Kingship and caliphate differ by lawful rule, not succession method

Evidence

In the early Islamic centuries the words king and kingship often retain this rather negative connotation, especially when contrasted with caliph and caliphate. An early narrative preserved by Tabari records a conversation between the caliph ‘Umar and the Persian convert Salman: “Salman said that ‘Umar said to him: ‘Am I a king or a caliph?’ And Salman answered: ‘If you have taxed the lands of the Muslim one dirham, or more, or less, and applied to unlawful purposes, then you are a king not a caliph.’ And ‘Umar wept.” The contrast between kingship and caliphate is clearly indicated in this anecdote. The essential difference is not between elective and dynastic succession, since the latter very rapidly became the norm in the caliphate, too, but between arbitrary rule and govern­ ment in accordance with the divine law. — Bernard Lewis, From Babel to Dragomans, 527

The contrast between kingship and caliphate is clearly indicated in this anecdote. The essential difference is not between elective and dynastic succession, since the latter very rapidly became the norm in the caliphate, too, but between arbitrary rule and govern­ ment in accordance with the divine law. — Bernard Lewis, From Babel to Dragomans, 527

Categorization

• XREF: Connects to Islamic constitutional theory’s insistence that legitimacy rests on sharia conformity, resonating with the medieval investiture disputes in Christendom over lawful vs arbitrary authority.
• DEFINE: Defines the crucial Islamic distinction: king vs caliph turns on rule by divine law rather than electoral vs dynastic succession, which the author stresses was never the real contrast.
• corroborated: 2 independent passages support this claim — Bernard Lewis, From Babel to Dragomans: Interpreting…, 527