Download PDF | Mohamad El-Merheb - Political Thought in the Mamluk Period_ The Unnecessary Caliphate (Edinburgh Studies in Classical Islamic History and Culture)-Edinburgh University Press (2022).
226 Pages
Introduction
This book is about the history of political thought produced in the late Ayyubid and early Mamluk period. It highlights various concerns raised and solutions devised by Muslim legal theoreticians, jurists, judges and administrators of the Syro-Egyptian lands in their attempts to tackle a central question: how best to govern their communities. In the words of Ibn Jama‘a (639/1241-733/1333), a renowned jurist and chief judge and one of the key thinkers treated in this work, this was a challenge of achieving optimal governance for the purpose of ‘running the affairs of the people of Islam’ (tadbir ahl al-Islam).'
There are two main aims of this venture. First, the book proposes a taxonomy of the themes of the political thought produced in this period under the three ideals of the rule of law, limited government and legitimate delegation of power. Secondly, it recommends contextualism, as employed in the history of political thought of late medieval and early modern Europe, as a suitable approach for interpreting Islamic political texts based on their narrow social, intellectual and political contexts. These two aims are achieved through the examination of treatises by five selected authors who flourished in the period between c. 1250 and c. 1350. In so doing, the book deals with other important questions of authorship, readership and dedicatees, authorial motives and intentions, genres and literary styles, sources and influences, and applicability.
The history of Islamic political thought is approached from the fundamental tenet that Muslim thinkers believed that fallible humans can be entrusted with governing their societies. They theorised and proposed solutions in order to moderate and limit the exercise of power by other fallible humans and to improve all aspects of governance based on knowledge derived from legal and ethical traditions, personal administrative experiences, and historical precedents. There is no evidence in any of the texts examined in this book to suggest that Muslim thinkers considered themselves constrained by a perceived divine role that would limit the agency of humans in matters of governance. Nor is there any suggestion that they conceived of the shari‘a either as a doctrine of duties whose enforcement was the sole purpose of government or intended to uphold the institution of the caliphate as the perennial and highest form of political authority in Islam. Accordingly, they could freely advise rulers and ruling elites on various aspects of governance and address concerns that they considered relevant for their own time. It follows that the aspirations of Muslim political thinkers may not have been so different from some of their counterparts in Europe: securing stability, locating legitimate authority, and ensuring a just and durable system of governance — to the extent that this was possible in the thirteenth and early fourteenth centuries.
What is Islamic Political Thought?
Presently, scholarly interest in the study of the history of political thought does not match that in other vigorous disciplines in Islamic studies such as the legal, social and cultural histories of the Mamluk period. The field is still dominated by the twentieth-century works of H. A. R. Gibb, Ann K. S. Lambton, Erwin E. J. Rosenthal, Patricia Crone and others, in addition to a few more recent ones including those by Antony Black.’ As formative and valuable as they are, these authoritative works circumscribed the scope of inquiry in the field to a very limited set of themes that concerned medieval Muslim thinkers: the preservation of the historical institution of the caliphate; the duty of the state to implement divine law; and the legitimation of usurpation of power by the sultans. Furthermore, these studies unintentionally obscured important contributions by various medieval Islamic thinkers and led to a distorted reading of political texts, as I shall discuss in detail subsequently in Chapter 1. Fortunately, recent contributions by historians of Islamic law and new perspectives on the work of the Hanbali theologian Ibn Taymiyya (661/1263—728/1328) have led to some incidental yet significant advances in the study of the political thought of the Mamluk period.’ Further progress was achieved by scholars who studied representations of power and the remembrance of the shadow ‘Abbasid caliphate in Cairo.*
Defining political thought in a field as vast as the history of the premodern Islamic world is an ambitious endeavour, but a necessary one. With the political, religious, ethical, philosophical, theological and spiritual all encroaching on my attempts to identify a suitable definition in existing secondary literature, I eventually opted to construct an all-inclusive one befitting of the high political culture of medieval Islamic urban centres. Hereafter, political thought in the late Ayyubid and early Mamluk period refers to any discourse dealing with the origins of a state or polity, the legitimacy of the ruler and ruling elites, the limits of their power and authority, the moderation of their exercise of power, their relations with the people they ruled, the necessary qualifications for governing, institutions of government and order, institutions and modes of dispensing justice, individual and group rights, taxation and the distribution of wealth, and the justification and rules of war. This definition applies to any channel or form of expression, be it common among the intellectual and ruling elites or lay individuals, and whether expressed in high literary or material culture, or even spontaneously on the streets of Cairo or Damascus. This definition notwithstanding, the foci of this book are literary works by political thinkers of the Ayyubid and Mamluk period.
To a certain extent, the present book’s definition of Islamic political thought overlaps with what Ibn Khaldun (732/1332-808/1406) accused Muslim philosophers of failing to discuss. He observed in his Mugaddima: By ‘government of the city’ (al-siyasa al-madaniyya), the philosophers mean simply the disposition of soul and character which each member of a social organisation must have if, eventually, people are completely to have no need of rulers. They call the social organisation that fulfils these requirements the ‘virtuous city’ (a/-madina al-fadila). The norms observed in this connection are called ‘government of the city’. They do not mean the kind of government that the members of a social organisation are led to adopt through laws for the common interest. That is something different. The ‘virtuous city’ of the philosophers is something whose realisation (wugqi’) is rare and remote.
They discuss it only as a hypothesis.’
For Ibn Khaldun, philosophers did not treat siyasa or ‘political government’.° We have to look elsewhere for thinkers who theorised on practical and attainable siyasa.
Sources
There exists a rich and extensive pre-Khaldunian tradition of authoring works of political thought by legal theoreticians, jurists, judges and administrators. This book examines the political conceptions expressed in the treatises of the following five carefully selected late Ayyubid and early Mamluk period authors from among what is available to us of this vast corpus: (1) Ibn Jama‘a’s (639/1241-733/1333) Tahrir al-ahkam fi tadbir ahl al-Islam (Drafting Ordinances towards Running the Affairs of the People of Islam), which I will argue was the synthesis of the Shafi‘ i-Ash‘ari strain of political thought of the period; (2) Misbah al-hidaya fi tarig al-imama (The Guiding Lamp to the Path of the imama), a Sufi expression of political thought dedicated by an unknown author probably to al-Zahir Baybars (r. 658/1260-676/1277); (3) parts of the work of the Maliki legal theoretician al-Qarafi (626/1228-682/1283 or 684/1285) titled al-lhkam fi tamyiz al-fatawa ‘an al-ahkam wa-tasarrufat al-qadi wa-al-Imam (The Book of Perfection in Distinguishing Legal Opinions from Judicial Rulings and the Discretionary Actions of Judges and Rulers); (4) Ibn Talha’s (582/1186/7-652/1254) al-‘Iqd al-farid li-al-malik al-Sa‘id (The Unique Necklace for a Content King), a juristic treatise that resembles what is often termed mirrors for princes; and, lastly (5) parts of the historiographical work by Taj al-Din al-Subki (d. 771/1370), Tabaqat al-Shafi‘iyya al-kubra (The Great Shafi'i Biographical Dictionary) and his treatise Mu “id al-ni‘am wa-mubid al-niqam (‘The Restorer of Favours and the Restrainer of Chastisements), which will both be interpreted as political texts. The above authors are not randomly selected. In addition to chronological and regional factors, the selection considers their professional backgrounds, their intended audiences and dedicatees, their aims in writing, the literary styles they opted for, their adherence to specific legal schools and intellectual currents, and the main political concerns they treated. All selected treatises were authored in the Syro-Egyptian lands during the late Ayyubid and early Mamluk period.
The authors are known to be legal theoreticians and jurists or — as in the case of the Sufi Misbah — trained as such. Each of these authors belonged to the Ash‘ari intellectual tradition and, with the exception of al-Qarafi, they all adhered to the Shafi‘i legal tradition. While the intended audiences were Ayyubid or Mamluk rulers and ruling elites, these treatises were not presented as mere panegyrics or works of flattery as they did not shy away from passing criticism or calling for accountability; nor were they authored for the sole purposes of critique, satire or to threaten in any way the stability of a realm or the legitimacy of a ruler. Moreover, these were not diplomatic exchanges concerned with reflecting certain images or ideologies of power. The selected works are all treatises that express clear political ideals using well-founded and recognisable repertoires of legal and ethical languages. Most importantly, these treatises fit this book’s definition of Islamic political thought since, as professed by their authors, they dealt with themes of legitimacy of rulers, the limits and origins of power, ideal governance, justice and taxation.
Reading Ayyubid and Mamluk Political Thought
Identifying where and how to find Islamic political thought is only one aspect of the methodological challenges facing historians of the field. There is, likewise, the crucial issue of ‘reading’ — that is, interpreting — political texts, with which this book is equally concerned. This methodological concern must be kept in mind in order that the main themes, intended ideas and concerns treated by Islamic political thinkers of the period are not missed and, also, that ones that are not relevant to their time or simply did not concern them are not imposed. It follows that only a proper ‘reading’ of premodern Islamic political texts can unravel the rich and innovative tradition of authoring works of political thought that existed in the late Ayyubid and early Mamluk period and offset any artificial impositions on this thought. Such a reading can inform us whether the above-mentioned five authors — as is often believed — strived for the revival of the caliphal institution and the legitimation of usurped power, or conversely — as I shall argue — expressed first and foremost their concern for the moderation and limitation of the exercise of power.
This is a question of reading political thought as much as it is one of locating it. To this end, I shall propose contextualism (or linguistic contextualism) as an expedient methodology to interpret the political thought of the late Ayyubid and early Mamluk period. The well-tested broad guidelines of contextualism have been employed extensively in the history of medieval and early modern European political thought by historians of the “Cambridge School’, including Quentin Skinner and J. G. A. Pocock. The approach of this school proved to be beneficial for this book and, I argue, is indeed necessary at this stage of the development of the field of the history of Islamic political thought since it provides the required framework to counter anachronisms, misrepresentations of political texts, and the imposition of political ideas and concerns that could not have been relevant to the authors of the Ayyubid and Mamluk period.’ Accordingly, as per the guidelines of contextualism, which are discussed in Chapter 1, the political texts treated throughout this book will be interpreted against their narrow political, social and intellectual contexts. Furthermore, the political languages used by the five authors to express their ideas and concerns will be unlocked and the conventions that governed the prevalent ideological and political discourses of their time will be identified, both as prerequisites for ‘reading’ their treatises.
The late Ayyubid and early Mamluk period is the optimal proving ground for applying the guidelines of contextualism in the history of Islamic political thought. This was a period of a highly ‘bookish’ culture that thrived in the Syro-Egyptian lands and led to a prolific production and consumption of works of political advice.* Additionally, various well-recorded features of the social, cultural and political history of this period allow the reconstruction of the narrow context within which its political thought was produced, including the professionalisation and bureaucratisation of the scholars who authored works of political advice; various social and intellectual networks that flourished around legal schools, theological trends, and ideological debates and boosted intellectual production; the proliferation of educational and charitable institutions under military patronage states, which furthered competition for jobs and shaped the patterns of knowledge transfer in great urban centres such as Damascus and Cairo; and, lastly, the absence of an effective caliphate and the rule of the sultans and military elites.
Themes, Concerns and Ideals
All things considered, what is Islamic political thought of the late Ayyubid and early Mamluk period? Close scrutiny of the treatises authored by the previously mentioned five authors demarcates the following main themes: the moderation of the exercise of power by the ruler and ruling elites; the limits of this power; and the concern for stability and the smooth running of government and the affairs of the populace, irrespective of power struggles at the top and, consequently, locating legitimate political, judicial and administrative powers for every eventuality. As already mentioned, the present monograph argues that these themes can be classified under the three overlapping and interlocked ideals of the rule of law, limited government and legitimate delegation of power. This taxonomy is intended to convey what the five authors strived to express and uphold in their treatises.
The rule of law describes the authors’ effort to moderate the arbitrary exercise of power based on written systems of checks and balances. Such systems were rooted in Islamic legal reasoning, various ethical concepts from within and outside the religious tradition, and pertinent historical precedents. Each thinker understood these systems of checks and balances differently and opted for his own carefully selected repertoire of sources, authoritative texts, traditions and precedents in order to present his call for the rule of law in a distinctive way. Some resorted to legal and juristic reasoning and conceptions, others used Sufi ethical systems, and others still compiled what resembled tailor-made proto-constitutions to uphold their own conceptions of the rule of law.
Limited government refers in this book to attempts to restrain the discretionary exercise of power by the ruler by implementing a division of political, judiciary and administrative labour. This was possible owing to the sophistication of the late Ayyubid and Mamluk administration. Despite the overlap with the above-mentioned ideal of the rule of law, a more precise portrayal of these authors’ detailed discussions of various senior offices dictates the identification of a separate and distinct ideal termed limited government. The examined treatises discussed various high-ranking administrative, military and judicial offices, including viziers, amirs, judges, market inspectors, chancery and fiscal secretaries, and other posts in what can be described as detailed administrative manuals. Such treatments aimed at securing the interests of the populace, the smooth running of government, and the just dispensing of justice outside the discretionary power of the ruling elites and independently from their struggles.
The theory of the legitimate delegation of power refers to careful attempts made by the five authors to secure a lawful and durable transfer of the original caliphal functions to different sultanic, judicial and administrative powers. This theory was an advanced political discourse that aimed to locate legitimate power at all levels of government for every eventuality and, accordingly, must not be confused with the legitimation expressed in panegyrics. Each author presented a distinct version of the theory of delegation and opted for his own cautiously selected sources and conceptions to ensure that the exercise of power was legitimate. Some thinkers expressed their concern for this ideal using juristic reasoning, while others relied on Sufi conceptions that fixed the origins of political power within the sultanate as the successor of prophethood. Chapter Outlines.
There are five chapters in this book. Although each one is written to be read and understood independently, the purpose of every chapter is the same: to highlight the aims and concerns of authors and how they expressed them thematically and stylistically. The chapters have deliberately not been placed in chronological order, so as not to give the reader a misleading impression of a causal or teleological relationship between the texts discussed in this book. All chapters treat an understudied source and some bring new ones to light for the first time.
Chapter 1 outlines the book’s methodology and gives an overview of the prevalent impediments and impaired approaches in the field of the history of Islamic political thought. It justifies the decision to employ contextualism as a reliable and needed methodology to interpret the political texts of the late Ayyubid and early Mamluk period.
Chapter 2 introduces the reader to Ibn Jama‘a’s career and political thought. It explains the development of his practicable conceptions of the rule of law and his elaboration of a new system of checks and balances to moderate the ruler’s discretionary exercise of power, which was rooted in Shafi‘i juristic reasoning and greatly benefited from the author’s administrative and judicial experience. The chapter treats Ibn Jama‘a’s tripartite conception of political authority, which ruled out the normative need for the caliphal institution, advanced what resembled a proto-constitution that regulated all aspects of public life and empowered the administration, and proposed an advanced theory of the legitimate delegation of power to high-ranking functions of government.
Chapter 3 examines the anonymous Misbah as a model for thirteenthcentury Sufi conceptions of highest political authority that identified the sultanate as the legitimate heir of prophethood. It introduces the reader to the intellectual and socio-political milieu within which these ideas emerged and treats the active participation of Sufis in the circles of politics in Mamluk Cairo and Damascus. The chapter explores how the Misbah’s unknown author proposed moderating sultanic power through a Sufi proprietary political language rooted in the shari‘a and Islamised ethical systems deriving from Graeco-Arabic philosophy.
Chapter 4 demonstrates how the original contributions of Ibn Talha and al-Qarafi were formative to the political thought produced in this period and challenges the scholarly focus on the study of literary genres of political texts. It highlights the influence of the social, professional and ideological contexts of both authors in shaping their innovative postulations and conceptions of the rule of law. The chapter provides further proof that medieval political thinkers only treated concerns and ideas that were available to them in their empirical and intellectual worlds.
Chapter 5 examines Mamluk historiography, namely, specific anecdotes in al-Subki’s biographical dictionaries, as a form of political thought. These selected anecdotes aimed to emphasise the self-proclaimed prerogatives of Shafi'i scholars to legitimate rulers and moderate their exercise of power, and defend the populace against the perceived excesses of the rising military elites. The final chapter, likewise, highlights the role of competition between legal schools (madhhabs) in the production of political thought.
Hopefully, what will emerge from this book is a surprisingly innovative Islamic political thought that centred on the limitation and moderation of power and empowered the professional administration and judiciary in order to secure the smooth running of government. In the process, this thought completely ignored the institution of the caliphate or, at best, deemed it unnecessary.
Link
Press Here
0 التعليقات :
إرسال تعليق