PC/WI: Caliphate Survives to Present-Day like the Papal States/Vatican

[trixofthetrade]

Plausibility Check on one of the Caliphates (Abbasid or Ottomans) surviving to the present day as a primarily religious state, similar to the Papal States or the Vatican. Also threw in the possibly of a new Caliphate under the Saudis.

Some possible POD's:

1258 - Mongols sack Baghdad, but capture the Abbasid Caliph to keep as a figurehead, rather than outright killing him. The Ilkhanate uses the Caliph to keep the loyalty of their largely Islamic populace. Once the Ilkhanate collapses mid-1300's, various Middle Eastern powers fight to liberate/control the Caliph, as gaining the Caliphs allegiance is seen as a why to legalize their rule over the Islamic World. The Caliph bounces around as a puppet of the great powers (Timurids, Mamluks, Ottomans), but retaining limited autonomy (more over spiritual, rather than secular affairs), eventually becoming independent following the collapse of the Ottomans, similar to OTL.

1517 - Selim I conquers the Mamluks of Egypt who control the Abbasid Caliph, but instead of claiming the Caliphate for the Ottoman dynasty, he returns the Caliph to Mecca to rule over the Hejaz as a puppet ruler, lending legitimacy to the Ottoman Empire. Ottoman's collapse similar to OTL after WWI, but the Caliph declares independence rather than going down with the Turks, leading a small theocratic state in the Hejaz and Arabia.

1918 - Same as above, only with the Ottoman dynasty abandoning Turkey to rule Mecca/Medina as a Caliph.

1932 - After uniting the majority of Arabia under the House of Saud, the King of Saudi Arabia adopts the title of Caliph. The theocratic state has largely mixed relations with Western Powers, but lends support to the Allies during WWII, and later serves as the beacon for Pan-Islamist movement, contrary to Nasser's Pan-Arabism.

How would a modern Caliphate be looked at by the Western World, and how far reaching would a Caliph's authority be over Islam?

 

[RonaldReagram]

The Ottomans were torn apart by the rise of nation-states. Any 20th century caliph would have been similarly racked by the rise of nationalism, Qutbism, many different -isms, but could have survived to the present day. It's possible that a caliphate would have been 'domesticated' like the Papacy: no more jihads/crusades, only thoughts and prayers, exhorting the masses to nonviolence, etc.. Maybe a Hashemite or Saudi caliph becomes as important to Indian/Pakistani independence as John Paul II is to the Solidarity movement.

 

[Nivek]

Plausibility Check on one of the Caliphates (

Unpausable, in fact a lot of Muslims considered the Caliphate in his pure form died with the Abbasadid and other entities were just a ceremonial title, the Caliphate itself was a state, with his own system and political sovereignty and suzerainty, those things mattered, so that couldn't work at all

 

[GameBawesome]

1932 - After uniting the majority of Arabia under the House of Saud, the King of Saudi Arabia adopts the title of Caliph. The theocratic state has largely mixed relations with Western Powers, but lends support to the Allies during WWII, and later serves as the beacon for Pan-Islamist movement, contrary to Nasser's Pan-Arabism.

The problem with the House of Saud adopting the title of caliph, because they were Wahhabists , and Wahhabism was actually anti-caliphate.

Personally, I think either your first scenario where the Abbasids survive, or Hashemites could either work

 

[Lalli]

My suggestions:

Mongols never rise and so not sack of Baghdad.

Ottoman Empire remain neutral on WW1 or CPs win the war.

Entente decides give title of caliph to Hahsemites and help them to defeat Sauds.

 

[Darzin]

I think a modern Caliphate with a ceremonial role could certainly happen. The position of Imam for the Ismailis has moved from a temporal to a purely spiritual position.

I think an elected Caliphate would have a better shot than a dynastic one for the modern world but is not necessary as the Ismailis still have hereditary succession.

 

[Avalon]

Just have the CP win WW1.

 

[H.Flashman(VC)]

Unpausable, in fact a lot of Muslims considered the Caliphate in his pure form died with the Abbasadid and other entities were just a ceremonial title, the Caliphate itself was a state, with his own system and political sovereignty and suzerainty, those things mattered, so that couldn't work at all

There is the influential fundamentalist idea that the Caliph should be elected by the Umma. In this view the Caliphate in it's purest form died already after the Rashidun, when the title became hereditary.
But i agree with your unplausable assesment, as there never was a proper divide of the organisation of the state and the organisation of the church. As long as it exists, the title wil have a claim for universal political rule over at least all muslims. This will impede any build up of an organisation that only gives spiritual guidance, like the papacy has.

 

[trixofthetrade]

The problem with the House of Saud adopting the title of caliph, because they were Wahhabists , and Wahhabism was actually anti-caliphate.

Personally, I think either your first scenario where the Abbasids survive, or Hashemites could either work

I think with a bit of handwaving & some good fortune for the Abbasids, they could pull off a Holy Roman Emperor - Pope relationship between the Khan/Sultan & the Caliph.

 

[Nivek]

This will impede any build up of an organisation that only gives spiritual guidance, like the papacy has

I think with a bit of handwaving & some good fortune for the Abbasids, they could pull off a Holy Roman Emperor - Pope relationship between the Khan/Sultan & the Caliph.

The thing is,in sunni system that doesn't exist, shia did make one, with Iman/ayatollah hierarchy but on sunni are sheikhs/scholars etc, there not single Islam, meaning the whole premise never make sense

 

[trixofthetrade]

There is the influential fundamentalist idea that the Caliph should be elected by the Umma. In this view the Caliphate in it's purest form died already after the Rashidun, when the title became hereditary.
But i agree with your unplausable assesment, as there never was a proper divide of the organisation of the state and the organisation of the church. As long as it exists, the title wil have a claim for universal political rule over at least all muslims. This will impede any build up of an organisation that only gives spiritual guidance, like the papacy has.

Interesting. So what you’re saying is the for the Caliphate to survive, it would have to pick and choose - either it’s a fully spiritual position separate from secular/worldly affairs, or it’s a sovereign state focused on politics & running a country.

 

[Nivek]

teresting. So what you’re saying is the for the Caliphate to survive, it would have to pick and choose - either it’s a fully spiritual position separate from secular/worldly affairs, or it’s a sovereign state focused on politics & running a country.

nope, that only the latter matter, as Caliph was a full fledge title, was the heir of Adam(PUH/SAW) and the prophets(PUT/SAW), any minor scholar naming himself caliph would be ignored by Muslims at large

 

[Cregan]

It'd be pretty interesting if there was no Sykes-Picot and the Hashemites come to rule most of the Arab world, including Mecca and Medina. That would give them a strong claim to inheriting the Caliphate role from the fallen Ottomans. Some peoples, like the Shia Iranians, will not recognise the Hashemites as Caliphs, but I believe Sunni Muslim populations from across the Arab world, Africa and South/Central/Southeast Asia would acknowledge them due to the sheer size and strenghth of their sprawling domain and their dynastic lineage. They could even become an anti-colonialist beacon for newly independent Islamic countries in Africa and Asia.

 

[AtreusHashim]

Unpausable, in fact a lot of Muslims considered the Caliphate in his pure form died with the Abbasadid and other entities were just a ceremonial title, the Caliphate itself was a state, with his own system and political sovereignty and suzerainty, those things mattered, so that couldn't work at all

But i agree with your unplausable assesment, as there never was a proper divide of the organisation of the state and the organisation of the church. As long as it exists, the title wil have a claim for universal political rule over at least all muslims. This will impede any build up of an organisation that only gives spiritual guidance, like the papacy has.

I think this is just being unnecessarily strict. By the time the Mongols rolled into town the Abbasid Caliphate had already been subordinated to other rulers for centuries (since the rise of the Buyids in Iran) and would continue to be subordinated by the Egyptians for a few centuries afterwards. The last Abbasid Caliph was a minor official in the court of the Mamluk Sultan of Cairo, who only held religious and symbolic significance. In short, if you can find a way to extend that significance without restoration to political power, pretty much exactly the scenario the OP wanted.

You would need things to fall in a pretty convenient way, but preventing a single power like the Ottomans rising to dominate the Middle East in the modern period would lead to the Abbasid Caliph retaining his Cairene position into the industrial era (whenever it happens to arise in this ATL).

Now in the industrial era you will inevitably have the proliferation of mass communications devices, which is almost universally followed by a surge in nationalist movements that run contrary to the big multi-ethnic empires that have ruled the Middle East. And then contrary to the nationalist movements you will probably have some form of pan-Islamism advocated for by an alt-Rida/Afghani/Qutb/Maududi. If those ATL ideologues attach themselves to the figure of the forgotten Abbasid Caliph sitting in Cairo, they might be able to turn him into a figure that transcends national identity and acts as a unifying pole for the entire Muslim world.

However, I agree this is pretty unlikely. Not because the Caliph becoming a solely religious figure is a crazy idea (that has already been the case in Islamic history), but because a POD in the 1500s means that all that stuff with nationalism, Islamism etc. is pretty unlikely to happen exactly as it did OTL.

I think a better way to achieve the parameters of the OP would be to take the dark horse option and have the Mughal emperors survive the Raj as a princely state, and then have reformist Muslims in the subcontinent rally around the Mughal dynasty as the rightful Caliphs. After all, the Mughals explicitly asserted their Caliphal authority and styled themselves "Commander of the Faithful" and the "Shadow of God on Earth" even while the Ottomans were at the height of their power. There are far more Indians Muslims than there are Arab Muslims so this is likely a more efficient way to gain widespread recognition. All you need is the Subcontinent and Indonesia to get a majority of Muslims following the spirtual guidance of the Mughal Caliph.

 

[Sardar]

This is trivially easy. Just have the Ottomans survive WW1. Either they are neutral or the CP win. The title of Caliph inspired respect across the Islamic World even up until it's abolition in 1924; it had a great effect upon the Indian independence movement in the Khalifat (Caliphate) movement which objected to India under Britain making war on the Ottomans.

Unless I'm reading the OP wrong, and they want more of a micro state literally like the Vatican.

 

[Nivek]

Shadow of God on Earth"

Heir of Adam in earth is the title but that's the point, you need a real estate and by the point of mongol, the Abbasid where losing power to the Seljuk.

 

[EnvarKadri]

I think this is just being unnecessarily strict. By the time the Mongols rolled into town the Abbasid Caliphate had already been subordinated to other rulers for centuries (since the rise of the Buyids in Iran) and would continue to be subordinated by the Egyptians for a few centuries afterwards. The last Abbasid Caliph was a minor official in the court of the Mamluk Sultan of Cairo, who only held religious and symbolic significance. In short, if you can find a way to extend that significance without restoration to political power, pretty much exactly the scenario the OP wanted.

Wasnt this part of what lead to the disappearance of caliphates for centuries tho? Abbasid authority was complete eroded and held no capacity to command anyone. Mamluk soldiers openly mocked the last caliphs. By the time the Ottomans took over Egypt the last Abbasid was taken to the ottoman court in Constantinople and disappeared. The ottomans wouldnt claim the title until centuries later, for most of their history they would just use the tittle of "custodian of the two mosques".

 

[Gokbay]

Another POD could be that Turkey abolishes monarchy like OTL but does not abolish the Caliphate (there was some time between the two events OTL). You would probably need a different leader than Ataturk however.

Also other than CP winning WW1, Ottomans staying neutral and Ottomans joining the Entente another possible POD could be the Ankara Government being defeated and Sevres being put into force. Ottomans and the Caliphate would survive as a state (of course there survival into WW2 and Cold War becomes questionable but should not be impossible).

 

[AtreusHashim]

Heir of Adam in earth is the title

No. The Mughals quite titled themselves ظِلُّ ٱلله (Shadow of God).

you need a real estate and by the point of mongol, the Abbasid where losing power to the Seljuk

A single city, or even a single palace, is still real estate. Furthermore, the Abbasids were very much still taken seriously as the head of Islam even after they were subordinated to other rulers.

Wasnt this part of what lead to the disappearance of caliphates for centuries tho? Abbasid authority was complete eroded and held no capacity to command anyone. Mamluk soldiers openly mocked the last caliphs. By the time the Ottomans took over Egypt the last Abbasid was taken to the ottoman court in Constantinople and disappeared. The ottomans wouldnt claim the title until centuries later, for most of their history they would just use the tittle of "custodian of the two mosques".

There have been greater comebacks in history, but yes, that's why I gave the option of the Mughals (I have a hard time imagining an Ottoman Caliph who is not also an emperor but I'm not even sure if the OP prohibited having the Caliph be a major ruler anymore).

 

[Nivek]

No. The Mughals quite titled themselves ظِلُّ ٱلله (Shadow of God).

That means nothing, again even among muslims few people remembers the Mughals.

A single city, or even a single palace, is still real estate. Furthermore, the Abbasids were very much still taken seriously as the head of Islam even after they were subordinated to other rulers.

The opposite, post ZANJ rebellion the abbasaid themselves were reduced by their own inaction and their enemies one into irrelevance, we've learned what being a prisoners of a palace means...NOTHING