how effective was the Caliph....

How effective was he inbetween 12th and 15th century? Did he had a "great" influence on the muslim world around him? Or was he as effective as he was under the umayyads and little bit abbasids? 

Not sure on the judges either, however, I do know he was an integral part of politics, the Seljuks needed him to legitimize rule, and Salah ad Din directed Egypt's prayers, or at least the name of the Khalifa to the current one in Bagdhahd as opposed to the recently deposed Fatimid Shi'a dynast.

Originally posted by Al Jassas He was a puppet locked up in a palace in central Cairo appearing only during official celebrations and sometimes met with foriegn delegates giving blessing to the Islamic state that the Mamelukes are happy with. When ever a caliph tried to exert some influence he either lost his post or his life.   Al-Jassas

thanks for the good answer!

Originally posted by Al Jassas He was a puppet locked up in a palace in central Cairo appearing only during official celebrations and sometimes met with foriegn delegates giving blessing to the Islamic state that the Mamelukes are happy with. When ever a caliph tried to exert some influence he either lost his post or his life.   Al-Jassas

Perhaps a useful parallel would be the position of the emperor in feudal Japan?

For me it raises the question of how those in actual power legitimized their hold on the caliph as their puppet. In Japan the reasoning was that the emperor was simply too holy to concern himself with temporal affairs, which had to be left to lesser men who could afford to dirty themselves. In this way the feudal lords could both praise the emperor and deprive him of political power at the same time. Without having studied the position of the caliph in detail, my impression is that a similar justification was applied.

The reason is simple. Anyone who usurps power is the legitimate ruler according to the most acceptable theory in Jurispudence. The problem with this theory is this. Revolting on a legitimate ruler is grand treason and if caught punishable by death, but once he gains power his power becomes legitimate and the previous ruler becomes the the illigetimate one.

the caliph was a successor of the prophet Mohamed who led the people of islam both inside the masjid and outside, religiously and politically, it wasn't until after the first Abbasid caliphs that the caliphates became an image ( a puppet as you say) because of something very simple, the first caliph (i don't know who exactly) who became weak and neglectant of his caliphate and also due to several uprises and internal wars (civil wars) that many of those who the calph appointed were either overruned by a strong man who later becomes a sultun or they themselves renounce thier oath and become thier own kings...... many sultauns sworn homage to the caliphs as the highest leader but they controlled thier own sultanates or kingdoms, sultuns like Salah al din and before him Nur al din brought egypt back in the abbasid order from the fatimids.... Salah al din was a loyal sultun for the abbasid caliph but he ruled his own lands..... the sultuns used to fight over the caliphs acceptance , also the caliph was forced many times to appoint those sultuns on the lands theytook with the sword in order to be legitmate ruler of the lands he own... the caliphates had its ups and downs, the caliph remained as a symbol of the supreme leader of all muslims even though he was a real puppet later on in the hands of the mamluks who by the way reinstuted the caliphates in cairo to make themselves legitmate as the caliph supports them.....
the caliph in his worst moment had the support of the working and poor class of muslims all over the world