What about a syncretic version of the two religions?The two religion share a lot of common roots.Jesus is even recognized as a prophet in Islam.
Last edited:
AHC Christian Caliph
- Thread starter Lampiao
- Start date
Pellaeon
Banned
That's one of the main differences. In Islam Jesus is a prophet-a great prophet but just a prophet.
In Christianity Jesus Christ is God Incarnate, who created the world, saved mankind from sin and Satan, and is coming in again one day with trumpets and angels to bring an end to history. Eternal, uncreated, and equal to the Father(though obedient to His will).
In short in Islam Jesus is a great and godly man.
In Christianity Jesus is God.
You bend Jesus and Muhammed’s words and try to have them fit together.Jesus is still god and Muhammed is his final disciple.
Speaking of Vlad and religion, what religion did Vlad's Muslim brother Vladu follow when he governed Transylvania ?
This isn't as odd as it sounds. In Utrecht (netherlands) the calvinist who came to power in the city during the Dutch revolt against Spain took over the catholic titulature. They named themselves kapittelheer, the local version of canon (priests who assist the bishop in governing his diocese). Why did they do that? Because in the centuries before, these titles had acumulated much land and other income. These kapittels remained in existence until the French revolution.
So if staunch protestants can take over a deeply catholic title (for monetary gain) i can see the same happening with the Caliph, if there are waqf connected to the title. The title would become an administrative one, not a religious one.
Also the sultans didn't do a lot with their Caliph's title. The only thing i can think of is the organization of the yearly hadj caravan from gatherpoint Damascus to Mekka. He had to make sure that the arabic tribes were bought of enough to not raid the hadjis. Again an administrative function, wich theoretically can be fulfilled by a christian.
So if staunch protestants can take over a deeply catholic title (for monetary gain) i can see the same happening with the Caliph, if there are waqf connected to the title. The title would become an administrative one, not a religious one.
Also the sultans didn't do a lot with their Caliph's title. The only thing i can think of is the organization of the yearly hadj caravan from gatherpoint Damascus to Mekka. He had to make sure that the arabic tribes were bought of enough to not raid the hadjis. Again an administrative function, wich theoretically can be fulfilled by a christian.
I don't think this is entirely implausible, but would require a PoD during the lifetime of Muhammad himself. That alone would alter the world so much I'm not even sure I'd be able to predict what would happen.
Let's go earlier, since this is pre-1900. Could Nestorian Mongols have kept the Caliphate around as a puppet after conquering Mesopotamia?
If they had wanted to, they probably could have. However, they are unlikely to be taken seriously by Muslims outside their direct rule. There would be idependent Muslim states whose rulers could style themselves Caliphs or protect a Caliphal court, both of which happened IOTL, and both would look a more credible than a Mongol puppet to many believers.
Well, the Caliphal institution had both administrative and religious aspects in its history, but in the Ottoman phase, was essentially symbolic. This means that even if a Christian, for some extremely odd reasons, finds himself claiming the title of Caliph, it would get no more traction than, say, Shabbetai Zeevi mentioned upthread.
Apples and oranges. You're comparing two Christian confessions with an inherent different Islamic tradition. The Caliph had to be Muslim. If he wasn't, he would not be the Caliph.
Aye, that is why I tried to create a circumstance where they have political power - simply because if the Powers-That-Be ensure the Caliph has sway in their realm, then they have that soft-power outside their realm. Good relations with the Caliph can mean more peace and quiet when they have authority, and potentially huge diplomatic benefits.
This point is more relevant for chat, but whilst I'm using - I wonder if having a generally recognised Caliph would help in the middle east. Not between Sunni and Shia, but at least within Sunni beliefs.
Max Sinister
Banned
Seriously? Some other Muslim would declare himself Caliph, and they'd follow him. Somehow I think they'd rather follow a converted ex-slave than a Caliph who's prisoner of the Christians.
The problem is that the nature of the power of the Caliph is, in principle, neither entirely spiritual, nor entirely secular. And, above all, that a captive Caliph is not going to be a generally recognized one. A "captive" Caliph is clearly possible (we had that IOTL, though the "captors" were fellow Muslims), but he would be essentially irrelevant to most Muslims. More or less nobody would defer to his spiritual authority outside the areas under his, or his handlers, control.
Hence the use of the term soft-power. At best I can see them influencing, or being seen as a mediating figure between two cultures that would have been at war for over 1000 years.
No imam in Indonesia is going to bow towards him, but his worlds would have weight, not only because he'd be a powerful leader of muslims - but also involved in whether or not muslims could go and visit Jerusalem, or other holy sites.
A very small addition. Khilafah means, steward or overseer, not commander of the faithful. Commander of the faithful is a seperate title, Amir al-Mu'minin, it infact does apply to the entire Abrahamic religious sphere. The khilafah of the past used this title to force upon Jews and Christians their rule. However, the term khilafah is certainly one that applies only to Islam and the seeing to the duties of the entire Islamic world. It cannot be a simple desk job for Mr. Ahmad.
By definition, a caliph has to be Muslim. The city your looking for would be Mecca (Istanbul/Constantinople, while being a city Muhammad commanded his soldiers to conquer, was not all that important in the Caliph cycle), and even then, all that's gonna happen is the Muslims will do literally nothing except get mad, and back in Europe the other kings would be suspicious that a Christian king would have just declared himself essentially the head of the Islamic World.
So, in the end, the best thing that could happen is he or she is ignored, and the worst thing is that he or she ends up sandwitched between vengeful Muslims and angry Christians.
So, in the end, the best thing that could happen is he or she is ignored, and the worst thing is that he or she ends up sandwitched between vengeful Muslims and angry Christians.