Sultanate)

Arabic salTana(t) , that lead by sulTa:n . sulTa:n was originally a
verbal noun noun meaning"power" but later it became a title. [...]

I suppose "strongman", referring to a dictator, is similar -- but AFAIK
it's not an official title anywhere.

The Sultan of Brunei is one, but there are several others in that region.

Sorry, I intended that "it" to mean "strongman" (or "empowered/powerful
one") titles other than Sultan.

II&IANM one of the late Emperor of Ethiopia's styles was "His Most
Puissant Majesty".

[Yusuf B Gursey]

Post by Yusuf B Gursey

Post by Alex

Post by Peter T. Daniels
Actually, if you post this query in sci.lang, you'll get a full and
accurate answer from Yusuf Gursey (who will likely quote Encyclopaedia of
Islam for you).

- Caliphate (e.g., the Abbasid Caliphate)

that which is ruled by the (or a) Caliph, Arabic xali:fa(t) which means
"successor" xali:f + the morphological feminine (probably as an honorific).

or "deputy, representative"

Post by Yusuf B Gursey
the short answer is that a Caliph is the successor of Muhammad and head of
the Muslim community. what it actually is depends on the period in question
and the sectarian veiwpoint, it is the single most important cause of

a real answer means a history lesson.

after Muhammad died in 632 CE Abu Bakr (which was a nickname), a close
friend of MUhammad was declared his successor after a meeting of
notables and, Muslim tradition tells us, took the title xali:fat rasu:l
alla:h "deputy, successor of the Messenger of God". the word khalifa
occurs twice in the Qur'an, one in respect to Adam, the other with
respect to David being the deputy of God on Earth. there followed with
similar procedure Umar and Uthman. Uthman was an early convert to Islam
but of the clan that led the pagan opposition to Muhammad (but in the
end was reconciled to the new religion) and was unpopular, though his
compilation of the Qur'an came to be accepted by all. Ali, Muhammad's
cousin and son in law, had maintained that he was deserving and
promised the succession formed his own party or community to that end,
in Arabic Shi`a. Islam was on a war footing, putting down a rebellions
after Muhammad's death in Arabia and the conquest of Greater Syria and
Egypt from the Byzantines and the collapse of Sasanid Persia. so one
duties of the successor was directing the miltary effort. another was
to set the trappings of a state. these were temporal duties. religious
duties at this time were clarifying Muhammad's sayings, Umar and
especially Uthman ordered the compilation of the Qur'an. although
Uthman was controversial his compilation of the Qur'an gained
acceptance. but Uthman was murdered and many implicated Ali in the
murder. Ali declared himself caliph. Aisha, Muhammad's young favorite
wife had opposed Uthman but found Ali too radical and opposed Ali in
battle, on her camel. Muawiya was governor of Syria and son of the
leader Meccan pagans who had opposed Muhammad and was thus still the
representative of the class of rich merchants against which Islam had
arisen as a social phenomenon. he declared himself caliph, challenging
Ali's claim, vowing to avenge the murder of Uthman who was from his
clan and for whom he blamed Ali. the war did not go well for Ali and he
asked for arbitration after the battle of Siffin. a group declared that
his war with Muawiya was divinely ordained and was not upto Ali to ask
for arbitration and they revolted. Ali put down the revolt in his own
camp in a bloody manner. a survivor of his group killed Ali in revenge.
this group later formed the sect known as the Kharajites who believe
that Imamate, the leadership of the Muslim community, is by council and
merit. they uphold the intial legitmacy of Ali, that Uthman had lost
the right to Caliphate and reject Muawiya. Enc. of Islam II describes
their political theories thus: << the obligation on believers to
proclaim illegitimate and ipso facto deposed the imām who has gone off
the right path (this is how they justify their abandonment of `Alī
after his acceptance of the arbitration); on the other hand they
declare every believer who is morally and religiously irreproachable to
be capable of being raised by the vote of the community to the supreme
dignity of the imāmate, “even if he were a black slave”. The result is
that each of their leaders has been recognised by them as amīr
al-muʾminīn , although none of them had, among other things, the
qualification of ���urashī birth. Consequently the only other caliphs
besides their own that they recognise as legitimate are Abū Bakr and
ʿUmar (the latter is particularly venerated by them); ʿUthmān only
during the first six years of his reign; and `Alī till the battle of
���iffīn. >> amīr al-muʾminīn is a caliphal title meaning "commander of
the faithful" attested inscriptionaly first for Muawiya and
subsequently the one most occuring in coins.
Kharidjis exist as the moderate legal of Ibadis in power in Oman, where
there is an Ibadi Imam in additon to the Sultan. there are also pockets
of them in North Africa. the shia believe in the legitmacy of Ali and
his sons, Hasan and Husayn (the youngest. both their mothers being
Fatima, the daughter of the Prophet. they (except the Zaydis of Yemen)
beleive that (Ali, Hasan and Husayn) and a succession of the male line
of Husayn to have been divinely given the key to the correct
interpretion of the Qur'an. the overwhelming majority limit the number
at 12, and are known as Twelvers. they call them just Imams as those
after `Ali didn't hold temporal power. the 12th Imam died under
mysterious circumstances and the Twelver Shia await his return to
restore Islam against the injustices they see as perpetrated and
restrore `Ali's name in the Qur'an that they believe was erased from
the current canon. but the sixth Imam Ja`far survived his son and named
successor Ismail. a minority group believed in the legitimacy of the
Imamate of Ismail and his descendants nevertheless. in the Middle Ages
an Ismaili claimant seized power in Egypt and set up a state and
empire, known as Fatimid Caliphate. they are called Caliphs since they
held state power. dynastic disputes led to religious schisms. the
majority of Ismailis today are Nizaris. they set up a state in Iran in
the Middle Ages in the mountain stronghold of Alamut and had allied
castles in Syria. their detractors called them Assasins (Hashishiyya or
Hashshashiyyin) by the alledged use hashish amongst their elite
followers. there are minor sectarian differences amongst them but the
overwhelming majority recognize the Agha Khan in Pakistan as Imam.
there are also some non-Nizari Ismaili pockets, such as in Zanzibar.
Ismailism is filled with esoteric doctrine. the Zaydis (in Yemen)
recognize any Alid as capable of becoming Imam, theoreticaly the most
qualified and theoretically, not through a line of heredity. his title
was contingent on being just and upholding Islamic principles. but in
practice, the Zaydi Imams became a monarchy ruling Yemen until 1962
with a civil war with republican forces lasting until 1968. Zaydism is
the branch Shiism closest to the Sunnis.

roll back to Muawiya. he named his son as succsesor and had people take
an oath of loyalty to his son while he was while he was still alive.
this made the Caliphate into a monarchy, whereas previously it was an
oligarchy, the Caliph being chosen by a senate, as was the practice in
electing the leaders of most of the city states of pre-Islamic Arabia.
after Muawiya, there began a successions of Caliphs of his clan, the
Umayyad Caliphate, with the title khalifatu~lla:h, Vicar of God and
considered themselves arbiters in relIgious matters as well as rulers.
they were overthrown by the Abbasids, who said reclaimed the legitamicy
of the House of the Prophet, but they were descended from the uncle of
The Prophet, Abbas, rather Ali. they adopted the more modest title
khalifatu rasu:lallah, Vicar of the Messengar of God. in general, they
did not regard themselves the final arbitar in relgious matters leaving
that to the scholars. meanwhile, a surviving Ummayad set up his own
Caliphate in Muslim Spain. the Abbasid period also later saw Alid but
Sunni Caliphates set up in Morocco, and the King of Morocco still
claims that title. in the beginning of the 9th century the Abbasid
Caliph revived the idea of the Caliph as Imam, an arbitar in religious
matters, and upheld the doctrine of the created Qur'an through an
inquisition called the mi���na, testing or trial. incidentally this
philosophy remained popular amongst the great Islamic philosophers and
natural philosophers, but it was unpopular with the populace. afterward
this period matters of religion were relegated to the scholars. the
Sunni view of the Caliphate developed around then. the first four
Caliphs, Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman and Ali were the "Rightly Guided" and
their actions and sayings were binding as to a source of Islamic law.
the rest were legitimate but only as temporal rulers establishing
Islamic law, they were only sultanates. Muawiya and his son Yazid were
generally disliked, Ali revered but not to the extent of the Shia, his
sons Hasan and Husayn were martyrs and respected relgious figures but
not to the extent of the Shia. as the Abbasid Caliphate waned and
especially after the Abbasids became a shadow Caliphate under the
protection of the Mamluks of Egypt, the variosu sultans assumed
caliphal titles. Enc of Islam II "Imama" has:

<<

The duties of the imām were defined as: guarding the faith against
heterodoxy, enforcing law and justice between disputing parties,
dispensing legal punishments ( ���udūd ), protection of peace in the
territory of Islam and its defence against external enemies, conducting
the djihād against those resisting the supremacy of Islam, receiving
the legal alms, taxes, and the fifth of the booty, distributing the
revenue in accordance with the law, and the appointment of reliable and
sincere men in delegating authority.

... later Sunnī scholars often emphasized that the imāmate properly
belonged to the derived legal matters ( furū` ), not to the
fundamentals of religion ( u���ūl al-dīn ), even though traditionally it
was discussed in the u���ūl works rather than the expositions of the law.
This consideration, originally meant to counter the Shīʿī view placing
the imāmate at the core of religion, now served to mitigate the impact
of the realization that the imāmate in fact no longer existed. Late
Sunnī creeds commonly did not refer to the imāmate at all or mentioned
only the caliphate of the Rāshidūn.
there was also the debated condition as to whether the Caliph / Imam
had to be of the tribe of Quraysh, Muhammad's tribe. many political
thinkers like the great political scientist, sociologist and historian
Ibn Khaldun answered that this was a weak and not neccessary condition,
as it was prefferable to have a good ruler who was not of the Quraysh
as Caliph rather than a less qualified one that is. such thinking
allowed the sultans of Turkish, Persian or Chinggisid origin that
dominated Islam in the post-Mongol era to claim Caliphal titles. of
these the claim of the Ottoman Sultans was the most credible,
particularly after they put an end to the shadow Abbasid Caliphate in
Egypt after their conquest of Egypt. they were the major Muslim power
and controlled the holy cities of Mecca and Medina and the pilgrimage
route, as protecting the pilgrimage was one of the duties of the
Caliph. they also appropriated the holy relics including the alledged
banner of Muhammad. when deposing a sultan the coup makers appealed to
a scholar who would certify that under Islamic Law that a caliph who
committed such and such crimes had forfeited his right tthe title and
shoudl be deposed. in the end of the 18th cent, when the Ottomans lost
Crimea to the Russians under a humiliating treaty they saved face by
stipulating that the Friday sermon in mosques in Russia should be
continue to read the Friday sermon under their name as Caliph. at the
end of the 19th century the claim of caliphate was central to the
Pan-Islamist ideology of the tyrant Sultan Abdulhamid II.
Muslim revolts in Kashgar (Xinjiang, China) and Aceh (then Dutch East
Indies) sought Ottoman support and minted coins in the name of the
Ottoman Sultan / Caliph.

when the Arab Revolt broke out during WWI, the Sharif (descendant of
Ali through Hasan) of Mecca, Husayn (a Qurayshi) declared that the
House of Osman had done great service as Caliphs but had forfeited that
right by coming under the secularizing Young Turks. the ottoman Empire
was defeated and dismembered after WWI. the victorious nationalist
forces against the foreign occupation, under the authority of the Grand
National Assmebly of Turkey abolished the Sultanate, but allowed the
last sultan, Sultan Vahideddin (Vahdettin) to remain as caliph on
November 1, 1922. but this sultan had his image tarnished as a
collaborator and was clearly unwlecome, and he secretly escaped on a
Britsh warship on November 17. the next day the same Assembly elected
the successor Abdülmejid (Abdülmecid) as Caliph only. he was a
nationalist sympathizer and a rather accomplished painter. on October
29, 1923 the Republic was declared. on March 3, 1924 after obtaining
religious opinions that a Caliph without any temporal power was
meaningless (and this is true) the Assembly abolished the office of the
Caliphate and sent all members of the Ottoman dynasty into exile.
meanwhile Vahideddin was in poverty and exile in France, recognizing
neither his deposition as Sultan nor Caliph and at odds with his cousin
Abdülmecid and that wing of the exiled royals. at this opportunity
Sharif Husayn, now king of Hijaz (and by his account of all Arabs),
declared himself Caliph on March 5. he invited Vahideddin to the Hijaz
in hopes of obtaining bay`ah (recognition) to his caliphate. it is
unclear whether he actually got it, he claimed he did. Vahiddedin was
sick and badly nurished and the desert heat was making it worse and he
anxious to get away. but Husayn got no support from the Muslim world as
he was too pro-British. at any rate, he was defeated by pro-Saudi
forces in October. Abdüulmecid (he would have been Abdülmecid II) is
widely regarded as the last Caliph. the King of Morocco does not claim
any authority beyond his country with the title Commander of the
Faithful (this title was used by the Taliban as well). in 1926 an
international conference was on the question of the Caliphate and the
claims of some Muslim rulers to it, but not all Muslim countries
attended. the prevailing view is that the Caliphate was not done right
for a long time anyway and there is no serious movement to restore it,
some fringe jihadi groups excepted.

the current Pan-Islamic organization is the Organization of Islamic
Cooperation, originally the Organzitation of the Islamic Conference,
founded September 25, 1969. it includes all Muslim majority states
except Kosovo. Northern Cyprus is an obsever member under the name
Turkish cypriot State, as is Bosnia. it also includes several states
with a substantial Muslim minority including Russia with observer
status. it recognizes all principle sects as fully Muslim and has
adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in its charter. it is
recognized by the UN.

Post by Yusuf B Gursey
sectarian division in Islam. Islam has a relatively simple theology the
essential of which is tersely stated in the Shahada, the slightly expanded
"Amantu" (I believe in .,.) or the short 4 verse Ikhlas Surah (Chapter 112)
of the Qur'an. whether the Qur'an is created or not is also question that
later came up but this can cut across the sectarian lines. the three
divisions of Islam, Sunni, Shia and Kharijite (repesented in moderate Ibadi
form and never numerous, the state religion in Oman and present as Berber
pockets in N. Africa) disagree on the caliphate, and the near identical issue
of the Imamate (Imam is the the leader of the Islamic community) and its
consequences.
right now the question of the Caliphate has been dropped by the world Islamic
community, although some seek to revive it, with various intepretations.
I will leave it for a seperate post.
see also Enc. of Islam II "Khalifa" and "Imam".

[Mike L]

Post by Yusuf B Gursey

Post by Yusuf B Gursey

Post by Alex

Post by Peter T. Daniels
Actually, if you post this query in sci.lang, you'll get a full and
accurate answer from Yusuf Gursey (who will likely quote Encyclopaedia of
Islam for you).

- Caliphate (e.g., the Abbasid Caliphate)

that which is ruled by the (or a) Caliph, Arabic xali:fa(t) which means
"successor" xali:f + the morphological feminine (probably as an honorific).

or "deputy, representative"

Post by Yusuf B Gursey
the short answer is that a Caliph is the successor of Muhammad and head of
the Muslim community. what it actually is depends on the period in question
and the sectarian veiwpoint, it is the single most important cause of

a real answer means a history lesson.

And one which is *well* worth reading. But, Yusuf, it would be so much
easier to read if you'd accept the convention that a sentence
begins with a capital letter. I'm used to the subject, but my eye kept
losing its aiming point: this wouldn't have so much effect with a
trivial text, but in one such as this in which the reader must
regularly pause for thought or review, it adds a complication.
[...]

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by Mike L

Post by Yusuf B Gursey
a real answer means a history lesson.

And one which is *well* worth reading. But, Yusuf, it would be so much
easier to read if you'd accept the convention that a sentence
begins with a capital letter. I'm used to the subject, but my eye kept
losing its aiming point: this wouldn't have so much effect with a
trivial text, but in one such as this in which the reader must
regularly pause for thought or review, it adds a complication.

In order for Yusuf to see your complaint (which he gets regularly, and
regularly ignores), you'll probably have to multipost it in sci.lang.
You might also ask why he's now posted the same extensive text three
times at hourly intervals.

[Mike L]

On Thu, 22 Aug 2013 13:32:50 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Mike L

Post by Yusuf B Gursey
a real answer means a history lesson.

And one which is *well* worth reading. But, Yusuf, it would be so much
easier to read if you'd accept the convention that a sentence
begins with a capital letter. I'm used to the subject, but my eye kept
losing its aiming point: this wouldn't have so much effect with a
trivial text, but in one such as this in which the reader must
regularly pause for thought or review, it adds a complication.

In order for Yusuf to see your complaint (which he gets regularly, and
regularly ignores), you'll probably have to multipost it in sci.lang.
You might also ask why he's now posted the same extensive text three
times at hourly intervals.

Well, I'm darned. I expect my replies to go to every address in the
header unless I deliberately delete any. I'll have to tinker. This
repeat posting thing seems to be an accident that happens to some
posters every so often.

[Yusuf B Gursey]

Post by Mike L

Post by Yusuf B Gursey

Post by Yusuf B Gursey

Post by Alex

Post by Peter T. Daniels
Actually, if you post this query in sci.lang, you'll get a full and
accurate answer from Yusuf Gursey (who will likely quote Encyclopaedia of
Islam for you).

- Caliphate (e.g., the Abbasid Caliphate)

that which is ruled by the (or a) Caliph, Arabic xali:fa(t) which means
"successor" xali:f + the morphological feminine (probably as an honorific).

or "deputy, representative"

Post by Yusuf B Gursey
the short answer is that a Caliph is the successor of Muhammad and head of
the Muslim community. what it actually is depends on the period in question
and the sectarian veiwpoint, it is the single most important cause of

a real answer means a history lesson.

And one which is *well* worth reading. But, Yusuf, it would be so much
easier to read if you'd accept the convention that a sentence
begins with a capital letter. I'm used to the subject, but my eye kept
losing its aiming point: this wouldn't have so much effect with a
trivial text, but in one such as this in which the reader must
regularly pause for thought or review, it adds a complication.
[...]

OK. I stopped using caps because when I was posting in
soc.culture.turkish a long time ago, using mainly a UNIX shell, caps
were reserved to represent Turkish letters represented by diacritics
attached to the basic Roman letters. When I do research or translation
for publishing MS Word does that automatically for me. See I used caps
for you this time!

[Mike L]

Post by Yusuf B Gursey

Post by Mike L

Post by Yusuf B Gursey

Post by Yusuf B Gursey

Post by Alex

Post by Peter T. Daniels
Actually, if you post this query in sci.lang, you'll get a full and
accurate answer from Yusuf Gursey (who will likely quote Encyclopaedia of
Islam for you).

- Caliphate (e.g., the Abbasid Caliphate)

that which is ruled by the (or a) Caliph, Arabic xali:fa(t) which means
"successor" xali:f + the morphological feminine (probably as an honorific).

or "deputy, representative"

Post by Yusuf B Gursey
the short answer is that a Caliph is the successor of Muhammad and head of
the Muslim community. what it actually is depends on the period in question
and the sectarian veiwpoint, it is the single most important cause of

a real answer means a history lesson.

And one which is *well* worth reading. But, Yusuf, it would be so much
easier to read if you'd accept the convention that a sentence
begins with a capital letter. I'm used to the subject, but my eye kept
losing its aiming point: this wouldn't have so much effect with a
trivial text, but in one such as this in which the reader must
regularly pause for thought or review, it adds a complication.
[...]

OK. I stopped using caps because when I was posting in
soc.culture.turkish a long time ago, using mainly a UNIX shell, caps
were reserved to represent Turkish letters represented by diacritics
attached to the basic Roman letters. When I do research or translation
for publishing MS Word does that automatically for me. See I used caps
for you this time!

Ah, I see. Thanks.

[Robert Bannister]

Post by Yusuf B Gursey

Post by Mike L

Post by Yusuf B Gursey

Post by Yusuf B Gursey

Post by Alex

Post by Peter T. Daniels
Actually, if you post this query in sci.lang, you'll get a full
and accurate answer from Yusuf Gursey (who will likely quote
Encyclopaedia of Islam for you).

- Caliphate (e.g., the Abbasid Caliphate)

that which is ruled by the (or a) Caliph, Arabic xali:fa(t) which
means "successor" xali:f + the morphological feminine (probably as
an honorific).

or "deputy, representative"

Post by Yusuf B Gursey
the short answer is that a Caliph is the successor of Muhammad and
head of the Muslim community. what it actually is depends on the
period in question and the sectarian veiwpoint, it is the single
most important cause of

a real answer means a history lesson.

And one which is *well* worth reading. But, Yusuf, it would be so much
easier to read if you'd accept the convention that a sentence
begins with a capital letter. I'm used to the subject, but my eye kept
losing its aiming point: this wouldn't have so much effect with a
trivial text, but in one such as this in which the reader must
regularly pause for thought or review, it adds a complication.
[...]

OK. I stopped using caps because when I was posting in
soc.culture.turkish a long time ago, using mainly a UNIX shell, caps
were reserved to represent Turkish letters represented by diacritics
attached to the basic Roman letters. When I do research or translation
for publishing MS Word does that automatically for me. See I used caps
for you this time!

It really is a great deal easier to read.

[Yusuf B Gursey]

Post by Yusuf B Gursey

Post by Alex

Post by Peter T. Daniels
Actually, if you post this query in sci.lang, you'll get a full and
accurate answer from Yusuf Gursey (who will likely quote Encyclopaedia of
Islam for you).

- Caliphate (e.g., the Abbasid Caliphate)

that which is ruled by the (or a) Caliph, Arabic xali:fa(t) which means
"successor" xali:f + the morphological feminine (probably as an honorific).

or "deputy, representative"

Post by Yusuf B Gursey
the short answer is that a Caliph is the successor of Muhammad and head of
the Muslim community. what it actually is depends on the period in question
and the sectarian veiwpoint, it is the single most important cause of

a real answer means a history lesson.

after Muhammad died in 632 CE Abu Bakr (which was a nickname), a close
friend of MUhammad was declared his successor after a meeting of
notables and, Muslim tradition tells us, took the title xali:fat rasu:l
alla:h "deputy, successor of the Messenger of God". the word khalifa
occurs twice in the Qur'an, one in respect to Adam, the other with
respect to David being the deputy of God on Earth. there followed with
similar procedure Umar and Uthman. Uthman was an early convert to Islam
but of the clan that led the pagan opposition to Muhammad (but in the
end was reconciled to the new religion) and was unpopular, though his
compilation of the Qur'an came to be accepted by all. Ali, Muhammad's
cousin and son in law, had maintained that he was deserving and
promised the succession formed his own party or community to that end,
in Arabic Shi`a. Islam was on a war footing, putting down a rebellions
after Muhammad's death in Arabia and the conquest of Greater Syria and
Egypt from the Byzantines and the collapse of Sasanid Persia. so one
duties of the successor was directing the miltary effort. another was
to set the trappings of a state. these were temporal duties. religious
duties at this time were clarifying Muhammad's sayings, Umar and
especially Uthman ordered the compilation of the Qur'an. although
Uthman was controversial his compilation of the Qur'an gained
acceptance. but Uthman was murdered and many implicated Ali in the
murder. Ali declared himself caliph. Aisha, Muhammad's young favorite
wife had opposed Uthman but found Ali too radical and opposed Ali in
battle, on her camel. Muawiya was governor of Syria and son of the
leader Meccan pagans who had opposed Muhammad and was thus still the
representative of the class of rich merchants against which Islam had
arisen as a social phenomenon. he declared himself caliph, challenging
Ali's claim, vowing to avenge the murder of Uthman who was from his
clan and for whom he blamed Ali. the war did not go well for Ali and he
asked for arbitration after the battle of Siffin. a group declared that
his war with Muawiya was divinely ordained and was not upto Ali to ask
for arbitration and they revolted. Ali put down the revolt in his own
camp in a bloody manner. a survivor of his group killed Ali in revenge.
this group later formed the sect known as the Kharajites who believe
that Imamate, the leadership of the Muslim community, is by council and
merit. they uphold the intial legitmacy of Ali, that Uthman had lost
the right to Caliphate and reject Muawiya. Enc. of Islam II describes
their political theories thus: << the obligation on believers to
proclaim illegitimate and ipso facto deposed the imām who has gone off
the right path (this is how they justify their abandonment of `Alī
after his acceptance of the arbitration); on the other hand they
declare every believer who is morally and religiously irreproachable to
be capable of being raised by the vote of the community to the supreme
dignity of the imāmate, “even if he were a black slave”. The result is
that each of their leaders has been recognised by them as amīr
al-muʾminīn , although none of them had, among other things, the
qualification of ���urashī birth. Consequently the only other caliphs
besides their own that they recognise as legitimate are Abū Bakr and
ʿUmar (the latter is particularly venerated by them); ʿUthmān only
during the first six years of his reign; and `Alī till the battle of
���iffīn. >> amīr al-muʾminīn is a caliphal title meaning "commander of
the faithful" attested inscriptionaly first for Muawiya and
subsequently the one most occuring in coins.
Kharidjis exist as the moderate legal of Ibadis in power in Oman, where
there is an Ibadi Imam in additon to the Sultan. there are also pockets
of them in North Africa. the shia believe in the legitmacy of Ali and
his sons, Hasan and Husayn (the youngest. both their mothers being
Fatima, the daughter of the Prophet. they (except the Zaydis of Yemen)
beleive that (Ali, Hasan and Husayn) and a succession of the male line
of Husayn to have been divinely given the key to the correct
interpretion of the Qur'an. the overwhelming majority limit the number
at 12, and are known as Twelvers. they call them just Imams as those
after `Ali didn't hold temporal power. the 12th Imam died under
mysterious circumstances and the Twelver Shia await his return to
restore Islam against the injustices they see as perpetrated and
restrore `Ali's name in the Qur'an that they believe was erased from
the current canon. but the sixth Imam Ja`far survived his son and named
successor Ismail. a minority group believed in the legitimacy of the
Imamate of Ismail and his descendants nevertheless. in the Middle Ages
an Ismaili claimant seized power in Egypt and set up a state and
empire, known as Fatimid Caliphate. they are called Caliphs since they
held state power. dynastic disputes led to religious schisms. the
majority of Ismailis today are Nizaris. they set up a state in Iran in
the Middle Ages in the mountain stronghold of Alamut and had allied
castles in Syria. their detractors called them Assasins (Hashishiyya or
Hashshashiyyin) by the alledged use hashish amongst their elite
followers. there are minor sectarian differences amongst them but the
overwhelming majority recognize the Agha Khan in Pakistan as Imam.
there are also some non-Nizari Ismaili pockets, such as in Zanzibar.
Ismailism is filled with esoteric doctrine. the Zaydis (in Yemen)
recognize any Alid as capable of becoming Imam, theoreticaly the most
qualified and theoretically, not through a line of heredity. his title
was contingent on being just and upholding Islamic principles. but in
practice, the Zaydi Imams became a monarchy ruling Yemen until 1962
with a civil war with republican forces lasting until 1968. Zaydism is
the branch Shiism closest to the Sunnis.

roll back to Muawiya. he named his son as succsesor and had people take
an oath of loyalty to his son while he was while he was still alive.
this made the Caliphate into a monarchy, whereas previously it was an
oligarchy, the Caliph being chosen by a senate, as was the practice in
electing the leaders of most of the city states of pre-Islamic Arabia.
after Muawiya, there began a successions of Caliphs of his clan, the
Umayyad Caliphate, with the title khalifatu~lla:h, Vicar of God and
considered themselves arbiters in relIgious matters as well as rulers.
they were overthrown by the Abbasids, who said reclaimed the legitamicy
of the House of the Prophet, but they were descended from the uncle of
The Prophet, Abbas, rather Ali. they adopted the more modest title
khalifatu rasu:lallah, Vicar of the Messengar of God. in general, they
did not regard themselves the final arbitar in relgious matters leaving
that to the scholars. meanwhile, a surviving Ummayad set up his own
Caliphate in Muslim Spain. the Abbasid period also later saw Alid but
Sunni Caliphates set up in Morocco, and the King of Morocco still
claims that title. in the beginning of the 9th century the Abbasid
Caliph revived the idea of the Caliph as Imam, an arbitar in religious
matters, and upheld the doctrine of the created Qur'an through an
inquisition called the mi���na, testing or trial. incidentally this
philosophy remained popular amongst the great Islamic philosophers and
natural philosophers, but it was unpopular with the populace. afterward
this period matters of religion were relegated to the scholars. the
Sunni view of the Caliphate developed around then. the first four
Caliphs, Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman and Ali were the "Rightly Guided" and
their actions and sayings were binding as to a source of Islamic law.
the rest were legitimate but only as temporal rulers establishing
Islamic law, they were only sultanates. Muawiya and his son Yazid were
generally disliked, Ali revered but not to the extent of the Shia, his
sons Hasan and Husayn were martyrs and respected relgious figures but
not to the extent of the Shia. as the Abbasid Caliphate waned and
especially after the Abbasids became a shadow Caliphate under the
protection of the Mamluks of Egypt, the variosu sultans assumed
caliphal titles. Enc of Islam II "Imama" has:

<<

The duties of the imām were defined as: guarding the faith against
heterodoxy, enforcing law and justice between disputing parties,
dispensing legal punishments ( ���udūd ), protection of peace in the
territory of Islam and its defence against external enemies, conducting
the djihād against those resisting the supremacy of Islam, receiving
the legal alms, taxes, and the fifth of the booty, distributing the
revenue in accordance with the law, and the appointment of reliable and
sincere men in delegating authority.

... later Sunnī scholars often emphasized that the imāmate properly
belonged to the derived legal matters ( furū` ), not to the
fundamentals of religion ( u���ūl al-dīn ), even though traditionally it
was discussed in the u���ūl works rather than the expositions of the law.
This consideration, originally meant to counter the Shīʿī view placing
the imāmate at the core of religion, now served to mitigate the impact
of the realization that the imāmate in fact no longer existed. Late
Sunnī creeds commonly did not refer to the imāmate at all or mentioned
only the caliphate of the Rāshidūn.
there was also the debated condition as to whether the Caliph / Imam
had to be of the tribe of Quraysh, Muhammad's tribe. many political
thinkers like the great political scientist, sociologist and historian
Ibn Khaldun answered that this was a weak and not neccessary condition,
as it was prefferable to have a good ruler who was not of the Quraysh
as Caliph rather than a less qualified one that is. such thinking
allowed the sultans of Turkish, Persian or Chinggisid origin that
dominated Islam in the post-Mongol era to claim Caliphal titles. of
these the claim of the Ottoman Sultans was the most credible,
particularly after they put an end to the shadow Abbasid Caliphate in
Egypt after their conquest of Egypt. they were the major Muslim power
and controlled the holy cities of Mecca and Medina and the pilgrimage
route, as protecting the pilgrimage was one of the duties of the
Caliph. they also appropriated the holy relics including the alledged
banner of Muhammad. when deposing a sultan the coup makers appealed to
a scholar who would certify that under Islamic Law that a caliph who
committed such and such crimes had forfeited his right tthe title and
shoudl be deposed. in the end of the 18th cent, when the Ottomans lost
Crimea to the Russians under a humiliating treaty they saved face by
stipulating that the Friday sermon in mosques in Russia should be
continue to read the Friday sermon under their name as Caliph. at the
end of the 19th century the claim of caliphate was central to the
Pan-Islamist ideology of the tyrant Sultan Abdulhamid II.
Muslim revolts in Kashgar (Xinjiang, China) and Aceh (then Dutch East
Indies) sought Ottoman support and minted coins in the name of the
Ottoman Sultan / Caliph.

when the Arab Revolt broke out during WWI, the Sharif (descendant of
Ali through Hasan) of Mecca, Husayn (a Qurayshi) declared that the
House of Osman had done great service as Caliphs but had forfeited that
right by coming under the secularizing Young Turks. the ottoman Empire
was defeated and dismembered after WWI. the victorious nationalist
forces against the foreign occupation, under the authority of the Grand
National Assmebly of Turkey abolished the Sultanate, but allowed the
last sultan, Sultan Vahideddin (Vahdettin) to remain as caliph on
November 1, 1922. but this sultan had his image tarnished as a
collaborator and was clearly unwlecome, and he secretly escaped on a
Britsh warship on November 17. the next day the same Assembly elected
the successor Abdülmejid (Abdülmecid) as Caliph only. he was a
nationalist sympathizer and a rather accomplished painter. on October
29, 1923 the Republic was declared. on March 3, 1924 after obtaining
religious opinions that a Caliph without any temporal power was
meaningless (and this is true) the Assembly abolished the office of the
Caliphate and sent all members of the Ottoman dynasty into exile.
meanwhile Vahideddin was in poverty and exile in France, recognizing
neither his deposition as Sultan nor Caliph and at odds with his cousin
Abdülmecid and that wing of the exiled royals. at this opportunity
Sharif Husayn, now king of Hijaz (and by his account of all Arabs),
declared himself Caliph on March 5. he invited Vahideddin to the Hijaz
in hopes of obtaining bay`ah (recognition) to his caliphate. it is
unclear whether he actually got it, he claimed he did. Vahiddedin was
sick and badly nurished and the desert heat was making it worse and he
anxious to get away. but Husayn got no support from the Muslim world as
he was too pro-British. at any rate, he was defeated by pro-Saudi
forces in October. Abdüulmecid (he would have been Abdülmecid II) is
widely regarded as the last Caliph. the King of Morocco does not claim
any authority beyond his country with the title Commander of the
Faithful (this title was used by the Taliban as well). in 1926 an
international conference was on the question of the Caliphate and the
claims of some Muslim rulers to it, but not all Muslim countries
attended. the prevailing view is that the Caliphate was not done right
for a long time anyway and there is no serious movement to restore it,
some fringe jihadi groups excepted.

the current Pan-Islamic organization is the Organization of Islamic
Cooperation, originally the Organzitation of the Islamic Conference,
founded September 25, 1969. it includes all Muslim majority states
except Kosovo. Northern Cyprus is an obsever member under the name
Turkish cypriot State, as is Bosnia. it also includes several states
with a substantial Muslim minority including Russia with observer
status. it recognizes all principle sects as fully Muslim and has
adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in its charter. it is
recognized by the UN.

Post by Yusuf B Gursey
sectarian division in Islam. Islam has a relatively simple theology the
essential of which is tersely stated in the Shahada, the slightly expanded
"Amantu" (I believe in .,.) or the short 4 verse Ikhlas Surah (Chapter 112)
of the Qur'an. whether the Qur'an is created or not is also question that
later came up but this can cut across the sectarian lines. the three
divisions of Islam, Sunni, Shia and Kharijite (repesented in moderate Ibadi
form and never numerous, the state religion in Oman and present as Berber
pockets in N. Africa) disagree on the caliphate, and the near identical issue
of the Imamate (Imam is the the leader of the Islamic community) and its
consequences.
right now the question of the Caliphate has been dropped by the world Islamic
community, although some seek to revive it, with various intepretations.
I will leave it for a seperate post.
see also Enc. of Islam II "Khalifa" and "Imam".

[Peter Duncanson [BrE]]

Post by Alex
- Khanate (e.g., the Bulgar Khanate)
- Ilkanate (e.g., the Persian Ilkanate)
- Caliphate (e.g., the Abbasid Caliphate)
- Sultinate (e.g., the Delhi Sultanate)
- Emirate (e.g., the Sicilian Emirate)
Reading Wikipedia to make some sense out of the complexity, is
this focused summary close enough yet?
Khanate (Mongol kingdom?)

A quick look at Wikipedia suggests that is an oversimplification.
In the article for Khanate refers to Post-Mongol Kkanates, atc:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khanate#Post-Mongol_khanates

Post by Alex
Ilkanate (Khanate tributary)
Caliphate (Islamic theocracy?)
Sultinate (Arab dictatorship?)
Emirate (Muslim kingdom?)

I'm not familiar with the details of those designations. However, I'd be
cautious about making broad assumptions.

For example there are countries classified as monarchies, they have a
king or queen. Some are fully democractic with the monarch as a
figurehead: Canada, Australia and the UK for instance. Others have a
monarch who has absolute power: Saudi Arabia for instance. The first are
"constitutional monarchies" and the latter are "absolute monarchies".
Both types are in the category "Kingdom".

Similarly countries with presidents may be dictatorships or democracies.

Kuwait is a country with an Emir. However it is a constitutional
monarchy with parliamentary democracy.

Similarly the Netherlands ("Holland") is a constitutional monarchy with
parliamentary democracy.

[Steve Hayes]

On Sat, 03 Aug 2013 10:39:08 +0100, "Peter Duncanson [BrE]"

Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]

Post by Alex
- Khanate (e.g., the Bulgar Khanate)
- Ilkanate (e.g., the Persian Ilkanate)
- Caliphate (e.g., the Abbasid Caliphate)
- Sultinate (e.g., the Delhi Sultanate)
- Emirate (e.g., the Sicilian Emirate)
Reading Wikipedia to make some sense out of the complexity, is
this focused summary close enough yet?
Khanate (Mongol kingdom?)

A quick look at Wikipedia suggests that is an oversimplification.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khanate#Post-Mongol_khanates

Post by Alex
Ilkanate (Khanate tributary)
Caliphate (Islamic theocracy?)
Sultinate (Arab dictatorship?)
Emirate (Muslim kingdom?)

I'm not familiar with the details of those designations. However, I'd be
cautious about making broad assumptions.

Most of them look wrong to me, though I'm no expert.

Caliphate means the succession to Mohammed as "the spiritual leader of
Muslims" (as journalists like to say nowadays). It's the big bone of
contention between Sunni and Shia Muslims, I believe.

The Sultan was the emperor of the Ottoman Empire, also called the "Khan of
khans", and there was a huge array of terms for undelings and governors and
the like, including

bey
pasha
khedive
khan

and some of them changed in meaning over time -- the Khedives of Egypt became
virtually independent rulers in the 19th century, for example.

Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
For example there are countries classified as monarchies, they have a
king or queen. Some are fully democractic with the monarch as a
figurehead: Canada, Australia and the UK for instance. Others have a
monarch who has absolute power: Saudi Arabia for instance. The first are
"constitutional monarchies" and the latter are "absolute monarchies".
Both types are in the category "Kingdom".
Similarly countries with presidents may be dictatorships or democracies.
Kuwait is a country with an Emir. However it is a constitutional
monarchy with parliamentary democracy.
Similarly the Netherlands ("Holland") is a constitutional monarchy with
parliamentary democracy.

[Yusuf B Gursey]

Post by Steve Hayes
On Sat, 03 Aug 2013 10:39:08 +0100, "Peter Duncanson [BrE]"

Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]

Post by Alex
- Khanate (e.g., the Bulgar Khanate)
- Ilkanate (e.g., the Persian Ilkanate)
- Caliphate (e.g., the Abbasid Caliphate)
- Sultinate (e.g., the Delhi Sultanate)
- Emirate (e.g., the Sicilian Emirate)
Reading Wikipedia to make some sense out of the complexity, is
this focused summary close enough yet?
Khanate (Mongol kingdom?)

A quick look at Wikipedia suggests that is an oversimplification.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khanate#Post-Mongol_khanates

Post by Alex
Ilkanate (Khanate tributary)
Caliphate (Islamic theocracy?)
Sultinate (Arab dictatorship?)
Emirate (Muslim kingdom?)

I'm not familiar with the details of those designations. However, I'd be
cautious about making broad assumptions.

Most of them look wrong to me, though I'm no expert.
Caliphate means the succession to Mohammed as "the spiritual leader of
Muslims" (as journalists like to say nowadays). It's the big bone of
contention between Sunni and Shia Muslims, I believe.
The Sultan was the emperor of the Ottoman Empire, also called the "Khan of
khans", and there was a huge array of terms for undelings and governors and
the like, including
bey
pasha
khedive
khan

yes. Khedive seems to have been coined exclusively for the descendants
of Muhammad (Mehmed) Ali, perhaps from a Turkish family that move to
(present day) Albania. it seems to be the Turkish pronounciation of the
Persian word for "lord" put into an Arabic dimunitive form.

Khan was reserved for the Sultan and male members of his family and
that
of the Chingissid Crimean Khan who enjoyed a privilaged position (see
my post). the title Khaqan is the old steppe culture title (for want of
a better word, or Turco-Mongol title) that was reserved for the
reigining emperor.

Post by Steve Hayes
and some of them changed in meaning over time -- the Khedives of Egypt became
virtually independent rulers in the 19th century, for example.

Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
For example there are countries classified as monarchies, they have a
king or queen. Some are fully democractic with the monarch as a
figurehead: Canada, Australia and the UK for instance. Others have a
monarch who has absolute power: Saudi Arabia for instance. The first are
"constitutional monarchies" and the latter are "absolute monarchies".
Both types are in the category "Kingdom".
Similarly countries with presidents may be dictatorships or democracies.
Kuwait is a country with an Emir. However it is a constitutional
monarchy with parliamentary democracy.
Similarly the Netherlands ("Holland") is a constitutional monarchy with
parliamentary democracy.

[Yusuf B Gursey]

Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]

Post by Alex
- Khanate (e.g., the Bulgar Khanate)
- Ilkanate (e.g., the Persian Ilkanate)
- Caliphate (e.g., the Abbasid Caliphate)
- Sultinate (e.g., the Delhi Sultanate)
- Emirate (e.g., the Sicilian Emirate)
Reading Wikipedia to make some sense out of the complexity, is
this focused summary close enough yet?
Khanate (Mongol kingdom?)

A quick look at Wikipedia suggests that is an oversimplification.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khanate#Post-Mongol_khanates

the Chingissid Khanates, after adopting Islam rapidly Turkified and
assimilated to their Turkic speaking population. ethnic Mongols were
never very nuemrous in the Western wing of the empire, and even in
Southern Central Asia "Turkistan". those that remained Buddhist or
following traditional religion were expelled to Mongolia. Muslim
Mongols remained in Afghanistan as the Muslim Moghul. the Buddhist
Kalmyk speaking a Mongol dialect in European Russia today are
descendants of Mongols that peacebely entered the region later as a
result of tribal war in Mongolia.


the title Khan, of obscure origin, was in use before the Mongols as we
know them, in the Xienbi federation of the Ruan Ruan, that very
probably contained a Mongol element of debated but signifiacant weight
(mainly Mongol to signifcantly Mongol) and an archaic Turkic component.
the Xienbi vocabulary compiled by the Chinese in Chinese characters and
hence difficult to reconstruct, contains words common to both Mongol
and Turkic. there was some ethnic and dialect change when the Tu"rk
took over, forged a native alphabet based on earlier scripts, wrote in
Turkic and imposing a certain ammount of linguistic unity to the Turkic
people and gave their name to them. the use of "Turk" for Anatolian
Turks exclusively is quite recent and tied to the rise of the Ottomans
and the demise of the Silk Road.

Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]

Post by Alex
Ilkanate (Khanate tributary)
Caliphate (Islamic theocracy?)
Sultinate (Arab dictatorship?)
Emirate (Muslim kingdom?)

I'm not familiar with the details of those designations. However, I'd be
cautious about making broad assumptions.
For example there are countries classified as monarchies, they have a
king or queen. Some are fully democractic with the monarch as a
figurehead: Canada, Australia and the UK for instance. Others have a
monarch who has absolute power: Saudi Arabia for instance. The first are
"constitutional monarchies" and the latter are "absolute monarchies".
Both types are in the category "Kingdom".
Similarly countries with presidents may be dictatorships or democracies.
Kuwait is a country with an Emir. However it is a constitutional
monarchy with parliamentary democracy.

not very democratic.

Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
Similarly the Netherlands ("Holland") is a constitutional monarchy with
parliamentary democracy.

[Alex]

Post by Yusuf B Gursey
the title Khan, of obscure origin, was in use before
the Mongols, as we know them

This had been unknown to me, but, it adequately explains the
existence of the "Bulgar Khanate" prior to the Mongolian-led
devastation of the steppes.

[Yusuf B Gursey]

AlexMilman in <4c7c884a-e57c-444d-8660-***@googlegroups.com>,
wrote on 8/6/2013 :

other groups restores

Post by Alex

Post by Yusuf B Gursey
the title Khan, of obscure origin, was in use before
the Mongols, as we know them

This had been unknown to me, but, it adequately explains the
existence of the "Bulgar Khanate" prior to the Mongolian-led
devastation of the steppes.

Why "devastation"?

[Alex]

Post by Yusuf B Gursey
the use of "Turk" for Anatolian
Turks exclusively is quite recent and tied to the rise of the Ottomans
and the demise of the Silk Road.

Having traveled the world, it always amazes me the widespread
animosity still remaining toward the "Turks", e.g., in Malta,
they still talk about it, as they do in the Ionian islands.

The one thing that has *always* confused me is the difference
between the "Turks" and the various and sundry people of the steppes?

Were they one and the same?

[Yusuf B Gursey]

Alex in <ktkigq$nd8$***@solani.org>, wrote on 8/3/2013 :

please stop placing follow ups to alt.english.usage exclusively.
sci.lang and soc.history,medieval are far more relevant to the topic
than alt.usage.english

Post by Alex

Post by Yusuf B Gursey
the use of "Turk" for Anatolian
Turks exclusively is quite recent and tied to the rise of the Ottomans
and the demise of the Silk Road.

Having traveled the world, it always amazes me the widespread
animosity still remaining toward the "Turks", e.g., in Malta,
they still talk about it, as they do in the Ionian islands.
The one thing that has *always* confused me is the difference
between the "Turks" and the various and sundry people of the steppes?

Turkish was introduced into Anatolia in the 11th cent as a result of
migration and military conquest. it is still a minor mystery how the
language and culture and religion (Islam) spread given what seems to
be, judging from DNA and other evidence, not that great people
migrating and displacing a well entrenched language like Greek by
semi-nomadic people. also, with some ruffles, language and ethnic
identity followed religion very closely withot a single religious or
secular literary monument.

Turkic languages form a very closely knit group, especially given the
distances and time frame involved. especially Chuvash (spoken in a
pocket in the upper Volga region) and then Yakut - Dolgan (Sakha
Republic, Russian Federation) are the most divergent. Chuvash are
descndants of the Turkic (called ex post facto) Bulghar people and the
their language was introduced into the Russian steppe before the
formation of the Tu"rk (or Tu"rku"t)steppe empire that gave the
linguistic and ethnic group its name, many speculate by the European
Huns. the principle groups of mainstream Turkic, the Oghuz (Turkmen,
Azerbaijani, Anatolian Turkish), the Central Asian group (Uzbek, Uygur)
and Kypchak (Tatar, other languages of the Russian, formerly Kypchak
steppe and through a post-Mongol eastwards migration Kazakh and Kyrgyz)
were present but less divergent since the 11th cent. and before. they
were known as Turks because of language and association with the Tu"rk
Empire. there are many details, languages not mentioned, quibbles and
ruffles along the way. mutual intelligibilty within these groups is
quite high, but there are other factors such as closeness of literary
tradition etc.

Post by Alex
Were they one and the same?

[Robert Bannister]

Post by Yusuf B Gursey

Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]

Post by Alex
- Khanate (e.g., the Bulgar Khanate)
- Ilkanate (e.g., the Persian Ilkanate)
- Caliphate (e.g., the Abbasid Caliphate)
- Sultinate (e.g., the Delhi Sultanate)
- Emirate (e.g., the Sicilian Emirate)
Reading Wikipedia to make some sense out of the complexity, is this
focused summary close enough yet?
Khanate (Mongol kingdom?)

A quick look at Wikipedia suggests that is an oversimplification.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khanate#Post-Mongol_khanates

the Chingissid Khanates, after adopting Islam rapidly Turkified and
assimilated to their Turkic speaking population. ethnic Mongols were
never very nuemrous in the Western wing of the empire, and even in
Southern Central Asia "Turkistan". those that remained Buddhist or
following traditional religion were expelled to Mongolia. Muslim Mongols
remained in Afghanistan as the Muslim Moghul. the Buddhist Kalmyk
speaking a Mongol dialect in European Russia today are descendants of
Mongols that peacebely entered the region later as a result of tribal
war in Mongolia.
the title Khan, of obscure origin, was in use before the Mongols as we
know them, in the Xienbi federation of the Ruan Ruan, that very probably
contained a Mongol element of debated but signifiacant weight (mainly
Mongol to signifcantly Mongol) and an archaic Turkic component. the
Xienbi vocabulary compiled by the Chinese in Chinese characters and
hence difficult to reconstruct, contains words common to both Mongol and
Turkic. there was some ethnic and dialect change when the Tu"rk took
over, forged a native alphabet based on earlier scripts, wrote in Turkic
and imposing a certain ammount of linguistic unity to the Turkic people
and gave their name to them. the use of "Turk" for Anatolian Turks
exclusively is quite recent and tied to the rise of the Ottomans and the
demise of the Silk Road.

Surely it survives in the name of Turkmenistan.

[Yusuf B Gursey]

Post by Robert Bannister

Post by Yusuf B Gursey

Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]

Post by Alex
- Khanate (e.g., the Bulgar Khanate)
- Ilkanate (e.g., the Persian Ilkanate)
- Caliphate (e.g., the Abbasid Caliphate)
- Sultinate (e.g., the Delhi Sultanate)
- Emirate (e.g., the Sicilian Emirate)
Reading Wikipedia to make some sense out of the complexity, is this
focused summary close enough yet?
Khanate (Mongol kingdom?)

A quick look at Wikipedia suggests that is an oversimplification.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khanate#Post-Mongol_khanates

the Chingissid Khanates, after adopting Islam rapidly Turkified and
assimilated to their Turkic speaking population. ethnic Mongols were
never very nuemrous in the Western wing of the empire, and even in
Southern Central Asia "Turkistan". those that remained Buddhist or
following traditional religion were expelled to Mongolia. Muslim Mongols
remained in Afghanistan as the Muslim Moghul. the Buddhist Kalmyk
speaking a Mongol dialect in European Russia today are descendants of
Mongols that peacebely entered the region later as a result of tribal
war in Mongolia.
the title Khan, of obscure origin, was in use before the Mongols as we
know them, in the Xienbi federation of the Ruan Ruan, that very probably
contained a Mongol element of debated but signifiacant weight (mainly
Mongol to signifcantly Mongol) and an archaic Turkic component. the
Xienbi vocabulary compiled by the Chinese in Chinese characters and
hence difficult to reconstruct, contains words common to both Mongol and
Turkic. there was some ethnic and dialect change when the Tu"rk took
over, forged a native alphabet based on earlier scripts, wrote in Turkic
and imposing a certain ammount of linguistic unity to the Turkic people
and gave their name to them. the use of "Turk" for Anatolian Turks
exclusively is quite recent and tied to the rise of the Ottomans and the
demise of the Silk Road.

Surely it survives in the name of Turkmenistan.

nevvertheless they are called Turkmens, not Turks.

[Robert Bannister]

Post by Yusuf B Gursey

Post by Robert Bannister

Post by Yusuf B Gursey

Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]

Post by Alex
- Khanate (e.g., the Bulgar Khanate)
- Ilkanate (e.g., the Persian Ilkanate)
- Caliphate (e.g., the Abbasid Caliphate)
- Sultinate (e.g., the Delhi Sultanate)
- Emirate (e.g., the Sicilian Emirate)
Reading Wikipedia to make some sense out of the complexity, is this
focused summary close enough yet?
Khanate (Mongol kingdom?)

A quick look at Wikipedia suggests that is an oversimplification.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khanate#Post-Mongol_khanates

the Chingissid Khanates, after adopting Islam rapidly Turkified and
assimilated to their Turkic speaking population. ethnic Mongols were
never very nuemrous in the Western wing of the empire, and even in
Southern Central Asia "Turkistan". those that remained Buddhist or
following traditional religion were expelled to Mongolia. Muslim Mongols
remained in Afghanistan as the Muslim Moghul. the Buddhist Kalmyk
speaking a Mongol dialect in European Russia today are descendants of
Mongols that peacebely entered the region later as a result of tribal
war in Mongolia.
the title Khan, of obscure origin, was in use before the Mongols as we
know them, in the Xienbi federation of the Ruan Ruan, that very probably
contained a Mongol element of debated but signifiacant weight (mainly
Mongol to signifcantly Mongol) and an archaic Turkic component. the
Xienbi vocabulary compiled by the Chinese in Chinese characters and
hence difficult to reconstruct, contains words common to both Mongol and
Turkic. there was some ethnic and dialect change when the Tu"rk took
over, forged a native alphabet based on earlier scripts, wrote in Turkic
and imposing a certain ammount of linguistic unity to the Turkic people
and gave their name to them. the use of "Turk" for Anatolian Turks
exclusively is quite recent and tied to the rise of the Ottomans and the
demise of the Silk Road.

Surely it survives in the name of Turkmenistan.

nevvertheless they are called Turkmens, not Turks.

Ah, I hadn't thought of that. I certainly noticed that the word
"Turkish" was not used when I was in Tashkent and Samarkand despite the
obvious similarities.

[Yusuf B Gursey]

Post by Yusuf B Gursey

Post by Robert Bannister

Post by Yusuf B Gursey

Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]

Post by Alex
- Khanate (e.g., the Bulgar Khanate)
- Ilkanate (e.g., the Persian Ilkanate)
- Caliphate (e.g., the Abbasid Caliphate)
- Sultinate (e.g., the Delhi Sultanate)
- Emirate (e.g., the Sicilian Emirate)
Reading Wikipedia to make some sense out of the complexity, is this
focused summary close enough yet?
Khanate (Mongol kingdom?)

A quick look at Wikipedia suggests that is an oversimplification.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khanate#Post-Mongol_khanates

the Chingissid Khanates, after adopting Islam rapidly Turkified and
assimilated to their Turkic speaking population. ethnic Mongols were
never very nuemrous in the Western wing of the empire, and even in
Southern Central Asia "Turkistan". those that remained Buddhist or
following traditional religion were expelled to Mongolia. Muslim Mongols
remained in Afghanistan as the Muslim Moghul. the Buddhist Kalmyk
speaking a Mongol dialect in European Russia today are descendants of
Mongols that peacebely entered the region later as a result of tribal
war in Mongolia.
the title Khan, of obscure origin, was in use before the Mongols as we
know them, in the Xienbi federation of the Ruan Ruan, that very probably
contained a Mongol element of debated but signifiacant weight (mainly
Mongol to signifcantly Mongol) and an archaic Turkic component. the
Xienbi vocabulary compiled by the Chinese in Chinese characters and
hence difficult to reconstruct, contains words common to both Mongol and
Turkic. there was some ethnic and dialect change when the Tu"rk took
over, forged a native alphabet based on earlier scripts, wrote in Turkic
and imposing a certain ammount of linguistic unity to the Turkic people
and gave their name to them. the use of "Turk" for Anatolian Turks
exclusively is quite recent and tied to the rise of the Ottomans and the
demise of the Silk Road.

Surely it survives in the name of Turkmenistan.

nevvertheless they are called Turkmens, not Turks.

Ah, I hadn't thought of that. I certainly noticed that the word "Turkish" was
not used when I was in Tashkent and Samarkand despite the obvious
similarities.

these are modern terminology. Turkmen has always refered to Oghuz Turks
that kept the tribal structure. in terms of self identity Tu"rk has
been a general term of members using the various languages but not of
the Bulghars (notice I use <gh> to distinguish from the Slavic people)
since they were not part of the Tu"rk or Tu"rku"t Empire. Khazars spoke
Bulghar Turkic but they are identified as Turks for dynastic reasons.

in medieval Arabic sources around the crusades "Turk" refered to Turks
who were military slaves (mamlukes), Tu"rkmen freeborn Muslim Oghuz
Turks, and Oghuz or Ghuzz pagan Oghuz Turks, all speaking Oghuz Turkic
(as Anatolian Turks are) except the Mamlukes of Egypt.

the self designation of the languages has been Tu"rk*che or Tu"rki
(Persifying register), with an appropriate qualifier if neccessary.
that Tu"rk*ch*e (or in English Turkish) refers to Anatolian Turkish and
Tu"rki for Uzbek or New Uyghur is recent. in modern times after the
beginning of the 20th century Turk has reffered to Anatolian Turks
exclisively.

[The Horny Goat]

Post by Yusuf B Gursey

Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
Similarly countries with presidents may be dictatorships or democracies.
Kuwait is a country with an Emir. However it is a constitutional
monarchy with parliamentary democracy.

not very democratic.

Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
Similarly the Netherlands ("Holland") is a constitutional monarchy with
parliamentary democracy.

Theoretically England was a democracy around 1610. So allegedly were
the Netherlands.

Hopefully it does not take the Kuwaitis 4 centuries to enter the 21st
century...

[John Varela]

Post by Alex
Sultinate (Arab dictatorship?)

Sultanate. The Ottoman Empire was a sultanate, and it was not Arab.

[Alex]

Post by John Varela
Sultanate. The Ottoman Empire was a sultanate, and it was not Arab.

I realize that now! Thanks.

I'm not sure if I'm less confused now, than before.

But, I see the incestuous nature of *all* these monikers makes
a simplistic definition nearly impossible to contrive.

[j***@gmail.com]

You forgot the Shogunate

[Yusuf B Gursey]

Post by j***@gmail.com
You forgot the Shogunate

Japanese. Basically the Shogun was the chief military commander,
but held effective power, the Emperor beingh a sacral figurehead.

A similar but unrelated situation was in the Khazar Empire.
The emperor (qa*gh*an) was the nominal chief sacral figure,
but affairs were run by the military commander , the Beg.

[s***@gmail.com]

Post by Yusuf B Gursey

Post by j***@gmail.com
You forgot the Shogunate

Japanese. Basically the Shogun was the chief military commander,
but held effective power, the Emperor beingh a sacral figurehead.
A similar but unrelated situation was in the Khazar Empire.
The emperor (qa*gh*an) was the nominal chief sacral figure,
but affairs were run by the military commander , the Beg.

France got into that mode, also, with the mayor of the palace (Latin: maior palatii) or majordomo (maior domus). All hail the Pippinids and the Arnulfing.

/dps

[Tak To]

Post by Yusuf B Gursey

Post by j***@gmail.com
You forgot the Shogunate

Japanese. Basically the Shogun was the chief military commander,
but held effective power, the Emperor beingh a sacral figurehead.

But "shogunate" does not refer to the country, it refers
to the office of the Shogun. I believe it was specifically
coined to translate the Japanese term Bakufu 幕府.

Post by Yusuf B Gursey
A similar but unrelated situation was in the Khazar Empire.
The emperor (qa*gh*an) was the nominal chief sacral figure,
but affairs were run by the military commander , the Beg.