“Gambling on the Past” -- Dr. H. Keaney – 10/4/05
Gambling on the Past, Gaining the Present:
Religio-Political rhetoric in Medieval Islamic Spain
By
Dr. Heather Keaney
Gambling is forbidden in Islam, and yet Islamic political rhetoric is crafted by consummate gamblers. They shuffle the deck of past events in order to profit in the present. Within medieval Islamic religio-political rhetoric there are usually four points of appeal: authority, piety, unity, and jihad. Writers defend or criticize a particular government based on these categories, playing them like four suits in a deck of cards. Political apologists, by carefully selecting and arranging their evidence, could stack the deck for or against a particular ideal and so for or against a particular ruler or regime.
Ideally, governments should be characterized by all four virtues; however, this has rarely – if ever – been the case. In response apologists usually limited themselves to one suit, implying it would be the catalyst for achieving the other ideals. They did this not through abstract rhetoric and principles, but by arguing that a particular characteristic defined the early Islamic community of the Prophet Muhammad and his close companions. Four companions ruled the community after Muhammad’s death and are known collectively as the “Rightly-guided” Caliphs, or successors. Their reigns came in Islamic collective memory to represent an idealized, golden age, in which authority, piety, unity, and jihad were practiced correctly.
But this designation was more a product of memory than of history. Just over a decade after Muhammad’s death, and upon the death of the second caliph, there was debate over who should rule: a close companion, ‘Uthman b. ‘Affan, or Muhammad’s cousin and son-in-law, ‘Ali b. Abi Talib. ‘Uthman was chosen, but was later accused of corruption, oppression, nepotism, and treachery. A group of Muslims revolted against him, besieged him in his house and eventually broke in and brutally murdered him while he was praying and reading the Quran. This was the first time Muslims openly fought other Muslims and it is the first incident of Islamic regicide. Upon ‘Uthman’s death, ‘Ali became the fourth “Rightly-guided” Caliph. However, there was resistance to his authority from the beginning for, allegedly, not pursuing and punishing ‘Uthman’s killers. ‘Ali’s short reign was marred by civil war until he was eventually assassinated. The events of ‘Uthman and ‘Ali’s reigns together make up what is known in Islamic history as al-fitnah al-kobrah, or the great schism and civil war. Subsequently, the community was permanently divided into Sunnis and Shiites and government came to be based on pre-Islamic models of kingship.
‘Ali’s successor, Mu’awiyah b. Sufyan, was the governor of Syria, ‘Uthman’s cousin and one of ‘Ali’s strongest opponents. Mu’awiyah moved the capital to Damascus and established the Umayyad dynasty when he appointed his son, Yazid, to succeed him. The Umayyads ruled for just under a century in which corruption and abuse increased, until they were overthrown in a revolution that led to the establishment of a new dynasty, the ‘Abbasids, who built for themselves a new capital city, Baghdad. By the tenth century ‘Abbasid authority was weakening and a rival Shii caliphate was established in North Africa by the Fatimids who built as their capital city, Cairo. It was in response to the growing power of the Fatimids that a descendent of a survivor of the Umayyad house who had made his way to Spain, decided to declare a third rival caliphate in Cordoba.
The relatively quick succession of regimes in Islamic Spain (about one every century) produced an often tenuous political legitimacy and the need for ongoing debate and shifting points of appeal. This paper compares how four historians from four successive regimes in Spain used the events of the fitnah al-kobra to defend the religio-political legitimacy of their rulers. They selected and shuffled their evidence within the four criteria for religious and political legitimacy in order to produce narratives that had contemporary rhetorical resonance.
The Umayyad Caliphate of Cordoba is considered one of the golden ages of Islamic Civilization. Although most of Spain had been under Muslim control for over two hundred years, it is only with the establishment of the second Umayyad Caliphate in the tenth century and its claims to be the rightful successor to the Prophet that we find Muslim Spanish historians interested in the events of early Islamic history. Perhaps it is not surprising then that this period produced an anonymous treatise on early Islamic political history entitled Al-Imamah wa’l-siyasah (The Imamate and Government).[1] The author of the Imamah is not interested in defending the piety or unity of ‘Uthman, ‘Ali, or the Companions. Rather both sides in the conflict are presented in such a way as to undermine ‘Abbasid and Fatimid legitimacy, while strengthening that of Mu’awiyah and his descendents, the Umayyads. Mu’awiyah is clearly the hero of the narrative, occupying one fifth of a history that covers two centuries. Moreover, the Umayyads of Damascus are remembered for their conquest of North Africa and Spain, suggesting the Umayyads of Cordoba are the rightful Muslim rulers of these regions.
In terms of the fitnah, ‘Uthman’s abilities as caliph and ‘Ali’s efforts to become caliph are criticized from the very beginning. When ‘Uthman was elected one of the Companions admitted to ‘Ali that many people were not happy with ‘Uthman as their caliph. But he also urged ‘Ali not to use this for his own advantage, warning that if he did so swords would be loosened in the community. But ‘Uthman abused his authority and several key companions, including ‘Ali, united in opposition against him. Only Mu’awiyah appears as a faithful supporter, not so much of ‘Uthman, but of the authority of the caliph and the loyalty due him.
In contrast to ‘Uthman’s weak leadership and the divisions within the community, the Imamah holds up Mu’awiyah’s decisive leadership and the support he commanded in Syria as crucial for the survival of the caliphate and the unity of the community. It was Mu’awiyah who called for a meeting of the Companions to discuss the grievances against ‘Uthman. In this meeting Mu’awiyah summarized their history since Muhammad’s death and emphasized that they had all sworn allegiance to ‘Uthman. He urged them to avoid folly and to be patient with what they did not like. It is the authority rather than the character or conduct of the caliph that is most important. He warned that if they did not take heed of his own supporters in Syria, then fitnah would break out in the community and there would be mass violence that would end with the murder of ‘Uthman and ‘Ali. His prediction was correct. According to the author, if more people had taken Mu’awiyah’s authority into consideration, violence and disunity could have been avoided.
The Imamah undermines the piety and unity of the Companions while emphasizing the authority of Mu’awyiah. Mu’awiyah urged ‘Uthman to confront the Companions who were challenging him, but ‘Uthman refused claiming he could do nothing to harm the Prophet’s Companions or to bring bloodshed into the community. This proved to be a naïve position since the Companions were already behaving treacherously and bloodshed ensued regardless. However, it is significant that when Mu’awiah asked for the right to avenge ‘Uthman -- if he was killed – ‘Uthman granted him this right. This legitimizes Mu’awiyah’s opposition to ‘Ali, suggesting that Mu’awiyah was ‘Uthman’s legitimate successor. This is further supported by the story of ‘Uthman’s wife sending a letter to Mu’waiyah describing ‘Uthman’s murder with which she also sent ‘Uthman’s bloody shirt and Quran. This describes a symbolic transfer of political and religious authority to Mu’awiyah.
Despite the author of the Imamah’s assertions of the political and ideological strength of the Cordoban Caliphate, it lasted less than a century
The eleventh century was one of internal divisions and Sunni-Shiite tensions throughout the Islamic world, including Spain. The caliphate in the West dissolved into a number of small statelets, ruled by amirs known as the ta’ifah rulers or “party kings,” deriving from the Arabic word ta’ifah, meaning “party” or “faction.” The Party-Kings were known appropriately for their loose living and also f or their collusion with various Christian rulers in order to strengthen their own position against rival Muslim leaders within Spain. In response to these internal divisions and weaknesses, writing on the early Islamic period shifted away from political history and towards religious biography. The eleventh century is awash with hagiographies, of which Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr of Cordoba’s (d. 1070) Al-Isti’ab fi ma’rifat al-ashab (Study of the Knowledge of the Companions of the Prophet)[2] is a representative Spanish example.
In contrast to the author of the Imamah, Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr is concerned with piety rather than authority, with religious virtue rather than political acumen. His entries rely on hadith, or the sayings of the Prophet Muhammad, in praise of various Companions. The focus is not on causation or accountability, but isolated character traits and virtues. His brief laudatory biography of ‘Uthman is a virtual rebuttal of the accusations against ‘Uthman. Rather than misappropriating public treasury resources for his own private purposes, ‘Uthman is praised for sharing his wealth with the people. Not only did ‘Uthman not show favoritism to certain members of his family, he: “loved, defended, and dealt cordially with all believers on earth without exception.”[3] Similarly, ‘Ali is praised for his early conversion and support for Muhammad, his prowess in battle and wisdom and asceticism as caliph. Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr does not debate the claims of ‘Ali and Mu’awiyah to exercise authority. Indeed, in direct contrast to the Imamah, there is little religious obligation upon Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr to defend Mu’awiyah. His brief entry on Mu’awiyah includes some of the “firsts” of his reign, including: introducing hereditary succession, body guards, and eunuchs – in other words, the accoutrements of royal authority. In fact he notes that Mu’awiyah claimed to be the first [Islamic] king; a development generally regarded as decidedly un-Islamic.
The tendency to prioritize an a-historical piety was not unique to Spain during the divisions and weaknesses that plagued the Islamic world in the eleventh century. However, Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr also reflects the specific situation in Spain. He concludes an account of one of ‘Uthman’s sermon’s with the following observation:
If the Muslims… had resisted selfishness, they would have been sufficiently sustained... But they became impatient and unsheathed their swords with those who unsheathed theirs. As a result their swords became sheathed with unbelievers and unsheathed and raised in the face of Muslims until the Day of Judgment.[4]
Blame is placed not only on greedy members of the community, but the eternal consequences of this. The community became divided as Muslims fought each other instead of unbelievers. The analysis fits exactly the situation in Spain during the reign of the Party-Kings when Christians made significant advances into Muslim territory.
The disunity of the Party-Kings was brought to an end and the Christian Reconquista halted for a time, when Spain was invaded in the late eleventh century by a revivalist Berber dynasty from North Africa, the Almoravids.[5] The Almoravids were welcomed by the Muslim religious leaders of Spain, but resisted by many others. Compared to the cultural and intellectual sophistication of Islamic Spain, the Berbers were backward barbarians. But faced with the suzerainty of the Christians or the Almoravids, as one ta’ifah ruler concluded, it was better to herd camels than pigs.[6] Recognizing this deficit, the Almoravids sought to legitimize their seizure of power on the basis of reestablishing the unity of the Muslim community. As a part of this program they sent Abu Bakr ibn al-‘Arabi (d. 1148),[7] a scholar from Seville, to seek a title of investiture from the ‘Abbasid caliph in Baghdad for the Almoravid amir.
Among Ibn al-‘Arabi’s works is the book Al-‘Awasim min al-qawasim, or Preservation from Destruction,[8] in which he presents a series of historical and theological disasters (qawasim) that befell the Islamic community and then presents how the community was preserved (‘awasim) from them. He does this through refuting a particular heresy or giving different historical interpretations of an event. According to Ibn al-‘Arabi, historians “concoct [stories] to poison weak hearts which they push into people’s heads to make them despise their forefathers and disregard religion.”[9] Ibn al-‘Arabi argues, however, “[Religion] is greater than that and they [the forefathers] are better than we.”[10] In other words, he determines the reliability of historical sources based on the a priori assumption that the Companions could not have done anything blameworthy. The unity of the community is the compass by which he navigates the treacherous waters of the first fitnah. He then asserts a similar unity is necessary to strengthen the cause of Islam in the present.
In his narrative of the revolt and the siege of ‘Uthman, Ibn al-‘Arabi defends the Companions’ unity and ‘Uthman’s character. It was men from the provinces who were stirring up fitnah. Mu’awiyah confronted them and accused them of “tearing apart the sanctity of the community” and behaving like those living in ignorance before Islam.[11] In contrast to the dissidents’ desire for fitnah, ‘Uthman refused to remove the shirt of authority placed upon him by God which would abandon the Prophet’s community to division and discord. Indeed it was ‘Uthman’s unwillingness to introduce bloodshed into the community that ultimately led to his own death. According to Ibn al-‘Arabi, 20,000 men offered to defend ‘Uthman. However, he refused, preferring instead to surrender himself to God’s will, forcing the Companions to do likewise.