Papal-Style Surviving Rashidun Caliphate?

Orsino

Banned
Early Islam is a subject I know little about and I'd therefore like to pick the brains of those better informed than myself about a possible different path for Islam.

If the Rashidun Caliphate had not fragmented (let's say Caliph Uthman survives) is it possible that the early election/selection of Caliphs could persist, with the position of Caliph ultimately developing into a chiefly symbolic one that allows the Rashidun Caliphate to last, perhaps even to the present day?

I'm not suggesting the Rashidun Caliphate would hold the same territory for all of that time, that it would remain the pre-eminent Muslim power or that all Muslims would be unified. What I had in mind was more like the position of Caliph being divorced from geopolitical power, so that powerful Muslim states would nominally or symbolically be Emirs of the Caliph but would in practice be independent, and the leaders of powerful Muslim states would be satisfied with controlling/influencing the Rashidun Caliph rather than trying to take the title for themselves. Essentially the Caliph would be more like the Catholic Popes rather than the later kingly Caliphs of OTL, and the territories actually directly ruled by the Rashidun Caliphate would be akin to the Papal States.

What do you think? Possible?
 
Calipha

There is a conceptual problem with the proposed pod.
For the orthodox Islam there is no separation of the functions and powers of civil and religious rulers.
Essentially in Sunni Islam, Caesaropapism or hierocracy in Western terms was the rule of the Government of the Islamic community since the death of the Prophet in 632 until 1924.

The caliph had no pontifical or even priestly functions, and received the training of men of religion, the Ulema.
His duty was not present, let alone interpret the faith but respected and protected, and to create and maintain the conditions under which men could live the good Muslim life in this world, and thus prepare for the world to come.

"... It was argued that the Caliph must be a male, Free and age and normal physical abilities possessed a degree of piety and legal knowledge and perception, capable of directing the public administration and leadership the war. on the other hand, although it could delegate the performance of some of its functions to qualified persons could not shed its ultimate responsibility for all actions of government .... "

What happened in Otl was originally his Praetorian and the shock troops of Turkish origin, became gradually also seized government managers, isolating and relegating the caliph al ceremonial duties exclusively until that despite the existence of institutions and the Caliph, as the guide and ruler of Islamic believers, the real power was in the hands of Sultan (originally a master of the Turkish War).
This would be the standard relationship between the true ruler of the Muslim state, which is usually exercised preeminence or pretended to exercise the Islamic world and the ruler and theoretical guide believers: the Caliph.

Much later, the Ottoman sultan the title of caliph and protector of the holy places of Islam, joining them on their person for the first time since the classical era would appropriate.

"... It was, in fact, for the most important titles of the sultan and 'Servant and Protector of the Holy Places" Selim and his successors sought to be recalled, the idea of Caliph being used only to emphasize its preeminence in the world Islamic and the right to the promotion and defense of the Muslim religion and law. By extending the gazi tradition, the Ottoman sultans came to emphasize their role as leaders and advocates from across the Islamic world, therefore the use of a new interpretation of the Ottoman Caliphate to establish Islamic rule over peoples ... "

Only in the late 18th century made the title of Caliph is particularly important at a time when the Ottomans were becoming weaker.
As a result of the Treaty of Küçük Kaynarca in 1774, the position of the Turkish sultan was recognized to extend to Muslims outside the actual borders of the empire, although that did not last long.

In the late 19th century, Sultan Abdul Hamid II made use of the title in its efforts to prevent the disintegration of the Ottoman Empire under attack by Western powers and rebellion in different provinces.
Although the Ottoman Empire officially ended in 1922, the Caliphate was not abolished until 1924, some five months after the Turkish Republic was proclaimed.
The last Caliph Abdülmecid II was the son of Sultan Abdulaziz.

The closest to it if you have a sheath such that any Sunni Islamic state, had called and appointed the leader of the Osmanoglu family, as real or nominal ruler of that state as Calipha.
Another possibility would be before his death in exile in France, the last Ottoman Sultan and Caliph had the will or interest of convening an international board of prestigious Ulemas (similar to Otl Majlis Hay'at Kibar al-'Ulama, also known as the Senior Council of Ulema) and to appoint as the new Caliph to a Sunni ruler of an existing Islamic nation before his death. This nation should not be part of a Western Empire or a protectorate of Western Power. In turn should be enough renowned for his piety or power in the Islamic world to be accepted ... the problem is not there.
Another possibility would be an Islamic state, called and had appointed the leader of the Osmanoglu (family) as the real ruler (or nominal) of their State, acknowledging their subordination to him as the Caliph.
Should it become feasible or likely to occur in Otl, is another matter.
 
Last edited:

Orsino

Banned
Thank you, some useful insights. I do understand the function of the Caliph isn't really a priestly one, when I speak of the Caliph being more like a pope I really mean in terms of holding great power that isn't dependent on military might. A more symbolic leader of the Ummah rather than one strongly associated with a particular state. How might one maintain the more consensus based approach to selection of the Rashidun Caliphate?
 
The strict interpretation to sharee’ah

You can never assimilate situations Papacy, as legal and political in the institution of the Caliphate in Islam.
The Caliph always be linked and identified with a particular nation, from the moment of being the ruler, can not be Caliph and realize their spiritual duties.

Because the Caliph in theory is the only ruler legitimized by tradition and scripture (for Sunnis), is the only one that can and should lead the prayer of the faithful.

It may in fact be limited to purely spiritual functions, but also must be linked to a State.

The imam (ruler) or caliph was appointed to lead the Islamic state by one of three methods ,the interpretation of Sunni Orthodoxy it's :

He was chosen and elected by the decision makers (ahl al-hall wa’l-‘aqd). For example, Abu Bakr al-Siddeeq became caliph when he was elected by the decision makers, then the Sahaabah unanimously agreed with that and swore allegiance to him, and accepted him as caliph.

''...‘Uthmaan ibn ‘Affaan became caliph in a similar manner, when ‘Umar
ibn al-Khattaab delegated the appointment of the caliph to come after him to a shoora council of six of the senior Sahaabah, who were to elect one of their number. ‘Abd al-Rahmaan ibn ‘Awf consulted the Muhaajireen and Ansaar, and when he saw that the people were all inclined towards ‘Uthmaan, he swore allegiance to him first, then the rest of the six swore allegiance to him, followed by the Muhaajireen and Ansaar, so he was elected as caliph by the decision makers...''


‘Ali ibn Abi Taalib became caliph in a similar manner, when he was elected by most of the decision makers.


Appointment to the position by the previous caliph, when one caliph passes on the position to a particular person who is to succeed him after he dies. For example, ‘Umar ibn al-Khattaab became caliph when the position was passed on to him by Abu Bakr al-Siddeeq.


''... By means of force and prevailing over others. When a man becomes caliph by prevailing over the people by the sword, and he establishes his authority and takes full control, then it becomes obligatory to obey him a
nd he becomes the leader of the Muslims. Examples of that include some of the Umayyad and ‘Abbasid caliphs, and those who came after them...''

''...This method is contrary to sharee’ah (sharia),because it is seized by force. But because great interests are served by having a ruler who rules the Ummah, and because a great deal of mischief may result from chaos and loss of security in the land, the one who seizes authority by means of the sword should be obeyed if he seizes power by force but he rules in accordance with 'the laws of Allaah'...''


The strict interpretation of (some) Sunni ‘Ulamā' its:

''...If a man rebels and seizes power, the people must obey him, even if he seizes power by force and without their consent, because he has seized power.
The reason for that is that if his rule is contested, it will lead to a great deal of evil, and this is what happened during the Umayyad period when some of them seized power by means of force and gained the title of caliph, and people obeyed them ''in obedience to the command of Allaah'....'
 
Top