The document summarizes and compares the perspectives of different historians on the role of the Caliphate in early Islamic history. It discusses how Arthur Goldschmidt viewed the Caliph primarily as a political role focused on maintaining power, while Daniel Brown analyzed the Caliph's role through the lens of various religious sects and their relationship to the Caliph. Barnaby Rogerson took a different approach by analyzing the personalities of individual Caliphs and how their roles changed over time. Finally, a chapter in John Haldon's book examined the Caliph's role from an economic and administrative perspective in governing newly conquered territories. The document analyzes how each historian provided different viewpoints and levels of analysis regarding the Caliphate.

1. The Role of the Caliphate: An analysis of Different Historical Literature about the Caliphs Role
within the Islamic Empire
By: Matthew Gibson
October 21, 2016

2. Gibson 1
With the death of Muhammad in the mid-seventh century, Muslim followers were left
with a succession issue that would ultimately divide Islam into different religious sects. The rise
of these religious factions was a threat to the stability of Islam, and the new empire along with
other issues such as the economy. The solution to this succession issue was the establishment of
the Caliphate, which is the successor to the messenger of God. After the solution of establishing
the Caliphate, the structure of the government began to change. The historiography regarding
how historians perceive the Caliphate is distinct among scholars. In Dr. Arthur Goldschmidt’s
book, A Concise History of the Middle East, he perceives the Caliph as a political role that
focuses solely on maintaining power whereas other historians have different views of the
Caliphate. While Goldschmidt over emphasizes the political realm of the Caliphate, which lacks
depth in terms of the effect on citizens, other authors such as Brown, Rogerson, and Haldon
focus on the political side, but examine the role of the Caliphate through different paradigms that
draw a better picture of the role of the Caliph for readers. Unfortunately, arguments within
Haldon’s, Goldschmidt’s, and Rogerson’s book only focus on one aspect of the Caliphate that
leaves readers oblivious to other ongoing situations in the background, while Brown’s book
seems to make up for what the other authors lack.
In Goldschmidt’s history of the Caliphate, he argues that the caliphate rises out of a
succession issue. Goldschmidt focuses on the role of the Caliphate. He starts off with chapter
four addressing this succession issue with the sudden death of the Prophet Muhammad and how
the umma, or religious community, “…still needed some sort of leader, comparable to a tribal
shaykh, who would direct its affairs until the hour of doom.”1 The Caliphate was both a director
of war and the foundational creator of Islam as a political institution. Goldschmidt believes that
1Jr, Arthur Goldschmidt, and Aomar Boum. A Concise History of the Middle East. 11 edition. Boulder, CO:
(Westview Press, 2015). 44.

3. Gibson 2
because of the continuous conquest by the Muslims, there was a need for a more complex
government.2 For example, Goldschmidt discusses how Caliph Umar created policies that would
separate Muslim soldiers from the citizens within occupied cities.3 These policies were enacted
so that Arab soldiers would stay disciplined as well as keeping Muslims away from non-
converts. In addition to governmental reforms, other Caliphs such as Uthman made religious
reforms such as eliminating other versions of the Qur’an and making one superior copy
administrable to the public.4 Goldschmidt continues navigating through the chapters by
discussing how these reforms were met with opposition from religious factions such as Shi’ite
and Kharijite Muslims throughout the reign of the “Righteously Guided Caliphs” as well as
through the Umayyad and Abbasid Caliphates.
Goldschmidt’s analysis focuses on the politics of the Caliphate. For example,
Goldschmidt discusses some of the fiscal reforms during the Umayyad dynasty. He states,
“Whether the caliphs took on the trappings of Roman emperors or Persian shahs, their
government favored the Arabs, and depended on their backing.”5 This is primarily political in the
sense that they are talking about Arabs, who were now Muslims, as a primary group needed to
keep their political power position. He doesn’t discuss the conditions of non-Muslims or non-
Arabs and their political dissatisfaction, which primarily has to do with the Caliph’s favoritism
towards Arabs. This remains consistent within his analysis of the Caliphate, including his
analysis of the “Righteously guided Caliphs”. He doesn’t talk about the domestic groups that are
calling for these reforms, whether it be religious, economic, or government. He briefly mentions
religious sects, but discusses their roles through the means of achieving leadership. For example,
2 Goldschmidt, A Concise History of the Middle East, 48.
3 Goldschmidt, 48.
4 Goldschmidt, 50.
5 Goldschmidt, 64.

4. Gibson 3
he talks about the Mawali, which is a group of Muslims who are converts but not Arab, and how
they became the new intellectual leaders, or how the Abbasid Caliphates manipulated the Shi’ite
groups to support the overthrow of the Umayyad dynasty.6 It’s all about political motivation and
lacks the religious comparisons that Brown analyses through his book. Compared to
Goldschmidt’s book, Brown offers the best historiographical analysis of the nature of the
Caliphate. Brown focuses on both the religious and political aspects of the relationship between
the Caliphate and domestic issues within the empire.
In his book A New Introduction to Islam, Daniel Brown analyzes the role of the Caliphate
through the perspective of religious factions within Islam. Brown structures his argument by
demonstrating the religious attachments that the Caliphs possessed. He states, “His most pointed
advice…had to do with religious policy…the caliph should put an end to the inconsistencies and
contradictions among the various schools of Islamic law by enforcing his own inspired opinions
and compiling a single consistent code of justice.”7 While Brown explains the primary function
of the Caliph he moves into the various sects of Islam that had a problem with the way that Islam
was functioning. He analyzes the dissatisfaction of groups such as the Shi’ites, mini-sects within
Shi’ism such as Twelvers, Isma’ilis, The Nazari’s, and the Kharijite sect that is different from
Shi’ism. This would be the foundation of every faction challenging the authority of the Caliph.
Brown reaches a fundamental conclusion that there were people who “held that the Caliph was
intrinsically no different [than] any other believer.”8 He proceeds to analyze the different
viewpoints of the factions, which range from the succession issue of who will rule after
6 Goldschmidt, 65.
7 Brown, Daniel W. A New Introduction to Islam, 2nd edition. Chichester, UK ; Malden, MA: (Wiley-Blackwell,
2009), 99.
8 Brown, A New Introduction to Islam, 100.

5. Gibson 4
Muhammad to the idea of whether God or the Caliph holds the right to judgement.9 At the end of
the chapter, Brown discusses the ramifications of the opposition against the role of the Caliph.
Brown references Al-Mawardi, a political philosopher, explains how through these rebellions,
the Caliphate was reduced to a figure head in which the only form of ruling the Islamic Empire
was to subject the people to Islamic Law, being the only tool of holding the religious community
together.10 Unfortunately, this was just a theory by Al-Mawardi, but it leads into Brown’s next
chapter that breaks down Islamic Law.
On the other hand, in Brown’s book, he demonstrates a transition of the religious role of
the Caliphate to some political expectations that were being challenged by oppositional religious
groups. He examines the role of the Caliphate through the eyes of various religious sects. Brown
argues that to understand the “orthodoxy” of Islamic political thought, which is the Caliph as the
glue of the community, readers first need to understand the alternative viewpoints.11 Brown takes
a domestic approach of understanding the relationship between the Caliph and these opposition
groups. This was helpful in a sense to readers by showing both religious and political
implications that would drive some of these opposition groups into rebellion, forcing the
Caliphate to make certain reforms. This analysis gives insight into why Islamic political thought
became so orthodox to begin with. Brown’s analysis is easier for readers because it offers an
analysis of what the Caliph was obligated to do as the leader. Brown demonstrates how some
Caliphs didn’t uphold these obligations, but he also shows the opposite side of the spectrum. He
illustrates how the Muslim people, who organized themselves into religious factions, were
reducing the Caliphs role to being merely a figurehead. Both Goldschmidt and Brown’s books
9 Brown, 108
10 Brown, 114.
11 Brown, 100.

6. Gibson 5
are introductory level books that were written for readers to understand the Middle East and
Islam on a basic level, but Brown’s historiographical analysis of the role of the Caliphate has
more depth and a unique approach to the Caliphate that separates his work from the other authors
work. The other authors are primarily conservative in the sense that they only examine the
Caliphate from one specific point of view.
In his book The Heirs of Muhammad, Rogerson analyzes the role of the Caliphate
through the personalities of the righteously guided Caliphs and the first few Caliphs from the
Umayyad dynasty. Within part two of his book, Rogerson focuses on the political policies of the
Caliphs and how they changed overtime. He begins with the belief that “The ‘successor’, the
Caliph, might collectively hold the political authority of the community… Nothing should be
allowed to stand between God and man. Nothing should ever obscure the direct relationship
between the believer at prayer and the single deity.”12 Rogerson compares each Caliphate to
these principles to see if the role remains consistent. For the most part, it does because Caliphs
refused to interfere with religious relationship between God and Man. For example, Rogerson
talks about Omar and how he resembles a leader that focuses on filial. Omar felt entitled to just
enough money to allow him to perform the annual haj and to feed his family and guests.13 For
Omar, anything extra was likely to distract a man from a true relationship with God, as opposed
to his successor Caliphs in different dynasties. Rogerson transitions from the role of the Caliph
being a role for the people and the religious community to being militant under the Umayyad
Dynasty. For example, he talks about Mu’awiya’s reign as Caliph and how he travelled to
Medina to solidify his role as Caliph through suppressing his enemies.14 Thus, Rogerson
12 Rogerson, Barnaby. The Heirs of the Prophet Muhammad: The Two Paths of Islam by Barnaby Rogerson. (Little,
Brown Book Group, 1753), 133.
13 Rogerson, The Heirs of the Prophet Muhammad: The Two Paths of, 171.
14 Rogerson, 318.

7. Gibson 6
addresses that only a few advocates came to pledge their obedience, because they were reluctant
of accepting the efficiency of his administration. They could manage only a passive tolerance of
his usurpation and would not give him their active support or blessing.
In contrast to Brown’s book, Rogerson’s book takes a different approach by analyzing the
personalities of the Caliphal leaders and equating it to the role of the Caliph, which only provides
a single point of view. Therefore, there is ambiguity as to what the Caliph is assigned to do.
Rogerson’s argument is slightly like Brown’s argument by examining various religious factions,
but he only limits himself to the Shi’ite-Sunni conflict in which he believes precedes the
establishment of the Caliphate due to succession and family issues regarding the Prophet
Muhammad.15 Rogerson merely compares Caliphs to one another. This trend is illustrated with
the comparison of Uthman to the three Caliphs before him stating that he was not loved by
Islamic soldiers as well as the people. He was agenda driven to win over influence through
“mercy, generosity, and efficient administration.”16 This resulted in a centralization of the
Caliph, along with reformations of religious prayers. Throughout his analysis, he compares the
“Righteously Guided Caliphs” are the model behavior of what a true Caliph consists of.
Rogerson compares the Umayyad Caliphs to the Early Islamic Caliphs merely narrowing
it down to a comparison of personalities. For example, he analyses Mua’awiya’s rule and
concludes that Mu’awiya’s reign signified a change over time of the Caliph’s role from being
acclaimed or accepted by the people of Medina to a hereditary establishment based on military
power in distant Syria.17 Rogerson lacks the depth in his analysis that Brown provides. He
doesn’t provide a counter approach to how the people of Islam reacted. He constantly speaks of
15 Rogerson, 138.
16 Rogerson, 241.
17 Rogerson, 338.

8. Gibson 7
the Caliph holding the Islamic community together, in theory, but doesn’t provide information
on how this religious community reacted to his attempts to do so. Instead, he talks about how
Muslims feel in the present about the comparison between the Umayyad and Righteously Guided
Caliphs, which signifies that most Muslims see the first four Caliphs as the Eden of government,
and the established dynasties as a fall from grace.18 While most Muslims see this as a valid
statement, this serves no purpose for the readers because it shows the feelings of the Muslim
community centuries later. Unlike Brown, in Rogerson’s book, religion isn’t much of a topic
unless it is used to describe how religious a Caliph was. It also lacks the analysis of the
expectations that the people hold on the Caliphate, and merely address dissatisfaction by
opposition groups but does not necessarily go into why they are dissatisfied with the Caliph’s
policies and if he does talk about dissatisfactions, it is primarily a lack of trust in political
inefficiencies.
In John Haldon’s book, Money, Power, and Politics in Early Islamic Syria, he analyzes
the Caliphate from a purely economic and socioeconomic point of view of those living in Syria.
His book is mainly composed of essays written by other Middle Eastern scholars about the
economic history of the Islamic Empire. There are two essays in Haldon’s book that summarize
the role of the Caliphate from an economic point of view, which are Alan Walmsley’s article,
“Coinage and the Economy of Syria-Palestine in the Seventh and Eight Centuries CE,” and
Arietta Papaconstantinou’s article, “Administering the Early Islamic Empire: Insights from the
Papyri.” In Walmsley’s article, he talks about the need for coinage to solidify the rule of Islam in
their newly acquired territory. Walmsley states, “The need for coinage was well understood at all
levels of administration, and within a few decades the upper echelons of government – the
18 Rogerson 344.

9. Gibson 8
Marwanid Umayyads – came to appreciate the powerful social message coins could convey.”19
This is where Walmsley sets up the role of the Caliphate and his correlation to economic
policies. Walmsley discusses how the need for money called for a standing Caliph, in
combination with post-reform series, increasingly centralizing his power, which is visible under
Abd al-Malik’s reigns as Caliph.20 Money calls for a standing Caliph because it secured the flow
of money to important jobs within the empire. On the topic of replications, or fraud money, the
Caliph would establish local authority leaders to oversee fraudulent replications of money.21
With this close moderation of the fraudulent production of coins, the Caliph was able to ensure
that the flow of money would go towards those who earned it, like minters, local administrators
who enforced the anti-fraudulent policies, and government officials.
Papaconstantinou discusses how the early Caliphs used former Byzantine administrators
to create their structural government. Therefore, in her opinion, she believed that the Caliph was
the modernizer of Islamic government instead of a religious leader. For example,
Papaconstantinou’s states, “The Arabs, a people of relatively primitive organizations and with no
experience of empire, naturally took over much of the machinery of government which they
found in the more advanced provinces which they conquered.”22 Her argument expands from this
premise in which she continuously gives examples about how outside cultures such as the
Byzantine and Persian cultures helped modify the role of the Caliph into a politician. Different
scholars have different views of the Caliphate, but some of these arguments above lack certain
details.
19Haldon, John, ed. Money, Power and Politics in Early Islamic Syria: A Review of Current Debates. New edition
edition. Farnham, Surrey, England ; Burlington, (VT: Routledge, 2010.), 26.
20 Haldon, Money, Power and Politicsin Early Islamic Syria: A Review of Current Debates, 27.
21 Haldon, 27.
22 Haldon, 57.

10. Gibson 9
The last author has a completely different approach to their historiography of the role of
the Caliphate. John Haldon’s book takes a political, but primarily a socioeconomic stance on the
role of the Caliph. Specifically looking at Papaconstantinou’s article in Haldon’s book, she
examines the Caliph and his role in the taxing system for non-Muslims as a protection of status.
She states, “In 9th-century Arabic taxations treatises, the jizya is indeed clearly identified as the
tax to be paid by the non-Muslims as s sign of their submission, and more specifically by the
‘People of The Book’ in return for their protected status. This however is a product of the
rationalization and Islamization of the tax system under the Abbasids.”23 This analysis is
different from Brown, Goldschmidt, and Rogerson’s book. It primarily focuses on the impact
that the Caliph had on social status. It lacks the religious implications that Brown talks about in
his analysis, but it focuses on how religion was used to enforce the tax system. It does, however,
fall in line with Goldschmidt and Rogerson’s book where his book doesn’t describe or discuss
domestically how either non-Muslims or different religious factions felt about the tax system.
Although this book lacks a few key components dealing with the role of the Caliph in relations to
the people he rules over, it is understandable that this historiography lacks detailed components
because this was primarily a book that focuses on the flow of money within the Islamic empire.
The Caliph was an administer when it came to the flow of money, so it’s understandable that the
analysis is lacking components in certain areas when being compared to the other authors’
books.
In conclusion, the historiography of the role of the Caliph is different when it comes to
historical scholars. Some scholars keep their historiography simple and only focus on certain
aspects of the Caliph, while others look at the role through multiple points of view. Goldschmidt
23 Haldon, 58.

11. Gibson 10
examined the Caliph as a politician; Brown analyzed the Caliph as a religious leader first and
then a politician through the eyes of opposition groups; Rogerson felt that different Caliph’s
personalities impacted their political policies; Haldon pulled together a team of scholars to
examine the role of the Caliph as a finance politician and socioeconomic status of the Muslim
and non-Muslim people. All in all, Brown’s analysis was more persuasive and contained more
depth. This is the exact reason why Goldschmidt references Brown’s book within his own work.
Brown’s analysis was distinct because he examines the Caliph from four different directions. He
analyzes the Caliph through the Caliph’s obligations, and the obligations that religious groups
had for the Caliph, from a religious perspective and from a political perspective. This type of
analysis gives the reader, as well as any newcomers to the study of the Middle East and Islam
insight into the different roles that the Caliph had to play to keep their reign going.

12. Gibson 11
Bibliography
Brown, Daniel W. A New Introduction to Islam, 2nd Edition. 2nd edition. Chichester, UK;
Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell, 2009.
Haldon, John, ed. Money, Power and Politics in Early Islamic Syria: A Review of Current
Debates. New edition edition. Farnham, Surrey, England; Burlington, VT: Routledge,
2010.
Jr, Arthur Goldschmidt, and Aomar Boum. A Concise History of the Middle East. 11 edition.
Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 2015.
Rogerson, Barnaby. The Heirs of the Prophet Muhammad: The Two Paths of Islam by Barnaby
Rogerson. Little, Brown Book Group, 1753.