A few points should be noted here. The title “caliph”, meaning the civil and religious head of the Islamic state or the Muslim ummah, is a Sunni usage. It started with Abu Bakr, the first caliph of Islam, who succeeded Prophet Muhammad as khalīfah rasūl Allāh, “successor of the Messenger of God”. Omar ibn Khattab, the second caliph of “Rashidune Caliphate” (632 – 661), officially used the title caliph. Subsequently, the Umayyad, Abbasid, Fatimid rulers also assumed the title of caliph. There were even rival claims to caliphate. Abbasid caliphs (750 – 1258), based in Baghdad, the Cordoba-based Umayyad rulers (755 – 1031) and the Fatimid rulers of Egypt (909 – 1171) simultaneously claimed caliphate and assumed the title caliph.
The Ottomans entered the picture especially after 1517, the year they conquered Mamluk Egypt and gained control over Islam’s holiest cities of Mecca and Medina. Yet, their claim to the title of caliph was prompted more by political than religious reasons. In the late eighteenth century, the Ottomans laid the claim to caliphate to counter their arch-rival Russian empire’s claim to protect Christians living in the Ottoman Empire. The Ottoman sultans, in turn, claimed the right to protect Muslims under Russian rule by assuming the title of caliph (but they were still known more as sultans).
It is unheard of, as you have pointed out, that control over the three holy cities of Mecca, Medina and Jerusalem is the key to claim the title of caliph. During Abu Bakr’s period Jerusalem was not under Muslim control. Does that mean Abu Bakr was not a caliph, the first caliph of Islam? The Umayyads of Cordoba were far away from the Middle East, so they did not have any claim to caliphate? And lest we forget, the Shia Muslims castigate the Sunni caliphate and even reject the first three caliphs of Islam as illegitimate since they did not have any blood relations to the family of Prophet Muhammad. The Shias prefer the title “imam” who must be a lineal descendant from the Prophet of Islam.
A few points should be noted here. The title “caliph”, meaning the civil and religious head of the Islamic state or the Muslim ummah, is a Sunni usage. It started with Abu Bakr, the first caliph of Islam, who succeeded Prophet Muhammad as khalīfah rasūl Allāh, “successor of the Messenger of God”. Omar ibn Khattab, the second caliph of “Rashidune Caliphate” (632 – 661), officially used the title caliph. Subsequently, the Umayyad, Abbasid, Fatimid rulers also assumed the title of caliph. There were even rival claims to caliphate. Abbasid caliphs (750 – 1258), based in Baghdad, the Cordoba-based Umayyad rulers (755 – 1031) and the Fatimid rulers of Egypt (909 – 1171) simultaneously claimed caliphate and assumed the title caliph.
The Ottomans entered the picture especially after 1517, the year they conquered Mamluk Egypt and gained control over Islam’s holiest cities of Mecca and Medina. Yet, their claim to the title of caliph was prompted more by political than religious reasons. In the late eighteenth century, the Ottomans laid the claim to caliphate to counter their arch-rival Russian empire’s claim to protect Christians living in the Ottoman Empire. The Ottoman sultans, in turn, claimed the right to protect Muslims under Russian rule by assuming the title of caliph (but they were known as sultans).
It is unheard of, as you have pointed out, that control over the three holy cities of Mecca, Medina and Jerusalem is the key to claim the title of caliph. During Abu Bakr’s period Jerusalem was not under Muslim control. Does that mean Abu Bakr was not a caliph, the first caliph of Islam? The Umayyads of Cordoba were far away from the Middle East, so they did not have any claim to caliphate? And lest we forget, the Shia Muslims castigate the Sunni caliphate and even reject the first three caliphs of Islam as illegitimate since they did not have any blood relations to the family of Prophet Muhammad. The Shias prefer the title “imam” who must be a lineal descendant from the Prophet of Islam.
In response to Barkley Rosser
A few points should be noted here. The title “caliph”, meaning the civil and religious head of the Islamic state or the Muslim ummah, is a Sunni usage. It started with Abu Bakr, the first caliph of Islam, who succeeded Prophet Muhammad as khalīfah rasūl Allāh, “successor of the Messenger of God”. Omar ibn Khattab, the second caliph of “Rashidune Caliphate” (632 – 661), officially used the title caliph. Subsequently, the Umayyad, Abbasid, Fatimid rulers also assumed the title of caliph. There were even rival claims to caliphate. Abbasid caliphs (750 – 1258), based in Baghdad, the Cordoba-based Umayyad rulers (755 – 1031) and the Fatimid rulers of Egypt (909 – 1171) simultaneously claimed caliphate and assumed the title caliph.
The Ottomans entered the picture especially after 1517, the year they conquered Mamluk Egypt and gained control over Islam’s holiest cities of Mecca and Medina. Yet, their claim to the title of caliph was prompted more by political than religious reasons. In the late eighteenth century, the Ottomans laid the claim to caliphate to counter their arch-rival Russian empire’s claim to protect Christians living in the Ottoman Empire. The Ottoman sultans, in turn, claimed the right to protect Muslims under Russian rule by assuming the title of caliph (but they were still known more as sultans).
It is unheard of, as you have pointed out, that control over the three holy cities of Mecca, Medina and Jerusalem is the key to claim the title of caliph. During Abu Bakr’s period Jerusalem was not under Muslim control. Does that mean Abu Bakr was not a caliph, the first caliph of Islam? The Umayyads of Cordoba were far away from the Middle East, so they did not have any claim to caliphate? And lest we forget, the Shia Muslims castigate the Sunni caliphate and even reject the first three caliphs of Islam as illegitimate since they did not have any blood relations to the family of Prophet Muhammad. The Shias prefer the title “imam” who must be a lineal descendant from the Prophet of Islam.
In response to Barkley Rosser
A few points should be noted here. The title “caliph”, meaning the civil and religious head of the Islamic state or the Muslim ummah, is a Sunni usage. It started with Abu Bakr, the first caliph of Islam, who succeeded Prophet Muhammad as khalīfah rasūl Allāh, “successor of the Messenger of God”. Omar ibn Khattab, the second caliph of “Rashidune Caliphate” (632 – 661), officially used the title caliph. Subsequently, the Umayyad, Abbasid, Fatimid rulers also assumed the title of caliph. There were even rival claims to caliphate. Abbasid caliphs (750 – 1258), based in Baghdad, the Cordoba-based Umayyad rulers (755 – 1031) and the Fatimid rulers of Egypt (909 – 1171) simultaneously claimed caliphate and assumed the title caliph.
The Ottomans entered the picture especially after 1517, the year they conquered Mamluk Egypt and gained control over Islam’s holiest cities of Mecca and Medina. Yet, their claim to the title of caliph was prompted more by political than religious reasons. In the late eighteenth century, the Ottomans laid the claim to caliphate to counter their arch-rival Russian empire’s claim to protect Christians living in the Ottoman Empire. The Ottoman sultans, in turn, claimed the right to protect Muslims under Russian rule by assuming the title of caliph (but they were known as sultans).
It is unheard of, as you have pointed out, that control over the three holy cities of Mecca, Medina and Jerusalem is the key to claim the title of caliph. During Abu Bakr’s period Jerusalem was not under Muslim control. Does that mean Abu Bakr was not a caliph, the first caliph of Islam? The Umayyads of Cordoba were far away from the Middle East, so they did not have any claim to caliphate? And lest we forget, the Shia Muslims castigate the Sunni caliphate and even reject the first three caliphs of Islam as illegitimate since they did not have any blood relations to the family of Prophet Muhammad. The Shias prefer the title “imam” who must be a lineal descendant from the Prophet of Islam.