AHC Christian Caliph

Even if that's quite an obvious assumption (I have to admit that), is there something written specifically about it?
It's inherent in the role.

The Caliph is the Commander of the Faithful. If he's not one of the faithful, he can't very well be the Caliph, and the Muslim world would certainly not consider him so. Odds are he'd either flee to some Christian court, or be assassinated and replaced with a faithful Muslim.

As for your original supposition, the enthronement of a Christian Caliph by Christian invaders would be universally considered invalid. A Caliph is not simply appointed.
 
Anybody could take the title Caliph, the problem is to get it recognized by Muslims. I think you would need a very strong Christian state with large number of Muslim living under its rule, for such a title to be taken more serious than when the Ottomans declaring themselves Roman Emperors.
 
It's inherent in the role.

The Caliph is the Commander of the Faithful. If he's not one of the faithful, he can't very well be the Caliph, and the Muslim world would certainly not consider him so. Odds are he'd either flee to some Christian court, or be assassinated and replaced with a faithful Muslim.

As for your original supposition, the enthronement of a Christian Caliph by Christian invaders would be universally considered invalid. A Caliph is not simply appointed.

Read again the proposed scenario.

The Ottomans would live confortably in the Byzantine Empire and pass their titles freely throughout generations (think of the Aga Khan) until the last Ottoman simply decides to convert to Christianity. By then, the Ottoman nominal caliphate would be an institution, a powerless institution, but still an institution. Depending on the political context, some Muslims might actually support him.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
The great christian king (insertarandomnamehere) occupies Constantinople, takes the relics of Muhammad for himself and makes the Ottoman Sultan declare him the Caliph of Islam. Is that even possible? How would Christians and Muslims feel about it?
Possible?

Short answer: No

Longer answer: Hell no!

Be a great way to get another major war in the region (you don't mention when this would happen) that would as likely as not result in the Christian forces getting fed their lungs.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
It would be more constructive to articulate a little bit instead of being offensive and simply saying "it's not possible". We're in an alternative history forum after all.
We are indeed an Alternate History site. That does not mean, however, that the actual meaning of words or that religious title can just be willy-nilly changed.

Changes have to be plausible, have at least a minimal chance of taking place. That is the standard in both pre & post 1900, along with FH.
 
We are indeed an Alternate History site. That does not mean, however, that the actual meaning of words or that religious title can just be willy-nilly changed.

Changes have to be plausible, have at least a minimal chance of taking place. That is the standard in both pre & post 1900, along with FH.


I can work with that.
  1. Megali Idea succeeds. The Greeks occupy Constantinople and make the Ottoman Sultan their hostage in a palace on the Bosphorus;
  2. The sultan nominally maintains his titles and continues to passes them on to his sons, grandsons, etc.;
  3. Three or four generations after, a "playboy" Caliph (think of the Aga Khan) only has one son;
  4. After a period in a sky resort in Switzerland, the boy becomes infatuated with an Austrian duchess;
  5. He converts to Catholicism to marry the girl.

I get that the OP was very CK2-ish and ASB. But, honestly, is the quoted one this unplausible? Why?

By the way, I haven't been offensive to anyone's religion. Not that I'm aware of. If that was the case, I excuse myself. Nevertheless, I do think that one of the posts was unnecessarily offensive.
 
Last edited:

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
I get that the OP was very CK2-ish and ASB. But, honestly, is the quoted one this unplausible? Why?

By the way, I'm haven't been offensive to anyone's religion. Not that I'm aware of. If that was the case, I excuse myself. Nevertheless, I do think that one of the posts was unnecessarily offensive.
Caliph is a religious title. It means "Commander of the Faithful". It WOULD NOT be applied to a non-Muslim. Period. Dot.

Going a little further, since you didn't mention the date, WHEN did this supposedly happen?

The Christian kingdoms spent centuries getting their asses kicked by Muslim forces, with the occasional victory ("at the gates of Vienna" refers to a defeat by an Ottoman force that had advanced ALL THE WAY TO AUSTRIA in 1683). Islamic states was anything but a pushover (Hell the Turks stopped the Entente cold, and that was at the very end of the Ottoman era) trying to retake the city after 1460 wasn't going to end well.
 
Last edited:
Because at that point, he would have his claim revoked. Being a khalif is indivisible from being muslim- you cannot have an atheist pope, you cannot have a muslim patriarch. He could possibly still be sultan, certainly- such a title despite having very religious origins is largely political, but he can't be khalif. At that point either the khalifate would simply end or pass to a relative.
I get that the OP was very CK2-ish and ASB. But, honestly, is the quoted one this unplausible? Why?

By the way, I'm haven't been offensive to anyone's religion. Not that I'm aware of. If that was the case, I excuse myself. Nevertheless, I do think that one of the posts was unnecessarily offensive.

No, you haven't, but you don't actually get to decide that, for your future reference. I am a muslim, I don't really find this thread offensive, mostly just untenable.

Only way I can think of having a "Christian" Khalif is if Islam were declared a part of christianity near the beginning and that a synthesis of the beliefs spread far and wide in Abrahamic regions as a new type of Christian Faith.
 
Caliph is a religious title. It means "Commander of the Faithful". It WOULD NOT be applied to a non-Muslim. Period. Dot.

I'm obviously not an expert on the matter. But I found this on Wiki (it is properly referenced though):

The use of the title [Commander of the Faithful] does not necessarily signify a claim to caliphate as it is usually taken to be, but described a certain form of activist leadership which may have been attached to a caliph but also could signify a level of authority beneath that. The Ottoman sultans, in particular, made scant use of it. Moreover, the term was used by men who made no claim to be caliphs.


Going a little further, since you didn't mention the date, WHEN did this supposedly happen?

It'll certainly require HUGE butterflies. However, Megali Idea was a real ideology in Greece during the entire 19th century at least. A true Greek Reconquista would certain be hard, but not ASB or literally impossible.

Because at that point, he would have his claim revoked. Being a khalif is indivisible from being muslim- you cannot have an atheist pope, you cannot have a muslim patriarch. He could possibly still be sultan, certainly- such a title despite having very religious origins is largely political, but he can't be khalif.

It wouldn't be the first time that a stricly religious title loses its original sense. Augustus comes to mind.

No, you haven't, but you don't actually get to decide that, for your future reference.

Fair enough. I don't mean to be offensive, as it looks like a sensitive topic, I'll be reasonable and stop by now. Still, I understand that people are entitled to have sensitive issues, but there was no need to be aggressive when one didn't mean no harm.
 
Last edited:
Christian born and reared convert becoming Caliph? Pretty straightforward, and he might be followed with enough military backing. As per the title? No, best bet is a token quasi-hostage and/or the Şeyḫülislām getting a new title/promotion.
 
The great christian king (insertarandomnamehere) occupies Constantinople, takes the relics of Muhammad for himself and makes the Ottoman Sultan declare him the Caliph of Islam. Is that even possible? How would Christians and Muslims feel about it?
The great Muslim sultan (insertrandomnamehere) occupies Rome, takes the relics of Saint Peter for himself and makes the Pope declare himself the next Pope. Is that even possible? How would Muslims and Christians feel about it?
 
Any Caliph who converted to Christianity would no longer be the Caliph, by definition.
Any Caliph who became an apostate(?) and renounced Islam by converting to Christianity would soon no longer be breathing. At best he gets a quick relatively painless death by beheading but I seriously doubt he'd be that lucky. Having a run in with Vlad the Impaler would probably be better than his actual fate.
 
The great Muslim sultan (insertrandomnamehere) occupies Rome, takes the relics of Saint Peter for himself and makes the Pope declare himself the next Pope. Is that even possible? How would Muslims and Christians feel about it?

Fair enough. But it's also important to mention that the pope is the necessary a priest and the bishop of Rome. It'd require a bigger POD.

Any Caliph who became an apostate(?) and renounced Islam by converting to Christianity would soon no longer be breathing. At best he gets a quick relatively painless death by beheading but I seriously doubt he'd be that lucky. Having a run in with Vlad the Impaler would probably be better than his actual fate.

I didn't want to continue the topic, but... Even though it sounds absurd at first, as I said, it wouldn't be the first time that a strictly religious title changes to be a more political or moral one, as the Roman Augustus (Byzantine Sebastos). I can also add how the role of the Japanese Emperor in Shintoism changed depending on the political and religious scenario. You can probably think of a handful of other applicable examples from all around the globe. With the right POD I don't know why wouldn't it happen to a Abrahamic religion as well.
 
Any Caliph who became an apostate(?) and renounced Islam by converting to Christianity would soon no longer be breathing. At best he gets a quick relatively painless death by beheading but I seriously doubt he'd be that lucky. Having a run in with Vlad the Impaler would probably be better than his actual fate.

Depending on time and place, not necessarily the case. However, any Caliph who converts to Christianity ceases thereby to be Caliph. As repeatedly stated, there is no possible way to have a Caliph who is not Muslim. It's utter contradiction in terms. Unless we are talking about some odd minority sects of Islam, whose religious leaders are not recognized as such by most Muslims anyway (so yeah, the Agha Khan could notionally convert to Christianity and remain Imam to his Ismaili followers, who would thereby turn Christian as well or join a different Muslim sect; but this is because the Ismaili view of the Imamate is radically different from the standard Muslim concept of Caliphate, to the point that they do not really refer to their religious leaderships as Caliphs and have ceased to do so some 800 years ago).
 
It's also important to mention the history of Sabbatai Levi, a Ottoman Sephardic Jew who claimed to be the Jewish Messiah and gathered important attention. He was eventually imprisoned by the Ottomans was forcefully converted to Islam, still, some of his followers converted as well. A century later, the Polish Jew Jakob Frank claimed to be the reincarnation of Levi (thus also a Messiah) and converted now to Christianity with some of his followers. Sometimes things are more fluid on the fringe of a society.
 
None of those situations are even slightly the same thing as a Christian king conquering Constantinople and forcing the Ottoman Sultan to declare him Caliph. You're positing a hostile takeover of a different religion at the highest level, not the subsuming of a religious title with a bunch of secular ones by a ruler of that religion who rules over people of the same religion. It's not even remotely comparable to what happened with the title of Pontifex Maximus. There's no way that the so-called 'caliph' would be considered valid by anyone. Both the Sultan and the false Caliph would almost certainly be murdered.
 
None of those situations are even slightly the same thing as a Christian king conquering Constantinople and forcing the Ottoman Sultan to declare him Caliph. You're positing a hostile takeover of a different religion at the highest level, not the subsuming of a religious title with a bunch of secular ones by a ruler of that religion who rules over people of the same religion.

I've already admitted (more than once in this topic) that the OP was pretty delusional. Nevertheless, a hostage Sultan doesn't seem to be implausible at all (heck, it did happen in OTL). I proposed that he would remain a Muslim living in a Christian nation passing his titles for generations until one of his descendents finally converts. Most of the Muslim World will think of him as a joke? Absolutely. But it's still interesting IMO to think about the possible ramifications. Let's say, the title starts to become something more of a political one, like Augustus in the Christian Roman Empire.
 
It is majorly difficult, but the only way I think you could have a Caliph under Christian rule (not an actual Christian one), would be if you had two very large Muslim communities, each with their own Grand Mullahs.

It'd be odd, but I could see an attempt if you had a Roman resurgence instead of the rise of the Ottomans, but with little success in converting conquered Muslims. Establish a Grand Mullah of the Turks, chosen by the local Imams, ditto for a Mullah of the Levant, and Egypt. Possibly sharing cities with the equivalent Patriarchs.

At which point, you've got a lot of religious positions - have the Patriarch of Constantinople superceded by some other position - and do the same for the Muslims.

Emperor with a Christian Head, and a Muslim Head. (Ecumenical Patriarch, Caliph - for example).

I imagine technically it would be "Protector of Muslims within the Empire", rather than a formal Caliph, but it would be the most achievable result. If you had a Roman Empire that was absurdly successful, and actually conquered most of the Muslim world, or at least the Sunni world, the 'Caliphate within the Empire' might become a more or less accepted fact outside of it.
 
It is majorly difficult, but the only way I think you could have a Caliph under Christian rule (not an actual Christian one), would be if you had two very large Muslim communities, each with their own Grand Mullahs.

It'd be odd, but I could see an attempt if you had a Roman resurgence instead of the rise of the Ottomans, but with little success in converting conquered Muslims. Establish a Grand Mullah of the Turks, chosen by the local Imams, ditto for a Mullah of the Levant, and Egypt. Possibly sharing cities with the equivalent Patriarchs.

At which point, you've got a lot of religious positions - have the Patriarch of Constantinople superceded by some other position - and do the same for the Muslims.

Emperor with a Christian Head, and a Muslim Head. (Ecumenical Patriarch, Caliph - for example).

I imagine technically it would be "Protector of Muslims within the Empire", rather than a formal Caliph, but it would be the most achievable result. If you had a Roman Empire that was absurdly successful, and actually conquered most of the Muslim world, or at least the Sunni world, the 'Caliphate within the Empire' might become a more or less accepted fact outside of it.

A Caliph under Christian rule is somewhat possible, and could have indeed a very distinct possibility IOTL in the context of a different fall of the Ottoman Empire where the Empire is partitioned what is left puppetized by European powers (Russia, Britain, or international condominium over the Straits are the most plausible candidates). The Caliph loses his political power and the area he resides in is actually under Christian rule, but he might retain the title of Caliph and the notional related religious prestige, though nobody would much care about that ultimately. Most Muslims would be either distressed by the idea or completely uninterested in it (since the Caliph is no longer relevant to the performance of any individual religious duty, as shown by the almost century long vacancy of the charge without Muslims having any trouble being, well, Muslims) so such a figure would have very little actual relevance.
 
Top