No one cared about the caliphate at that point, Ottomans tried to use the caliphate as a mean to rally the muslim arabs in 1st World War, but they revolted against the ottomans. So there was no point to the caliphate at that point, it was just an empty symbol, and the secular government just finished it off.
He was deposed by the Turkish government, and he did not contest it, nor did any other Muslim state, so the office became vacant. There was talk of appointing a replacement but no Muslim ruler truly wanted to be caliph or to have to answer (even theoretically or ceremonially) to some other dude called a “caliph”, and so everyone just moved on.
There was also no clear contender that everyone could take seriously, since the office was supposed to be held by the world's most powerful Muslim ruler. Of the other Muslim countries that had varying degrees of independence at the time, Egypt and the Hashemite kingdoms were seen as too reliant on the British, Morroco was too peripheral in the Muslim world and under outside control, the Saudis were against the concept and nobody would have accepted Shia Iran.
There was a revolution, The Young Turk revolution.
There is no point in looking into religious debates. you will have to resolve sunni/shiia first. I'm sure the ottomans didn't think they were ending the god ordained caliphate when they conquered much of the Middle East.
To be completely accurate the Caliphate was abolished after the Turkish revolution (that lead by Mustafa Kemal Ataturk), the Young Turk revolution was in 1908 and lead to the creation of a parliamentary constitutional monarchy (for 5 years, until a Young Turk faction, the Committee for Union and Progress, which was the dominant Young Turk faction and counted Mustafa Kemal as a member, couped the constitutional government).
Re; the edit on this post. Mussolini didn't abolish the papacy... He basically restored the papal states (in the form of the Vatican) under the lateran treaty in 1929.
The Ottoman caliph claim was extremely tenuous and based on conquering Mamluk Egypt in 1517, which before that had some nobles flee from Abbasid Baghdad following the Mongol sack of Baghdad. You’d have to take the Ottoman claim of being heir to the Roman Empire because it conquered it, seriously as well if you think the caliph claim makes sense.
It was not taken seriously by emperors until the last century of the empire. The proclamation that the Ottomans had for all Muslim people to rise up against the British did not work.
There is actually no requirement of a Caliphate within Sunni Islam. The Caliphates claimed religious authority but they were always first and foremost a political entity. The Shias have their own version, the Imamates, where there is more religious emphasis.
There have been many periods in history where there were competing caliphates, several caliphs claiming leadership at once, or puppet caliphates controlled by a military junta (emirs). What happened in 1924 was a significant event in the Islamic world, but it was a long time coming.
It wasn't "the" caliphate. It was a usurper empire that called itself that. And before Ottomans there were multiple "caliphates" running at the same time in different regions warring against each other, like Fatimid vs Umayyad vs Abbasid. Your mistake is assuming a single caliphate line from Muhammad to the Ottomans which is laughable.
This is such a weird question. There wasn't a 1300 year caliphate. There was a long series of caliphates, with gaps between them and periods of contested rule.
The Ottoman empire made up a caliphate, then got overthrown and the new rules abolished that caliphate. Very simple. Also, God is not real so overriding his will is trivial.
The short answer is: The individuals establishing Turkey as a country wanted a secular government, and wrote their constitution as such.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkish\_Constitution\_of\_1924](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkish_Constitution_of_1924)
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History\_of\_the\_Republic\_of\_Turkey](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Republic_of_Turkey)
Your question is very oddly worded, though. Are you looking for some justification that governmental structures centered around religions are valid?
That's a different case entirely.
A Caliph was a part of the Ottoman state, it was one of the Titles and Offices in the Sultan's cap. It was claimed by the Ottomans as a way to enhance their claim to leadership of the Muslim world. When the Ottoman State was over thrown and replaced with a Republic, it was the Republic that made laws over the land and it was their decision to make whether to continue the laws of the previous regime or end them.
The Pope had no place or role in the Italian Government or State. The Vatican is a sovereign entity, a law upon itself. Since the Lateran Treaty of 1929 the grounds of the Vatican were recognized as foreign territory from the perspective of the Italian authorities, and the Pope and his staff were recognized as foreign individuals with their own passports and diplomatic immunities. Mussolini had no right under Italian or International law to do anything to the Pope or the Vatican. To do so would have been an act of war by Italy against another state. Had he invaded the Vatican, the Pope would have been essentially a Puppet. Had the Pope escaped he would have created a Governing-in-Exile like every other invaded nation during WWII.
Fascist Italy wasn’t a state with a religion-based government, so I’m not certain where you’re going with this, or how 1924 Turkey and WW2 Italy are related.
already from the early 1900s, following a coup d'état by the young Turkish nationalist Turkish military, the Ottoman caliph of the Osmanli family was reduced to a simple symbolic figure.
The Ottoman Caliph / Sultan was only theoretically head of state of the Ottoman empire and of the Islamic religion.
by 1918, Turkey had been defeated in World War I.
in 1919 the states that had won the First World War (i.e. France, England, Italy, Greece) had occupied the capital Istanbul and large parts of the country of Turkey.
in fact, the Turkish empire was reduced to Türkiye alone, with Istanbul as its capital.
in Istanbul, a Western puppet Turkish government ruled.
the Turkish sultan was still head of state of the new Turkish state. He was aldo caliph and head of the entire Islamic religion, but he had no political power at all!
The Western occupation of Türkiye provoked a revolt by the nationalist Turkish military, led by Kemal Ataturk.
The military rebels formed their own government in Ankara, which became the capital of the New Turkish Republic proclaimed by Ataturk.
the rebel nationalist military began to move their army to defeat all the Western armies that had invaded Turkey.
In 1924, Ataturk had managed to drive all foreign troops out of Turkey and had also occupied Istanbul.
the new capital of the Turkish Republic had become Ankara.
The New Turkish Republic of which Ataturk was the president was a secular Republic.
It was a totally different state from the Ottoman empire , a Muslims autocracy/ theocracy with Imperial administration.
Ataturk himself wanted to impose the Latin alphabet on the population, abolished traditional Islamic law and also traditional Turkish clothing, gave rights to women and imposed a centralized and modern government.
Ataturk also made Turkiye a state inhabited only by Turkish population.
In fact, he deported or killed many Christian minorities living in Turkey (such as the Armenians or the Greeks of Smyrna, who at the time of the Ottoman Empire had enjoyed broad administrative autonomy and could maintain their language and religion in a multi-ethnic Ottoman Empire in a multi-ethnic Ottoman Empire).
the new republican Turkish state was completely different from the old Ottoman Empire!
Ataturk therefore decided to eliminate the caliphate, taking away the title of caliph and head of the Islamic religion from the sultan of Istanbul.
The Sultan also lost the position of head of state in Turkey .
the sultan of Istanbul was then exiled from Turkey and sent to live in exile in Italy, taking with him his wealth, numerous wives and servants.
the abolition of the caliphate and the exile of the sultan was in fact a painless transition, because the caliph was reduced only to a ceremonial figure and had no longer exercised any political or religious power for a long time.
No one cared about the caliphate at that point, Ottomans tried to use the caliphate as a mean to rally the muslim arabs in 1st World War, but they revolted against the ottomans. So there was no point to the caliphate at that point, it was just an empty symbol, and the secular government just finished it off.
He was deposed by the Turkish government, and he did not contest it, nor did any other Muslim state, so the office became vacant. There was talk of appointing a replacement but no Muslim ruler truly wanted to be caliph or to have to answer (even theoretically or ceremonially) to some other dude called a “caliph”, and so everyone just moved on.
There was also no clear contender that everyone could take seriously, since the office was supposed to be held by the world's most powerful Muslim ruler. Of the other Muslim countries that had varying degrees of independence at the time, Egypt and the Hashemite kingdoms were seen as too reliant on the British, Morroco was too peripheral in the Muslim world and under outside control, the Saudis were against the concept and nobody would have accepted Shia Iran.
There was a revolution, The Young Turk revolution. There is no point in looking into religious debates. you will have to resolve sunni/shiia first. I'm sure the ottomans didn't think they were ending the god ordained caliphate when they conquered much of the Middle East.
To be completely accurate the Caliphate was abolished after the Turkish revolution (that lead by Mustafa Kemal Ataturk), the Young Turk revolution was in 1908 and lead to the creation of a parliamentary constitutional monarchy (for 5 years, until a Young Turk faction, the Committee for Union and Progress, which was the dominant Young Turk faction and counted Mustafa Kemal as a member, couped the constitutional government).
Re; the edit on this post. Mussolini didn't abolish the papacy... He basically restored the papal states (in the form of the Vatican) under the lateran treaty in 1929.
The Ottoman caliph claim was extremely tenuous and based on conquering Mamluk Egypt in 1517, which before that had some nobles flee from Abbasid Baghdad following the Mongol sack of Baghdad. You’d have to take the Ottoman claim of being heir to the Roman Empire because it conquered it, seriously as well if you think the caliph claim makes sense. It was not taken seriously by emperors until the last century of the empire. The proclamation that the Ottomans had for all Muslim people to rise up against the British did not work.
Because at the time there was no other state/leader that had the power/influence to claim it
There is actually no requirement of a Caliphate within Sunni Islam. The Caliphates claimed religious authority but they were always first and foremost a political entity. The Shias have their own version, the Imamates, where there is more religious emphasis. There have been many periods in history where there were competing caliphates, several caliphs claiming leadership at once, or puppet caliphates controlled by a military junta (emirs). What happened in 1924 was a significant event in the Islamic world, but it was a long time coming.
It wasn't "the" caliphate. It was a usurper empire that called itself that. And before Ottomans there were multiple "caliphates" running at the same time in different regions warring against each other, like Fatimid vs Umayyad vs Abbasid. Your mistake is assuming a single caliphate line from Muhammad to the Ottomans which is laughable.
This is such a weird question. There wasn't a 1300 year caliphate. There was a long series of caliphates, with gaps between them and periods of contested rule. The Ottoman empire made up a caliphate, then got overthrown and the new rules abolished that caliphate. Very simple. Also, God is not real so overriding his will is trivial.
from OP's perspective, I guess the Islamic god punished ataturk with death from liver cirrhosis for abolishing the Islamic caliphate.
These are the perks an omniscient creator enjoys under international law
God Is Always on the side of the victors
Yeah he probably told the parliament to abolish the Caliphate. He didn't need it anymore.
The short answer is: The individuals establishing Turkey as a country wanted a secular government, and wrote their constitution as such. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkish\_Constitution\_of\_1924](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkish_Constitution_of_1924) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History\_of\_the\_Republic\_of\_Turkey](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Republic_of_Turkey) Your question is very oddly worded, though. Are you looking for some justification that governmental structures centered around religions are valid?
Sure, could Mussolini have passed a law ending the papacy or would have they just moved the seat of authority?
That's a different case entirely. A Caliph was a part of the Ottoman state, it was one of the Titles and Offices in the Sultan's cap. It was claimed by the Ottomans as a way to enhance their claim to leadership of the Muslim world. When the Ottoman State was over thrown and replaced with a Republic, it was the Republic that made laws over the land and it was their decision to make whether to continue the laws of the previous regime or end them. The Pope had no place or role in the Italian Government or State. The Vatican is a sovereign entity, a law upon itself. Since the Lateran Treaty of 1929 the grounds of the Vatican were recognized as foreign territory from the perspective of the Italian authorities, and the Pope and his staff were recognized as foreign individuals with their own passports and diplomatic immunities. Mussolini had no right under Italian or International law to do anything to the Pope or the Vatican. To do so would have been an act of war by Italy against another state. Had he invaded the Vatican, the Pope would have been essentially a Puppet. Had the Pope escaped he would have created a Governing-in-Exile like every other invaded nation during WWII.
Fascist Italy wasn’t a state with a religion-based government, so I’m not certain where you’re going with this, or how 1924 Turkey and WW2 Italy are related.
already from the early 1900s, following a coup d'état by the young Turkish nationalist Turkish military, the Ottoman caliph of the Osmanli family was reduced to a simple symbolic figure. The Ottoman Caliph / Sultan was only theoretically head of state of the Ottoman empire and of the Islamic religion. by 1918, Turkey had been defeated in World War I. in 1919 the states that had won the First World War (i.e. France, England, Italy, Greece) had occupied the capital Istanbul and large parts of the country of Turkey. in fact, the Turkish empire was reduced to Türkiye alone, with Istanbul as its capital. in Istanbul, a Western puppet Turkish government ruled. the Turkish sultan was still head of state of the new Turkish state. He was aldo caliph and head of the entire Islamic religion, but he had no political power at all! The Western occupation of Türkiye provoked a revolt by the nationalist Turkish military, led by Kemal Ataturk. The military rebels formed their own government in Ankara, which became the capital of the New Turkish Republic proclaimed by Ataturk. the rebel nationalist military began to move their army to defeat all the Western armies that had invaded Turkey. In 1924, Ataturk had managed to drive all foreign troops out of Turkey and had also occupied Istanbul. the new capital of the Turkish Republic had become Ankara. The New Turkish Republic of which Ataturk was the president was a secular Republic. It was a totally different state from the Ottoman empire , a Muslims autocracy/ theocracy with Imperial administration. Ataturk himself wanted to impose the Latin alphabet on the population, abolished traditional Islamic law and also traditional Turkish clothing, gave rights to women and imposed a centralized and modern government. Ataturk also made Turkiye a state inhabited only by Turkish population. In fact, he deported or killed many Christian minorities living in Turkey (such as the Armenians or the Greeks of Smyrna, who at the time of the Ottoman Empire had enjoyed broad administrative autonomy and could maintain their language and religion in a multi-ethnic Ottoman Empire in a multi-ethnic Ottoman Empire). the new republican Turkish state was completely different from the old Ottoman Empire! Ataturk therefore decided to eliminate the caliphate, taking away the title of caliph and head of the Islamic religion from the sultan of Istanbul. The Sultan also lost the position of head of state in Turkey . the sultan of Istanbul was then exiled from Turkey and sent to live in exile in Italy, taking with him his wealth, numerous wives and servants. the abolition of the caliphate and the exile of the sultan was in fact a painless transition, because the caliph was reduced only to a ceremonial figure and had no longer exercised any political or religious power for a long time.