Signs from Allah: History, Science and Faith in Islam 192. Marginalization of Muslims – A Brief Review- Part 3
By Professor Dr Nazeer Ahmed
Concord, CA

 

The key difference between the experience of England and the Muslim Maghrib lay in the process by which change was internalized and incorporated into the historical experience of the people. In the Maghrib, trade was external to the masses. It benefited neither the rulers nor the peasants. In England, trade became a part of the national experience; change was internalized and became a catalyst for social transformation. Out of the conflicts between the old feudal structure and the new mercantile order emerged a dynamic England that provided a mechanism to channel the energies of the people, and the ocean became the new frontier for the crowded masses in London and Liverpool. Within a century after Elizabeth I (d. 1603), the English navy emerged as the most powerful in the world. In the Maghrib, change was resisted and discarded because it was of marginal benefit to the rulers. The result was that the Maghrib itself became marginalized.

The principal element in this divergence lay in the legitimacy of rule. The Sa’adid emirs, like their counterparts in much of the Islamic world, were absolute monarchs. The interests of the masses were not always the same as those of the rulers. The masses were more in tune with the Sufis and their life revolved around the Jazuli zawiyas. The only contact that the peasant had with the ruler was through the hated tax collectors. The emirs in Marrakesh would not and did not encourage commercial or industrial activities that would further benefit the zawiyas from which the emirs themselves derived no benefit.

There was a similar divergence of interests between the emirs and the merchants on the Mediterranean coast. The merchants benefited from the trade and their interests lay in working closely with the Christian Genoese. The benefits did not trickle down to the Berbers in the Atlas Mountains. By contrast, the political processes in England underwent a transformation in the 17 th century, accommodating change and giving the merchant and the landowner alike a stake in how the country was governed. The monarchy itself was transformed, reflecting a desire to be more responsive to the emerging merchant classes.

The political and social patterns in the Maghrib around the year 1600 offer insights into the process of decay that overwhelmed the Islamic world a century later. It is instructive to note that the political collapse that engulfed the Islamic world around the year 1700 was global, rather than regional. The Moghul, Safavid and the Ottoman dynasties suffered significant regression almost simultaneously. This suggests that the reasons for the loss of Muslim political initiative in world affairs were not regional; they were global. Regional analyses distort the perspective and provide only partial answers. The issue demands a global perspective .

Legitimacy of rule was an important reason in this political collapse. Indeed, legitimacy of rule has been a recurrent theme in Islamic history since its inception. Differences of opinion regarding rules of succession and the qualifications of a ruler arose immediately after the death of the Prophet. The Ansars felt that they had an equal right with the Muhajirs to rule and demanded a dual power structure at the top. Dissension was contained and the issue was settled with the timely intervention of Abu Bakr (r) and Omar ibn al Khattab (r) and the Caliphate was established. The opinion that Ali ibn Abu Talib(r) was the true heir to the leadership of the community also surfaced immediately but remained submerged until the assassination of the third Caliph, Uthman bin Affan (r). Uthman’s (r) assassination destroyed the unity in the Madinite community and civil war erupted when Ali ibn Abu Talib(r) was elected the Caliph. The war and the aftermath of Ali’s (r) assassination destroyed whatever cohesion was left and created the Shi’a-Sunni split, which runs through Islamic history like a giant earthquake fault.

The first four Caliphs, Abu Bakr (r), Omar (r), Uthman (r) and Ali (r), are considered the Khulafa e Rashidoon (Rightly Guided Caliphs) by Sunni Muslims. Most Shi’a Muslims accept only the Caliphate (and Imamate) of Ali (r), although some (such as the Zaidis and the Ibadis) accept the Caliphate of Abu Bakr (r) and Omar (r) but not that of Uthman (r). Nonetheless, there is agreement among an overwhelming majority of Muslims that the early Caliphate followed the principle of consultation and its legitimacy was accepted and supported by the community. Ali himself acted as the spiritual pole of the Islamic community during the rule of the first three caliphs and the difficult judicial issues were referred to him for his advice.

Only a legitimate ruler can command the willing support and cooperation that is necessary for just rule. Conversely, in the absence of legitimacy a ruler can enforce his writ only by coercion or bribery. Emir Muawiya changed the Caliphate. When he nominated and forced his son Yazid upon the community, the Caliphate became a dynasty. Its character was now closer to the Persian and Byzantine models than the one accepted by the Companions of the Prophet. Alone among the Umayyads, Omar Abdul Aziz (d. 719) tried to stem the tide towards autocracy, attempted to heal the wounds in the Islamic community and ruled with the consent of all segments of the society. For this reason, some refer to him as the Fifth Rightly Guided Caliph.

When the Umayyads were displaced and the Abbasids moved their capital to Baghdad (762), the Caliphate underwent further changes and became more Persianized. In the 9 th century, the Turks became the kingmakers in Baghdad and without abolishing the Caliphate, replaced it with a new institution, the Sultanate. The caliphs remained as spiritual relics of the past, but the temporal power passed on to the Sultans. Even when they had lost their temporal power, the community recognized the right of the caliph to bestow legitimacy upon a ruler, and Asian Sultans and African emirs alike coveted the honor of recognition from Baghdad.

In the 10 th century, a powerful challenge to the legitimacy of the Abbasid Caliphate arose from North Africa. The Fatimids, claiming their decent from Imam Ismail, the sixth in the lineage of Ali ibn Abu Talib(r), burst upon the scene and quickly consolidated their rule over Egypt, Syria, Arabia and North Africa. In the Shi’a tradition, they maintained that only a qualified imam in the lineage of Ali (r) could provide wilayat (guardianship) to the Islamic community. Despite their strong attempts to foster this opinion upon the Islamic world, they were unsuccessful and they remained a ruling elite amidst a preponderant Sunni population. In the 12 th century, Salahuddin displaced them (1171) and titular legitimacy reverted to the Abbasid caliph in Baghdad.

In 1258, Hulagu Khan destroyed Baghdad and with it the classic period of Islamic civilization came to an end. The community was without a spiritual head and a concerted effort was made to continue the institution of the Caliphate. One of the survivors from the Abbasid house, Al Mustansir, found his way to Cairo, where he was proclaimed the Caliph by the ruling Bahri Mamlukes (1261). And there the Caliphate stayed until the Ottomans captured Egypt in 1517. To maintain continuity, the last of the Abbasids, Al Mutawakkil III, was brought to Istanbul and was made to renounce his title in favor of the Ottoman Sultan Salim Yavuz. The Ottoman Caliphate continued in Istanbul until 1924, when the Turkish National Assembly abolished it.

In the 1400 years since the assassination of Ali ibn Abu Talib (r), the model of rule in the Islamic world has been that of a despot king who acquires his power through conquest, heredity or treachery. Some ruled as if they were saints, some were scoundrels, but the model of despotism was constant and unchanging. The ruling structure was an inverted pyramid standing on its tip. When a ruler was capable, his kingdom flourished. When he was not, the kingdom fell apart only to be occupied by a new king. As long as the ruling structure in Europe was similarly despotic, the Muslim empires stood an even chance to hold their own. Indeed, their religious cohesion, self-confidence and doctrinal zeal gave the Muslims an advantage over other civilizations. But when the old political structure in Europe disappeared and new institutions evolved, the Muslim world was at a disadvantage. Thus, it was when the English and Dutch joint stock companies squared off against the crumbling despotic regimes of Asia. It was the companies, with their superior efficiencies and decentralized management that triumphed.

(The author is Director, World Organization for Resource Development and Education, Washington, DC; Director, American Institute of Islamic History and Culture, CA; Member, State Knowledge Commission, Bangalore; and Chairman, Delixus Group)