Caliph=Islamic Pope
- Thread starter othyrsyde
- Start date
Kaptin Kurk
Banned
Great Question. I see two issues: 1) You'd have to have Islam develop some sort of territorial association with Religious Legitimacy, that is, descent from the prophet, religious knowledge, or piety can't in and of itself be considered to outweigh or necessarily be equal to claims of having the allegiance of the faithful of a particular region of polity, most likely Mecca, perhaps Jerusalem. 2) You'd have to have Muslim rulers, not actually there, and independent, accept its legitimacy.
In the end, I think you're best bet is some very early change, wherein one of the Prophet's male children survive, and is thus able to establish a literally and figurative Patriarchy. At that point, the concept of dualism might be introduced, where either the female (or likely male) descent from the Prophet could be considered "Political" and the other "Religious" Anywyas, a possibility. Without such dualism, however, such a figure as the Pope is unlikely.
In the end, I think you're best bet is some very early change, wherein one of the Prophet's male children survive, and is thus able to establish a literally and figurative Patriarchy. At that point, the concept of dualism might be introduced, where either the female (or likely male) descent from the Prophet could be considered "Political" and the other "Religious" Anywyas, a possibility. Without such dualism, however, such a figure as the Pope is unlikely.
birdboy2000
Banned
OTL saw more than a few Caliphs of the Abbasid line with little to no territorial authority, first during the period of Seljuk ascendancy, then later in Cairo after the Mongols took Baghdad, as a means to legitimize the Mamlukes.
If the Ottomans follow in that tradition after taking Egypt, rather than claiming the caliphate for themselves, such a role as spiritual leader of Sunni Muslims without any temporal power could very well last into the present. Even the rise of secular ideologies or the decline of the Ottoman Empire (which need not happen at the same time with a PoD so far back) would struggle to destroy such a long-lived institution.
OTL any caliphate at all was destroyed by those forces, but OTL the positions of Caliph and Sultan had become unified and military power (to wage jihad/defend the faithful/etc.) the source of legitimacy. If the Caliph throughout the Ottoman period is a figurehead in Cairo or Istanbul or Mecca, this just doesn't apply and the Caliph, like the Pope, would survive as a religious authority independent of real political power.
If the Ottomans follow in that tradition after taking Egypt, rather than claiming the caliphate for themselves, such a role as spiritual leader of Sunni Muslims without any temporal power could very well last into the present. Even the rise of secular ideologies or the decline of the Ottoman Empire (which need not happen at the same time with a PoD so far back) would struggle to destroy such a long-lived institution.
OTL any caliphate at all was destroyed by those forces, but OTL the positions of Caliph and Sultan had become unified and military power (to wage jihad/defend the faithful/etc.) the source of legitimacy. If the Caliph throughout the Ottoman period is a figurehead in Cairo or Istanbul or Mecca, this just doesn't apply and the Caliph, like the Pope, would survive as a religious authority independent of real political power.
Kaptin Kurk
Banned
I'd think a Muslim Pope would end up being more akin to an Orthodox Patriarch at best. In the sense that he might be the exactly same person as the greatest local temporal authority, but subserviant to him. However, in such an arrangment, there does persist the potential for a Caliph / Patriarch to outlast, or even in rare occassions, outshine, that temporal authority which would generally be his dominator.
The problem isn't making the Caliph a figurehead. The Caliph was pretty much a figurehead starting in the 9th Dynasty as local warlords and invaders broke up the Abbassid state.
The main difference between the Caliph and the Pope is that the Pope - as a position - had its own separate institutions and hierarchy separate from any state. That has to do with the difference in origins between Christianity and Islam. Christianity did not control any political state in the first centuries of its existence, and its clerical hierarchy developed as essentially a non-governmental organization. Once Christianity became dominant and Christians began ruling states, there was already a separate clerical hierarchy who elected their own leadership (the Pope).
Islam, however, doesn't have clerics so it doesn't have its own separate institution that can complete with Muslim secular powers.
It might be possible for a figurehead Caliph to exist, but his position would be more analagous to the Japanese imperial family than the Pope.
The only way I could see the Caliph turn into a similar position as the Pope would require multiple PODs.
1) Muslims are not able to retain power and lose control of the state so that they are essentially ruled by non-Muslims.
2) The imams turn into a quasi-clergy to enforce internal orthodoxy since there is no government able to do so. The imams began developing an internal structure so that controversial decisions can be bounced up to more learned experts or be appealed. We would see Sunni islam develop a hierarchy like how the Shi'ite imams developed with ayatollah's, etc.
3) One strain of Islamic orthodoxy takes hold so that you don't have multiple sects of Islams. There can still be some diversity within Islam, but only within an agreed upon set of rules.
4) Out of this hierarchy, one position and only one becomes dominant so that it is seen as the universal head of the imamate.
5) At some point after this, Muslims could then begin ruling their own states, and the secular leaders need to deal with this existing, competing power structure.
Needless to say this requires a very early and massive POD.
One possibility is that as the Omayyad Caliphate falls apart, that the Abbassids are not able to seize power. Instead, the Islamic empire shatters. The Byzantines come back big time. A Zoroastarian revolt succeeds in establishing a non-Muslin Persian empire. In the West, Charles Martel crosses the Pyrenees and reconquers Spain for Christendom. As everything falls apart, native Berbers finish off Muslim rulers in northwest Africa and revert to different faiths. There are still more than enough Muslims that Islam survives, but they need to develop a completely different way to keep their faith and they adopt just like early Christianity did or Rabbinical Judaism did after the fall of the Temple.
The main difference between the Caliph and the Pope is that the Pope - as a position - had its own separate institutions and hierarchy separate from any state. That has to do with the difference in origins between Christianity and Islam. Christianity did not control any political state in the first centuries of its existence, and its clerical hierarchy developed as essentially a non-governmental organization. Once Christianity became dominant and Christians began ruling states, there was already a separate clerical hierarchy who elected their own leadership (the Pope).
Islam, however, doesn't have clerics so it doesn't have its own separate institution that can complete with Muslim secular powers.
It might be possible for a figurehead Caliph to exist, but his position would be more analagous to the Japanese imperial family than the Pope.
The only way I could see the Caliph turn into a similar position as the Pope would require multiple PODs.
1) Muslims are not able to retain power and lose control of the state so that they are essentially ruled by non-Muslims.
2) The imams turn into a quasi-clergy to enforce internal orthodoxy since there is no government able to do so. The imams began developing an internal structure so that controversial decisions can be bounced up to more learned experts or be appealed. We would see Sunni islam develop a hierarchy like how the Shi'ite imams developed with ayatollah's, etc.
3) One strain of Islamic orthodoxy takes hold so that you don't have multiple sects of Islams. There can still be some diversity within Islam, but only within an agreed upon set of rules.
4) Out of this hierarchy, one position and only one becomes dominant so that it is seen as the universal head of the imamate.
5) At some point after this, Muslims could then begin ruling their own states, and the secular leaders need to deal with this existing, competing power structure.
Needless to say this requires a very early and massive POD.
One possibility is that as the Omayyad Caliphate falls apart, that the Abbassids are not able to seize power. Instead, the Islamic empire shatters. The Byzantines come back big time. A Zoroastarian revolt succeeds in establishing a non-Muslin Persian empire. In the West, Charles Martel crosses the Pyrenees and reconquers Spain for Christendom. As everything falls apart, native Berbers finish off Muslim rulers in northwest Africa and revert to different faiths. There are still more than enough Muslims that Islam survives, but they need to develop a completely different way to keep their faith and they adopt just like early Christianity did or Rabbinical Judaism did after the fall of the Temple.
I think the (Western) european papacy hinged, as much as anything on geography: relatively short distances and a high-ish population density guaranteed good communications and fundamentally enabled a church hierarchy centered on Rome. The crusades helped sustain Latin Catholic fervor, but it should be clear Mid-Eastern aridity, etc argues against the sort of densely-settled agricultural community that might have facilitated a caliph centered system.
think Blackfox pretty much nailed my guesses straight ... while its certainly possible to delegate the Caliphate into a pseudo-Imperial Family, given at least lip service from all muslims, pushing them to become something alike a pope, would be unlikely. ... There is a reason why the Christians are the only one with a Religous leader such as the Pope
Kaptin Kurk
Banned
It's not like the Pope started off being significant. He became so because of his relationship with the relatively powerful Cristianize Knights of Rome, and politicall alliances with local "Christian Kings." Is it impossible for the Caliph to tend up a middling power, who is a position through brokerig marriage alliances and treaties and imposing military neutrality on an important citiy / countryside fot a capliph system not to arise?
Things were sorta evolving more or less that way in Baghdad when the Mongols came. Avert that, and you could have a vaguely similar situation.
Actually, some Crusader observers actually thought of the Caliph as the Muslim Pope. That was very imprecise to say the least, but there's some room for an evolution that draws the two things closer.
What about a Byzantine Roman Empire converting to Islam and the Caliph becomes the Patriacrh equivalent - ie, answers to the Emperor but with their own ecclesiastical structure.
Or an alternate is to have the Ottoman Empire more overtly claim it is the Third Rome and the Sultan becomes the Emperor and adopts a similar hierarchical structure.
Or an alternate is to have the Ottoman Empire more overtly claim it is the Third Rome and the Sultan becomes the Emperor and adopts a similar hierarchical structure.
Just have Ottoman monarchy survive to this day, either by preventing Kemal deposing them, or preventing WW1 altogether, or better, avoiding 1878 disaster.
The Mameluks were trending that way too, given their sponsorship of the Abbasid caliphal line. Come to think of it, the caliphate has arguably existed this way for most of Islamic history-maybe longer if you count the periods where the Abbasid caliphs were either effectively controlled by other states or by powerful viziers and/or Turks.
If the emperor converts he's not having the caliph as an underling, he will simply be caliph. They already had a hell of a lot of other ostentatious titles anyway.