The first sentence of the article is using a lot of loaded phrases and is pretty eurocentric. I understand that there is a reasonable expectation of some bias on (English-speaking) Wikipedia, but the characterization of the Caliphate in this way just doesn't make any historical or spiritual sense. The notion of the caliphate as "Royal" authority is just incorrect, there are no sunni or shia versions that use the term "Mulk" (Royal Dominion) as a descriptive inherent to the caliphate. Scholars like Mohammad Fadel, Wael Hallaq and even premodern Sunni legist Al Mawardi show that this notion of Caliphate as monarchy to be incorrect. The notion of absolutism is just incorrect and there are a plethora of sources (both secular and islamic) that contradict this (Wael Hallaq's The Impossible State and Salman Sayyid's "Recalling the Caliphate" are very robust examples). The article's qualifier "(intially elective, later absolute)" is just anachronistic and wrong, there were several times when the caliph (specifically the Abbasids and the Fatimids) were at the helm of superior sultanates. There were also caliphates that were later on based on some form of elections still, like the Sokoto. I believe the introduction not only paints a very false and anachronistic view of the caliphate as an institution, but it also leads the reader to conclusions that are based on ignorance. Ilovedajjal (talk) 09:41, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
- That what I also want to say [] Therealbey (talk) 18:10, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
