Seminar notes: Islamic states

How much do you know about this topic?

  • is this something that you study in other classes?
  • it is important to talk about — but I am certainly not an expert

From hadiths:

https://sunnah.com/muslim/33

Early Muslim history

Pre-Muslim Arabian peninsula

  • what did it look like?
  • political organization?
  • cultural and religious influences …

eg. the Jewish culture of Yemen

Give an overview of the earliest Muslim history

  • the Rashidun caliphate
  • the Sunni-Shia split
  • why does this happen?

The Arab expansion

  • why are they expanding? — unbelievable success actually … from 632 to 732 — Battle of Tours in France
  • it cannot be as a way to spread the faith — the faith is spread much later

how to explain their success?

  • the military advantage of fast horses
  • Bedouins and Berbers
  • overrun areas very quickly

A very obvious empire envy …

  • they are so primitive and the Byzantines and the Sassanians are so sophisticated
  • why did they get this idea?

the persistence of previous societies

  • the Muslims are a very small minority
  • continue to rely on Greek speakers
  • this is still a Christian world

The caliphates

  • imperial caliphates

Give an account of each …

  • Umayyads
  • Abbasids — Persian cultural influence
  • Andalucia

Questions

What are the problems here?

  • problems of succession
  • problems of teaching
  • problems of political organization

there are no institutions in place — constant problem

Successor to Muhammad, but in what sense?

  • not as prophet — that’s impossible by definition
  • as political leader — as law-giver –

Is this position given by God?

  • that would give the caliph enormous power
  • this is a common position, but problematic

the caliph would …

  • enforce the religious rules
  • the role of religious scholars?  What about theologians?  Islamic law?  Philosopher?
  • the ulama is growing — in size and in power — what is the role of the caliph if they take over the right to make laws?

Plato

We only mentioned him briefly before — in connection with fear of water — but The Republic

  • philosophers are chosen to rule — philosopher kings
  • easy to equate this with an imam — imamate — or with a caliph — caliphate
  • a ruler with very unique qualities

knowledge of the forms

  • Plato’s cave and all that …

In the Muslim tradition:

  • similar conclusions from Al Farabi and Ibn Rushd
  • and if the ruler is not a philosopher, the philosophers should try to influence him

Western alternative:

  • the state and the community with separate origin
  • a state of statelessness before the first state
  • unthink the state — a common utopian dream

Crone’s anarchists:

  • daily prayers are required but not an imam and an imamate
  • we could have temporary imams
  • or functionally specific ones
  • or different ones at the same time — groping towards federalism …

Constant problem:

  • What to do with rulers who weren’t any good?
  • What is that unique philosopher king doesn’t show up?
  • Cf. the problem of virtue in politics — the US constitution or whatever — a government by and for angels
  • immoral rulers etc. — those who fell away from the true faith
  • what loyalty do you have to them?

Alternatives:

  • stay loyal no matter what — the cruel ruler is God’s punishment for our sins
  • rebel — the right to resist
  • anarchist alternative (Crone)

Historical reality:

  • Not so much loyalty — constant cases of fitna — civil wars within the Muslim community
  • endless fights regarding the spoils of war
  • “imperial overstretch” — the enormous size of the Arab empire makes it fall apart — there is too much cultural and ethnic diversity

Aristotle: Human being as a zoon politikon

there is a strong connection here — Aristotle influence on the Muslim tradition — and on the Christian medieval

  • how did this influence happen?
  • the two translation movements …

European Middle Ages:

  • Aristotle as “the Philosopher” and Ibn Rushd (Averroes) as “the Commentator”

 The role of the polis

In Aristotle:

  • only the city can make us into human beings — develop our reason
  • outside of the city we are animals

in the Muslim tradition:

  • we need to live under the law — the law of God — sharia
  • we need an enforcer of the law — only in this way can we become good Muslims

Bedouin alternative

Why didn’t they just go with the Bedouin alternative?

  • It was there after all …
  • very different kind of social and political organization

but many Bedouins weren’t very good Muslims …

The Muslim community as civil society

This is also an alternative of sorts — the Muslim community organizes itself after all — many different groups and sects — they have their own social live

  • why would they need a state?

different from medieval Christianity which has a centralized administration

  • very Roman in a way …

Compare the situation in Uyghuristan

  • Islam provides the kind of civil society protection that drives the Chinese state crazy

Aristotle: The role of rationality

The reception of Aristotle as another source of authority

  • he was pre-Christian and pre-Islamic
  • Greek gods were very different

natural/human reason as a source of authority

  • an empirical investigations

what is the relationship between these two?

  • can logic limit the power of God?

eg.

  • we can logically deduce that 2+2 is 4 — can God change this?
  • if not, can logic constrain him?

Different positions:

  • faith comes before reason
  • reason comes before faith
  • the two can be combined — faith for the people, philosophy for the elites

Implications for politics

what can reason tell us about the constitution of the state?

  • natural law?
  • perhaps something about right to life — right to property — right to move etc.
  • would this regime fit with the idea of the caliphate as enforcer of God’s law?
  • can a liberal or democratic order be deduced from these natural premises?

Ibn Khaldun and assabiyah

Something about his life …

  • interested in the life of Bedouins

The story of the Almoravids and the Almohads

how Africans invaded Europe

  • but Ibn Haldun is also referring to the original Muslim expansion

how this becomes an entire sociology of history

  • he is thinking like a social scientist — patters of social organization and change

Muqaddimah, 1377

the famous prolegomena

  • a lot of emphasis on economic affairs
  • social classes

asabiyyah

what is this concept?

  • seems like a kind of nationalism …

doesn’t this go against the idea of a caliphate?

the rise and fall of cities, empires, civilizations

The history of the caliphate

There are many different versions

  • some theocratic and repressive, some very open and diverse — we will talk more about that next week

The Ottomans didn’t really need it

  • they were sultans above all (although they had a lot of different titles)

really only emerged at the end of the 19th century as a way to gain allegiance from independent-minded Arabs

  • as a kind of Ottomanism

The dream of the caliphate

A Christian idea too

  • the body of the Christian community
  • cf. the EU as a Catholic community

the Catholic church as very slow in admitting international law etc.

  • Christian  utopian communities
  • the United States — at least in the minds of some of the early settlers

ISIS and all that

  • “radicalization” as a strange term

the problem for Muslim countries

  • they have outlawed Hizb ut-Tahrir, including Turkey
  • which is a little strange … threat to the nation-state

Islam in Turkey

Diyanet — state control of religion — “Directorate of Religious Affairs

  • established in 1924 –
  • provides a weekly sermon — very Swedish actually …

SR, Erdoğans långa arm

Crone on Muslim anarchists

believed on “no government”

  • that Muslim society could function  without the state

They were all from Basra, southern Iraq

Western view

  • that society predates the state

Stoics

  • they emphasized natural law — there is no need for a state for the wise man who follows natural law
  • hierarchies and social distinctions are not given to us by nature
  • society and the state have radically different sources

Cf. Christian ideas about the Fall

  • the Garden of Eden as a pre-state condition
  • kings were a sort of punishment for the sins of man — instituted by God — divine right of kings

as a result, Westerners have been able to unthink the state

  • Western anarchism is always an idea of a return to a prelapsarian state
  • “the Western tradition has always had a tool labelled ‘does God/nature really want us to have rulers”‘

Muslim premises:

  • structures of domination have always existed and always will — the universe itself is a kingdom — God is the king and he rules by legislating
  • the law of God is not in “the hearts of men” and it cannot be reached by “natural reason” — instead it was obvious through legislation
  • divine law engendered human government: “You acknowledged God as your king by accepting membership of His polity, to live by His law as brought and executed by His agents”

Government has always existed — it was always coercive — always out to punish sinners

there is no myth of a world before government

  • but instead always myths about the ideal government
  • the 4 first caliphs — the Rashidun caliphate
  • politics and religion are fused — they are political and military leaders

“Ideal government was government by an imam, a communal leader who modelled himself on God’s law and who thus set an example to be imitated.” — Adam — then Muhammad — then all the different caliphs

  • pre-Islamic life was unorderly, Jahiliyya — a state or amorality and disorder — only shored up by Islam and the possibility of an Islamic life

Corruption in two directions:

  1. Those who ignored God and arrogated all power to themselves — a king who wants power at God’s expense
  2. how Muslims had lived in pre-Islamic societies
  3. rulers and peoples who forgot about God

“You could not have a moral order without a revealed law, and you could not have a revealed law without an imam to enforce it.”

  • “it’s not easy to see how they could get to anarchism from there”

From imamate to kingship

as so often divine law and human government were at loggerheads

  • the Abbasids were too much like Pharoes — what to do about it?

Different views:

  • overthrow them
  • quietist position — better to suffer in silence
  • the bad ruler as punishment for their sins

Anarchist arguments

  • if an imam turns into a king, Muslims are legally obliged to right him and depose him
  • but civil wars are indeed terrible

the best thing is not to set them up in the first place

  • there might be a perfect ruler in the future, but why risk it?

the first imams were chosen by the community, but this is no longer the case — there could be no imam again, better look for alternatives

daily prayers etc are required by the religion, but an imam is not

  • since people can follow Islam without one, an imam is not logically necessary
  • the imamate was a human convention, nothing more

Managing without an imam

an authority of some kind was needed in order to punish moral transgressors

people taking the law in their own hands

  • enforcing the moral law
  • or perhaps fathers and local leaders
  • recipe for actual anarchy

perhaps a temporary imam

  • retire after the punishment

perhaps many local ones at the same time

  • grappling with the concept of federation
  • but  this was even more of a crime than no imam at all

tribal traditions — loosely defined as libertarian

  • but no idea of returning to pre-Islamic traditions

Comparison with Western anarchism

no ideas about social reorganization, equality or end of property rights

  • no Communism

“What they minded was not the existence of coercive power but rather its distribution”

The Najdite Islam

“Najdite Islam was a do-it-yourself religion. Politically and intellectually a Najdite would have no master apart from God.”

Conclusion

  • for the Greeks it was the same thing — Aristotle: human life is not possible outside of the state
  • Muslims: only in a state can you be a slave of God’s — not subject to the rule of humans

but in both cases the political life was undermined by empires

  • Alexander destroyed the city-state
  • Muslim conquerors made an empire out of Medina

“Real politics now meant kingship, which the Greeks and Muslims alike equated with enslavement. Read freedom now meant transcending politics, to find the meaning of one’s life elsewhere.”

Muslim writers on the state

compare the leaders to a part of the body

Al Farabi — the rulers as the heart — follows Aristotle — this is where reason rests

compares the good ruler to a doctor

  • imposes good order
  • Godlilock’s theory of justice

influenced by Aristotle and above all Plato — Abbasids — but took the city, polis, as being the basic unit

madani — medina

the city needs to be ruled by philosophers

  • the whole people can become virtuous
  • the virtuous ruler will guide them

handing down of laws

theory of prophecy

  • the best possible ruler will receive messages
  • visions of the future

what to do when the perfect ruler dies?

  • just follow the law
  • and when that isn’t enough — just following jurisprudence, fikr

grammar

  • Al Farabi — grammar culturally specific — logic is universal
  • religion as cultural — and jurists take it was universal

Further Reading

  • C.E. Butterworth (trans.), Alfarabi: The Political Writings (Ithaca: 2001).
  • T.-A. Druart (1996), “Al-Fārābī, Ethics and First Intelligibles,” Documenti e studi sulla tradizione filosofica medievale 7 (1996), 403-23.
  • D.M. Dunlop, Al-Fārābī: Aphorisms of the Statesman (Cambridge: 1961).
  • E. Gannagé et al. (eds), The Greek Strand in Islamic Political Thought, special issue of Mélanges de l’Université Saint-Joseph 62 (2004).
  • J. Lameer, “The Philosopher and the Prophet: Greek Parallels to al-Fārābī’s Theory of Philosophy and Religion in the State,” Perspectives arabes et médiévales sur la tradition scientifique et philosophique grecque, ed. A. Hasnawi et al (Paris: 1997), 609-22.
  • M. Mahdi, Alfarabi and the Foundations of Islamic Political Philosophy (Chicago: 2001).
  • R. Walzer, Al-Fārābī on the Perfect State (Oxford: 1985).

Al Ghazali on politics

podcast here. And his own web page.

Ibn Khaldun

See excerpts from the Muqaddimah

we can’t believing in team spirit

rise and fall of empires, caliphates and whole civilization

assabiya — a group of people bound together

  • political changes come in cycles

feelings of solidarity

consolidating power

feelings for luxury

all this happened in Andalusia

  • the Berbers
  • Umayyads
  • Almoravids
  • Almahads

but also explain the Arab expansion

Christians had retaken most in Ibn Khaldun’s time

Ibn Khaldun tried to give help to anyone trying to unite an empire

ended up in Cairo, died in 1406

Mongols were appearing — Tamerlane — met him in Damascus in 1401

he looked forward to a united north Africa

but prevented by the Mamlucks

didn’t believe a unified political entity could be imposed on ethnically diverse populations

Historical method

he has a realistic and empiricist view of history

  • not just follow authority
  • presents himself as the first philosophical historian
  • not a normative account

humans are political animals

this is the natural history of politics

religious fervor adds to Bedouin assabiya — true of original Arab expansion —

Story of Ali — why his own rule was so contested

  • “they ruled over men like me, I rule over people like you”

they are losing their military virtues too

sedentary culture is good too though

  • science and culture
  • philosophy etc
  • Arabs were too nomadic to contribute to philosophy and science — most of the big names were Persians etc. — that is, city dwellers

Cairo as example

  • that’s where he ended up

Hugh Kennedy on the caliphate

ISIS edits out

  • the diversity of solutions
  • the combination with actual human life
  • multiculturalism and diversity

Issues

  • what power should the caliphate have?
  • who should be elected
  • there are many different answers
  • including the modern relevance

would there be a leader?

  • how to pick one?

Qurashi leaders take the initiative

  • Abu Bhakar

Caliph as — two different meanings … profound implications:

  • God’s deputy … gives him an enormous power — most people would tend to this interpretation
  • as the successor of Muhammad — couldn’t be another prophet — there was no such person — but would have to take care of the political and admin tasks — but should he be able to interpret the Quran — determine Islamic law

in the Quran mentioned twice:

  • Adam
  • David with the temple

also commander of the faithful

  • but this was less contested

makes great difference which one you pick

ruler as monarchical head

  • how much power should be give to the caliph

Imperial caliphate

first four — Rashidun — the come to define the office

  • Sunnis loved them all
  • Shia the first three deprived Ali of his rightful power — Osman already was a bad guy
  • fear of fitna

Umayyads gain power

  • they were from Medina, but had opposed Muhammad
  • monarchical power of the caliph
  • decided on legal cases

legitimacy deficit

  • the Abassids take over
  • the family of the prophet
  • but descendants of the Prophet’s uncle not Muhammad himself

an imperial caliphate

  • similar to the Roman empire

9th century CE, the caliph tries to impose an interpretation of Islam

  • the ulama opposes the caliph’s right to interpret
  • the createdness of the Quran
  • the caliph could no longer be called a law-maker

the ulama

  • they oppose the caliph as a law-maker — we are the experts — hadiths and law
  • in the end they won — the caliph is undermined — cannot make laws
  • economic problems in Iraq and fractures — breaks up

conversion to Islam — they are more connected to their own communities

  • conquest and conversion are not the same — the first is quick and violent and the second much longer — maybe 5 centuries — entirely peaceful
  • there is a lot of regional diversity — not loyalty to the caliphate but to their own society — local Muslims take over — local Muslim rulers arise
  • the decline of Baghdad is a consequence of the success of Islam

Mongol destruction of Baghdad, 1258

  • after that it is not a political term
  • just figureheads, symbols of continuity
  • 1517 conquers Cairo — the Ottomans are protectors of the holy places

Ottomans only care about caliph in the 17th century

  • they are always sultans and emirs though
  • they never claimed to the descendants of Quraish
  • they were simply the most powerful Muslim rulers

late 19th century only important

  • first Abdul Hamid who reaches for the title as a kind of Ottomanism — Muslim solidarity — keep the Arabs together
  • the Hejaz railway — a very caliphal thing to do
  • collecting paraphernalia of the caliph — sword of the prophet etc — check out Topkapi to this day —  but basically an add-on
  • abolition of the sultanate — 1922-1924 they are not sultans but still caliphs

ISIS

most Muslim reformers — a caliphate is a distant prospect

  • we must reform the Muslim community first
  • become worthy subjects of a caliphate
  • expel the foreigners and so on

revivalist idea of the caliphate

  • in the 1950s

very selective view of the caliphate

  • secret teachings of the Quran
  • knowledge is power

idea unlikely to die

  • get away from a narrow interpretation
  • not necessarily evil or fascist

Dr Abdul Wahid, “Why I joined Hizb ut-Tahrir”

Hizb ut-Tahrir has been banned in Bangladesh, China, Germany, Russia, Turkey, Indonesia, and all Arab countries except Lebanon, Yemen and the UAE. In July 2017, the Indonesian government revoked Hizb ut-Tahrir’s legal status, citing incompatibility with government regulations on extremism and national ideology