Ottomans did it with the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople as well.As a smart way to deal with the Muslims that will be a clear majority of some areas of the empire, they can keep the Ottoman Sultan as their hostage in a palace acting as a mere figurehead. I mean, the Mamluks did it with the Abbasids, but they were both Muslims..
Ottomans did it with the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople as well.
As a religious leader.
I guess the Greeks could establish a "Grand Mullah of Rome" or something, but that's not the same thing as a caliph.
Why they can't simply make the sultan their hostage?
Why would they make the Sultan their hostage? Surely creating a pliant "Grand Mullah" would be a better idea?
Any Caliph who converted to Christianity would no longer be the Caliph, by definition.the only possible way I can see a Christian caliph is if a caliph was somehow to convert to Christianity
the only possible way I can see a Christian caliph is if a caliph was somehow to convert to Christianity
Any Caliph who converted to Christianity would no longer be the Caliph, by definition.
Okay this is actually impossible, I hope you understand? Like it's not even ASB, it's not possible. It's like "AHC: Make Inanimate objects Anabaptists". Khalif arrasul literally means "deputy of the prophet". The earliest Khalifs were the commanders of the muslim faithful. It makes no sense. Just say you want the byzantines to retake Constantinople, like idgi. I can't actually comprehend the cognitive dissonance.