Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Byzantine Basilaeos and Islamic Caliph

 Post Reply Post Reply
Author
Constantine XI View Drop Down
Suspended
Suspended

Suspended

Joined: 01-May-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5711
  Quote Constantine XI Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Byzantine Basilaeos and Islamic Caliph
    Posted: 18-Jan-2006 at 22:02
I have not had much of a chance to study the early Islamic Caliphates and really only have a basic understanding of their structure, power and rulers. But I have read a few things which makes me ask, what were the similarities and differences between the role of the Byzantine Emperor and that of the Caliph?

I have noticed that the Caliph at first appears to have been appointed, but later rule came to be hereditary like that of their Byzantine counterparts. Like the Byzantine Emperor, Caliphs were invested with religious power and secular power. So, like the Byzantine Emperors, we find then leading armies as well as performing major acts of piety.

I wonder, to what extent did the roles of Byzantine Emperor and the Caliph influence one another. How similar were such figures in their roles and power during medieval history?
Back to Top
Fizzil View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian
Avatar

Joined: 03-Nov-2004
Location: United Arab Emirates
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 197
  Quote Fizzil Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19-Jan-2006 at 16:56

I do believe both were identical, one emperor called a caliph his "brother".

Can't recall the names though.

Well after the abassid caliphate, the caliph became more of an image however, it was all in the hands of the several splinter states that came to be due to the abassids losing power.

Back to Top
Constantine XI View Drop Down
Suspended
Suspended

Suspended

Joined: 01-May-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5711
  Quote Constantine XI Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21-Jan-2006 at 09:15
I suppose the hypothesis I am proposing is that the Caliph was the Islamic world's way of challenging imperial Byzantium. The Byzantine Emperor was considered the elect of God with absolute power over the Christian world. Again this isn't my area, but would it be fair to say that in the early years the Caliph was the elect of God who had (theoretical) absolute power and authority over the Islamic world?
Back to Top
Ahmed The Fighter View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar
Lion of Babylon

Joined: 17-Apr-2005
Location: Iraq
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1106
  Quote Ahmed The Fighter Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24-Jan-2006 at 07:06

 brief information about  Caliphate

[/QUOTE] (kălĭfāt, -fĭt) , the rulership of Islam; caliph  (kălĭf) , the spiritual head and temporal ruler of the Islamic state. In principle, Islam is theocratic: when Muhammad the Prophet died, a caliph [Arab.,=successor] was chosen to rule in his place. The caliph had temporal and spiritual authority but was not permitted prophetic power; this was reserved for Muhammad. The caliph could not, therefore, exercise authority in matters of religious doctrine. The first caliph was Abu Bakr. He was succeeded by Umar, Uthman, and Ali. Sunni Muslims recognize these first four, or Rashidun (the rightly guided), caliphs. Shiites, however, recognize Ali as the first caliph. After Ali's death, Muawiya became caliph and founded the Umayyad dynasty (661750), chiefly by force of arms. Its capital was Damascus. In 750 the Abbasid family, descended from the Prophet's uncle, led a coalition that defeated (74950) the Umayyad family. The Abbasid dynasty (7491258) is sometimes called the caliphate of Baghdad. One Umayyad, Abd ar-Rahman I, escaped the general massacre of his family and fled to Spain; there the emirate of Crdoba was set up in 780. This later became the caliphate of Crdoba, or the Western caliphate, and persisted until 1031. A third competing contemporaneous caliphate was established by the Fatimids in Africa, Syria, and Egypt (9091171). After the fall of Baghdad to the Mongols under Hulagu Khan in 1258, the Abbasids fled to Egypt. The Ottomans captured Egypt in 1517 and Selim I assumed the title of caliph by questionable right. The Ottoman sultans, however, kept the title until the last sultan, Muhammad VI, was deposed. He was succeeded briefly by a cousin, but in 1924 the caliphate was abolished by Ataturk. A year later Husayn ibn Ali, king of Arabia, proclaimed himself caliph, but he was forced to abdicate by Ibn Saud. Since then several pan-Islamic congresses have attempted to establish a rightful caliph.

source:from Yahoo



Edited by Ahmed The Fighter
"May the eyes of cowards never sleep"
Khalid Bin Walid
Back to Top
Ahmed The Fighter View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar
Lion of Babylon

Joined: 17-Apr-2005
Location: Iraq
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1106
  Quote Ahmed The Fighter Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24-Jan-2006 at 08:49

The Authority Of The Caliph

Who should succeed Muhammad was not the only issue that faced the early Muslims; they also had to clarify the extent of the leader's powers.

the caliph was considered elected from God who had the absolute power too like Emperor.

the Caliph collected the political and religious power in early era of the caliphate,Commanded army but Caliph in person went to secular instead of religious sometimes,Umayyad caliph was the only power overall islamic world but the Umayyads were very rachist after a short lived empire the lost control to the Abbasids who ruled from 750 to 1258, a period during which Arab-Muslim culture and scholarship merged with Persian administration and arts.

The Abbasids were tolerant with other nations and religions except shia becaus shia threatened their exist as a caliphate.

the Abbasid caliph was the higher power too he take the title (God's Caliph on Earth).

The splendor of the Abbasid period began to dim as it came under the influence of Turks slaves,Persians Buaihyd and Seljuk turks and by the beginning of the 12th century the Abbasid caliph was often only a figurehead.

Even though he was a figurehead only,the caliph still had the spiritual power by which he gives the governer the authority to rule his land and by which they revived their power after the defeated of Seljuk by Khawarzemian but they ruled Baghdad only.

before that the Caliphate faced unprecedented case there were three caliphes in the first time one without political power under Buwayhid control ,one in Egypt represent Fatimid who  descented to Fatima daughter of prophet Muhammed(PBUH)and the other is Umayyad in spain. 

The Mongol sacked and captured baghdad in 1258 A.D some muslims warned Hulagu khan form sheding the caliph blood on earth cause it holy blood and told him about all states that controlled abbasids without removing them from the whole picture Hulagu thought a while and bring some Muftis from Baghdad they told him many caliphs were killed and nothing happend to the earth and no God anger happened many person better than al Musta'sim,then the khan ordered to kill the last caliph of Baghdad.

then the caliphate transferred to egypt in memlukes era after the defeat of mongol at Ain Jalut in 1260 A.D some from caliph family arrived to Egyot then Bybers proclaimed one of then as acliph but without any power also.

Many historians considered the sacked of Baghda as the end of the real calipahat. Egypt and Ottoman as a Sultanate not a caliphate.

In brief the caliphate was faced many situation from the whole powre to be under control to come to an end.

 

 

"May the eyes of cowards never sleep"
Khalid Bin Walid
Back to Top
Constantine XI View Drop Down
Suspended
Suspended

Suspended

Joined: 01-May-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5711
  Quote Constantine XI Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26-Jan-2006 at 19:16
Thanks for the reply, Ahmed. This seems to show that the Caliph and the Byzantine Emperor had alot in common with one another. Everything from heresy, to leading armies, having religious authority etc. One important difference seems to be that the Caliph could not alter religious doctrine, whereas the Emperor could do so through an ecumenical council. The two roles seem very similar.
Back to Top
RomiosArktos View Drop Down
Consul
Consul
Avatar

Joined: 13-Jan-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 309
  Quote RomiosArktos Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26-Jan-2006 at 20:01
Originally posted by Constantine XI

, whereas the Emperor could do so through an ecumenical council. The two roles seem very similar.


The emperor was regulating the ecumenical synode.He could not speak however about theological matters.This was done by the patriarch of Constantinopolis and bishops from all the provinces.
He was the head of the army and the state but he could not(at least most of the times) violate the Roman law.If he did,then the noble families and the mob would take action....
there was also the senate,but these people were not allowed to speak,only heard the emperor......





Back to Top
Constantine XI View Drop Down
Suspended
Suspended

Suspended

Joined: 01-May-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5711
  Quote Constantine XI Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26-Jan-2006 at 23:26

Originally posted by RomiosArktos

Originally posted by Constantine XI

, whereas the Emperor could do so through an ecumenical council. The two roles seem very similar.


The emperor was regulating the ecumenical synode.He could not speak however about theological matters.This was done by the patriarch of Constantinopolis and bishops from all the provinces.
He was the head of the army and the state but he could not(at least most of the times) violate the Roman law.If he did,then the noble families and the mob would take action....
there was also the senate,but these people were not allowed to speak,only heard the emperor......





In reality, though, the Emperor could strongly influence which way the council would go. In some ecumenical councils there were only 8 Western bishops compared to a few hundred Eastern bishops (so that council's was slanted). It is hardly surprising that these councils also affirmed the Emperor's personal position. In such a way the leading man or woman of the day was able to influence the Iconoclastic controversy to legitimise their personal views. On more than one occasion the Emperor had bishops, the Patriarch and the Pope deposed or thrown into prison for opposing his personal preferences.

Back to Top
Mira View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar

Joined: 03-Aug-2005
Location: United Arab Emirates
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 697
  Quote Mira Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27-Jan-2006 at 05:32
Originally posted by Ahmed The Fighter

the caliph was considered elected from God who had the absolute power too like Emperor.


I never heard that before.  The Caliph was not elected by God, Ahmed.  The Caliph was elected by the people to implement God's laws on earth.  He was God's vicegerant on earth, basically.
Back to Top
Ahmed The Fighter View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar
Lion of Babylon

Joined: 17-Apr-2005
Location: Iraq
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1106
  Quote Ahmed The Fighter Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27-Jan-2006 at 15:18
Originally posted by Mira

Originally posted by Ahmed The Fighter

the caliph was considered elected from God who had the absolute power too like Emperor.


I never heard that before.  The Caliph was not elected by God, Ahmed.  The Caliph was elected by the people to implement God's laws on earth.  He was God's vicegerant on earth, basically.
Mira you are right,but give me an elected caliph in the Umayyad and Abbasid era.

answer:none.

all of them inherited the throne from their Fathers,Brothers,etc.

 No one could oppose their power or criticize them I posted what I think and what I red not the ideal or the typical situation, cause if I post the Ideal things I ll fool myself.

 

"May the eyes of cowards never sleep"
Khalid Bin Walid
Back to Top
Ahmed The Fighter View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar
Lion of Babylon

Joined: 17-Apr-2005
Location: Iraq
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1106
  Quote Ahmed The Fighter Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27-Jan-2006 at 15:35

Originally posted by Constantine XI

Thanks for the reply, Ahmed. This seems to show that the Caliph and the Byzantine Emperor had alot in common with one another. Everything from heresy, to leading armies, having religious authority etc. One important difference seems to be that the Caliph could not alter religious doctrine, whereas the Emperor could do so through an ecumenical council. The two roles seem very similar.
With pleasure Constantine.

Infact  it was very difficult to alter in that time,but in abbasid era there is one issue like what you siad,Caliph Al-Ma'mun adopted shisim,proclaimed Ali Bin Musa Al-Reza as his successor,chang the state flag from black to green as well as the wear(Abbasid flag is black,Alavi flag is green).

But he quickly retreated and killed Ali by poison,return to black wear, there are many conflict reasons for his first action and the reaction.

then he adopted Mu'tazili doctrine and this is completely another story,the Mu'tazili theological movement instituted a mihna (inquisition) on gaining power, punishing those who would not assent to their claim that the Qur'an was created rather than eternal. The most famous victims of the Mihna were Ahmad Ibn Hanbal who was imprisoned and tortured, and the judge Ahmad Ibn Nasr al-Khuza'i who was crucified.

Al Ma'mun and his successors adopted this doctrine  and forced people especially scholars to beleive and accept it,this situation continued until Caliph Al-Mutwakil reign.



Edited by Ahmed The Fighter
"May the eyes of cowards never sleep"
Khalid Bin Walid
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz

This page was generated in 0.125 seconds.