This paper will examine the legitimizing ideology of the Fatimid dynasty from the time of the establishment of their first state in Ifriqiyya (Tunisia) in 297 H/909 CE, to the transfer of their state to Egypt in 356/969. The establishment of an Isma'ili Shi`i empire in the 10th century, while remarkable, was also challenging for the Fatimids, who had proclaimed themselves initially, imams of the Isma`ili Shi`a. As such they had led a movement that constituted a revolutionary alternative to the Abbasid dynasty, and the oppositional politics of the Fatimid mission or da'wa certainly appealed to a broad range of subject peoples of the Abbasid dynasty. The Shi`i nature of the Fatimid movement nevertheless potentially exacerbated latent Sunni-Shi`i tensions often encouraged by the Abbasids themselves, and more importantly posed a problem on achieving power. Whether to rule as imams, or as caliphs, and even as the latter, to avoid alienating their own followers, non-Shi`i Muslims, and non-Muslims in their multi-confessional empire is a debate and struggle reflected in particular in the amans, or guarantees of safety, issued by their agents and generals to conquered people. Through them, we can chart an evolution in the way the Fatimids deployed their identity as Shi`i imams and Muslim rulers to legitimize their rule to a variety of audiences. The amans are preserved in Fatimid texts such as the Iftitah al-da`wa, the Kitab al-majalis wa'l-musayarat, and later histories such as al-Maqrizi's Itti`az al-hunafa', which will be examined here. Drawing on the concepts of batin (esoteric or inner) and zahir (exoteric or public) and the relationship between the two that were articulated and popularized by the fifth generally recognized Shi`i imam, Muhammad al-Baqir, the Fatimids negotiated a co-existence of loyalty to themselves as imams by the Isma'ili community, and acceptance of themselves as caliphs by the non-Ismaili majority they came to rule. This policy enabled the Fatimids to gain acceptance of their subject peoples for the two and a half centuries of their rule, even if it ultimately left their Isma'ili subjects vulnerable to the Sunnification campaigns of subsequent dynasties such as the Ayyubids of Egypt and Syria. At the same time, their formulation of a dual role as imam and caliph, challenges our own notions of a consensus regarding the Islamic nature of the caliphate

This presentation addresses the attempts made by the post-fourth/tenth century ?Abbasid caliphs to reassert their "imperial presence" in the central Islamic lands in spite of the Buyid and Saljuq hegemonic presence. Although many of the caliphs during this period were quite successful in defining their position and expanding their scope of power and authority, it is clear by the end of the sixth/twelfth century that the Abbasids would have to resign themselves to a limited sphere of power; they would remain just one of a number of powers navigating a constantly changing political arena. Three specific periods are addressed in this work: the interaction among al-Qgdir (r. 381-422/991-1031) and his son al-Qonim bi-amr allah (r. 422-467/1031-1075) and the Buyid amirs Jalal al-Dawla and Abu Kalijar; al-Musta hir billah's (r. 487-512/1094-1118) bid to take a more active role in Saljuq affairs after the death of Malikshah (d. 485/1092); and al-Mustarshid's (r. 512-529/1118-1135) resurrection of the rAbbasid military presence in the region during the first quarter of the sixth century. An analysis of these caliphs' actions and the actions of their Buyid and Saljuq allies/rivals both highlights the porous nature of the region's political arena and underscores the limitations all the political powers faced at this time. What becomes clear from this analysis is that although the sAbbasids were unable to revive their imperial presence in the region in a concrete fashion, their attempts nevertheless should not be construed as a complete failure. This presentation will conclude by suggesting alternative ways in which scholars can address such concepts as empire, hegemony, and power in the medieval period. Evidence is provided from many of the major textual sources from this period, including the works of Ibn al-Jawz , Ibn al-Ath r, Sibz b. al-JawzA, al-Bundar?, al-ausaynz, and others. In addition, numismatic evidence is used to corroborate and challenge the textual sources.

The Caliphate in the Age of Sultans: Idris-i Bidlisi's Portrayal of the Ottoman Caliph in the Early Sixteenth Century My paper examines Idris-i Bidlisi's (d. 1520) depiction of the Ottoman ruler as caliph in the early sixteenth century. As a leading jurist, a mystic and a statesman Bidlisi's writings had a profound effect on the formations of Ottoman notions of the caliphate. He wrote two works on rulership where he put forward his concept of the caliphate and two historical works where he depicted the Ottoman ruler as the embodiment of an ideal caliph he envisaged. To my finding, Bidlisi was the first Ottoman scholar to extensively deal with the question of the caliphate. Before him, the use of the caliph or the caliphate was mostly confined to rhetoric and sultanic titulature. By reworking the classical Sunni theory of the caliphate that better suited to the Abbasid ideals of rulership, he elaborated a kind of caliphate that both expressed and reflected the peculiar situation of the Ottoman ruler. He provided a juristic and theological foundation for the Ottoman Caliph by resolving the problems posed by the classical principles of caliphate. Thanks to his elaboration and influence, Ottoman rulers came to fully embrace the caliphate and stress Islamic notions of rulership while undermining Turkic and Iranian ideals. He thus paved the way for Ottoman rulers, who lacked most of what was required of the caliph by medieval scholars, to reinstitute the caliphate in the post-Abbasid world of sultans.

This paper deals with how the practice of the Abbasid Caliphs (ca.750-945) and the projection of their power generated antinomian opposition to the caliphate itself and the emerging ideals of legitimate government, known as the imamate in medieval Islamic political discourse. Literature in the field has so far been largely concerned with the "Sunni" (e.g. Umayyad and Abbasid) and "Shii" (e.g. Fatimid) caliphates as well as the normative expositions of the caliphate by Sunni jurists and theologians. Lost in the debate are the marginal yet significant voices articulating alternative views emanating from a particular stand against the caliphate and against the proto-Sunni and Sunni political and legal discourse. In this paper I intend to address a) the identity of the ninth century Sufi and Mu'tazili antinomians as proponents of an emerging alternative discourse about religious law, society, and government, and b) the Abbasid political and legal discourse responding to such antinomians. Disillusioned by the political trajectory of the Abbasids, certain antinomian individuals and groups (sufis and zahids) not only equated the caliphate with illegitimate kingship, but also criticized the views of proto-Sunni and Sunni scholars who legitimized it on the basis of religious law, reason, or necessity. Actual manifestations of this antinomian attitude included a total renunciation of political and economic life to avoid operating under illegitimate government as well as a serious criticism of Abbasid political practice and its legitimizing discourse without disengaging society. By looking into the social and political contexts of Muslim antinomianism and anarchism in the ninth century as they transpire in medieval literature I hope to contribute to a more nuanced understanding of the notions of legitimacy in Abbasid society. My sources will include works in different genres, such as Masa'il al-Imama, Muhasibi, al-Makasib, Shaybani, Kitab al-Kasb, Baghdadi, Usul al-Din, and historiographical literature.