Danimal writes:
The Almohads were a North African dynasty. They never claimed the caliphate.
You may be thinking of the Abbasid caliph al-Nasir (r. 1180-1225). He did indeed revive the temporal power of the caliphate in Iraq, it having previously been dissipated by al-Mu’tasim and his immediate successors due to their policy of recruiting Turkish military slaves (mamluks).
There were an Abbasid and a Fatamid calpih who used the title “al-Mansur”, but they were both much earlier.
I thought that the Abbassids, Almoravids, Almohads, Fatimids, and Ayyubids each claimed their own separate caliphate. This site, for instance, describes the Almohad dynasty as a caliphate. http://family-of-man.com/CatalogEnglish/North%20Africa/Maghreb/almohad_caliphate.html
Anyway, I wasn’t thinking of al-Nasir, but of al-Mansur. That website reports the Almohad caliphs as ruling through 1269. I don’t know if they stayed powerful through all that time, but al-Mansur was an important military leader who beat various Spanish princes at Alarcos and also ordered the construction of buildings that are now historical treasures, so he didn’t seem to me to be a figurehead.
Danimal: Although it is correct to say that various dynasties claimed the title of “Caliph” ( I forget the actual full title ), including the Fatimids, Spanish Umayyads, etc., I don’t think that was what Beruang was referring to as “The Caliphate”.
The Caliphate he is is referring to ( and Beruang, correct me if I’m wrong ) is the “universal” dynasties that descended lineally from Muhammed. i.e. Muhammed>Rashidun>Umayyad ( Syrian ) dynasty>Abbasid dynasty. These essentially terminated with the Mongol conquest of Baghdad in 1259 ( I think ). A remnant of the Abbasid dynasty with the title ( of somewhat questionable validity ) was preserved first by the Mamelukes from 1260 and then by the Ottomans after their conquest of Egypt in the early 16th century, for the purposes of prestige. But basically the title of Caliph had lost all political meaning.
For that matter the all other dynasties that began claiming the title of Caliph didn’t start to do so until the tenth century, I believe. Even the rebellious Umayyad rump state in Spain originally just referred to themselves as “Amirs”. It was only with the decline of Abbasid state power in the tenth century ( which Beruang already alluded to ) that others began claiming the title of Caliph to add burnish to their rule. I believe the first was the Is’maili Sh’ia dynasty of the Fatimids, who had legitimate ( in their eyes ) political and religious reasons for claiming the title. There were in a sense “Anti-Caliphs” operating in opposition to the Sunni Caliph in Baghdad. But they opened the floodgates. The Ayyubids for example would have no real reason to claim the title other than the fact that they usurped the Fatimids. This despite the facts that they were orthodox Sunni’s and theoretically subject to the Abbasids in Baghdad.
However I would disagree with Beruang’s implication that is long as The Caliphate was strong that non-Arab conversion to Islam was frowned upon. It’s true active proselytizing among non-Arabs didn’t begin until much later, but conversions occurred almost at once and they increasingly came to be accepted in the later Umayyad periods. The Caliph Umar II ( the only Umayyad accepted as a “lawful” Caliph by Abbasid sources ) actually attempted to correct some inequities in this area. And the Abbasid revolt ( late 740’s ) was at least in part fueled by the perceived need to equalize Islam for all. Much of the Abbasids early political and military support in fact came from the Mawali, Persian converts to Islam. Indeed if the Umayyad dynasty can be referred to as “Arab” in poitical tone and in the basis of its support, the Abbasids can probably be said to have been much more “Persian”.
As to the Persians converting en masse after the Arab conquest? No. It was actually a lengthy process, with several revolts. But certainly a majority were muslim by the early Abbasid period.
Also on the point of homogenous geographic zones of Sh’ia/Sunni distribution. That is a relatively ( last 5 centuries ) recent occurence ( and is still not complete ). In medieval times populations were much more heterogenous (and Iran was largely Sunni ). For example the Nizari Is’mailis ( Assasins ) were spread out across Persia and Syria in numerous small pockets. There was for a period a Zaydi Sh’ia state in North Persia to complement the one in Yemen. etc.
This is OK by me.
The ultimate point I was trying to get across is that the caliph was initially a powerful secular and religious leader, and later became a figurehead both religiously and secularly. In neither instance was there the kind of church-state power struggle that characterized Europe, that required the king’s power to be limited and legitimated by a separate and independent religious leader. I believe this is true both of the “universal” Abbasid caliphs you refer to and of the limited, local “caliphs” like the Ayyubids and Almohads.
This is all in line with my understanding; actually it’s a much more clear and erudite version of what I was trying to say to Beruang myself.
Oops. I didn’t mean to suggest the conversion happened overnight. However, maybe the process was even slower (and certainly more violent) than I realized. My interpretation was probably simplistic. Thank you for the details.
Now you’re getting into an area I really know nothing about.
It’s interesting that you date the geographic sorting-out of the Muslim sects as beginning about 500 years ago, about the time of the Reformation in Europe, which I claimed was the second major step toward Europe’s pre-eminent intellectual liberty. Before that, of course, the Muslim states had substantially more intellectual liberty than the Christian ones did. Then did the Sunni-Shi’ite schism help bring about this greater religious/intellectual freedom in the medieval Muslim world? If not, then what does explain Islam’s relative tolerance during medieval times?
Jeez, I wrote Sh’ia instead of Shi’a throughout that last post. How embarassing 
. Anyway…
>The ultimate point I was trying to get across is that the caliph was initially a powerful secular and religious leader, and later became a figurehead both religiously and secularly. In neither instance was there the kind of church-state power struggle that characterized
Europe, that required the king’s power to be limited and legitimated by a separate and independent religious leader. I believe this is true both of the “universal” Abbasid caliphs you refer to and of the limited, local “caliphs” like
I pretty much agree ( had a very long-winded agreement, but I’ll go with this one 
). There are exceptions of sorts. Control of the Abbasid Caliph post-950 was an important coin in the Sunni Muslim world. They still functioned as important religious leaders even after they were effectively stripped of secular powers. They helped legitimize outside invaders like the Seljuqs and as I mentioned were prestige items for later Sultanates. But they only really attempted to revive their secular power ( as in al-Nasir 1180-1225 ) AFTER the previous controlling powers had disintegrated. So, no, there was never quite the dynamic you find in the West.
Re: My 500 year point. I was just using that for convenience, since the conversion of Iran ( more or less forcibly ) began around that point and that was probably one of the last major pieces of religio-geographical shifting to take place in the Near East.
Re: Religious tolerance. Well Islam was originally an “ethnic” religion just like Beruang said. They did not seek non-Arab converts and the Koran preached tolerance for the “People of the Book” - monotheists like the Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians. Contemporary Christianity preached no such creed. So Islamic rulers were just being good muslims not to persecute people of other faiths. I doubt the Sunni - Shi’a split had much impact in this particular area. Muslim rulers could afford to be magnanimous because they were firmly in control.
But again, as Beruang pointed out, as the Pax Islamica began to disintegrate that tolerance began to erode. Still in many ways it probably was still better to be a Jew under most Islamic regimes, than it was under most Christian states until relatively modern times ( acknowledging that there were often many individual exceptions to that generality ).
Oops, forgot intellectual liberty. The level of intellectual freedom actually came and went depending on the regime.
I’m not sure if I can think of a good, concise answer for this one, really. But I’ll put forward a supposition. Islamic society values literacy, because a good Muslim should be able to read the Koran. Literacy leads to intellectual curiosity at all levels of society. During periods of wealth and political dominance ( i.e. the Middle Ages, when literacy was at an all time low in Europe ), Islamic society had the leisure to sate their intellectual curiosity and ( at times ) the state patronage necessary to do so. Hence the cultural efflorescence of that period.
I would think it’s a lot more complicated that that, but it’s a starting point for thought.