• Military Menu                       

• Introduction
• Systems
• Facilities
• Agencies
• Industry
• Operations
• Countries
• Hot Documents
• News
• Reports
• Policy
• Budget
• Congress
• Links

• WMD
• Intelligence
• Homeland Security
• Space

Only One Caliph??

The Ottoman Caliph had an Indian Caliph reigning beside him in the East as well as an African Caliph reigning to the West of his dominions. A question is whether there can or cannot be more than one Caliph at the same time. The title Caliph was certainly claimed by the Ottoman ruler: Mustafa II, who ascended the Ottoman throne in 1695, asserted in his proclamation that God had bestowed on this poor sinner the Caliphate of the world. Likewise the Sa'dian Sherifs in N. Africa were styled Caliph and Emir al-Mu'minin; and these titles were retained by their successors the Hasani Sherifs.

Recognition of the possibility of more than one Caliph reigning at one time was actually made by the Ottoman court in 1726, in the case of their realms being separated by such an interval as the Indian Ocean; whereby perhaps the Arabian Sea is meant, the intention being to avoid disputes with the Indian Caliphs. For indeed ordinarily these two Caliphates appear to have made up their minds to live and let live, whence references to India in Ottoman historians and to the Ottoman Empire in Indian historians are rare. In 1640 there is an exceptional case of something like diplomatic relations between the two empires. An agent who was sent by Shah Jahan to buy horses was brought to Mosul into the presence of the Ottoman Sultan Murad IV, who received his presents, and sent an envoy of his own, one Arslan Agha, to the Indian potentate, who decorated him, repeatedly bestowed rich presents on him and his staff, and after a year allowed him to return. The Indian historian who records this event calls the Ottoman Sultan, Qaisar-i-Rum, "Byzantine Emperor!"42 On the other hand, in the record of the affair by the Ottoman historian Na'ima" the proud title of the Indian emperor "King of the World" does not appear.

Theoretically there can only be one; for the Caliph is the person whom God has charged with the interests of His servants in East and West, on sea and land, country and town, plain and mountain. According to a Tradition falsely ascribed to Mahomet, there can be but one caliph at a time; should a second be set up, he must be killed, for he "is a rebel."

Theory, however, in these matters does not always accord with practice. The Emperor Frederick I at different times maintained that .just as there was only one God, so there could only be one Emperor; and that the Byzantine potentate might call himself Emperor of the Romanians, whilst he (Frederick) was sole Emperor of the Romans. It might be difficult to find in the whole history of Islam after the Prophet's decease any period at which there were not rival Caliphs; one Qatar!, who died in the year AH 76, had held the title of Caliph for thirteen years. When the Umayyads, driven from the East, renewed their dynasty in Spain, they at first called themselves Sons of the Caliphs, holding that the title Caliph belonged of right to the sovereign who was in possession of the Sanctuaries; but in 929 (A. H. 316) the Umayyad 'Abd al-Rahman III assumed the title officially - not, as Dozy with an anachronism suggests, because the Caliph of Baghdad was now a puppet, for eight years had to elapse before he became one, but because his 'Ubaidid neighbour in Africa had assumed the title, and it would have been impolitic to be satisfied with anything less.

About 150 years later the Al-Moravid Yusuf Ibn Tashfin, having become master of a mighty empire, was told by the sheikhs of his tribe that the title Emir was no longer adequate, since he was the Caliph of God on His earth, and should call himself Emir al-Mu'minin or Caliph. He at first resisted, on the ground that this title belonged to the 'Abbasids in virtue of their descent and their possession of the Sanctuaries; ultimately, however, he had to yield and took this title,13 which was also taken by sovereigns of the succeeding, Al-Mohade, dynasty.

The Caliphate was claimed Spanish and African dynasties simultaneously with the Caliphates of Egypt and Baghdad. Whereas many supposed that the possession of the Sanctuaries furnished a title to the office, on one occasion we find the doctrine reversed. When the Caliphate of Baghdad came to an end, the Sherif of Mecca sent formal recognition to the Hafsid Caliph then reigning in Tunis, on the ground that he was the only Caliph who at the time possessed any real power. According to this the Sanctuaries belonged to the most powerful Islamic sovereign; it was not the possession of them which formed the ground of his sovereignty. One might have expected more of the Sherifs of Mecca to claim the Caliphate than appear actually to have done so. In fact, an abortive attempt of the kind was made by one Abu '1-Futuh in A.H. 381, and Quatadah, founder of the existing line of Sherifs, considered that he had the best right to the office. The North African Caliphate has its representative to this day in the Sultan of Morocco.

The Caliphate of Baghdad was nominally replaced after three years by the 'Abbasids, who maintained a shadow of the office in Egypt under the Mamluks. Ordinarily these Caliphs kept in the background; when they tried to assert themselves they had reason to regret the attempt. In 902 A.H. the Caliph of the times ventured to appoint the well known polygraph Jalal ad-din Suyuti supreme Qadi with the right to appoint and dismiss qadis throughout the Islamic world! The qadis of Cairo met and declared that when there was a Sultan, the Caliph had no right of binding or loosing, of appointment or dismissal of any sort.

These shadowy Caliphs might have remained in obscurity, but for an accident. The fall of dynasties claiming the Caliphate was so familiar an occurrence that methods for dealing with such a situation had arisen. One was to continue to recognize the last Caliph of the line, notwithstanding that he was in his grave; thus Musta'sim the last of the 'Abbasids of Baghdad, though he had been murdered in A. H. 656, was mentioned in prayer as late as the year 798 A.H., "from every pulpit," if Khazraji is to be believed. A second plan was, as has been seen, that adopted by the Sherif of Mecca, to look out for some other Caliph. Yet a third plan was to claim the Caliphate; for indeed this matter is mainly or entirely the concern of princes, who are supposed to derive their power from the Caliph; to other Moslems it is of little importance.

According to the principles laid down by orthodox writers, the sovereignty of the true believers must be one, indivisible, and absolute. A dictum of the Prophet is quoted in support of this, that one scabbard cannot contain two swords. Legal authorities have accordingly pronounced against any division of the empire, and against the co-existence of two Khalifs. Such dogmas have been rendered null and void by the force of events, but powerful sovereigns have re-asserted the claim, and when the Ottoman family rose to power it was asserted wherever their arms could reach.