POLITICAL ISLAM

PARALLEL CURRENTS IN WEST ASIA

AND SOUTH ASIA
POLITICAL ISLAM
PARALLEL CURRENTS IN WEST ASIA
AND SOUTH ASIA

Adil Rasheed

PENTAGON PRESS LLP

Copyright © Manohar Parrikar Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses, New Delhi, 2024

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced,

stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any
means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise,
without the prior written permission of the Publisher.

First published in 2024 by

PENTAGON PRESS LLP
206, Peacock Lane, Shahpur Jat
New Delhi-110049, India
Contact: 011-64706243

Typeset in AGaramond, 11 Point

Printed by Avantika Printers Private Limited

ISBN: 978-93-90095-96-4 (HB)

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this book are those of the author and
do not necessarily reflect those of the Manohar Parrikar Institute for
Defence Studies and Analyses, or the Government of India.

www.pentagonpress.in
“I need the state to be secular, so that I can choose to be Muslim by
conviction, which is the only way to be a Muslim. I am opposed to
the notion of an Islamic state, which is conceptually incoherent,
historically false and practically untenable.”
—Abdullahi An-Naim
 CONTENTS

Acknowledgments xv
Preface xvii
Abbreviations xxi

PART I
INTRODUCTION
1. How Political is Islam? 3
The Islamic Argument against Political Islam 5
Islamic Jurisprudence versus Medieval Muslim Polity 8
Islam vis-à-vis Modern Nation State and Democracy 10
The Many Faces of Political Islam or Islamism 13
Moderate Islamism 13
Political Quietism 13
Activists and Accommodationists 14
Radical Islamism 15
Legalist Parties 15
Violent and Non-Violent Radicals 15
Essential Constituents of Supposed Islamic Polity 15
Islamic Sovereignty (Haakimiyya) 16
Caliphate for Sunnis, Imamate for Shias 16
Eligibility and Powers of a Caliph 17
The Shura (Institution for Consultation) 19
Status of Non-Muslims in Islamic Polity 20
Women’s Place in Politics 21
Structure of the Book 23
viii Contents

PART II
HISTORY OF MUSLIM POLITICAL THOUGHT IN
WEST ASIA, AFRICA

THE PROPHET AND THE “PIOUS CALIPHS”

2. The Prophet and His Divine Mission 31
Stateless Arabia: Hemmed in by Byzantine, Sassanid Empires 33
Prophet’s Community of Equals 35
Mithaq Al-Madina: Pluralistic Constitution of Medina 36
Prophet’s Endorsement of Non-Muslim Legislation: “Hilf Al-Fudul” 38
10 Year Peace Treaty with Polytheistic Mecca: “Sulh Al-Hudaybiyyah” 40
Prophet of Religion, not Politics 41
Overview of Islam: Beliefs, Rituals and Worship, Sects and Schools 42
3. Reign of Abu Bakr: The First Caliph 47
Successor of the Prophet 48
How Islamic is a Caliphate? The Three Views 51
The Saqifah and Dispute of Succession 53
Abu Bakr: Consolidating the Confederacy 54
Ridda Wars and the Defeat of Musaylimah, the “False Prophet” 55
Abu Bakr’s Nomination of Umar as Caliph 57
4. Caliph Umar Ibn Khattab: Blueprint for Islamic Administration 59
The New Caliphal Title: ‘Ameerul Mumineen’ 60
Conquests of Persia, the Levant and Jerusalem 61
Administrative Framework and Accountability 63
The World’s First “Welfare State”? 65
Systemisation of the Public Treasury: Fixed Salaries of Officials 66
Image of Efficient and Hard Taskmaster 66

5. Uthman ibn Affan: The Assassination of a Caliph 70

Controversial Election 71
Standardisation of the Quran 72
Return of Umayyad and Charge of Nepotism 73
Rebellion and Assassination 73
6. Caliph Ali ibn Talib and the First Fitna (Tribulation) 76
Ghadir Khumm Controversy: Was Ali Prophet’s Chosen Successor? 77
Ali under Preceding Caliphs 77
Tumultuous Reign as Caliph 78
Battle of the Camel 78
Battle of Siffin 79
Ali’s Campaign for Social Justice 79
Ali’s Assassination by the Khariji 79
 Contents ix

UMAYYAD EMPIRE AND ORIGIN OF SECTARIANISM

7. Battle of Karbala and Umayyad Dynastic Caliphate 85

Muawiya’s Pragmatism in War and Politics 86
Introduction of Malookiyat (Monarchy) and Patrimonial Succession 87
Battle of Karbala and the Martyrdom of Husayn 89
The Second Fitna: Yazid’s Attack on Mecca and Medina 90
Significance of the Battle of Karbala 91
8. Political and Religious Ferment in Umayyad Rule 93
“Divine Right of Caliphs”: From Deputy of Prophet to Deputy of God 95
The Marwanite Umayyads 95
Abd Al-Malik ibn Marwan and the Dome of the Rock 96
Umar ibn Abd Al-Aziz: “The Fifth Rashidun Caliph” 96
New Arab: From Racial to Linguistic Identity 97
Three Theological Approaches: Ahl Al-Kalaam, Ahl Al-Rai and Ahl Al-Hadeeth 98
Ahl Al-Kalaam: Philosophical Interpreters of Islamic Theology 99
Hasan Al-Basri’s Qadariya (Free Will) against Jabariya (Determinism) 99
Ahl Al-Rai and the Hanafi School: Liberal, Non-Judgemental Murjia Thought 100
Ahl Al-Hadeeth: Proto-Salafi Oppostion to Ahl Al-Kalaam and Ahl Al-Rai 101
Formation of Jurisprudential Schools (pl. Madhahib) 103
Hanafi Fiqh of Sunni Islam: Room for Interpretation (Rai) 104
Maliki Fiqh: Importance of Customs in Law (Medina Practice) 104
Shafii Fiqh: Importance to Documented Records 105
Hanbali Fiqh: Rejection of Bidah (Non-Islamic Innovations) 105
Jafari Fiqh: Shia Law School Relying on Reason (Ijtihad) 106
Ibadi Fiqh: Moderate Remnant of Khariji Sect 106
Collection of Hadeeth Literature 107

ABBASID GOLDEN AGE AND THE NEW COSMOPOLITY

9. Abbasid Revolution and the Pivot to Persia 113

The Baghdad Cosmopolity 114
Mutazila Neo-Platonists and the Hanbali–Athari Pushback 115
The Golden Age and the House of Wisdom (Bayt Al-Hikma) 117
Growing Influence of Non-Islamic Political Thought 118
Ibn Muqaffa: The First Arab Political Scientist 119
Al-Jahiz: Rationalist Advocate of the State 120
Al-Farabi: Religion as a Branch of Political Science 121
Emergence of Shia Islam as a Separate Sect: The Core Tenets 122
Zaid’s Martyrdom and the Zaidi Shia 126
Quietist Shia Majority of Ithna Ashariyya (Twelvers) 126
Ismaili Shia: The Allure of the Esoteric (‘Batini’) 127
Formulation of Sunni Political Theology 128
Asharism: Occasionalist Counter to the Causative Mutazila 128
Al-Mawardi’s Textbook on Sunni Rule (Al-Ahkam As-Sultaniyyah) 129
x Contents

10. Disintegration of the Caliphate: Rise of Sufi and Shia Power 133
From One Caliphate Rule to Sunni and Shia Kingdoms (Sultanate) 134
New Persian Genre of Nasihatul Muluk (Advice to Kings) 136
Ibn Qutaiba and Kitab Al-Taj: Exploring Wisdom outside Islam 136
“The Sea of Precious Virtues” (Bahr Al-Favaid) 138
Nizam Al-Mulk’s Siyasatnama and Founding of Islamic Madrasas 138
Influence of Greek Humanism and Philosophy 139
Kitab Al-Siyasa by Ibn Sina or Avicenna: State for Social Justice 139
Ibn Rushd (Averroes): Advocate of Rationalism, Women’s Political Role 140
Sufism and its Mystical Orders 142
Ibn Arabi and Suhrawardi: All-inclusive Illuminatist Philosophers 144
Al-Ghazali: Ruler should have Spiritual Knowledge (Marifa) 145
Shia Polity: Leadership through Divine Designation 147
The “Assassins”: Legend of the Narco-terrorist 149

THE MONGOLS AND THE RESURGENT WEST

11. Mongol Attacks, the Crusades and the Gunpowder Empires 155
Mongol Invasions: From Genghis Khan to Hulagu 156
The Crusades: Saladin Ayyubi and the Millennial Wars 158
Mamluks: “Slave Rulers” Who Defeated the Crusaders and the Mongols 159
Timur (‘Tamerlane’): The “Scourge of God” 160
Impact of Invasions: Closing of the Doors of Ijtihad (Independent Thought) 161
Gunpowder Empires: Ottomans and Safavids 162
Ottoman Empire (1299–1922): The Sword against Christian Europe 162
The Safavid Empire (1501–1736): Iran Converts from Sunni to Shia Islam 163
The Decline in Intellectual Efflorescence? 165
Nasir Al-Din Tusi: The Polymath Wazir of Hulagu 166
Ibn Khaldun’s “Asabiyya” and the Cyclical Theory of Empires 167
Ibn Taimiyyah: The Maverick Fundamentalist 168

12. Saudi Wahhabism, Pan-Islamist Salafism and Decline of

Safavid Empire 174
Muhammad ibn Abd Al-Wahhab and the Pact with the Ruler of First
Saudi State (1744) 174
In Defence of Ibn Abd Al-Wahhab 176
Salafi-Wahhabi Beliefs: Revival of Ahl Al-Hadeeth Literalism 176
The First and Second Saudi-Wahhabi State (1765–1803) 178
Ibn Saud and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (1902–32) 179
Iran: Causes for the Decline of Safavid Empire 181
Al-Muhaqqiq Al-Karaki: Early Proponent of Vilayat-e-Faqih 181
Muhammad Baqir Majlisi: Conversion of Sunni Iran to the Shia Faith 182
Jamal Al-Din Afghani: Exponent of Pan-Islamism 183
Muhammad Abduh: Neo-Mutazila Leader of Modern Arabia 185
Rasheed Rida: First Proponent of Islamic State, Admirer of Gandhi
and Darwin 186
 Contents xi

TURKISH, ARAB, IRANIAN NATIONALIST MOVEMENTS

13. Turkish Tanzimat Reforms and Dissolution of the Ottoman

Caliphate 193
Napoleon Invades Egypt and Syria to Reach India (1798) 194
Muhammad Ali Pasha: Father of Modern Egypt, True Machiavellian “Prince” 195
Rifa At-Tahtawi: Importance of Technological Progress in Muslim Societies 197
Founder of Turkish Modernism: Selim III’s “Nizam-i-Jedid” (New Order) 197
Ahmed Reshmi Efendi’s Call for Peace 198
Mahmud II: “Peter the Great of Turkey” 198
Modern Reorganisation: The Ottoman’s Tanzimat Era (1839–76) 199
“Young Ottomans”: Democratic Freedoms Conform with Islam 200
Abdulhamid II: Subversion of Tanzimat 202
Young Turks Revolt (1908): Constitutionalism versus Caliphate Rule 204
Ziya Gokalp’s Turkmen Nationalism 205
Kemalist Secularism: End of the Ottoman Caliphate 205
14. Arab and Iranian Nationalism against European Colonialism 210
Arab Nationalism: Reaction to Pan-Turkism 210
Abd Al-Rahman Al-Kawakibi: Mecca not Istanbul Seat of Caliphate 211
Sati Al-Husri: Arab Identity Predates Islam 212
Arab Revolt and the Sykes–Picot “Betrayal” 212
Birth of Israel and Al-Nakba (Catastrophe) 214
Gemal Abdel Nasser: Personification of Pan-Arab Zeitgeist 214
Nasserism and Baathism: Anti-Atheistic, Anti-Islamist Socialism 216
Persian Constitutional Revolution (1905–11): Islam for Democracy 217
Palestinian Struggle: Violent Non-State Actors after 1967 War 218
Establishment of Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) in 1964 218

THE AGE OF POLITICAL ISLAM

15. Islamism, Jihadism and Modern Reformers (1900–2020) 223

Rise of Islamism as a Religious Revivalist Movement 223
Hassan Al-Banna’s Muslim Brotherhood: “Islam is the Solution” 225
Taqi Al-Din Nabhani’s Hizb-ut-Tahreer (HuT): “Bloodless Coup for Caliphate” 228
Pahlavi Dynasty: The West’s Betrayal of Iranian Modernisation 229
Ali Shariati: Revolutionary “Red Shiism” as Source for Social Justice 230
Iranian Revolution of 1979: Islamism Attains Political Power 232
Hokumat-e Islami: Velayat-e faqih (“Islamic Government: Rule of the Jurist”) 232
Khomeini’s Islamic Constitution: Qualified Democracy 233
Saudi Arabia: Wahhabi Dissidence and the Siege of Mecca (1979) 235
Status of Religion in Saudi Government 236
The Concept of Jihad in Islam 237
Rise of Salafi-Jihadism: An Ideological Offshoot of Islamism 239
Sayyid Qutb: Jihad against “Jahiliyya” (Modern Pagan Socio-political System) 239
xii Contents

Mohammad Farag: Jihad as “Essential Incumbent” (Fard Al-Ain) 240

Abdullah Azzam: Non-Negotiable, Perpetual, Transnational Jihad 241
Bin Laden: Terrorism as Legitimate Form of Jihad 241
Al-Suri, Abu Bakr Naji and Al-Muhajir: Licence to Indiscriminate Violence 242
The ISIS: Caliphate of the “End Times” 242
Modern Islamic Scholarship against Islamism 243
Ali Abd Al-Raziq: Islam is Apolitical, Caliphate not a Divine Institution 243
Muhammad Said Al-Ashmawi: The Damage Caused by Political Islam 244
Mohammed Arkoun: Jurists Decontextualised Quran 245
Fazlur Rahman Malik: “Apostate” Pakistani Scholar Exiled to the US 246
Abdullahi An-Naim: Secular State Vital for Practising Islam 247

PART III
HISTORY OF MUSLIM POLITICAL THOUGHT
IN SOUTH ASIA
POLITICAL EXCLUSIVISM VERSUS SYNCRETISM
IN SOUTH ASIA

16. Ingress of Islamic Political Rule and Thought into India

(712–1526 CE) 257
Early Arab Muslim Encounters with India 258
Spread of Islam in Kerala from Seventh Century 258
Arab Conquest of Sindh 259
Indian Cultural Influence on Medieval Arab Society 261
Invasions of Mahmud Ghazni 262
Ghurid Dynasty and the Delhi Sultanate 264
India in the Sphere of Persianate Ajam 265
Expediency of the Secular in Sacred Political Theory 266
Barani’s Theory on the Shariah and the Zawabit (State Laws) 267
Inroads of Islam into Kashmir 268
Hamdani’s Zakhiratul Muluk (Hindu–Muslim Segregation) 269
Sufi “Sabk-i-Hindi”: Allegorical Synthesis of Hindu–Muslim Ethos 270
17. Akbar’s Eclecticism and the Puritanical Backlash (1526–1707 CE) 275
Tura-i-Changizi, Not Shariah, as the Mughal Norm 276
Tusi’s Akhlaq-i-Nasiri: Akbar’s Political Guide Places Love Above Justice 278
Akhlaq Genre of Mughal India: Justice above Religion 279
Abul Fazl and the Concept of Sulh-i-Kul (Universal Peace) 281
Akbar’s Ibadat Khana and New Religion, Din-i-Ilahi 282
The Fundamentalist Backlash 283
Badauni’s Muntakhab Al-Tawarikh: A Critique of Akbar’s “Irreligiosity” 283
Ahmad Sirhindi and the Naqshbandi Imprint on Aurangzeb 284
 Contents xiii

MODERN MUSLIM RADICALISM IN SOUTH ASIA

18. Muslim Fundamentalism in India under British Colonialism

(1707–1857 CE) 291
Rise of European Colonial Powers 292
Tuhfatul Mujahideen: Kerala’s Kunjali Marakkar versus the Portugese 292
Fatawa-i-Alamgiri: Muslim Legal Text under Aurangzeb and the British 294
Shah Waliullah Dehlawi: Meeting with Abd Al-Wahhab in Medina 297
Shah Abdul Aziz and the “Wahhabi” Tariqa-i-Muhammadiya Movement 301
Sayyid Ahmad Barelvi: India’s First Jihadist based in Balakot 301
Shah Ismail Dehlavi’s Treatises on ‘Tariqa-i-Muhammadiya’ 303
Spread of Tariqah-i-Muhammadiya in Bengal 304
Titu Mir: Sayyid Ahmad Barelvi’s Ardent Disciple 305
Shariatullah and the Faraizi Movement 306
Dadu Miyan: Rage of the Indigo Cultivators 306
Wilayat Ali and Inayat Ali: Barelvi’s Warriors till 1857 CE 307

19. Indian Muslims: From Rulers to Subjects of British Raj

(1857–1920) 311
Rebellion of 1857: The Glory of Hindu–Muslim Unity 311
Paradigmatic Shift to Education Centres, Religious Reforms 315
Establishment of Darul Uloom Deoband 317
Deobandi School of Sunni Islam: Sufi–Wahhabi Syncretism 318
Adherence to Taqleed (Strict Conformity to Hanafi School) 319
Unique Position on Tawassul and Istighatha 320
Indian Modern Reformists: Votaries of Western Rationalism 322
Chiragh Ali: Advocate of Modern Reconstruction of Islamic Law 322
Sir Syed Ahmad Khan: Ideological Protégé of Ghalib 324
Aligarh Movement and the Flowering of Urdu Literature 327
Syed Ameer Ali: Islam is Anti-Feudal and Democratic 328
Ahl-i-Hadeeth: Quietist Descendants of Tariqa-i-Muhammadiya 329
Barelvi Movement: Sufi Pushback to Ahl-i-Hadeeth and Deobandi
Movements 330
Belief in Noor-i-Muhammadiya (Light that Predates Creation) 331
Prophet Still Views and Witnesses All Actions (Hazir-o-Nazir) 331
Intercession (Tawassul) of the Prophet (Both during and after Lifetime) 331
Prophet’s Knowledge of the Unseen (Ilm-i-Ghaib) 332
Celebrations and Singing of Hymns 332
Ahmad Raza Khan’s Fatwa Declaring Deobandis and Wahhabis Kafir 333
Partition of Bengal, Swadeshi Movement and the Muslim League 334
Indian Pan-Islamism: Silk Letter Conspiracy and the Khilafat Movement 335
20. Two-Nation Theory and the Rise of Radical Islam in India
(1920–2022) 341
Muhammad Iqbal: Poetic Re-imagination of a Future Muslim State 342
xiv Contents

Muhammad Ali Jinnah and the Partition of India 346

Abul Kalam Azad: Hindus, Muslims Share Common Destiny 348
Hussain Ahmad Madani: Islam Recognises Nationality by Land, Not Faith 350
Maududi’s “Theo-Democratic Model” 352
The Founding of Jamaat-i-Islami 355
Excommunication of the Ahmadiya Movement 356
Tablighi Jamaat: Apolitical Antithesis to Jamaat-i-Islami 357
Split within the Deobandi Movement: Madani’s JUH versus Usmani’s JUI 358
Islamisation of Pakistan and the Legacy of Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto 359
General Zia’s Islamisation: Implementing Maududi’s Model 361
Rise of Terrorist Groups in Pakistan 362
Afghanistan: Epicentre of the “Great Game” and Global Jihad 364
The Taliban: Throwback to Pre-Modern, Regressive Society 365
Rise of Political Islam in Bangladesh and the Maldives 367

PART IV
EPILOGUE
21. Parallel and Distinctive Political Currents in West Asia and
South Asia 377
Muslim Oriental Despotism in India 378
India: A Refuge for Islamdom during Mongol Invasions 379
Muslim Rule in South Asia: The Ashraf, Ajlaf, Arzal Caste System 379
Impact of Indian Radical Movements on West Asia 380
Select Bibliography 384
Index 387
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I am profoundly thankful to the Manohar Parrikar Institute for Defence Studies

and Analyses (MP-IDSA) for the institutional support as well as intellectual and
material help it has provided me in completing this labour of love.
I am particularly grateful to the Director General of the MP-IDSA,
Ambassador Sujan Chinoy, for giving me immense support and encouragement
throughout this project as well as for my other academic endeavours. His
intellectual brilliance, wise counsel and gracious support was vital for the successful
conclusion of this research.
A very special mention is due to my colleagues and members of the MP-
IDSA —Dr Ashok Behuria, Col. Vivek Chadha, Dr Uttam Kumar Sinha,
Commodore Abhay K. Singh, Colonel (Dr.) Divakaran Padma Kumar Pillay,
Col (Dr) Rajneesh Singh, Dr Smruti Pattnaik, Dr Pushpita Das, Mr Shantanu
Sinha, Mr Vishal Chandra, Mrs Shruti Pandalai, Lt Col Akshat Upadhyay, Dr
Gulbin Sultana, Dr Om Prakash Das and all my other colleagues at the MP-
IDSA.
I would like to specially thank Ms Saman Ayesha Kidwai, who contributed
in numerous ways during the writing of this book. While Mr. Vivek Kaushik was
extremely helpful every step of the way, Ms Jyoti Sahni did wonders with copy
editing. I cannot forget here my extended circle of elders and friends — Lt.-Gen.
Syed Ata Hasnain, Major Gen. B.K. Sharma, Col. P.K. Gautam (Retd), Mr Pradeep
Singh Gautam (IRS), Dr Saurabh Mishra, Dr Mir Nazeer, Dr Afroz Khan, Dr
Jason Wahlang, Dr Mohammad Eisa, Dr Soumya Awasthi, Dr Roshan Khaneijo
among many others —whose help and insights have been useful in innumerable
ways.
Saving the best for the last, I would like to thank my dearest parents, dear
xvi Political Islam: Parallel Currents in West Asia and South Asia

wife Afia Khan for her constant love, patience and encouragement and my lovely
children, Yousuf and Mariam, who bring me immense joy and cheer every single
day of my life. Above all, I thank the Almighty for His unstinted blessings and for
the successful completion of this project.
 PREFACE

The rise of Political Islam or Islamism as a 20th century religious revivalist

movement has deeply affected global geopolitics. This postmodern socio-political
development has given rise to its more virulent offshoot in global jihadism, one
of the most dangerous security threats to international peace. This book attempts
to study not only the basic precepts, ideologies, organisations and methodologies
of the many non-violent and violent Islamist movements and groups in modern
times, but also explores their roots in Islamic history.
Starting from the time of Prophet Muhammad and his state in Medina,
followed by the study of the Caliphate of the Prophet’s Pious Companions
(Khulafa-i-Rashideen) and the many subsequent Muslim empires and states in
West Asia, North Africa and South Asia, the book seeks to better understand
modern attempts at reviving historical political references of Islamist ideologues.
In this process, the book has attempted to study the various sects, sub-sects, schools
of Islamic theology, mysticism and philosophy, as well as historical events and
personalities that influenced Islamist political philosophy and its diverse iterations.
In addition, the book juxtaposes the evolution of Muslim socio-political
thought in West Asia (the region from where Islam originated) with simultaneous
developments taking place in North Africa and South Asia (esp. from the 11th to
12th centuries onwards) and studies the Islamic interconnectedness and divergences
between the regions. The study finds that the emergence of Islamic theological
and socio-political ideologies, institutions and movements in South Asia did not
merely borrow from West Asia but developed its own unique theological and
socio-cultural sensibilities, philosophical interpretations and political nuances,
deriving from the rich heritage of India’s ancient spiritualism and culture.
xviii Political Islam: Parallel Currents in West Asia and South Asia

The book posits that Muslim political thought in South Asia has historically
evolved not always necessarily on identical but even divergent tracks from its
West Asian sources. This difference has allowed both Islam and Political Islam in
South Asia to hold their own and not get totally subsumed by West Asian or
North African movements, giving Islam in the subcontinent a distinctive character,
akin to ancient Indian cultural values and ethos.
In fact, the two regions have equally contributed to the evolution of Islamic
religious and political thought and institutions. For instance, ancient Hindu
spiritual and philosophical traditions of Vedanta profoundly influenced the
development of Sufi thought in India and helped Mughal rulers like Akbar build
a pluralistic and syncretic ethos. Conversely, it is also true that the school of Sufi
Naqshbandi conservatism, associated with the philosophy of Ahmad Shah Sirhindi,
played an influential role in the development of early Wahhabi movement in the
18th century, with teachers belonging to his school mentoring Muhammad Abdul
Wahhab. Similarly, prominent leaders of the Muslim Brotherhood—Hassan Al-
Banna and Sayyid Qutb— have admitted to being influenced by controversial
South Asian Islamist, the so-called Karl Marx of Political Islam, Abu Ala Al-
Maududi.
Through its research, the book finds that Islam is a religion and not a socio-
political revolutionary ideology, as Islamists would have us believe. Its core religious
texts — Quran and Hadeeth literature — do not present any political philosophy
or schema for establishing an Islamic state, nor do they exhort Muslims to find
salvation through political or militaristic pursuits. However, it is also true that
many Islamist thinkers and theologians have existed in pre-modern times, who
often interpreted the sacred Islamic texts to build political constructs, whose
references many Islamists and jihadists of our times cite profusely. To these thinkers,
Islam is not merely a spiritual creed but a complete way of life, covering both the
transcendental and the temporal, the religious as well as the political (deen wa
dawla). This line of thinking has always corrupted both Muslim politics and
faith, as is evident from the condition of many contemporary Muslim states that
have followed an Islamist path.
The politicisation and instrumentalization of Islam by various political actors
has produced several diverse and contradicting models of Islamic polity — ranging
from dynastic despotism and kingship to tribal egalitarianism, modern theo-
democratic states to reductionist and militant interpretations of a pristine caliphate,
which has caused unnecessary chaos and confusion.
 Preface xix

This book explores a large number of such political experiments in Muslim

history, as well as some highly enlightening political theories of philosophers like
Ibn Rushd, Ibn Khaldun and India’s own Maulana Hussain Ahmad Madani. The
book has not used diacritical spellings of Arabic, Persian, Urdu and Hindi words,
while discussing Muslim history in West Asia and South Asia, as the borrowed
words are often pronounced differently across diverse languages and regions. To
avoid confusion, it has mostly resorted to the spellings understandable to a largely
Indian readership.
 ABBREVIATIONS

AKP Justice and Development Party (Turkey)

CIA Central Intelligence Agency
CUP Committee of Union and Progress
HuT Hizb-ut-Tahreer
JUH Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind
JUI Jamiat Ulama-i-Islam
INC Indian National Congress
ISIS Islamic State of Iraq and Syria
MAO Muhammadan Anglo-Oriental (College)
NAM Non-Aligned Movement
PLO Palestinian Liberation Organization
TLP Tehreek-e-Labbaik Pakistan
UAE United Arab Emirates
UAR United Arab Republic
UK United Kingdom
UN United Nations
UNESCO United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural
Organization
US United States
 PART I
INTRODUCTION
 1
How Political is Islam?

Islam is a “message not a government: a religion not a state.”

—Ali Abd Al-Raziq1
God wanted Islam to be a religion, but people wanted it to be politics.
Religion is universal, human and comprehensive. Politics is limited,
tribal, local and temporary. To confine religion to politics is to limit it to
a narrow scope, a specific territory, specific community and a specific
time.
—Mohamed Said Al-Ashmawi2

Contrary to popular perception, neither Islam nor its modern offshoot Political
Islam are monolithic. Like the religion itself, Political Islam is also not necessarily
violent, nor is the mixing of politics and religion unique to Islam.
To modern political scientists, Political Islam is a distinctive aspect of an
even broader modern movement that is often called ‘Islamic Resurgence’. In the
words of John O. Voll and Tamara Sonn. “Not all Islamic Resurgence movements
can be characterized as Political Islam… Many Sufi brotherhoods (have) displayed
renewed dynamism in the final decades of the 20th century without advocating
programs of Political Islam.”3
Thus, many Muslim political organizations would not qualify as being part
of Political Islam. According to Muqatedar Khan: “Only those groups who believe
that not only does Islam have a built-in political system but also that all Muslims
are required by their religion to follow this system qualify as Political Islam.”4
4 Political Islam: Parallel Currents in West Asia and South Asia

Some political scientists have even identified the moment from which Political
Islam began. Thus, Muqatedar Khan states: “The key moment when the decline
of Muslim power was crystallized in the Muslim psyche was when the Ottoman
Empire disappeared and the Islamic Caliphate as an institution was abolished in
1924. Many Islamic movements have since emerged with the explicit goal to
revive the Muslim Ummah (community across the globe), reform Muslim societies
and restore them to their past glory”.5
Those Islamist groups that resort to militancy are today called ‘jihadis’ in
media and academia, while those who do not use force but actively promote their
Islamist ideology through non-violent means (like Hizbut Tahreer and Muslim
Brotherhood) are termed as Islamists. In his definition of Political Islam, Shahram
Akbarzadeh a professor at the University of Melbourne, brings out the key
ideological impulse that runs through most parties and groups identified with
the movement: “Political Islam is a modern phenomenon that seeks to use religion
to shape the political system. Its origins lie in the perceived failure of the secular
ideologies of nationalism and socialism to deliver on their promises of anti-
imperialism and prosperity.”6
To Guilain Denoeux, Islamism is a modern reimagining of concepts borrowed
from Islamic tradition. Thus, it is “a form of instrumentalization of Islam by
individuals, groups and organizations that pursue political objectives. It provides
political responses to today’s societal challenges by imagining a future, the
foundations for which rest on reappropriated, reinvented concepts borrowed from
the Islamic tradition.”7
Some Western scholars like Daniel Pipes and Bill Warner have often been
criticised for conflating Islam with extremist ideologies associated with Political
Islam. To Bill Warner, political Islam is that part of Islamic religious canon—
Quran, Hadeeth (collected sayings of the Prophet) and Seerah (Biography of the
Prophet)—that concern non-Muslims (kafirun).8 In stark contrast professor at
Freie Universität Berlin Gudrun Kramer writes:
“Political Islam is not synonymous with violent, radical, or extremist
Islamism, and it is not restricted to opposition groups. The spectrum
ranges from advocates of an Islamic republic to sympathizers of an Islamic
monarchy or a resuscitated caliphate, and from self-declared liberals to
uncompromising conservatives. Some Islamists are commonly classified
as moderate or pragmatic, others as radical, militant, or extremist.”9
Be that as it may, the view of this book is that although Islamic sacred texts
 How Political is Islam? 5

do not present any political ideology or system of governance on their own, the
pursuit among Muslims to establish a mythical Islamic political system or state is
not a modern phenomenon, as there have always been religious ideologues and
political movements after the Prophet who have tried to devise different forms of
so-called Islamic political systems based on their subjective interpretations of
Quranic verses, analyses of the Prophet’s political administration of Medinan
state (Nizam-e-Mustafa), the caliphate of the first four Pious Caliphs (Khulafa-i-
Rashideen) among Sunni Muslims and matters of Islamic law (Shariah). In addition,
almost every Muslim political regime has sought to legitimise itself based on
some religiously justifiable pretext, thus producing varied versions of a so-called
Islamic polity.
Thus, many Islamic political theories and systems have been advanced over
the centuries, influenced as much by the religion as by contemporary socio-political
realities and socio-cultural influences even from non-Muslim sources. Many
Islamists of today cherry-pick ideas from a wide variety of medieval scholarship
that present interpretations of the Quran, Hadeeth (documented compilations of
Prophet’s sayings), Seerah (biographies of the Prophet) and Fiqh (schools of Islamic
law) citations to support their ideal of an Islamic political system. However, there
are great divergences in the political orientation and functions of this state, ranging
from being authoritarian to theo-democratic. Thus, it is important to survey the
pre-modern sources of Political Islam in order to better understand their modern
manifestations. Like the many changes in Islamic theology (which is manifest in
the currently large number of Islamic sects and schools), even Muslim political
thought, has undergone constant innovation through the ages. Thus, neither the
religion nor Political Islam has remained completely immune to change, nor is it
any contemporary version an exact replica of its pristine past.

The Islamic Argument against Political Islam

The first Muslim state was established by Prophet Muhammad in Medina in 622
CE. Nearly a decade of Prophet’s rule was succeeded by the reigns of his four best
companions, the Pious Caliphs (Khulafa-i-Rashidun), who established the so-
called Rashidun caliphate for a period of nearly 30 years (632–61 CE). Ironically,
the egalitarian principles followed by these caliphs eventually proved incapable of
controlling a rapidly expanding empire that needed more authoritarian power to
exercise control. The political confusion and stress on a nascent Arab polity led to
internal rivalries and civil war (fitan). The high ideals of public accountability led
6 Political Islam: Parallel Currents in West Asia and South Asia

to greater civic scrutiny and political controversy even of the later caliphs, causing
increased public disorder and confusion. The puritanical Rashidun caliphate thus
gave way to a more imposing, authoritarian dispensation under the Umayyad
rulers (661–750 CE) and then under the Abbasid Caliphate (750–1258 CE).
From the tenth century onwards, these dynasties also began to decline, bringing
an end to a single caliphate controlling the entire Muslim world, as many smaller
caliphates and sultanates started springing across a divided Islamdom.
Unlike the Islamist claim, the caliphate itself was not a religious institution as
it was formed after the Prophet’s death by his humble companions, none of whom
claimed to possess any spiritual authority higher than that of the Prophet. In fact,
the Quran and Hadeeth literature do not talk of any Islamic political formation
like the caliphate, nor do they discuss matters of political ideology and institutions.
Some scholars, like Qamaruddin Khan, argue that the term “Islamic State” (with
its Arabic transliteration being dawlah islamiyyah) “was never used in the theory
or practice of Muslim political science, before the twentieth century”.10 According
to Qamaruddin Khan, the claim that Islam is a harmonious blend of religion and
politics is a modern misconception, which is not borne out in Islamic history.
Barring the first thirty years of Islam, he asserts, the historical conduct of Muslim
states cannot be distinguished from that of other states in world history.
As mentioned above, Islamism as a modern political movement came up
with its theories of Islamic polity only in reaction to the abolition of the Ottoman
Caliphate in 1924. It was also in this context that the famous dictum, “Islam is
both a religion and a state” (al-Islam deen wa dawlah), was popularised.11 It was
first articulated by the Syrian-Egyptian theologian Muhmmad Rashid Rida (1865–
1935) in his book, Al-Khilafa aw al-Imama al-Uzma (The Caliphate or the Grand
Imamate), published in 1924.
Abu Ala Al-Maududi (1903–79), a radical Indian Islamic scholar and founder
of Jamaat-i-Islami movement, who migrated to Pakistan later in life, and Ayatollah
Khomeini (1900–89) are considered to be the best proponents of this so-called
concept of an Islamic state. The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, Islamic Republic of
Iran, the Taliban regime in Afghanistan and ISIS claim to have respectively
established Islamic states, but most of them pursue different schools and sects of
Islam and do not recognise the other’s claim of being Islamic polities.
For Islamists, politics is integral to the Islamic faith, which they aver is affirmed
by Prophet Muhammad himself being a great nation-builder, head of the state of
Madina, an astute politician and a brilliant military general. In fact, the Prophet
 How Political is Islam? 7

established the first Arab nation in history, expanding its territory that stretched
across the Arabian Peninsula in his own lifetime. Therefore, Islamists argue that
the spread of religion through political and military means is central to the
Prophetic tradition and thereby incumbent upon the Muslim community to
pursue.
Conversely, a sizeable section of Islamic scholarship holds the view that the
Prophet never aspired for political power and that his becoming a nation-builder
and statesman was a divinely ordained blessing, a gift from God, accorded to very
few prophets before him. It is argued that had the Prophet been serious about
political matters as part of his religious mission, he would have guided his followers
not just on spiritual matters but political as well. Yet, he did not bring about any
fundamental changes in the tribal form of governance prevalent in his time, and
had no elaborate political institutions, no central court, council of ministers or
any developed taxation system. There is no reference in the Quran or Hadeeth
literature that may exhort Muslims to build an Islamic state or to even view the
Prophet’s own state as a model to be emulated for all times to come. The Prophet’s
divine mission was thus purely religious and not political.
Apart from delivering justice, the Prophet’s own administration was
characterised by the ideal of minimum governance and limited state interference
in private affairs of the populace. The Prophet himself left no political treatise
with his followers, nothing like an Arthashastra or Nizam Al-Mulk’s Siyasatnama.
On the other hand, great care was taken in the transmission and preservation of
the sacred revelations of the Quran, which mainly deals with matters pertaining
to spiritualism and ethics. Thus, the Prophet did not discuss, instruct or seek to
preserve his political thoughts, policies and decisions. If his nascent state would
have been central to his divine cause, he would have named a successor; but the
Sunni majority does not even believe he ever named any person to succeed him.
Therefore, political systems and institutions were apparently left for people to
themselves devise in keeping with changing times and requirements.
In fact, there are several schools of Islamic jurisprudence (fiqh), which have
sought to codify the Shariah (Islamic law) based on their understanding of the
Quran and Hadeeth literature. Even, these works of jrusiprudence focus on mainly
three subjects: ibadaat (forms of worship); akhlaaq (morality and ethics); and
muamalat (social conduct and commercial transactions). Matters related to politics
cover only a small part in the texts of Shariah. According to Risale-i-Nur Kulliyati,
written by Bediuzzaman Said Nursi in 1909: “Ninety nine percent of the Shariah
8 Political Islam: Parallel Currents in West Asia and South Asia

is about ethics, worship, the hereafter and virtue. Only one percent of it is about
politics.”12
According to the historian Antony Black, although Islam has a fairly developed
theology, it does not provide any political theory.
The Reports (Hadith literature) are mostly about ritual, law, personal
morality; few address political topics directly…There is hardly any explicit
political theory in either the Reports or the early Jurists (founders of
Islamic jurisprudence). This silence may lend a bit of support to the
view of Abd al-Raziq that the Prophet’s priority was not founding a
quasi-state, but using political power as required by circumstances for
religious ends.13
As regards Quranic references to political issues during the Medinan phase, modern
Islamic scholars like Mahmoud Mohammad Taha differentiate the two phases in
the Prophet’s career (the Meccan and Medinan). According to Taha, the Meccan
phase of the revelation was the phase of fundamental doctrinal enunciation, which
announced universal Islamic values applicable to all times; while the latter
(Medinan) phase is to be understood on the basis of specific political contexts
that were forced upon the Prophet and his companions, which required provisional
actions and time-specific decisions. Therefore, the Medinan verses are to be read
in the context of political circumstances of their times, whereas the Meccan verses
as the phase when the basic tenents of the faith and the core positions of the
Shariah were originally established.14

Islamic Jurisprudence versus Medieval Muslim Polity

In this book, Political Language of Islam, Bernard Lewis states:
In Christendom the existence of two authorities of the church and the
state go back to the founder, who enjoined his followers to render unto
Caesar the things which are Caesar’s and to God the things which are
God’s. Throughout the history of Christendom there have been two
powers: God and Caesar, represented in this world by sacerdotium and
regnum, or, in modern terms, church and state.15
However, the learned scholar contends that “[i]n westernized Islam, there were
not two powers but one, and the question of separation, therefore, could not
arise.”16 Perhaps, Lewis is referring to the fact that Islam never had formal and
organised clergy to begin with. Therefore, there appears to be no competition
 How Political is Islam? 9

between religion and state as the two are mutually compatible in the Islamic
context.
However, the reality is somewhat different. The absence of a formal church
notwithstanding, Muslim society and polity have always been influenced by a
highly revered community of religious scholarship (ulema). A careful study of
Muslim history shows that the ulema representing the religion (deen) and state
(dawlah) have, more often than not, had a contentious relationship. This tension
has existed from the very time classical Islamic theology was in its formative
phase. Thus, K.S. Vikør rightly observes:
…it (the Shariah) developed independently and often in opposition to
the power of the state. The legal scholars…functioned quite
autonomously from the ruler. In fact, the body of scholars, including
the fuqaha’, may well be considered to be the “civil society” of the early
Islamic period.17
As would be reflected in the chapters ahead, some of the founders of classical
schools of Islamic jurisprudence (who were mostly subjects of Umayyad and
Abbasid empires) frequently faced persecution at the hands of their rulers. Thus,
Imam Abu Hanifa (founder of the Hanafi legal school of Sunni Islam) was
punished for refusing to become a judge in Baghdad and Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal
(founder of the Hanbali school) was called before an inquisition (mihna) and
flogged in captivity for not accepting a theological position backed by the Abbasid
ruler Al-Mutasim. In addition, Shia imams were subjected to some of the most
gruesome persecutions, mainly by the Umayyad and Abbasid kings. The
martyrdom of Imam Hussein at the hands of the Umayyad ruler Yazid I, in Karbala
in 680 CE, is a tragedy mourned by millions of Muslims of both the leading sects
to this day.
In fact, the theological schools of Islamic jurisprudence (both Sunni and
Shia), which sought to codify rules of the Shariah, remained mostly sceptical of
political rulers and their interference in religious and even socio-political matters.
These jurists—such as Abu Hanifa, Malik ibn Anas, Muhammad ibn Idris Al-
Shafii, Ahmad ibn Hanbal, Jafar Al-Sadiq, Sufyan Al-Thawri, Amr Al-Awzai, Ibn
Hazm and many more—were careful in keeping political narratives of the
contemporary rulers out of their legal texts.
Chase Robinson says that the Shariah, as codified by these legal scholars, was
“more a discussion of how Muslims should behave” and not a constitution or
legal framework of an Islamic state:
10 Political Islam: Parallel Currents in West Asia and South Asia

It defined the constitution of the Muslim community…(but) was never

to be applied in full. For one thing it was impossible to enforce a system
which included moral obligations as well as hard and fast rules. …it
would always be subject to the realities of political power. Rulers could
not afford to permit the interpreters of the law a completely free
hand…they were unlikely to think it wise, even if they had the power,
to impose the sharia over local customary law.18
Even when some ulema and the ruling class colluded with each other and were
partners in running state affairs, they often paid lip service to their adherence to
the Shariah in politics, hiding their selective imposition of Islamic jurisprudence.
Ahmet Kuru states that over time changes were made to even Hadeeth texts
to allow a reproachment between the ulema and the rulers, particularly under the
Abbasids, for greater social and political stability. Thus, one finds a Hadeeth text,
resembling a Sassanid maxim which glorifies royalty: “Religion and royal authority
are twins. Religion is a foundation and the royal authority is a guard. Anything
that has no foundation collapses and that has no guard perishes.”19 Many Islamic
scholars suspect the validity of this Hadeeth text as the Prophet himself never
claimed to be a royal, nor was there any kingdom in the Arabian Peninsula at his
time, for the Hadeeth narration to seem true.20 According to J. Horovitz, the
adage that “kingdom and religion are two brothers; the one cannot do without
the other” appears for the first time in Ibn Qutaiba’s “Uyun al-Akhbar”, a synthesis
of Islamic and Persian political ideas in the 9 century AD.21 Thus, the idea that in
Islam, state and church/clergy are not separate, is a superficial assumption derived
from the study of only a few caliphates and sultanates in Muslim history.

Islam vis-à-vis Modern Nation State and Democracy

The evolution of Muslim political thought, as explored and discussed in this
book, has been influenced by a variety of sources. Sometimes these sources were
even of non-Islamic origin, but their ideas and narratives were cleverly incorporated
into Islamic theological strands (as is evident from the political treatises of Ibn
Muqaffa, Ibn Qutaiba, Nizam Al-Mulk and, to some extent, even Al-Mawardi).
Some of the political discourse was also influenced by the Greek philosophical
influences on Kalaam philosophers (mutakallim), like Al-Farabi, Ibn Sina, Al-
Ghazali, Ibn Rushd, Ibn Khaldun and others.
It is thus evident that political thought in Islam has never been static or
monolithic, nor was it purely theological in its outlook, and continues to be in a
 How Political is Islam? 11

state of complex evolution. In modern times, there has been a debate on whether
Islam and the Muslim community, which is spread out around the world, can be
fully beholden to the ideals of a nation state. In this regard the several pertinent
questions have been asked. How does Islam reconcile the sovereignty of God and
his divinely ordained laws (the Shariah) if it contravenes or may even appear to
contravene the will of a political sovereign or the ruler of a nation state?22 If
Islamic law is divinely ordained, is there any room for public participation in
governance, particularly in matters of legislation? How can Islamist politics be
entertained or Islam itself be accepted if it does not accord non-Muslims the
same rights as Muslims, nor are women accorded the same rights as men?
Curiously, these issue of compatibility between Islamic law and the modern
nation state is faintly reminiscent of the contentious relationship between the
fuqaha and despotic rulers of the Umayyad and Abbasid caliphates in the early
Muslim centuries, albeit over different issues. In the words of Sherman Jackson:
”In the Muslim world, the problem begins with the fact that Islamic
law historically precedes and transcends the State. This means that there
is an entire universe of legal rights and obligations that are authoritative
and deeply felt in the hearts and minds of people yet totally independent
of the State. The political theory underlying the modern Nation-State
is ill-equipped to deal with this. Consequently, modern Muslim States
tend either to seek to co-opt the religious law or to suppress it. The
result is almost invariably one or another form of Islamic
“fundamentalism,” which at its core has nothing to do with “literalist
interpretations,” but is a playing out of the conflict engendered by the
modern State’s presumed monopoly over law in the face of large segments
of the population’s recognition of other, prior and, in their view, ‘superior’
sources of law.” 23
A similar viewpoint on the question of Islam and the nation state has been
argued by Wael B. Hallaq in his brilliant book, The Impossible State. Hallaq
contends that the paradigms of “Islamic governance”, which developed over
centuries of Muslim rule, and the modern nation state, as developed in the West,
are incompatible with if not altogether contradictory to each other. Thus, attempts
by modern Islamists to establish a so-called Islamic state is a non-starter as an
“Islamic state” is a contradiction in terms. Like Sherman, Hallaq argues that the
Muslim community has been governed around a culture of ethics and morality
by Islamic jurists over the centuries, while the “political” domain remained confined
to executive rulers of rotating dynasties.
12 Political Islam: Parallel Currents in West Asia and South Asia

Himself a Christian, Hallaq states that the Shariah takes “care of the self ” of
an individual Muslim who fashions the self as a moral being in accordance with
the dictates of the Islamic law, which is in “contradistinction to the pitiable plight
of the modern Western citizen whose subjectivity is fashioned by the state for its
own selfish, utilitarian ends.”24 Therefore, the establishment of the so-called Islamic
state is not desirable as the ideals of a nation state lie beyond the pale of morality.
Even prominent Indian scholar Asghar Ali Engineer states:
As far as the Quran is concerned there is, at best, a concept of a society
rather than a state. The Quran lays emphasis on “adl” and “ihsan” (justice
and benevolence)…It is thus debatable whether a state, declaring itself
to be an Islamic state, can be legitimately be accepted as such without
basing the civil society on these values.25
It has also been argued that Muslims have lived under many religious and
irreligious Muslim and non-Muslim sovereigns around the world from at least
the tenth century onwards. Like most world religions, the “political” role of the
state has not been questioned by Muslims, be it in its functions of collecting
taxes, organising armies or other matters of governance. Even in non-Islamic
societies, the Muslim community has found a way to morally fashion itself in line
with the norms of the Shariah in organising its principles of life, while remaining
loyal to the state. God is sovereign over nature, while a ruler tries to but is never
able to fully extend political sovereignty over his people or territory, and thus the
two cannot be compared to each other.
Besides, there are several interpretations of Islamic law—many of which are
compatible with the principles of nation state. When it comes to democracy,
Islamic principles like consultation (mushwarah), the rule of law, equality of people
and independent reasoning (ijtihad), as practised by the Prophet and most of the
Rashidun caliphs, are in conformity with the ideals of democracy.26 This is despite
the fact that there are no democracies within the Arab world, about half of all
Muslims live in democratic and semi-democratic states.27
Again, many Islamist parties have successfully used parliamentary systems to
their benefit and have even pushed for democratic reforms in their countries.
Moreover, Islam accepts, in theory, the differences in religious beliefs and recognises
that religious minorities have a right to live by their own laws, even if there is a
difference of opinion among Muslims on the extent of political and religious
freedoms non-Muslims can exercise.28 If Christian Europe, in spite of its medieval
history of totalitarian rulers, could yield democracies in the modern age, in time
the Muslim world could also follow suit.29
 How Political is Islam? 13

The Many Faces of Political Islam or Islamism

Today, Political Islam or Islamism does not refer merely to a radically extreme
movement or jihadist groups resorting to indiscriminate violence in the name of
Islam. It includes a whole host of Islamic political parties that are contesting in
democratic elections, mostly in the Muslim world, with nuanced approaches on
Islamist positions and issues of governance.

Moderate Islamism
A number of Islamist political parties have been participating in elections across
various Muslim countries that abide by semi-democratic to democratic systems
of governance, such as: Turkey (which is currently ruled by the Islamist Justice
and Development Party [AKP]); Iraq (where the National Iraqi Alliance is made
up of several Islamist parties); Bahrain (where the Shia Al-Wefaq and Sunni Al-
Asalah parties are part of the national polity); Morocco (which has its Justice and
Development Party); Indonesia (with its Prosperous Justice Party); Malaysia (with
its Pan Malaysian Islamic Party, among others); the Maldives (known for its
Progressive Party of Maldives); Jordan (with Islamist parties like Islamic Action
Front); Kuwait (Hadas); Tajikistan (Islamic Renaissance Party); Tunisia (Ennahda);
and Algeria (Green Algerian Alliance).
This so-called “moderate Islamism” is characterised by pragmatic participation
within the existing constitutional and political framework of various countries;
and even within the framework of democratic institutions around the world.30 In
fact, moderate Islamists make up the majority of the contemporary Islamist
movements.31
A few broad categories of Sunni Islamist trends (covering both moderate and
extremist versions) are listed next, although nearly similar gradations are also
found in Shia Islamism.

Political Quietism
Political quietism refers to a trend among certain sections of the Muslim
community which practise religiously motivated withdrawal from political affairs
or are sceptical about the morally deficient modern Muslim being even capable of
establishing a purely Islamic government.
A large number of moderate and even fundamentalist Muslims, such as the
Madkhali Salafis in Saudi Arabia, either follow a complete withdrawal from
political affairs or become loyal subjects of the ruling regimes. These loyal citizens
14 Political Islam: Parallel Currents in West Asia and South Asia

may believe in Islamist forms of government, but they never judge or critique the
Islamic validity of their government’s policies or actions.32 Extremely pious and
devout followers of religion, these Islamists do not actively engage in political
matters and are considered political quietists.
The so-called Salafi quietists in Saudi Arabia and other Arab states often cite
the Quranic verse to justify their loyalty towards the regime: “Obey God, obey
his Prophet and obey those of you who are in authority” (Quran 4:59).33
Muhammad Nasiruddin Albani, Rabee Al-Madkhali and Sheikh Abd Al-Aziz
ibn Abdullah ibn Baz are some of the noted scholars who are viewed as prominent
advocates of political quietism.
In addition to Salafi quietism, almost all of Ithna Ashariyya Shia scholars of
the Najaf Hawza in Iraq—including Ayatollah Ali Al-Sistani—are considered to
be “quietist”, while many Sunni Sufi ascetic groups in other parts of the world are
also considered political quietists.

Activists and Accommodationists

Some experts have categorised politically active but generally non-violent Islamists
as activists, while those willing to be part of modern political processes and systems
as accommodationists.
Non-violent Islamist groups often engage in political protests or
demonstrations. In some countries, they even take part in democratic elections,
at times forge coalitions with secular and socialist parties, and also form
governments, such as the ruling AKP in Turkey.
Islamist activist parties and groups, like the Muslim Brotherhood and its
affiliates, often engage in agitational politics against the entrenched monarchist
leaderships in the Arab world. These Islamists sometimes are accommodative
towards Western concepts, like democracy and socialism, and are not extreme or
uncompromising as jihadist groups, such as the Al-Qaeda and the ISIS.
For instance, the Ennahda Party of Tunisia believes that democracy is
compatible with its brand of Islamic political activism; and that there is no danger
of diluting Islamic values and political approach in forging coalitions with secular
parties over issues of common concern within a democratic framework or in
accepting outcomes that entail a compromise on issues fundamental to the party’s
Islamist agenda.34
Many of these Islamist accommodationists, like some moderate members of
Muslim Brotherhood, are also known as contextualists. They believe that Islamic
 How Political is Islam? 15

norms must be considered in light of contemporary social, economic and political

realities and that there is a need to study Islamic values in their historical and
socio-political context. Rached Ghannouchi and to some extent former Egyptian
President Mohammed Morsi are cited as exemplars of the activist/
accommodationist approaches.

Radical Islamism
Some Islamist activists take a hard line when it comes to legislative issues pertaining
to controversial interpretations of the Shariah, such as gender equality and rights
of minority communities. More extreme political and militant groups completely
shun Western ideologies and political systems, with some promoting or engaging
in acts of violent extremism and terrorism. There are two categories among these
radical groups, namely, legalist parties and violent non-state actors.

Legalist Parties
Some Islamists, like Qatar-based Yusuf Qaradawi, support democratic processes—
for instance, elections—but remain sceptical about other aspects of Western
political philosophy. Islamist legalists overtly participate in the democratic process,
but often play an obstructionist role as they are unwilling to make any political
concessions on even minor legislative issues on the basis of their hard-line legalist
interpretation of Islam.

Violent and Non-Violent Radicals

As opposed to quietists, accommodationists or even hard-line legalists, the radical
non-violent groups, like the Hizb-ut-Tahreer (HuT), or Salafi-jihadist groups,
like the Al-Qaeda and the ISIS, are Islamist organisations that completely reject
any form of modern political system—be it democratic liberalism, socialism or
communism—and seek to establish a caliphate based on a literalist Salafi
interpretation of Shariah.35 The violent Islamists are generally termed as jihadists
(which is an unfortunate misnomer as their violence is proscribed in Islam). These
violent non-state actors are generally termed Salafi-jihadists, barring some Islamic
militants in the Afghanistan and Pakistan region, like the Taliban that follow the
Deobandi school, and Shia militias in West Asia, which are generally allied or
supported by the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Essential Constituents of Supposed Islamic Polity

Although there are no clearly defined constituents prescribed in the Quran for
16 Political Islam: Parallel Currents in West Asia and South Asia

any Islamic political system, Muslim theologians of the Middle Ages and Islamist
ideologues in modern times have developed certain conceptual frameworks and
features out of spiritual and ethical precepts based on: sovereignty of God and
His Truth (haq); spirit of consultation (mushawarah); and the precedents of
governance established by the Pious Caliphs who followed the Prophet. It should
be noted that though these political concepts have been derived from religious
principles, they have not been institutionalised in Islamic scriptures.

Islamic Sovereignty (Haakimiyya)

In cases of republican or democratic polity, people of a nation are the ultimate
source of political power. For instance, in the case of the Republic of India, popular
sovereignty is captured in the Preamble of India’s Constitution, which begins by
stating, “WE THE PEOPLE OF INDIA,” and ends with the clause, “do HEREBY
ADOPT, ENACT AND GIVE TO OURSELVES THIS
CONSTITUTION.”36,37
Thus, popular sovereignty in the Indian Constitution means that its citizens
have the ultimate (legislative) power to make their constitution or propose
amendments to it through their elected representatives to whom they delegate
power.
For Islamists with a political model of an Islamic state, divine sovereignty or
the “Will of Almighty Allah” and his divine laws have sovereignty over all things,
including sovereignty of the state, and trumps sovereignty of the people. In theory,
Allah’s laws, as enunciated in Islam, are the ultimate source of (legislative) power
and authority and supersede the will of the citizens in framing their own laws.38
In practice, it means that laws made by a legislative body elected by the citizens
would be subject to judicial review and possible invalidation if it is found to be
against the “word of God” and his divine injunctions as established in the Quran.
This adjudication itself may vary from one Islamic court to the other and based
on the approach of the nation in interpreting divine laws (ranging from moderate
to extreme positions). Thus, the rule of divine law would in principle remain
incontrovertible and the foundation of the Islamic political system, albeit the
scope of people’s role in the legislative process may vary, based on an Islamic
state’s interpretation of political freedoms according by Shariah.

Caliphate for Sunnis, Imamate for Shias

A caliphate can be defined as a political–religious state, ideally of the entire Sunni
Muslim community, with all its peoples and territories and ruled by one caliph
 How Political is Islam? 17

(who serves as the successor of the Prophet).39 Thus, there can be no “caliphate”
without its “caliph”, who holds both the temporal as well as the spiritual authority
and leadership of the Sunni Muslim community, even though after the Rashidun
Caliphs (that is, the first four successors of the Prophet) the title of caliph has
been used only as a temporal leader and not in the capacity of a spiritual authority.40
Unlike the Sunnis, followers of Shia Islam believe in an imamate and not a
caliphate, and stress that that a Muslim should be an imam (religious as well as
political leader) chosen by Allah from the Ahl Al-Bayt (the “Family of the House”,
Muhammad’s direct descendants). However, there has also been one Shia caliphate,
namely the Fatimid Caliphate of Islamili Shia rulers, in Northeast Africa (909–
1171).
Many Islamic texts, particularly Hadeeth texts, refer to the coming of a great
Islamic leader (the Mahdi or the Guided One) before the end of times. He is
supposed to be elected caliph and will rule over his caliphate. His successor will
be Jesus Christ, who will fulfil his promise of Second Coming, although as a
Muslim king. Many Muslim leaders have fancied themselves as “Mahdi”.41

Eligibility and Powers of a Caliph

Although the Quran is silent about the eligibility or the prerogatives of an Islamic
ruler, many Muslim political scholars have suggested the capabilities and
prerogatives of an ideal caliph or ameer. Theologians, like Al-Mawardi (972–
1058 CE),42 Ahmad Al-Qalqashandi and Al-Sharani, have emphasised that the
global Muslim community can only have one Muslim political leader called a
caliph. In fact, Al-Nawawi and Abd Al-Jabbar ibn Ahmad declared it impermissible
to give oaths of loyalty to more than one leader.43 However, the establishment of
several caliphate and sultanates in Muslim world from 10th century onwards found
less insistence on these absolute standards.
Again, the standard Arabian practice during the early caliphates was for the
prominent men of a kinship group, or tribe, to gather after a leader’s death and
elect a leader from amongst themselves. The first four caliphs were chosen from
the Quraysh clan. However, the Kharijis—who rebelled against and then
assassinated Ali ibn Talib, the fourth caliph, due to his decision regarding arbitration
with his opponent Muawiya ibn Abi Sufyan to end a war—supported an
independent choice of their own caliph, outside of the Quraysh bloodline. Since
then, there have been two views on the matter among Muslim theologians on
whether a caliph should be from the Quraysh clan or could be any pious and
18 Political Islam: Parallel Currents in West Asia and South Asia

competent Muslim. Ashari scholar Baqillani (950–1013 CE) held the view that
since designation of a caliph is not determined by religious text, it is left to the
choice of Muslims.44
According to the celebrated theologian and polymath Ibn Hazm (994–1064
CE), any person who has the necessary qualifications and knowledge of Islamic
principles can be a ruler and a caliph. The Khariji and Mutazila schools of thought
support this view.45 Imam Maturidi (d. 944 CE), a Sunni imam followed by
Hanafi sect in India, holds that a caliph must be pious; capable of ruling the
Muslim community in a wise manner; and apart from religious knowledge, should
be capable of making right decisions in the political context. Some scholars like
Al-Mawardi have set the condition that the election of a caliph or an imam should
be a free and fair, wherein no pressure should be applied and no sense of negligence
is to be ascribed. In his Al-Ahkam As-Sultaniyyah (considered a textbook on Islamic
polity by many Islamists), Al-Mawardi puts forward seven eligibility conditions
for a prospective caliph or imam:46
1. He should uphold and protect justice and should have all qualities that
such responsibility entails.
2. He should have knowledge which equips a caliph for making a sound
ijtihad (independent reasoning) for arriving at relevant judgments.
3. He should be in good health.
4. He should be sound in limb.
5. He should be capable of organising the people and managing the offices
of administration.
6. He should possess courage and bravery.
7. He should hail from the Meccan tribe of Quraysh.
Thus, Al-Mawardi writes in Al-Ahkam As-Sultaniyyah: “One who best fulfills
the conditions (listed above) from amongst these persons (other potential
candidates) and one whom the people would most readily accept obedience and
to whom they would not hesitate in making the oath of allegiance” is fit to be the
caliph or imam.47
Among the duties of the caliph or imam, Al-Mawardi states that he must:
guard the religion in its original form and keep it free of all errors; administer
legal judgement; protect the territory of Islam and defend its religious sanctuaries;
establish the punishment mentioned in the Shariah; strengthen and fortify the
border posts against attack and defend them with force; wage war where necessary;
 How Political is Islam? 19

and collect zakat taxes from those on whom the Shariah and legal judgement has
made it an obligation to pay.
In addition, he discusses the process of impeachment, arguing that it should
be done on charges of lack of decency and physical deficiency. Al-Mawardi defines
lack of decency as moral deviation which may occur in two ways: (i) resulting
from personal lust and greed; and (ii) holding dubious views that are contrary to
the religious truth. He also mentions three kinds of physical deficiency: (i)
deficiency in the sense; (ii) incompetence of his team members; and (iii) deficiency
in the mobility.48
The famous Muslim historian Ibn Khaldun (1334–1406 CE) has argued
that the issue of politics and the caliphate is related to representing God’s justice
among His servants, therefore whoever is capable of providing justice when ruling
Muslims should be elected as a caliph.49
During the time of the Prophet and the four caliphs, the Quraysh were not
entitled to any special privilege. In theory, a caliph is bound by several legal
constraints and may not be able to rule with immunity. He has to lead an austere
life and draw the salary equivalent to that of a foot soldier in the military. In
theory, he should rule according to the principles of justice and implement the
law among citizens equally. The caliph has to ensure justice in the state and is
supposed to run the public affairs in a harmonious manner. The state is to be
governed through consultation in order to check unbridled authoritarianism of
the caliph. Furthermore, citizens are to ensure that the caliph and the state are
strongly associated with justice, and that they do not violate the rights of any
person or any group. Therefore, they need to question the state and the ruler to
see if they obey the Shariah law and act in line with the principles and objectives
of a just system.
It must be noted here that many of the political prescriptions presented by
aforementioned Muslim theologians were made centuries after the death of the
Prophet and cannot be deemed as religiously authentic political theories.

The Shura (Institution for Consultation)

For Al-Mawardi, caliphate is a contract between the caliph or imam and the
people. The majlis al-shura (literally “consultative assembly”) is a representation
of this contractual relationship and institutionalises the idea of consultative
governance.50
Ibn Taimiyyah states that the establishment of this consultative body is an
20 Political Islam: Parallel Currents in West Asia and South Asia

obligatory function of the state. He cites verses of the Quran, where Allah endorses
the importance of counselling in decision making:
Those who answer the call of their Lord and establish the prayer; and
who conduct their affairs by Shura [are loved by God]. (Quran 42:38)51
...consult them (the people) in their affairs. Then when you have taken
a decision (from them), put your trust in Allah. (Quran 3:159)52
However, anti-democracy Islamist ideologue Syed Qutb accepts the shura
only as an advisory body;53 and Taqi Al-Din Nabhani, founder of radical HuT
group, does not consider the establishment of this consultative body as obligatory.54
However, some Islamist organisations, like the Muslim Brotherhood of Egypt,
equate the concept of majlis-e-shura with democracy, which they claim was upheld
by the Prophet even when he was receiving divine revelations to support his decision
making.

Status of Non-Muslims in Islamic Polity

Islamists often make specious arguments regarding the status and treatment of
non-Muslim subjects in Muslim empires and states in history as being comparable
to the freedoms that citizens of different faiths enjoy in modern secular democracies.
Some like Sherman Jackson even contend that whereas many Western states enforce
uniform secular laws on all communities, Muslim societies have always had
different Muslim sects and other religious minorities follow their own laws and
traditions, thus allowing legal pluralism. Therefore, they have always objected to
state uniformity of a civil code.55
This may be partially true, but there is no denying that non-Muslims have
faced and continue to face discrimination in Muslim countries (ranging from
slight to severe forms) and have been always subject to numerous restrictions. It is
also a fact that the status of a dhimmi has always been that of a second-class
citizen and most non-Muslim communities in Muslim states are forced to live a
secluded life in ghettos.
Under medieval Muslim rule, Muahid (“person of the covenant”) and Dhimmi
referred to a non-Muslim subject whose protection was the responsibility (or
‘dhimma’, pronounced ‘zimma’ in Urdu) of a Muslim state. Thus, the word
‘dhimmi’ meant a non-Muslim subject, who under the Muslim state’s obligation
under shariah was given protection of life, property, as well as freedom of religion,
in exchange for loyalty to the state upon payment of the jizya tax, in contrast to
the obligatory zakat tax paid by Muslim subjects.
 How Political is Islam? 21

Dhimmi were theoretically exempt from certain duties assigned specifically

to Muslims if they paid the poll tax (jizya), but were otherwise equal under the
laws of property, contract and obligation. In the words of Khaled Abou El Fadl:
According to the dhimma status system, non-Muslims must pay a poll
tax in return for Muslim protection and the privilege of living in Muslim
territory. As per this system, non-Muslims are exempt from military
service, but they are excluded from occupying high positions that involve
dealing with high state interests, like being the president or prime
minister of the country. In Islamic history, non-Muslims did occupy
high positions, especially in matters that related to fiscal policies or tax
collection.56
Islamic legal systems based on Shariah law incorporated the religious laws
and courts of Christian, Jews and Hindus, as seen in the early caliphate, Al-
Andalus, Indian subcontinent and the Ottoman millet system. However, Mughal
rulers in India barring Aurangzeb did not impose jizya.
In this regard, Islamists often cite the Prophet’s saying documented in Hadeeth
texts: “He who tortures a dhimmi is like the one who has counteracted him (the
Prophet). I shall counteract against him (he who tortures a dhimmi) on the Day
of Judgment who has counteracted him.”57
In foreign relations, the early caliphates developed rules of state conduct (al-
siyar) in war and peace. The major divisions in global geopolitics under Abbasid
rulers were: dar al-Islam (literally, territory of Islam/voluntary submission to God),
denoting regions where Islamic law prevails; dar al-sulh (literally, territory of treaty),
denoting non-Islamic lands which have concluded an armistice with a Muslim
government; and dar al-harb (literally, territory of war), denoting adjoining non-
Islamic lands whose rulers are called upon to accept Islam.58

Women’s Place in Politics

Traditional Islamic scholars believe that women are not entitled to hold leadership
positions and certainly not the topmost public office of a nation. The Quran asks
of the Prophet’s wives (nisa an-nabi) to stay quietly at home and desist from
making dazzling displays of their beauty as was the norm in times of primitive
ignorance (Quran 33:33). The oft-quoted Hadeeth regarding women’s leadership
is that the Prophet (S) is reported to have said: “‘Never will succeed such a nation
as lets their affairs carried out by a woman’ (Sahih al-Bukhari, 4425; Sunan of
An-Nasai, 8/227).”59
22 Political Islam: Parallel Currents in West Asia and South Asia

However, some contemporary jurists have questioned the authenticity of the

aforesaid Hadeeth text on the basis of its weak chain of narrators, while others
have said that the whole Hadeeth was spoken in the context of the daughter of a
Persian king (Khusrau), who was made the queen but was not considered
competent by many. They point out that the Hadeeth contradicts the Quran’s
praise for Queen of Sheba for her just rule.
It is also noteworthy that many Islamic jurists of the fiqh, such as Imam Abu
Hanifa, Imam al-Tabari and Ibn Hazm, support the idea that women can hold
the topmost judicial position. Ibn Hazm goes to the extent of asserting that there
is no theoretical prohibition for women to carry out even the mission of
prophethood and there could have been women prophets before the birth of
Prophet Muhammad.
Curiously, Hadeeth literature provides numerous examples of women having
public leadership roles. The Prophet’s first wife, Khadija bint Khuwaylid, was a
trader and businesswoman. His other wife, Aisha, was stated to be an authority in
medicine, history and rhetoric. She even accompanied the Prophet to battles and
led an army against Ali at the Battle of the Camel.60
Therefore, the debate on women’s role in Muslim politics is slightly more
nuanced than is generally understood. According to Ibn Rushd, women could be
warriors and even philosopher–rulers.61 Ibn Rushd opposed the subordination of
women in his own society and believed it was wrong, based on ignorance, and
contributed to economic backwardness:
The competence of women is unknown, however, in these cities since
they…are placed at the service of their husbands and confined to
procreation, upbringing and suckling. This nullifies their [other]
activities…Women in these cities are not prepared with respect to any
of the human virtues…Their being a burden upon the men in these
cities is one of the causes of the poverty of these cities.62
Among the modern Islamists, Maududi is among the most regressive when it
comes to women’s rights. Surprisingly, controversial Sudanese leader Hasan Al-
Turabi (1932–2016) has championed equality for women in marriage, including
monogamy and an equal right to divorce, and equality for women in education.63
Many modern feminists have praised Islamic scholar Fazlur Rahman Malik’s
positive views on women.64
 How Political is Islam? 23

Structure of the Book

Given the historical length of the evolution of Muslim political thought in two
distinctive geospatial zones, West Asia and South Asia, which sets the full scope
of this academic endeavour, the book has been divided into four parts.
The present chapter comes under Part I, “Introduction”, and covers the
defining characteristics and debates surrounding the issue of what the term Political
Islam means in the context of the evolution of political thought in Muslim history.
The chapter also tries to look into the models of so-called Islamic governance in
medieval and modern times, as well as the status of non-Muslims and women in
those formulations. It further seeks to explore some dialectical themes that have
dogged Muslim political thought over the centuries, which are explored at length
in the remainder of the book.
Part II, “History of Muslim Political Thought in West Asia and Africa”, covers
14 chapters under six subsections, covering over 14 centuries of political dialectic
in the Muslim world, from the time of the Prophet and the caliphate to their
dubious twenty-first century political adaptations by groups like the ISIS, and
their criticism by both Islamic and liberal scholars.
Part III, “History of Muslim Political Thought in South Asia”, covers five
chapters under two subsections dedicated to the journey of Islam in the Indian
subcontinent, from the time of the advent of Muslim traders in south India’s
eastern coastline to the political and strategic outlook of Turkic and Central Asian
dynasties in India in medieval times and finally, the rise of radical reformist and
fundamentalist Muslim political movements in the wake of British rule of India
until the post-Partition twenty-first century South Asia.
Part IV, “Epilogue”, has one chapter titled, “Parallel and Distinctive Political
Currents in West Asia and South Asia”. Based on the knowledge derived from
earlier chapters, it surmises how Islam entered India not as a religion with its
pristine egalitarian message, but as an imperialist power out to conquer a non-
Muslim civilisation.
Still, Islamic polity in India grew from the eleventh to twelfth century onwards,
virtually independent of any Arab sovereign—caliph or sultan—and was relatively
less troubled by Mongol invaders, both non-Muslim and Muslims, than their
West Asian counterparts following the decline of the Abbasid Caliphate. The
killing of the last Abbasid Caliph with the sack of Baghdad in 1258 forced many
Arab, Persian and Turkic scholars, savants, bureaucrats, artists and nobleman to
flee these Islamic lands and seek the protection of the Delhi sultans. In fact,
24 Political Islam: Parallel Currents in West Asia and South Asia

Muslim conquerors of Central Asia applied a system of religious stratification

and ethnic segregation of their own, even among members of the Muslim
community in the country.
Thus, over a period of time, Islam in South Asia developed its own theological
schools, such as Deobandi and Barelvi, and even its own reformist and radical
movements, like the apolitical Tableegh-i-Jamaat and the politically oriented
Jamaat-i-Islami, founded by Maududi. In this way, Islam came into its own in
South Asia and developed several strands, more independent from its Arab
heartland. Today, South Asia has the world’s largest Muslim population of about
600 million.65 In fact, four out of the eight countries of South Asia, namely,
Afghanistan, Bangladesh, the Maldives and Pakistan, have Islam as their state
religion and have Muslim populations in majority.

NOTES
1 Abdel Raziq, Ali: Al-Islam Wa Usul Al-Hukm: Bahth Fi-l Khilafa Wa-l Hukuma Fi-l Islam
(Islam and the Foundations of Governance: Research on the Caliphate and Governance in
Islam). Critique and commentary by Mamdooh Haqqi (Beirut, 1978), cited in Souad T. Ali.
A Religion, Not a State: Ali½Abd al-Raziq’s Islamic Justification of Political Secularism. Salt Lake
City: The University of Utah Press, 2009, p. 4.
2 Muhammad Said ‘Ashmawi al-Islam al-Siyasi’ (4th ed, Maktabat Madbuli alSaghir, Cairo,
1996), p.7, quote transliterated as ‘Arada allah li-l-Islam an yakuna din, wa-arada bi-hi al-nas
an yakuna siyasa’ by Antonio Tavanti, ‘A Presentation of Muhammad Sa’id al-’Ashmawi’s
Polemics Against Islamic Extremism as Found in Al-Islam al-siyasi and Other Works, with a
Comparison to the Thought of Sayyid Qutb and His Ma’alim fi al-tariq’, University of Florence,
Italy.
3 John O. Voll, Tamara Sonn, “Political Islam”, Oxford Bibliographies, 14 December 2009,
https://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/display/document/obo-9780195390155/obo-
9780195390155-0063.xml, last accessed online on 27 September, 2023.
4 Muqtedar Khan, ‘What is Political Islam?’, E-International Relations, 10 March 2014, https:/
/www.e-ir.info/2014/03/10/what-is-political-islam/#_edn1, last accessed online on 27
September 2023.
5 Ibid.
6 Shahram Akbarzadeh (ed.), ‘Political Islam under the Spotlight’, Routledge Handbook of
Political Islam (2nd ed.), New York, p. 1.
7 Guilain Denoeux, “The Forgotten Swamp: Navigating Political Islam”, Middle East Policy,
Vol. 9, No. 2, June 2002, p. 56.
8 Bill Warner, Shariah Law for Non-Muslims, e-audiobook, CSPI, LLC, Solon, 2018, https://
worldcat.org/title/1099523781
9 Gudrun Kramer, ‘Political Islam’ in Encyclopedia of Islam and the Muslim World. Vol. 6. Edited
by Richard C. Martin, 536–540. New York: Macmillan, 2004.
10 Qamaruddin Khan, Political Concepts in the Quran, Lahore: Islamic Book Foundation, 1982,
p. 74.
11 Nazih N. Ayubi, Nader Hashemi and Emran Qureshi, “Islamic State”, in John L. Esposto
 How Political is Islam? 25

(ed.), The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Islamic World, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009,
p. 28.
12 Ahmet T. Kuru and Zenap Akbulut Kuru, ‘Apolitical Interpretation of Islam: Said Nursi’s
Faith-Based Activism in Comparison with Political Islamism and Sufism’,I slam and Christian-
Muslim Relations, University of Notre Dame (US), Vol. 19, Issue 1, 2008, p. 99.
13 Antony Black, The History of Islamic Political Thought: From the Prophet to the Present, 2nd
edition, UK: Edinburgh University Press, 2011, p. 15, available at http://www.jstor.org/stable/
10.3366/j.ctt1g0b63h, accessed 16 May 2022.
14 Antony Black, The History of Islamic Political Thought: From the Prophet to the Present, Edinburgh:
Edinburgh University Press, 2001, p. 333.
15 Bernard Lewis, The Political Language of Islam, Chicago and London: University of Chicago
Press, 1988, p. 2.
16 Ibid.
17 K.S. Vikør, “The Shari’a and the Nation State: Who can Codify the Divine Law?”, in Bjørn
Olav Utvik and K.S. Vikør (eds), The Middle East in a Globalized World: Papers from the Fourth
Nordic Conference on Middle Eastern Studies, Oslo 1998, London: C. Hurst & Co. Ltd., 2000,
p. 223.
18 Chase F. Robinson, Empire and Elites after the Muslim Conquest: The Transformation of Northern
Mesopotamia, Cambridge University Press, 1996, p. 213.
19 R. Kamaruddin, “Politics in the Works of Al-Ghazzali”, Intellectual Discourse, Vol. 12, No. 2,
2004, p. 122.
20 Ahmet T. Kuru, Islam, Authoritarianism, and Underdevelopment: A Global and Historical
Comparison, New York: Cambridge University Press, 2019.
21 J. Horovitz, “Ibn Qutaiba’s Uyun al-Akhbar”, Islamic Culture: Hyderabad Quarterly Review, Vol.
4, 1930, pp. 171–98.
22 Bernard Lewis, Islam and the West, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993, pp. 96–98.
23 Sherman A Jackson, ‘Legal Pluralism Between Islam and the Nation-State: Romantic
Medievalism or Pragmatic Modernity?’ Fordham International Law Journal, Article 5, Volume
30, Issue 1, 2006, p. 172, https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=
2037&context=ilj&httpsredir=1&referer=, last accessed on 27 September 2023.
24 Lama Abu-Odeh, “Book Review of The Impossible State by Wael Hallaq”, Georgetown University
Law Centre, 2013, p1. https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/70375096.pdf, accessed online on 3
September 2023.
25 Asghar Ali Engineer, “The Concept of Islamic State”, Focus, Vol. 16, June 1999, available at
https://www.hurights.or.jp/archives/focus/section2/1999/06/the-concept-of-islamic-state.html,
last accessed on 1 September 2023.
26 John L. Esposito and James P. Piscatori, “Democratization and Islam”, Middle East Journal,
Vol. 45, No. 3, 1991, pp. 427–40.
27 Alfred C. Stepan, “Religion, Democracy, and the ‘Twin Tolerations’”, Journal of Democracy,
Vol. 11, No. 4, 2000, p. 40.
28 Jeff Haynes, Religion in Global Politics, New York: Longman, 1998, p. 19.
29 Jonathan Fox and Shmuel Sandler, “Separation of Religion and State in the Twenty-first Century:
Comparing the Middle East and Western Democracies”, Comparative Politics, Vol. 37, No. 3,
April 2005, pp. 317–35.
30 Amr Hamzaway, “The Key to Arab Reform: Moderate Islamists”, Carnegie Endowment for
Peace Policy Brief, p. 2, https://carnegieendowment.org/files/pb40.hamzawy.FINAL.pdf
accessed on 2 December 2017.
26 Political Islam: Parallel Currents in West Asia and South Asia

31 Ahmad S. Moussalli, “Islamic Democracy and Pluralism”, in Omid Safi (ed.), Progressive
Muslims: On Justice, Gender, and Pluralism, Oxford: Oneworld Publications, 2003, pp.286-
306.
32 Joas Wagemakers, “The Enduring Legacy of the Second Saudi State: Quietist and Radical
Wahhabi Contestations”, International Journal of Middle East Studies, Vol. 44, No. 1 (February
2012), pp. 93-110.
33 Marmaduke Pickthall, The Meaning of The Glorious Koran: An Explanatory Translation, New
York: New American Library, 1953.
34 Janine Clark and Jillian Schwedler, ‘Who Opened the Window: Women’s Activism within
Islamist Parties’, Comparitive Politics, Vol. 35, No. 3, April 2003, pp. 293–312.
35 John L. Esposito and Natana J. DeLong-Bas, Shariah: What Everyone Needs to Know, UK:
Oxford University Press, 2018, p. 145.
36 ‘Preamble’ in “The Constitution of India” (as on May 2022), Legislative Department, Ministry
of Law and Justice, Government of India, available at www.constitutionofindia.net., https://
cdnbbsr.s3waas.gov.in/s380537a945c7aaa788ccfcdf1b99b5d8f/uploads/2023/05/
2023050195.pdf
37 Aparijita Baruah, Preamble of the Constitution of India: An Insight and Comparison with Other
Constitutions, New Delhi: Deep & Deep Publications Pvt. Ltd., 2006, p. 177.
38 Marmaduke Pickthall, The Meaning of The Glorious Koran: An Explanatory Translation, New
York: New American Library, 1953 (28:70; 28:88; 39:6; 40:65).
39 Madawi Al-Rasheed, Carool Kersten and Marat Shterin (eds), Demystifying the Caliphate:
Historical Memory and Contemporary Contexts, Oxford University Press, London, 2012.
40 Erik Ringmar, The Muslim Caliphates, Open Book Publishers, Istanbul, 2020.
41 Wilferd Madelung, “al-Mahdî”, in Encyclopaedia of Islam, Vol. 5, 2nd edition, Brill Academic
Publishers, 1986, pp. 1230–38.
42 Abul Hasan Ali Ibn Muhammad Mawardi, Al Ahkam As Sultaniyyah: The Laws of Islamic
Governance, Createspace Independent Pub., 2018.
43 Griffithes Wheeler Thatcher, “ ” , in Hugh Chisholm (ed.), Encyclopædia Britannica,
Vol. 19, 11th edition, Cambridge University Press, p. 318.
44 Al-Rasheed et al., Demystifying the Caliphate.
45 Ignaz Goldziher, The Zahiri, their Doctrine and their History: A Contribution to the History of
Islamic Theology, translated and edited by Wolfgang Behn, Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1971.
46 Helmer Ringgren, “On the Islamic Theory of the State”, Scripta Instituti Donneriani Aboensis,
Vol. 6, 1972, pp. 103–08.
47 Ibn Muhammad Mawardi, Al Ahkam As Sultaniyyah: The Laws of Islamic Governance.
48 Hafijur Rahman, “From Farabi to Ibn Khaldun: The Perception of the State in the Early
Intellectual Muslim Writings”, Liberal Dergisi, Vol. 26, No. 103, 2021, pp. 237–58.
49 . Korkut, “Ibn Khaldun’s Critique of the Theory of al-Siyâsah al-Madaniyyah”, Asian Journal
of Social Science, Vol. 36, Nos. 3 and 4, 2008, pp. 547–70.
50 Uriya Shavit, “Is Shura a Muslim Form of Democracy? Roots and Systemization of a Polemic”,
Middle Eastern Studies, Vol. 46, No. 3, August 2010, pp. 349–74.
51 Marmaduke Pickthall, The Meanings of the Glorious Koran, Dorsett Press, New York, 1988.
52 Ibid.
53 Sayed Khatab, The Power of Sovereignty: The Political and Ideological Philosophy of Sayyid Qutb,
Routledge, London, 2006.
54 Taqi Al-din Nabhani, The System of Islam (Nidham Al-Islam), 6th edition, Createspace
Independent Pub. Kolkata, 2016.
 How Political is Islam? 27

55 Sherman A Jackson, ‘Legal Pluralism Between Islam and the Nation-State: Romantic
Medievalism or Pragmatic Modernity?’ Fordham International Law Journal, Article 5, Vol. 30,
Issue 1, 2006
56 Khaled Abou El Fadl, The Great Theft: Wrestling Islam from the Extremists, HarperOne, 2007,
p. 204.
57 Suyuti, Jalal al-Din, Al-Jami al-Saghir min Hadith al-Bashir al-Nadhir, Vol. 2, p. 433, 29 Al-
Shaf.
58 Jocelyn Hendrickson, “Law: Minority Jurisprudence”, in John L. Esposito (ed.), The Oxford
Encyclopedia of the Islamic World, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009.
59 Toseef Azid and Jennifer Ward-Batts (eds), Economic Empowerment of Women in the Islamic
World: Theory and Practice, London, UK: World Scientific Publishing Company, 2020, pp.
39-70.
60 Ibid.
61 Antony Black, The History of Islamic Political Thought: From the Prophet to the Present, Edinburgh:
Edinburgh University Press, 2001, p. 128.
62 Ibn Rushd, Commentary on Plato’s Republic, trans. Ralph Lerner, Averroes on Plato’s Republic,
Ithaca, NY, Cornell University Press, 1974, pp. 57–59.
63 A.A. Osman, ‘The Ideological Development of the Sudanese Ikhwan Movement’, in Proceedings
of the 1988 International Conference on Middle-Eastern Studies, university of Reading, pp. 416–
17.
64 Tamara Sonn, “Fazlur Rahman’s Islamic Methodology”, The Muslim World, Vol. 81, July–
October 1999, pp. 212–230
65 “10 Countries with the Largest Muslim Populations, 2010 and 2050”, Pew Research Center’s
Religion & Public Life Project, 2 April 2015, https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2015/
04/02/muslims/pf_15-04-02_projectionstables74/
 PART II
HISTORY OF MUSLIM POLITICAL
THOUGHT IN WEST ASIA, AFRICA

THE PROPHET AND THE

“PIOUS CALIPHS”
 2
The Prophet and His Divine Mission

Muhammed, unlike the founders of other religions, triumphed during

his lifetime. Moses did not reach the Promised Land, Jesus was crucified.
Muhammed did not suffer either of these disagreeable things. He
conquered the Promised Land and became its ruler.
—Bernard Lewis1

Notwithstanding this laudatory appraisal by an eminent Orientalist academic,

most Islamic scholars do not consider Prophet Muhammad’s phenomenal political
success as the right yardstick for measuring his greatness. For them, the Prophet
is, first and foremost, the Messenger of God (‘Rasulullah’), whose triumph lies in
being the conveyor of Gos’s immaculate revelation in the form of the Quran and
for being the finest paragon of the scripture’s teachings in its human form.
It is noteworthy that in times before Prophet’s birth, the Arabian Peninsula
did not have a major political state. At that time, as stated by Maxime Rodinson:
“Arabs were bound by no written code of law, and no state existed to enforce its
statutes with the backing of a police force. The only protection for a man’s life
was the certainty established by custom, that it would be dearly bought.”2
Thus, Prophet Muhammad was not merely the founder of a religion but also
a nation-builder, in that he united the many tribes of the Arabian Peninsula into
a single nation for the first time in history. Earlier, the tribes had fought frequently
with each other in the name of their respective tribal deities, but now, led by an
32 Political Islam: Parallel Currents in West Asia and South Asia

exemplary leader (the Prophet), they bowed to a single formless God and were
guided by an Arabic scripture, namely, the Quran.
As Herbert Muller put it succinctly, “In Mohammed’s Arabia there was no
state—there were only scattered independent tribes and towns. The Prophet formed
his own state, and he gave it a sacred law prescribed by Allah.”3 By binding the
Arab tribes together under a single faith, the Prophet established a nation, which
went on to change the course of human history.
Although the Prophet ruled the city state of Medina, which eventually
expanded to cover the entire Arabian Peninsula within less than a decade, he
never held any formal political rank or position (as he only described himself as
‘Rasulallah’). Even when he ruled much of Arabia, he formed no cabinet of ministers
or elaborate government apparatus working under him. He shunned walking
with a large entourage around him and lived an abstemious life in a hut at Medina,
with walls of unbaked clay and a thatched roof of palm leaves covered by camel
skin. Indeed, when he died, there was little found in his humble abode, except for
a few seeds of barley left from a mound of grain.4
In the words of Reverend Bosworth Smith:
He (Prophet Muhammad) was Caesar and Pope in one; but he was
Pope without Pope’s pretensions, Caesar without the legions of Caesar:
without a standing army, without a bodyguard, without a palace, without
a fixed revenue; if ever any man had the right to say that he ruled by the
right divine, it was Muhammad, for he had all the power without its
instruments and without its supports.5
More than establishing a state, the Prophet believed in establishing a
community of equals, without differences of race, ethnicity, wealth or culture.
Good conduct inspired by piety and consciousness of God, called taqwa, was
made the measure of a person’s superiority over the others. Prophet’s companions
used to follow his example in their conduct and were asked not to even stand up
in reverence on his arrival, as he disliked it.6
While in Mecca, the Prophet forbade violence in self-defence; but in Medina,
as the head of the city state, he engaged in conventional warfare to defend the city
state. During war, he stuck to rules of engagement that barred killing of non-
combatants (particularly women, children and elderly) as well as stealing.7 A great
general who marshalled his forces in the battlefield, the Prophet never personally
engaged in active combat.
Surprisingly, many of the Prophet’s remarkable political and diplomatic
 The Prophet and His Divine Mission 33

accomplishments, as well as his genius to strike a compromise for the sake of

greater peace and prosperity in society, could put many of the bigoted Islamist
assumptions to shame. Some of these political positions and stances are detailed
next.

Stateless Arabia: Hemmed in by Byzantine, Sassanid Empires

Before the coming of Islam, tribal culture of the nomadic Bedouin pople
dominated the Arab society. Scattered around the Arabian Desert, the tribe was
the basis of all that existed with regards to political and social system. There were
no written laws or constitutions, and latter-day Arab Muslims called this pre-
Islamic time Jahiliyya (period of ignorance).8
Members of every tribe formed independent units, but were believed to have
descended from a common ancestor and were bound by kinship ties. The patrilineal
tribe was subdivided into clans, constituting members of the immediate family
that, at least figuratively, lived under a single tent. People belonging to other
tribes were treated as foreigners. The tribes zealously protected their members
against people of other tribes and nomads. Thus, tests of strength, raids and
skirmishes were frequent occurrences.
Each tribe was governed by a council of adult men (al-mala’) which selected
a tribal chief, generally called a shaykh or sayyid, from a noble family, known for
his bravery, generosity and wisdom. The duties of the tribal chief were to settle
disputes between members of the tribe, lead it in war and make confederations
(alaf) with other tribes when necessary. When there were disputes between tribes,
attempts were made to resolve them by negotiations or by presentation to an
arbitrator, hakam. The arbitrator usually did not belong to a particular class, and
the parties were free to choose anyone to judge the issue. However, the problem
was that there was no executive power that might effectively enforce the agreements
among tribes, which led to a state of constant feuds and battles among the tribes.9
Owing to the difficult life in the desert, the Arabs never had a glorious history
of civilisation, as the Romans and the Persians. Their nomadic lifestyle may not
have allowed them to develop architecture, sculpture or painting, but they did
conceive the art of poetry. Reasonably developed even before the coming of Islam,
the Jahili poetry is still recited and appreciated for its literary merit by Arabic
litterateurs, particularly the work of its great poet Imru’ Al-Qays. In the words of
Arthur Goldschmidt:
Pre-Islamic poetry embodied the Arab code of virtue, the “muruwwa”:
34 Political Islam: Parallel Currents in West Asia and South Asia

bravery in battle, patience in misfortune, persistence in revenge (the

only justice possible at a time when no government existed), protection
of the weak, defiance toward the strong, hospitality toward the visitor
(even a stranger), generosity to the poor, loyalty to the tribe, and fidelity
in keeping promises. These were the principles people needed to survive
in the desert, and the verses helped them to fix the “muruwwa” in their
mind.10
The empires neighbouring the Arabian Desert on the eve of the rise of Islam
made the political situation even more complex. The peninsula was often ravaged
by wars between three main tribes: the Ghassanids, the Lakhmids, and the Kinda
tribes.11
Although much of pre-Islamic Arabia was nomadic, new cities started coming
up in the desert due to multiple reasons. The pirates in the Red Sea made maritime
trade risky, giving way to overland trade between Syria and Yemen. The Byzantine–
Sassanid wars also diverted trade towards Western Arabia. One such city was
Mecca, set among the mountains of Hejaz. The city had religious sites, such as
Mount Arafat and the Kaaba (a cube-shaped structure that housed 360 idols of
various Arab deities), and an annual poet’s fair at Ukaz.12
Around the fifth century, the tribe of Quraysh rose in Mecca and became the
dominant merchants and traders. During the sixth century, they joined the lucrative
spice trade, and Mecca became more prominent as a trading centre that surpassed
the cities of Petra and Palmyra in the north. Following the rise of Islam, the
Kaaba in Mecca became the most sacred place in Islam. The other prominent
cities in the region were Yathrib (later known as Medina) and Najran in Yemen.
In terms of religion, most Bedouin tribes practised polytheism in the form of
idolatry and animism. After Emperor Constantine conquered the ancient city of
Byzantium in 324 CE, Christianity spread to Arabia, and several Bedouin tribes
embraced the faith. In the client kingdom of Byzantine, the Ghassanid tribe
followed Christianity, while the Lakhmid tribe that served as a buffer between
Central Arabia and the Sassanids converted to Nestorian Christianity.13
There was also a centre of Christianity in the southern city of Najran, which
adopted Monophysitism. In addition, there were Arab Jews who spoke Arabic, as
well as Hebrew and Aramaic, and had ties with Jewish religious centres in Babylonia
and Palestine. There were 21 Jewish tribes during the Prophet’s rise, mainly centred
in Yathrib, Khaybar and Tayma. Zoroastrianism also existed, mainly in the Najd
region and south of the Arabian Peninsula. Reportedly, people also practised some
version of Manichaeism or even Mazdakism in Mecca.14
 The Prophet and His Divine Mission 35

Prophet’s Community of Equals

Prophet Muhammad began his religious mission relatively late in life. He was 40
years old when he received the first revelation of the Quranic verses. Unlike Moses
and Jesus, Muhammad was not born into a community of believers waiting for
their saviour. The Quran states that God instructed the initially hesitant man to
preach the revealed message, and to gradually build a religious community of
ardent believers in a society whose beliefs were at variance with those of the new
faith. An orphaned, uneducated man, who eventually married an elderly affluent
widow, the Prophet’s honest and impeccable character earned him respectability
in Mecca. However, he did not hold any rank of prominence in the society at the
beginning of his Prophetic mission.15
The Prophet called his religion Islam, which he said had the same teachings
of earlier prophets, like Noah, Abraham, Moses and even Jesus. Islam called for
the worship of only one transcendent God (whose name in Arabic is Allah),
beyond human comprehension. It considered all of humanity, including its many
races, ethnicities, nations, and the children of Adam—the first human as well as
the first Prophet—as equal. Every human being was answerable to God for his/
her deeds on the Day of Judgement that would come after the eventual end of the
world.16 This universalism of Islam, which places ethical human conduct above
racial, ethnic, financial or even intellectual sense of superiority, is one of the reasons
for its continued appeal and makes it among the fastest growing religions in the
world.17
After declaring himself Prophet, Muhammad preached in Mecca for thirteen
years and built a community of disciplined followers, who were trained not to
retailiate against any verbal or physical assault. During this early phase of non-
violent preaching, the Prophet and his followers faced intense persecution. As
each community strives to retain its core identity and sticks to its dogma and
belief system, it comes into conflict—non-violent or violent—with the identity
and dogmas of pre-existing communities. The subsequent political jostling for
recognition and acceptance, if not outright domination, in the wider society is as
typical to Islam as to any other religious community.
The more fundamentally divergent and antithetical the core differences in
spiritual beliefs between rival communities become, the more viscerally contentious
the ensuing power struggle is. Thus, religions, whose central premise is spirituality,
almost invariably develop a political dimension. In the case of the Meccan elite,
they opposed Prophet Muhammad because of his religion’s egalitarian message
36 Political Islam: Parallel Currents in West Asia and South Asia

that threatened their sway over power and wealth. A new mass consciousness also
questioned the significance of the old and anarchic socio-political order.
The Prophet began his religious mission by first preaching his message to his
family members, with his wife Khadija becoming his first follower, while his 10-
year-old cousin Ali became the first male to embrace Islam. Coming from different
classes and tribes of Arab society, the early Muslims primarily belonged to the
poorer sections of society, including slaves. There were also people from the upper
to upper middle strata, such as the Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman.
Islam became the first religion to give women property and divorce rights
(albeit the latter provision has been seldom used in Muslim history). The Prophet
also encouraged the manumission of slaves as an act of piety and led by personal
example by making Zayd ibn Harith (a slave gifted to him by his rich wife) a
freeman and his son, declaring him to be the heir to his property. Thus, Islam
introduced many humanitarian values in society ahead of time.
These steps were often taken incrementally; through a gradual approach to
preparing the society for reforms. For example, the complete prohibition on the
consumption of liquor only came after several Quranic verses warned against its
use over some time. Likewise, the incremental steps towards better treatment of
slaves (even their manumission) and greater empowerment of women proved
necessary to avoid their outright rejection. Even the Age of Enlightenment in
Europe and the US took a long and tortuous route to end slavery and accord
equal status to women in society.18

Mithaq Al-Madina: Pluralistic Constitution of Medina

According to Muslim scholars, Prophet Muhammad did not seek leadership but
was called to it. For one, the middle-aged unlettered merchant of Mecca had little
wealth and status when he started his religious mission. Far from being sanguine
on first receiving the divine revelation, his early biographers report that he was in
a state of shock and was even sceptical about the veracity of the divine revelation,
but was comforted and counselled by his wife, Khadija, who knew her husband
was too righteous to be misled. It was only after a few more revelations over
several months that Prophet Muhammad was convinced that the divine revelation
asking him to preach the word of God was real. Thus, the Prophet appeared to
have no personal ambition, nor any sound prospects of succeeding, while
undertaking the divine mission.19
Even when the Prophet had built a strong community of followers in Mecca,
 The Prophet and His Divine Mission 37

he refused to take political power from the Meccan elite (particularly the offer of
Utbah ibn Rabiah), who asked him to compromise on his faith in exchange for
becoming the ruler of Mecca. At that time, the Prophet responded by saying that
God had not sent him for this purpose (that is, to become a political leader), but
only to spread His message.20
His migration to Medina, to avoid persecution and the various attempts on
his life in Mecca, happened after most of his followers had left for Abyssinia and
Medina as refugees. The delegates of two powerful feuding tribes of Khazraj and
Aws in Yathrib (Medina) had invited the Prophet to migrate to their city and
become their arbitrator (Second Pledge of Al-Aqaba). In the words of F.E. Peters,
when the Prophet migrated to Medina, the population was “a mixture” (akhlat)
of many different tribes (predominantly Arabic and Jewish).21 These tribes had
been fighting for nearly a century, causing “civil strife”, and it was for this reason
that they assigned the role of an arbitrator to the Prophet. Thus, the Prophet
never tried to grab political power, as many Islamists and jihadists claim is a
religious injunction, but it came to him during his Prophetic mission.
On reaching Yathrib, the Prophet drew up Mithaq Al-Madina. Some Muslim
historians, like Muhammad Hamidullah, claim that it was the first written
constitution of the world.22 The document ensured freedom of religious belief
for every community in Medina and established the rule of law, similar to the
Magna Carta of 1215 CE. According to Robert Crane, a former foreign policy
advisor to Richard Nixon, this written document was a covenant:
When the various tribes living in Madina invited the Prophet
Muhammad to become their leader as a means to overcome their inter-
tribal rivalries and bring peace, prosperity, and freedom, there was no
such thing as a state in the modern sense. In fact, such a modern concept
was not invented until more than a thousand years later, even though
there were empires, like the Persian, Chinese, and Incas, based on the
modern concept of might makes right. In the Covenant of Madina, the
various autonomous tribes were incorporated in a single confederation
with common rights and responsibilities. The Prophet called this
confederation an umma or single community composed of different
ethnic and religious ummas as sub-groups.23
The word umma in the Medina charter referred to all the ethnic and religious
tribes in Medina, including those who were Jewish and polytheists.24,25 This
reflected pluralism, both in the content and the document’s history. As explained
38 Political Islam: Parallel Currents in West Asia and South Asia

by Peters, “the contracting parties, although they did not embrace Islam, did
recognize the Prophet’s authority, accepting him as the community leader and
abiding by his political judgments”.26 The constitution established the collective
responsibility of constituent tribes, including the population of muhajir (migrant)
Muslims from Mecca, appointing Prophet Muhammad as the mediating authority
between groups, and forbade the waging of war without his authorisation.
According to Mithaq Al-Madina, non-Muslims had the following rights on
the condition they “follow” the Prophet as the arbitrator:
1. The security of God was equal for all groups.
2. Non-Muslim members had the same political and cultural rights as
Muslims. They had autonomy and freedom of religion.
3. Non-Muslims could take up arms against the enemy of the nation and
share the cost of war. There was to be no treachery between the two.
4. Non-Muslims were not obliged to take part in the Muslims’ religious
wars.27
Much has been made of the Prophet being harsh to three Jewish tribes in
Medina—the Banu Qurayzah, the Banu Nadir and the Banu Qunayqa—because
of their alleged betrayal and treasonous activity during the time of the Battle of
Khandaq, as well as rebellion and attempted assassination of the Prophet. However,
it should be noted that other Jewish tribes named in the Constituion of Medina,
namely, Banu Alfageer, Banu Awf, Banu Harith, Banu Jusham, Banu Qudaa and
Banu Shutayba, continued to remain in the city.28 According to several Hadeeth
renditions, the Prophet died while his armour was still pawned to a Jew in Medina
in place of some food he received for his family. This shows that the community
of Jews continued to thrive in Medina even at the time of his death.
Late in life, when the Prophet led the Tabuk campaign in 630 CE, he sent
letters to four rebellious towns in northern Hejaz and Palestine to stop maintaining
a military force, and instead ensure their security by paying taxes. It is in this
context that the Quranic verse (9:29) was revealed.29 Later, in the Abbasid era,
these taxes (jizya) were turned into a poll tax levied on all non-Muslim subjects.30

Prophet’s Endorsement of Non-Muslim Legislation: “Hilf Al-Fudul”

(Pact of the Virtuous)
It is surprising that many extremist Islamist and jihadist groups either ignore or
outright reject the Mithaq Al-Medina (particularly terrorist groups like the Al-
Qaeda and the ISIS). Even traditional Muslim theologians do not accord
 The Prophet and His Divine Mission 39

importance to this cornerstone of the Prophet’s political achievements, even as

they speak of establishing “Nizam-e-Mustafa” (system of governance under Prophet
Muhammad).
Most radical Islamists despise international treaties and global institutions of
peace, claiming that these institutions follow non-Islamic principles and are run
by non-Muslims, which runs counter to the teachings of Islam. Perhaps, the
Islamists need to be told about the Prophet’s endorsement of the charter of Hilf
Al-Fudul, which was ratified by pre-Islamic Arabs, for upholding the rule of law
and social justice.
According to the early biographies of the Prophet, when he was about 20
years of age (around the year 590 CE), much before his mission of prophethood
began, a Yemeni merchant from Zabid was wronged in a trade transaction by a
rich and influential Meccan trader. On the plea of the wronged Yemeni merchant,
Meccan and non-Meccan chiefs under Abdullah ibn Jada’an established a treaty
and pledged to: (i) respect the principles of justice irrespective of the social or
tribal status of the person wronged; and (ii) collectively intervene in conflicts to
establish justice.31
This pact, generally known as Hilf Al-Fudul, was held sacred and inviolable
and its document was hung on the Kaaba’s walls. Although it was drawn by pre-
Islamic polytheists, many of whom did not become Muslims even after the coming
of Islam, Prophet Muhammad upheld the charter and its laws of justice and
resolution of conflicts even after he became the Prophet of Islam.32
According to a Hadeeth tradition reported as authentic (sahih), Talha ibn
Abdullah reported that the Prophet said:
I witnessed a pact of justice in the house of Abdullah ibn Jud’an (the
Hilf ul Fudul) that was more beloved to me than a herd of expensive red
camels. If I were called to it now in the time of Islam, I would respond.33
In another sahih Hadeeth text, Ibn Abbas reported that the Prophet said, “Every
just pact from pre-Islamic times is not increased by Islam but in strength and
affirmation.”34
Similarly, Husayn ibn Ali (the grandson of the Prophet) once asked the
Madinan governor to take up his case to the members of Hilf Al-Fudul in order to
get justice, which shows that this institution was respected much after the Prophet’s
death. Thus, it is evident that the institution established in pre-Islamic times
continued much after the Prophet’s death.35
40 Political Islam: Parallel Currents in West Asia and South Asia

Modern Islamic jurists equate institutions related to international law and

human and animal rights—such as the United Nations (UN) and other
humanitarian international bodies—as legitimate organisations and urge Muslim
states to participate as responsible members of such institutions in the spirit of
Hilf Al-Fudul. For radical groups to reject the UN Charter due to it being
formulated by non-Islamic powers and sources is disproved by the Prophet’s
adherence to humanitarian non-Muslim treaties.

10 Year Peace Treaty with Polytheistic Mecca: “Sulh Al-Hudaybiyyah”

As Medina’s head, the Prophet often made bold conciliatory gestures towards his
adversaries to achieve peace and harmony in society. Just after the Meccan forces
lost the three battles they launched on Medina following the Prophet’s migration
to that city, the Prophet offered an olive branch to the then polytheistic Mecca,
the city of his birth.
Far from launching any reprisal attack on Mecca, he wore the ihram (single
cloth garment worn to perform circumambulation of the Holy Kaaba) and as a
pilgrim stood with his followers at Hudaybiyyah, a place close to Mecca, seeking
the holy city’s permission to perform the umrah pilgrimage (“lesser pilgrimage”
to Kaaba in any month other than the Dhul Hijjah month allocated for Hajj
piligrimage).36
The leaders of Mecca denied him permission and instead forced him to sign
an unfavourable treaty against his forces. The Prophet (peace be upon him) accepted
it, much to the chagrin of his closest companions. Though the Prophet’s forces
were numerically powerful and had emerged triumphant after the Battles of Badr,
Uhud and Khandaq, he accepted the unfavourable conditions for the sake of
peace. He struck out his title, Messenger of God, from the treaty document on
the instructions of the Meccans as a gracious gesture. This treaty is known as Sulh
Al-Hudaybiyyah.37
He then peacefully retreated to Medina without performing the pilgrimage
as per the requirements of the treaty document and agreed to perform the
pilgrimage next year. Thus, the Prophet showed his great humility and strength
of character in the pursuit of peace. Himself a courageous warrior, he demonstrated
to the Muslims that it takes more bravery to follow the path of peace than war.
The Prophet is also known for extending his support to other non-Muslims,
such as Christians. It is evident from the document known as “Muhammad’s
Ashtiname”,38 which he sent to the St Catherine Monastery in Sinai, present-day
 The Prophet and His Divine Mission 41

Egypt. According to it, the Prophet granted protection and other privileges to the
followers of Jesus worldwide. The document concludes by saying: “The Muslims
must protect them (the Christians) and defend them against others. It is positively
incumbent upon every one of the followers of Islam not to contradict or disobey
this oath until the Day of Resurrection and the end of the world.”39
In addition, the Prophet graciously accepted diplomats, envoys and leaders
from various states and religious institutions, and accorded them respect and
place of residence next to his own house and mosque. He invited many rulers to
embrace Islam, such as the Byzantine ruler Heraclius, the Negus of Abyssinia and
Khusrau II of the Sassanid Empire (Persia), some of which are still extant.

Prophet of Religion, not Politics

The Prophet was able to unite the feuding desert tribes of Arabia under the banner
of Islam. His political life was subsidiary to his larger religious mission, and his
state was not the conventional empire of his times, nor by any stretch the state as
we understand it today. In a kind of religious republicanism, his rule brought
everybody under God’s rule; and the latter’s divine decree. His was an egalitarian
social and political order, where he used to consult with his companions on matters
of governance and strategy when there was no divine revelation regarding the
matter.
The spirit of consultation (shura), suitable to tribal and democratic societies
and exhorted in the Quran, was a key feature of his rule. In the words of Barnaby
Rogerson:
The Prophet scrupulously respected the legal basis of his position in
Medina. If there was a campaign being sent beyond the oasis, the Prophet
would exhort the people of Medina to volunteer for battle, he might
even try to shame them, but he would never command them to go. His
leadership over the men of Medina was inspirational, never absolutist,
and was always the more powerful because of this.40
Islamic literature concentrates more on theology than political aspects.
Consequently, Islamic political thought has incorporated, modified and challenged
Arab customs, Jewish law, Persian statecraft, Hellenistic philosophy, Christian
theology and European and American culture throughout its long and tortuous
journey. Apart from certain broad principles on the sovereignty of God, justice
and rule of divine law (concepts that have been differently interpreted by Muslim
scholars over the centuries), there is no clearly defined political theory or system.
42 Political Islam: Parallel Currents in West Asia and South Asia

Overview of Islam: Beliefs, Rituals and Worship, Sects and Schools

Prophet Muhammad never claimed he was starting a new religion. He called
himself the last Messenger of the One and Only God (named ‘Allah’ in Islam’s
holy book, Al-Quran). The name he gave to his religion is Islam (which means
‘peace’, achieved through submission to Allah) and the followers are called Muslims.
Belief in the oneness of God (or Allah) is central to Islam and is called tauheed,
wherein nothing can be associated with Allah in belief, worship or suppliance,
and associating anything with Allah or his attributes is considered the biggest,
unpardonable sin (shirk).
According to Islam, the message of strict monotheism (doctrine that there is
only one God) and righteous action was taught by Allah to mankind through his
many human prophets sent by Allah down the ages across various regions of the
world and Muhammad is the last of these prophets. Muslims have to believe in
the institution of Prophethood (Risala). In fact, the first prophet was Adam (the
first man) himself, who was guided by God during his life on earth to teach the
religion to his children. Most of the prophets named in the Quran are also
mentioned in the Bible, thus Noah in the Arabic Quran is called Nuh, Abraham
is Ibrahim, Job is Ayub, Moses is Musa, David is Dawood, John is Yahya, Jesus is
Eisa and so on. According to Islam, all these prophets were humans and not gods
or angels, but as they were divinely guided every step of their way they remained
sinless. None of the prophets had supernatural powers and even their miracles
were in reality performed by the one and only God named Allah. Therefore,
Islam forbids the worship of prophets as gods or deities. All the prophets are
known as nabi, some of them held the additional rank of rasul (messenger). A
‘rasul’ is a special ‘nabi’, enjoying a higher status, as he comes with a new law for
his people and even judgement against evildoers of his time from God.
Muslims believe in divine scriptures (Kutub) revealed to prophets by Allah.
Thus, Moses being a ‘rasul’ was reveled the Torah or ‘Taurat’ by Allah, David was
revealed the Psalms or ‘Zubur’, Jesus was reveled the ‘Injil’ and Muhammad the
‘Quran’ (the last, uncorrupted word of God). Muslims believe that all divine
scriptures preceding the Quran have been corrupted, partially lost or burnt, altered
or interpolated by humans, and thus only the Quran (the final, inerrant revelation
of Allah that is still preserved in its pristine purity) should be followed by Muslims.
In fact, the Quran is safeguarded in its uncreated, pristine and eternal form in the
well-protected tablet ‘Al-Lawh-Al-Muhfuz’ in the heavens, and its verses were only
gradually revealed to the Prophet Muhammad by Angel ‘Jibrail’ (known to
 The Prophet and His Divine Mission 43

Christians as ‘Gabriel’) over his 23-year-long prophetic mission on earth, beginning

in 610 (when he received his first verses) and ending at the time of his death in
632 CE.
Muslims separate the verses which the Prophet received from Allah through
the agency of angel Jibrail, and compiled in the Quran as divinely revealed verses,
from the Prophet’s personal sayings, deeds and conduct, which are called Sunnah.
The Sunnah traditions were orally memorized or better still imbibed in personal
conduct by early Muslims, but were later written down and compiled as Hadeeth
collections by several scholars known as muhaddithuun. Thus, Quran is a
sacrosanct divine text, while written Hadeeth records only supplement the Quran
and help in better understanding the Quran’s intended meaning. Thus, while
Quran has been assiduously memorised as well as preserved in its written form
right from the time of the Prophet and the authorised version was issued in the
rule of the third caliph, Uthman, Hadeeth literature only started getting collected,
compiled and documented after over a century of the Prophet’s death by various
compilers, with the Sunni and the Shia sects having different set of compilations.
Muslims believe in the existence of angels (malaik) that serve as agents of
Allah and never oppose him. They also believe in jinns (which are another set of
invisible creatures) that, unlike angels, exercise free will and shall therefore be
judged on the Day of Judgement alongside humans. Muslims believe in ‘qayamah’
(the day of doom, followed by the day of judgement), after which both humans
and jinn will either receive eternal reward for their godly and morally upright
conduct in Jannah (Paradise) or shall suffer eternal damnation for their ungodly
and immoral deeds in Jahannam (Hell). This belief in the Hereafter (ma’ad) is
integral to Islam’s founding beliefs or articles of faith (aqaid).
Incumbent acts of worship in Islam include: profession of faith (shahada);
offering of ceremonial prayer or salat (also known as namaz in Iran and in the
Indian subcontinent) at least five prescribed times a day; sawm or fasting (known
as roza in Iran and the subcontinent) during the holy month of Ramadan
(pronounced as “Ramzan” in its Persianate form in the subcontinent); zakah (or
alms for the Muslim needy); and the performace of the Haj pilgrimage to the
Kaaba in Mecca and the Prophet’s city of Medina at least once in lifetime. Dawah
(invitation to non-Muslims to join the faith) and jihad are not fard al-ain
(incumbent at all times), with jihad becoming incumbent only when the ameer
(or ruling authority) declares it so.
Over the centuries, Islam suffered from internal schisms and got divided into
44 Political Islam: Parallel Currents in West Asia and South Asia

Sunni and Shia sects. This split occurred following the debate over political
succession after the Prophet’s death wherein the supporters of the Prophet’s
household (Ahl Al-Bayt) claimed that Imam Ali ibn Talib (who was the husband
of Prophet’s daughter, Fatima bint Muhammad) and his sons were denied their
legitimate right to become the leaders of the Muslim community by the first
three caliphs — Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman. While a large majority of Muslims
(later known as Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jamaat or simply Sunni) believed that the
Prophet had left Quran and his Sunnah as guidance for the community after him
and regarded the first four Caliphs (including Ali ibn Talib) as Khulafa-i-Rashidun
(Righly Guided Caliphs), the Shiatul Ali (the Partisans of Ali) group, simply
known as Shia, believed that the Prophet had expressly stated that the Quran and
his own household (Ahl Al-Bayt) should guide and lead the community after
him. Over a period of time, the two sects interpreted the Quran and the Prophetic
tradition in their own separate ways, giving birth to distinct theologies and legal
systems, although the core Islamic beliefs (the aforementioned aqaid of ‘tauheed’,
‘rislalah’, ‘kutub’, ‘malaik’, ‘ma’ad’ ) of the two sects remained largely similar.
The formations of these sects coincided with the priod of the collection of
Hadeeth literature and codification of Islamic law by Muslim jurists, after almost
a century of the Prophet’s death. The process of interpreting and codifying Islamic
law (Shariah) in a written and documented form based on the injunctions of the
Quran and supported by the Prophet’s precedents as found in the Hadeeth
literature produced different schools (singular madhab, pl. madhahib) of
jurisprudence (fiqh) in Sunni sect (the four extant being Hanafi, Shafii, Maliki
and Hanbali), while the Shia followed the Jafari school, and the ostracised Islamic
sect of Kharajites developed its versions, culminating in the extant Ibadi school.

NOTES
1 Bernard Lewis, “Israel, the Jews and the Sunni–Shiite Conflict”, Lecture at the Hebrew
University of Jerusalem on 26 March 2009, available at https://www.youtube.com/
watch?v=THgechURnkU.
2 Maxime Rodinson, Muhammad: Prophet of Islam, I.B. Tauris, 1971, p. 13.
3 Herbert J. Muller, The Loom of History, New York: Harper & Brothers, 1958, p. 271.
4 “Abu Hurairah says: ‘Allah’s Messenger left this world without satisfying his hunger even with
barley bread.’” Sahih Al-Bukhari, translated in English by M. Muhsin Khan, Riyadh: Darussalam
Publishers, Book 70, Hadeeth 42, 1997.
5 R. Bosworth Smith, Mohammed and Mohammedanism, US: Book Tree, 2002, p. 235.
6 “Anas ibn Malik reported: ‘There was no person more beloved to the companions than the
Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him. When they saw him coming, they
would not stand up because they knew he disliked that.’” Jami Al-Tirmidhi, translated by Abu
Khaliyl, Darussalam, Riyadh, KSA, 2007.
 The Prophet and His Divine Mission 45

7 “Set out for Jihad (militant version) only for the sake of Allah. Do not lay hands on the old
verging on death, on women, children and babies. Do not steal anything from the booty and
collect together all that falls to your lot in the battlefield and do good, for Allah loves the
virtuous and the pious.” Sunan Abu Dawud, Book 15, Hadeeth 2614.
8 Arthur Goldschmidt Jr and Lawrence Davidson, A Concise History of the Middle East, American
University in Cairo Press, Cairo, 2009, p. 166.
9 W. Montgomery Watt, Muhammad at Medina, Oxford University Press, New York, 1956,
pp. 261–300.
10 Arthur Goldschmidt Jr and Lawrence Davidson, A Concise History of the Middle East, American
University in Cairo Press, Cairo, 2009, p. 166.
11 Encyclopaedia of Islam, Vol. II, Brill, 28 May 1998, p. 1020.
12 R.B. Serjeant, “Meccan Trade and the Rise of Islam: Misconceptions and Flawed Polemics”,
Journal of the American Oriental Society, Vol. 110, No. 3, 1990, pp. 472–86.
13 Jonathan Porter Berkey, The Formation of Islam: Religion and Society in the Near East, 600–
1800, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003.
14 Madawi Al-Rasheed, A History of Saudi Arabia, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002.
15 Rodinson, Muhammad: Prophet of Islam, p. 38.
16 Caesar E. Farah, Islam: Beliefs and Observances, 5th edition, Hauppauge, NY: Barron’s
Educational Series, 1994.
17 Michael Lipka & Conrad Hackett, ‘Why Muslims are the World’s Fastest Growing Religious
Group’, Pew Research Center, 6 April 2017, https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2017/
04/06/why-muslims-are-the-worlds-fastest-growing-religious-group/
18 Farhat Naz Rahman, “Prophet Muhammad on Peace and Social Justice”, The Government:
Annual Research Journal of Political Science, Vol. 1, No. 1, 2012.
19 Lesley Hazleton, The First Muslim: The Story of Muhammad, Riverhead, 2013.
20 Muhammad Tahir-ul-Qadri, Islam on Love and Non-Violence, Minhaj Books, 2014.
21 F.E. Peters, Muhammad and the Origins of Islam, State Univiersity of New York Press, New
York, 6 April 1994, p. 4.
22 Muhammad Hamidullah, The First Written Constitution of the World, University of Virginia,
1968, pp. 31–42.
23 Robert D. Crane, “Islamic Social Principle of the Right to Freedom: An Analytical Approach”,
Arches Quarterly, Vol. 3, No. 4, 2009, p. 8.
24 Berkey, The Formation of Islam, p. 64.
25 Abdul Malik Ghozali, “The Concept of Conflict Management in the Madina Charter”, in
Advances in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research Series, Vol. 492, Atlantis
Press, 2019.
26 Francis E. Peters, Muhammad and the Origins of Islam, Albany: State University of New York
Press, 1994, p. 199.
27 Leon Nemoy, “Barakat Ahmad’s ‘Muhammad and the Jews’”, The Jewish Quarterly Review,
New Series, Vol. 72, No. 4, April 198, pp. 324–26.
28 Alfred Guillaume, The Life of Muhammad: A Translation of Ibn Ishaq’s Sirat Rasulul Allah,
London: Oxford University Press, 1955.
29 Niaz A. Shah, “The Use of Force under Islamic Law”, European Journal of International Law,
Vol. 24, No. 1, February 2013, pp. 343–65.
30 Ziauddin Ahmed, “The Concept of Jizya in Early Islam”, Islamic Studies, Vol. 14, No. 4,
1975, pp. 293–30.
31 Muhammad Yusuf Guraya, “Judicial Institutions in Pre-Islamic Arabia”, Islamic Studies, Vol.
18, No. 4, 1979, p. 338.
46 Political Islam: Parallel Currents in West Asia and South Asia

32 Obaidullah Fahad, “Tracing Pluralistic Trends in Sîrah Literature: A Study of Some

Contemporary Scholars”, Islamic Studies, Vol. 50, No. 2, 2011, p. 221.
33 Sunan al-Kubra by Imam an-Nasa’i, Hadeeth 12114, SifatuSafwa Bookstore, Ireland, 2010.
34 Musnad Imam Ahmad Bin Hanbal, 3 Volumes, 1st edition, Hadeeth 2904, Dar-us-Salam
Publications, Riyadh, 1 January 2012.
35 Anas Malik, “The Case for Minarchist Libertarian Political Islam,” Presented at Yale University’s
Critical Islamic Reflections Conference, Archived at Wayback Machine (11 March 2008).
36 Tor Andrae, Mohammed: The Man and his Faith, Dover Publications Inc., New York, 6 March
2000, p. 196.
37 Abdullah Al Mamun, “The Role of the Treaty of Hudaybiah in International Relations”,
Malaysian Journal of Islamic Studies, Vol. 3, No. 2, 2019, p. 136.
38 John Andrew Morrow, “The Covenants of the Prophet Muhammad with the Christians of the
World”, Islamic Studies, Vol. 57, Nos. 3–4, 2018, p. 313.
39 Jafar Reynolds, “Forbidden Acts: Islam vs. Terrorism”, Egypt Today, 25 November 2017, available
at https://www.egypttoday.com/Article/1/34192/Forbidden-acts-Islam-vs-terrorism. Last
accessed on 23 August 2023.
40 Barnaby Rogerson, The Heirs of the Prophet Muhammad and the Roots of the Sunni–Shia Schism,
London: Abacus Publishers, 2006, p. 24.
 3
Reign of Abu Bakr: The First Caliph

Those who worshipped Muhammad, let them know Muhammad is

dead. Those who worship God, let them know God is always living and
never dies.
—Abu Bakr, consoling Muslims on death of the Prophet1

In early 7 CE, a new political order had evolved under the leadership of Prophet
Muhammad, which spread beyond the Arabian Peninsula to regions of the Levant,
Persia, Syria, Egypt and the Eastern Roman Empire. This political force defeated
the two biggest superpowers of its time, the Sassanian Empire of Persia and the
Byzantine Empire (Eastern Europe), thereby altering the world’s political map.
Under the leadership of the Prophet and the four Rashidun Caliphs who succeeded
him, this Islamic political order created a new nation based on a new faith, Islam.
The new religion did not recognise caste or aristocracy and was, in principle,
egalitarian.2
However, the puritanical simplicity of Islam became difficult to sustain as
new territories and more sophisticated cultures became part of a rapidly expanding
empire. Islam’s egalitarianism had more in common with the “muruwwa” (code
of virtue) of the tribes dwelling in the Arabian Desert than with the more
aristocratically stratified societies and class-conscious imperialist polities of Persia
and Byzantine. The newly conquered territories exposed the Muslim Arab leaders
to many practical, moral and religious conundrums, often leading to internal
conflicts and dissensions, particularly the four fitnas (tribulations) that convulsed
early Islamic history.
48 Political Islam: Parallel Currents in West Asia and South Asia

The absence of a divinely ordained political system or framework of governance

in Islam (a religion dealing primarily with spiritual and ethical issues) posed a
challenge for the politically inexperienced companions and successors of the
Prophet. As mentioned earlier, the four leaders of the community after the Prophet,
namely, Abu Bakr, Umar ibn Khattab, Uthman ibn Affan and Ali ibn Talib, came
to be known as the Rashidun (or Rightly Guided) Caliphs.
The challenges faced by the successors of the Prophet were immediate and
immense, and it is to their credit that they could establish and spread the Prophet’s
state despite overwhelming odds. Nevertheless, with time, the challenges of
squaring religious ideals in a highly contentious and ever-expanding political sphere
of influence became difficult even for the blessed companions. The Sunni theology
believed that though the caliphs were all religiously devout, they were not divinely
guided in their actions (unlike the Prophet) and thereby liable to err. In fact,
some religiously overzealous followers (like the Kharijis) judged them harshly
and mutinied, while other wily, politicking contenders carved their own relatively
autonomous fiefdoms in the outer reaches of an expanding Islamic empire.
As long as Prophet Muhammad was alive, he performed the functions of the
lawgiver, the religious head, the chief judge, the commander of the army and the
political head of state. However, after his death, the challenge that confronted his
followers, and had to be resolved swiftly, was who would assume the leadership
position left by him for the sake of the religion and its followers.3
The death of the Prophet, although not unexpected, shocked many Arabs. It
took a wise statement by the Prophet’s old friend, Abu Bakr, to warn people of the
consequences of bemoaning the loss while disregarding the problems at hand.

Successor of the Prophet

The question of the Prophet’s successor (khalifah or caliph) in a religious and
political capacity other than prophethood posed a significant problem for his
followers. The Prophet had left no male heirs; and only one daughter, Fatima,
survived him. Nor had the Prophet (as per the belief of the majority Sunni sect)
clearly designated a successor, and thus the matter of his succession became a
major issue. According to John Esposito, Muslims accepted very early on that
leadership of the community after the Prophet should pass to the most qualified
person, not through hereditary succession.4
Initially, the four closest companions of the Prophet (or Sahaba)—that is,
Abu Bakr (reigned from 632 to 634 CE); Umar (reigned 634–44 CE); Uthman
 Reign of Abu Bakr: The First Caliph 49

(reigned 644–56 CE), and Ali (reigned 656–61 CE)—managed to smooth over
their internal differences and put up a united front by forming the Rashidun (or
Righteous) Caliphate, the first Muslim state that lasted twenty-nine years.
However, the political dispute grew big over time, when the Prophet’s progenies
became victims of political assassination, often to keep them out of competition
for the postion of the caliph. The ill-treatment and persecution of the Ahl Al-Bayt
(particularly by the Umayyad rulers) led to Islam’s most significant sectarian schism
into the Sunni and Shia sects. Unlike Christianity, the cause for the community’s
schism was, at least initially, not on the basis of any major theological divergence
but a purely political issue, with the followers of Imam Ali (venerated as the
fourth Pious Caliph by Sunni Muslims also) insisting that he, as the cousin and
son-in-law of the Prophet, should have been the first imam (or successor after the
Prophet) and his able progeny should have continued to hold the highest political
office of the Muslim community.
However, it was not Ali but Abu Bakr, a close friend of the Prophet, who
became the first caliph; and Ali is said to have accepted Abu Bakr’s caliphate after
over six months of the latter’s reign. In fact, Ali became the caliph following the
deaths of Abu Bakr and his successors, Umar and Uthman.
Nonetheless, when Abu Bakr was appointed as caliph, he had to bring the
community out of its state of shock on the news of the Prophet’s death (in 632
CE), and then make it realise that despite the great loss, the religion would continue
and so would the confederation established by the Prophet.
Initially, Abu Bakr was challenged by several Arab tribes, who argued that the
death of the Prophet marked the end of their political allegiance to the Medinan
state and the broader Muslim community. However:
Abu Bakr reminded the Arab tribes of the overarching message of Islam—
that membership in and loyalty to the Muslim community transcended
all tribal bonds, customs and traditions. Abu Bakr did not accept the
argument of the Arab tribes that religion and politics are two separate
and unrelated entities. Rather, he said, religion was intended to guide
political decisions to provide legitimacy to a political system. All Muslims
belong to a single community whose unity is based upon the
interconnection of religion and the state, where faith and politics are
inseparable.5
On this basis, Abu Bakr launched the Ridda Wars and recaptured territories
of Muslim and non-Muslim tribes that broke away from the Prophet’s state
50 Political Islam: Parallel Currents in West Asia and South Asia

following his death. The matter of religion and politics being co-dependent, as
Abu Bakr put it, remained a subject of discussion among theologians for centuries,
particularly after the rise of alternate Muslim kingdoms that rivalled the single
caliphate of the Muslim community from the tenth century onwards and the
dismemberment of the Abbasid Caliphate in the mid-thirteenth century.
Under the leadership of the first four Rashidun Caliphs, the Muslim state
prospered and spread over the Arabian Peninsula, Persia, Egypt, Mesopotamia,
the Levant, Armenia and even parts of the Byzantine Empire in Anatolia. Most
Sunni historians glorify this phase of Islamic history as the golden period, and
many modern-day Islamists call on fellow Muslims to reinstate the caliphate based
on the laws and principles espoused by the Rashidun Caliphs.
The majority Sunni Muslim sect highly reveres the Rashidun Caliphs. This is
because these four Pious Caliphs were close companions of the Prophet, and even
on becoming caliphs after his passing away, are said to have been the most
religiously observant. Moreover, they are said to have performed the role of
leadership of the Muslim community like the Prophet, with the apparent exception
of not receiving prophetic revelations. Thus, they led the congregation in prayer
at the central mosque in Medina as imams. They delivered the Friday sermons as
khatibs and as umara al-mumineen (in plural, commanders of the faithful), they
commanded the army.
For these reasons, the Rashidun Caliphs (although never deemed as ethically
infallible) developed a religious authority in virtually all their actions, unlike other
dynastic caliphs who followed them. The latter generally conducted themselves
as political heads of state and not as people of religious authority.
However, the period of the Rashidun Caliphate was full of internal and external
threats and challenges and was not an idyllic time for the state, as is often idealised
by many Sunni Islamists in their radical propaganda material. Great external
conquests and triumphs notwithstanding, this phase of Islamic history was mired
by deep internal dissensions and conflicts. It involved even strong contestations
and disputes among the companions of the Prophet, at times among the Rashidun
Caliphs themselves, be it over political matters of succession or matters of public
policy and governance.
It is important to note here that the Rashidun Caliphs remained preoccupied
in bringing about internal stability and warding off external threats posed by the
Sassanid and Byzantine Empires. They were also gradually evolving military, civil
and financial institutions, as well as administrative rules and regulations, whose
 Reign of Abu Bakr: The First Caliph 51

approaches and measures varied from one caliph to another. Still, there was no
consistent system or policy developed on matters of succession, which led to
severe internal dissensions and battles. There was also not any form of redressal or
impeachment of a caliph, a problem that led to the First Fitna in the reign of
Caliph Uthman from 656 to 661 CE. Extreme stress on egalitarianism led to a
general atmosphere of insubordination, and heightened accountability of the
caliphs spurred much controversy and criticism of the third and fourth caliphs,
causing their assassinations. The main reasons for these upheavals could have
been the paucity of proper conventions, or a political constitution laying out the
functioning of political institutions over matters of governance and political
succession.
The period also laid the basis for the eventual split in the Muslim community
into several sects, with the most prominent being the Sunni and the Shia branches
of Islam. The Sunnis believed that the reign of Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman and Ali
was the legitimate chain of caliphal succession after the Prophet, while Shia firmly
upheld that Ali ibn Talib was the only legitimate successor of the Prophet.

How Islamic is a Caliphate? The Three Views

Thus, it was after the death of the Prophet that the Rashidun Caliphs (translated
as the Pious Caliphs [632–61 CE], namely, Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman and Ali)
instituted the caliphate. Under their rule, they developed a unique military and
administrative machinery, bringing in vast territories of West Asia and Northern
Africa under their control in the mid-seventh century.
Thereafter, the Umayyad and the Abbasid caliphates held sway over the entire
Sunni Muslim world of their times, following authoritarian stule of dynastic
despotism. From the tenth century onwards, the caliphate as Islamdom’s
monolithic empire began to decline and disintegrate, with various new kingdoms
and sultanates, like the Mamluk Sultanate and the Ayyubi Caliphate (founded by
the Muslim general Saladin Ayyubi in his fight against the crusading European
powers), beginning to contest with each other for sway over the Muslim world
and beyond.6
The Ottoman conquest of Mamluk Egypt in 1517 saw the establishment of
the Ottoman Caliphate (an empire which extended to much of the Sunni Muslim
world in West Asia, Northern Africa and Eastern Europe), which lasted until its
defeat to the Allied powers in World War I. The Ottoman Caliphate was finally
abolished in 1924. The Umayyad Caliphate of Cordoba in Iberia (929–1031
52 Political Islam: Parallel Currents in West Asia and South Asia

CE), the Berber Almohad Caliphate in Morocco (1121–1269 CE), the Fula Sokoto
Caliphate in what is present-day northern Nigeria (1804–1903CE) and the Islamic
State of Iraq and Levant in the 2010s are the other Muslim empires that called
themselves caliphate.7
The contentious history of the Rashidun period has divided the views of
Muslim scholars on the institution of the caliphate into three camps. According
to the first group, the caliphate is a religious institution necessary for all Muslims’
political protection and prosperity. This view is upheld by certain religious scholars,
like Mustafa Sabri Efendi (1869–1954); radical exponents of Political Islam, such
as Taqi Al-Din Nabhani and Sheikh Yusuf Qaradawi; and modern ideologues
associated with violent extremist views.
The second and more mainstream view is that the caliphate was established
in a particular period of Islamic history by the companions of the Prophet.
Therefore, these scholars believe that the Rashidun Caliphate was ideal and lasted
until the reign of Ali ibn Talib, the fourth of the Rashidun Caliphs.
The third view is that there is no religious injunction associated with the
institution of caliphate in Islam, nor is there a need for it. Upholding this view
are various scholars, like Ali Abd Al-Raziq, who argue that there is no
recommendation for establishing the political institution of the caliphate in either
the Quran or the Hadeeth literature. These scholars argue that the terms khalifah
and khilafat (caliphate) were institutionalised only after the passing away of the
Prophet, and the caliphs (although being companions of the Prophet) were not
ethically or politically infallible as they did not receive any divine guidance or
sanction for their political actions. These scholars even contend that there is no
political system (be it tribal, monarchical, democratic, etc.) recommended in the
Quran or the Hadeeth literature, and that Islam is a religion and leaves it to
humans to decide their political institutions.
Choosing of a caliph from outside the Quraysh bloodline is another
controversial issue among Muslim scholars. All the four Rashidun Caliphs,
followed by the Umayyad and the Abbasid caliphs, hailed from the Quraysh clan
of Mecca, to which the Prophet belonged. Although the Khariji and Mutazilate
sects of Islam did not accept that only a Quraysh was qualified to be a caliph, the
more orthodox view put the condition that only a male from the Quraysh tribe
could hold the high office. For his part, celebrated Muslim philosopher and scholar
Ibn Khaldun (1334–1406 CE) believed that at the beginning of Islam, caliphs
were chosen from the bloodline of Quraysh as they were reputed to provide justice
 Reign of Abu Bakr: The First Caliph 53

for all citizens in the Islamic state. Then it became a kingdom, where obeying a
caliph was accepted as just one of the pillars of Islamic creed. For this reason, the
ISIS goes to great lengths to claim that its caliph belongs to the Quraysh tribe,
just as it did in the case of Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi.

The Saqifah and Dispute of Succession

As the Prophet’s burial ceremony was underway, a gathering of Ansar was convened
in the Saqifah (courtyard) of the Banu Saida clan. This meeting was reportedly
held to decide the new Muslim leader from among Medina’s leaders, excluding
muhajirun (the Muslim Meccan emigrants) who were not invited. However, this
intent on the part of the Ansar is now being contested by some scholars.8
Upon learning of the meeting, Abu Bakr and Umar (both companions of the
Prophet and muhajirun) took another of their companions, Abu Ubaidah, and
hastened to attend the meeting, and forced their way into the Saqifah.9 On arrival,
Abu Bakr tried to impress upon the Ansar that most Arab tribes will not recognise
a Medinan caliph or the rule of anyone other than the elite Meccan tribe of
Quraysh (to which the Prophet and the muhajirun belonged). In Sahih Bukhari,
Umar is said to have quoted Abu Bakr’s speech thus:
”O company of Ansaar! You are surely the recipient of the attributes
which you have described and you have achieved them. But, Caliphate
and government is only the right of the Quraysh because they are
renowned for their nobility and lineage, manners and conduct
throughout the Arabian Peninsula and enjoy an undisputed position. It
is only for your betterment that I do this….”10
He then took Umar and Abu Ubaidah by the hand and offered them to the
Ansar as potential candidates. In response, an Ansar veteran of the Battle of Badr,
Habab ibn Mundhir, suggested to the meeting that the Quraysh and the Ansar
could choose separate rulers from among themselves. This counter proposal led
to a heated exchange, and the stalemate reportedly continued through the night
and into the next day. Thereafter, eloquent speeches gave way to a shouting match
until Umar raised Abu Bakr’s hand and swore his allegiance to him. His gesture
had such an effect that even the Ansar followed suit, that is, they agreed with Abu
Bakr’s suitability for the high office. The lead among the Ansar is said to have
been taken by Usaid ibn Hudair (a major figure of the Aws tribe) and Bashir bin
Saad, from the Khazraj tribe.11
However, Shia scholars insist that many Ansar refused to pay allegiance to
54 Political Islam: Parallel Currents in West Asia and South Asia

Abu Bakr at the Saqifah and said: “We will not pay allegiance to anybody except
Ali.” They point out that the Ansar would have likely supported Ali because of
their family ties with him, and the claims made by Abu Bakr on the superiority of
the Quraysh over the Ansar (kinship, service to Islam, etc.) were more applicable
to Ali than Abu Bakr.
In any case, in the absence of Abu Bakr, Umar and other companions of the
Prophet who were busy settling political matters at the Saqifah, Ali ibn Talib
conducted the funeral and burial ceremony of the beloved Prophet. When the
news of the appointment of Abu Bakr as khalifah came to those muhajirun who
had not attended the Saqifah, some of them refused to acknowledge his authority.
Those who did not swear immediate allegiance to Abu Bakr included some
big names, such as Al-Abbas bin Abd Al-Muttalib (the uncle of the Prophet), Al-
Zubayr ibn Al-Awwam, Ammar ibn Yasir, Abu Zar Ghaffari, Salman the Persian,
Miqdad ibn Amr Al-Bahrani, Khalid bin Said, Al-Bara’a, Ubayy bin Ka’b and
most importantly, Ali ibn Talib (along with his wife, Fatima). However, about six
months after the Prophet’s death, Fatima passed away. It was only after her death
that her husband, Ali, openly accepted the caliphate of Abu Bakr for the stated
aim of preserving the unity of Islam.
Thus, the appointment of the first caliph was marred by controversy and was
the outcome of political exigency and not part of any religiously sanctified or
politically institutionalised process. Even Umar, who supported the appointment
of Abu Bakr as caliph, considered the Saqifah process to have been a hasty decision
or falta.
It is believed that the Ansar allegiance at the Saqifah could only be secured
after Umar had deployed the dreaded Aslam and Aws tribesmen on the streets of
Medina. Thus, the event of the Saqifah exposes the paucity of any religious or
legal framework employed for appointing the first caliph.

Abu Bakr: Consolidating the Confederacy

It is noteworthy that as soon as the Prophet passed away, the majority of the Arab
tribes started seceding from the new-found state. Even the Prophet’s early
supporters in Medina (Ansar) did not wait for his burial to take place and decided
to elect own leader, keeping out the muhajirun from the process.
The great challenge for the Prophet’s companions at this time was retaining
and consolidating the Islamic confederacy built by the Holy Prophet and
preventing its relapse into the diffused pagan tribalism of the past. In this respect,
 Reign of Abu Bakr: The First Caliph 55

the Muslim community found a dedicated, capable and firm leader in Abu Bakr,
who viewed the office of the khalifah or caliph not as much as a theological
leader, but more as a religious head of state taking political and military actions in
defence of religion.
Some Islamic scholars, particularly those belonging to the Shia sect, question
the legitimacy of Abu Bakr’s appointment as the first caliph (both in terms of his
credentials and the means employed to gain the high office). They even question
the theological validity of some of his political decisions directed to quell internal
revolts and dissensions against the fledgling state. However, few can question the
effectiveness of Abu Bakr in settling the internal confusion and turmoil that
followed the death of the Prophet, and in successfully achieving his aim of
politically establishing Islam in the Arabian Peninsula and beyond in the two
years of his reign as the caliph.

Ridda Wars and the Defeat of Musaylimah, the “False Prophet”

As mentioned earlier, the Prophet’s death in about 632 CE was seen as an
opportunity by many Arabian tribes, who had earlier accepted the religion and
political suzerainty of the newly formed Muslim state, to revert to their pre-
Islamic lifestyle. In contrast, others sought similar fame by declaring themselves
as prophets. These tribes had never been under a centralised rule in their history
and did not wish to be part of a nation where they thought they had little at stake.
They believed that with the Prophet’s death, their pact with Medina ended;
and they no longer had to pay zakat (alms payable by all Muslims with certain
financial standing) to Medina as a form of tribute. In the words of Philip Hitti,
all of Arabia, barring the region of Hejaz (western region of modern Saudi Arabia
that includes cities of Mecca, Medina, Jeddah and Taif ), broke off from the state
founded by the Prophet.
Here, there is a need to differentiate the three groups of tribes that seceded
from the Prophet’s umma after his death:
(a) Tribal leaders who had gone so far as to claim prophethood for themselves.
(b) Tribes that reverted to their old pagan practices after the death of the
Prophet and reneged on their Islamic faith.
(c) Tribes who remained Muslim but refused to pay zakat to Abu Bakr, the
Caliph of the Prophet.
Abu Bakr declared the secession of these tribes as an act of Ridda (apostasy)
and divided his armies into eleven corps, each meant for the subjugation of a
56 Political Islam: Parallel Currents in West Asia and South Asia

particular region. One after the other, rebellious tribes were won over, either by
the use of arms or through diplomacy, within a year. On the battlefront, the
biggest threat was posed by the forces of Musaylimah and his wife, Sajah (both
claimed to be prophets), but they were eventually defeated and killed in the Battle
of Yamamah (in the Nejd region), later in 632 CE, by the great Muslim general,
Khalid bin Walid. The last rebels at Hadhramaut (Southern Arabia) were also
subjugated by March 633 CE.
A more problematic theological controversy ensued when Abu Bakr included
the self-proclaimed Muslim tribes who refused to pay him tribute in the list of
enemies in the Ridda Wars. These Muslim tribes felt that only the Prophet was fit
to take the tribute money and not his successor (Abu Bakr). They even quoted
the Quranic verse in their defence: “Take yourself, [O, Muhammad], from their
wealth a charity by which you purify them and cause them increase, and invoke
[Allah’s blessings] upon them. Indeed, your invocations are reassurance for them.
And Allah is Hearing and Knowing” (Quran: Surah 9, Verse 13).12
Many companions of Abu Bakr, such as Umar, advised him against launching
military campaigns against the Muslim tribes who had stopped paying tribute to
Medina after the death of the Prophet and to not club them with the other
renegades. However, Abu Bakr replied:
I will fight whoever separates Salah (prayers) and Zakah, for Zakah is
the compulsory right to be taken from wealth. By Allah, if they withhold
from me a young goat that they used to give to the Messenger of Allah
[SAW], I will fight them for withholding it.13
An even more considerable theological fallout occurred when a respected
companion of the Prophet, Malik bin Nuwayra (who was the Prophet’s
representative to collect alms from his tribe), refused to swear allegiance to Abu
Bakr. In response, Abu Bakr’s general, Khalid bin Walid, went to Nuwayra’s tribe
and beheaded him, even though Nuwayra did not show the will to fight. Khalid
bin Walid is then said to have enslaved Nuwayra’s wife. People, such as Abu
Qutada Al-Ansari and Umar, condemned this act of Khalid, but Abu Bakr did
not punish him. He, however, admitted that Khalid had committed a mistake;
and Abu Bakr paid the blood money (monetary compensation) for Malik’s death
from the bayt al-mal (public treasury).
Most Sunni scholars, like Al-Tabari and Ibn Athir, do not consider Malik to
be an apostate as Caliph Abu Bakr paid the blood money for his death. In contrast,
some Sunni scholars, like Abdul Wahhab, deem Malik to be a renegade as he
 Reign of Abu Bakr: The First Caliph 57

refused to pay any zakat to Caliph Abu Bakr. The events of the Saqifah and the
Ridda Wars expose the extreme differences among the Prophet’s companions and
even question the general Sunni proclivity of deeming Prophet’s closest companions
nearly infallible. The judgement and actions of Caliph Abu Bakr, Khalid bin
Walid and Malik Nuwayra have been a subject of controversy among Muslim
theologians across the sectarian divide and, to some extent, even among Sunni
religious scholars.

Abu Bakr’s Nomination of Umar as Caliph

The Saqifah event set a precedent for appointing a caliph by arriving at some
form of an agreement within the community, even if it was not unanimous.
However, Umar was not appointed as caliph through any attempt at consensus
building. Instead, Abu Bakr simply nominated Umar as his successor on deathbed.
Thus, a new method was adopted for the appointment of the second caliph. Shia
scholars question why Umar did not allow the Prophet to nominate his successor
on his deathbed, in the controversial pen and paper Hadeeth, as recorded in
Sahih Bukhari, while Caliph Abu Bakr was allowed to do so. This inconsistency
in appointing a caliph led to many unfortunate political controversies in the
history of the Muslim world.
The incidents during the reign of Abu Bakr show that although highly
successful in consolidating the fledgling Islamic confederacy in the Arabian
Peninsula, he could not always settle internal differences or resolve theological
controversies that eventually led to sectarian divisions in the community. The
religion of Islam had nothing to do with these issues, as the controversies stemmed
from the political actions of caliphs who, although pious and religious, were not
regarded infallible in their judgement. Therefore, over-glorification and idealisation
of even the Rashidun Caliphate can be religiously misleading.
However, the great standards in moral uprightness and political and military
leadership achieved by Caliph Abu Bakr cannot be overstated. Leading a religiously
abstemious life, Abu Bakr subjugated the widespread rebellion following the
Prophet’s death by launching simultaneous counteroffensives and recapturing,
and even expanding, the territory of the Muslims. Over the centuries, Shia and
even some Sunni theologians have often questioned the ethical and religious
interpretations provided by the caliph for his actions. However, when it comes to
personal probity and integrity of character, the religiously observant and abstemious
lifestyle and the indefatigable commitment to the cause of politically consolidating
the faith, Abu Bakr stars as literally the first among all caliphs.
58 Political Islam: Parallel Currents in West Asia and South Asia

In his book ‘The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire’,
Edward Gibbon (1737-1794 CE) writes about the ideals of probity of character
observed by Caliph Abu Bakr:
He (Abu Bakr) thought himself entitled to a stipend of three pieces of
gold, with the sufficient maintenance of a single camel and a black
slave; but on Friday of each week, he distributed the residue of his own
and the public money, first to the most worthy, and then to the most
indigent of the Muslims. The remains of his wealth, a coarse garment,
and five pieces of gold, were delivered to his successor, who lamented
with a modest sigh his own inability to equal such an admirable model.14
NOTES
1 Sahih Al-Bukhari, 9 Volumes, translated in English by M. Muhsin Khan and compiled by
Imam Al-Bukhari, Riyadh: Darussalam, 1998, Hadeeth 3667, 3668.
2 Philip K. Hitti, History of the Arabs: From the Earliest Times to the Present, 10th edition, New
York: The Macmillan Company, 2002.
3 Ziauddin Ahmad, “Concept of Islamic State in Modern World”, Pakistan Horizon, Vol. 38,
No. 4, 1985, pp. 68–83, available at http://www.jstor.org/stable/41394217, accessed on 31
May 2022.
4 John L. Esposito, What Everyone Needs to Know about Islam, New York: Oxford University
Press, 2002.
5 Ibid., John L. Esposito, What Everyone Needs to Know about Islam, p. 154.
6 Al-Rasheed et al., Demystifying the Caliphate.
7 Wadad Kadi and Aram A. Shahin, “Caliph, Caliphate”, in The Princeton Encyclopedia of Islamic
Political Thought, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2013, pp. 81–86.
8 Wilferd Madelung, The Succession to Muhammad, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1997, p. 31.
9 Lesley Hazleton, After the Prophet: The Epic Story of the Shia–Sunni Split in Islam, Knopf
Doubleday Publishing Group, London, 2009, p. 60.
10 ‘Saqifah in the words of Shih Bukhari and Umar ibn Khattab—A Brief Outlook’, seeratonline,
Available at https://www.seratonline.com/1604/saqifah-in-the-words-of-saheeh-bukhari-and-
umar-ibn-khattaab-a-brief-outlook/. Last accessed on 07 September 2023.
11 S.H.M. Jafri, The Origins and Early Development of Shia Islam, London: Longman, 1979,
p. 36.
12 Memphis Islamic Center, “Lives of Sahaba 6—Abu Bakr As-Siddiq 6—Those Who Refused
Paying Zakah, available at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rjjw-fb_zAg, last accessed online
on 7 September 2023.
13 Sunan an-Nasa’I, Hadeeth 3978, Vol. 5, Book 37, English Edition, Sahih Darussalam, Riyadh.
14 Edward Gibbon, Chapter 51, ‘The Conquest of Persia, Syria, Egypt, Africa, and Spain, by the
Arabs or Saracens – Empire of the Caliphs, or Successors of Mahomet – State of the Christians,
&c. Under Their Government – Decline of Christianity in ‘The History of the Decline and
Fall of the Roman Empire’, Vols. 1-6, Everyman’s Library; Reprint edition (21 December
2010), https://www.ccel.org/g/gibbon/decline/volume2/chap51.htm, last accessed on 7
September 2023.
 4
Caliph Umar Ibn Khattab:
Blueprint for Islamic Administration

“I cannot present before you the examples of Sri Ram Chandra and Sri
Krishna as they are not personalities recognized by modern historians. I
cannot help but present to you names of Abu Bakar and Umar. They
were leaders of a vast empire, yet they lived a life of austerity”, Gandhi
wrote.
—Mahatma Gandhi1

The Saqifah event tried to reach a consensus within the community, although the
agreement forged in favour of Abu Bakr becoming the first caliph did not include
all the muhajirun. Umar’s appointment, as the second caliph, broke the precedent
set by the Safiqah event. He was not elected through consultation but nominated
by the first caliph.
In 634 CE, Caliph Abu Bakr nominated Umar as his successor on his
deathbed, though Umar was not a popular figure among the notables of Medina,
nor among the members of majlis al-shura (consultative committee), due to his
somewhat strict and domineering disposition. Abu Bakr explained his nomination
of Umar to the consultative committee as follows:
His (Umar’s) strictness was there because of my softness when the weight
of Caliphate will be over his shoulders he will remain no longer strict. If
I will be asked by God to whom I have appointed my successor, I will
tell him that I have appointed the best man among your men.2
60 Political Islam: Parallel Currents in West Asia and South Asia

Thus, the precedent of reaching a partial consensus, through consultation,

among religious elites ceased in the case of Umar’s appointment. These
inconsistencies in appointing a caliph caused a great deal of confusion on the
issue of succession and transfer of power in Muslim polity for all times to come.
As the Islamic scriptures are silent on this matter and other political issues, the
Islamist claim that religion provides a complete political theory and system appears
baseless. Even the Rashidun Caliphs, venerated as honest companions of the
Prophet, could not develop any sanctified method for transfer of power in their
times for such a significant institution as the Caliphate. So, the Islamist claim
that the Rashidun Caliphate provides a sanctified religious model for Islamic
governance appears unsupported.

The New Caliphal Title: ‘Ameerul Mumineen’

Caliph Umar had reservations about calling himself khalifah. Even some of the
sahaba asked the question as to whose khalifah or successor Umar was. Many of
Umar’s companions pointed out that he was not the khalifah of the Prophet
because that was Abu Bakr. Thus, Umar is said to have first assumed the title,
Khalifat Abi Bakr (“successor to Abû Bakr”), because the title, Khalifat Khalifat
Rasul Allah (“the successor to the successor of the messenger of God”), seemed
long, confusing and cumbersome. Caliph Umar then designated himself Ameer
Al-Mumineen or “commander of the faithful”, which became an additional
customary title for succeeding caliphs and later, for independent Muslim rulers.
However, the argument that Umar was a successor or representative of Abu
Bakr and not the Prophet does not seem plausible, as any leader of the Muslim
nation should forever be a representative of the Prophet and not of the leader
immediately preceding him. It has been narrated that Umar wanted a different
title from that of “Khalifah” and asked people around him to ponder over the
matter and come up with a different and better title. The very idea of the title of
caliph being questioned by, arguably, the most effective and successful of the
Rashiun Caliphs—Umar ibn Khattab—hollows the Islamist claim for reinstating
that very institution. There is a compelling narration on how a new title, “Ameer-
ul Mumineen”, replaced the title of Khalifah.
One day Labid bin Rabia and Adi bin Hatim came to Madina from
Kufa. They alighted at the Prophet’s mosque and there coming across
Amr b. Al-As asked him to announce their arrival to the Ameer-ul-
Mumineen. Amr b. Al-As was struck by the novelty of the term “Amir-
ul-Muminin”. He asked Labid and Adi as to how they referred to Umar
 Caliph Umar Ibn Khattab: Blueprint for Islamic Administration 61

as “Amir-ul-Muminin”. They said, “We all Muslims are Momins and

Umar is our Commander. He is thus Amir-ul-Muminin”.
Amr b. Al-As said, “Wonderful You have hit upon a beautiful term.
God bless You”. Amr b. Al-As hastened to Umar’s end there said “Amir-
ul-Muminin, two persons have come from Kufa, and they seek
permission to see you”. Umar became curious at being addressed
“Amirul-Muminin”. He asked Amr b. al-As as to how he had coined
the term “Amir-ul-Muminin”. Amr b. al-As said that the visitors from
Kufa had used that term, and as he was attracted by the term he had
used it. Umar said, “We were in search of some suitable term to signify
the office I hold, and here is a term which is attractive”. He asked Amr
b. al-As as to what he thought of the title. Amr b. al-As said, “I am
attracted by the term. It is God-sent. We all are Muslims and you are
our Amir. The term is very attractive and significant.”
After Umar had seen the visitors from Kufa, he convened a meeting of
his consultative assembly, and there, the question was discussed whether
he should adopt the title of “Amir-ul-Muminin” for the office that he
held. The Assembly approved the title. Henceforward Umar came to
be addressed in his official capacity as Amir-ul-Muminin. 3
The rationale for devising the new title of “Ameer-ul Mumineen” appears to
be an attempt by the new caliph to move out of the shadow of the Prophet’s
precedent and the pressure that related expectations would be weighing on the
new head of the state.
As an alternate title, “Ameer-ul Mumineen” appeared less inhibiting and more
empowering, providing greater freedom for the new leader to take more
independent decisions in the interest of the community, without being
unnecessarily weighed down by people’s conceptions of the Prophet’s precedent
that his representative or successor (bearing the title ‘khalifah’) ought to follow.
Indeed, Umar was able to take many significant administrative measures and
make changes in the established norms in the wake of new challenges faced by an
expanding Muslim empire, for which the title of “Ameer-ul Mumineen” worked
much better than the more constricting one, “khalifah of the Prophet or Abu
Bakr”. Therefore, the glorification of the institution of caliphate by modern-day
Islamists as a religiously incumbent political institution seems far-fetched.

Conquests of Persia, the Levant and Jerusalem

It is essentially the remarkable administration of Umar, along with his military
62 Political Islam: Parallel Currents in West Asia and South Asia

successes and the general period of peace and stability under his 10-year-long
reign (634–44 CE), that became the basic framework of administration of the so-
called caliphate, which most Islamists either implicitly or openly refer to while
extolling the period of the Rashidun Caliphate.
One of the many reasons for the great acclaim for Umar’s term as caliph is
that, under his reign, the Islamic state transformed “from an Arabian principality
to a world power”4. Under his leadership, the Byzantines lost more than three-
fourths of their territory, while the Sassanid Empire in Persia ceased to exist. In
this respect, the Battle of Al-Qadisiyyah, fought in 636 CE, proved to be a decisive
battle between the Arab Muslim army of Caliph Umar and the army of the
Sassanian Empire of Persia.
By appointing brilliant generals and field commanders, Umar was able to
incorporate into the caliphate regions of present-day Iraq, Iran, Azerbaijan,
Armenia, Georgia, Syria, Jordan, Palestine, Lebanon, Egypt, as well as parts of
Turkmenistan, Afghanistan and southwestern Pakistan.
Among the most illustrious victories of Caliph Umar was the capture of
Jerusalem. When the Muslim forces were at the doors of the holy city, the Patriarch
of Jerusalem, Sophronius (c. 560–638 CE), found no Byzantine force coming for
relief. Consequently, he offered to surrender peacefully but only if Caliph Umar
came in person. On receiving the Christian leader’s plea, Caliph Umar left for
Jerusalem without any entourage, and thus went to the city in a completely
unceremonious manner.
In Jerusalem, the caliph was given a guided tour of the city by Patriarch
Sophronius and was asked to offer prayers at the Church of the Holy Sepulchre.
However, Umar, wanting to preserve the holy place of Christian worship, refused
to pray there. He also asked Jews (whom Christians had forbidden from entering
Jerusalem for 500-odd years) to return to the city, as they held the city holy as
well.
Umar offered lenient terms to the newly conquered people, including religious
freedom, although they were to pay a tax called jizya, which made them protected
citizens and exempted them from military service. In addition, the caliph forbade
the purchase of land in newly acquired territories. The troops too were housed
separately from local populations in garrison cities.5 His purpose was to keep the
troops and settled people apart to discipline the troops, and to check their desire
to acquire lands and booty.
 Caliph Umar Ibn Khattab: Blueprint for Islamic Administration 63

Administrative Framework and Accountability

The military successes of Umar’s reign are often the focus of most histories written
about him, but his administrative reforms and measures outdo the magnificent
achievements on the battlefield.
As an administrator, Umar was a hard taskmaster:
For centuries, nomads and foreign armies had overrun the settled parts
of the Middle East, only to fall under the influence of their own captives.
Umar did not want his Muslims to become corrupted in this way. It
was no mere quirk of character that made him stride through the bazaars
and streets of Medina, whip in hand, ready to scourge any Muslim who
missed the prayers or violated the Ramadan fast.6
Among Umar’s fundamental achievements was the establishment of diwan (a
record of soldiers’ pensions that later turned into a powerful governmental body).
Besides, he invented the Islamic Hijri calendar, which is based on the ancient
Arabian lunar calendar and holds the year of Prophet Muhammad’s migration
from Mecca to Medina in 622 CE (the time from which Muslim fortune’s
improved) as year zero, that is, 0 AH. Caliph Umar also founded the garrison
cities of Fustat in Egypt and Basra and Kufa in Iraq.7
As caliph, Umar formally instituted a majlis al-shura (consultative assembly),
consisting of prominent companions of the Prophet. In addition, he constituted
a large body called majlis-e-aam (general assembly), consisting of ‘muhajirun’,
Ansar and representatives of various tribes.
In the words of Moin Qazi, “He (Caliph Umar) divided the far-flung empire
into the provinces of Makkah, Madinah, Syria, Jazira (the fertile region between
the rivers Tigris and Euphrates in Iraq), Basra, Khorasan, Azerbaijan, Persia and
Egypt.”8
The provinces were governed by provincial governors, who were selected
carefully by Umar himself. In fact, he was reputed for following a strict standard
for the appointment of governors and took particular care to appoint men of
known integrity to high offices under the state. The governor was not just an
administrative head of a province but also its religious head.9
Before assuming responsibility, a governor was required to declare his assets,
and a complete inventory of his possessions was prepared and kept in record. If
an unusual increase of wealth was ever reported in the assets of a governor, he was
held accountable. Furthermore, the unlawful property was confiscated by the
state. At the time of appointment, a governor was required to make the following
64 Political Islam: Parallel Currents in West Asia and South Asia

pledges: (i) he would not ride a Turkish horse; (ii) he would not wear fine clothes;
(iii) he would not eat sifted flour; (iv) he would not keep a porter at his door; and
(v) he would always keep his door open to the public.10
These provinces were further divided into approximately 100 districts. Each
district or main city was under the charge of a junior governor or ‘Ameer’, usually
appointed by Umar himself, but occasionally also appointed by the provincial
governor.11
Umar’s administrative framework had different departments, including: the
military department; the police department; the financial department (bayt al-
mal); the tax department; and the education department.
Some of his noteworthy administrative measures were:
• Office of investigation/accountability against top officials and governors: The
puritanical caliph established a unique office for investigating complaints
against top officials and governors. The department was under
Muhammad bin Maslamah Ansari, a man of undisputed integrity.12
In crucial cases, Muhammad bin Maslamah was deputed by the caliph
to proceed to the site of the case, investigate the charge and take action.
Sometimes, an inquiry commission was constituted to investigate the
charges. On occasions, the officers against whom complaints were received
were summoned to Medina and had to give an explanation to the caliph
himself.13
• Instituting judicial system separate from executive: Umar was known to be
a champion of justice. For his sound discrimination and perfect sense of
justice, he was called ‘Al-Farooq’. He established a judicial system separate
from the executive. Qazis or judges were appointed in large numbers at
all administrative levels for the administration of justice. They were chosen
for their learning in Islamic law and probity of character.14
In his ordinances issued to judicial officers, Caliph Umar laid down several
principles for maintaining the impartiality and high standards by the judiciary.15
In a celebrated injunction, Caliph Umar notably stated:
Verily justice is an important obligation to God and man. You have
been charged with this responsibility. Discharge the responsibility so
that you may win the approbation of God and the goodwill of the
people. Treat the people equally in your presence, in your company,
and in your decisions, so that the weak despair not of justice and the
high-placed have no hope of your favour....16
 Caliph Umar Ibn Khattab: Blueprint for Islamic Administration 65

The World’s First “Welfare State”?

Caliph Umar’s state is considered by some Islamists as one of the world’s first
welfare state.17 His innovative welfare reforms encompassed the introduction of
social security. He was known for upholding justice for non-Muslim citizens as
well. He espoused the principle that there was no coercion in religion. In his
bequest to his successor, he called for equal rights and fair justice for all of them:
My bequest to my successor is that covenants with ahl-ud-dhimma (i.e.,
non-Muslim citizens) should be observed faithfully. They should be
defended against all invasions. No injustice should be done to them.
They should be treated as full-fledged citizens and should enjoy equality
before law. Their taxes should be fair, and no burden should be imposed
on them which they cannot bear.18
Similarly, Caliph Umar initiated reforms wherein any disabled citizen, or one
who had lost ability to work was provided minimum basic means of sustenance
by the state. Even the unemployed/indigents received stipends from the public
treasury. He also instituted pension scheme for the soldiers and their families
post retirement. In the words of the feted orientalist Laura Veccia Valegeri, “Another
merit of Umar, was that he realized the need of a stable fiscal system, which could
meet the present and future requirements of the state. To satisfy the soldiers and
keep their morale high, he thought of the expedient of reserving to the state the
duty of compensating them, and founding a ‘diwan’, i.e. a register of pensioners.”19
Among the pensioners, were also other civilian elderly people.
Caliph Umar also introduced the concept of pubic trusteeship and public
ownership by implementing the charitable ‘waqf ’ system, which exists in many
Muslim countries to this day. This entailed the transfer of “wealth from the
individual or the few to a social collective ownership”, to provide “services to the
community at large”. For example, Caliph Umar got land from the Banu Harithah
and converted it into a charitable trust, wherein the “profit and produce from the
land went towards benefiting the poor, slaves, and travelers”.20
During the great famine during his term as Caliph (638 CE), Umar
introduced food rationing using coupons for the needy, who could exchange
coupons for wheat and flour. Another innovative concept was the introduction
of a poverty threshold, with efforts made to ensure a minimum standard of living,
so that no citizen across the empire would suffer from hunger.
The state also dug up several canals to bolster agriculture, particularly in the
more fertile lands conquered, such as in the Levant and Egypt. A number of
66 Political Islam: Parallel Currents in West Asia and South Asia

canals were constructed in Khuzistan and Ahwaz during this period. A major
canal known as Nahr-Ul-Amirul Momineen, which connected the Nile with the
Red Sea, was constructed for quick transport of grain from Egypt to the Arabian
Peninsula.21

Systemisation of the Public Treasury: Fixed Salaries of Officials

Umar is known to have established and systematised the central treasury or bayt
al-mal.22 Following major conquests, revenues of the state increased, along with
the expenditures. After consulting the companions, Caliph Umar instituted the
central treasury at Medina. Abdullah bin Arqam was appointed as the treasury
officer. He was assisted by Abdul Rahman ibn Awf and Muiqib. A separate accounts
department was also set up, which was required to maintain a record of all expenses.
Later, provincial treasuries were set up in the provinces. After meeting the local
expenditure, the provincial treasuries were required to remit the surplus amount
to the central treasury at Medina. The salaries and stipends charged to the central
treasury amounted to over 30 million dirhams.
A separate building was constructed for the royal treasury which, in large
cities, was guarded by as many as 400 guards. When Persia was conquered, three
types of coins were current in the conquered territories. 23
Among other notable measures of Caliph Umar was the establishment of
military offices (with regular salaries and pensions for soldiers), police forces and
prisons. Before Umar’s leadership, civil servants did not receive specified and
regular salaries. However, with the expansion of the state, he determined the
number of civil servants and their salaries, as per their rank.24
He started record-keeping of the population and, according to some scholars,
he even started census. He is also said to have created a land revenue department,
and was the first ruler under whom survey and assessment of cultivated land were
undertaken. The government-built housing for thousands of people, along with
rest houses, and provided aid for the poor, both Muslims and non-Muslims.

Image of Efficient and Hard Taskmaster

Caliph Umar’s personality has been a subject of controversy among Muslims.
While the mainstream Sunnis view him as a man of uncompromising standards
of morality and justice, the Shia community regards him as a bigoted and cruel
person. Moreover, Sunnis see Umar’s claim as caliph as legitimate, but the vast
majority of the Shias consider him a usurper (alongside Abu Bakr and Uthman).
 Caliph Umar Ibn Khattab: Blueprint for Islamic Administration 67

They dismiss many of the Sunni Hadeeth literature that extol his religious status,
such as: “were a prophet to come after me, it would be Umar”;25 and “Messenger
of Allah said: ‘Indeed Allah has put the truth upon the tongue and in the heart of
Umar.’”26
Notwithstanding his propensity to be harsh and unflinching in his judgement
and decisions at the time, there can be little doubt that both as a military leader
and as the architect of administration based on Shariah, Caliph Umar stands tall
among Muslim leaders.
It is his great achievements as a highly disciplined ascetic and competent
leader on which much of the nostalgia of the Pious Caliphate resonates in the
minds and hearts of Muslims. Sunni Islamists try to present him as if he is second
to the Holy Prophet in his inspired leadership, evident from the above-mentioned
Hadeeth literature.
However, in its strictest interpretation, Sunni theology does not deem the
rule of Rashidun Caliphs (including Umar’s rule) as the exact exemplar of Shariah
rule in its entirety, as these leaders were humans and not divinely inspired, nor
infallible, in their actions.
Caliph Umar was attacked by a Persian slave of Mughira, named Fairus (Abu
Lu’Lu’) while leading a public prayer at Masjid Un Nabawi. The attacker had
personal grudge against the Khalifa. Umar succumbed to the wounds and breathed
his last in the year 644 C.E.
Umar’s caliphate is seen as the embodiment of the perfect ideals of the
institutions by Sunni Muslim scholars because of its application of Quranic
principle of ‘shura’ (consultation) through the formation of consultative assembly
and for making religious merit as the basis for leadership in the community.
Modern Islamists seen in Umar’s caliphate a democratic spirit of accountability
and consultation and a true model for an Islamic form of government.27
In his book “History of the Arabs” Professor Philip K. Hitti sums up the high
stature and status Caliph Umar enjoys in the minds of Sunni religious scholarship
to this day.
Umar, whose name according to Muslim tradition is the greatest in
early Islam after that of Mohammad, has been idolized by Muslim writers
for his piety, justice and patriarchal simplicity and treated as the
personification of all the virtues a Caliph ought to possess. His
irreproachable character became an exemplar for all conscientious
successors to follow. He owned, we are told, one shirt and one mantle
68 Political Islam: Parallel Currents in West Asia and South Asia

only, both conspicuous for their patchwork, slept on a bed of palm

leaves, and had no concern other than the maintenance of the purity of
the faith, the upholding of justice and the ascendancy and security of
Islam and the Arabians. Arabic’ literature is replete with anecdotes
extolling Umar’s stern character. He is said to have scourged his own
son to death for’ drunkenness. 28

NOTES
1 Mohandas K. Gandhi, Harijan, 17/7/1937, Vol 4: 1936-1937 , Navjivan Trust, p. 407.
2 Umar Farooq-i-Azam, Mohammad Hussain Haikal, Mushtaq Book Corner (2017), Chapter
4, pp. 112–13.
3 Moin Qazi, ‘Vignettes from the Life of Caliph Umar’, Umar Al Farooq, Notion Press, 2015,
pp. 87-88.
4 Asma Afsaruddin, ‘Umar I: Muslim Caliph’, History and Society, Encyclopeadia Britannica,
Britannica webpage, https://www.britannica.com/biography/Umar-I, last accessed on
7 September 2023.
5 Syed Muhammad Khan, “Umar”, World History Encyclopedia, 23 January 2020, available at
https://www.worldhistory.org/Umar/, last accessed on 7 September 2023.
6 Arthur Goldschmidt Jr and Lawrence Davidson, ‘The Early Arab Conquest’, A Concise History
of the Middle East, American University in Cairo Press, Cairo, 2009, p. 58.
7 Asma Afsaruddin, ‘Umar I: Muslim Caliph’, History and Society, Encyclopeadia Britannica,
Britannica webpage, https://www.britannica.com/biography/Umar-I, last accessed on 7
September 2023.
8 Moin Qazi, ‘Vignettes from the Life of Caliph Umar’, Umar Al Farooq, Notion Press, 2015,
p. 55.
9 Moin Qazi, ‘Umar Al Farooq: The Great Caliph-Part IV’, A Pioneering Reformer,’ New Age
Islam, 6 January 2023, https://www.newageislam.com/books-documents/umar-farooq-caliph-
reformer/d/128813, last accessed on 7 September 2023.
10 Ibid.
11 S. Akbarabadi, Islamic History: The Rise and Fall of Muslims, Adam Publisher, 1 January 2009.
12 Dildar Ahmad, ‘Caliph Umar’s Pivotal Role’, Dawn newspaper, 11 February 2005, https://
www.dawn.com/news/1067030, last accessed online on 7 September 2023.
13 Ibid.
14 Ataur Rahman, Mazlan Ibrahim and Ibrahim Abu Bakar, ‘The Concept of Independence of
Judiciary in Islam’, International Journal of Business and Social Science Vol. 4 No. 2; February
2013, https://ijbssnet.com/journals/Vol_4_No_2_February_2013/8.pdf, last accessed on 8
September 2023.
15 Muhammad Yusuf Guraya, “Judicial Principles as Enunciated by Caliph ’Umar I.” Islamic
Studies Vol. 11, No. 3 (1972), pp. 159–85. http://www.jstor.org/stable/20833069.
16 ‘Umar’s Farman’, Judicial Administration, Ajmer Dargah Sharif Foundation website, https://
ajmerdargahsharif.org/judicial-administration/, last accessed on 8 September 2023.
17 See Patricia Crone, Medieval Islamic Political Thought, Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh,
2005, pp. 308–09; and Shadi Hamid, “An Islamic Alternative? Equality, Redistributive Justice,
and the Welfare State in the Caliphate of Umar”, Renaissance: Monthly Islamic Journal, Vol. 13,
No. 8, August 2003.
 Caliph Umar Ibn Khattab: Blueprint for Islamic Administration 69

18 Moin Qazi, ‘Vignettes from the Life of Caliph Umar’, Umar Al Farooq, Notion Press, 2015,
p. 108.
19 Laura Veccia Valegeri, “The Patriarchal and Umayyad Caliphates,” Chapter 3 in Peter Malcolm
Holt, Ann K. S. Lambton and Bernard Lewis (ed.), The Cambridge History of Islam, Vol I A,
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1970, p. 65.
20 Hamid, “An Islamic Alternative? Equality, Redistributive Justice, and the Welfare State in the
Caliphate of Umar”.
21 Mehmet Hasan Bulut, ‘Amir al-Mu’minin, Suez: 2 Canals Planned during Caliph Umar’s
Time’, 7 October 2021, https://www.dailysabah.com/arts/amir-al-muminin-suez-2-canals-
planned-during-caliph-umars-time/news, last accessed on 7 September 2023.
22 Jamaludin Kasundi, ‘Economic Policy of Caliph Umar ibn Khattab’, Munich Personal RePEc,
7 July 2018 Archive https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/87819/1/MPRA_paper_87819.pdf,
last accessed on 7 September 2023.
23 Akhtar, Sohail & Safdar, Noreen & Ali, Fatima. (2022). Economic System During the First
Formal Islamic State of Madina (622-645 AD): An Historical Insights. Annals of Social Sciences
and Perspective, Multan, 3. 181-190. 10.52700/assap.v3i1.175.
24 Jamaludin Kasundi, ‘Economic Policy of Caliph Umar ibn Khattab’, Munich Personal RePEc,
7 July 2018 Archivehttps://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/87819/1/MPRA_paper_87819.pdf,
last accessed on 7 September 2023.
25 Chapters on Virtues, Jami Al-Tirmidhi (transl.), Vol. 1, Book 46, Hadeeth 3686, Sunna.com,
https://sunnah.com/tirmidhi:3686, last accessed on 7 September 2023.
26 Ibid., Hadeeth 3682.
27 H. Lazarus-Yafeh, “Umar b. al-Khattab - Paul of Islam?” in Some Religious Aspects of Islam
(Leiden, 1981), 1-16.
28 Philip K. Hitti, Chapter XV ‘Administration of the New Possessions’, History of the Arabs:
From the Earliest Times to the Present, Macmillan, London, 1970, pp. 175-176.
 5
Uthman ibn Affan:
The Assassination of a Caliph

By God, if you kill me you will never again have love for one another,
nor will you ever pray together again, nor will you be ever united in
fighting an enemy.
—Caliph Uthman warning his assassins as they
were about to strike1

These were the prescient words of Uthman ibn Affan (reigned from 6 November
644 to 17 June 656 CE), chronologically the third of the Rashidun Caliphs,
whose assassination set in motion a series of unfortunate events leading to several
internecine wars as well as major sectarian divisions in the Muslim community,
whose effects continue to unfold to the present day.
Born into the prominent Meccan clan of Banu Umayya, whose members
fought significant battles against the Prophet, Uthman (name also pronounced as
Usman or Osman in the Indian subcontinent) faced hostility from his clan on
account of his conversion to Islam at a young age. Still, he became one of the
richest men among the Quraysh as his father left him a good inheritance and a he
proved to be a prosperous cloth merchant.
Uthman was married to the Prophet’s daughter, Ruqayya; and upon her death,
married to her sister, Umm Kulthum, which earned him the honorific title, Dhû
al-Nurayn (“The Possessor of Two Lights”). Benefiting from his business contacts
 Uthman ibn Affan: The Assassination of a Caliph 71

in Abyssinia (roughly corresponding to present-day Ethiopia and Eritrea), Uthman

was able to migrate to the African kingdom with his then wife, Ruqayya, and
other Meccan Muslims to evade persecution in Mecca. After a six to seven year
sojourn in Abyssinia, he migrated to Medina in 622 CE, when the Prophet had
established his state. When Caliph Umar died in office aged 59/60 years, Uthman
(then aged 64/65 years) succeeded him as the third Rashidun Caliph.
Uthman was celebrated for his charitable acts and for having ordered the
compilation of the standard version of the Quran as caliph. His assassination,
however, marks the beginning of open political conflicts within the Muslim
community, which later led to the emergence of various theological sects, such as
the Sunni, the Shia and the Khariji.2

Controversial Election
In November 644 CE, Caliph Umar ibn Khattab was stabbed by a Persian
craftsman, Abu Lulua Firuz, with a double-bladed dagger while he prayed in the
Medina mosque. It is said that the slave committed the deed after the caliph had
turned down Lulua’s request for lifting a tax imposed on him by his Arab master,
Al-Mughira ibn Shuba. On his deathbed, Umar tasked a committee (shura) of six
with choosing the next caliph among themselves.3 Having built various
administrative institutions, it appeared Umar wanted to systematise the process
of caliph’s nomination by constituting a committee.
On the face of it, Ali seemed the clear favourite because the “famed
philosopher-warrior” was then in his mid-forties,4 while Uthman, Ali’s closest
contender for the post, was nearing the age of 70 and had never fought a battle or
displayed any qualities of public leadership.5
However, according to Shia Muslims, the election should not have happened,
and Caliph Umar should not have appointed the consultative committee because
the Prophet had clearly instructed that Ali should succeed him and thus, every
successive choice of a different caliph was in defiance of the Prophet’s wishes.
The six men of the committee—all from the Quraysh tribe of Mecca and
early companions of the Prophet—were: Ali ibn Talib; Abd Al-Rahman ibn Awf;
Saad ibn Abi Waqaas; Uthman ibn Affan; Zubayr ibn Al-Awwam; and Talha bin
Ubaydullah. Caliph Umar stipulated several rules for the committee, which was
to meet in a closed caucus. According to these rules, the new caliph must be one
of the committee, elected by the majority of its members.6 Abd Al-Rahman was
to elect the next caliph in case of a tie. However, he took himself out of the
competition in return for being recognised as the arbitrator.7
72 Political Islam: Parallel Currents in West Asia and South Asia

As it turned out, only Uthman and Ali were willing to accept the responsibility
of being a caliph. They also said that they would swear allegiance to the other if
not chosen by the committee. It was thus left to the three remaining members to
make a choice. Whereas Talha and Zubayr supported Uthman, Saad was initially
supportive of Ali. Abd Al-Rahman was left with having the deciding vote. He
announced his selection in a public gathering at the Medina mosque, where he
gave his allegiance (bayah) to Uthman. Ali had to accept the outcome and
immediately gave his allegiance.8
Thus, the appointment of the first three Rashidun Caliphs happened in three
distinct ways: one by partial consensus; the other by the nomination of the previous
caliph; and the third through the setting up of a shura, whose decision by several
accounts surprised the larger community, to say the least.

Standardisation of the Quran

Perhaps, the most incredible legacy of the third caliph, Uthman ibn Affan, is how
the Quran is being read today. According to certain traditions, the process of
collecting the surahs (chapters) of the Quran had started under Caliph Umar.
There is another version that states that a manuscript (mushaf) existed during
Abu Bakr’s caliphate and that the Prophet himself had determined the order of all
the surahs (collecting verses into specific chapters). 9
However, Caliph Uthman began noticing minor differences in pronunciation
of the holy book as Islam started spreading beyond the Arabian Peninsula into
the Levant, modern-day Iran and North Africa. He realised that the use of different
dialects of Arabic across various parts of the Muslim world might lead to
misinterpretation of the Quranic text.
Therefore, he ordered the text to be standardised. The task was assigned to
Zayd ibn Thabit, one of Prophet’s scribes and the man chosen by Abu Bakr for
his aforementioned first volume. On completing the standardised volume, all
other unauthorised copies were destroyed. Some of his enemies put the charge of
blasphemy against him for destroying the additional copies, but he mainly was
absolved of these charges after his death.
Under Umar, the military commanders had acted strictly as per the instructions
of the caliph. However, Uthman allowed them to operate independently, and
they began to expand the empire on their own. Benefiting from native Syrians,
the Muslim generals started developing naval warfare, and the Byzantine Empire
was beaten in Alexandria and Cyprus fell in 649 CE. However, these military
feats started draining the state exchequer.
 Uthman ibn Affan: The Assassination of a Caliph 73

Return of Umayyad and Charge of Nepotism

It is noteworthy that neither Prophet Muhammad (who came from the clan of
Banu Hashim of the Quraysh tribe of Mecca) nor the two early caliphs—namely,
Abu Bakr (who came from Mecca’s Banu Taym tribe) and Umar (who came from
Banu Adi tribe)—appointed high officials from their families. However, Uthman
sought to establish a cohesive central authority over an expanding empire to replace
the loose tribal alliance that his predecessors had sought.10
He introduced a system of landed fiefs and assigned some of the provincial
governorships to his family members. In this new system, much of the treasure
received by the central government went to Uthman’s family and other provincial
governors rather than to the army. Unlike Umar, who had been decisive in imposing
his authority on top officials and governors, irrespective of their tribal or family
affiliations, Uthman relaxed the rules and allowed himself and his governors to
accept gifts. Although he did not draw money from the state treasury, he and the
Quraysh of Mecca ended up owning massive estates in conquered lands. This
became a cause for discontentment among the natives of newly conquered
territories and the people of Medina (Ansar).
Uthman, though an early convert to Islam, came from the family of Umayyad
of the Quraysh tribe, whose members dominated the affairs of Mecca at the time
of the Prophet’s early preaching. Indeed, the clan had been bitter enemy of Islam
until the Prophet’s conquest of Mecca. Through the rise of Uthman to the seat of
caliphate, it was alleged that the Umayyad clan had seized the opportunity to
recapture their pre-Islamic pre-eminence in political affairs. As a result, the
resentment among non-Umayyad Meccans, the people of Medina and the subjects
of newly conquered lands was growing. Most of the criticism was directed against
four Umayyad officials, namely, Waleed bin Uqaba (the Governor of Kufa),
Abdullah bin Saad bin Sarh (Governor of Egypt), Marwan bin Hakam (State
Secretary) and Ameer Muawiya (Governor of Syria).

Rebellion and Assassination

As general discontent against Uthman’s policies began to rise, some noted
companions of the Prophet, like Talha Al-Taymi and Zubayr Al-Awwam, openly
called upon Uthman to step down from his position. There was also outrage over
his ill-treatment of other companions of the Prophet, such Abu Dharr Ak-Ghifari,
Abd Allah ibn Masud and Ammar ibn Yasir.
By 650 CE, rebellions broke out in Egypt, Kufa and Basra. In 655 CE, a
74 Political Islam: Parallel Currents in West Asia and South Asia

group of Egyptian malcontents marched to Medina, which was then the seat of
the caliphal authority. However, Caliph Uthman took a conciliatory approach
and managed to send the rebels back to Egypt. Shortly after that, another group
of rebels besieged Uthman at his home and, after several days of wrangling, he
was killed in 656 CE. His wife, with some of Uthman’s friends, buried him in the
night without the ritual of bathing the body, while listening to the abuses of the
people, some of whom pelted stones at them. He was buried in a Jewish cemetery,
as the Muslim graveyard was barred for him.
Although Shia regard Uthman as an unworthy caliph to say the least, even
some Sunni scholars concede that the caliph’s leniency and ineptitude were
responsible for his downfall and the degradation it brought to the institution of
the caliphate. Indeed, the inordinate glorification of the Rashidun Caliphate
completely glosses over this major political debacle and its consequences that
paved the way for more political uncertainties in Muslim history.
Unlike the theology of Islam, which is quite meticulous in its conceptions
and forms of worship, the new political empire that came in the wake of a united
Arabia under the banner of Islam, found the erstwhile tribal egalitarian order
quite incapable of providing the institutional strength or legal framework for
resolving new political challenges and disputes. In the absence of any divinely
ordained law or written constitution, a new political system detailing the structures
and functions of governance, methods of appointment or removal of a caliph or
means for resolving internal disputes and schisms in a rapidly expanding Islamdom
led to growing instances of rebellion against leadership and civil discord. Thus,
Caliph Uthman ibn Affan faced the first open rebellion that unleashed an
unfortunate chain of events that led to deep-seated schisms, first, in a fledgling
Muslim polity and ultimately, in Islamic theology that split into Sunni and Shia
sects.
Egyptian historian, Dr. Taha Husayn admirably sums up the issue in his
book, al-Fitna-tul-Kubra (The Great Tribulation): “One thing about which there
can be no doubt is that Muslims were divided in the matter of Uthman, and their
divisions ended in his death, and they have never been reunited since.”11

NOTES
1 Abu Ja‘far Muhammad ibn Jarir al-Tabari, Tarikh al-Tabari, Vol. 4, Beirut: Dar al-Ma’arif,
1990, p. 372.
2 Patricia Crone, God’s Rule: Government and Islam, Columbia University Press, New York,
2004.
 Uthman ibn Affan: The Assassination of a Caliph 75

3 S.H.M. Jafri, The Origins and Early Development of Shia Islam, London: Longman, 1979,
p. 50.
4 Wilferd Madelung, The Succession to Muhammad: A Study of the Early Caliphate, Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1997.
5 Lesley Hazleton, After the Prophet: The Epic Story of the Shia–Sunni Split in Islam, Knopf
Doubleday Publishing Group, New York, 2009, p. 82.
6 Ibid.
7 Hassan Abbas, The Prophet’s Heir: The Life of Ali ibn Abi Talib, New Haven and London: Yale
University Press, 2021, p. 115.
8 Madelung, The Succession to Muhammad.
9 Ayesha Mujahid, ‘Abu Bakr and Uthman’s Role in Preservation of Holy Quran’, Saudi Gazette,
14 July 2017, https://saudigazette.com.sa/article/512795
10 Afsaruddin, ‘Uthman ibn Affan: Muslim Caliph’, History and Society, Encyclopeadia Britannica,
Britannica webpage, https://www.britannica.com/biography/Uthman-ibn-Affan, last accessed
on 7 September 2023.
11 Taha Husayn, Al Fitna Al Kubra, Vol. I (in Arabic), Dar Al-Marif Publishers, Cairo, 1956.
 6
Caliph Ali ibn Talib and the First Fitna
(Tribulation)

He whose Mawla (Lord) I am, Ali is his Mawla

—Prophet Muhammad1

Ali ibn Talib, the first cousin and son-in-law of Prophet Muhammad, was
chronologically the fourth and last of the Rashidun Caliphs; and the first of the
imams, according to Shia Muslims, to be appointed by divine mandate. Shia
itself is derived from the term “shiat Ali”, which means “partisans of Ali”.2 Sunni
Muslims also hold him in special reverence and after the Prophet, there is nobody
in Islamic history about whom as much has been written in the Muslim world as
Ali ibn Talib.
The Shia believe Ali to be the sole rightful heir of the Prophet, whose right to
succeed was usurped by Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman. Thus, the question of Ali’s
right to the caliphate caused the primary split in the Muslim community, and
later in Islamic theology, into the Sunni and the Shia branches. In his lifetime, Ali
was given various titles: Asad Allah (“Lion of God”); $aydar (“Lion”); Murtada
(“One Who is Chosen and Contented”); and Mawlay-i-Muttaqiyan (“Master of
the God-Fearing”).3
Ali was an outstanding soldier, who is said to have fought brilliantly in the
Battles of Badr, Uhud (defending the Prophet when others were fleeing) and
Khandaq (by taking down the dreaded giant Abd Wud); at Khaybar (by lifting
 Caliph Ali ibn Talib and the First Fitna (Tribulation) 77

the gates of the fort and turning it into a bridge on the moat to allow Muslim
forces in); and at Hunain (by bravely taking out enemy snipers at hilltops). As a
scholar, Ali was known for his scholarship in various disciplines, including theology,
philosophy, mysticism, warfare, grammar, rhetoric and calligraphy.

Ghadir Khumm Controversy: Was Ali Prophet’s Chosen Successor?

While returning to Medina from his last Haj pilgrimage in Mecca in 632 CE, the
Prophet made certain statements about Ali at Ghadir Khumm that have since
been interpreted differently by Sunni and Shia adherents. According to both
traditions, the Prophet said that Ali was his inheritor and brother, and that whoever
accepted the Prophet as his mawla (“master” or “lord” but also, contradictorily,
“client” or “protegé”) also should accept Ali as his mawla. The Shia regard these
statements as indicating the Prophet’s naming of Ali as the first “imam” (leader of
Muslims after him).4
In contrast, the Sunnis take the declaration only as an expression of the
Prophet’s closeness to Ali and his wish that his cousin and son-in-law inherit his
family responsibilities upon his death. Many of the later Islamic Sufis and
esotericists have also interpreted the episode as the transfer of the Prophet’s spiritual
power and authority to Ali (‘mawla’ is related to wilayah or walayah, meaning
“rule”, “initiation”, “spiritual authority” or “power”), whom they regard as wali
(literally “friend”, usually translated as “saint”) par excellence.5

Ali under Preceding Caliphs

It is well known that neither Ali nor his wife (and daughter of the Prophet),
Fatima, initially accepted the investiture of Abu Bakr as the successor to the
Prophet. After Ali performed the funeral rites of the Prophet, he was told that the
absentees from the ceremony—notably Abu Bakr and Umar—had taken part in
deliberations of a few leaders in the Saqifat bani Saidah (“the room with the
thatched roof of the tribe of Bani Saidah”), where Abu Bakr was finally named
khalifah, the ruler of the Islamic community.
Despite his wife’s instructions, Ali eventually accepted Abu Bakr as the caliph
and later, even accepted Umar and Uthman who succeeded Abu Bakr as caliphs.
Ali retired from public life during this time and dedicated himself to studying
and teaching the Quran. However, all the three caliphs preceding him used to
consult him, acknowledging his wisdom in matters of state.
78 Political Islam: Parallel Currents in West Asia and South Asia

Tumultuous Reign as Caliph

Ali ibn Talib was always well qualified for the position of caliph. He was the son
of the Prophet’s uncle and protector (Abu Talib). He was born in the Kaaba and
was the first male convert to Islam (when he was 10 years old). Later, he married
Fatima (daughter of the Prophet) and was the father of the Prophet’s only grandsons
(Hasan and Husayn). He was very learned, pious, humble and known for his
bravery and chivalry in battle.
However, his brief reign as caliph (656–61 CE) was the most tumultuous
period in his life. It was marked by the beginning of the First Fitna, the first large-
scale civil war in Muslim history that covered Battle of the Camel, Battle of Siffin
and Battle of Nahrawan, which led to the rise of three sects in the religion, namely,
the Sunni, the Shia and the Khariji.

Battle of the Camel

Following the assassination of Caliph Uthman, many Muslims—including the
rebels—urged Ali to take up the mantle of leadership. After a few days of hesitation,
Ali became caliph in order to ensure peace and security in the land. Upon assuming
office, he dismissed several governors who had been appointed by Uthman but
were viewed by many as corrupt. This upset a number of beneficiaries of the
Uthman administration, mostly members of the Umayya clan—led by Governor
of Syria, Muawiya ibn Abi Sufyan—who expressed their resentment over Ali’s
reluctance to deliver exemplary punishment against the killers of Uthman. The
bloodstained shirt of Uthman and the severed finger of his wife (who had attempted
to save him) were publicly displayed in a Damascus mosque to gain public support
for the fallen leader.
Meanwhile, Ali left Medina and shifted the capital of the caliphate to Kufa, a
garrison city more centrally located in an expanded empire. During the move,
when Ali reached Basra, he was confronted by the Prophet’s companions, Talha
ibn Ubaydullah and Zubayr, both whom he had not made governors of Kufa and
Basra respectively. Some historians attribute this snub as the reason Talha and
Zubayr turned hostile towards Ali, even after having initially accepted him as
caliph. The two had also garnered the support of the Prophet’s wife, Ayesha, in
their campaign against Ali.
In the ensuing affray, called the Battle of the Camel (for it was fought around
Ayesha’s protected camel), Ali’s forces prevailed. The caliph managed to explain
to Ayesha his version of the events and she was escorted back to Medina. However,
 Caliph Ali ibn Talib and the First Fitna (Tribulation) 79

the battle that reportedly killed thousands on both sides, also claimed the lives of
Talha and Zubayr.6

Battle of Siffin
A more dangerous challenge confronted Ali just after the Battle of the Camel.
Muawiya, Uthman’s cousin and Governor of Syria whom Ali had tried to dismiss,
challenged the caliph in a series of skirmishes at Siffin in 657 CE in northern
Syria. When Ali’s forces appeared to be winning, a wily general of Muawiya, Amr
ibn Al-Aas, asked the soldiers to stick pages of the Quran on the tip of their
spears, calling for peaceful arbitration. Ali was suspicious of Muawiya’s intentions,
but many of his soldiers were wary of fighting their Muslim brethren, so he accepted
the call for arbitration.
However, a small fact on of Ali’s army, later known as the Khariji (“seceders”),
turned renegade and mutinied against Ali over his decision to accept arbitration.
Ali dealt a pulverising defeat upon the Khariji in the Battle of Nahrawan (658
CE). Taking advantage of the situation, Al-Aas convinced Ali’s representative in
the arbitration to accept his stepping down from the position of caliph. Although
Ali did not accept the embarrassing outcome of the arbitration, his followers
started deserting him, and some of the provinces too began shifting to Muawiya’s
side. Finally, in January 661 CE, when Ali was praying at the mosque in Kufa, he
was killed by a poisoned sword by a Khariji, Abd Al-Rahman ibn Muljam.

Ali’s Campaign for Social Justice

Reversing Uthman’s policies, Ali reasserted central control over the provinces and
sought equitable distribution of state revenue among people. His stance against
corruption angered the power elite, which had entrenched itself during the 12
years reign of Uthman, and Ali had to contend with powerful internal enemies.
Nevertheless, the reign of Ali is remembered as a model for socio-political and
religious righteousness that defied worldly corruption and social injustice.7

Ali’s Assassination by the Khariji

As mentioned earlier, Caliph Ali was assassinated by a leader of the Khariji
community, Abd Al-Rahman ibn Muljam. The Khariji, who appeared during the
First Fitna, was the first sect in Islam that came into existence, much before the
Sunni–Shia divide became a full-fledged theological schism.
The early members of the Khariji were soldiers of Caliph Ali’s army, who
80 Political Islam: Parallel Currents in West Asia and South Asia

mutinied after Ali agreed to hold arbitration with his adversary, Muawiya ibn
Abu Sufyan, to decide the question of succession to the caliphate following the
Battle of Siffin (July 657 CE). The Khariji felt that according to the Quran,
Caliph Ali should have fought with the rebels under Muawiya’s leadership and
overcome them, but by accepting arbitration, he had proven himself to be an
unfit caliph and had violated the holy book. Even after much persuasion, Ali
could not convince the seceders, who turned belligerent against Ali’s forces.
In response, Caliph Ali crushed the Khariji revolt in the Battle of Nahrawan
in July 658 CE. However, he was killed in the Kufa mosque in 661 CE, when Ibn
Muljam hit him on the head with a poison-coated sword.
The Khariji were excommunicated by the Sunni and the Shia sects of Islam.
They did not accept the ruling of most Muslim jurists that the caliph should
come from the Quraysh, but believed that even an enslaved person with moral
and religious piety and the right capabilities could be elected caliph. Similarly,
they believed that a caliph could be deposed on the commission of even the most
minor sin.
The Kharijis were highly egalitarian and disliked kingship. They were also
highly fanatical and puritanical. Any Muslim who committed a major sin was
considered an apostate, as the evidence of faith in the religion was supposed to
reflect in deeds and not verbal affirmations. Luxury, music, games and lascivious
lifestyle were spurned and a literal interpretation of the Quran was insisted upon.8
Some Khariji, like Azariqa (an extremist branch of the sect), believed that
jihad was the sixth pillar of Islam and that indiscriminate killing (istirad) was
allowed. Therefore, the slaughter of kafirs (non-believers) was valid, and even
Muslims who did not practice Islam in the proper manner fell in the category of
non-believing apostates. It was forbidden to allow such Muslims to mend their
ways, and it was permitted to kill even their women and children.9
In modern times, many Islamist and jihadist groups, like the Al-Qaeda, the
ISIS, the Muslim Brotherhood and even the Tahreek-i-Taliban (Pakistan), have
been vilified by Sunni scholars as being closet Khariji. The parallel of modern
Muslim terrorist groups with Khariji is drawn because of their constant state of
war against existing Muslim governments, which does not originate from any
personal enmity or lust for power but is a practical exercise of their religious
belief. However, the modern Khariji sub-sect of the Ibadi school (found mainly
in Oman) protests as being wrongly accused of belonging to the Khariji sect and
follows a remarkably much tolerant version of Islam.
 Caliph Ali ibn Talib and the First Fitna (Tribulation) 81

Ali’s death ended the period of the Rashidun Caliphs. All four of these
companions of the Prophet were related to the Prophet through matrimonial ties.
Though known for their piety, the Rashidun could not remain immune from
internal political feuds and power struggles. Some radical Muslims have tended
to glorify this period as a golden age and filled it with a sense of utopian nostalgia,
sometimes overlooking the fact that their rule was riddled with internecine feuds,
with three of the four being assassinated. In the words of Arthur Goldschmidt Jr
and Lawrence Davidson:
Indeed, most of the Rashidun caliphs were admirable and all four were
interesting, but their era was marked by frequent strife, many crises of
adjustment to changing conditions, and much improvisation. Even the
caliphate itself had begun as a stopgap measure, shaped by Umar into a
lasting institution. It became the linchpin for a state that was doubling
and redoubling in area, population, and wealth. Now, upon Ali’s death,
it seemed to be in peril.10

NOTES
1 Jami Al Tirmidhi (transl.), Chapters on Virtue, Vol. 1, Book 46, Hadith 3713, https://
sunnah.com/tirmidhi:3713
2 Duncan S. Ferguson Exploring the Spirituality of the World Religions: The Quest for Personal,
Spiritual and Social Transformation. Bloomsbury Academic, 2010, p. 192.
3 Asma Afsaruddin and Seyyed Hossein Nasr, ‘Ali: Muslim Caliph’, History and Society,
Encyclopedia Britannica, Britannica, https://www.britannica.com/biography/Ali-Muslim-
caliph, last accessed on 7 September 2023.
4 Hamid Mavani, Religious Authority and Political Thought in Twelver Shiism: From Ali to Post-
Khomeini , Routledge, London, 2013, p. 79.
5 Daniel Pipes, “Mawlas: Freed slaves and converts in early Islam”, Slavery & Abolition, Vol. 1,
No. 2, (1980-09-01) pp. 132–177.
6 Wilferd Madelung, The Succession to Muhammad: A Study of the Early Caliphate, Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1997, pp. 171-172.
7 Linda G. Jones, “Ali ibn Abi Talib”, (ca. 597-661)”. In Campo, Juan Eduardo (ed.).
Encyclopaedia of Islam. Infobase Publishing. pp. 33, 34.
8 Valerie Hoffman, “Historical Memory and Imagined Communities: Modern Ibadi Writings
on Kharijism”. In Lindsay, James E.; Armajani, Jon (eds.). Historical Dimension of Islam:
Essays in Honor of R. Stephen Humphreys, Princeton: Darwin Press (2009) pp. 185–200.
9 Jeffrey T. Kenney, Muslim Rebels: Kharijis and the Politics of Extremism in Egypt, New York:
Oxford University Press, 2006, pp. 34-35.
10 Arthur Goldschmidt Jr and Lawrence Davidson, A Concise History of the Middle East, The
American University in Cairo Press, Cairo, 2009, p. 62.
UMAYYAD EMPIRE AND ORIGIN OF
SECTARIANISM
 7
Battle of Karbala and Umayyad
Dynastic Caliphate

Husayn gave his person and his possessions as an offering to God to

“revive the religion of his grandfather Muhammad”, “to redeem it”, and
“save it from the destruction into which it had been thrown by the
behaviour of Yazid”; furthermore, he wished to show that the conduct of
the hypocrites was shameful and to teach the peoples the necessity of
revolt against unjust and impious governments (fasiks), in short he offered
himself as an example (uswa) to the Muslim community.
—Veccia Vegliari1

Notwithstanding the personal piety and austere lifestyle of Rashidun Caliphs,

their period of governance was not as idyllic as portrayed by most Islamist
ideologues. These extraordinary religious personalities valiantly confronted the
conflicting demands of religious idealism and political realism of an ever-expanding
caliphate that conquered territories of crumbling empires and embraced an eclectic
mix of nationalities and cultures in ever-increasing numbers.
Initially, the austere leadership of Abu Bakr and Umar was able to manage
the unprecedented speed of success and the resulting challenges faced by a largely
inexperienced Arab military and political dispensation. However, the overbearing
control that Abu Bakr and Umar exercised proved a tough act to follow for
succeeding caliphs, who found it difficult to control the ambitions of far-flung
governors and generals and the aspirations of newly converted populations.
86 Political Islam: Parallel Currents in West Asia and South Asia

With the outbreak of the First Fitna—the first among several succeeding
periods of civil wars and internecine feuds—the issues of succession,
misgovernance, favouritism and nepotism continued to afflict the nascent polity.
Ironically, these political differences caused theological schisms; and highly
conflicting and contentious sects, such as Sunni, Shia and Khariji, came into
existence. At this time, one of the most controversial companions of the Prophet
and challenger to the caliphate, Muawiya ibn Abi Sufyan, seized political control
and sought to stabilise the political order more through principles of realpolitik
rather than religious idealism that the Rashidun Caliphs espoused.
Indeed, Shias largely despise Muawiya for waging the Battle of Siffin against
Caliph Ali and for allegedly poisoning Hasan (Ali’s eldest son), the rightful claimant
for the post of caliph after Ali. Most Sunnis too remember Muawiya ibn Abu
Sufyan (reigned from 660 CE to 681 CE) as an ‘Ameer’ (ruler) and not a caliph
because he did not qualify as a religious leader of the community to have succeeded
the first four Rashidun Caliphs.
Many Sunni Muslims, however, credit Muawiya for restoring unity to the
Muslim Empire, and also consider him the founder of the great Umayyad dynasty.
To them, dynastic form of succession albeit not ideal brought more political
stability than the uncertainty that followed the death of a caliph, as no method
for succession was firmly established. In contrast, Islamist ideologues like Maulana
Maududi denigrate Muawiya for bringing to an end the Rashidun Caliphate
(which based its polity on Islamic values) and for introducing the authoritarian
despotism of pre-Islamic Byzantine and Sassanid empires. The other reason for
Muawiya’s disrepute among Islamist and Shia detractors is that he is seen as the
son of Abu Sufyan, the greatest foe of Islam and the Prophet before the conquest
of Mecca, who instigated all three major battles at Badr, Uhud and Khandaq (also
known as the Battle of Ahzab). Belonging to the Umayyad tribe, Muawiya is also
seen as one of the beneficiaries of favouritism and nepotism practised by Caliph
Uthman towards his Umayyad clansmen during his reign.

Muawiya’s Pragmatism in War and Politics

During his twenty years of governorship of Syria, Muawiya is said to have raised
a large Arab tribal army that was more loyal to him than the caliph of the time. It
is also alleged that he bought a truce with Byzantine rulers to free his army for the
fight against Ali to become the caliph. Further, he took advantage of Caliph Ali’s
difficulties in Iraq by sending a force to seize control of Egypt, away from its
appointed Muslim governor.
 Battle of Karbala and Umayyad Dynastic Caliphate 87

Thus, when Ali was assassinated in 661 CE, Muawiya was in control of both
Syria and Egypt and, as commander of the largest force in the Muslim Empire,
had the strongest claim to the caliphate. Hasan, the eldest son of Ali, stood no
chance and was persuaded to remove himself from public life in exchange for a
subsidy. Also, under his rule, the capital of the caliphate shifted from Kufa to
Damascus. It is because of these Machiavellian moves that Muawiya is not
celebrated as much in Muslim religious history.
To be fair to Muawiya, he had witnessed the dangers of exposing the caliph
to attacks by dissenting masses in the name of greater accountability. He also
understood that the problem of recurrent disputes over succession to the high
office was quite destabilising for the caliphate as no religious or political norms
or conventions had been established by his predecessors. As the territories under
the caliphate expanded and included entire regions held by former empires,
particularly the Persian Sassanid and much of Byzantine territories, the importance
of indisputable political authority and sovereignty of the ruler, even above the
principles of religion, was evident to the new leader, who was himself fairly
ambitious and less of a religious idealist than his predecessors.
Under Muawiya and his successors, who established a patrimonial dynastic
order under the Umayyad Caliphate, the ideals of theocratic, egalitarian and
accountable governance of the Rashidun Caliphs were seen more as a liability for
running an overstretched empire and a highly diverse and restive population. In
fact, the ideals of absolute monarchy and the values of Oriental despotism, as
established by the Persian Achaemenid and Sassanid empires, were found to be
more suitable for governing agrarian-based economies of Egypt, Mesopotamia
and Iran.

Introduction of Malookiyat (Monarchy) and Patrimonial Succession

After the assassination of Ali, Muwaiya led his forces from his capital, Damascus,
to Kufa, where Hasan (the eldest son of Ali) had been nominated for the position
of caliph. Muawiya was able to bribe the commander of Hasan’s vanguard forces
to give up resistance, and he then sent emissaries to Hasan for negotiations. As a
result, the two sides agreed to some terms, collectively known as the Hasan–
Muawiya Pact (661 CE).2 The main points were: Hasan would abdicate the
position of caliph in favour of Muawiya in return for a pension; and upon the
death of Muawiya (who was 20 years older than the then 38-year-old Hasan), his
successor would be elected by a council (shura).3
88 Political Islam: Parallel Currents in West Asia and South Asia

However, Hasan’s death (in 670 CE) preceded the death of Muawiya, which
some Muslim historians claim was caused by poisoning by Hasan’s wife, Jada bint
Al-Ashath, at the instance of Muawiya. After the death of Hasan, Muawiya
considered the pact null and void, and just before his death in 680 CE, managed
to gain broader political acceptance to make his son, Yazid I, his successor. Arab
historian Firas Al-Khateeb tries to justify Muawiya’s decision to name his son his
successor and for starting patrimonial caliphate after him:
Muslim historians throughout the ages have speculated as to his reasoning
for doing so, especially considering the subsequent opposition that arose
to Yazid. However, keeping in mind the historical context of Mu’awiya’s
time makes it easier to understand why the switch to a hereditary system
made sense. Mu’awiya’s time as Caliph showed the emphasis he placed
on political unity and harmony. After the political upheaval of Ali’s
Caliphate, Mu’awiya’s main challenge was keeping the Muslim world
united under one command.4
However, Muawiya’s decision to name his son his successor earned him the
condemnation of Muslim scholars and historians, because from that time until
the caliphate was abolished in 1924, the highest political office in Islam was
hereditary. The accusation has been that he broke the relationship of Islamic
brotherhood that the Holy Prophet had established in Islamic society, in which
religious piety and not heredity was the theoretical basis for attaining political
office.
Most Shia scholars and even Sunni Islamists of today, including Maududi
who condemns the Umayyad’s introduction of malookiyat (monarchy),5 deplore
the degeneration of the Rashidun Caliphate into the patrimonial dynasty under
the Umayyads and the succeeding caliphates.
A more significant political change was Muawiya’s adoption of Uthman’s
title khalifat Allah (‘deputy of God’), instead of Abu Bakr’s khalifat Rasul Allah
(‘deputy of the messenger of God’).6 The 9th century Muslim historian al-Baladhuri
reports that Muawiya claimed “The earth belongs to God and I am the deputy of
God”.7 This change had significant political implications. As deputy of the Prophet,
the status of the khalifa could never grow above the law and could not free him
from public scrutiny and accountability. However, the title Khalifat Allah (‘deputy
of God’) accorded a status to the Muslim head of state an almost divine right to
rule with impunity. From now on, the Khalifa was no longer an egalitarian leader,
like the Rashidun caliphs, but a hereditary king, who enjoyed a pre-eminent
 Battle of Karbala and Umayyad Dynastic Caliphate 89

political and social status superior to that of his subjects. This allowed the gradual
introduction of pre-Islamic neo-Platonic cosmogny and Sassanid regal myths into
Muslim political theory, which further elevated the political status and powers of
the Khalifa.

Battle of Karbala and the Martyrdom of Husayn

When Muawiya—once called the “Caesar of Arabs” by Caliph Umar himself—
died in 680 CE, his son, Yazid ibn Muawiya, tried to assert his position as the
new caliph. A large majority of Muslim historians paint a very negative picture of
Yazid, presenting him as a weak, lecherous and cruel person, unfit to rule and
given to “enjoyment of singing girls and playing with a pet monkey”8 . Being
unpopular in his own times, Yazid faced opposition when he assumed the position
of Khalifa from prominent companions of the Prophet — mainly Husayn, the
younger of the two grandsons of the Prophet and son of Caliph Ali, and Abdullah
bin Zubayr, son of Zubayr ibn Al-Awwam.
In fact, Husayn refrained from giving allegiance to Yazid as caliph. When the
latter demanded allegiance from Husayn and sent an emissary to Medina for this
purpose, the Prophet’s grandson evaded the emissary by travelling to Mecca. Over
a period of time, Husayn started receiving letters of support from members of the
Kufan population, who proposed that he should overthrow Yazid. On the assurance
of support from these “Alids” (supporters of Caliph Ali, who also called themselves
Shia-i-Ali and later simply Shia), Husayn set out with a small band of around 72
male followers (with their wives and children) to Kufa on 9 September 680 CE.
By the time he reached Karbala, the desert plain on the outskirts of Kufa, he came
to know that the people of Kufa who supported Ali had been silenced by Yazid’s
forces under the command of Ubaidullah ibn Al-Ziyad (Yazid’s cousin).
At Karbala, Husayn found himself and his warriors surrounded by a strong
Umayyad army. When negotiations failed and the Kufan governor, Ubaidullah
ibn Al-Ziyad, refused Husayn safe passage out of Karbala without submitting to
his authority, a condition rejected by Husayn, the famous battle of Karbala ensued
on 10 October 680 CE.
Husayn and his small force fought valiantly. Legend has it that Husayn was
heavily wounded as he took a volley of arrows to his face and a blow to his head.
However, he kept fighting until all his fellow warriors were killed. Eventually, he
was beheaded by a soldier and his body was trampled by horses, as previously
instructed by Ibn Ziyad. The severed head was then taken to Yazid in Damascus,
90 Political Islam: Parallel Currents in West Asia and South Asia

where the victorious potentate is said to have poked at it with a stick. Among the
captive women and children of Husayn’s household taken to Yazid’s court was his
sister, Zaynab bint Ali, who, despite being in chains, is said to have shamed Yazid
publicly for his evil deed. The women of Yazid’s household joined Zaynab and
the other captive women in their lamentation for the dead, prompting the sovereign
to release the captives.

The Second Fitna: Yazid’s Attack on Mecca and Medina

After his death, Husayn is said to have become a more powerful opponent of
Yazid than when he was alive. Although the Battle of Karbala initially appeared
insignificant, it swelled public resentment and opposition to great heights, leading
the Umayyad Empire to be confined to the walls of Damascus following Yazid’s
death and the outbreak of the Second Fitna from 680 CE to 692 CE.
The other prominent Muslim figure to have opposed the rule of Yazid was
Abdullah bin Zubayr. Following Husayn’s martyrdom, Abdullah bin Zubayr gave
a call for reconvening a shura (consultative council initiated under Umar’s caliphate)
and the removal of Yazid from the position of caliph. His call from Mecca received
a sympathetic ear in Medina, which was disillusioned by irrigation projects started
under Muawiya’s rule that had caused large-scale confiscation of people’s lands.
Under Abdallah ibn Hanzala, the leaders of Medina renounced allegiance to Yazid
and expelled the Umayyad governor from the city. After several failed persuasions
and negotiations, Yazid’s forces defeated the Madina forces at the Battle of Harrah
(683 CE) and Umayyad troops plundered the holy city for three days. From
there, Yazid’s forces attacked Mecca to subdue the rebellion of Zubayr’s forces.
Legend has it, that just as the cloth cover of the Kaaba caught fire, news of the
sudden death of Yazid arrived and ended the siege of Mecca. Yazid’s teenage son,
Muawiya II (reigned 683–84 CE), succeeded, but he too died a few months
later.9
Meanwhile, Abdullah bin Zubayr proclaimed himself the caliph (683–92
CE) from Mecca and extended control over Hejaz, Iraq, Egypt and even parts of
Syria close to Damascus. In Kufa, an Alid rebel named Mukhtar Al-Thaqafi rose
up against the Umayyads and killed the notorious governor, Ubaidullah ibn Ziyad,
in 686 CE to avenge his killing of Husayn ibn Ali.
However, differences between Zubayr and Al-Thaqafi led to the latter’s defeat
and death in the Battle of Harura in 687 CE. The successor of Muawiya II, Abd
Al-Malik ibn Marwan, who became the Umayyad caliph in 685 CE, killed
 Battle of Karbala and Umayyad Dynastic Caliphate 91

Abdullah bin Zubayr in 692 CE and brought all of the Muslim world under the
control of the Umayyad dynasty, thus ending the ‘Second Fitna’.

Significance of the Battle of Karbala

The polity of the Islamic world completely changed after the Battle of Karbala
and the Second Fitna. The Islamic government, as it was known under the Prophet’s
rule and the Rashidun Caliphs, was no longer the egalitarian theocracy or tribal
democracy but had come firmly in the grip of a single mercantile clan, with the
capital not in Medina or Kufa, but the historic Syrian city of Damascus.
Today’s Islamists complain about the Umayyad rule, which crushed all forms
of dissent with an iron fist and instituted dynastic monarchy (Malookiyat) that
continues in the Muslim world to this day. From that time, the kings were not
bound by the Shariah but were considered above the law, and their legitimacy was
not derived through general consent or bayah but through military power that
became the basis for assuming political power.
The death of the Prophet’s grandson became central to the belief of Shiism.
Although all “Muslims lament this tragic death of the Prophet’s grandson, but
Husain’s fate focused the attention of those who regarded themselves as the Shiah-
i-Ali even more intensely on the Prophet’s descendants,” observes Karen
Armstrong.10
Prior to the Battle of Karbala, the Muslim community was said to have been
divided into two political factions.11 A distinct religious sect with specific theology
and rituals had not evolved until then.12 In the words of Heinz Halm: “There was
no religious aspect to Shi’ism prior to 680. The death of the third imam and his
followers marked the ‘big bang’ that created the rapidly expanding cosmos of
Shi’ism and brought it into motion.”13
The 10th day of Muharram of the Hijri calendar is commemorated as Husayn’s
death anniversary in the annual Ashura festival by the Shia community. Again,
after the end of the Second Fitna in 692 CE, the Umayyads managed to preserve
their sovereignty for little less than six decades. One of the biggest reasons why
the Abbasid Revolution was successful was because they effectively harvested the
negative emotions of the empire’s Shia population.14
The story of Karbala and the martyrdom of Husayn has inspired legions of
Muslim revolutionary thinkers, as reflected in this Urdu couplet of Mohammad
Ali Jauhar, a leading figure of India’s Khilafat Movement in the 1920s:
92 Political Islam: Parallel Currents in West Asia and South Asia

Qatl-e-Husein asal mein marge-Yazid hai

Islam zinda hota hai har karbala ke baad

(The killing of Hussein is in reality Yazid’s death,

Islam comes to life after every Karabala) 15,16

NOTES
1 Veccia Vegliari, “(al-) Husayn b. ‘Ali b. Abi Talib”. In Lewis, B.; Ménage, V. L.; Pellat, Ch. &
Schacht, J. (eds.), Encyclopaedia of Islam, Volume III: H–Iram (2nd ed.). Leiden: E.J. Brill,
1971, p. 614.
2 Wilferd Madelung, The Succession to Muhammad: A Study of the Early Caliphate, Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1997, pp. 105–08.
3 S.H.M. Jafri, Origins and Early Development of Shia Islam, London: Longman, 1979, p. 107.
4 Firas Al-Khateeb, Lost Islamic History, C. Hurst and Company, London, 2014, p. 60.
5 Syed Abul Ala Maududi (author), Tarik Jan (English translator), Khilafat o Mulukiyat, Nizam
Publishers, Hyderabad, 2020.
6 Patricia Crone and Martin Hinds, God’s Caliph: Religious Authority in the First Centiries of
Islam, Campbridge University Press Cambridge, 2003, pp. 6-7.
7 Ibid, p. 6.
8 G.R. Hawting, The First Dynasty of Islam, Routledge, London, 2000.
9 Gerals R. Hawting, ‘Yazid (I) b. Muawiya’, in P. J. Bearman, Th. Bianquis, C.E. Bosworth, E.
van Donzel, and W.P. Heinrichs (eds.), Encyclopedia of Islam, Volume XI: W-Z (2nd ed.), E.J.
Brill Leiden, 2002.
10 Karen Armstrong, Islam: A Short History, New York: Modern Library, 2000, p. 43.
11 Hugh Kennedy, The Armies of the Caliphs: Military and Society in the Early Islamic State, London
and New York: Routledge, 2001.
12 Fred M. Donner, Muhammad and the Believers: At the Origins of Islam, Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press, 2010.
13 Heinz Halm, Shi’a Islam: From Religion to Revolution, translated by Allison Brown, Princeton:
Markus Wiener Publishers, 1997, p. 16.
14 Available at https://www.worldhistory.org/article/1645/battle-of-karbala/
15 Muhammad Ali Jauhar, Kalaam-i-Jauhar (urdu anthology of his poems), Publisher Jai Gyan,
1938, uploaded on digital library India, https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.436019/
page/n3/mode/2up, last accessed on 10 September 2023.
16 Asad Haroon, ‘Yaum-e-Ashur 2013 being observed today. Qatal-E-Hussain Asal Mein Marg-
E-Yazeed Hai–Islam Zinda Hota Hai, Har Karbala Ke Baad’, DND daily, 15 November 2013,
https://dnd.com.pk/yaum-e-ashur-2013/48466.
 8
Political and Religious Ferment in
Umayyad Rule

Once, while Muhammad sat in the company of Gabriel, a second angel

descended to pay him a visit and posed him a question, “Shall your Lord
make you a prophet king or a messenger servant (a- fa- malikan nabiyyan
yaj ‘aluka aw ‘abdan rasulan)?” The humble Muhammad chose to be a
messenger servant.
—Ibn Hanbal1

The title “malik” for a king and the word “mulk” for the kingdom was widely used
in pre-Islamic Arabia.2 The epigraphic record of the Arabian Peninsula, stretching
back a millennium before the coming of Islam, testifies to this fact. However, the
Prophet and the Rashidun Caliphs did not accept the title “malik” and preferred
to use “abd Allah” (slave of Allah) as a suffix to their names. In addition, all the
caliphs from Umar onwards also used the title “ameer ul mumineen”. Thus, as
Sean Anthony writes:
The rulers of the early Islamic polity rejected the imperial titulature of
the Byzantines and Sasanians in their inscriptions, monuments, and
coinage. The rulers did not claim to be “shahanshah”, (the king of kings),
on the Sasanian model, and they avoided the title of “king” in official
proclamations just after the Byzantine emperor Heraclius had adopted
the Greek title basileus, or “king”, as an official title, thus codifying a
94 Political Islam: Parallel Currents in West Asia and South Asia

long-standing vernacular precedent of referring to Roman emperors a

[sic] “kings”.3
After the reign of the first four caliphs (Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthamn and Ali,
known as the Khulaf-i-Rashidun), when Muawiya became the political ruler of
the Muslim community, he established a dynastic kingdom named after the
Umayyad clan of Mecca. Whereas, the earlier Islamic rulers liked to be called
Khalifa (or caliph) and “ameer ul mumineen”, Umayyaud rulers re-introduced the
title “malik” which meant a ruler or king. This change in the nature and status of
the ruler’s powers was opposed by many religious figures, most prominent being
the household of the Prophet himself. Much of modern-day Islamist/jihadist
opposition to kingship and despotism derives its arguments from the same anti-
monarchical literature in Islamic history. Thus, Nadia Maria El-Cheikh writes:
In the early Islamic centuries ‘mulk’ was used as a term of condemnation
to distinguish between the man-made; impious and arbitrary rule of
worldly sovereigns and the just and divine rule of caliphs. So while the
era of the Orthodox Caliphs (Rashidun caliphs) was referred to as
“khilafa”, symbolizing justice and piety, the reign of the Umayyads was
dismissed as “mulk”, a term carrying connotations of usurpations and
oppression.4
Despite being vilified by the puritans, such as the Prophet’s grandsons,
Umayyad rulers gave justification for behaving as kings and for introducing
mulukiyat (kingship) and even dynastic despotism. Muawiya presented the
example of Prophet David, described in the Quran as a righteous Israelite king,
and his son Solomon, who succeeded to the throne after David. Thus, the system
of Patrimonial Succession was justified by giving a scriptural reference. Muawiya
is also known to have declared, “I am the first king and the last caliph (ana awwalu
malikin wa-akhiru khalifa)”. 5
As the Umayyad rulers lost much territory to rebellions following the Battle
of Karbala, a period known as the Second Fitna, it deepened their resolve to
further strengthen the foundations of despotism. The early Umayyads, who
belonged the family line of Abu Sufyan (the father of Muawiyah) saw an end to
their rule after the young ruler Muawiya II, the son of Yazid I, was removed in
684 CE. They were replaced by a second line coming from Marwan I, who also
belonged to the Umayyad clan of Mecca. With the exception of Umar ibn Abd
Al-Aziz (reigned 717–20 CE), who lived an ascetic life like the Rashidun Caliphs,
other Umayyad caliphs (ruled till 750 CE) indulged in luxury due to increased
 Political and Religious Ferment in Umayyad Rule 95

wealth and a super-abundance of slaves was rife. Indulgence in luxury due to

increased wealth and a superabundance of slaves was rife. The eunuch system,
which made the harem institution possible, developed under the Umayyads.6
The Umayyad rulers justified absolute monarchical rule by claiming it was
the only means for avoiding violent anarchy, civil war and misrule, which prevailed
during the first and second fitnas. However, the Umayyads faced consistent revolts
and religious opposition from the Khawarij, the Qadarites, the Mutazila, and the
school of religious jurists (faqih) who were instituting different schools of fiqh
(Islamic jurisprudence) at that time and were mostly opposed to the absolutism
of the Umayyad caliphs.

“Divine Right of Caliphs”: From Deputy of Prophet to Deputy of

God
Under Abd Al-Malik ibn Marwan and later Hisham I, the Umayyad rulers crushed
internal revolts and growing internal dissent with a heavy hand. Like Muawiyah
and Yazid I before them, these Umayyad caliphs used the title to Khalifat Allah. It
has been discussed in the earlier chapter on how the title Khalifat Rasul Allah
(successor of the Prophet) implies that the “caliph is a steward of the Prophet’s
legacy, a trustee of the Prophetic state”. 7 By contrast, Khalifat Allah (deputy of
God) implies that the caliph is divinely appointed leader of the Muslims and a
ruler invested with divine authority.8 With this slight change oin the nomenclature,
dissenters were not to be viewed as merely political rebels but as religious rebels
who opposed the order established by God.
Although the idea of absolute monarchy was abhorrent to the revolutionaries
who eventually overturned the Umayyad dynastic rule and replaced it with the
Abbasid Caliphate, the idea of dynastic despotism could not be removed. Even
the Abbasid rulers over a period of time became unabashedly despotic. Under the
fifth Abbassid Caliph Harun Al-Rashid (786–809 CE), the Abbasid caliphate
had fullt adopted the ways of the old-fashioned Umayyad monarchs. According
to the Sunnah, the Prophet had forbidden the people to rise from their seats to
honour him upon his arrival, but under the Abbasids the courtiers were instructed
to kiss the ground at the time of presenting themselves before their caliph.

The Marwanite Umayyads

Among the later Umayyad Marwanite rulers, Abd Al-Malik ibn Marwan and
Umar ibn Abd Al-Aziz hold sway in the public imagination of the Muslim world.
96 Political Islam: Parallel Currents in West Asia and South Asia

Ibn Marwan’s reign saw the culmination of the Umayyad Empire’s glory, epitomised
in the construction of golden Dome of the Rock, which was built in Jerusalem in
691 CE and ushered in the Islamic style of architecture. The other notable feature
of Marwan’s reign was his general, Al-Hajjaj ibn Yusuf, who was infamous for his
brutality.

Abd Al-Malik ibn Marwan and the Dome of the Rock

Abd Al-Malik ibn Marwan belonged to the first generation of born Muslims. He
held administrative and military positions under the Umayyad ruler Muawiya I,
and later under his own father, Caliph Marwan I (684–85 CE). By the time of his
accession, Umayyad authority had collapsed because of a rebellion by Abdullah
bin Zubayr.
With the help of his notorious general, Al-Hajjaj ibn Yusuf, Ibn Marwan
began a seven-year campaign to defeat all rebellions and in 692 CE, he defeated
and killed Abdullah bin Zubayr. He resumed the conquest of North Africa, winning
the Berbers to his side and captured Carthage (in 697 CE) from the Byzantine
Empire. He made Arabic the national language across the empire, struck Islamic
gold coins for the first time and built the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem.
Al-Hajjaj ibn Yusuf was a trusted governor of Ibn Marwan and the head of
the caliph’s dreaded shurta (security forces). Well known for his brutality, Hajjaj
bombarded the Kaaba and shed blood within the holy precincts to bring the
rebellion of Abdullah bin Zubayr to an end. Later, he put Zubayr’s dead body in
an inverted gibbet. He also crushed the resilient Khariji uprising in Arabia and
finally entered Kufa, the centre of the rebellion. Entering the city wearing a disguise,
he entered the main mosque and mounted the pulpit to address the Kufans with
one of his memorable speeches: “I see heads ripe for the cutting. People of Iraq, I
will not myself be crushed like a soft fig.... By God, I will strip you as men strip
the bark from trees.... I will beat you as stray camels are beaten.”9
Legend has it that the Kufans were so intimidated by the speech that they
gave no more trouble in terms of rebellion against the Umayyads. Under the
instructions of this brutal general, Muhammad bin Qasim captured Sindh and
Multan (711-–14 CE).

Umar ibn Abd Al-Aziz: “The Fifth Rashidun Caliph”

In sharp contrast to the absolutist policies of Abd Al-Malik Ibn Marwan and the
brutal repression of Hajjaj was the rule of Umar ibn Abd Al-Aziz (reigned 717–
 Political and Religious Ferment in Umayyad Rule 97

20 CE), also known as Umar II and affectionately referred to as the fifth and last
caliph of Islam in some circles.10 Respected as a pious and righteous caliph who
emphasised reverting to the original principles of Islam, Umar II, among all the
Umayyads, was also held in high esteem by the later Abbasid dynasty and was
highly regarded even among the Shia community.
He associated himself with great Islamic scholars and is credited with having
ordered the first official collection of Hadeeth (documented sayings and actions
of the Prophet), as he feared that they might be forgotten from collective memory.
On his behest, notable compilers, namely, Abu Bakr ibn Muhammad ibn Hazm
and Ibn Shihab al-Zuhri, recorded Hadeeth narrations in the written form.
He was reportedly more tolerant towards non-Muslim citizens of his state
and worked towards developing equality between Arab Muslims and non-Arab
Muslims (called ‘Mawalis’), giving them equal salaries and incentives as state
employees. He abolished many taxes levied on the people, such as home tax,
marriage tax and stamp tax. In addition, he abolished jizya tax that was earlier
levied even on the ‘mawalis’. When officials complained about the scrapping of
the jizya tax, he famously said: “Muhammad (peace be upon him) was sent as a
prophet and not as a tax collector.”11
He is also credited with stopping the cursing of Caliph Ali in Friday sermons,
which was in vogue under the earlier Umayyad rulers. This won him praise from
the Shia community. As a ruler, he is deemed a pacifist, as he remained focused
on home affairs and made no major military conquests. He is said to have quelled
a Khariji revolt mainly through diplomacy and is said to have lifted his predecessor’s
disastrous siege of Christian Constantinople soon after his accession. When he
died at the age of 38 in a rented house in Homs in Syria, it is reported that even
the Roman emperor praised him for his simple living and virtuous policies.
The rule of Umar ibn Abd Al-Aziz underscores the continuing confusion
within Muslim polity, as this caliph tried to revive the pietism of the Rashidun
Caliphs (due to which he is often affectionately regarded as the fifth Rashidun
Caliph). However, the succeeding rulers—Yazid II, Hisham I, Walid II and Yazid
III—could not stem the rot in the declining Umayyad Caliphate, until the Abbasids
conquered Kufa and overthrew the Umayyads in 750 CE.

New Arab: From Racial to Linguistic Identity

Under the Umayyad rulers, mainly from the time of Ibn Marwan’s reign, the
segregation between the ruling class from the Arabian Peninsula and the subjects
98 Political Islam: Parallel Currents in West Asia and South Asia

from disparate cultures started to diffuse: “Non-Muslims began to settle in garrison

towns, peasants got work in Muslim areas and learned to speak Arabic. Merchants
began to trade with the Muslims and, even though conversion was still not
encouraged, some imperial officials did embrace Islam.”12
As Arabic slowly became the lingua franca, any follower of Muhammad now
passed for an Arab. In the words of Philip Hitti: “An Arab henceforth became one
who professed Islam, and spoke and wrote the Arabic tongue, regardless of his
racial affiliation. This is one of the most significant facts of the Islamic
civilization.”13
However, Umayyad officials have also been criticised for establishing
discriminatory policy regarding new converts from races and ethnicities other
than those from the Arabian Peninsula. Non-Arab Muslims were called mawalis,
which was similar to the status of manumitted slaves in pre-Islamic society. This
created a new social hierarchy wherein the convert remained at a socially and
economically lower position. These converts also kept paying the jizya, a practice
Umar ibn Abd Al-Aziz briefly discontinued, which is said to have depleted the
state exchequer.

Three Theological Approaches: Ahl Al-Kalaam, Ahl Al-Rai and Ahl

Al-Hadeeth
As the capital of the caliphate shifted from Medina to Damascus under the
Umayyad rule and a tribal, egalitarian order gave way to dynastic despotism,
links with the seats of Islamic culture in both space and time grew wider. With
new cultural influences entering the Islamic fold, the original Arab Islamic
traditions got diluted and the pristine theology itself faced new challenges in
maintaining its spiritual and intellectual coherence in an ever-expanding Islamic
space–time.
As the distance from the early generations of Islam increased, the need to
document the Prophet’s traditions (Sunnah) in the form of Hadeeth literature
was strongly felt, and so was the urgency for formally codifying Islamic legal
system based on the Quran and Prophetic methodology (manhaj) in a legalistic
framework. By the turn of Islam’s second century, oral Hadeeth traditions were
being collected in large volumes, with noted scholars compiling and grading them
as per acceptable standards to measure authenticity. The Quran and the Hadeeth
were religious texts and not written as legal documents. There was, therefore, a
need to systematise Islamic jurisprudence in a legal framework to administer justice
 Political and Religious Ferment in Umayyad Rule 99

for a dynamically evolving socio-political order, now challenged by a surfeit of

foreign influences throwing up new cases and issues without precedent. This gave
birth to several juristic and theological approaches for interpreting the Quran
and the Hadeeth to meet the changing social, economic and political realities.
It is in this context that the historian Daniel Brown has described the rise of
three distinct theological approaches in Islamic history, which have had far-reaching
political implications. According to him, groups following these three approaches
are: Ahl Al-Kalaam (speculative theologians); Ahl Al-Rai (liberal theologians);
and Ahl Al-Hadeeth (the partisans of Hadeeth who eventually prevailed).14 There
might be some debate in the way the scholar has characterised these groups, but
the categorisation remains helpful in studying the theological trends that later
had significant political implications in the course of Muslim history.

Ahl Al-Kalaam: Philosophical Interpreters of Islamic Theology

The commingling of cultures and the resultant friction, along with the tension
between the pietist stance of the Rashidun Caliphs that was still idealised by the
common laity versus the regal authority of the Umayyads, caused political and
religious debates and gave rise to new theological, philosophical and mystical
movements at the time.
In this regard, the discipline of ilm al-kalaam (literally the ‘science of discourse’)
related to the philosophical study of Islamic doctrine (aqaid) came up.15 According
to Majid Fakhry, this theological movement arose in an “attempt to grapple” with
several “complex problems” early in the history of Islam, particularly to rebut
arguments “leveled at Islam by pagans, Christians and Jews”,16 as well as to deal
with theological issues of predestination of sinners in Islamic scripture, etc.
However, it soon got largely associated with the Mutazilas, who used Greek
philosophical rationality to explain Islamic beliefs.
Alongside the Mutazila, their antithetical Aharite and Maturidi schools are
also included among the Ahl Al-Kalaam (people of philosophical and speculative
theology), as are Shia sub-sects (Twelver, Ismailis) and Ibadis. However, the
commencement of the philosophical discourse on Islamic doctrines can be found
to have its origins in Hasan Al-Basri’s qadariya (free will) argument.

Hasan Al-Basri’s Qadariya (Free Will) against Jabariya (Determinism)

A notable example of this new spiritual and intellectual churning was the theology
of qadariya propounded by an ascetic scholar Hasan Al-Basri (642–728 CE).
100 Political Islam: Parallel Currents in West Asia and South Asia

Belonging to the second generation of Muslims (generally called tabiun), Hasan

was a revered preacher in Basra, who called for a frugal life and “renunciation”
(zuhd) of worldliness and materialism. He excelled in the exegesis (tafseer) of the
Quran and his name is frequently mentioned in classical and medieval literature
on the scripture.17 Basri’s name is a forerunner “in many mystical silsilas (chains
of teachers and their disciples) going back to Muhammad” in the writings of
Sunni mystics from the ninth century onwards. His book is regarded
as the seminal work of Sunni mysticism.18
In opposition to the prevalent Jabariya school (followers of theologist Jahm
ibn Safwan) that extolled predestination, Hasan Al-Basri is credited with producing
the earliest text for the Qadariya school of philosophy, which asserted the doctrine
of free will. This concept later promoted the Greek philosophy-inspired Mutazila
movement, which was instrumental in the removal of Umayyad caliphs from
power.
Hasan Al-Basri contended that humans had free will, making them responsible
for their actions. This flew in the face of the Jabariya philosophy that people were
predestined to behave in a certain manner, which meant that there was divine will
in allowing the Umayyad caliphs to maintain their oppressive policies. In the
words of Karen Armstrong:
When Caliph Abd Al-Malik heard that Hasan had been spreading this
potentially rebellious doctrine, he summoned him to court, but Hasan
was so popular that the Caliph dared not punish him. Hasan had begun
the strong Muslim tradition of combining a disciplined interior life
with political opposition to the government.19

Ahl Al-Rai and the Hanafi School: Liberal, Non-Judgemental Murjia

Thought
The philosophy of the Murjia school of Sunni Muslims is mainly antithetical to
the views of the Kharijis, detailed earlier in the chapter on Caliph Ali. Unlike the
Khariji who believed in the philosophy of takfeer (denouncing “sinning” Muslims
as non-believers and therefore fit for slaughter), the Murjias held that God alone
could judge the professed faith of people and one should defer (irja) these matters
to God and His Day of Judgment (yawm al-qiyamah).
They not only believed that it was wrong to take sides in the controversial
conduct of Rashidun Caliphs and the Umayyad caliphs but also rejected the
Khariji idea that the faith of a believer strengthens or weakens on account of the
 Political and Religious Ferment in Umayyad Rule 101

person’s good or bad deeds. These theologians believed that good deeds or omission
of them did not affect a person’s faith, which remains constant irrespective of his
or her moral uprightness or frailty.
Thus, the Murjia could castigate an irreligious ruler but could not declare the
sovereign illegitimate, even if they might appear to contravene the standards of
the scripture. The Murjia philosophy was welcomed by the Umayyad rulers and
is said to have influenced the Mutazila, Ashari and Maturidi schools of Islam
later.
One of the most famous adherents of this school was Abu Hanifa (699–766
CE), the pioneer of the discipline of Islamic jurisprudence (fiqh), whose Hanafi
school of Sunni Islam is widely practised by Muslims of the Indian subcontinent
(particularly in northern and central India, Bangladesh, Pakistan and Afghanistan),
along with Central Asia, Afghanistan, Turkey, the Balkans, Russia, Chechnya and
some parts of the Arab world (such as Egypt).

Ahl Al-Hadeeth: Proto-Salafi Oppostion to Ahl Al-Kalaam and Ahl Al-

Rai
In opposition to the conceited speculations of Al-Kalaam theorists on matters of
Islamic doctrines, based largely on pagan philosophies of ancient Greece, as well
as the alleged indulgence of Ahl Al-Rai jurists, like Abu Hanifa, on analogous
reasoning (qiyas) in matters of jurisprudence, the Ahl Al-Hadeeth movement of
the Hadeeth scholars insisted on strict literalist adherence to the Quran and the
Prophetic tradition, above the intellectual derivations made by Ahl Al-Rai and
Kalaam scholars.
Constituting the most authoritative and dominant bloc of Sunni orthodoxy
prior to the emergence of madhabs (legal schools) by the fourth Islamic century,
Ahl Al-Hadeeth scholars, like modern-day Salafi-Wahhabis,20 rejected rationalist
approaches and espoused a strictly literalist (zahiri) interpretation of the Quran
and Hadeeth literature.21 However, Oliver Leaman cautions against misinterpreting
the terms “traditionalists” for Ahl Al-Hadeeth and “rationalists” for Mutazila as
implying that the former favoured irrationality, while the latter did not use
Hadeeth.22
Emerging towards the end of the eighth century, the Ahl Al-Hadeeth were
also known as Atharis, who later even opposed the use of metaphorical
interpretation of Quranic verses, particularly on matters of anthropomorphic
descriptions and attributes of God and believed that the realities of godhead should
102 Political Islam: Parallel Currents in West Asia and South Asia

be left to Allah alone (tafweed). They famously asserted that the literal meaning of
the Quran and the Hadeeth should be accepted by Muslims, without asking bila
kayfa (how). The most prominent leader of Ahl Al-Hadeeth movement was Ahmad
ibn Hanbal (780–855 CE),23 who spearheaded the opposition to the Mutazila
argument of “Quran as a creation” that was orchrestrated by the Abbasid rulers of
his time.
The doctrine of Ahl Al-Hadeeth calls for strict compliance to: the sources of
Islamic law, that is, the Quran and the Hadeeth; ijma (scholarly consensus), that
is, deference of complex religious issues to qualified scholars of the Hadeeth who
are capable of deriving rulings from Hadeeth literature; and vehement hostility
towards various forms of bidah (religious innovations). Unlike the followers of
the four schools of Sunni jurisprudence (described later), Ahl Al-Hadeeth adherents
reject taqleed (the practice of blindly following jurists and their opinions [rai]
without scriptural evidence). They accept the use of reason to back religious
argument, but are against making it the sole basis for accepting divine revelation
or religious truth. They also believe that the Quran is uncreated and eternal and
still not part of godhead, an argument deemed untenable by the Mutazila
philosophers. They believe that Kalaam philosophising in religious matters is a
blameworthy innovation (bidah) and hold that faith of a Muslim increases and
decreases in correlation with the performance of prescribed rituals and duties—a
claim contested by Ashari and Maturidi scholars.
According to Ahl Al-Hadeeth, there are three incumbents in accepting tauheed:
(i) that a Muslim belives in the oneness of God, the creator and sustainer of
creation (tauheed ar-rububiyah); (ii) that a Muslim not only believes but also
worships only that one God who is Allah (tauheed al-uluhiyyah); and (iii) that a
Muslim asserts that God has a set of attributes which do not contradict each
other (tauheed al-asma wa-l-sifat).
By the nineth and tenth centuries, the Hanafi and Maliki jurists gradually
came to accept the primacy of the Quran and the Hadeeth advocated by the
Atharis and curtailed their Ahl Al-Rai analogous “excesses”. This “traditionalising”
of legal reasoning is evident in the Shafii legal school. For their part, Ahl Al-
Hadeeth scholars, particularly the Hanbalis, gradually accepted analogous reasoning
(qiyas), albeit strictly founded on scriptural sources. Thus, the independent
thinking of Kalaam philosophers and the legal analogy of the relatively liberal Ahl
Al-Rai suffered a major decline and the process led to the closing of the “doors of
ijtihad”, although the Ahl Al-Hadeeth technically remain proponents of ijtihad.
 Political and Religious Ferment in Umayyad Rule 103

During the fourteenth century, the Ahl Al-Hadeeth school underwent a religious
renewal under the controversial scholarship of Ahmad Ibn Taimiyyah and in the
eighteenth century, under Muhammad ibn Abd Al-Wahhab.24

Formation of Jurisprudential Schools (pl. Madhahib)

The authoritarian practices of the Umayyad Caliphate, as opposed to the relatively
more egalitarian rule of the Rashidun Caliphs, became a significant subject of
discussion among the religious and philosophical personages of the time. A major
discussion was on how to run contemporary politics and society based on Islamic
principles. At that time, the Quran was the principal source of guidance, but it
mostly spoke of metaphysical aspects and was quite succinct in its directions
when it came to complex legal issues and everyday codes of conduct.
The Prophet had not encouraged his disciples to write down his sayings and
acts as he wished there should be no confusion between the revelations of the
Quran, which he believed he received from God, and his explanations and
teachings. However, the oral tradition had kept alive his sayings and acts for over
a century in the collective memory of his devout followers. In order to better
understand the context of the Quranic verses, it was felt, in the eighth century,
that it was important to write books on the life of the Prophet (Seerat-un-Nabi)
and collect his “sayings” (known as Hadeeth) of his Sunnah (Prophet’s sayings and
practices that are both undocumented sources such as in oral tradition and those
in Hadeeth texts) in writing by various scholars.
These written records of the Hadeeth and the Seerah (short for ‘Seeratul Nabi’,
which refers to the Prophet’s biography) were to be used to complement the
instructions from the Quran, in order to build a fully codified and detailed way
of life and system of Islamic jurisprudence (fiqh) in order to establish the Shariah
(the social, ethical, legal and even political code of Islam). The development of
fiqh became so popular under the Umayyads that virtually every town in the
empire had its own “fiqh”.25 It was only in the Abbasid period that jurists started
to evolve a more unified system of Islamic law.26
In contemporary times, the Amman Message (a statement issued for tolerance
and unity in the Muslim world by King Abdullah II bin Al-Hussein of Jordan),
issued in 2004, recognised eight legitimate schools of Islamic law and prohibited
declarations of apostasy against them. As a result, the message received wide
acceptability in the Muslim world.27 These eight schools of Islamic law—which
include four Sunni, two Shia and two other Muslim schools of jurisprudence—
104 Political Islam: Parallel Currents in West Asia and South Asia

are Hanafi (Sunni), Maliki (Sunni), Shafii (Sunni), Hanbali (Sunni), Jafari (Shia),
Zaydi (Shia), Ibadi (moderate Khariji), Zahiri (Ahl Al-Hadeeth). Discussed next
are a few prominent schools and their geopolitical spread across the map of the
Islamic world.

Hanafi Fiqh of Sunni Islam: Room for Interpretation (Rai)

As stated earlier, Abu Hanifa is the founder of the most largely followed Sunni
school of Islamic jurisprudence. Abu Hanifa is known to have favoured reason in
his legal rulings (faqih du ray). His theological school is claimed to have later
developed into the Maturidi school of Islamic theology.28
In its interpretation of divine law (Shariah) as enshrined in the Quran and
Hadeeth literature, Hanafi methodology (usul) makes use of four sources: (i)
ijma or concensus; (ii) qiyas or legal analogy; (iii) istihsan (juristic discretion);
and (iv) urf (normative customs). The Hanafi school may not endorse ijtihad
(independent reasoning), but it favours istihsan, which literally means “to consider
something good”, particularly preferring one juristic analogy over the other because
of it being more beneficial. Abu Hanifa is known for having his personal opinion
(rai) on issues and free use of istihsan, which makes him a controversial jurist in
the eyes of certain other Sunni schools, such as the Shafii and Hanbali. However,
in his time, this juristic flexibility of istihsan, through the application of rai, in
formulating legal stances made Hanafi school more popular among converts from
other non-Arab cultures.29
Although Abu Hanifa wrote little himself, his students (like Abu Yusuf and
Muhammad Al-Shaybani) preserved his views in their writings for posterity.30 It
is interesting to note that Abu Hanifa was a silk merchant and his grandfather,
Zuta, was brought as a slave from Kabul (Afghanistan) to Kufa. No wonder his
eclectic upbringing and school of jurisprudence appealed to the converts from
Persia, Central Asia and India!

Maliki Fiqh: Importance of Customs in Law (Medina Practice)

Departing from Abu Hanifa’s stress on istihsan, Malik ibn Anas (711–95 CE)
stressed on the customary law and religious practices of Medina, the city nurtured
by Prophetic practices. According to Imam Malik ibn Anas, the city preserved the
Prophet’s community in the original Sunnah (Prophetic practices). To this end,
he wrote a compendium called Mutawattab (The Beaten Path) on the customs of
Medina, as a repository of the Prophet’s law and way of life. The Maliki school
 Political and Religious Ferment in Umayyad Rule 105

also included the rulings of the Rashidun Caliphs, particularly Caliph Umar, in
its school of jurisprudence.31
Thus, in its sources of law, Maliki school covered the Quran, the Hadeeth,
the ‘Amal’ (traditions of the city of Medina), the practices and legal rulings of
‘sahaba’ (companions of the Prophet such as Caliph Umar), along with qiyas,
istislah (judgments in Islamic law given in public interest in the absence of clear
scriptural reference) and urf (societal norms as opposed to religious law). The
Maliki school became prevalent in Medina, Egypt and North Africa.
Some prominent Islamic scholars and personalities of this school were Ibn
Rushd (Averroes), Al-Qurtubi, Ibn Battuta (the great Moroccan explorer), Ibn
Khaldun (the great philosopher and sociologist), among many others.

Shafii Fiqh: Importance to Documented Records

Muhammad Idris ibn Al-Shafii (767–820 CE) was not convinced that
contemporary Medina city was a reliable guide to Islamic way of life under the
Prophet. Born in Gaza, Imam Shafii had studied under Imam Malik in Medina
but, unlike his teacher’s views, preferred documented and verified sayings of the
Prophet (Ahadeeth, which is plural for Hadeeth) over the customs of the city of
Medina. He also wanted every Hadeeth of the Prophet to be reliably supported
by a chain (isnad) of devout Muslims leading directly to the Prophet.
Imam Shafii took a middle position between personal opinion (rai) and istihsan
(juristic discretion) and ijtihad (independent reasoning) preferred by the Hanafi
school over the more conformist and literal interpretations of the Ahl Al-Hadeeth
scholars. He stressed four roots of Islamic law (usul al-fiqh), namely, the Quran,
the Sunnah and the Hadeeth, qiyas (analogy) and ijma (the consensus of the
community). Not averse to ijtihad, Al-Shafii believed it should be confined to
strict analogy (qiyas). Today, the Shafii school dominates in the regions of Southern
Arabia, East Africa, Upper Egypt, Indonesia and Malaysia.

Hanbali Fiqh: Rejection of Bidah (Non-Islamic Innovations)

The Hanbali fiqh belongs to the Ahl Al-Hadeeth group (explained earlier) and is
opposed to both Ahl Al-Kalaam and Ahl Al-Rai school of Abu Hanifa and Malik.
Highly critical of foreign influences and innovations in religious belief (bidah),
the school rejects taqleed (blind following of religious scholars). Of all the above-
mentioned three jurisprudential schools, the Hanbali fiqh is the smallest, now
found primarily in Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Bahrain, Oman, Syria, Yemen, Iraq and
106 Political Islam: Parallel Currents in West Asia and South Asia

Jordan’s Bedouins.32 The UAE emirates of Sharjah, Umm Al-Quwain, Ras Al-
Khaimah and Ajman are predominantly Hanbali.
The sources it uses to derive its codification of Shariah are the Quran, the
Hadeeth and the views of sahaba. It is, however, very sceptical of using urf (customs
of a community), or istihsan (juristic discretion) or ijtihad (independent reasoning).
As discussed earlier, Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal did not alter his religious
beliefs despite the torture of Caliph Mamun to accept that the Quran is a time
and space-bound creation. The literalist outlook of the Hanbali school and its
rejection of bidah is closest in framing the religious doctrines of thirteenth-century
philosopher Ibn Taimiyyah, eighteenth-century theologian Muhammad ibn Abd
Al-Wahhab and many of today’s Salafi-jihadist groups.

Jafari Fiqh: Shia Law School Relying on Reason (Ijtihad)

Named after the sixth imam of Shia Islam, Imam Jafar Al-Sadiq (702–65 CE),
the Jafari school of Shia jurisprudence relies on ijtihad and differs from the above-
mentioned Sunni madhabs on matters of inheritance, religious taxes and
commercial matters; also, it allows temporary marriage (or mutah).33 The renowned
Sunni Al-Azhar University of Egypt has accorded the status of fifth school to
Jafari jurisprudence, along with the aforementioned Sunni schools.34
Known as Al-Fiqh Al-Ja‘fari, the jurisprudence of Imam Jafar is collected in
400 usuls (foundations), which are written by his students, and cover the Hadeeth,
Islamic philosophy, theology, commentary of the Quran, literature and ethics.
The Jafari school is itself divided into two branches, the Usuli and the Akhbari.
The Usuli school is open to ijtihad under a mujtahid (scholar of immense religious
knowledge and wisdom, capable of independent reasoning) based on contemporary
reality, while the Akhbaris are somewhat restrictive in this approach.35

Ibadi Fiqh: Moderate Remnant of Khariji Sect

Ibadism is the only surviving sect of Kharijis, and thus represents the third main
branch of Islam after Sunni and Shia Islam. In fact, Kharijis emerged as the first
sect in Islam, before Sunni and Shia, during the First Fitna (656–61 CE).36
Having faced persecution by both Sunnis and Shias for several centuries over
their allegedly uncompromising and extremist beliefs, the sect split into several
sub-sects during the Second Fitna (680–92 CE), which involved the martyrdom
of Imam Husayn and Abdullah bin Zubayr. A surviving sub-sect of Khariji sect,
Ibadism is currently the largest Muslim denomination in Oman, but its followers
are also found in Algeria, Tunisia and Libya.
 Political and Religious Ferment in Umayyad Rule 107

The Ibadis have many things in common with not only Salafi but also Shia
doctrines. Like Salafis, they oppose taqleed (blind adherence to any Imam or
scholar), but stress the importance of ijtihad. Unlike Sunnis and Shias, they believe
that in the absence of any real imam in contemporary times, hudud punishments
(such as flogging and stoning) against some sexual sins remain suspended. Friday
prayers are also not held in Ibadi fiqh. Unlike Salafis, Ibadis interpret
anthropomorphic references to God in the Quran symbolically rather than literally,
and unlike most Sunnis, they believe Quran is created. They practise Shia taqiyya
(allowance to lie) to avoid persecution, even though some of their scholars do not
consider Uthman and Ali as legitimate caliphs.37

Collection of Hadeeth Literature

Remarkably, the collection of the Prophet’s sayings in written volumes started
notably after the formation of Islamic schools of jurisprudence, particularly after
Imam Shafii laid down the rules for their possible compilation and classification.
Without going deep into how the sayings of the Prophet were culled out of
the oral history and collective memory of the masses and then verified for their
authenticity by the compilers in their written volumes (which would be a more
suitable subject for a book on Islamic theology), it is essential to note that among
the majority Sunni school of Islam, which constitutes over 80 per cent of the
Muslim population, the canonical Hadeeth collections are the six books (Sahih
Sitta), named after its six compilers.
Of these, Sahih Al-Bukhari (compiled in 846 CE) and Shahih Muslim (875
CE) were compiled almost 200 years after the birth of the Prophet. The other
books of Hadeeth are Sunan Abu Dawood, Jami Al-Tirmidhi, Al-Sunan Al-Sughra
(also known as Sunan Al-Nisai) and Sunan ibn Majah. However, the Malikis
reject Sunan ibn Majah and assert the canonical status of Muwatta Imam Malik.38

NOTES
1 Ahmad b. Muhammad ibn Hanbal, Al-Musnad, 50 vols, edited by A. Murshid, Beirut:
Mu’assasat al-Risala, 2008.
2 Wadad Kadi and Aram A. Shahin, “Caliph, caliphate”, The Princeton Encyclopedia of Islamic
Political Thought, Princeton University Press, pp. 81–86.
3 Sean W. Anthony, “‘Prophetic Dominion, Umayyad Kingship: Varieties of Mulk in the Early
Islamic Period”, in Andrew Marsham (ed.), The Umayyad World, Abingdon and New York:
Routledge, 2020, p. 39.
4 Nadia Maria El-Cheikh, ‘Byzantine Leaders in Arabic-Muslim Texts’, in J. Haldon and L.I.
Conrad (eds), The Byzantine and Early Islamic Near East IV: Elites Old and New, Princeton:
Darwin Press, 2004, pp. 109–32.
108 Political Islam: Parallel Currents in West Asia and South Asia

5 Sean W. Anthony, ‘Chapter Three: Prophetic Dominion, Umayyad Kingship: Variety of Kingship
in the Early Islamic Period”, in Andrew Marsham (ed.), The Ummayyad World, Routledge
Handbooks Online, p. 42.
6 Philip K. Hitti, ‘Decline and Fall of the Umayyads’ in History of Arabs, Palgrave, London,
1970.
7 Daniel W. Brown, A New Introduction to Islam, Blackwell Publication, 2017, p. 40.
8 Patricia Crone and Martin Hinds, God’s Caliph: Religious Authority in the First Centuries of
Islam, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986, p. 19.
9 Arthur Goldschmidt Jr and Lawrence Davidson, A Concise History of the Middle East, The
American University in Cairo Press, 2009, p. 67.
10 Abu Tariq Hijazi, “Umar bin Abdul Aziz: A Great Muslim Ruler”, Arab News, 14 September
2012, available at https://www.arabnews.com/islam-perspective/umar-bin-abdul-aziz-great-
muslim-ruler, last accessed on 18 September 2023.
11 Ibid.
12 Karen Armstrong, Islam: A Short History’, Modern Library, London, 2002, p. 45.
13 Philip K. Hitti, p. 240.
14 Daniel W. Brown, Rethinking Tradition in Modern Islamic Thought, Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1996, p. 13.
15 Alexander Treiger, “Part I: Islamic Theologies during the Formative and the Early Middle
Period—Origins of Kalam”, in Sabine Schmidktke (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Islamic
Theology, Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 2014, pp. 27–43.
16 Majid Fakhry, A History of Islamic Philosophy, 2nd edition, New York: Columbia University
Press, 1983, pp. xvii–xviii.
17 Suleiman A. Mourad, “Al-Hasan Al-Basrî”, in Kate Fleet, Gudrun Krämer, Denis Matringe,
John Nawas and Everett Rowson (eds), Encyclopaedia of Islam, THREE, 2007.
18 Ibid.
19 Karen Armstrong, Islam: A Short History’, Modern Library, London, 2002, p. 47.
20 Azmi Bishara, “What is Salafism?” in On Salafism: Concepts and Contexts, Stanford, CA: Stanford
University Press, 2022, Chapter 1, p. 2.
21 Marshall Hodgson, The Venture of Islam, Vol. 1: The Classical Age of Islam, Chicago: University
of Chicago Press, 2009.
22 Oliver Leaman, “Ahl al-$adeeth”, in John L. Esposito (ed.), The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Islamic
World, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009, p. 2.
23 Jeffry R. Halverson, “The Demise of ‘Ilm al-Kalam”, in Theology and Creed in Sunni Islam:
The Muslim Brotherhood, Ash’arism, and Political Sunnism, New York: Palgrave Macmillan,
2010, Chapter 2.
24 Basheer M. Naf ’I, “A Teacher of Ibn ‘Abd al- and the
Revival of ’s Methodology”, Islamic Law and Society, Vol. 13, No. 2, 2006,
p. 236.
25 The term ‘fiqh’ means the human understanding of the Islamic law (or Shariah) as divinely
revealed in the Quran and Hadeeth literature. In a way, fiqh expounds and elucidates the
profound and succinct manner in which divine truths are revealed in the scriptures.
26 Karen Armstrong, p. 59.
27 Jocelyn Hendrickson, “Fatwa”, in Gerhard Böwering and Patricia Crone (eds), The Princeton
Encyclopedia of Islamic Political Thought, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2013.
28 Ahmad Pakatchi and Suheyl Umar, “Abû $anîfa”, in Wilferd Madelung and Farhad Daftary
(eds), Encyclopaedia Islamica.
 Political and Religious Ferment in Umayyad Rule 109

29 Daniel Brown, Rethinking Tradition in Modern Islamic Thought, p. 120.

30 Karen Armstrong, p. 49.
31 Jamal Nasir, The Islamic Law of Personal Status, Brill Academic, 1990, pp. 16–17.
32 Mohammad Hashim Kamali, Shari’ah Law: An Introduction, 2008, Chapter 4, Oneworld
Publications, Oxford, 2008.
33 Moojan Momen, An Introduction to Shi’i Islam, New Haven: Yale University Press, 1985.
34 Vali Nasr, The Shia Revival: How Conflicts within Islam will Shape the Future, New York: W.W.
Norton and Company, 2006.
35 Florian Pohl, “Muslim World: Modern Muslim Societies,” Marshall Cavendish, New York,
2010, p. 50.
36 Adam B. Gaiser, Muslims, Scholars, and Soldiers: The Origin and Elaboration of the Ibadi Imamate
Traditions, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2010.
37 Valerie Jon Hoffman, The Essentials of Ibadi Islam, Syracuse: Syracuse University Press, 2012.
38 Muhammad Mustafa Azami, Studies in Hadith Methodology and Literature, American Trust
Publications, 1978, p. 3.
ABBASID GOLDEN AGE AND THE
NEW COSMOPOLITY
 9
Abbasid Revolution and the Pivot to Persia

“While Rome was falling, Islam was rising, so you had a caliphate
doing well while Rome was doing terribly. And that ended up being a
source of preservation of knowledge and many scientific advancements.”
—Elon Musk1

The Abbasid Caliphate (750–1258 CE) came to power after a revolt against corrupt
Umayyad rulers, following the Third Fitna (744–50 CE). Building on the wave
of rebellions in Khorasan (eastern Iran) as well as the Shia Zaidi revolt south of
Caspian and in Lebanon, the Abbasids defeated the last Umayyad caliph, Marwan
II, at the Battle of Great Zab River in Mesopotamia (750 CE) and proclaimed
Abu Al-Abbas Al-Saffah as their first caliph.
The Abbasids were descendants of Al-Abbas (who died in 653 CE), the famous
uncle of the Prophet. They belonged to his Hashemite clan of Quraysh tribe in
Mecca, unlike their rival Umayyad clan who had been adversaries of the Prophet
until the conquest of Mecca. However, the Umayyad rivary with the household
of the Prophet (Ahl Al Bayt), Muawiya ibn Abi Sufyan against Ali ibn Talib in the
Battle of Siffin, Yazid ibn Muawiyah against Husayn ibn Ali in the Battle of
Karbala. The history of Umayyads against the Prophet’s descendants in addition
to their unpopular oppressive policies helped Abbasids to whip up support among
the masses, through propaganda, they won the support of Shia Arabs and Persians
in the Khorasan region.
114 Political Islam: Parallel Currents in West Asia and South Asia

The Abbasids has started off as righteous revolutionaries. But they soon turned
out to be ruthless dictators, who abandoned their initial sympathies towards the
minority groups, like the Shias, and adopted the heavy-handed measures that
were characterstic of the Umayyads. For instance, their first caliph, Abu Al-Abbas
Al-Saffah, in an apparent gesture of reconciliation, invited eighty of the surviving
members of the Umayyad clan to a banquet at Jaffa on 22 June 750 CE. The
Umayyads who attended this infamous “Banquet of Blood” were massacred, while
the remaining male members were hunted down.2
The only prominent member of the Umayyad clan to survive was Abd Al-
Rahman. He fled west and established an independent polity in Spain, the
Umayyad Emirate (and later caliphate) of Cordoba. Al-Saffah’s successor, Abu
Jafar Al-Mansur (754–75 CE), was also known for his brutality. He killed a number
of Shia leaders, many of whom had helped Abbasids come to power.

The Baghdad Cosmopolity

The Umayyads, with their capital in Damascus, had focused their expansion to
the west—North Africa, the Mediterranean and Southeast Europe. In contrast,
the Abbasid caliphs focused their attention eastwards and they shifted the capital
from Damascus to Kufa, and from there built their new capital city of Baghdad
(in 762 CE), which was close to the Sassanid city of Ctesiphon and on the banks
of the river Tigris (“Dajla” in Arabic).
The Abbasids promised that non-Arab Muslim converts (known as ‘mawalis’)
and their provinces would be given equal treatment under their rule, and Arab
provinces would not be accorded a higher status, as was the norm under the
Umayyads. The shifting of the capital to Baghdad brought the Abbasids closer to
their support base of Persian mawalis. From this vantage point, events in Persia
and Transoxiana were easy to monitor.
For the first time in Muslim history, Islamic rule extended beyond its so-
called caliphate. In Egypt, North Africa and Spain, local dynasties claimed
independent status. An international community of religious brotherhood
extended beyond the bounds of Arab nationality.
It was under the Abbasids that the term ‘Dawla’ was first used. In the words
of Antony Black: “In his inaugural speech, Abu Al-Abbas referred to dawla. Dawla
was to become the standard term for dynasty, regime and the state. It meant a
turn of fortune (and of the stars in their spheres) and thus the era in which a
particular dynasty held sway rather than the governmental institutions”.3
 Abbasid Revolution and the Pivot to Persia 115

Mutazila Neo-Platonists and the Hanbali–Athari Pushback

As noted in the previous chapter, the Jabriyya philosophical school that grew
popular under Umayyad rulers upheld the belief that human actions are
predetermined by God and so there is no real choice or freewill accorded to
humans in shaping their destinies. In fcat, this fatalistic philosophy was used by
Umayyad rulers to justify their heavy-handed oppression, and they claimed that
as their rule was pre-determined by God under Khilafat al Allah (under a Caliph
of God), there was no room for the exercise of any freewill by the subjects (in
other words any rebellion) against the political status quo.
In opposition of this line of reasoning, a new school of rationality inspired by
Greek philosophy, re-interpreted Islam and advocated that Islam supports freewill
and not determinism, as God would judge humans based on the choices they
make out of their free will on Judgment Day. By using the scientific theory of
causalty, they asserted that as religiously codified ethical actions have favourable
outcomes and sins lead to harmful consequences, Islam and Greek scientific
thought had great similarity.
Wasil ibn Ata (700–48 CE), who was one of the students of aforementioned
Hasan Al-Basri, became the founder of the Mutazila school of kalaam (religious
philosophising), which soon gained in popularity and ultimately became the
political antithesis against the ruling dispensation, which was exploited by Abbasid
revolutionaries to topple the Umayyad caliphate.
The Mutazila school of thought promoted a rationalism that upheld Islamic
principles of tauheed (oneness of God), adl (justice) and made controversial
interpretations that favoured human freewill (as opposed to determinism) and
made the claim that the Quran is a creation and is therefore uncreated, which
made it time-bound and not eternal. This implied that the rules of religion were
not meant to be applicable for all times. The emphasis on Greek rationality opened
avenues for free scientific thought and unsurprisingly, the Abbasid Caliphate that
replaced erstwhile Jabariyya beliefs with Mutazila Kalaam theology led to a boost
in science and mathematics as well as in wider cultural affloroscence.
As these religious philosophers were inspired by Greek rationalism, they did
not take sides on sectarian issues, such as the Ali–Muawiya rivalry. Their tendancy
to withdraw (itazahu) from making a judgement from such debates gave them
the name “Mutazila” (“those who stand out” or are non-partisan). By the tenth
century, the Mutazilas flourished as a school of speculative theology in Basra and
Baghdad.
116 Political Islam: Parallel Currents in West Asia and South Asia

The later Mutazilas dealt with three fundamental philosophical ideas: (i) the
oneness and justice of God (contending that God does not do evil and that evil is
the result of human misdeeds or error); (ii) human freedom of action (God does
not predetermine human destiny and therefore will hold humans responsible for
their decisions on the Last Day); and (iii) the Quran is a creation as God would
have logically preceded his speech (thereby rejecting the doctrine that Quran is
co-eternal with God and for all times).4
By declaring the Quran a creation, the Abbasid rulers who rode to power on
popular Mutazila revolt against the Umayyads used the Mutazila argument of a
created Quran to annul its applicability to their times. The Mutazila “taught that
the content of the Quran was contingent to the time and place of its revelation,
thus allowing for adaptation to changes in the future.”5 By limiting its creation to
the time and space continuum of the Prophet’s Arabia, they sought to absolve
themselves from conforming to its injunctions to pursue Mutazila rationalism as
a means for expedient policymaking.
Thus, the philosophical movement that initially opposed Umayyad despotism
became a handmaiden of the new Abbasid rulers, who wanted to operate above
the limitations set by even religious laws. In 833 CE, Caliph Al-Mamun sought
to exploit Mutazila philosophy for political ends and initiated a draconian phase
of repression known as the Mihna (or “ordeal”). Lasting 18 years, it was a phase in
which Islamic scholars (both Sunni and Shia) were imprisoned, tortured and
even killed, unless they conformed to the Mutazila doctrine of Quran’s
“createdness”.
Among the Islamic scholars persecuted was the proponent of a Sunni school
of jurisprudence, Imam Ibn Hanbal. Abbasid Caliph Al-Mamun repeatedly flogged
the highly venerated figure, a practice which continued after his death in the
reign of his brother, Al-Mutassim. It was not until their half-brother, Al-
Mutawakkil, took power in AD 847 that the persecution stopped.
To a great extent, the unfortunate “ordeal” disenchanted Muslim acceptance
of Greek rationality and the rational Mutazilas. The persecution of Ibn Hanbal
made his school of jurisprudence reactionary and more averse to rationality than
the earlier schools of fiqh (jurisprudence), giving way to Athari theology which
reads the Quran in a literal and non-contextual manner and in being opposed to
inductive and abductive reasoning for its understanding. Adherents of Athari
theology only accept the zahiri (literal) meaning of the Quran and the Hadeeth
for framing their beliefs (aqeeda) and legal interpretation of Shariah (fiqh).
 Abbasid Revolution and the Pivot to Persia 117

Belonging to the Hanbali school (at times Shafii) of Sunni jurisprudence, they
oppose rational determination or Sufi metaphorical interpretation in trying to
comprehend the scriptural texts (Quran and Hadeeth). Instead, they advocate
the famous Arabic dictum, bila kayfa, which implies accepting occurrences as
ways of God, without asking “how” or “what”. 6
Although the Salafi-Wahhabi movement does not officially conform to the
Hanbali school of Sunni Islam, many of its jurisprudential positions are similar
to Hanbali fiqh (followed mainly in the Arabian Peninsula to date), for example,
it is opposed to any hermeneutic and philosophical reinterpretation of the Quran
and Hadeeth texts.
Most contemporary Islamists view the once-feted Mutazila school as a near-
heretic movement based on “irreligious rational philosophising” (kalaam).
Despised by both the Sufi and the Salafi schools, the Mutazila precedent lies at
the root of theological scepticism towards Western philosophy and sciences. To
many conservative Islamic scholars of the day, the call for Islamic jurisprudential
reform in keeping with twenty-first-century realities is just an echo of Caliph
Mamun’s deception.

The Golden Age and the House of Wisdom (Bayt Al-Hikma)

However, Abbasid Caliphate also gained by implementing the rationalist Mutazila
approach and is credited with ushering in the Islamic Golden Age, a period of
immense socio-cultural, economic and scientific flourishing. The phase is
understood to have begun during the rule of Caliph Harun Al-Rashid (786–809
CE) with the inauguration of the House of Wisdom (Bayt Al-Hikma) in Baghdad,
which became the world’s largest city of its time.
The age of rationality and enlightenment was further facilitated by the
introduction of paper in the tenth century, which enabled Islamic scholars to
write several manuscripts. Classical works of antiquity and scientific knowledge
from the ancient Greek, Roman, Persian, Chinese, Indian, Egyptian and
Phoenician civilisations were saved and translated into Arabic. As a result, scientific
advancements in the fields of algebra, calculus, geometry, chemistry, biology,
medicine and astronomy were achieved.
This Golden Age of economic, cultural and scientific progress produced
notable pioneers in the field of knowledge, like Al-Khwarizmi (father of algebra
and founder of algorithm); Ibn Sina or Avicenna (medicine or clinical
pharmacology); Alhazen (father of modern optics); Al-Biruni (father of Indology
118 Political Islam: Parallel Currents in West Asia and South Asia

and regarded as the first anthropologist); Ibn Rushd or Averroes (the philosopher
whose commentaries reintroduced Greek philosophy of Plato and Aristotle to
Europe); Al-Jazari (forerunner of automaton); Ibn Khaldun (father of sociology);
and many more. According to Neil deGrasse Tyson, a famous US astrophysicist,
two-thirds of all named stars in the night sky have Arabic names till date.7 These
were mainly discovered and named by Abbasid era astrologers. Literary works,
such as The Arabian Nights (which includes world-renowned stories, like “Alibaba
and the Forty Thieves”) and The Seven Voyages of Sindbad the Sailor, were also the
marvels of this age.
Scholars attribute political stability, government sponsorship of educational
institutions and scholarly endeavours, widespread education and invention of
new technology (particularly in writing with the invention of paper), and the
contribution of non-Arab Muslims, particularly Persians, as reasons for the
flowering of the Abbasid Golden Age. In the words of Bernard Lewis:
Culturally, politically, and most remarkable of all even religiously, the
Persian contribution to this new Islamic civilization is of immense
importance. The work of Iranians can be seen in every field of cultural
endeavor, including Arabic poetry, to which poets of Iranian origin
composing their poems in Arabic made a very significant contribution.8

Growing Influence of Non-Islamic Political Thought

Islamic political thought had veered between Arab neo-tribalism, with its
characteristically pietist, egalitarian ideal, and patrimonial bureaucracy even during
the Umayyad period. This confusion was largely settled with the coming of the
Abbasid period, when “an articulate tradition of centralised monarchy was
transmitted from Iran by Ibn Muqaffa (written 754–6)”, which gained the upper
hand over an Islamic tradition that “was still not fully formed, and its political
drift not yet clear”.9
Although the Abbasids had started off as idealistic revolutionaries, they adopted
the ways of their autocratic predecessors (the Umayyad caliphs) and once in power,
reverted to Umayyad absolutism. In order to gain popular legitimacy and
strengthen their rule, they eliminated many of the religious leaders (both Shias
who had supported their revolution and Sunni jurists like Imam Ibn Hanbal).
For this purpose, they used Sassanid political literature that literally elevated
kingship to cosmic proportions. Abbasid regal propaganda borrowed profusely
from Perso-Sassanian concepts with Quranic undertones. A common catchphrase
 Abbasid Revolution and the Pivot to Persia 119

of the time was that “[t]he light of prophecy” shines from the prince’s forehead,
“the government (al-saltana) is God’s shadow on earth, and all those troubled
find refuge in it”.10
The Sassanian view of monarchy was transmitted in The Testament of Ardashir,
translated for the Abbasid rulers by Ibn Muqaffa. The treatise contained a statement
made popular by Abbasid rulers: “Kingship and religion are twins…religion is
the foundation of kingship and kingship the protector of religion.”11

Ibn Muqaffa: The First Arab Political Scientist

A pioneer of classical Arabic prose literature, Abdallah Ibn Muqaffa (720–57 CE)
translated several Indo-Persian texts into Arabic, and also wrote extensively for
the development of Abbasid political philosophy.
Among his many achievements is the epic translation of the 3 century BC
Sanskrit allegorical fables Panchatantra (written by Vishnu Sharma), which are
replete with ancient Indian wisdom on political issues. Ibn Maqaffa translated
them from Farsi into Arabic under the title, Kalilah wa-Dimnah, which became
one of the first masterpieces of Arabic literary prose. He also wrote a manual for
secretaries, Kitab Adab Al-Kabir (“The Major Work on Secretarial Etiquette”),
which had an important first section, “Mirror for Princes”, that advised the caliph’s
young son on the rules of conduct (adaab). It encouraged the future leader to
listen to advice from qualified counsellors, even when it was unpalatable.
However, it is Ibn Muqaffa’s “Risalah fil-Sahabah” (“Messages in Friendship”)
that has drawn much interest of political theorists. Written in 754–56 CE, the
short and prescriptive text was a direct message to Abbasid Caliph Al-Mansur,
whom the writer hoped would be open to receiving ideas for improving
government, unlike some of his predecessors. Considered an attempt at devising
a political philosophy for the Abbasid Caliphate, the text counselled on leadership,
military, ministries, advisors, legislation, economics, interest groups, as well as
how to manage one’s subjects.
In the text, Ibn Muqaffa tried to resolve the confusion between obedience to
God and obedience to the ruler, which often causes cognitive dissonance in minds
of Muslims to this day. Remarkably, Ibn Muqaffa believed that religious
jurisprudence that prescribed similar duties for both rulers and subjects would
led to greater stability than power based on subordination or arbitrary force.
However, the leader’s command should gain precedence and his orders obeyed on
matters related to the declaration and execution of war, the appointment of officials,
120 Political Islam: Parallel Currents in West Asia and South Asia

generation and distribution of public revenue from taxes, war booty and other
sources.
Ibn Muqaffa said that the ruler should not only administer legal penalties (as
was generally accepted) but also clarify and systematise the framework of religious
law by propounding his authoritative codification. He proposed that the law for
the Muslim subjects should be taken out of the hands of contending religious
scholars (ulema) and be entrusted to the Ameerul Mumineen (which is the caliph).
Islamic religious scholarship might not have contended such a line of thought
had the caliph stuck to a way of life in line with the Rashidun Caliphs. However,
at that time, the arbitrary practices of the head of state had diminished the
legitimacy of the titular caliph to interfere in matters of religious affair. Ibn
Muqaffa’s views may, arguably, have had an impact on Caliph Al-Mamun and his
infamous policy of forcing the ulema to accept his theological position on the
“createdness” of the Quran, which had dire consequences for the Abbasid Caliphate
and the future of Muslim civilisation.
Still, Ibn Muqaffa’s “Risalah fil-Sahabah” was a seminal political treatise, which
helped in the development of early Muslim political thought. Anthony Black
writes: “The Risala had a clear programme: the application of the principles of
patrimonial government developed in ancient Iran to the Caliphate. It was one of
the most systematic and least rhetorical or reverential of early Islamic political
writings. The narrative Report-culture (Hadeeth collection) was already established,
but the Religious Jurists had not yet formulated a theory of government. There
was, therefore, something of a gap in political theory and culture that Ibn Muqaffa
presumably thought he could fill.”12

Al-Jahiz: Rationalist Advocate of the State

Abu Uthman Amr ibn Bahr Al-Jahiz (776–868/869 CE) was another philosopher
litterateur who supported the primacy of the caliph or leader of the state (dawla)
over the ulema. Possibly of Abyssinian origin, he supported the cosmopolitan
policies of the Abbasids and, as a true Mutazila philosopher, held the intellect
(aql) as “a pilot and companion in good fortune and ill”.13
Al-Jahiz was an elitist and spoke contemptuously about the ordinary people
and his polemic is replete with the binary between the elite and the masses (al-
khassa wa’l-amma).14 Opposed to popular participation in politics at any level ,
he emphasised: “it is, therefore, our duty to establish a single Leader…This is a
fact confirmed by general observation and…experience…God so designed the
world and its inhabitants…that they are better off with a single Leader.”15
 Abbasid Revolution and the Pivot to Persia 121

He stressed the need for political authority and monarchical race to discipline
human nature to make it work hard for its own good. Thus, he stated:
It is only by rigorous training, severe rebukes in this world, and the
threat of terrible punishment in the next, that men are able to resist
their own worst natures…It is in men’s nature…to evade the enforcement
of deserved penalties whenever they can. This is what causes general
disorder and the non-enforcement of laws.16
Al-Jahiz staunchly rejected the egalitarian view prevalent in some circles that
“it is more profitable for men to be left in liberty without a guardian”. A true
statist, he believed that the institution of state was also important for those humans
who sought to lead a spiritual and religious life. Thus, he wrote that people could
attend to spiritual needs only if they had satisfied their material needs. In this
respect, Al-Jahiz was more of a materialist than a typical religious idealist of his
time.

Al-Farabi: Religion as a Branch of Political Science

A Shia musician of Turkish descent, Abu Nasr Al-Farabi (872–950 CE) placed
rationalist philosophy close to revealed religion. He believed that Shia Islam, with
its belief in an abstract God and its cult of Imam, was the perfect religion to build
a rational society, something that Plato and Aristotle could only dream of a polity
ruled by a philosopher King. Al Farabi said that even Plato argued that a well-
ordered society was based on useful doctrines that the masses might conceive of
as divinely inspired.
According to Al-Farabi, Islam fulfilled the Platonic ideal as he believed it was
more reasonable than its predecessors and had no illogical doctrines, such as the
Trinity. He argued that Islam could both persuade the enlightened and compell
the ignorant for building a good society with its emphasis on law. To Al-Farabi,
“Religion was a branch of political science, and should be studied and observed
by a good ‘faylasuf ’ (philosopher).”17
Expounding the traits of the ideal ruler, Al-Farabi wrote in “The Governance
of the Ideal City/State” (Al-Siyasa Al-Madaniyya):
The best ruler without qualification is he who does not need anyone to
rule him in anything whatever, but has actually acquired the sciences
and every kind of knowledge…The men who are governed by the rule
of this ruler are the virtuous, good and happy men. If they form a
nation then that is the virtuous nation.18
122 Political Islam: Parallel Currents in West Asia and South Asia

The primary purpose of the political order, stated Al-Farabi (in his relatively
early work, “Attainment of Happiness”; in Arabic, Tahsil Al-Sada), was the
dissemination of knowledge and virtue. These were to be instilled in peoples (al-
umam) and states (al-mudan) by “instruction and the formation of character”.19
In his description of the “virtuous city” (chapters 15–19) and “governance of the
state”, “Al-Farabi presented the most systematic theory of the state that the Muslim
world had so far produced.”20
Known in the Islamic world as the “Second Teacher” after Aristotle, Al-Farabi
provided a theory of the state that compared political society with the human
body, both of which contain different organic “parts” and a ruler. The state’s parts
(five categories based on the division of labour) arise out of nature via the division
of labour. To this, he added:
People’s dispositions and habits by which they perform their actions in
the city are not natural but voluntary…They are not parts of the city by
their inborn nature alone but rather by the voluntary habits which they
acquire such as the arts and their likes.21
Apart from the “virtuous city”, Al-Farabi delineated the numerous
imperfections of various other city-state categories: ignorant, wicked and errant
cities. Thus, he classified various good and deviant states, much like Weberian
ideal types.

Emergence of Shia Islam as a Separate Sect: The Core Tenets

In strictly political terms, the history of the Shia sect can be studied in at least
three distinct stages. The first part is the emergence of the Shias just after the
Prophet’s death in 632 CE and until the Battle of Karbala in 680 CE. This period
coincides with Ali’s ‘Imamah’ (political and spiritual leadership), followed by
that of Hasan and then of Husayn. At this time, there is no formal differentiation
or separation between the Shia and Sunni sects.
The second stage is when the differentiation between the two sects of Shia
and Sunni Islam is clear and distinct, with the Sunni caliphs frequently opposing
the Shia rise as a separate sect within the Muslim community. This stage begins
after the Battle of Karbala until 10 century CE. In this stage, the Shia sect is
further divided into several other sub-sects, like the Twelvers (Ithna Ashariyya),
the Zaidis and the Ismailis. The third stage begins around the tenth century with
the formation of Shia states around the Muslim world, from Egypt, Levant, the
Maghreb, Persia to Yemen, among others.
 Abbasid Revolution and the Pivot to Persia 123

As mentioned earlier, when the Prophet died, he had not named an heir for
his newly founded Arabian state and Muslim community; therefore, there were
disagreements over who should succeed him. The group that affirmed its devotion
to the Prophet’s Sunnah (the Prophet’s traditions) became known as Ahl Al-Sunnah
or Sunni. It was the view of Sunnis that the close companions of the Prophet,
who belonged to the Quraysh tribe of Mecca, should become his successors. In
fact, the first four successors of the Prophet—Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman and
Ali—were Quraysh Meccans and were regarded as legitimate successors by the
Sunnis, who are estimated to constitute more than 85 per cent of the Muslim
community.
Meanwhile, the Shia community claimed that only members of the Prophet’s
own household (Ahl Al-Bayt), beginning with the Prophet’s cousin and husband
of his daughter Fatima, Ali ibn Talib (the fourth caliph), were the legitimate
leaders (imam) of the Muslim community. Thus, they rejected the first three
caliphs in Islamic history, with almost all Shia sub-sects (barring Zaidi Shia)
considering them as usurpers and holding them responsible for not allowing Islam
to reach its ultimate glory. Although none of the Shia imams ever cursed any
companion of the Prophet, Sunni scholars often alleged that the Shia doctrine of
tabarri (obligation of dissociation) was often applied to sahaba, like Abu Bakr,
Umar, Uthman and Muawaiya, and among women, to Ayesha, Hafsa, Hind and
Ummul Hakam (a daughter of Hind), along with all their associates and followers.
The Shias believed that the Prophet had, in his last days (in mid-March of
632 CE), conferred the title of “Maula” to Ali at Ghadeer Khumm,22 which
made him the heir apparent. In contrast, Sunnis argued that conferring the title
of Maula (which may connote “friend of God”, for it is derived from the word
“wali”) did not necessarily connote successor or heir. According to Islamic scholar
Lesley Hazleton, the Prophet’s statement at Ghadeer Khumm, “O God, befriend
the friend of Ali and be the enemy of his enemy”, was the standard formula for
pledging allegiance in the Middle East at that time.23 Both Ali and his son, Hasan,
demanded a similar pledge from their supporters during their caliphates.24
So, the dispute that simmered from the very moment of the Prophet’s death
eventually led to the Battle of the Camel (656 CE; fought between forces of the
Prophet’s wife, Ayesha, and Ali that ended in reconciliation), and then the Battle
of Siffin (657 CE; fought between the Shiatul Ali, “the Partisans of Ali”, and
Shiatul Muawiya, “the Partisans of Muawiya”). In fact, it was from the Battle of
Siffin that the two aforementioned groups splintered out of the hitherto unified
124 Political Islam: Parallel Currents in West Asia and South Asia

body of Muslims. While the Shiatul Muawiya dwindled over a period of time
and adopted the neutral position of mainstream Sunnis that regarded both Ali
and Muawiya as respectable companions of the Prophet, the Shiatul Ali continued
under the shortened title Shia madhab or as Ahl-e-Tashiyyu.
The theological argument of the Shias assigns a logical framework to their
whole system of faith. In fact, the Shia reading of the Quran is radically different
from that of the four Sunni schools of jurisprudence (pl. madhahib). The last
Quranic verse that was recited by the Prophet in his last Haj sermon — “This day
I have perfected for you your religion and completed My favour upon you and
have approved for you Islam as the religion (Surah Maidah 5:3)”25—is explained
by Sunni scholars as the finality of the divine message in the extant Quran.
However, the Shias read the verse as the initiation of the institution of Imamah
(as opposed to the Sunni caliphate), which they claim was announced by the
Prophet through the proclamation of Ali as his successor.
Thus, the Shias derive their faith from the Quran itself, which they
complement with their separate version of Hadeeth literature. For instance, Twelver
Shia (generally known as Ithna Ashariya or Imami Shia) derive their Hadeeth
literature not just from the Prophet’s sayings and deeds but also from the Twelve
Imams. Their Hadeeth books include Nahj Al-Balagha by Ash-Sharif Ar-Radhi,
Kitab Al-Kafi by Muhammad ibn Yaqub Al-Kulayni and Wasail Al-Shiah by Al-
Hurr Al-Amili.26
Among most sub-sects of Shia Islam, imams (spiritual leaders) of the
community are descendants of the Prophet and are considered sinless and infallible
(masoom), with some having greater spiritual stature than certain prophets
preceding Prophet Muhammad. They are divinely ordained by a previous imam
(nass) and receive divine guidance and assistance, even foreknowledge of future
events. Thus, the imams are endowed with divine esoteric and hidden knowledge
(batini ilm). Sunni theology, in contrast, disapproves the infallibility of humans
other than the prophets and does not regard any human to be superior to the
prophets. However, Shiism and Sufism (Sunni mysticism) are said to share a
number of similarities, such as their belief in an inner meaning to the Quran,
esoteric knowledge of certain Muslim figures (saints for Sufi, imams for Shias), as
well as veneration of Ali and the Prophet’s family (Ahl Al-Bayt).
The Imami (Twelver) Shia follow the 12 infallible imams: Ali bin Talib, Hasan,
Husayn, Ali Zainul Abideen, Muhammad Al-Baqir, Jafar Al-Sadiq, Musa Al-
Kazim, Ali Al-Raza, Muhammad Al-Taqi, Ali Al-Naqi, Hasan Al-Askari and
 Abbasid Revolution and the Pivot to Persia 125

Muhammad Al-Mahdi (who is hidden and whose return is awaited before the
end of time).27
The first succession crisis for Shia imams arose (on the fifth link in the chain)
when Zaid ibn Ali was upheld as the rightful imam by his supporters (Zaidis),
whilst the rest of the Shia community upheld Muhammad Al-Baqir as the imam.
For their part, the deeply esoteric Ismaili Shia (Seveners) get the name from their
acceptance of Imam Ismail ibn Jafar, as appointed by Jafar Al-Sadiq, the sixth
Imam, and differ from the Twelver Shia, who uphold Musa Al-Kazim, the younger
brother of Ismail, as the rightful imam.
The five basic tenets of Shia Islam (covering most of its sub-sects) include: (i)
tawheed (belief in the One God, Allah); (ii) adl (belief in divine justice); (iii)
nubuwaah (belief in divinely appointed prophethood as described in Quran); (iv)
imamate (belief in the institutional leadership of divinely appointed imams after
the Prophet); and (v) miad (belief in resurrection and Day of Judgement by Allah).
There are ten furud al-din (ancillaries of faith): salat (five daily prayers); sawm
(fasting in month of Ramadan); zakat (alms-giving to the Muslim needy); khums
(20 per cent of annual unused savings given to the Imams); the Haj (pilgrimage
to the Kaaba once in life if means permit); jihad (struggle against evil); enjoining
good; forbidding wrong; tawalla (expressing love for good); and tabarra
(dissociating from evil).
The Shias allow taqiyya, that is, to be able to deny faith when under grave
danger. Some Shia sects also allow temporary marriage (mutah), although it is
performed rarely. For the Twelver Shia, belief in the twelfth imam as the “Mahdi”,
who would come of occultation during the end times, is a principle of faith. He
is not only still alive but also exercises power and exerts influence in the world in
places of his own choosing. Sunnis generally believe in the coming of a Mahdi
and Jesus, albeit belief in the personage of the Mahdi differs from that of the
Imami Shia version, and they do not hold the belief that Mahdi is already alive
and in occultation, nor is belief in him an article of Sunni faith.
The Shias hold various festivals, like Eid Al-Fitr, Eid Al-Adha, Eid Al-Ghadeer,
the Mourning of Muharram, Arbaeen (commemoration of the suffering of women
and children in Imam Husayn’s household), Mawlid (Prophet’s birthday) and the
Prophet’s daughter Fatima’s birthday, among other religious holidays. Mecca,
Medina, Jerusalem, Najaf (sanctuary of Imam Ali), Karbala (place of Imam
Husayn’s martyrdom), Mashhad and Qom are their revered cities.
126 Political Islam: Parallel Currents in West Asia and South Asia

Zaid’s Martyrdom and the Zaidi Shia

After the Battle of Karbala, the Shia emerged as a distinct sect in Islam, and its
believers used the martyrdom of Husayn as a rallying cry for opposition against
the Umayyad rulers. The most notable among the early Shia revolts against the
Umayyads was that of Zaid ibn Ali, the learned grandson of Husayn ibn Ali. The
revolt ended unsuccessfully and led to the martyrdom of Zaid in 740 CE, which
then gave rise to the Zaidi sect of Shia Islam.
Zaid had also received Sunni support, with the renowned Sunni jurist Abu
Hanifa issuing a fatwa in support of his uprising against the Umayyad rule. Today,
Zaid is considered a martyr by almost all Islamic sects. There was also another
Shia revolt against the Umayyads under Abdallah ibn Muawiya, who even managed
to establish temporary rule over Persia, but not for long.
After that, a more significant proto-Shia rebellion was led by Al-Mukhtar
from Kufa (Ali’s former power base) in the name of Muhammad ibn Al-Hanafiyya,
another of Ali’s sons. Al-Hanafiyya was Ali’s son with one of his concubines, a
woman from the Banu Hanifa tribe. However, the Umayyads were able to crush
this revolt too.
Later, the son of Al-Hanafiyya, by the name of Abu Hashim, started a
movement against the Umayyads and built for himself secret bases in Khorasan.
After Abu Hashim died in 718 CE, members of the Abbasid family (descendants
of the Prophet’s uncle, Al-Abbas) took over that movement. In their revolt against
the Umayyads, they used the propaganda that the “preferred one from the house
of Muhammad” is coming. Considering the Abbasids as the successors of Abu
Hisham, various Shia groups supported the Sunni Abbasids, who were not from
the progeny of the Prophet but were his uncle’s descendants.

Quietist Shia Majority of Ithna Ashariyya (Twelvers)

Once in power, the Abbasid policies towards the Shia sympathisers changed. Many
of their prominent Shia supporters, such as their favourite propagandist Abu
Muslim, were murdered. In such perilous times, Jafar Al-Sadiq (sixth imam of
the Shia) told his disciples to practice taqiyya (dissimulation) for their safety.
During the ninth century, as the pre-eminence of the Abbasid Caliphate in
the Islamic world started to decline, relations between the caliph and the Shia
leaders worsened. Caliph Al-Mutawakkil (847–61 CE) summoned the tenth Shia
imam, Ali Al-Hadi, from Medina to Samarra and placed him under house arrest.
He apparently did not want a repeat of the Husayn–Yazid confrontation; and
 Abbasid Revolution and the Pivot to Persia 127

since then, the imams were inaccessible to the Shia masses and could only
communicate through their agents.
When the eleventh imam, Hasan Al-Askari, died in 874 CE, it was said that
he had left behind a precocious son who assumed imamate at the age of 4 years,
but had gone into hiding to remain safe from threats to his life. In 934 CE, when
the “Hidden Imam” would have neared the final stages of earthly life, the agent
brought the message that the imam had gone into occultation and would emerge
out of it before the coming of Jesus, as the “Promised Mahdi”. The Twelver Shias
have since largely followed a pacifist line and abjured politics (barring followers
of Khomeini’s Iranian Revolution), as they patiently await the coming of the
Muhammad ibn Al-Hasan Al-Mahdi, their twelfth imam.

Ismaili Shia: The Allure of the Esoteric (‘Batini’)

Another Shia sub-sect, the Ismailis did not accept the Twelver quietism. The two
Shia groups differed over matters of succession, wherein the Twelver contended
that the imamat passed from the sixth imam, Jafar, to his younger son, Musa, and
the Ismailis argued that his eldest son, Ismail, was the designated successor.
The Ismailis were far more esoteric (batini) than the Twelvers at the spiritual
level. They sought to understand the Quran beyond its literal meaning in order
to understand its inherent signs and symbols. They believed that true knowledge
could never be fully expressed in rational and logical discourse. They also believed
that the full significance and meaning of the revelation that came to the Prophet
through the Quran would become clear only when the Mahdi arrives. The Ismaili
insistence on deeper, esoteric meanings was not acceptable to the literalist Sunni
religious scholars, who were wary that the newer interpretations could entirely
change the character of the religion and cause more significant discord (fitna).
Unlike the Twelver Shia, the Ismailis were more politically active. Their
missionary leaders travelled from India to East Africa, establishing clandestine
groups of Ismaili loyalists under a well-organised central leadership.28
Working underground for many years, the Ismailis established their first
caliphate in Egypt in 909 CE, which extended from the Red Sea to the Atlantic
Ocean. Founded by Abdullah bin Mahdi Billah, its rulers called themselves
Fatimids, reflecting their claim of descent from the daughter of the Prophet, Fatima.
Over time, the empire grew into one of the greatest in Muslim history, covering
at its height North Africa, Sicily, Egypt, Syria and much of Central Arabia,
including Mecca and Medina. The Al-Azhar University, today called the Vatican
128 Political Islam: Parallel Currents in West Asia and South Asia

of Sunni Islam, was founded by this Shia Ismaili Empire in 970 CE. The Fatimids
ruled from Egypt for two centuries until Saladin Ayyubi, the celebrated Muslim
commander of the Crusades, formally abolished the dynasty in 1171 CE.
Another branch of Ismailis called Qarmitas established states in southern
Syria and in Al-Hassa (eastern region of the Arabian Peninsula) in the tenth century.
In 930 CE, their notorious leader, Abu Tahir Al-Jannabi, is known to have briefly
stolen the Black Stone of the Kaaba and to have desecrated the Zamzam well with
corpses.

Formulation of Sunni Political Theology

The emergence of rationalist religious philosophers (Kalaam theology), such as
the Mutazilas, absolute patrimonial dynasts and Ismaili and Zaidi Shia political
actors undermined orthodox non-philosophical Sunni jurists’ sway in the Abbasid
age.
The new political movements raised several questions on matters of political
authority and governance, even as rationalists fed on concepts from Greek
philosophy started questioning the ways of God, as explained in traditional Sunni
theology. Under these circumstances, there was a spurt in Sunni theological
discourse aimed at responding to the new intellectual and sectarian questions
raised against its teachings.

Asharism: Occasionalist Counter to the Causative Mutazila

The masses could never wholly grasp the philosophical abstruseness of the Mutazila,
nor the occultism of the Shia esoteric (batini) sects. In addition, the Hanbali
precept of bila kayfa, of not enquiring the causes and practical validity of the
religious precepts, was also felt wanting by the intellectually inclined. It was then
that the school of Asharite theology, named after Abu Al-Hasan Al-Ashari (873–
936 CE), arose to give a reasoned argument against the philosophical queries
raised by the Mutazila philosophers and Shia heretics against mainstream Sunni
propositions. In the words of Daniel Brown, “it was by fully embracing this method
of kalaam, the dialectical approach to theology, that al-Ashari came to represent a
symbolic turning point in the development of Islamic theology.”29
While Al-Ashari opposed the views of the rival Mutazila school, he was also
opposed to the view which rejected debate that was held by conservative Sunni
schools. Thus, according to Asharites, although reason has its limitations and
cannot answer all the mysteries of life and creation, Islam recognises it as a God-
 Abbasid Revolution and the Pivot to Persia 129

given faculty that must be employed for gaining knowledge. The Quran and the
Prophet decree intellectual reasoning, therefore the exegeses of the Quran and the
Hadeeth should be kept up without dispensing with older interpretations.30
On the Mutazila argument that God is never unjust, Ashari posits that God
is all-powerful; hence, good is what God commands and evil is what God forbids.31
Therefore, God is not subject to human understanding of good and evil. On the
Mutazila argument that the Quran cannot be eternal and uncreated, as nothing
can be co-eternal with God, Ashari reasons that the Quran is the uncreated word
of God in essence, although it is “created” when it takes on a form in letters or
sound.
On the Mutazila question of free will (or, more accurately, freedom of
intention), the Ashari argument is that human beings have no power to create
anything. Instead, they simply decide between God’s given possibilities. This
doctrine is now known in Western philosophy as occasionalism.
The Al-Azhar University of Egypt and the Indian Sunni Hanafi schools of
Barelvi and Deobandi Islam largely follow the Maturidi and Ashari schools of
theology, which have differences on only minor matters of theology.

Al-Mawardi’s Textbook on Sunni Rule (Al-Ahkam As-Sultaniyyah)

The son of a rose water merchant, Abu Al-Hasan Al-Mawardi (972–1058 CE)
was a tenth-century chief judge of Nishapur, Iran. Known as Alboacen in Latin,
he also served as a diplomat for Abbasid caliphs, Al-Qaim and Al-Qadir, during
their negotiations with Buyid ameers. Best known for his treatise, Al-Ahkam As-
Sultaniyyah (“The Ordinances of Government”), Al-Mawardi provided a detailed
definition of the functions of caliphate government. Written in 1045–58 CE,
this is the most-cited textbook in Islamic political studies and is held as the
framework for the ideal Islamic state by radical groups like HuT.
The broad framework for governance that Al-Ahkam As-Sultaniyyah details is
the hierarchical structure with the caliph at the apex. The caliph exercises political
authority (sultan) in the Islamic state, but sovereignty lies solely with the Shariah
(scriptural law). Below the caliph sit the governors (wazirs), executive and non-
executive assistants (muawin), judges (qudaa), head of the military (ameer), judicial
redress, niqabaj tribunal and administrators, who are accountable to the caliph.
However, the book is remarkable because it uses Sunni Hadeeth literature to
clear several controversies and issues related to the institution of caliphate from
the time of its establishment.
130 Political Islam: Parallel Currents in West Asia and South Asia

From the Hadeeth cited in the book, the Prophet appears to have clarified
many of the questions raised by the Shia and Khawarij sects against the Rashidun
Caliphs and the institution of caliphate and seems to uphold the Murjia position
of passive acceptance of the ruler’s will.
Thus, the book cites the Prophet’s pronouncement: “He who obeys me, obeys
God; He who disobeys me disobeys God.” Then, the book cites Prophet’s Hadeeth
wherein he states: “You will hear and obey the prince, even if he beats your back
and steals your property. Hear and obey”; 32 and “They (the rulers) will be judged
for what they do, and you will be judged for what you do.” The author chose
another Hadeeth reference against the Khariji sect, which had secluded itself from
the broader Muslim community, by indirectly charging them with apostasy. The
cited Hadeeth reads: “Whoever abandons the ruling power and separates from
the general body of believers, then dies, dies a pagan.”33
On the question of succession after the Prophet, the book cites another Sunni
tradition in which Ali ibn Talib clarified his position on the matter. Thus, when
one of his sons asks him, “Which is the best Muslim after the Prophet?”, Ali
replied, “Abu Bakr”. To the next question, “then who?”, Ali said “Umar”. Fearing
the next similar question would receive the reply in favour of Uthman, the son
suggested, “Then yourself?” Still, Ali replies, “No, I am just another ordinary
Muslim.”34
These Hadeeth are cited to refute Shia and Khariji claims regarding the
institution of the caliphate. The book also takes up the controversial issue about
the mode of appointment of a caliph, which was always different among various
Rashidun Caliphs. Thus, Al-Mawardi accepts all the methods employed in the
appointment of the Rashidun Caliphs, such as the limited number of people who
elected Abu Bakr at the Saqifah in the absence of Ali, the nomination of Umar by
Abu Bakr (which did not involve any election) and the appointment by a
committee in case of Uthman’s controversial election.
Curiously, the injunction to obey the imam or caliph in the book flies in the
face of the opposition and hostility employed by radical Islamist groups like HuT
against their governments, even as they use Al-Mawardi’s book as a model for
appointing the caliph and ministers of an Islamic state. By Al-Mawardi’s standards,
the Islamist parties that rebel against their regimes must be considered renegades,
who sequester themselves from the majority of Muslim masses and thereby invoke
divine punishment.
The problem with Al-Mawardi’s book for the modern-day Islamists is that it
 Abbasid Revolution and the Pivot to Persia 131

ostensibly champions the Rashidun Caliphs, but is authored to implicitly defend

the excesses of the despotic Umayyad and Abbasid caliphs, whom these Islamists
detest.

NOTES
1 Timothy Nerozzi, ‘‘Elon Musk says single world government could lead to end of civilization
at World Government Summit’, Fox Business, 15 February 2023, https://www.foxbusiness.com/
politics/elon-musk-says-single-world-government-could-lead-end-civilization-world-
government-summit, last accessed on 19 September 2023.
2 Michael A. Palmer, The Last Crusade: Americanism and the Islamic Reformation, Lincoln: Potomac
Books, 2007, p. 40.
3 Anthony Black, The History of Islamic Political Thought: From the Prophet to the Present, Routledge,
New York, 2010, p. 20.
4 Sadakat Kadri, Heaven on Earth: A Journey through Shari’a Law from the Deserts of Ancient
Arabia to the Streets of the Modern Muslim World, Macmillan, 2012, p. 77.
5 Khusro Tariq, ‘Lessons from Islamic history: The Mutazila and Ibn Hanbal’, The Tribune, 8
January 2017, available at https://tribune.com.pk/article/44795/lessons-from-islamic-history-
the-mutaliza-and-ibn-hanbal, last accesed on 18 September 2023.
6 Binyamin Abrahamov, “Part I: Islamic Theologies during the Formative and the Early Middle
Period: Scripturalist and Traditionalist Theology”, in Schmidtke (ed.), The Oxford Handbook
of Islamic Theology, pp. 263–79.
7 Neil deGrasse Tyson, “Two-third of All Stars have Arabic Names”, World Governments Summit,
08 February 2016, https://www.worldgovernmentsummit.org/press/news/neil-degrasse-tyson-
two-third-of-all-stars-have-arabic-names#:~:text=In%20the%20Arab%20world%20he,all%20
stars%20have%20Arabic%20names.%E2%80%9D., last accessed online on 19 September
2023.
8 Bernard Lewis, From Babel to Dragomans: Interpreting the Middle East, New York: Oxford
University Press, 2004, p. 44.
9 Anthony Black, The History of Islamic Political Thought: From the Prophet to the Present, Routledge,
New York, 2010, p. 20.
10 Ignaz Goldziher, Muslim Studies, Vol. 2, edited by S.M. Stern, Chicago: Aldine-Atherton,
1971, pp. 61, 67.
11 Said Amir Arjomand, The Shadow of God and the Hidden Imam: Religion, Political Order and
Societal Change in Shi’ite Iran from the Beginning to 1890, Chicago: Chicago University Press,
1984, pp. 93–94.
12 Anthony Black, The History of Islamic Political Thought: From the Prophet to the Present, Routledge,
New York, 2010, p. 22.
13 Ignaz Goldziher, Muslim Studies, Vol. 2, edited by S.M. Stern, Chicago: Aldine-Atherton,
1971, p. 88.
14 Louise Marlow, Hierarchy and Egalitarianism in Islamic Thought, Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1997, p. 39.
15 Charles Pellat (trans.), Le Livre de la Couronne: Kitab al-Taj attribute à Gahiz, Paris: Les Belles
Lettres, 1969(1954), pp. 63–65.
16 Ibid.
17 Karen Armstrong, Islam: A Short History, Modern Library, London, 2002, p. 73.
132 Political Islam: Parallel Currents in West Asia and South Asia

18 L.V. Berman (trans.), “Alfarabi on Religion, Jurisprudence and Political Science”, in M. Mahdi
(ed.), Alfarabi’s Book of Religion and Other Texts, Beirut: Al-Mackreq, 1968, pp. 36–37.
19 R. Walzer (ed. and trans.), Al-Farabi on the Perfect State: Abu Nasr al-Farabi’s ‘al-madina al-
fadila’, Oxford, Oxford University Press (1985), p. 52.
20 Anthony Black, The History of Islamic Political Thought: From the Prophet to the Present, Routledge,
New York, 2010, p. 61.
21 R. Walzer (ed. and trans.), Al-Farabi on the Perfect State: Abu Nasr al-Farabi’s al-madina al-
fadila, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1985, = Virtuous City (VC), p. 233.
22 The Hadeeth of Ghadeer Khumm, wherein the Prophet addresses his followers, reads as follows:
“O people, Allah is my Lord and I am the lord of the believers. I am worthier of believers than
themselves. Of whomsoever I had been Lord (Mawla), Ali here is to be his Lord. O Allah, be
a supporter of whoever supports him (Ali) and an enemy of whoever opposes him and divert
the Truth to Ali.” This Hadeeth also appears in Sunni sources, whereof the most prominent is
Jami Al-Tirmidhi, “Kitab al-Manaaqib”, Chapter on Virtues, Hadeeth 3713, https://
sunnah.com/tirmidhi:3713, last accessed online on 19 September 2023.
23 Lesley Hazleton, After the Prophet: The Epic Story of the Shia–Sunni Split in Islam, Knopf
Doubleday Publishing Group, 2009.
24 Wilferd Madelung, The Succession to Muhammad: A Study of the Early Caliphate, Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge, 1997.
25 Dr Tahirul Qadri, translation of Surah Al Maidah of Holy Quran, Irfan-ul-Quran, https://
www.irfan-ul-quran.com/english/Surah-al-Maidah-with-english-translation/3, last accessed
online on 27 September 2023.
26 Allamah Sayyid Muhammad Husayn Tabataba’I, Shi»ite Islam, State University of New York
Press, 1979, pp. 41–44.
27 Heinz Halm, The Shi»ites: A Short History. Markus Wiener Publishers, 1942.
28 Daftary, Farhad; Nanji, Azim What is Shia Islam, London: Institute of Ismaili Studies at the Aga
Khan Centre, 2006.
29 Daniel W. Brown, Rethinking Tradition in Modern Islamic Thought, Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge, p. 146.
30 Aaron W. Hughes, “Constituting Identities: Beliefs and Schools”, in Muslim Identities: An
Introduction to Islam, New York: Columbia University Press, pp. 183–202.
31 John L. Esposito, The Oxford History of Islam, Oxford University Press, 2000, p. 281.
32 John Burton, An Introduction to the Hadith, Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1994,
p. 48.
33 Ibid.
34 Ibid., p. 43.
 10
Disintegration of the Caliphate:
Rise of Sufi and Shia Power

Sedentary culture is the goal of civilization. It also means the end of its
lifespan and brings about its corruption.
—Ibn Khaldun1

By the end of the tenth century, Islamdom could not sustain its unity under the
Abbasid rule, and growing corruption made it challenging to overcome fissiparous
forces. Nevertheless, as the caliphate broke up into several kingdoms, the Abbasid
caliphs ruled in and around Baghdad as nominal heads, retaining mainly a symbolic
aura.
Then, in 1055 CE, the leader of a Sunni Turkish nomadic clan by the name
of Toghril Beg marched into Baghdad, released the caliph from the control of
Shia Buyid family that had controlled the high office for about a century and
declared his clan members as the protector of the caliphate and the saviour of
Sunni Islam. Over the next century, Toghril’s clan members—known as Seljuk
Turks—ruled a large expanse under the caliph’s name.
However, Islamdom could never be put under one political umbrella ever
again. It had already divided between Shia dynasties—the Fatimids (in Egypt),
the Buyids (western Iraq and Iran), Hamanids (Syria, Cappadocia) and Qaramitas
(Northeast Arabian Peninsula)—and the Sunni dynasties, namely, Seljuks (Iraq
and Persia), Samanids (eastern Iran), Ghaznavids (Afghanistan, northwestern
134 Political Islam: Parallel Currents in West Asia and South Asia

India), Qarakhanids (or Ilkhanids, Central Asia) and Umayyad descendants (Al-
Andalus).
The decline of the caliphate by the tenth century ironically opened the
floodgates to a new cultural efflorescence in humanism and philosophy. Despite
political turmoil, spiritual, intellectual and artistic works increased, and Islam
spread and found more capitals to disseminate its influence in the absence of
caliphal control. The city of Cairo (Qahira in Arabic that means “the conqueror”),
which was developed in 969 CE under the Fatimids, was named after planet
Mars (Al-Najm Al-Qahir) that was on the ascendant at the time of its establishment.
It became the centre of art and learning; and it was in the tenth century itself that
the college of Al-Azhar was founded in the city (still extant as the world-famous
Al-Azhar University).
Meanwhile, Samarqand (an existing city in southeastern Uzbekistan) saw a
renaissance in Persian literature and the city gained popularity thanks to its great
luminaries, like the great physician and philosopher Ibn Sina (known as Avicenna
in Europe). The city of Cardova (in southern Spain) became famous for its poetry
and philosophy under Ibn Hazem and Ibn Rushd (Averroes). Famous historian
Muhammad Jarir Al-Tabari (from Tabaristan, Iran), who died in 932 CE, wrote
a chronicle, Tarikh Al-Rusul wa Al-Muluk (“History of the Prophets and Kings”),
often referred to as Tarikh Al-Tabari. Having established the Jariri school of
jurisprudence (known for its remarkable fluidity, it went extinct two centuries
after his death), he was also a poet, lexicographer, grammarian, mathematician
and had expertise in medicine.
Thus, Islam spread across various kingdoms which were released from the
oppressive control of the Umayyad and the Abbasid caliphs. In the words of
Karen Armstrong:
The new polities that were emerging in the Islamic world by a process
of trial and error were closer to the Islamic vision. Not all the new rulers
were pious Muslims—far from it—but the system of independent courts
and rulers, all on a par with one another but contained within a loose
notional unity, approximated more truly the egalitarian spirit of the
Quran.2

From One Caliphate Rule to Sunni and Shia Kingdoms (Sultanate)

As the Abbasid Empire disintegrated from the tenth century onwards, it gave rise
to independent states. However, the caliph, at best, remained the nominal head
of the so-called Muslim umma, as the different regions of Islamdom were governed
 Disintegration of the Caliphate: Rise of Sufi and Shia Power 135

by their separate kingdoms independently. Sometimes, these kingdoms did not

even recognise any allegiance to the caliph and their own “ruler” took up the title
of “caliph”.
Thus, the idea of a caliph as the shepherd of the entire Muslim community
declined after the fall of the Abbasids as many empires and states gave their ruling
dynasties the grandiose title of caliphates, even though neither their political nor
spiritual writ could run across Islamdom. Hence, we find the Ayyubid Caliphate
during the reign of Salahuddin Ayyubi (1174–93); the independent Umayyad
Caliphate of Cordoba in Iberia (929–1031); the Berber Almohad Caliphate in
Morocco (1121–1269); the Fula Sokoto Caliphate in a region of present-day
northern Nigeria (1804–1903); and the infamous proto-state of ISIS in the 2010s.
Surprisingly, even the Shia Ismaili Fatimid Caliphate in Northern Africa (909–
1171) used the title of caliphate, even though Shia Islam believes in imamate as,
according to them, a caliph should be an “imam” chosen from the household of
the Prophet (Ahl Al-Bayt).
The decline of the unified caliphate caused a new set of issues for the Muslim
polity. The rule of the Umayyads and the Abbasids may not have won the approval
of Islamic jurists or the members of the Prophet’s family (the Alids), but at least
they were descendants from the Quraysh tribe of Mecca. The Khariji opposition
to the Sunni precondition that a caliph should be from the Quraysh tribe was not
acceptable to mainstream Muslims for as long as the caliphate was conterminous
with Islamdom. It was also not acceptable to the Shia as their leader (or imam)
had to be from the Ahl Al-Bayt, from Banu Hashim, not just a Quraysh.
However, with the dismemberment of the Abbasid Caliphate, new Muslim
rulers (or sultans) of independent states (or dawlas) faced the problem of deriving
religious and moral legitimacy for their rule. The sultan (which in the Quran
means moral or spiritual authority) and the dawla (which the Abbasid rulers used
to refer to as their “period of rule”, and later got the connotation of regime and
even state) struggled with issue of succession as the Shariah did not clearly endorse
patrimonial succession and even gave equal property to all male children. This
led to military and political contests and so, the kings started resorting to innovative
ways for gaining legitimacy in the eyes of their subjects.
The sultans—be they Sunni, Ismaili and Imami (Twelver) Shias—commonly
sought legitimacy through Islamic and even non-Islamic pedigree and royal Iranian
descent. Anthony Black notes: “A Sunni ruler, rather than claiming to be religious
leader, in his own right, would seek endorsement from the Abbasid Deputy
136 Political Islam: Parallel Currents in West Asia and South Asia

(Caliph).”3 Sometimes, they were merely with the title “ameer”, a modest derivative
from the caliphal title “Ameer-Al Muslimeen” used by the Samanids. Mahmud of
Ghazni (971-–1030) too sought to trace his descent from the Sassanid Iranians
and commissioned the great Ferdowsi to write Shahnameh (written between 977–
1010), which traces the mythical and historical origins of the Persian Empire
from the time of creation to the coming of Islam. The epic glorified Mahmud of
Ghazni by comparing him to the great non-Muslim Sassanid king, Ardashir, whom
Ferdowsi called the epitome of an ideal king.
At the same time, Mahmud of Ghazni also secured the title of Yamin ud-
Dawala (right hand of the state) from the Abbasid Caliph to gain greater legitimacy
in the Muslim masses across Islamdom by reporting of his Holy War against the
“idol-worshipping” kings of India. In the words of Anthony Black: “He (Mahmud
Ghazni) was the secular arm of Sunnism in the east, long admired as a model
Muslim ruler.”4

New Persian Genre of Nasihatul Muluk (Advice to Kings)

The disintegration of the Arab Abbasid Caliphate and the establishment of several
states helped the many local belief systems, religions, philosophies and social
ethos to percolate into the general social and political regimes spread across
intercontinental Islamdom.
During the period c. 1100–1220, between the rise of the Seljuk dynasty and
the Mongol invasions, a “new Sunni internationalism”5 was at its peak. In this
phase, political thought developed in the genre of books called nasihatul muluk
or “advice to kings”. The marrying of Persian political concepts with Islamic
ideals is the hallmark of these treatises, a few of which are discussed next.

Ibn Qutaiba and Kitab Al-Taj: Exploring Wisdom outside Islam

As illustrated in the case of Ferdowsi’s Shahnama, gaining legitimacy for the king
even from non-Islamic sources was no longer considered invalid. Accordingly,
Uyun Al-Akhbar (“Choice Narratives”) by Ibn Qutaiba—a vast collection of Islamic
and pre-Islamic Persian sayings, deemed a “synthesis between Islamic and courtly
culture”6—claimed to provide moral culture outside the fold of Islam. The book
stated:
There is not just one road to God, nor is all [that is] good…confined to
nightly prayer…[Rather], the roads that lead to Him are legion, and
the gates leading to the good are open wide. This book, although it
 Disintegration of the Caliphate: Rise of Sufi and Shia Power 137

does not treat of the Quran or [Tradition]…yet shows the way to matters
of high importance, gives guidance to noble virtues, restrains from moral
(turpitude) and proscribes evil.7
Thus, Ibn Qutaiba introduced the Iranian concept, which made its first
appearance in Islamic literature: for instance, he extolled the concept of private
property to promote cultivation in an agrarian economy, which reminds one of
the Persian ideal of “circle of power”. “There can be no government without an
army: No army without money: No money without prosperity: And no prosperity
without justice and good administration.”8
Ibn Qutaiba blended Islamic ethics with pre-Islamic Persian wisdom. He
reminded the kings of Islamic ethics through the Hadeeth on the necessity of
gaining the trust of the subjects with a Persian saying: “Use kindness rather than
force; with force you can rule their bodies, but you can only enter their hearts;
through kindness.” His book also referred to old Persian gems: “Manage the best
of the people by love, the common people by a mixture of love and fear, the low
people only by fear.”9
Another essential book of unknown authorship of the period and the genre
of advice to kings was Kitab Al-Taj (“Book of the Crown”). The book highlighted
the importance of dividing society between the elite and the masses, implying
that the elite were superior people. It highlighted the argument that even classical
Islam does not espouse pure egalitarianism. Louise Marlow describes the views
thus: “Early Islam had an egalitarian potential”, insofar as “inequalities have no
bearing on an individual’s moral worth and ultimate fate in the next world”.10
However, the Quran does acknowledge that God has raised some above the others
in terms of rank, so that some may take others in servitude.11
Thus, Kitab Al-Taj made a few modifications to the Indo-Persian four social
categories: “(1) the high nobility and princes; (2) theologians and priests of the
fire temple; (3) medics, secretaries and astrologers; and (4) farmers and manual
workers.”12
Even Ibn Qutaiba underlined the Indo-Persian idea of a society based on
four social groups, which he believed were necessary for maintaining any state’s
social, political and economic security. He stratified society into four divisions:
“(1) the learned who are the bearers of religion, (2) the horsemen who are the
guards of the seat of power, (3) the writers who are the ornament of the kingdom,
(4) the agriculturalists who make the lands prosperous.”13 Ibn Qutaiba was rather
sympathetic towards the last rung of his society, the farmers: “act kindly towards
the farmers, you will remain fat as long as they are fat”.14
138 Political Islam: Parallel Currents in West Asia and South Asia

“The Sea of Precious Virtues” (Bahr Al-Favaid)

Another popular political treatise, written in Persian language by an anonymous
Sunni scholar of the Shafai school, was Bahr Al-Favaid (“The Sea of Precious
Virtues”; 1159–62 CE). Religious in orientation, it firmly placed the Shariah
above the king’s powers and told all government officials to beware about acting
on the principle of “rule as you please”.
It stipulated that the sultan should honour the ulema and consult with them
regularly, as even “the kings of Rum (Rome) and the Franks ‘do whatever the
monks command’”.15 Curiously, the author even approved rebellion against a
king who imposes innovation (bidah) or what is contrary to the Shariah—a
provision that runs contrary to Al-Mawardi’s Sunni treatise that calls on the subjects
to comply with the rulers fully and disapproves of revolt.
The Bahr Al-Favaid showed early traces of extremist ideas associated with
modern times, telling rulers not to appoint Jews and Christians to public office.

Nizam Al-Mulk’s Siyasatnama and Founding of Islamic Madrasas

Also known as Siyar Al-Muluk (“Rules for Kings”), Siyasatnama (“Book of Politics
or Government”) was supposedly written by Abu Ali Hasan ibn Ali Tusi (popularly
known as Nizam Al-Mulk), the famous Sunni wazir of Seljuk rulers. In this Persian
treatise, Nizam Al-Mulk (the de facto ruler of the Seljuk dynasty from 1063 to
1092) justified the rule of the benevolent despot. The treatise provided examples
of justice and effective governance in Islamic society using historical examples.
The book, reading as an elaboration of Khusrau I or Anushirwan’s “circle of
justice” ideals, stated: “The monarchy depends on the army; the army on the
money; money comes from land tax; the land tax comes from agriculture;
agriculture depends on justice; justice on the integrity of officials; and on the
integrity of the ever-watchfulness of the king.”16 Nizam Al-Mulk mostly cited
examples of Persian kings rather than Islamic rulers, emphasising the importance
of justice in his book. Still, he called on the king to establish religious beliefs and
warned him against the dangers of religious heresy, which he believed becomes a
source of political disorder.
In practice, Nizam Al-Mulk established the first madrass (colleges for studying
Islamic disciplines). These seminaries made Islamic teaching more systematic and
enhanced the status of the ulema. In addition to religious education, young Islamic
scholars were taught subjects to provide them government jobs. In Baghdad, he
founded the prestigious Nizamiyya madrasa in 1067 CE.17 The madrasas gave
the ulema a power base and even monopoly on law through their Shariah courts.
 Disintegration of the Caliphate: Rise of Sufi and Shia Power 139

Influence of Greek Humanism and Philosophy

Earlier, it has been discussed how the Mutazila religious movement sought to
understand Islamic thought through the prism of Greek rationality and Aristotlean
logic and was instrumental in shaping the political views of some Abbasid rulers,
particularly Al-Mamun. This efflorescence of Greek philosophy in the Muslim
world, even as Europe had turned a blind to it in the medieval “Dark Ages”, was
primarily the result of the establishment of the House of Wisdom (Bayt Al-
Hikma)—under the patronage of Abbasid kings, namely, Harun Al-Rashid, Al-
Mamun and Al-Mansur—which translated manuscripts of texts from Greek,
Persian and Indian sources into Arabic.
In this respect, Abu Yusuf Yaqub ibn Ishaq Al-Kindi (d. 873) was the first
significant Arabian philosopher to utilise and develop the philosophical
conceptions of Greek thought. It is said that his work significantly affected the
intellectual development of Western Europe in the thirteenth century. The
influence of Greek political philosophy in the writings of Al-Farabi was also oulined
earlier. Another Greek philosopher, albeit mainly a physician, was Ibn Sina (or
Avicenna), who shared with Al-Farabi the Durkheimian theory of religion’s social
and political function.

Kitab Al-Siyasa by Ibn Sina or Avicenna: State for Social Justice

Born near Bukhara in 980 CE, Ibn Sina is considered one of the most outstanding
physicians and polymaths in Muslim history, whose influence on philosophy and
medicine lasted until the seventeenth century in Europe, while his contribution
to philosophy has its impact in Iran to this day.
Among his famous works is Kitab Al-Shifa (“The Book of Healing”), a
philosophical and scientific encyclopedia. At the same time, his political philosophy
is known from his work, Kitab Al-Siyasa (“Book of Governance”), which deals
with issues of state policy for political and economic governance.
According to Avicenna, people will only obey laws if the agency making them
was made to appear exceptional; therefore, the Prophet was a kind of philosopher
as well as ruler, combining “theoretical wisdom”, justice and prophecy. This made
him “the world’s earthly king and God’s Deputy in it”.18
Like Al-Farabi and later Suhrawardi, Avicenna believed in a divine power
that influences the human mind, conditioning its imaginative and intellectual
faculties to receive or understand a revelation of the law. Therefore, he was one of
the “Ishraqi” philosophers, an Islamic illuminationist.
140 Political Islam: Parallel Currents in West Asia and South Asia

Ibn Sina said that human beings complemented each other to make humanity
self-sufficient. His social and political outlook was shaped by the idea of division
of labour, where “one man (for instance) would provide another with vegetables,
while the other would bake for him; one man would sew for another, while the
other would provide him with needles”.19 This greater interconnectedness led to
the formation of cities, societies and states.
There has been some speculation whether Ibn Sina, who served under Sunni
Samanid, was a Shia or Sunni Muslim. At least in matters of succession of the
Muslim ruler, Ibn Sina upheld Sunni views and did not accept the Shia view of
the right of the Prophet’s household. Thus, for him, succession could be through
testamentary designation by the previous ruler, as was usually the practice of the
Umayyad or Abbasid caliphs, or by “consensus of the elders”.
Unusual for his times, Ibn Sina accepted the right of rebellion if a person
usurped the high office of caliph through unrighteous means. According to him,
if a “seceder” claims to be the caliph “by virtue of power or wealth”, “then it
becomes the duty of every citizen to fight and kill him…Next to belief in the
prophet, nothing brings one closer to God than the killing of such a usurper.” In
order to determine the righteousness of the cause, Ibn Sina emphasised “practical
judgement and excellence in political management”—which is more of a Sunni
than Shia view of the qualifications for leadership.20
Ibn Sina believed that the role of the state could be divided into three functions:
(i) the legislation and implementation of law; (ii) the availability of economic
opportunity; and (iii) the provision of social security. According to the philosopher,
the state was responsible for stabilising the economy. For this, the government
was required to formulate economic policies and make laws. Economic ills gave
rise to many problems in society, such as exploitation, double-dealing, persecution,
oppression and corruption.21
Intellectuals from Northern Africa also enriched Muslim political philosophy.
Here, it is relevant to mention the contribution of Ibn Hezam, who developed
his theory of authoritarianism in response to the fall of the Spanish Caliphate.
Other socio-political philosophers from Andalusia who were greatly influenced
by Aristotle were Ibn Bajja (Avempace) and the polymath Ibn Tufayl.

Ibn Rushd (Averroes): Advocate of Rationalism, Women’s Political Role

Perhaps few Muslim philosophers have won the attention or acclaim of European
thinkers as “The Commentator” Ibn Rushd (or Averroes as he is more popularly
known in the West).
 Disintegration of the Caliphate: Rise of Sufi and Shia Power 141

In Raphael’s 1501 fresco, “The School of Athens”, at the Apostolic Palace in

the Vatican, Ibn Rushd (1126–98 CE) is depicted in a green robe and turban,
trying to read a book from behind Pythagoras. In the “Prologue” of The Canterbury
Tales (1387) by the English poet Geoffrey Chaucer, Averroes is also mentioned as
an authority in medicine known across Europe. He is said to have inspired Latin
Averroist philosophers: Marsilius of Padua and John of Jandun (fourteenth
century); Gaetano da Thiene and Pietro Pomponazzi (fifteenth century); and
Agostino Nifo (sixteenth century).22 Though critiqued by Thomas Aquinas in
his 1229 book, On the Unity of the Intellect, Ibn Rushd and Ibn Khaldun were
hailed by French President Emmanuel Macron in his speech against radical Islam
in 2020.23
Author of over hundred books and treatises,24 Ibn Rushd was a devout
Aristotlean and affirmed the importance of conceptual analysis and syllogistic
demonstration, without any of the mystical ambivalence of neo-Platonic ideas.
For this reason, he is often called the “father of rationalism”.25 According to Ibn
Rushd, Aristotle could cover every aspect of what could be known. He also sought
to update the Aristotlean oeuvre by including knowledge gained in his times. He
started off by writing “Short Synopses” on Aristotle’s work (c. 1160–70), followed
by “Intermediate Commentaries” (c. 1168–77 CE), in which he introduced some
of his own opinions, and then came his “Great Commentaries” (1180–90 CE),
which earned him the European title of “The Commentator”.
Ibn Rushd dealt with government and politics in his “Intermediate”
commentary on Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics (1177 CE) and Plato’s On
Republic.26 Considered a greater advocate of empiricism than Aristotle himself,
the philosopher advocated using both rationality and empirical evidence in the
development and execution of state legislation. For this reason, he supported that
public administration should be the domain of experienced people. He stated:
“Hence it is said that the governance of cities is appropriate for the old, in whom
knowledge of the theoretical sciences is combined with long experience.”27
The state, according to Ibn Rushd, was essential for the development of human
virtue: “To acquire his virtue, a man has need of other people. Hence, he (man) is
political by nature.”28 Thus, the formation of the state was driven by both
philosophy and scientific technology. All human perfections was realised in “perfect
association” or virtuous state.
On the issue of women’s role in society, Ibn Rushd was rather advanced for
his times. He was against the subordination of women in society, which he believed
142 Political Islam: Parallel Currents in West Asia and South Asia

was morally wrong and contributed to economic backwardness: “Women in these

cities are not groomed with respect to any of the human virtues…Their being a
burden upon the men in these cities is one of the causes of the poverty of these
cities.” Thus, he stated: “Women may, therefore, practise crafts—they are ‘weaker’
at some, ‘more diligent’ at others. They may be warriors. They may be philosopher-
rulers.” 29 Although a Maliki judge himself, Ibn Rushd did not mind being ruled
a woman philosopher-ruler.
The Andalusian scholar was a harsh critic of the Asharite philosophy of
occasionalism and defended philosophy (falsafa) from Ghazali’s charge of it being
highly incoherent. He repudiated the Asharite concept of bila kayfa and said that
discovering causes was an intrinsic part of knowledge, and that causal explanation
was Islamically valid. He advocated that logical reasoning and religion were not
opposites but complementary, and that intuition, mysticism and dogma alone
could not ensure religious and spiritual good.

Sufism and its Mystical Orders

As noted earlier, the institution of madrasas (started by Nizam Al-Mulk) started
spreading all over the scattered Islamdom. With the decline of the Abbasid
Caliphate, the ulema were left free and unchecked by any central authority, as
were Muslim mystics called Sufis, who started travelling to various regions. They
served as a non-political glue to hold the religious community, divided among
various states, around the Muslim world.
The clerics opposed the philosophers and blamed them for using reason as a
supreme virtue and an absolute value for judging and understanding even the
Quran. The mystics (Sufis), however, were less critical of philosophy as the Sufi
“gnosis” also had a Platonic genealogy and as neo-Platonism was close to the
human spirit’s exploration of both the self and God.30
The term Sufi first appeared in the Arabic literature in the middle of the
ninth century and applied to a certain class of ascetics who reacted against the
intellectualism of the Muslim philosophers and the dogmatism of the religious
clerics (ulema). These ascetics wore clothes made of coarse wool (suf), from which
they got their name “Sufi”. However, others find their origins from the pre-Islamic
gnostics, who worshipped Greek Goddess “Sophia” (personifying wisdom),
courted both by intellectuals of philosophy (which means “in love with Sophia”)
and mystics (as is evident in the lady whom Ibn Arabi symbolically meets on his
way to Mecca and other pilgrimages).
 Disintegration of the Caliphate: Rise of Sufi and Shia Power 143

Although Sufi mysticism drew a lot from the Prophet’s life, which was replete
with solitary meditation and prolonged nightly vigils, Sufis also borrowed mystical
ideas from neo-Platonism and Gnosticism, Christian monasticism and even
Buddhism.
Eschewing the lures of outward (zahiri) sensory experiences, the Sufis
concentrate in grasping the inner (batini) spiritual and intuitive truths of the
Quran. They believe that the goal of Islam is the spiritual development for
perfecting the self (nafs), from a lower state of base impulses and desires (nafs-e-
ammara), through an intermediate level of self-awareness and self-criticitism (nafs-
e-lawwama) to attain the ultimate state of self-control and spiritual bliss (nafs-e-
mutmainna). This requires continuous effort and rigorous training under the
supervision of a spiritual teacher (murshid). The purpose is to cultivate positive
moral and spiritual values such as love, compassion, and humility. Thus, the
concept of controlling the nafs is the central tenet of Sufi thought, and the Sufi
tariqa (methodology) has developed varied frameworks for understanding the
nature of the self and its relationship with God.31
By the thirteenth century, they developed the Sufi fraternity (tariqa or the
right method), with its “master” (shaykh/shaikh) and novice (murid). However,
there was no monasticism (or rabbaniya) in Islam because of Quranic prohibition.
The first fraternity (tariqa) established on such a principle was the Qadariya,
named after the revered Abd Al-Qadir Al-Jalani (1077–1166), whom even the
Sufi critic Ibn Taimiyyah used to respect, mainly because of his conformist religious
views. Based in Baghdad, his order remains one of the most tolerant and charitable,
with followers spread worldwide, including in the Indian subcontinent, Java,
Guinea and Algeria.
The second fraternity in order of antiquity was the Rifaite, founded by another
Iraqi, Ahmad Al-Rifai (1183 CE), whose members could perform dangerous feats,
such as swallowing burning coal, serpents and glass, as well as walking on embers.
Finally, the Malawi order of the whirling dervishes was founded by the Persian
poet Jalaluddin Rumi in 1273. He was the Sufi saint who permitted music and
dancing as a means to commune with the divine. In Africa, the strong mystic
brotherhood of Shadhilis, founded by Ali Al Shadhila (c. 1258) developed in
Morocco and Tunisia and spread from there. It soon developed other Sufi sub-
sects and branches.32
With their practices of dhikr (recitation of God’s names and hymns), Sufis
won many converts to Islam, including, more importantly, the invincible Mongol
144 Political Islam: Parallel Currents in West Asia and South Asia

warriors who themselves followed mystical beliefs of Shamanism. Jabir ibn Hayyan
(c. 776 CE) was one of the prominent early occultist Sufis in Islam. Later, Bayazid
Al-Bistami (c. 875), a Persian, introduced the concept of fana (self-annihilation)
in Sufi thought.
Another Persian, Mansur Al-Hallaj (the carder), was flogged and decapitated,
then burned in an Abbasid inquisition in 922 CE, for having declared, an al-haq
(“I am the Truth”).
His execution made him a great Sufi martyr, and his tomb in west Baghdad
stands to date. Among great mystical poets was the Egyptian Ibn Al-Farid (1181–
1235), while Persian poets of international acclaim, such as Sadi, Hafiz and Rumi,
were accomplished mystics in their own right.

Ibn Arabi and Suhrawardi: All-inclusive Illuminatist Philosophers

Still, the Sufi mystics and thinkers considered philosophy inferior to the pursuit
of spiritual knowledge. For them, “Whatever (the Philosopher) knows rationally,
the Sufis perceive intuitively.”33
The illuminationist philosopher, Yahya Suhrawardi (c. 1155–91 CE) was a
neo-Platonic mystic who introduced “unitive insights that mystical experience
made possible”.34 His philosophy, called “illuminism” (Hikmat Al-Ishraq), showed
creation as a successive outflow from the original Supreme Light of Lights (Nur
Al-Anwar). All levels of existence after that were but varying degrees of light and
darkness.35
As suggested by unverified historical records, Suhrawardi was executed at the
age of 36 on the order of Al-Malik Al-Zahir, son of Saladin Ayyubi, for his occult
practices.36 He is known by honorific titles, Shaikh Al-Ishraq (“Master of
Illumination”) and Shaikh Al-Maqtul (“The Murdered Master”).
However, the Grand Master (Al Shaykh Al-Akbar) of both unorthodox and
orthodox Sufism was the Andalusian mystic Ibn Arabi (full name, Muhammad
ibn Ali ibn Arabi), the greatest mystic and speculative philosopher in Islamic
history. Born on 28 July 1165, in Murcia in Valencia, Ibn Arabi was spiritually
close to the Isharqi school of Suhrawardi; but unlike the latter, he had a longer life
and died on 16 November 1240, in Damascus, at the age of 75. Known for his
abstruse mystical gems, Al-Futuhat al-Makkiyyah (“The Meccan Revelations’’)
and Fusus Al-Hikam (“The Bezels of Wisdom”; 1229), Ibn Arabi is said to have
met the great philosopher Ibn Rushd at the age of 9 years, when the latter was in
his mid-forties. Despite his young age, Ibn Arabi is said to have left Ibn Rushd
flabbergasted with his responses to the great “Commentator”.
 Disintegration of the Caliphate: Rise of Sufi and Shia Power 145

Ibn Rushd asked the precocious boy if philosophical speculation (nazar) could
arrive at the same conclusions as a divine unveiling (kashf). Ibn Arabi replied,
“yes and no”, and then explained, “Between the yes and the no, spirits fly from
their matter and heads from their bodies”.37 In the view of Henry Corbin, Ibn
Arabi and subsequent Muslim philosophers preserved the creative tension between
the “yes”, or the affirmation of the legitimacy of rational thought, and the “no”,
or the declaration of its inadequacy, in the face of pure knowledge.38
Mystical intuition was now seen as a higher and more advanced level of the
human intellect. In jurisprudence, Ibn Arabi was nominally aligned to the
conformist “zahiri” (empiricists and literalist) school of his contemporary Ibn
Hazm, but in matters of belief, he was quite the opposite of “zahiri”, in that he
was a “batini” (which means “hidden” or esoteric).
His doctrine has remained central to most Sufis to this day, called wahdatul
wujud (the unity of existence), which posits, like the Advaita concept, that all
existence is one. At a lower level:
all things pre-exist as ideas (ayn thabitah) in the knowledge of God,
from where they emanate and to which they return. There is no creation
ex nihilo; the world is merely the outer aspect of God, who is its inner
aspect. Between the essence and the attributes, i.e. God and the universe,
there is no real difference.39
Muslim mysticism here comes quite close to pantheism in Ibn Arabi. The
divine manifests himself in the human, which Ibn Arabi says is Muhammad (the
perfect man—insan-i-kamil). The Prophet is also the kalimah (expression), Ibn
Arabi puts it, similar to Jesus, who was called the “logos”.

Al-Ghazali: Ruler should have Spiritual Knowledge (Marifa)

One of the greatest theologians and mystics of Islam, and in the words of Philip
Hitti, “one of its noblest and most original thinkers”,40 is Abu Hamid Al-Ghazali
(1058–1111 CE). Known as Algazelus or Algazel in Latin, he was born in the city
of Tus in Iran (as a Sunni Seljuk subject) and is often seen as the final authority in
Sunni orthodox thought. Building on Al-Ashari’s theology, many Sunnis know
Al-Ghazali by his honorific title, Hujjat Al-Islam (“Proof of Islam”). He is also
called mujaddid (reviver) of his age.
His scholarship is said to have had a profound influence on Jewish and
Christian scholasticism, with Thomas Aquinas, and later Pascal, being influenced
by his philosophical and religious views. In the words of Hitti, “The scholastic
shell constructed by Al-Ashari and Al-Ghazali has held Islam to the present day.”41
146 Political Islam: Parallel Currents in West Asia and South Asia

Initially a student of Shafii jurisprudence, Ghazali was made teacher at

Nizamiyya madrasa by Nizam Al-Mulk himself because of his exceptional mental
abilities. One of his first works was a defence of Abbasid against Fatimid claims,
which was written in 1094–95. However, in 1095, Al-Ghazali suffered an
intellectual and physical breakdown, which was associated with a crisis in his
spiritual life, and a “phase of scepticism” seized him, forcing him to resign from
his teaching job and disappear into the Syrian desert in search of truth.
In a way, Ghazali’s confusion was a reflection of the broader spiritual and
intellectual confusion of Muslim thought at that time, which had sought answers
in theology and schools of jurisprudence but could not find solace in its dour
casuistry. It had sought refuge in Mutazila rationalism and Greek philosophy that
was only useful in answering mathematical and scientific questions, but was found
to be purely speculative and inconclusive in addressing spiritual, ethical and
metaphysical problems. Shiism, particularly Ismaili Shiism, was also found wanting
by Ghazali because of its over-insistence in following an “imam”. Ghazali
questioned: how are we going to recognise an ideal “imam” or teacher when the
Shia faith was itself riddled with divergent claims in this regard?
In the end, Al-Ghazali brought all these divergent strands together in his
synthesis of upholding the ascetic insight. He felt that in order to gain proper
knowledge, one needed to go deeper than the theological, the empirical and even
the rational. Thus, Ghazali believed that true knowledge was gained when the
thinking soul received the “intelligible forms” directly from the “universal soul”,
a silent and intuitive gift called marifa—a state in which even the mind does not
always know what it knows.
According to Ghazali, knowledge was acquired through spiritual experience
and could not be communicated in words. Hence, we know right and wrong
only through this intuitive, almost divine revelation, and also things are right and
wrong because God had willed it so.42 Ghazali endorsed the integration of knowing
and doing (orthopraxis, along with orthodoxy) and attacked the ulema who
preached but did not practice, and so he turned against mere bookish knowledge
and academic life.
By adopting “Marifa” as the basis for knowledge, which is harnessed through
religious worship and deeds, Ghazali gave pure intuitive revelations of Sufism,
and also gave religious fundamentalism a kind of philosophical authority. Further,
for Ghazali, political power pivoted between the temporal and the religious aspects.
According to him, the sultan or caliph should be blessed with the gift of Marifa,
 Disintegration of the Caliphate: Rise of Sufi and Shia Power 147

of being able to probe deep into the inner reality without the outward appearance
to know the truth: “Be assured of this, O Sultan, that justice springs from perfection
of the intellect and that perfection of the intellect means that you see things as
they [really] are and perceive the facts of their inner reality without being deceived
by their outward appearance.”43
Ghazali was also remarkable in his emphasis on physical reality as much as
spiritual truth. According to him, Islam upheld a middle way between materialism
and asceticism: the school did not teach the complete abandonment of “this world”,
nor the eradication of physical appetites. He believed that for religion to flourish,
this world must be organised appropriately by political power to maximise the
“opportunities for paradise”. Hence, a good ruler “is necessary for the good ordering
of this world, and the good ordering of this world is necessary for the good ordering
of religion, and the good ordering of religion is necessary for the acquisition of
happiness in the hereafter.”44 This political philosophy of Ghazali has been called
his “Middle Way” (between asceticism and materialism), the philosophy of
maintaining balance as was later espoused by the Muslim Brotherhood.
In modern times, Ghazali has come in for much criticism about his stance
against philosophy, mathematics and science. While Ibn Rushd himself wrote a
scathing critique (“Incoherence of the Incoherent”) against Ghazali’s diatribe
against philosophy titled, “The Incoherence of the Philosophers” (in which he
justified Ashari occasionalism), American astrophysicist Niel deGrasse Tyson45
accuses him of having stifled scientific enquiry in the Muslim world (which Tyson
said, in the Abbasid Golden Age, had charted the heavens, with two-thirds of the
stars still bearing their Arabic names). To be fair to Ghazali, it can be said that he
merely used philosophical argument to show the limitations of reason. Indeed,
just as Kant’s famous The Critique of Pure Reason, the Persian mystic and
philosopher never opposed science and mathematics but, as Joseph Lumbard (a
scholar on Ghazali) points out, merely opposed the abuse of science and maths
for purposes of harm and mischief.46
To hold Ghazali responsible for the decline of rationality and science in the
Muslim world is too far-fetched an accusation. In fact, Ghazali can be viewed as
a post-Mutazila Ashari scholar who made an immense impact on the political
thought of even medieval Indian political thinkers and rulers.

Shia Polity: Leadership through Divine Designation

Many of the theological doctrines of Shia Islam, particularly the majority Twelver
148 Political Islam: Parallel Currents in West Asia and South Asia

(Ithna Ashariyya) or Imami Shiism, fully developed in the tenth and eleventh
centuries. Over time, the Sunni and the Shia views on political theory started to
diverge. Although different schools of Shia Islam have held different opinions on
who should be the leader and how he should be chosen, they all believe in the
concept of imamate that is central to their religious belief and conduct. The
doctrine of imamate asserts that leaders and guides (called imam) of the Muslim
community should come solely from the progeny of the Prophet, as they possess
divine knowledge and authority (ismah), which is exclusive to the Ahl Al-Bayt
(that is, the Prophet’s household).
For the Zaidis, the true imam should lead an armed insurrection against
oppressive rulers, as Imam Zaid did against the Umayyad potentates. Political
power can only be gained through this means. In contrast, the early Twelvers or
Imami Shia rejected armed struggle and taught instead that they should wait for
the installation of the true imam through divine intervention. Thus, the sixth
imam, Jafar Al-Sadiq, urged patience, non-resistance and withdrawal from
mainstream politics. However, when Imam Jafar passed away, supporters of his
eldest son, Ismail (who had died before Imam Jafar), claimed that Ismail’s son,
Muhammad ibn Ismael, should be the rightful imam. However, the Twelver Shia
school simply selected the younger brother of Ismail, Musa Al-Kazim as their
imam. Since then, Ismailis have believed that Muhammad ibn Ismail would return
as Mahdi before the end of days to redress injustice in the world.47
A concise theory on the imamate (Shia political theory) first appears to have
been started by the Zaidi Shia Al-Qasim ibn Ibrahim (785–860). He was opposed
to elections, either by the elite or ordinary people, as he believed it led to a civil
dispute. According to him:
Any election would have to be carried out by a shura (council), and its
members must come from different and distant places, their aims will
be different…since every group of the council will claim the Leadership.
Their controversy will bring about war, and war will lead to perdition.48
Later, Twelver (or Imami) Shia theologians—namely, Al-Mufid (d. 1022);
his pupil, Al-Murtada (d. 1044); and his pupil, Abu Jafar Al-Tusi (d. 1067)—
extolled the importance of the Shia Hidden Imam thus:
Man is by nature fallible and is therefore forever in need of guidance,
which can only be provided by an Imam who is “ma’sum” (immune
from error and sin). As the ruling Sunni caliphs are sinful and act
tyrannically, there is always a Hidden Imam because of whom God has
not forsaken mankind.49
 Disintegration of the Caliphate: Rise of Sufi and Shia Power 149

The Twelver Shias grew in number in Iraq and Iran under the Seljuk rulers of
the tenth century. During the “Great Absence” (period of occultation of the twelfth
imam since around 934 CE), guidance for the Twelver Shias came through the
jurists (fuqaha), who were the spiritual guides of the community. This concept is
essential to understand the concept of Vilayat-e-Faqih (guardianship of the jurist),
which was also the political doctrine under the Shia Safavid Empire and the
Iranian Revolution under Imam Khomeini in the twentieth century.
The Shia ulema and fuqaha were legal–moral experts and became
representatives of the Hidden Imam. In the words of Abu Jafar Al-Tusi: “The true
(Imam) has cast (the mantle of ) judgement on the (Expert Jurists) of the Shia
during such time as he himself is not in a position to exercise it in person.”50 The
Shia clerics (ulema and fuqaha), thus, started exercising significantly greater
authority in their community than their counterparts did in the Sunni sect.
As explained earlier, the Shia were to endure the oppression of existing rulers
until the Hidden Imam finally appeared. However, if one’s life, family or property
were in danger, the follower was permitted to conceal one’s beliefs (taqiyya;
precautionary dissimilation). Therefore, non-resistance and conformism needed
to be practised to protect the Shia community from danger in adverse times.
Meanwhile, a good Sunni ruler and Shia rulers who acknowledged the true imams
could be regarded by the Shias as acting at the behest of the imam and in compliance
with God.
Under the Fatimids, the Ismaili Shia rulers of Egypt (909–1171CE), the
ruler imam was no longer hidden but in the open. His status was loftier than any
Sunni caliph as he was seen as the earthly form of the intellect emanating from
God. He was both the religious and political authority, to whom every subject
owed complete obedience (taslim). Under the Fatimid rulers, the injunctions of
jihad (in its connotation of Holy War), iman (faith) and wilaya (allegiance) were
added to the five pillars of Islam, namely, shahada, salat, sawm, zakat and the
Haj. However, most Ismailis in Iraq and Arabia refused to recognise the Fatimid
Ismaili rulers and so was the case with the Qarmati of Eastern Arabia (Bahrain),
who were ruled by a council of elders.

The “Assassins”: Legend of the Narco-terrorist

When the Fatimid Empire was on the decline in the eleventh century, one of its
missionary leaders, Hasan-i-Sabah, launched an insurrection from the remote
hilly fortress of Alamut (south of the Caspian Sea) in 1090 CE against the Sunni
Seljuk rulers of Persia.
150 Political Islam: Parallel Currents in West Asia and South Asia

In 1094, Fatimid Imam Al-Mustanasir died, so Hasan-i-Sabah supported the

designated successor of Al-Mustanasir by the name of Nizar. However, the Fatimid
general killed Nizar and appointed Nizar’s younger brother, Al-Mustali, to the
throne in Cairo. This led to the schism in the Ismaili sect, between the Nizari
Ismailis (later known as Agha Khanis) and the Mustali line (which further split
into Taiyyabi and Hafizi, with Taiyyibi Ismailism found in Bohra communities
in India).
On the assassination of his imam, Al-Sabah proclaimed himself to be the
hujja (lieutenant) of Nizar until the imam decided to reappear in person. Some
sources even suggest Nizar’s son had migrated to Alamut and was under the
protection of Hasan-i-Sabah. To revive the Ismaili Empire, Al-Sabah started a
secretive military campaign against the Sunni Seljuks and assasinated the wazir,
Nizam Al-Mulk, in 1092.
From his hilly fortress of Alamut, Hasan-i-Sabah became the terror of the
Mediterranean. His rebels (whom he called fidayeen) were better known by his
enemies as hashashin (which gives us the word “assassin” in English) because they
were said to be drugged with hashish to give them the courage to carry out political
assassinations. The legend of narco-terrorism goes back to almost a millennium
in Muslim history. However, the historical portrayal of the so-called hashashin in
a distinctively negative light is derived from their adverse portrayal by Seljuk
chroniclers.
In addition to Nizam Al-Mulk, the hashashin were successful in killing the
ruler of the Syrian city of Homs (1103), Seljuk governor of Mosul (1113), the
Wazir of Aleppo (1177) and the Crusader king of Jerusalem (1192). Fictional
tales about the hashashin or assassins became popular in Europe, and the “Old
Man of the Mountain” became the subject of European legend. The small Ismaili
state around Alamut lasted for about 150 years, until the Mongol raiders destroyed
the fortress.

NOTES
1 Franz Rosenthal (trans.), Ibn Khaldun, An Introduction to History: The Muqaddimah, edited
and abridged by N.J. Dawood, Princeton University Press, London, 1967, p. 285.
2 Karen Armstrong, Islam: A Short History’, Modern Library, London, 2002, p. 84.
3 Anthony Black, The History of Islamic Political Thought: From the Prophet to the Present, Routledge,
New York, 2010, p. 51.
4 Ibid.
5 Marshall G.S. Hodgson, The Venture of Islam: Conscience and History in a World Civilization,
Vol. 2, Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press, 1974, p. 255.
 Disintegration of the Caliphate: Rise of Sufi and Shia Power 151

6 Anthony Black, The History of Islamic Political Thought: From the Prophet to the Present, Routledge,
New York, 2010, p. 54.
7 George Makdisi, The Rise of Humanism in Classical Islam and the Christian West: With Special
Reference to Scholasticism, Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1990, pp. 171–72.
8 James Edward Montgomery Abbasid Studies: Occasional Papers of the School of »Abbasid Studies,
Ed. Vol. 135 of Orientalia Lovaniensia analecta, Peeters Publishers, 2004, p. 250.
9 Josef Horovitz (transl), Ibn Qutaiba’s ’Uyun al-Akhbar’, Journal Islamic Culture Vol. 4, 1931,
p. 191.
10 Louise Marlow, Hierarchy and Egalitarianism in Islamic Thought, Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1997, pp. 66-90.
11 Marmaduke Pickthall, The Meaning of the Glorious Koran, Surah 43, Verse 32, Central Press,
1938.
12 Anthony Black, The History of Islamic Political Thought: From the Prophet to the Present, Routledge,
New York, 2010, p. 53.
13 Josef Horovitz (transl), Ibn Qutaiba’s ’Uyun al-Akhbar’, Journal Islamic Culture, Vol. 4, 1931,
pp. 190-91.
14 Ibid., p. 193.
15 J.S. Meisami (ed., transl.) The Sea of Precious Virtue (Bahr al-Favaid): A Medieval Islamic
Mirror for Princes, Salt Lake City: Utah University Press, 1991, p. 215.
16 Nizam Al-Mulk, The Book of Government or Rules for Kings: The Siyar Al-Muluk or Siyasat-
nama of Nizam Al-Mulk, translated by Hubert Darke, Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1978, p. 49.
17 Karen Armstrong, Islam: A Short History’, Modern Library, London, 2002, p. 67.
18 Ralph Lerner and Muhsin Mahdi, Medieval Political Philosophy: A Sourcebook, Thaca: Free
Press of Glencoe, 1963, p. 110.
19 Ibid., p. 99.
20 Ibid., pp. 107–08.
21 Nuziral Ismail and Eko Cayho, “The Role of State on Social Justice: An Analysis from Ibn
Sina’s Perpective”, Al-Iktisab: Journal of Islamic Economic Law, Vol. 2, No. 1, 2018, p. 73.
22 Majid Fakhry, Averroes (Ibn Rushd): His Life, Works and Influence, Oneworld Publications,
london, 2001.
23 Available at https://www.meforum.org/61858/why-macron-plan-to-tame-islam-will-fail.
24 Caroline Stone “Doctor, Philosopher, Renaissance Man”, Saudi Aramco World, May/June 2003,
https://archive.aramcoworld.com/issue/200303/doctor.philosopher.renaissance.man.htm, last
accessed on 20 September 2023.
25 John Gill, Andalucía: A Cultural History, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009, pp. 108–10.
26 Fakhry, Averroes (Ibn Rushd): His Life, Works and Influence, p. 2.
27 Lawrence V. Berman, ‘Ibn Rushd’s Middle Commentary on the Nicomachaean Ethics in
Medieval Hebrew Literatures’, in Multiple Averroes, Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 1978, pp. 287–
321 (On Republic, p. 9).
28 Erwin I.J. Rosenthal, “The Place of Politics in the Philosophy of Ibn Rushd”, Bulletin of the
School of Oriental and African Studies, Vol. 15, No. 2 1953, pp. 246–78, available at http://
www.jstor.org/stable/608551. (On Republic, pp. 5, 28).
29 Oliver Leaman, ‘Averroes’ Commentary on Plato’s Republic and the Missing Politics’, in
Dionysius Agius and Richard Netton (eds), Across the Mediterranean Frontiers: Trade, Politics
and Religion 650–1450 (Turnhout: Brepols, 1997), pp. 95–203.
30 Anthony Black, The History of Islamic Political Thought: From the Prophet to the Present, Routledge,
New York, 2010, p. 128.
152 Political Islam: Parallel Currents in West Asia and South Asia

31 C.C.Z. Raheema and M.M.M. Omar, Five Pillars of Islam in Relation to Physical Health, Spiritual
Health and Nursing Implication, International Medical Journal Malaysia, 17.
32 Philip K. Hitti, ‘Decline and Fall of the Umayyads’ in History of Arabs, Palgrave, London,
1970, pp. 435–37.
33 A.A. Rizvi, Muslim Revivalist Movements in Northern India in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth
Centuries, Agra: Agra University, 1965, p. 461.
34 Hodgson, The Venture of Islam: Conscience and History in a World Civilization, Vol. 2, p. 237.
35 H. Corbin, Spiritual Body and Celestial Earth (From Mazdean Iran to Shi’ite Iran), translated
from French by Nancy Pearson, Princeton University Press, 1977, p. 54.
36 Muhammad Kamal, Mulla Sadra’s Transcendent Philosophy, Ashgate Publishing Ltd, 2006,
p. 13.
37 Ibn ‘Arabi: The Meccan Revelations, Vol. 1, translated by William C. Chittick and James W.
Morris, edited by Michel Chodkiewicz, New York: PIR Press, 2005, p. 154.
38 Henry Corbin, Creative Imagination in the Sufism of Ibn ‘Arabi (re-issued as Alone with the
Alone), Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1969.
39 Philip K. Hitti, ‘Decline and Fall of the Umayyads’ in History of Arabs, Palgrave, London,
1970, p. 587.
40 Ibid., p. 431.
41 Ibid., p. 432.
42 S.H. Nasr and O. Leaman (eds), History of Islamic Philosophy, 2 vols, London: Routledge,
1996.
43 F.R.C. Bagley (ed.), Counsel for Kings (Nasihatul Muluk), Oxford University Press, London,
p. 24.
44 Carole Hillenbrand, “Islamic Orthodoxy or Realpolitik? Al-Ghazali’s Views on Government”,
Iran: Journal of the British Institute of Persian Studies, Vol. XXVI, 1988, p. 88.
45 Available at https://www.economist.com/erasmus/2015/04/22/a-millennium-old-argument.
46 Joseph E.B. Lumbard, A%mad al-Ghazali, Remembrance, and the Metaphysics of Love, Albany:
State University of New York Press, 2016, p. 259.
47 Patricia Crone, God’s Rule: Government and Islam, New York: Columbia University Press,
2004, pp. 75–83.
48 B. Abrahamov, “Al-Kasim ibn Ibrahim’s Theory of the Imamate”, Arabica, Vol. 34, No. 1,
1987, p. 86.
49 Heinz Halm, Shiism, Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1991, pp. 55–56.
50 K.S. Ann Lambton, State and Government in Medieval Islam: An Introduction to the Study of
Islamic Political Thought: The Jurists, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1981, p. 252.
THE MONGOLS AND THE
RESURGENT WEST
 11
Mongol Attacks, the Crusades and the
Gunpowder Empires

In one week, libraries and their treasures that had been accumulated
over hundreds of years were burned or otherwise destroyed. So many
books were thrown into the Tigris River, according to one writer, that
they formed a bridge that would support a man on horseback.
—An account on the Mongol sacking of Baghdad in 1258 CE1

With the weakening of a unified caliphate from the tenth to thirteenth centuries,
the Muslim world soon became vulnerable to threats from two emerging powers.
One was Christian Europe, which was witnessing a population bulge and economic
revival in these centuries. In addition, the Gregorian Reform movement had made
the papacy stronger and Italian shipping was beginning to challenge Muslim
domination of the Mediterranean.
The second external threat came with the rise of the Mongol Empire under
its founder and first universal Mongol emperor, Genghis Khan, who eventually
established the largest contiguous empire in the history of humankind. He
conquered most of Eurasia, reached as far west as Poland and south as Egypt and
by the end of his reign, had a substantial part of Central Asia and China under his
control. For the first time, the Muslim world faced major reversals from external
threats on the world stage.2
156 Political Islam: Parallel Currents in West Asia and South Asia

The remnants of Abbasid glory ended with the sacking of Baghdad by Genghis
Khan’s pantheist grandson, Hulagu Khan, in 1258 CE, even though the monolithic
political unit of caliphate had started disintegrating much earlier, since the tenth
century itself.
The Mongol military interventions into the Muslim world had begun almost
four decades earlier. In 1218 CE, the governor of Khwarezm (a Muslim state
centred in present-day Uzbekistan) rounded up 450 Muslim merchants who had
come from the Mongol territory and had them killed on the suspicion that they
were Mongol spies. On hearing this, Genghis Khan sent three envoys to demand
reparation. The insolent governor had one of the envoys killed and shaved off the
beards of the other two and sent them back to the emperor, a pointed insult.3
The Mongol reprisal came in 1219 CE—swift, brutal and massive. It is said
that a crimson stream marked the trail of the Mongol horde: “Out of a population
of 100,000, Harat (Herat) was left with 40,000. The mosques of Bukhara, famed
for piety and learning, served as stables for Mongolian hordes. Many of Samarqand
and Balkh inhabitants were either butchered or carried into captivity. Khwarizm
was utterly devasted.”4 While recounting the sordid tales of the time, Ibn Al-
Athir shuddered at his narration and wished that his mother had not borne him.
When Ibn Battuta visited the cities of Bukhara, Samarqand, Balkh and others a
century later, he still found them in ruins.

Mongol Invasions: From Genghis Khan to Hulagu

According to Joseph Fletcher, the Mongol Empire grew from a militaristic, super-
tribal confederation that came into existence for the sole purpose of preying on
the rich settled lands.5 Once Genghis Khan consolidated the confederation in
1206, a continued pattern of invasion and conquest was followed to justify the
empire’s existence. Thus, the empire was utterly dependent on the army, and even
the confederate army could not be held together without an ever-expanding empire.
Once the Mongol Army had started, it was difficult to stop.
After Genghis Khan’s death in 1227 CE, his empire was divided into four
parts and the attacks on the Muslim world subsided. Genghis Khan was succeeded
by Great Khan Ogedei, whose death was followed by a period of uncertainity
until Mongke Khan became the emperor. Great Khan Mongke sent his brother
Hulagu on a campaign to the Middle East. According to David Morgan, Hulagu
had three reasons for conducting this second campaign in the region. First, his
immediate aim was to eliminate Nizari Imaili assassins, who were rumoured to be
 Mongol Attacks, the Crusades and the Gunpowder Empires 157

planning the assassination of the Great Khan. The second goal was to subdue or
destroy the caliph of Baghdad; and the third was to establish a kingdom of his
own.6
The first aim was achieved easily when, in 1256 CE, the last Nizari assassin
surrendered, and the hashashin of Persia were completely eliminated. Then, in
1258 CE, Hulagu moved to Iraq. He issued summons to the Abbasid caliph and
when this was refused, Baghdad was sacked. The caliph was wrapped in a carpet
and kicked to death. Later in a letter to the king of France, Hulagu reported that
200,000 people were killed in Baghdad. Muslim historians linked Hulagu’s savagery
to Crusading Christians, as they claim Hulagu’s mother Sorghaghtani was a
Nestorian Christian, as was his wife Doquz Khatun and his close friend general
Kitbuqa Noyan. Finally, in 1260 CE, Hulagu took the Ayyubid kingdoms of
Aleppo and Damascus.
The Mongol juggernaut came to a sudden halt when they were dealt an
unexpected defeat at the hands of the Egyptian Mamluks. The Mamluk victory
in the Battle of Ayn Jalut (Spring of Goliath) marked the end of the Mongol
expansion. There were two reasons for this Mongol defeat. One was that Hulagu
had left the campaign midway to his general on news of Mongke’s death; and
second, the Mongols did not find territories in the Near East attractive
pasturelands. However, the fact is that Mamluks started seizing territory even
from the Mongols, and their general, Baybar, took Syria and became the real
founder of Mamluk power. However, Persia and Iraq continued under Hulagu
and his successors as the empire of Ilkhans, who ruled over Iranzamin (land of
Iran). In 1295 CE, the Ilkhan rulers converted to Islam, beginning with Ghazan
Khan.
Following Hulagu’s death, the Mongols created four large states. The
descendants of Hulagu established the dynasty of Ilkhans (who established their
kingdom in the Tigris–Euphrates valley and the mountainous regions of Iran).
The Chaghtay Mongols carved their state in the Syr–Oxus region, while the Golden
Horde was established in the Volga River basin and the White Horde in the Irtysh
region. Having beliefs closer to Buddhism, the Mongol law code (the Yasa) was
mainly a military system that Genghis Khan himself supposedly drew. By the
beginning of the fourteenth century, all four of the Mongol states had converted
to Islam, mainly because of Sufi mysticism that resonated with the shamanic
occultism of the Mongols.
158 Political Islam: Parallel Currents in West Asia and South Asia

The Crusades: Saladin Ayyubi and the Millennial Wars

By the turn of the first millennium, European Christians believed that the end of
the world was imminent; and their priests had raised apocalyptic expectations
that around the years 1000 CE and 1033 CE, a Christian king would lead the
faithful to Jerusalem to await the Second Coming of Christ.
The reality was quite different, though. By the eleventh century, about two-
thirds of the ancient Christian world had been conquered by Muslims, which
included the Christian holy lands of Palestine, Syria, Egypt and Anatolia. The
rise of Seljuks to power and their encroachment into Byzantine territory so alarmed
Emperor Alexios I that he urged the Roman pope, with whom the Greek Orthodox
Church had broken 40 years earlier, to save his realm from the Muslim threat. For
his part, Pope Urban II responded to the call for help and made a speech in 1095
CE, inviting Christians to join a war to regain Jerusalem’s Holy Sepulchre from
the “wicked race”.7 This call led to the first in a series of Christian–Muslim wars,
known in history as the Crusades.
The Crusades refer to eight major official military campaigns (and many
more unofficial ones) between 1095 CE and 1270 CE, launched by Catholic
popes and Christian Western powers to wrest the Holy Land of Jerusalem from
Muslim control. Although there were many crusades, the most successful for the
Christian forces was the first. Still, by 1291 CE, the newly created Christian
states by Crusading armies in West Asia—namely, the Kingdom of Jerusalem,
County of Edessa, County of Tripoli and Principality of Antioch—were defeated
and subsumed by the Muslim Mamluk Sultanate.
Thousands of Christian volunteers had responded to Pope Urban’s speech
and led by able European generals of the day, the Crusaders joined the Byzantine
Army and took Antioch in 1097 CE, after a nine-month-long siege. In 1099 CE,
the army reached the walls of Jerusalem, even as only 1,000 Fatimid forces guarded
the fort. The 15,000 Crusaders soon managed to breach the wall and this was
followed by a bloodbath, in which thousands of non-combatant Jews, Muslims
and native Christians were killed. It is said that human blood flowed knee-deep
in the streets of Jerusalem and the Dome of the Rock was stripped of silver and
gold candelabera and turned into a church. The Holy Sepulcher was back in the
control of the Christians. Armenian Christians, who had fled from conquering
Seljuks, were given a mini-state along with the new Crusader states and proved
one of the Crusaders staunchest allies.
The Muslim front against the Crusaders in the First Crusade was weak because
 Mongol Attacks, the Crusades and the Gunpowder Empires 159

at that time, the Abbasid Empire had grown very weak and the Fatimid caliphs
did not want to antagonise the Christians too much as they had strong business
ties with them, with trade between Alexandria and Italian ports of Venice and
Genoa.
The turning point came in 1144 CE, when Zengi, Mosul’s governor during
the collapsing Seljuk rule, captured Edessa from the Crusaders. He was succeeded
by his worthy son, Nur Al-Din. With his Kurdish general, Shirkuh, and his brilliant
nephew, Saladin Ayyubi, Nur Al-Din’s forces fended a Christian invasion of Egypt.
Saladin proclaimed himself the Sultan of Egypt (although still a lieutenant of
Nur Al-Din) as soon as the Fatimid caliph died in 1171 CE, and he seized power
in Syria after Nur Al-Din died three years later. Then, he managed to take Jerusalem
and most of Palestine from the Crusaders between 1187 CE and 1192 CE. Saladin
Ayyubi, thus, founded the Ayyubid dynasty by the Third Crusade.

Mamluks: “Slave Rulers” Who Defeated the Crusaders and the

Mongols
Saladin Ayyubi had given greater impetus to an old Abbasid practice of importing
Turkish boys (mamluks or “owned men”) from Central Asia and training them as
adept soldiers. Under his reign, the Mamluks started to dominate the Ayyubi
Army.
Slavery in Islam was not as evil a practice as in other parts of the medieval
world. In fact, slavery enabled young and gifted men through the army or the
bureaucracy. Many families (even non-Muslims) in remote parts of Central Asia
and Turkey were willing to sell their sons to slave traders to serve the Muslim
rulers. A boy generally became a “mamluk” or enslaved person when he was about
10–12 years old and was sold to either the reigning sultan or one of the ameers
(ministers) and put into a dormitory with other Mamluks. The younglings were
instructed in Islam and Arabic, as well as trained in riding horses, archery and
fighting with swords and lances. This rigorous education lasted for 10 years,
during which the youth were kept in strict discipline. Upon completing the military
training, each Mamluk received his manumission paper of being a free man, a
horse and fighting gear. Although freed, these Mamluks remained loyal to the
sultan or ameer and generally joined the army with their fellow batchmates.
In the Seventh Crusade, which was led by France’s King Louis IX (later St
Louis), the Crusaders occupied the Egyptian coast city of Damietta in 1249 CE
and were about to take Mansura when the Mamluk forces intercepted them. In
160 Political Islam: Parallel Currents in West Asia and South Asia

the ensuing battle, the Mamluks defeated the Crusaders and captured Louis IX
and his army.
Around that time in Cairo, the last Ayyubi king died. His widow, Shajar Al-
Durr, kept his death secret for six months and ruled in his name. When her son
and heir-apparent, who was living away from Cairo, finally arrived in the capital,
the Mamluks came to know about the king’s death and killed the prince before he
could ascend to the throne. The murderers made Shajar Al-Durr the sultan until
the Mamluk commander married her a few months later and became the ruler.
The Mamluks had a strange history of succession. Although a son would
often succeed his father, he had a brief reign as various Mamluk factions used to
fight to seize the sultanate. Nevertheless, this system of “survival of the fittest”
strangely produced good rulers and the Mamluks thrived for nearly 250 years.
One of the best examples of the system was the Mamluk general, Baybar, who
defeated Hulagu’s forces in Ayn Jalut. However, Baybar soon killed his master
and became the new sultan (reigned 1260–77).

Timur (‘Tamerlane’): The “Scourge of God”

Despite Hulagu’s successors (Ilkhan rulers) converting to Islam, the legacy of
Mongolian savagery was revived by the rise of Timur (known as Tamerlane in
European texts), who hoped to build a universal empire like that of Genghis
Khan. An undefeated commander and one of the greatest military leaders and
tacticians in history, Timur was born in the house of a shoemaker in Transoxiana
in 1336. Initially, he lived by brigandage and got the epithet “lang” (lame) after
his leg was injured while stealing sheep.8
In 1380, Timur headed his Tartar hordes in campaigns that won him
Afghanistan, Persia, Faris and Kurdistan. A nominal Muslim, he captured Baghdad
and in Tikrit in 1393, the birthplace of Saladin the Maginificent and raised a
pyramid of skulls of his Muslim victims. He then invaded Moscow in 1395 and
occupied it for a year. In 1398, he ravaged northern India, and also massacred
80,000 inhabitants of Delhi. From here, he turned towards Syria, and in 1400,
plundered Aleppo for three days. About 20,000 of Aleppo’s inhabitants were
decapitated, and their heads built into mounds 10 cubits high by 20 cubits in
circumference. Soon, he captured Damascus in February 1401.9
In the next two years, Timur invaded Asia Minor, crushed the Ottoman
Army at Ankara (1402) and took Sultan Bayazid I prisoner: “The distinguished
captive was kept in chains during the night and made to travel in a litter surrounded
 Mongol Attacks, the Crusades and the Gunpowder Empires 161

by a grille (qafas) carried on two horses.”10 Timur’s personality cult centred on

the idea that he was the “Scourge of Allah”, sent to Earth to uphold the true
religion. While not a practising Muslim, Timur invoked God often to justify his
military campaigns. On February 1405, the 70 year old set out with an army of
200,000 men from his capital, Samarqand, to parley with the Chinese Empire,
3,000 miles away. It was a cold winter and the army halted at Otrar in Kazakhstan.
The old conqueror had contracted a cold and had high fever. Understanding he
was about to die, Timur, in an almost inaudible voice, made an eloquent speech,
telling the women of his family and commanders not to weep madly on his death
but to pray to God to have mercy on him. One of the most infamous butchers of
humankind, Timur is said to have died silently in the evening of 18 February
1405 CE.
Unlike his father, Timur’s son, Shahrukh (who ruled from 1405 to 1447),
was a great patron of the arts and sciences and made Samarqand a beautiful capital.
He even maintained good political and economic relations with neighbouring
kingdoms. In the view of Thomas Lentz and Glenn Lowry:
unlike his father, Shahrukh ruled the Timurid empire, not as a Turco-
Mongol warlord-conqueror, but as an Islamic sultan. In dynastic
chronicles, he is exalted as a man of great piety, diplomacy, and
modesty—a model Islamic ruler who repaired much of the physical
and psychological damage caused by his father.11

Impact of Invasions: Closing of the Doors of Ijtihad (Independent

Thought)
The Mongol invasion of Baghdad wiped out the caliphate and it is believed that,
in the aftermath, the Islamic world even lost its intellectual vitality. The destruction
caused by the invasions led to an intensification of conservatism, as only those
concepts were promoted that were conformist and would unite the Muslim ranks.
The tolerance for heterodox ideas that might cause confusion and dissension in
an already weakened umma was disapproved. The existing schools of Islamic
jurisprudence were to be blindly followed from now on, and the idea of taqleed
(strict adherence) was followed. “The gates of ijtihad” for independent reasoning
and enquiry were closed and have remained primarily so to this day.
Reversals compounded the setbacks brought by the Crusades and Mongol
attacks on the western front of Islamdom. Christians in Spain conducted a
successful “Reconquista” of Muslim territory, taking Cordova in 1236, Seville in
162 Political Islam: Parallel Currents in West Asia and South Asia

1248 and later, the city-state of Granada in 1492. The Black Death plague swept
Europe and then entered Muslim North Africa, causing a massive decline in Berber
society in the fourteenth century.

Gunpowder Empires: Ottomans and Safavids

In the tenth century, the Mongol invasions exposed the Muslim world and
Christian Europe to Chinese use of gunpowder for fireworks. By 1330, both
Muslim and Christian forces in Spain loaded gunpowder into canons to fire massive
projectiles into enemy battlements. The ameer of Granada had them in 1330,
and the Mamluks (although they used it only occasionally) had canons by 1365.
However, the most significant Muslim gunpowder state was the Ottoman
Empire.12

Ottoman Empire (1299–1922): The Sword against Christian Europe

The Ottoman Empire was founded at the end of the thirteenth century in
northwestern Anatolia, in the town of Sogut, by the Turkoman tribal leader Osman
I. It is believed that the ruling family came from the Turkic Kayi tribe, whose
members had fled westwards from their ancestral land in Khorasan to escape
from thirteenth-century Mongol invaders. According to legend, a scion of the
Kayi tribe by the name Ertugrul, and his followers, entered the service of the
Seljuk Sultanate of Rum. His offer of 444 horse soldiers had turned the tide in
favour of the Seljuk Sultanate in its campaign against the Byzantine Empire. In
appreciation, the Seljuks rewarded Ertugrul with an iqta (land grant) at Sogut.
Upon Ertugrul’s death, the leadership passed on to Osman I,13 who was girded
with a special sword by a Sufi priest and commanded to wage war against his
Christian neighbour, the Byzantines. As a result, he took the title of “ghazi” (leading
warrior of Islam to be granted paradise). From that time on till the empire’s end
in 1922, Osman’s descendants—known as the Ottomans—would be girded with
that sword and commanded to fight for Islam against Christian Europe at the
time of their accession. In fact, the sword is still among the many treasures of the
Ottoman Empire at the Topkapi Palace Museum in Istanbul.14
From 1354 onwards, the Ottomans started winning European territory and,
with the conquest of the Balkan kingdoms, their tiny principality was transformed
into a transcontinental empire. Nevertheless, the pinnacle of their conquests against
Christian Europe was achieved when they conquered Constantinople (which was
renamed “Islambol”, which later got corrupted to Istanbul) in 1453, in the reign
of Ottoman Sultan Mehmed, the Conqueror.15
 Mongol Attacks, the Crusades and the Gunpowder Empires 163

Mehmed’s strength was built around the Balkan nobility, many of whom
were converting to Islam. In addition, there was the infantry—the yeni cheri or
janissaries—which had become more important since the introduction of
gunpowder. Besides, there were the landless converted slaves, called the “Janissaries”
(special forces), who were dedicated to giving their lives to the Sultan.16
Under the rule of Suleiman, the Magnificent (reigned from 1520 to 1566),
the Ottoman Empire marked the peak of its power and prosperity, making
significant progress in administrative, social and economic systems. At the
beginning of the seventeenth century, the empire ruled over 32 provinces
(administered by pashas or governors) and numerous vassal states. Some of these
were absorbed into the empire, while others were granted varying degrees of
autonomy. To the west, the Ottoman armies continued their conquests and reached
even the gates of Vienna in the 1530s. Thus, the empire controlled much of
Southeastern Europe, West Asia and North Africa between the fourteenth and
early twentieth centuries. The empire had a mix of different groups—Turks, Arabs,
Christians, Jews, ulema, Sufi tariqas, trade guilds, etc.
In the words of Karen Armstrong:
Under Suleiman, the Shariah received a more exalted status than in any
previous Muslim state. It became the official law of the land for all
Muslims, and the Ottomans were the first to give standard form to
Shariah courts. Legal experts—with qadis, who dispensed justice in the
courts, their consultants (muftis), who interpreted the law, and the
teachers in the madrasahs—became an official government corps,
creating a moral and religious link between the sultan and his subjects.17

The Safavid Empire (1501–1736): Iran Converts from Sunni to Shia Islam
Following the Mongol invasions, there was also a revival of Imami (Twelver)
Shias: “The Mongols were in some way their liberators and gave Shias prominent
positions. Imamis were especially numerous in Iraq, north-western Iran and south
of the Caspian; they had their madrassas, and leaders and they were represented
in the Mongol court with a chief spokesman.”18
Another major success for the Imami Shias came from an unlikely source. A
Sunni Sufi sect from modern-day Azerbaijan, the Safaviyyeh, got converted to
Twelver Shia Islam, and then its forces took control of Iran, making it the only
Shia state in the world to this day. The Safavids were descendants of Safi Al-Din
(1253–1334) of Ardabil, who was the head of the Sufi order of Safaviyyeh and
164 Political Islam: Parallel Currents in West Asia and South Asia

followed the Sunni Shafii school of jurisprudence. In their opposition to the

excesses committed by the ameers of Mesopotamia, the Safavids are said to have
later embraced Twelver Shia Islam. Soon, they started converting large number of
Turks in Azerbaijan and Anatolia to Shiism. These Shia Turks were called Qizilbash
(red heads) because of their distinctive headgears.
In 1500 CE, 16-year-old Ismail became the pir (spiritual leader) of his Sufi
order and decided to avenge the killing of his father, who had died at the hands of
the Mesopotamian “ameers”. In 1501, Ismail conquered Tabriz and, over the next
decade, conquered the rest of Iran. He then declared that Twelver Shiism was the
religion of Iran.
For centuries, Twelver Shiism had remained a pacifist, mystical sect, which
had withdrawn from politics and wars as it did not believe in any government
during the “Long Absence” of the Hidden Imam. However, the recently converted
Shah Ismail did not quite understand this reasoning. In the words of Karen
Armstrong: “He probably knew very little about Twelver orthodoxy, since he
subscribed to the folk extremist ghuluww Shiism of the new tariqas, which believed
the messianic utopia was at hand.”19
Ismail called himself the “Shah” and, like the pre-Islamic Sassanid and then
Abbasid monarchs, also called himself ‘the shadow of God on earth’. He waged
many wars with the Sunni world. In 1510, he ousted the Sunni Uzbeks from
Khorasan and pushed them north of Oxus. He also attacked the Ottomans, but
was defeated by Sultan Selim I at the Battle of Chaldiran in 1514. Nevertheless,
Ismail’s campaign within Iran was so successful that by the end of the seventeenth
century, this predominantly Sunni country was staunchly converted to the Twelver
Shia faith, and has remained so till this day.
It was under Shah Abbas I (1587–1629) that the Safavid rule reached its
zenith. Tabriz, Qazvin and Isfahan became the dazzling capitals of their empire.
The bazaars, palaces, mosques and madrasas of Isfahan dazzle even today. Under
the Safavids, Isfahan became the centre of cultural renaissance, with great painters,
such as Bihzad (d. 1535) and Riza-i Abbari (d. 1635), producing breathtaking
miniatures. The Persians started saying, “Isfahan nisf-i-jahan” or “Isfahan is half
of the world”.
Under Shah Abbas I, the aristocracy of the Qizilbash was put in check by
raising a trained force of enslaved people or ghulams. The king also courted many
European countries because of their typical rivalry with the Ottomans. Spain,
Portugal, France, England and the Netherlands sent their representatives to the
 Mongol Attacks, the Crusades and the Gunpowder Empires 165

court of Shah Abbas, and even India’s Mughal ruler, Humayun, came to the court
of Safavi Shah Tahmasp, where he got Persian help for reconquering Delhi.
However, Shah Abbas’s reign also sowed the seeds of the Safavid Empire’s
decline. He curtailed the influence of the Sufis and people’s representatives and
enhanced the status of the religious jurists (fuqaha). Even among the fuqaha, the
conformists of the Quranic and Hadeeth texts gave way to the more enterprising
mujtahids (independent interpreters), who brought about political interpretations
in matters of religion; and they remained influential up until the time of the 1979
revolution.20 Replacing the old Sufi devotion of dhikr (recitation of God’s names),
the ulema, like Muhammad Baqir Majlisi (d. 1700), started the elaborate passion
play processions—the miniature mausoleums (taziyeh) taken out in the streets
during the 10th day of Muharram ceremonies—to commemorate the martyrdom
of Imam Husayn with ritual mourning and chest-beating, as well as to direct
hatred towards Sunnis, presented as people in sympathy with the killers of the
Prophet’s grandson.
Late in life, Shah Abbas grew increasingly suspicious of his courtiers to the
extent that he even blinded and killed some of his worthy sons out of fear of them
staging a coup. These actions left the Safavids with weak successors after the
death of Shah Abbas.

The Decline in Intellectual Efflorescence?

The Mongol invasions are said to have drawn Islam into conservatism. However,
scholars like Daniel Brown contest the view by citing that the times witnessed the
rise of brilliant Sufi scholars, like Ibn Arabi; poets like Jalaluddin Rumi (1207–
73); the great Egyptian polymath and historian Jalaluddin Suyuti (1445–1505);
along with the historian Al-Maqrazi (d. 1442). Born in Herat (today’s Afghanistan)
a little earlier than these luminaries, Fakhr Al-Din Razi (1150–1209) was a
polymath and Islamic scholar of renown.21 Belonging to the Ashari school of
thought, he is often cited by the great philosophers who came after him—
particularly Ibn Khaldun and Ibn Taimiyyah—and contributed to medicine,
chemistry, physics, astronomy, cosmology, philosophy, theology and jurisprudence.
Al-Razi was critical of the Aristotelian and Avicennian notions of a single universe
revolving around a single world. Like any theorist of twentieth-century quantum
physics, he contended that there exists an infinite number of parallel universes.22
However, three of the most brilliant minds of the Muslim world who shaped
the times to come were: Nasir Al-Din Tusi (1201–74), the Azerbaijani Shia
166 Political Islam: Parallel Currents in West Asia and South Asia

polymath, father of trigonometry and astrophysicist, who shaped medieval Indian

political thought; Ibn Khaldun (1332–1406), renowned philosopher and among
the early founders of histography, sociology, economics and demography; and
the great philosopher and one of the most controversial theologians, Ibn Taimiyyah
(1263–1328).
However, it should be noted that barring these luminaries, who were primarily
born around the time of the invasions, fewer intellectual luminaries were produced
by the Muslim world in the middle and latter half of the second millennium than
during the Umayyad and the Abbasid times.

Nasir Al-Din Tusi: The Polymath Wazir of Hulagu

Born in Tus (northeastern Iran), Muhammad ibn al-Hasan al-Tusi—popularly
known as Nasir Al-Din Tusi—was a genius who wrote on subjects of mathematics,
engineering, mysticism as well as political ethics. He made very accurate tables of
planetary motion and is considered to be the founder of trigonometry as a
mathematical discipline in its own right. His Treatise on the Quadrilateral gave an
extensive exposition of spherical trigonometry, distinct from astronomy. Indeed,
Ibn Khaldun considered Al-Tusi to be the greatest of the later Persian scholars.
According to Michael Nosonovsky and several recent physicists, his theories
influenced Copernicus’ heliocentricism,23 while Robert Morrison considers him
“a scholarly intermediary between the Ottoman Empire and Renaissance
Europe”.24 Some scientists find a remarkable similarity in the Tusi couple and the
Copernican heliocentric model in that their methods match geometrically. More
importantly, they both use the same exact lettering system for each vertex.25 His
most famous work, however, is Akhlaq-i Nasiri (Nasirean Ethics in English), which
profoundly influenced social and political thought in Persia and India in medieval
times.
As the armies of Genghis Khan raided his hometown, Nasir Al-Din Tusi was
employed by the Nizari Ismaili state as a scientist and engineer. He was later sent
to the major castles of Alamut and Maymun-Diz of the hashashin leaders. However,
he became a prisoner of the Mongols who invaded Alamut and destroyed it in
1255–56. Thereafter, Al-Tusi became an astrologer and adviser to the Mongol
leader Hulagu. Being a closet Twelver Shia, it has been alleged that Al-Tusi
encouraged Hulagu in his expedition against Baghdad, which caused the extinction
of the Sunni Abbasid Caliphate.
As a reward, Al-Tusi was made wazir and supervisor of religious foundations
 Mongol Attacks, the Crusades and the Gunpowder Empires 167

by Hulagu and his successor. Hulagu even had an observatory built for Al-Tusi,
which enabled him to calculate new planetary tables. In addition, Tusi wrote
prolifically and composed “The Rules and Customs of Ancient Kings” (probably
for a Mongol prince), which contained advice on finances.26 Al-Tusi is credited
with having written about 150 works, of which 25 are in Persian and the remaining
are in Arabic.27 The impact of his work on the political theory of Muslim rulers
in medieval India will be discussed at length later in the book.

Ibn Khaldun’s “Asabiyya” and the Cyclical Theory of Empires

Abu Zayd Abd ar-Rahman ibn Muhammad ibn Khaldun was an Arab precursive
founder of the proto-disciplines that would become historiography, sociology,
economics and demography.28 Niccolo Machiavelli and Friedrich Hegel, along
with several nineteenth-century Western philosophers, considered him among
the greatest philosophers of the Middle Ages.29
Of Yemeni descent from the tribe of Hadramaut, with a family ancestry going
back to Wal ibn Hujr (a companion of the Prophet), Ibn Khaldun was born in
Tunis in 1332. His best-known work, Muqaddimah (“Introduction”), was
considered an authority on the works of Plato, Ibn Sina and Ibn Rushd, through
whom he got acquainted with Aristotle. He was also well aware of Nasir Al-Din
Tusi and Fakhr Al-Din Razi. His philosophical work concentrated on conquest
theory of state formation, cyclical theory of empires, economic growth theory,
political midlife crisis and supply and demand theory, which anticipates Adam
Smith’s “invisible hand theory” and is said to have influenced his work.
Whereas Aristotle had studied the polis (city-state), the subject of Ibn Khaldun’s
study was human association (al-ijtima al-insani) or civilisation (umran).30 Aristotle
applied his scientific method to the study of the polis. Ibn Khaldun, however,
developed the Aristotelian method by incorporating his specific historical
methodology and incorporating the sociological dimension that he said causes
the rise and fall of civilisations.
Further, Ibn Khaldun applied the principles of philosophical rationalism to
the domain of history. He believed that universal laws lay behind the determination
of historical events. It is from here that he derives his most famous theory of
asabiyya (sense of community, of group feeling). According to him, the two driving
forces in human history in every civilisation are asabiyya and mulk (state power).
Asabiyya is “the affection a man feels for a brother or a neighbour when one of
them is treated unjustly or killed”.31 As per Ibn Khaldun, it is this sense of affiliation
168 Political Islam: Parallel Currents in West Asia and South Asia

that determines the military strength of a group or society: “Group Feeling

produces the ability to defend oneself…and to press one’s claims. Whoever loses
it is too weak to do any of these things.”32 According to the philosopher, asabiyya
is the natural force that gives rise to the communities of clan and lineage. It is this
sense that helps a particular community to survive and even to subjugate others.
The conquest of this dominant group, clan or community manages to absorb
the resources of the subject people and develop a culture and complex urban life.
However, sedentary and comfortable living, the very goal of an aspiring civilisation,
leads to corruption and exhaustion in the ruling class and a dissipation in the
sense of asabiyya, leading to the decline of a particular civilisation over some
time.
Ibn Khaldun has cited examples of both the Arab world and the Mongol
states to confirm his theory. Their original asabiyya had peaked, complacency
and infighting had set in, and now the stage was set for other groups seeking
domination to seize control. However, Ibn Khaldun does not undermine the
importance of state power or mulk, ‘a systemising and constraining force to manage
humanity, which is absolutely necessary (daruri) to humankind’.33
British historian Arnold Toynbee has called Ibn Khaldun’s Muqaddimah, “the
greatest work of its kind”.34 Ernest Geller, professor of philosophy at the London
School of Economics, has found Ibn Khaldun’s definition of government as “...an
institution which prevents injustice other than such as it commits itself,” the best
in the history of political theory.35 Arthur Laffer, after whom the Laffer Curve is
named, has acknowledged that he did not invent the curve and then acknowledged
his indebtedness to Ibn Khaldun for discovering it.36 It has even been suggested
that Ibn Khaldun not only first developed the neo-liberal economic model in his
Muqaddimah published in 1372, but even highlighted its shortcomings. He also
explains some of the significant shortcomings of this model.37 Even noted
economist Paul Krugman has described Ibn Khaldun as “a 14th-century Islamic
philosopher who invented what we would now call the social sciences”.38

Ibn Taimiyyah: The Maverick Fundamentalist

One of the most controversial and intellectually complex theologians—whose
study has been popularised in modern times by mostly radical ideologues, like
Sayyid Qutb and Mohammad Al-Farag—Taqi Al-Din Ahmad Ibn Taimiyyah
was a thirteeth to fourteenth century Sunni Islamic scholar of the conservative
Hanbali school. He is considered as the ideological source of Wahhabiyyah (Salafi-
 Mongol Attacks, the Crusades and the Gunpowder Empires 169

Wahhabism in English), which arose in the Arabian Peninsula in the mid-

eighteenth century.
Born in Harran in modern Turkey and having lived in the troubled times of
Mongol invasions, he considered Mongol converts to Islam, like the Ilkhan ruler
Ghazan Khan in his times, to be non-Muslims as they did not practise Islamic
rituals and stuck to their Mongol Yasa code. Ibn Taimiyyah also blamed the
neophyte Mongol rulers for continuing their rapacious attacks against Muslim
kingdoms, even after their avowed conversion to Islam. He declared them
“apostates” and encouraged war against them, thus justifying ‘takfeer’ (declaring a
Muslim to be a non-believer, which makes it legitimate to kill that person)—a
practice later adopted by twentieth-century terrorist groups, like the Al-Qaeda
and the ISIS.
Ibn Taimiyyah was also critical of Islamic philosophers who were inspired by
Greek philosophy. Thus, he accused Ibn Rushd, Ibn Sina and Al-Farabi of being
unbelievers for teaching that the world is eternal, which he said would mean that
God is redundant. In addition, he was highly critical of Sufi and Shia Muslims
for venerating the graves of their dead imams and sheikhs, which he believed was
an egregious act that was tantamount to idol worship (the gravest sin in Islam).
He was also highly intolerant of Christians for having turned the Islamic Prophet
and Messiah Jesus into the son of God.
In spite of his strident positions that were considered radical in his times, Ibn
Taimiyyah is far too complex to place into any conventional category. He was a
champion of women’s rights and was opposed to the juristic acceptance of easy
divorce by men to women; in fact, he was imprisoned for such views.39 Ibn
Taimiyyah found no evidence in the Quran for the so-called ‘triple talaq’ (divorce)
to a woman in one sitting and was also in favour of religiously pious and learned
women leading prayers in mosques.40 Again, he rejected the necessity of having a
single caliphate, which many modern extremist groups, like the HuT and the
ISIS, advocate.41 At the epistemological level, Ibn Taimiyyah considered the Salaf
(the first three generations of Muslims) to be better than any other later generations,
which even excludes the subsequent founders of the juristic schools, in
understanding the conformity of reason with revelation. He even upheld the right
of non-Arabic-speaking Muslims to perform dua (supplication) in their native
languages.
Ibn Taimiyyah, thus, turns out to be a more nuanced scholar than the fanatical
and extreme image his radical supporters try to project. His famous fatwa of
170 Political Islam: Parallel Currents in West Asia and South Asia

Mardin is often claimed by modern militants as a text that authorises Muslims to

declare war on infidels and so-called Muslim “apostates”. However, a careful reading
of the fatwa presents a different picture. According to Indonesian scholars Alfina
Hidayah and Hamdan Maghribi, the fatwa, “rejects the understanding of the
Jihadists who make this fatwa the basis for fighting fellow Muslims who are
legitimate rulers and even infidels who live in peace with Muslims.”42 These scholars
point to the findings of an international conference titled “Mardin Dar al-Salam
(Mardin the city of peace)” which was held on 27-8 March 2010 which specifically
discussed Mardin’s fatwa in the very city in Syria, where the fatwa was issued
centuries ago. The conference revealed that so-called modern Salafi jihadists have
changed the wording from the original manuscript of Ibn Taimiyyah’s Mardin
fatwa in their writings.43
Whereas the orginal sentence reads: “... Muslims who live there (in Mardin)
must be treated (yu’amal) according to their rights (as Muslims), while (non-
Muslims who live in Mardin) and who are outside the jurisdiction of Islamic law
must be treated (yu’amal) according to their rights.” However, modern Salafi-
jihadist ideologues have mischievously changed the wording to “... Muslims living
there should be treated (yu’amal) according to their rights (as Muslims), whereas
(non-Muslims living there) and outside the rule of Islamic law should be fought
(yuqatal) for their rights.” 44 Thus, towards the end of the line the Arabic word
‘yu’amal’ (which implies ‘treated’) is misquoted to ‘yuqatal’ (which mens to fight
or kill).
When Ibn Taimiyyah had called for an armed insurrection against the Mongols
in his fatwa, he clearly instructed:
the lives and property of the people of Mardin are inviolable. Therefore,
their living under the subjugation of the Mongols does not compromise
any of their rights, nor can they be maligned verbally or accused of
hypocrisy. As long as the inhabitants of Mardin can practice their religion,
they are not obliged to emigrate. The territory is neither wholly a part
of the Muslim world, since it is under the domination of the Mongols,
nor is it part of the non-Muslim world since its populace is Muslim. It
is in fact, a composite of the two. The Muslims living therein should be
treated according to their rights as Muslims, while the non-Muslims
living there outside of the authority of Islamic Law should be treated
according to their rights.45
It is noteworthy that, unlike the ISIS, Ibn Taimiyyah did not ask Muslims in
 Mongol Attacks, the Crusades and the Gunpowder Empires 171

Mardin to emigrate to Islamic territory. Moreover, he did not categorise Mardin

as dar al-Islam (territory of Islam) or dar al-kufr (territory of infidels), but said it
was a composite of the two, and therefore both Muslims and non-Muslims there
should enjoy their rights equally. Ibn Taimiyyah created a new “composite” category,
known as dar al-ahd (territory of conciliation/treaty).46 So, he included the multi-
religious state within the formal strictures of Islamic jurisprudence, although the
Prophet in Medina already established it. It can be seen here that even Ibn
Taimiyyah’s oft-cited jihad fatwa does not seem as violently extreme and may
even teach a few lessons to jihadists on communal amity. Islamic scholar Yahya
Michot has worked over the years in debunking jihadist narratives that cite Ibn
Taimiyyah for validation and has explained how the medieval Islamic theologian’s
writings could be used as a counter-narrative against so-called modern jihadism.47
Ibn Taimiyyah was a highly controversial theologian and was imprisoned by
Mamluk rulers on charges of anthropomorphism and other strident polemical
views many times in his life. An author of over 35 volumes, Ibn Taimiyyah died
in a Damascus prison (in 1328) because of his supposed depression over being
denied writing material. His funeral was attended by over 200,000 of his admirers,
including 15,000–16,000 women. It is noteworthy that he was buried in a Sufi
cemetery in Damascus.48

NOTES
1 Michael H. Harris, History of Libraries in the Western World, 4th edition, Scarecrow Press,
1999, p. 85.
2 Jack Weatherford, Genghis Khan and the Quest for God: How the World’s Greatest Conqueror
gave us Religious Freedom, Penguin, New York, 2016.
3 Daniel W. Brown, Rethinking Tradition in Modern Islamic Thought, Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1996, p. 183.
4 Philip K. Hitti, History of Arabs, Palgrave, London, 1970, p. 482.
5 Joseph Fletcher, “The Mongols: Ecological and Social Perspectives”, Harvard Journal of Asiatic
Studies, Vol. 46, No. 1, 1986, pp. 11–50.
6 David Morgan, The Mongols, Oxford: Blackwell, 1986.
7 Arthur Goldschmidt Jr and Lawrence Davidson, A Concise History of the Middle East, The
American University in Cairo Press, 2009, p. 91.
8 Philip K. Hitti, History of Arabs, Palgrave, London, 1970, p. 701
9 Justin Marozzi, Tamerlane: Sword of Islam, Conqueror of The World. HarperCollins, 2004.
10 Ibid.
11 Thomas W. Lentz and Glenn D. Lowry, Timur and the Princely Vision, Smithsonian, 1989,
p. 80.
12 Arthur Goldschmidt Jr and Lawrence Davidson, A Concise History of the Middle East, The
American University in Cairo Press, 2009, p. 129.
172 Political Islam: Parallel Currents in West Asia and South Asia

13 Caroline Finkel, Osman’s Dream: The Story of the Ottoman Empire, 1300–1923, Basic Books,
2006, pp. 2, 7.
14 Arthur Goldschmidt Jr and Lawrence Davidson, A Concise History of the Middle East, The
American University in Cairo Press, 2009, p. 131.
15 Donald Quataert, The Ottoman Empire, 1700–1922, 2nd edition, Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge, 2005, p. 4.
16 Karen Armstrong, Islam: A Short History’, Modern Library, London, 2002, p. 130.
17 Ibid., pp. 131–32.
18 Anthony Black, The History of Islamic Political Thought: From the Prophet to the Present, Routledge,
New York, 2010, p. 145.
19 Karen Armstrong, Islam: A Short History’, Modern Library, London, 2002, p. 118.
20 Anthony Black, The History of Islamic Political Thought: From the Prophet to the Present, Routledge,
New York, 2010, p. 129.
21 Daniel W. Brown, Rethinking Tradition in Modern Islamic Thought, Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1996.
22 Matt Williams, “What is the Geocentric Model of the Universe?”, Universe Today, 11 January
2016, accessed on 3 October 2020.
23 Michael Nosonovsky, “Abner of Burgos: The Missing Link between Nasir al-Din al-Tusi and
Nicolaus Copernicus?”, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, Zutot 15 (2018) 25-30, Brill,
2018.
24 Robert Morrison, “A Scholarly Intermediary between the Ottoman Empire and Renaissance
Europe”, Isis: A Journal of the History of Science Society, Vol. 105, Number I, University of
Chicago Press, March 2014.
25 Willy Hartner, “Copernicus, the Man, the Work, and Its History”, Proceedings of the American
Philosophical Society, Vol. 117, No. 6, 1973, pp. 413–22.
26 Heinz Halm, Shiism, Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1991.
27 H. Daiber and F.J. Ragep, “Tusi”, in P. Bearman, Th. Bianquis, C.E. Bosworth, E. van Donzel
and W.P. Heinrichs (eds), Encyclopaedia of Islam, Brill, pp. 745-46, 2007.
28 Joseph J. Spengler, “Economic Thought of Islam: Ibn Khaldun”, Comparative Studies in Society
and History, Vol. 6, No. 3, 1964, pp. 268–306.
29 Jean David C. Boulakia, “Ibn Khaldûn: A Fourteenth-century Economist”, Journal of Political
Economy, Vol. 79, No. 5, 1971, pp. 1105–18.
30 Abdesselam Cheddadi, Ibn Khaldun: l’homme et le théoricien de la civilisation, Gallimard, Paris,
2006, pp. 244–52.
31 Franz Rosenthal, The Islamic World from Classical to Modern, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University
Press, 1989, p. lxxix.
32 Ibid., p. 111
33 Anthony Black, The History of Islamic Political Thought: From the Prophet to the Present, Routledge,
New York, 2010, p. 192.
34 Encyclopædia Britannica, Vol. 9, 15th edition, p. 148.
35 Ernest Geller, Plough, Sword and Book, University of Chicago Press, p. 239.
36 Adil H. Mouhammed, “Ibn Khaldun and The Neoliberal Model,” History of Economic Ideas
12, no. 3 (2004): 85–109. http://www.jstor.org/stable/23723125
37 Ibid.
38 Paul Krugman,”The Decline of E-Empires”, The New York Times, 26 August 2013, https://
www.nytimes.com/2013/08/26/opinion/krugman-the-decline-of-e-empires.html, last accessed
on 19 September 2023.
 Mongol Attacks, the Crusades and the Gunpowder Empires 173

39 Walid Saleh, “Ibn Tayimiyah and the Rise of Radical Hermeneutics: An Analysis of ‘An
Introduction to the Foundation of Quranic Exegesis’”, in Ibn Taymiyyah and His Times, Oxford
University Press, 2010.
40 Farhat Naz Rahman, “Women Leadership: Participation in Congregational Prayers”, Journal
of Theological Studies, Vol. 1, 2015, pp. 77–89.
41 Available at https://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Ibn_Taymiyyah.
42 Alfina Hidayah and Hamdan Maghribi, ‘The Misinterpretation of Ibn Taymiyyah’s Mardin
Fatwa by the Modern Jihadist’, Fikrah: Jurnal (Journal) Ilmu Aqidah dan Studi Keagamaan
(Indonesia), Vol. 10 No. 2, 2022, pp. 315–328.
43 Yahya Michot, ‘Ibn Taymiyya’s “New Mardin Fatwa”: Is Genetically Modified Islam (GMI)
Carcinogenic?’ The Muslim World, Vol. 101, No. 2, pp. 130–181.
44 Alfina Hidayah and Hamdan Maghribi, ‘The Misinterpretation of Ibn Taymiyyah’s Mardin
Fatwa by the Modern Jihadist’, Fikrah: Jurnal (Journal) Ilmu Aqidah dan Studi Keagamaan
(Indonesia), Vol. 10 No. 2, 2022, pp. 315–328.
45 Sheila Musaji, ‘Ibn Taimiyyah’s Mardin Fatwa Has Been Distorted to provide ideological
justification for terrorist violence in the guise of religion’, New Age Islam, 18 November 2010,
https://www.newageislam.com/radical-islamism-jihad/sheila-musaji/ibn-taymiyyahs-mardin-
fatwa-been-distorted-provide-ideological-justification-terrorist-violence-guise-religion/d/9541,
last accessed on 19 September 2023.
46 M. Cherif Bassiouni, The Shari’a and Islamic Criminal Justice in Time of War and Peace,
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013, p. 200.
47 Yahya Michot, Ibn Taymiyya: Against Extremism, Dar Albouraq Publishers, 2012.
48 Juan Eduardo, Encyclopedia of Islam, New York: Infobase Publishing, 2009, p. 340.
 12
Saudi Wahhabism, Pan-Islamist Salafism and
Decline of Safavid Empire

Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahhab is not a prophet, he is not an angel. He

was just a scholar like many other scholars, who lived during the first
Saudi state, among many political leaders and military leaders.
—Saudi Crown Prince Muhammad bin Salman1

Like Siamese twins, Wahhabism and the Saudi state have been together for nearly
three centuries. Their combined strength and shared destiny have given them
longevity and resilience. However, this seamless compatibility hides an inner
restiveness, with the two often looking the other away, even dragging the other
into different directions without prior consent. This inherent tension between
Wahhabi dogmatism and Saudi state pragmatism bedevils the relationship to this
day.

Muhammad ibn Abd Al-Wahhab and the Pact with the Ruler of
First Saudi State (1744)
It cannot be denied that much of the political vitality of the Saudi state has
historically come from its adherence to Wahhabi beliefs, from the great pact of
1744 when the first ruler of the hamlet of Diriyah, Muhammad ibn Saud, and
Muhammad ibn Abd Al-Wahhab decided to join forces.
 Saudi Wahhabism, Pan-Islamist Salafism and Decline of Safavid Empire 175

Al-Wahhab was a conservative religious preacher and activist, who opposed

the so-called non-Islamic practices prevalent at the time in Central Arabia in the
name of Sufism. Belonging to Ahl Al-Hadeeth school of thought, the religious
scholar detested the veneration of graves and the blind adherence (taqleed) of the
Sunni populace to their madhahib (schools of Islamic jurisprudence), without
ever reading the Quran and the Hadeeth to find the authenticity of their beliefs.
In the eighteenth century, the Ottoman Empire held great sway over western
regions of the Arabian Peninsula, particularly Hejaz, which hosts the holy cities
of Mecca and Medina. However, it had no formal presence or influence over
Najd (which covers the north-central area of present-day Saudi Arabia).2 Moreover,
as Najd did not produce enough agricultural surplus or livestock, it was not an
attractive proposition for the Ottomans, the Hejazi sharifs or the Banu Khalid
rulers of Hasa to extend control over the region.
Eventually, it was from Najd that a new theological movement and a political
power in the form of Wahhabism and the state of Saudi Arabia, respectively,
emerged that stirred Islamic history from the mid-eighteenth century onwards.
Born into a family of famous theologians, Al-Wahhab came from the Banu Tamim
tribe. After receiving religious education from education institutions in Medina,3
Basra and Hasa, he returned to Najd and his native village of Uyayna.
Al-Wahhab held purist views about Islam, which were different from the Sufi
practices of his fellow villagers. He started preaching against the prevalent customs
and rites performed by the villagers, some allegedly verging on sorcery, superstition,
solarism and idol worship. Due to his opposition to the religious practices of his
fellow villagers, he and his followers became unpopular in Uyayna. Al-Wahhab
and his followers were charged with levelling the grave of Zayd ibn Al-Khattab (a
companion of Prophet Muhammad),4 which was venerated by the people. They
were also accused of cutting down trees that were held sacred by locals and stoning
an insane woman to death for the crime of adultery.
The actions of Al-Wahhab and his group infuriated the people of Uyayna,
and its chief banished the scholar and his followers from the village. Wandering
from place to place, he finally found refuge in the hamlet of Diriyah, ruled by
Muhammad ibn Saud. Soon, the scholar’s ideas influenced the chief to the extent
that the two entered into a pact in 1744, which made Al-Wahhab’s religious
mission the impulse for militaristic campaign for Diriyah. The two decided to
wage jihad against tribes who resisted their reformist ideals. A historian has
described how the 1744 pact was consecrated:
176 Political Islam: Parallel Currents in West Asia and South Asia

Muhammad ibn Saud greeted Muhammad Ibn Abdul Wahhab and said,
“This is your oasis, do not fear your enemies. By the name of God, if all
Najd was summoned to throw you out, we will never agree to expel
you.” Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahhab replied, “You are the settlement’s
chief and wise man. I want you to grant me an oath that you will perform
jihad against the unbelievers. In return, you will be imam, leader of the
Muslim community, and I will be leader in religious matters.”5

In Defence of Ibn Abd Al-Wahhab

Although the ruler of Diriyah was asked to wage jihad for promoting the Wahhabi
version of Islam against the so-called “unbelievers” of Arabia, some historians
claim that Al-Wahhab has been mischaracterised as being a religious bigot
supporting violence. For instance, Natana DeLong-Bas maintains that Al-Wahhab
waged jihad only in defence against aggressive opponents.6 His main objective
was the reform of Muslim religious beliefs and practices through a gradual
educational process and dialogue. Indeed, his approach was to send invitations
for religious discussions and debates, rather than a “convert or die” approach. It is
also averred that the military campaigns of Ibn Saud did not always get the approval
from Al-Wahhab.
Historians like Natana DeLong-Bas highlight the fact that the Arabian
Peninsula, particularly the Najd region that was left neglected and unconquered
even by the Ottomans, suffered from social and political disarray, with problems
of poverty and lack of education. The rise of the first Saudi state brought some
degree of political security and mass awareness among the people of Central Arabia,
and also forced Ottoman caliphs in Turkey to tend to the affairs of this region.
It is said that Al-Wahhab was just a scholar belonging to the Ahl Al-Hadeeth
movement in Sunni Islam. He never claimed to have launched a movement after
his name, and even his followers never called themselves Wahhabis. Historically,
they preferred to identify themselves as “Ahl Al-Tawheed” or “Al-Muwahiddun”
and in modern times, as “Salafis”.7

Salafi-Wahhabi Beliefs: Revival of Ahl Al-Hadeeth Literalism

Muhammad ibn Abd Al-Wahhab’s religious orientation focused mainly on the
core belief of Islamic creed or aqeeda, which is tawheed (the oneness of God), and
emphasised the eschewing of shirk (the worship or adoration of anything other
than the one God, that is, Allah) as well as the rejection of bidah (innovation in
religious matters).
 Saudi Wahhabism, Pan-Islamist Salafism and Decline of Safavid Empire 177

Al-Wahhab adopted a highly antithetical approach to Sufism and Shia beliefs

and practices. He was strongly averse to celebrating or venerating any saint or
holy person. His doctrine was based on rejection of tawassul (intercession of saints
to pray to God on behalf of a person), even more so of istighatha (beseeching a
dead prophet or saint to pray to God on behalf of a person).
Further, he opposed the doctrine of wahdatul wujud (the Sufi doctrine of the
essential oneness of creator and creation). Wahhabism also adopted controversial
approaches on matters of jihad by taking an extremist position on takfeer (declaring
a person or community infidel in order to legitimise killing [qital] them) and
tajseem (rejection of Sufi belief that God is formless, is immanent and without
body).
Ibn Taimiyyah deeply influenced Al-Wahhab’s theological outlook. In his
book, Kitab Al-Tauheed,8 Al-Wahhab deemed the Shia arch-enemies of Islam and
the Jews and Christians (who have been accorded the status of “Ahl Al-Kitab” -i.e.
‘People of the Book - by classical Islamic scholarship) as infidels and devil
worshippers.9 He vehemently argued that the Shia belief in the “infallibility of
the imams” constituted shirk (blasphemy).
He also believed that tawassul was, in reality, praying to the person invoked
and not God and was, therefore, shirk (making somebody part of Godhead),
which becomes the biggest and most inexcusable of all sins in Islam. Thus, visiting
graves and praying to dead saints in the grave, who cannot hear or move, was
considered blasphemous and tantamount to idol worship by Al-Wahhab.
As mentioned earlier, Wahhabism opposed bidah in religion and blamed
Sufis for introducing and inculcating various new forms of worship and meditation
into Islam. Being highly literal in its reading of Islamic scriptures, it opposed the
mystical and figurative interpretation of verses by Sufi scholars and considered
such interpretations invalid concoctions. Thus, Wahhabism—coming from the
Ahl Al-Hadeeth—emphasised the zahiri (apparent or the literal) meaning of the
Islamic texts, instead of their spiritually or intellectually derived interpretation. It
even objected to the Asharite and Maturidi interpretations on theological matters.
Believing that these deviations in religion were introduced by wayward
theologians and mystics three generations after the death of the Prophet, Al-
Wahhab called for reverting to the purist monotheistical practices of the salaf (the
first three generations of faithful followers of Islam). He rejected the doctrine of
taqleed in Sunni jurisprudence, which means strict compliance with any of the
four juristic schools of Sunni Islam (Hanafi, Shafii, Maliki and Hanbali), because
178 Political Islam: Parallel Currents in West Asia and South Asia

compliance should be with the Quran and not with the error of interpretation by
human jurists. Indeed, according to Wahhabism, the inordinate reverence of even
Prophet Muhammad violated the teachings of Islam, and the belief in miracles
(karamaat) of saints, other superstition, etc., was patently wrong.
Non-Wahhabi Islamic scholars have often criticised the Wahhabi style and
manner of jihad for violating the principles of Islamic warfare, conducted by
them as a typically savage and tribal raid for gaining territory and lucre than for
religious cause.10 Some adverse scholars find parallels in the violence perpetrated
by early Wahhabi adherents and twenty-first-century Salafi-jihadist groups, like
the Al-Qaeda and the ISIS. Thus, Cole Bunzel observes:
Over the past few decades, the jihadi-Salafi movement has increasingly
billed itself as the rightful heir to the Wahhabi tradition and has
appropriated its textual resources. The Islamic State in some sense
represents the culmination of this effort—a Wahhabi state as radical
and sectarian as the original Saudi-Wahhabi state, though departing
from it in certain ways.11
On the other hand, many Muslims across various sects have increasingly
accepted Wahhabi puritanical ideals and doctrines in modern times, principally
in their strict adherence to tawheed.

The First and Second Saudi-Wahhabi State (1765–1803)

While Wahhabism thrived under the political protection of Saudi rulers, its
emphasis on jihad provided the ideological impetus for the state of Diriyah to
expand its boundaries and launch the conquest of Arabia.12 The jihadi raids based
on the doctrine of takfeer (wherein they pronounced all non-Wahhabi Muslims
as infidels) were more successful under the reign of Muhammad ibn Saud’s son,
Abdul Aziz (1765–1803). By taking advantage of the militant zealotry of Wahhabi
neophytes, the Saudi leadership was able to subjugate most of the chieftains in
Najd. After that, the Saudi forces moved eastwards into Hasa and terminated the
rule of Banu Khalid. The capture of Qatif in 1780 opened the road to the coast of
the Persian Gulf and Oman. Qatar accepted the suzerainty of the Saudi king in
1797, and Bahrain followed suit.
Under Saud ibn Abdul Aziz (reigned 1803–14), the Saudi forces raided the
western regions and took control of Taif in 1802, Mecca in 1803 and Medina in
1804. The raid on Taif was particularly violent, where the Saudi forces massacred
the male population and enslaved the women and children.13 The Wahhabi
 Saudi Wahhabism, Pan-Islamist Salafism and Decline of Safavid Empire 179

religious leaders also ordered the destruction of the domed tombs of the Prophet
and his companions, in accordance with their doctrinal opposition to the building
of monuments on graves.14 Further, the Saudis marched into Asir, where local
leaders embraced Wahhabism. However, the most brutal of their attacks was on
the Shia holy city of Karbala in 1802. There, according to the Wahhabi chronicler
Uthman bin Abdallah bin Bishr, the marauding forces:
”…scaled the walls, entered the city, and killed the majority of its people
in the markets and in their homes. They destroyed the dome placed
over the grave of Imam Hussein (the revered grandson of the Prophet),
they stole whatever they found inside the dome and its
surroundings...including emeralds, rubies, and other jewels...different
types of property, weapons, clothing, carpets, gold, silver, precious copies
of the Quran.”15
The sacking and plundering of Karbala resulted in the revenge killing of
Saudi ruler Abdul Aziz in 1803 by a Shia in a mosque in Diriyah.16 Eventually,
the Ottoman Empire responded to the growing Saudi-Wahhabi threat and
despatched forces under the Egyptian ruler, Muhammad Ali, into the Arabian
Peninsula in 1811, which led many tribal confederations that had accepted the
Saudi yoke to switch sides in favour of Muhammad Ali’s troops. After freeing the
region of Hejaz, the son of Muhammad Ali (Ibrahim Pasha) invaded Najd and
ravaged the capital city of Diriyah and massacred several Wahhabi religious
scholars. The Saudis surrendered on 11 September 1818. The Saudi ruler,
Abdullah, was held prisoner, taken to Istanbul and beheaded. Thus ended the
first Saudi-Wahhabi state of Diriyah.17
Following the obliteration of the first Saudi-Wahhabi state, a second and
much smaller “Emirate of Najd” gradually emerged out of the ruins. As it limited
itself to the area of Najd, it did not draw the wrath of the Ottoman caliph or the
Egyptian forces. It was protected by the region’s remoteness, paucity of natural
resources and poor communication and transportation. However, in 1891, the
Rashidis of Jabal Shammar successfully ended the second Saudi state in the Battle
of Mulayda and forced the House of Saud, led by Abd Al-Rahman bin Faisal, to
flee to Kuwait.

Ibn Saud and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (1902–32)

The son of Abd Al-Rahman bin Faisal was Abdulaziz, popularly known in the
Western world as Ibn Saud. One night in January 1902, he scaled the walls of Al-
180 Political Islam: Parallel Currents in West Asia and South Asia

Rashidi city of Riyadh with a contingent of 40 men and took control of the city
after killing its governor, Ajlan, in front of his fortress.18 This audacious and
successful raid made the charismatic Ibn Saud famous overnight, with many of
the former supporters of the House of Saud rallying to his call to arms.
For several years after that, Ibn Saud and his forces fought and captured a
large portion of Najd from the Rashidi rulers. Then, around 1912, Wahhabi
scholars associated with Ibn Saud religiously radicalised young nomad raiders
into soldiers for the fledgling Saudi state. This new religious militia became known
as “Ikhwan” (not to be confused with Egypt’s Ikhwan Al-Muslimeen, translated
as Muslim Brotherhood).
In December 1915, the British entered into a treaty with Ibn Saud (The
Treaty of Darin). The treaty made the latter’s territories a British protectorate and
attempted to define its boundaries.19 For his part, Ibn Saud vowed to wage war
against Ibn Rashid, an ally of the Ottomans. In 1921, the Battle of Hail sounded
the death knell of the Rashidi rulers and the Jabal Shammar fell into the hands of
the Saudi juggernaut.20 This conquest was followed by a protracted conflict known
as the Second Najd–Hejaz War (1924–25), which ended successfully for Ibn Saud
in December 1925 with the fall of Jeddah. In 1926, the entire territory of Najd
and Hejaz was brought under the Saudi rule.
However, an even more significant challenge for the Saudi ruler emerged
from within his forces. A large section of Ikhwan militants, raised by the Saudi
clergy, sought to fulfil their ideal of purifying and unifying the world of Islam.
This ideal eventually clashed with the political pragmatism displayed by Ibn Saud
once he had unified Najd and Hejaz into his kingdom and forged an alliance
with the British.
Soon after the Battle of Hail, the Ikhwan independently raided Transjordan
between 1922 and 1924. Under pressure from the British, who had treaties with
territories in Transjordan, Ibn Saud forbade Ikhwan from conducting raids against
non-Wahhabi Muslims. He also wanted to reassure the Muslim world that his
state was not opposed to other Muslim sects and that the “new Wahhabi regime
would not disrupt the (Haj) pilgrimage”.21
In 1926, Ikhwan leaders met at Al-Artawiya and accused Ibn Saud of not
siding with religion. In 1927, the Ikhwan began raiding neighbouring Iraq and
Kuwait despite Ibn Saud’s orders against it.22 The final decisive battle between
the Ikhwan and the Saudi forces broke out in March 1929, called the Battle of
Sabilla. The Ikhwan, who fought with traditional swords and spears, could not
 Saudi Wahhabism, Pan-Islamist Salafism and Decline of Safavid Empire 181

withstand machine-gun fire and modern weaponry provided by the British to

Ibn Saud’s forces.23 The rebellion was crushed entirely in 1930 when several Ikhwan
rebel leaders surrendered to the British.
In the long and tortuous history of the Saudi–Wahhabi relationship, the
Ikhwan Revolt is the first episode where Wahhabi idealism directly clashed with
the political pragmatism of the Saudi state. It is essential to note that it was a
descendant of the Ikhwan survivors, Juhayman Al-Otaybi, who later led the
infamous Grand Mosque seizure of 1979 against the Saudi government. In both
instances, the will of the Saudi state prevailed over the Wahhabi uprising.
Eventually, on 23 September 1932, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia was formally
proclaimed.24

Iran: Causes for the Decline of Safavid Empire

Meanwhile, radical religious revivalism was not limited to the Arabian Peninsula,
but was also spreading in the Safavid empire by the 17th and 18th centuries under
the Shia kings of the Safavid Empire. Under their rule, Iran (known then as Persia
to the outside world) witnessed state-backed conversion of its Sunni population
on a large scale.
From the sixteenth to eighteenth centuries, the predominantly Sunni Iran
converted into the Ithna Ashariyya (Twelver) sub-sect of Shia Islam, which in
turn made the Sunni Ottoman Empire and other Sunni neighbours hostile towards
Iran. The coming of the Safavid rulers (1501) had helped reunify Iran as an
independent state, but with them came a Persianised Shia ethos that gradually
developed and disseminated across the country. However, the increased
proselytisation raised the political clout of the clergy in Iran.
In order to spread Shia Islam in Iran, the Safavids brought foreign Shia scholars
into the country, and the religious clerics became an elite group close to the kings.
A sadr (coordinating chief ) was appointed to manage this elite clerical class.
Although Shia Islam had been close to many Sufi groups, Safavid Iran forbade
many mystical Sufi groups. Instead, the Safavids preferred to develop Shia law
and turned to the mujtahids—jurists capable of independent reasoning on religious
matters—to develop these laws.

Al-Muhaqqiq Al-Karaki: Early Proponent of Vilayat-e-Faqih

The preference of mujtahids above Sufis suited the state’s aim of giving Iran
cohesion, rules and a strong state. In this respect, the germ of Shia theocratic
182 Political Islam: Parallel Currents in West Asia and South Asia

elitism, and even Vilayat-e-Faqih, was laid by Al-Muhaqqiq Al-Karaki (1456–

1544), who was invited by Shah Ismail I, the first Safavid ruler, to spread Shia
beliefs across Iran.
Indeed, Al-Karaki is viewed as being a major transformer of orthodox Imami
Shias (Twelvers), from being committed to quietism, caution and dissimulation
(taqiyya) to openly performing congregation prayers behind a qualified mujtahid,
allowing a Shia sultan to impose land tax (kharaj) and for the Shia ulema to
accept it as a source of remuneration. In the words of Antony Black, “he (Al-
Karaki) made it possible for the Shite ulama to become state employees.”25
However, Al-Karaki went a step further. In making such radical changes to
quietist beliefs, Al-Karaki claimed to be speaking on behalf of the Hidden Mahdi
(the Twelfth Imam) himself. Thus, he assumed the highest possible authority in
Shia Islam and surprisingly, the Safavid king at that time, Shah Tahmasp, supported
his claim.
Enunciating the principles of Vilayat-e-Faqih, Al-Karaki said that the belief
is that the qualified faqih must rise and undertake the leadership of the Islamic
society authoritatively and firmly. He shall introduce Islam as an important political
and social thought and as a perfect system to govern humankind.26

Muhammad Baqir Majlisi: Conversion of Sunni Iran to the Shia Faith

Muhammad Baqir Majlisi (1616–98), often considered the most effective Shia
cleric, devoted himself to eradicating Sunnism from Iran. According to Colin
Turner: “it was under Majlisi that Twelver Shi’ite externalism became truly
orthodox, while all other views were rejected and often forcibly repressed.” 27
Over time, private landowners secured their lands by donating them to the
clergy as so-called waqf to protect ownership of their lands from being confiscated
by royals, governors or senior officials. A fixed percentage of the revenue from the
land used to go to the ulema and the organisation of dervishes (futuvva). However,
the waqf properties soon made a new class of clerics. The mujtahids grew rich
and became landowners in their own right. Soon, the proponents of folk Sufism
became more popular with the common masses than the rich and state-backed
mujtahids, commonly known as mullahs.
By the end of the seventeenth century, the Safavid Empire witnessed religious
unrest and religion-based rebellions. The rampant corruption and wars with the
Ottomans and the Russians set the pace of Safavid’s decline. Although the Safavids
were able to gradually convert mainland Iran to the Shia faith, their efforts to
 Saudi Wahhabism, Pan-Islamist Salafism and Decline of Safavid Empire 183

convert Sunni Afghanistan proved costly. When Sultan Husayn tried to convert
his Sunni Afghan subjects to Shia Islam forcibly, a revolt broke out, leading to the
independence of Kandahar from the empire in 1709. Indeed, after the conquest
of Herat, the Ghilzai Afghans invaded Iran itself. Subsequent to the sack of
Shamakhi (1721), in which thousands of the city’s Shia inhabitants were killed,
and the Battle of Gulnabad (1722), which led to the besieging and capture of the
beautiful capital city of Isfahan, the Safavid dynasty abruptly ended.
Taking advantage of the chaos, the Ottomans and the Russians seized more
territory of Iran for themselves as Peter the Great launched the Russo-Persian War
(1722–23). For over a decade, Iran remained a victim of external aggressions and
in a state of civil war until Nadir Shah established the Afsharid dynasty in 1736.
Brought up as a Shia, Nadir Shah reverted to Sunni Islam, and on gaining power,
told the Shia clergy to refrain from cursing Caliphs Umar and Uthman and avoid
beating themselves to draw blood during the Ashura (10th day of Muharram)
festival. He wanted to create an Iranian polity acceptable to Shia and Sunni Islam.
Nevertheless, Nadir Shah was a brutal king. He invaded Mughal India, killed
hundreds of thousands and looted the country’s wealth to fund his campaign
against the Ottomans. At its peak, Nadir Shah’s empire controlled parts of Anatolia
and Mesopotamia, the Caucasus and even Bahrain. However, his defeat in Dagestan
and his fear of treachery by his sons (which led him to blind them) marked his
decline until he was assassinated in 1747. After his death, Iran again faced a
period of intense civil war, barring Karim Khan’s Zand dynasty with its capital in
Shiraz, “an island of relative calm and peace in an otherwise bloody and destructive
period”.28
Following a protracted period of political instability, the Qajar dynasty
(coming from a Turkic tribe) established its reign for over a century (1789–1925).
However, the weak kingdom lost many of Iran’s integral territories to Russia,
namely, Georgia, Dagestan, Azerbaijan and Armenia.

Jamal Al-Din Afghani: Exponent of Pan-Islamism

Jamal Al-Din Afghani (1839–97) was the founder of modern Salafi movement
which, in the second half of the twentieth century, got subsumed into Saudi
Wahhabism. In his own right, Afghani cannot be associated with the hard-line
ideology of contemporary Salafism and is known as both the founder of Islamic
modernism and pan-Islamic unity. Curiously, he was also an ardent supporter of
Hindu–Muslim unity in India against the British rule.
184 Political Islam: Parallel Currents in West Asia and South Asia

According to noted historian N.R. Keddie, Afghani visited India at the time
of the 1857 Revolt and “it seems likely that the strong anti-British sentiments
voiced by Afghani throughout his career have their origin in his Indian experience”.
Al-Afghani published six articles in the Persian journal, Muallam-e-Shafiq, coming
out from the Indian city of Hyderabad in 1880–81. He attacked Sir Syed Ahmad
Khan for becoming a tool of the British, while also criticising conservative Muslims
who opposed Sir Syed for opposing Western education. More importantly, he
stressed on the unity of Indian Hindus and Muslims in the fight against British
imperialism and said that linguistic ties are stronger than religious ones. However,
he made the exact opposite point a few years later in West Asia. Professor Keddie
says in his defence: “In India, he felt the best anti-imperialist policy was Hindu–
Muslim unity, while in Europe he felt it was pan-Islam.”29
In any case, Al-Afghani remains a controversial, even mysterious historical
figure. The Islamic ideologist and political activist claimed to have been born in
Asadabad, near Kabul, thereby holding the nisba “Al-Afghani”. However, based
on certain facts, many modern historians claim that Al-Afghani wanted to hide
being an Iranian and a Shia from the mainstream Sunni world and was not of
Afghan origin but from Asadabad in Hamadan in Iran.30
Afghani was alarmed by the failure of India’s 1857 Revolt. He feared that,
having conquered India, Western imperialism would next conquer the Middle
East. However, he believed that only by adopting modern knowledge and
technology like the West could Asia fight back against Western imperialism and
that Islam, despite its traditionalism, remained a strong creed for mobilising the
masses against European imperialism.31
Al-Afghani travelled to several countries throughout his life. After leaving
India in 1859, he was noticed taking part in Afghani tribal resistance to the British
(1866–68).32 He appeared in Cairo in 1871 to become a maverick teacher (1871–
79), returned to India (1879–82), and then left for London and Paris (1883)
where he met Europeans interested in Islam, and also engaged the Ernest Renan
in discussion on religion and society.
Al-Afghani tried to advice several Muslim rulers on how to defeat Western
imperialism, but was expelled by them from their countries. In Afghanistan, he
was seen as a stranger who spoke the Persian language and followed a European
lifestyle. In 1868, he was banished from Afghanistan by its ruler, Sher Ali Khan.
Passing through India, he reached Constantinople, where he spoke at the opening
of the Istanbul University, exhorting academics to embrace modernism:
 Saudi Wahhabism, Pan-Islamist Salafism and Decline of Safavid Empire 185

Are we not going to take an example from the civilized nations? Let us
cast a glance at the achievement of others. By effort they have achieved
the final degree of knowledge and the peak of elevation. For us too all
the means are ready, and there remains no obstacle to our progress.
Only laziness, stupidity, and ignorance are obstacles to [our] advance.33
However, the university closed under pressure of religious conservatives in
1871, and Al-Afghani was expelled from there. Thereafter, he went to Egypt,
where he got involved in actions to remove the Khedive Ismail regime. For this
purpose, he even joined Freemasonry, but then left it for what he alleged was
“cowardice, selfishness and egoism within the fraternity”;34 however, his association
with Madam Blavatsky’s Theosophical Society continued for much longer.35 After
being expelled from Egypt for his activities against the regime in 1879, Al-Afghani
revisited Hyderabad and Calcutta in India, and then left for London, Paris,
Moscow, St. Petersburg and Munich.
When in Paris, Al-Afghani and his devoted friends, Muhammad Abduh and
Yaqub Sanu (or James Sanua; an Egyptian Jewish journalist), published a newspaper
called, Al-Urwah al-Wuthqa (“The Firmest Bond”). “By spreading the newspaper
throughout the Islamic world, they called for Islamic unity against British
imperialism.”36
In 1881, he published a collection of polemics titled, Al-Radd ‘ala al-Dahriyyi
(“Refutation of the Materialists”). Jamal Al-Din Afghani died in Istanbul in 1897.
To Al-Afghani, science was part of Islam, and even the latest European
developments in philosophy and politics (such as the ideals of liberalism) pointed
to the return of true Islamic principles. Nevertheless, in his writings, he never
seemed to have endorsed parliamentary democracy and mainly spoke about
overthrowing corrupt and careless Muslim rulers or those subservient to foreigners.
In this respect, his views were similar to many pan-jihadist Islamic extremists of
the twenty-first century.

Muhammad Abduh: Neo-Mutazila Leader of Modern Arabia

A devout student of Jamal Al-Din Afghani was the Islamic scholar, jurist and
liberal reformer Muhammad Abduh (1849–1905), who rose to the position of
Grand Mufti of Egypt later in life. Deemed a founding figure of Islamic
modernism, Muhammad Abduh is often called a “neo-Mutazalite” in that he
revived the spirit of Western rationalism in Islamic thought.37
Disillusioned with traditional Islamic teachings in his early life, Abduh was
186 Political Islam: Parallel Currents in West Asia and South Asia

drawn to the Sufi teachings of his uncle, Shaikh Darwish Al-Khadir, a member of
the Madaniyya tariqa that shunned taqleed (strict adherence to Sunni schools of
jurisprudence), while remaining true to foundational teachings of the religion.
Upon getting enrolled in the famed Al-Azhar University in Cairo, the Egyptian
prodigy met Al-Afghani and found in him his destined mentor (murshid), who
shaped his spiritual, philosophical and rationalist interpretations of Islam.
Abduh was exiled from his country for many years in the wake of his role in
the Urabi Pasha rebellion against Ottoman control in 1882, which was followed
by the occupation of Egypt by the British military. In 1888, he was allowed to
return to his country, where he was appointed a judge at the Court of First Instance.
With the support of the British, he gradually rose through the ranks and eventually
became the Grand Mufti in 1899. In that position, he carried out several liberal
reforms, such as permission to eat meat slaughtered by Christian and Jewish
butchers and acceptance of interest paid on loans.
During his extensive travels, Abduh met European scholars in Oxford and
Cambridge. His visits led him to believe that Muslims were ignorant of their
religious values, while the Western world had fully embraced and adopted them.38
Although a supporter of the Sufi philosophical ideal of wahdatul wujud (which
conflates the existence of creation and the creator as one), Abduh was opposed to
some Sufi practices, such as visiting graves of saints for acceptance of prayers. He
deemed such practices as bidah that were not followed by the salaf (the first three
generations of Muslims).
Abduh strived for better relations between Sunni and Shia sects, as well as
improved Muslim relations with Christians, who constituted the second-largest
religious community in Egypt. Like Al-Afghani, Abduh was also closely associated
with preachers of the Bahai faith, particularly with Abdul Baha (the son of the
founder of the faith, Bahaullah).

Rasheed Rida: First Proponent of Islamic State, Admirer of Gandhi

and Darwin
Along with Jamal Al-Din Afghani and Muhammad Abduh, the triumvirate of
pan-Islamist reformists included Rasheed Rida (1865–1935), who blended many
modernist views of his peers and yet remained opposed to Western liberalism and
secular values, and was perhaps the first Salafi exponent of a modern Islamic
state. Opposed to blind adherence (taqleed) to any of the four Sunni canonical
schools and heavily influenced by the works of Ibn Taimiyyah and Abd Al-Wahhab,
 Saudi Wahhabism, Pan-Islamist Salafism and Decline of Safavid Empire 187

Syria-born Rasheed Rida lived and based his socio-political activism in Egypt.
He also objected to many Sufi beliefs and practices, yet he was not opposed to
Sufism entirely.
Rida advocated that both laymen and scholars should interpret the primary
sources of Islam themselves and not solely depend on the teachings of Islamic
jurists of the orthodox schools. By applying this principle, Rida was himself able
to tackle several subjects in a modern way and held many unorthodox and
controversial views. Thus, like Afghani and Abduh, Rida supported Darwin’s
Theory of Evolution, and together with Abduh, he wrote a commentary on the
Quran from the standpoint of Darwin’s Theory of Evolution.39
Following the line of Islamic scholar Ibn Al-Qayyim, Rida believed that certain
types of interest (riba al-fadl) might be permitted in certain cases (that is, in cases
of extreme poverty or larger public interest). In this respect also, he was in line
with his mentor, Muhammad Abduh. It must be mentioned here that
contemporary Islamists consider any form of riba (usury) a major sin.40 Like
Abduh, Rida closely associated with Freemasonry but, unlike his teacher, he was
highly critical of the Bahai faith.
An eminent religious scholar who called for the revival of Hadeeth sciences,
Rida was a proponent of the Islamic state in modern times, that is, a state which
strictly abides by the rulings of the Shariah. Although he did not call for the
revolutionary establishment of such a state, he is considered a forerunner of Islamist
scholars like Maududi and Sayyid Qutb. His writings, particularly in his magazine,
Al-Manar, influenced many individuals in the Muslim world, particularly the
noted Salafi scholar Muhammad Nasiruddin al-Albani. Rida was also one of the
earliest and harsh critics of Zionism and wrote an article against the movement in
1898.
Surprisingly, Mahatma Gandhi deeply influenced Rida, who even translated
his book, Guide to Health, into Kitab Al-Sihah in Arabic, published in 1921.41 He
added his commentary in the book, where he praised the Mahatma by saying:
The chief merits and praiseworthy traits of Gandhi that adequately
reflect the greatness of this man are that he trod the straight path of his
religion and followed the lofty ideals with all sincerity and that he never
practised politics in isolation from religion and ethics at a time when
our cultured intellectuals are feeling shy of being associated with their
religion, not to speak of following its injunctions with sincerity, as they
consider it as antagonistic to enlightened and progressive thought.42
188 Political Islam: Parallel Currents in West Asia and South Asia

When some Muslims criticised Rasheed Rida for eulogising Gandhi, he

silenced them by telling them that he likened Gandhi’s thoughts and actions to
those of Muslim Sufi saints of yore.43 In a letter written to the Indian journalist
Akbar Malihabadi in 1926, Rasheed Rida further highlighted the piety of
Gandhiji.44 He exhorted Arab leaders to follow Gandhiji as an ideal leader in
politics. However, Rida had some reservations about Gandhiji’s pristine views on
Brahmanism and did not support the great leader’s conservative stance against
vaccinations.
Rida visited India in 1912 at the invitation of Shibli Nomani and delivered
lectures at Nadwatul Ulama in Lucknow, and also in Darul Uloom in Deoband,
and left highly impressed by the religious scholarship of Indian Muslims.45 In his
later years, he again visited India and held meetings with Gandhiji and other
Indian political leaders. However, he opposed the views of the two Ali brothers,
Muhammad Ali Jawhar and Shaukat Ali, who disproved of Gandhian model of
non-violent protests. On his return to Egypt, Rida wrote several articles in Al-
Manar, in which he supported Gandhiji’s Satyagraha and opposed the views of
Muhammad Ali Jawhar.46
Rasheed Rida grew religiously conservative in his later years. Today, he is seen
more as an early proponent of Islamism than the modernism championed by
Muhammad Abduh and his other disciples, like Ali Abd Al-Raziq (whose views
will be discussed later in the book).
His growing association with Saudi Arabia and Wahhabi scholars in his later
years turned the Salafi movement. The movement, which had started as more
receptive to Western enlightenment and scientific ideas, came to be associated
with the Wahhabi school of Saudi Arabia so much so that the Wahhabis started
calling themselves Salafis by the 1970s onwards.

NOTES
1 “Ibn Abdul Wahhab is Not Saudi Arabia, Reaffirms Crown Prince’, Saudi Gazette, 3 March
2022, https://saudigazette.com.sa/article/617728#:~:text=In%20his%20interview%20with
%20the,he%20is%20not%20an%20angel., last accessed on 21 September 2023.
2 Madawi Al-Rasheed, A History of Saudi Arabia, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002,
p. 14.
3 Please refer to Chapter 18.
4 Natana J. DeLong-Bas, Wahhabi Islam: From Revival and Reform to Global Jihad, New York:
Oxford University Press, 2004, p. 61.
5 Madawi Al-Rasheed, A History of Saudi Arabia, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002,
p. 17.
 Saudi Wahhabism, Pan-Islamist Salafism and Decline of Safavid Empire 189

6 DeLong-Bas, Wahhabi Islam: From Revival and Reform to Global Jihad, p. 38.
7 James Wynbrandt, A Brief History of Saudi Arabia, New York: Checkmark Books, 2010, p. 112.
8 Hamid Algar, Wahhabism: A Critical Essay, Oneonta, NY: Islamic Publications International,
2002.
9 Jan-Erik Lane, Hamadi Redissi and Riyad Saydawi, Religion and Politics: Islam and Muslim
Civilization (illustrated edition), London: Ashgate Publishing, 2009, p. 253.
10 Gilles Kepel, The War for Muslim Minds, Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2004,
p. 154.
11 Cole Bunzel, “The Kingdom and the Caliphate: Duel of the Islamic States”, Carnegie
Endowment, February 2016, p. 25, https://carnegieendowment.org/2016/02/18/kingdom-
and-caliphate-duel-of-islamic-states-pub-62810#:~:text=In%20a%20further%20attack%20on,
shared%20religious%20 heritage%20and%20territory., last accessed online on 21 September
2023.
12 Sebastian Maisel and John A. Shoup, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf Arab States Today: An Encyclopedia
of Life in the Arab States, Greenwood, New York, February 2009.
13 Davi Commins, The Wahhabi Mission and Saudi Arabia, I.B. Tauris, London, 2009, p. 31.
14 Madawi Al-Rasheed, A History of Saudi Arabia, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002,
p. 21.
15 Sayed Khatab, Understanding Islamic Fundamentalism: The Theological and Ideological Basis of
Al-Qa’ida’s Political Tactics, Oxford University Press, 2011, p. 75.
16 Al-Rasheed, A History of Saudi Arabia, p. 22.
17 Wayne H. Bowen, The History of Saudi Arabia, London: Greenwood Press, 2007, p. 75.
18 William Ochsenwald, The Middle East: A History, McGraw Hill, 2004, p. 697.
19 John C. Wilkinson, Arabia’s Frontiers: The Story of Britain’s Boundary Drawing in the Desert,
I.B. Tauris, London 1991.
20 Alexander Mikaberidze (ed.), Conflict and Conquest in the Islamic World: A Historical
Encyclopedia, ABC-CLIO, 2011.
21 Ibid.
22 “Ikhwan Revolt”, Polynational War Memorial, available at http://www.war-memorial.net/
Ikhwan-Revolt-3.295, last accessed on 21 September 2023.
23 Daniel Silverfarb, “Great Britain, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia: The Revolt of the Ikhwan, 1927–
1930”, The International History Review, Vol. 4, No. 2, May 1982, pp 222-248.
24 Ibid.
25 The History of Islamic Political Thought: From the Prophet to the Present, Routledge, New York,
2010, p. 130
26 Ibid.
27 Colin Turner, Islam without Allah? The Rise of Religious Externalism in Safavid Iran, 1st edition,
Routledge, 2013.
28 Michael Axworthy, ‘Iran; Empire of the Mind’, Penguin Books, 2008, p. 20.
29 N.R. Keddie, Sayyid Jamal al-Din “al-Afghani”: A Political Biography, Berkeley: University of
California Press, 1972.
30 Mangol Bayat, ‘al-Afghani, Jamal al-Din’, in Gerhard Bowering, Patricia Crone (ed.) The
Princeton Encyclopedia of Islamic Political Thought, 2013.
31 Ervand Abrahamian, Iran between Two Revolutions, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1982,
pp. 62–63.
32 Nikki R. Keddie, An Islamic Response to Imperialism: Political and Religious Writings of Sayyid
Jamal ad-Din ‘al-Afghani’, University of California Press, pp. 11-14.
190 Political Islam: Parallel Currents in West Asia and South Asia

33 Pankaj Mishra, From the Ruins of Empire: The Revolt against the West and the Remaking of Asia,
Penguin Books, p. 70.
34 A. Albert Kudsi-Zadeh, “Afghani and Freemasonry in Egypt”, Journal of the American Oriental
Society, Vol. 92, No. 1, 1 February 2012, pp. 26–30.
35 Joscelyn Godwin, The Theosophical Enlightenment, SUNY Press, 1994.
36 Mehmet Hasan Bulut, ‘Islam’s reformists: Jamal al-Din al-Afghani and Pan-Islamism’, Daily
Sabah, 19 December 2021, https://www.dailysabah.com/arts/portrait/islams-reformists-jamal-
al-din-al-afghani-and-pan-islamism
37 Ahmed H. Al-Rahim, “Islam and Liberty”, Journal of Democracy, Vol. 17, No. 1, January
2006, pp. 166–69.
38 Anke von Kügelgen, “¿Abduh, Muhammad”, in Gudrun Krämer, Denis Matringe, John Nawas
and Everett Rowson (eds), Encyclopaedia of Islam, Vol. 3, Brill, 2009.
39 Mehmet Hasan Balut, “Islam’s Reformists: Jamaluddin Afghani and Pan-Islamism”, Daily Sabah,
19 December 2021, https://www.dailysabah.com/arts/portrait/islams-reformists-jamal-al-din-
al-afghani-and-pan-islamism, accessed online on 21 September 2023.
40 Ana Soage, “Rasheed Rida’s Legacy”, The Muslim World 98 (1): 1–23, January 2008, https://
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1478-1913.2008.00208.x
41 Muhammad Addakhakhny, “Rasheed Rida and the Making of Laissez Faire Salafism”, Jadaliyya,
26 May 2020, https://www.jadaliyya.com/Details/41169, accessed online on 21 September
2023.
42 “Rida to Malihabadi”, journal Azad Hind, 1960, p. 132, cited in Roy Bar Sadeh, “Debating
Gandhi in al-Manar during the 1920s and 1930s,” Comparative Studies of South Asia, Africa
and the Middle East, Vol. 38, No. 3 (2018), pp. 491–507.
43 Roy Bar Sadeh, “Debating Gandhi in al-Manar during the 1920s and 1930s”, Comparative
Studies of South Asia, Africa and the Middle East, Vol. 38, No. 3, 2018, pp. 491–507.
44 Ibid.
45 Henri Lauziere, The Making of Salafism: Islamic Reform in the Twentieth Century, New York:
Columbia University Press, 2016, p. 106.
46 Abdul Ali, The Image of Mahatma Gandhi in Modern Arabic Literature, Educreation Publishing,
NOIDA, India, 2018.
 TURKISH, ARAB, IRANIAN
NATIONALIST MOVEMENTS
 13
Turkish Tanzimat Reforms and Dissolution of
the Ottoman Caliphate

I went to the West and saw Islam, but no Muslims; I got back to the East
and saw Muslims, but not Islam.
—Muhammad Abduh1

The three major Muslim empires of the later medieval times—Ottoman, Safavid
and Mughal—started showing visible decline by the beginning of the eighteenth
century. The same weakness was visible among the Central Asian Uzbeks and
Sharifian rulers of Morocco. The wide territorial expanse under the Ottoman
sultans, which covered much of Southeastern Europe, West Asia (barring Persia)
and Northern Africa, became increasingly restive and unmanageable for the
overstretched military riddled with frequent Janissary revolts and a leadership
beset with constant court intrigues.
In 1683, the Ottomans failed to take Vienna, the capital of the Hapsburg
Empire. They also suffered a massive blow to their imperial pride in 1696 when
they ceded the province of Hungary to the Hapsburgs and the Aegean coast to
the Venetians by signing a treaty at Karlowitz. In 1718, they had to part with
more of their territories and lost Crimea to Russia in 1774.
However, the major challenge for the Ottomans came from Egypt, which
had been under their sway since 1517. Istanbul had left the control of the country
194 Political Islam: Parallel Currents in West Asia and South Asia

to Mamluks (their vassals), an aristocracy of ex-slaves who had governed Egypt

since 1250. By the eighteenth century, the Mamluks had become corrupt and
imposed heavy taxes on the peasantry. The status of the old Al-Azhar University
had also fallen because of the general decline in the level of education. At this
time, two great foreigners introduced modernity to Egypt, which then challenged
the “old regime” of the Ottoman Empire. These two extraordinary Europeans
were: Napoleon Bonaparte; and the Albanian reformist governor Muhammad
Ali.

Napoleon Invades Egypt and Syria to Reach India (1798)

To defend French maritime trading interests and recover Indian colonies lost to
the British East India Company in 1763, the French revolutionary government
came up with a fantastic plan in 1798, to send a young military prodigy, Napoleon
Bonaparte, to invade Egypt and Syria. The plan was that once Egypt was secured,
Napoleon would dispatch 15,000 French soldiers from the port of Suez (though
the Suez Canal was not made then, the Suez Port was considered suitable for the
journey to India) to win back erstwhile French colonies in India from the British.
Thus, the celebrated French diplomat Talleyrand stated: “Having occupied and
fortified Egypt, we shall send a force of 15,000 men from Suez to India to join
the forces of Tipu-Sahib (Ruler of the Kingdom of Mysore) and drive away the
English.”2 Another set of historians, however, believes that Napoleon wanted to
emulate Alexander the Great and lead his army via the Fertile Crescent to Persia,
Afghanistan and India.
Napoleon was able to defeat the Mamluk rulers in Egypt easily, and quickly
took Alexandria and Cairo in 1798. In order to assuage the Egyptians, who were
furious over the conquest of European Christian forces, Napoleon went so far as
to declare that he and the French were also “faithful Muslims”. One of Napoleon’s
manifestos posted on Egyptian walls said:
Peoples of Egypt, you will be told that I have come to destroy your
religion. This is an obvious lie; do not believe it! Tell the slanderers that
I have come to you to restore your rights from the hands of the oppressors
and that I, more than Mamluks serve God and revere His Prophet
Muhammad and the glorious Quran.3
The Sunni clerics of Al-Azhar reacted incredulously. Some even expressed
outrage at Napoleon’s declaration of faith in Islam.4 Abd Al-Rahman Al-Jabarti, a
well-known Islamic scholar, rejected Napoleon’s claim that the French were
 Turkish Tanzimat Reforms and Dissolution of the Ottoman Caliphate 195

Muslims and thought it was a ruse.5 In the end, the French forces were not
welcomed in Egypt, and their ignorance of local customs and religious values
shocked the society and contributed to their unpopularity. The joint landing of
British and Ottoman forces in Alexandria finally paved way for France’s exit from
Egypt by 1801. Napoleon eventually failed in Egypt, losing his Siege of Acre in
1799 and the Battle of Abukir in 1801.
Although Napoleon’s expedition was a failure, one of its benefits was the
discovery of the Rosetta Stone, which led to the deciphering of the hieroglyphics
in subsequent decades. In addition, Napoleon introduced printing press to Egypt,
which he had brought along with him. These presses could print in Arabic, French
and Greek scripts.
Napoleon’s invasion also opened Egyptian eyes to the growing might of
European powers. One the one hand, with literature published in the printing
presses, they got introduced to the Renaissance, the Reformation, the age of
exploration and discovery, the expansion of trade, the Enlightenment and the
Industrial Revolution. On the other hand, the Napoleonic invasion led to the
dominance of patronising Orientalist narratives of the Muslim world in the West:
“The Napoleonic expedition, with its great collective monument of erudition,
the Description de Égypte, provided a scene or setting for Orientalism....
Napoleon’s invasion of Egypt in 1798 and his foray into Syria have had by far the
greater consequence for the modern history of Orientalism.”6

Muhammad Ali Pasha: Father of Modern Egypt, True

Machiavellian “Prince”
”I was born in the same year as Napoleon in the land of Alexander,” said the wily
Muhammad Ali Pasha (1769–1849), also known as “father of modern Egypt”.7
Modelling himself after the above-mentioned conquerors, Muhammad Ali was
not Egyptian by origin. He was born to an Albanian family in Kavala, Macedonia,
in the Ottoman Empire. Nevertheless, he rose to the rank of second-in-command
of an Albanian volunteer force, which became part of a much larger Ottoman
Army that unsuccessfully tried to defeat the French occupiers of Egypt in 1799.
After Napoleon’s forces exited Egypt in 1801, Muhammad Ali started
increasing his political influence and secured recognition from a group of high-
level ulema from Al-Azhar University and other political elite. In 1805, he became
the chief instigator of a revolt against the Egyptian governor. Through deft political
manoeuvring, he was able to convince the Ottoman sultan to make him the
governor of Egypt as he had the support of the masses.
196 Political Islam: Parallel Currents in West Asia and South Asia

Muhammad Ali directed his energies towards freeing Egypt from the Ottoman
yoke so that he and his progeny could rule over the country. He summed up his
vision for Egypt as follows: “I am well aware that the (Ottoman) Empire is heading
by the day toward destruction...On its ruins, I will build a vast kingdom...up to
the Euphrates and the Tigris.”8
To achieve this end, he felt he had to reorganise the Egyptian society, streamline
the administration, improve the economy and modernise the military. However,
the biggest stumbling block in his way was the Mamluk military elite. Though
their power had declined following Napoleon’s invasion, their 600 year rule was
still entrenched in the south, along the Nile River up to north Egypt.
Taking a leaf out of the Abbasid “Banquet of Blood”, Muhammad Ali invited
top Mamluk leaders to the Cairo Citadel to celebrate his son Tusun Pasha’s
upcoming military expedition against the first Saudi state (Emirate of Diriyah).
When the Mamluks gathered at the Citadel on 1 March 1811, they were
surrounded and killed by Muhammad Ali’s forces. After the massacre, Muhammad
Ali dispatched his army across Egypt to eliminate Mamluk remnants.
Muhammad Ali believed in industrialisation of the economy and
modernisation of the military, for which he resorted to brutal and dictatorial
ways. To begin with, he took control of waqf lands in possession of ulema by
often exploiting their internecine rivalries, and also put most of the privately
owned lands under state control, which wiped out the rural aristocracy. The
marginalisation of the ulema, who experienced modernity as a shocking assault,
made them even more insular and hostile towards scientific advancement and
modernism.
With the state becoming the principal owner of agricultural land, it started
deciding the crops to be grown by the peasants and directly supplied seeds, tools
and fertilisers to them, and then purchased the crops and made a profit from
them. For the transfer of crops and goods, Muhammad Ali drafted farmers to
build roads and dig canals. With new irrigation, they raised three crops a year and
moved on from subsistence farming to cash crop farming. Industrialisation was
carried out in the field of defence for building munition plants, dockyards and
textiles for making uniforms and tents. However, as mentioned, these modernising
reforms were carried out very harshly and at breakneck speed, which took a toll
on most farmers, who were not trained for such different forms of manual labour.
Muhammad Ali was also the first ruler since the Ptolemies to conscript
Egyptian farmers as soldiers, many of whom hated military service. In the words
of Karen Armstrong:
 Turkish Tanzimat Reforms and Dissolution of the Ottoman Caliphate 197

twenty-three thousand peasants are said to have died in the conscripted

labour bands that improved Egypt’s irrigation and water
communications, other peasants so feared conscription into Muhammad
Ali’s modernised army that they frequently resorted to self-mutilation,
cutting off their fingers and even blinding themselves.9
Eventually, Muhammad Ali turned against the Ottoman Sultan, and his forces
marched into Palestine and Syria. By the end of 1832, he ruled most of the Fertile
Crescent and Hejaz (the western part of the Arabian Desert having the two holy
cities, Mecca and Medina). By 1839, he and his son Ibrahim were on the verge of
entering Anatolia. It was only due to the intervention of the Great Powers (mainly
Britain) that Muhammad Ali was forced to withdraw from Syria and accept
autonomy in Egypt. With his plans for expansion failing, Muhammad Ali—
much like his heroes Alexander and Napoleon—died a dejected man in 1849.

Rifa At-Tahtawi: Importance of Technological Progress in Muslim Societies

In 1826, in the reign of Muhammad Ali Pasha, an Asharite scholar by the name
of Rifa At-Tahtawi from Al-Azhar University was sent as a chaplain of students
by the Egyptian government to France. In Paris, Tahtawi studied the Enlightenment
treatises on ethics, social and political philosophy, mathematics and geometry.
There, he read works by Rousseau, Voltaire, Condillac, Montesquieu and Bezout,
among others. On return to Egypt in 1831, he became part of the state’s efforts to
modernise Egypt. Tahtawi’s work is viewed as the first endeavour towards an
Egyptian renaissance (nahda) that flourished from 1860 to 1940.10
Tahtawi’s books (which include several translations of French political treatises
into Arabic as well as the author’s philosophy) underscored the importance of
technological advancement in the Islamic state of the modern age. He emphasised
that material progress should be achieved as part of a coherently functioning
government and society using Western technology. Indeed, his work influenced
many future Arab modernists, like Muhammad Abduh.11

Founder of Turkish Modernism: Selim III’s “Nizam-i-Jedid” (New

Order)
The invasion of Napoleon in Egypt, the rise of Hapsburgs in Austria, the growing
threat from czarist Russia and the incursion from its Egyptian governor
Muhammad Ali, all pushed the Ottomans to initiate modern administrative
reforms.
198 Political Islam: Parallel Currents in West Asia and South Asia

Fearing a European threat to the empire, Ottoman Caliph Selim III (1761–
1808) planned full-scale social, economic and administrative reforms that he called
“Nizam-i-Jedid” (New Order). He also initiated secret military reforms by giving
modern training to recruits, often taken from street gangs, without taking the
entrenched Janissary forces into confidence. Nevertheless, the Janissaries came to
know about this change. They feared that an effective fighting force trained by
European instructors and equipped with modern weapons would soon expose
the incompetence of outdated Janissaries.12
The Janissaries killed off the new troops, imprisoned Selim and unleashed a
civil war. They got the support of the ulema, who were opposed to Westernised
reforms being introduced in Turkey. A cousin of Selim III, Mustafa IV, eventually
got the sultan killed and usurped the throne. With it ended the Nizam-i-Jedid
reforms.

Ahmed Reshmi Efendi’s Call for Peace

Selim III’s peaceful overtures towards the West had the support of the strategic
thinker and diplomat Ahmed Reshmi Efendi (1700–83), who called on the
Ottomans to pursue the policy of negotiation and peace in place of jihad.
He argued that Ottoman sultans should understand that war was not always
the best thing, and that prosperity and power depend upon peace and reconciliation
with the enemy. He even cited “Surah Al-Araf ” of the Quran to argue that dividing
the earth into separate peoples with natural boundaries hints at God’s will.13

Mahmud II: “Peter the Great of Turkey”

After ascending the throne, Mustafa IV could not control the rampaging Janissaries.
They started killing anybody favouring Selim III’s reformist ideas and stirred up
trade guilds and madrasa students to stand up for their rights. Soon, they killed
Mustafa IV and put Mahmud II (1808–39), his cousin, on the throne.
Initially, Mahmud II kept a low profile, and then he gradually raised a well-
trained force of palace guards to match the might of the Janissaries. He also
stealthily weaned the ulema, students and traders away from the Janissaries.
After silently ruling for almost 18 years, Mahmud struck against the Janissaries
and in one fell swoop, killed all the top Janissaries and their Bektashi Sufi
supporters. The whole elite force of the Janissaries was then disbanded. The
reinstatement of the sultan’s authority by releasing it from the Janissary stranglehold
was celebrated as the “Auspicious Event”, which cleared the way for large-scale
 Turkish Tanzimat Reforms and Dissolution of the Ottoman Caliphate 199

modernising reforms initiated by Mahmud II and his sons, known as the Tanzimat
era.14

Modern Reorganisation: The Ottoman’s Tanzimat Era (1839–76)

The Tanzimat is the name given to a series of modern reforms promulgated by
Ottoman sultans in the reign of Mahmud II’s sons, Abdulmecid I (1839–61) and
Abdulaziz (1861–76). The best known of those reform measures are said to be
the “Hatt-i-Serif Gulhane” (“Noble Decree of the Rose Chamber”; 3 November
1839) and the “Hatt-i-Humayun” (“Imperial Edict”; 18 February 1856). The
importance of Tanzimat reforms lies in the fact that it was for the first time that
an official edict was issued by the head of an Islamic state that “adopted the
language of European political thought”.15 Mustafa Reshid Pasha, a brilliant
Turkish statesman and diplomat, was the leading architect behind the Tanzimat
reforms.
The Tanzimat (reform, reorganisation, regulation) edict of 1839 was
announced in the name of the new sultan, Abdulmecid I, and was simultaneously
published in Turkish and French. Demonstrating the liberalising intentions of
the Ottoman government, especially towards its Christian subjects, the reforms
covered: introduction of a new secular school system; establishment of provincial
representative assemblies; reorganisation of the army based on the Prussian
conscript system; and introduction of new codes of commercial and criminal
law, primarily derived from those enforced in France.
Thus, the Tanzimat edict of 1839 stated that there must be “guarantees insuring
to our subjects perfect security for life, honour, and fortune”.16 In his 1846 decree,
Abdulmecid declared: “The differences of religion and sect among the subjects is
something concerning only their persons and not affecting their rights of
citizenship. As we are living all in the same country under the same government,
it is wrong to make discriminations among us.”17 His edict of 1856 was even
more strident:
Every distinction or designation tending to make any class whatsoever
of the subjects of my Empire inferior to another because of their religion,
language or race, shall be forever effaced from the laws…of the
empire…As all forms of religion are and shall be freely professed in my
dominions, no subject of the empire shall be in any way annoyed on
this account and no-one shall be forced to change his religion.18
The period saw the abolition of slavery and slave trade across the empire. It
200 Political Islam: Parallel Currents in West Asia and South Asia

also witnessed the establishment of secular Nizamiye courts. Ottoman sultans

established these courts to apply new secular laws. In addition, there were attempts
to codify the Shariah, which resulted in the “Mejelle”, a newly codified law based
on the Hanafi fiqh.19 However, the Mejelle focused only on a part of the Shariah
law—contracts, obligations, hiring and trust—which pertained to economic and
procedural matters. The family law and criminal law were already codified, as
stated earlier, on a European-inspired basis.20
Many Western critics dismiss the Tanzimat reforms as window-dressing by
Ottoman rulers to win European diplomatic support at critical moments. Indeed,
the reforms did not modernise Turkish society and polity in its entirety, nor did
the they aim to do so. However, they did help the Ottoman Empire to introduce
changes in a traditional Islamic polity and showed that the caliphate was not
wholly impervious to adopting modern, secular laws of nineteenth-century Europe.
The reforms were given religious sanction as secular modernism was justified
by the juristic doctrine that “necessity permits what is prohibited”, especially
when it enables the ruler to protect the Islamic territory.21 Ahmed Cevdet Pasha
even put Turkish nationhood and the idea of the nation state ahead of the Islamic
caliphate as a basis for the reforms and reorganisation. Thus, he said: “In reality,
it is a Turkish state…The real strength of the Sublime State lies with the Turks. It
is an obligation of their national character and religion to sacrifice their lives for
the House of Osman.”22
To their credit, these latter-day Ottomans did institute “Meclis-i Maarif ”, a
committee of education that reduced the ulema stranglehold on education, thereby
essentially creating a secular system of learning. Drastic educational reforms,
covering primary (made free and compulsory in 1869) and secondary education
leading to the university level, were introduced in 1846. By 1914, it is estimated
that over 36,000 Ottoman schools imparted systematic, secular education
programmes, which ran parallel to the traditional madrasa education system in
the empire. These changes paved way for the subsequent secular order initiated
by Ataturk in Turkey following the dismemberment of the Ottoman Empire.

“Young Ottomans”: Democratic Freedoms Conform with Islam

In the second half of the nineteenth century, some Turkish intellectuals and
diplomats felt that the Ottoman sultans did not want full-scale political reforms
in the empire and were, in fact, opposed to concepts of freedom and individual
rights, democracy and the nation state. The “Young Ottomans”, as they came to
 Turkish Tanzimat Reforms and Dissolution of the Ottoman Caliphate 201

be known, wanted the Tanzimat reforms to incorporate political ideals, as were

summed up by their activist Namik Kemal (1840–88), to include: “the sovereignty
of the nation, the separation of powers, the responsibility of officials, personal
freedom, equality, freedom of thought, freedom of the press, freedom of association,
enjoyment of property, sanctity of the home.”23
These intellectuals, like Ibrahim Sinasi (1826–71) and Namik Kemal, started
popular newspapers and journals, such as Tasvir-i-Afkar (“Illustration of Opinion”)
and Hurriyet (“Freedom”), and equated political terms in Islam with modern
liberalism and democracy. As Niyazi Berkes puts it: “For them ümmet (ummah in
Arabic) meant nation, icma (ijma) social contract, bîat (bayat) the delegation of
sovereignty to the ruler by the people, içtihâd (ijtihad) meant parliamentary
legislation, mesveret (mushwarah) democracy.”24
They also interpreted passages from scriptural texts in support of parliamentary
democracy, such as the Quranic verse (3:153), “So pardon [your brothers]…and
take counsel with them in the affair” and the Hadeeth, “difference of opinion
within my community is an act of divine mercy”.25 For these thinkers, European
ideals of parliamentary liberalism were not only superior to the Turkish political
ideology but were also in accordance with Islam’s egalitarian spirit and essential
tenets. In the words of Antony Black: “For the first time in Islamic political thought
(referring to Young Ottomans), popular sovereignty was based upon the liberty
of the individual, and indeed upon human nature.”26
The high point of the Tanzimat reforms in the Ottoman Empire was the
1876 Constitution, which stated:
all subjects of the Empire are, without distinction, called Ottomans
whatever religion they profess…All Ottomans enjoy individual liberty
on condition that they do not interfere with the liberty of others…All
Ottomans are equal in the eyes of the law. They have the same rights
and duties towards the country without prejudice regarding religion.27

Khayr Al-Din Al Tunis: Western Science Linked to Political Progress

Khayr Al-Din Al-Tunis (1822–90) was a political theorist who studied European
philosophy and modern state institutions, as well as analysed them based on Ibn
Khaldun’s methodology. He was not a Turk or Egyptian but a Circassian slave-
soldier, who eventually wrote the Constitution of Tunisia of 1861.
In his book, Aqwam Al Masalik fi Ma‘rifat Ahwal al-Mamalik (“The Surest
Path to Knowledge Concerning the Condition of Countries”), Khayr Al-Din
202 Political Islam: Parallel Currents in West Asia and South Asia

analysed the causes of the progress and backwardness of nations and used empirical
evidence from 21 European states and compared it with that of the Islamic world.28
He emphasised that the Shariah included “the protection of the rights of mankind
whether Muslim or not”. He even underscored that “one may legitimately borrow
from non-Muslims anything that will promote the prosperity and well-being
(maslaha: public interest) of the Islamic Community, and that is not explicitly
contrary to the Shariah.” 29
Khayr Al-Din said that the prevailing political weakness of the Muslim world
was economic backwardness, compounded by the superiority of Western scientific
technology. Western technology, in turn, was the product of the European
“constitution (tanzimat: political organisation)”, which he said was based on justice
and liberty. He further averred that liberty and “tanzimat”, which were the very
bases of Islamic law, produced prosperity. He repeatedly emphasised that Islam
had long recognised the principle that justice and good administration were the
causes of an increase in wealth and prosperity. In contrast, oppression led to the
ruin of civilisation.
He attributed European progress in science, agriculture and commerce to
personal liberty, which he said entailed “the individual’s complete freedom of
action over himself and his property, and the protection of his person, his honour
and his wealth”, so that he could not “be prosecuted for anything not provided
for in the laws of the land duly determined before the courts”. This gave people
“complete control over the conduct of commerce”.30
However, Khayr Al-Din remained sceptical of democracy in an empire with
many religious and ethnic differences. Eventually, he showed streaks of Islamic
exceptionalism when he concluded, “Muslim masses are superior in intelligence
to the masses in other nations” and the “freedom and human resolution which
others have achieved only through political reform are inculcated into Muslims
by their education and the Sharia”.31

Abdulhamid II: Subversion of Tanzimat

The Tanzimat reforms of the Ottoman Empire reached a high point when
Abdulhamid II ascended the throne (1876–1909) and, along with Young Ottoman
intellectuals, promulgated the empire’s first constitution, Kanun-i Esasi, which
declared all of its subjects as Ottomans without distinction of religion.32
However, Abdulhamid II could not adhere to his promises of liberalism for
more than a couple of years and citing differences with the Parliament, he
 Turkish Tanzimat Reforms and Dissolution of the Ottoman Caliphate 203

suspended it and the Constitution in 1878. Shunning the line of liberalism, he

now took a pan-Islamist stance. The modernisation of infrastructure and education
continued, but without corresponding advancement in liberal political thought
and institutions. Thus, progress was made in extending the Rumelia Railway and
the Anatolia Railway. Also, the construction of the Baghdad Railway (Berlin to
Baghdad, completed in 1940) and Hejaz Railway (from Damascus to Medina,
completed in 1908) was launched in his reign.
Abdulhamid pursued centralisation of the empire at the expense of
liberalisation policies that had earlier been included in the Tanzimat reforms. He
initiated military reforms, formed gendarmerie, spread the transportation and
communication networks (such as the telegraph system) and strengthened the
spy system. His brutal repression of the Armenians and the Assyrians in 1894–96
gave him the dubious title of the “Red Sultan”.33 The Istanbul University was
opened and then closed in 1881, only to reopen in 1890, and several secondary,
primary and military schools were established. Professional schools in law, arts,
trades, civil engineering, veterinary medicine, customs, farming and linguistics
were also opened.
However, Abdulhamid is often criticised for his pan-Islamist ambitions that
extended beyond the Ottoman Empire. Of all the Ottoman sultans, he is said to
have used the title of caliph the most. He made strengthening relations with the
rest of the Muslim world his fundamental policy and sent preachers of Sunni
Hanafi Islam as far as South Africa and Japan to spread the word of Islam.
Indeed, Anthony Black finds Abdulhamid II a forerunner of modern Islamism
or Political Islam, as he:
…sought to base his own authority on his role as Sultan–Caliph of
Sunni Muslims. He asserted his position as Caliph of Muslims living
outside the Ottoman empire, for example, by claiming the right to
appoint religious judges in Egypt and the independent Balkans. At the
outbreak of the First World War (following his precedent), the Ottoman
Caliph issued “a universal proclamation to all the people of Islam”,
which called upon Muslims everywhere to “rise up as the rising of one
man, in one hand the sword in the other the gun, and in his pockets
balls of fire and annihilating missiles, and in his heart the light of faith”
against “the English, the Russians and the French” as oppressors of Islam:
“India for the Muslim Indians…Algeria for the Algerians…Caucasus
for the Caucasians” This, if anything, was political Islam.34
204 Political Islam: Parallel Currents in West Asia and South Asia

Young Turks Revolt (1908): Constitutionalism versus Caliphate

Rule
Abdulhamid II’s suspension of the Constitution and the Parliament in 1878 caused
massive disappointment among the Young Ottoman enthusiasts desiring liberal
political reforms. In 1889, a group of students from the movement, studying at
the Imperial Medical in Istanbul, hatched a plot to depose Abdulhamid. The
conspiracy soon involved students of other colleges in the city. However, the plot
was foiled by the regime, and many of the conspirators fled to Paris, led by Ahmed
Riza. He became a key spokesman for the Committee of Union and Progress
(CUP), which called for a more reform-oriented regime in Istanbul. Another
group, the League of Private Initiative and Decentralisation, which openly spoke
of decentralisation and European assistance for initiating reforms in the empire,
was led by Prince Sabaheddin.
However, these foreign-based movements proved less effective than groups
within the empire, particularly the malcontents under Major Ahmed Niyazi of
the 3rd Army Corps in Macedonia, who spread rebellion across the empire, which
forced Abdulhamid II to re-establish the 1876 Constitution and the Parliament.
The Young Turk Revolution of 1908, regarded by some historians as having
little popular support, was more of “a coup d’état by a small group of military
officers and civilian activists in the Balkans”.35 However, with this revolution,
many underground organisations of different political persuasions established
political parties in Turkey. Simultaneously, Bulgaria declared its independence
and Austria-Hungary declared official annexation of Bosnia-Herzegovina.
Abdulhamid II agreed to the demands of the Young Turks to reinstate the
1876 Constitution, but he managed to stir populist Islamist sentiments throughout
the empire. He staged a counter-revolt on 31 March 1909, promising his supporters
restoration of the caliphate and a Shariah-based legal system. However, the Action
Army of Mehmud Shevkat Pasha crushed the uprising and restored parliamentary
rule on 24 April 1909. As a result, Abdulhamid II was finally deposed and Mehmud
V became the titular caliph in his stead.
After a period of internal squabbling, the Young Turk government settled for
the triumvirate leadership of Talat Pasha, Cemal Pasha and Enver Pasha as arbiters
of Ottoman politics by 1913, initiating secularisation reforms and major
industrialisation initiatives. However, their government sided with Central Powers
in World War I and in 1915, decided on the deportation and execution of millions
of Armenians, now known as the Armenian genocide.
 Turkish Tanzimat Reforms and Dissolution of the Ottoman Caliphate 205

At the end of the war, the CUP cabinet resigned in October 1918, less than
a month before the humiliating acceptance of the Armistice of Mudros.

Ziya Gokalp’s Turkmen Nationalism

A moderniser of religious thought, Turkish socialist Mehmed Ziya Gokalp (1876–
1924) was part of the Young Turk movement and became its most articulate
political ideologue. Using the pen name Gokalp (sky-hero), the political
philosopher dealt with three directions for the future course of the Ottoman
Empire of his times: imperialism of the Ottoman Empire; political unification of
all Muslim territories under the rule of the Shariah; or national unification of
Turks (regardless of the religious orientation of its citizens). On the basis of his
intellectual reasoning, Gokalp rejected Islamism, pan-Islamism and Ottoman
imperialism and opted for the nationalistic option of Turkification.
To Gokalp, “civilisation” and “culture” appeared interrelated, but were two
distinct concepts. Civilisation included technological advancement, religious and
ideological beliefs and different forms of knowledge that could be acquired from
foreign influences, whereas nationalism came from culture which had deeply
intrinsic ethnic and linguistic roots. Influenced by Emile Durkheim, Gokalp
criticised Western individualism and averred that a nation must have a “shared
consciousness” to thrive and that “the individual becomes a genuine personality
only as he becomes a representative of his culture”.36 To this end, he argued for
the separation of religion from the state and insisted that “patriotism should be
the most important area of morality for the Turks”.37
Not a complete secularist, Gokalp believed that religion plays a part in
strengthening patriotism. Still, he held the view of many modernist Muslims that
while “the divine part” of the Shariah does not need to be changed, social rules
can and should evolve along with society. Over some time, Gokalp evolved as a
proponent of pan-Turkism and Turanism, and his ideology is described as “a cult
of nationalism and modernization”.38

Kemalist Secularism: End of the Ottoman Caliphate

The Ottoman Empire, which had for about six centuries grown into a multi-
ethnic, multi-religious political power with boundaries extending from Vienna
to Yemen, came to an end after World War I, which it had joined with the hope
of reconquering some of its territories. Following the Armistice of Mudros, most
of its territories were taken by Britain, France, Greece and Russia.
206 Political Islam: Parallel Currents in West Asia and South Asia

With the infamous Treaty of Sevres of 1920, the empire was left with less
than a fifth of the current size of modern Turkey. However, under the military
leadership of Mustafa Kemal Ataturk (1881–1938), a War of Liberation (1919–
22) was successfully waged, mainly against the invading Greek Army, which made
him a national hero and president. On becoming president, Mustafa Kemal
abolished the Ottoman Empire and proclaimed the establishment of the Turkish
republic on 29 October 1923. He then abolished the world’s last widely recognised
caliphate on 3 March 1924. A couple of days before its abolition, Mustafa Kemal
said: “The religion of Islam will be elevated if it will cease to be a political
instrument, as had been the case in the past.”39
Despite Kemal’s ideological divergences with the conservative interpretations
of Islam, he was right in anticipating the end of the Ottoman Caliphate bringing
in newer Islamic approaches to develop in international relations. It opened ways
for major revisions on how Islam should be interpreted politically and the political
role Muslims should play in the new international order that was then coming
into existence.
In 1934, the Turkish Parliament conferred on Mustafa Kemal the title
“Ataturk”, which means “father of Turks”. Although Mustafa Kemal introduced a
single-party regime dominated by his People’s Republican Party (CHP), he initiated
large-scale progressive reforms to modernise Turkey into a secular, industrialising
nation.40 Ataturk’s political ideology, known as “Kemalism” (also known as the
Six Arrows), rested on the two pillars of Turkish nationalism and secularism.
Nationalism was meant for a nation state belonging to Turkish citizens, in contrast
to the multi-ethnic subjects of the Ottoman Empire. By secularism, Kemalism
referred to keeping Islam out of the modern, Western-oriented republic.
Under Ataturk’s reforms, Turkish women received equal civil and political
rights, including the right to vote in local elections. Then, in 1934, the Turkish
women won full universal suffrage. Ataturk also disbanded the Ottoman “Ministry
of Shariah” and Sufi orders and traditional madrasas were abolished, while mosques
were put under government control. The European-style brimmed hat was imposed
by law for government officials, while the Ottoman fez was banned, and so was
women’s veil and covering of the head. In addition, the Gregorian calendar replaced
the Islamic lunar calendar and Turkish language written in Arabic alphabet was
replaced by the Latin script. All of these changes were made to uphold the secular
principle of laiklik (adopted from the French laicite, which means complete removal
of religious values from the public sphere) that became an essential constituent of
the Constitution of the Turkish republic.41
 Turkish Tanzimat Reforms and Dissolution of the Ottoman Caliphate 207

However, Kemalist secularism was never fully embraced by the Turkish masses.
The large rural and newly urbanised voters consistently favoured centre-right
parties ever since free and fair elections began in the 1950s. Be it the Democrat
Party in the 1950s, the Justice Party in the 1960s and 1970s and the Homeland
Party in the 1980s and 1990s, the electorate generally favoured a religion-friendly
secularism.
In recent decades, Turkey’s so-called authoritarian secularism has been
challenged by two key pro-Islamic forces: the ruling Justice and Democratic Party
(AKP) of Recep Tayyip Erdogan; and its once ally, but now arch-enemy, the Gulen
movement. Critics allege that the current AKP government under Erdogan is fast
turning Turkey into an Islamist polity. It has also been charged that although
Turkey constitutionally remains a secular state, “hundreds of secularist officers
and their civilian allies” have been jailed since 2007; and by 2012, the “old secularist
guard” had been removed from positions of authority and replaced by AKP
supporters.42
It is reported that the former speaker of the Turkish Parliament, Ismail
Kahraman, told a group of Islamic scholars in April 2016 that “secularism would
not have a place in a new constitution” as Turkey is “a Muslim country and so we
should have a religious constitution”.43 A century after the Kemalist revolution,
Turkey seems to be heading towards an intended neo-Ottoman political
orientation.

NOTES
1 Ahmed Hasan, “Democracy, Religion and Moral Values: A Road Map toward Political
Transformation in Egypt”, Foreign Policy Journal, 2 July 2011, https://www.foreignpolicy
journal.com/2011/07/02/democracy-religion-and-moral-values-a-road-map-toward-political-
transformation-in-egypt/, last accessed on 21 September 2023.
2 Iradj Amini Napoleon and Persia: Franco-Persian relations under the First Empire Taylor &
Francis, 2000, p. 12.
3 Arthur Goldschmidt Jr. and Lawrence Davidson, A Concise History of the Middle East, The
American University in Cairo Press, 2009, p. 162.
4 Juan Cole, Napoleon’s Egypt: Invading the Middle East, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2007,
p. 32.
5 Shmuel Moreh, Napoleon in Egypt: Al-Jabarti’s Chronicle of the French Occupation, 1798, Markus
Wiener, 1995, pp. 27–33.
6 Edward W. Said, “The Scope of Orientalism”, in Orientalism, New York: Vintage Books,
1979, pp. 42–43, 76.
7 Henry Dodwell, The Founder of Modern Egypt: A Study of Muhammad ‘Ali, Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1965.
8 Gorges Douin (ed.), A French Military Mission to Mohamed Aly: Correspondence of Generals
208 Political Islam: Parallel Currents in West Asia and South Asia

Belliard and Boyer, Cairo: Royal Geography Society of Egypt, 1923, p. 50.
9 Karen Armstrong, ‘Islam: A Short History’, Modern Library, London, 2002, p. 150.
10 P.J. Vatikiotis, The Modern History of Egypt (reproduced edition), Littlehampton Book Services
Ltd, 1976.
11 Daniel Newman, An Imam in Paris: Al-Tahtawi’s Visit to France (1826–31), London: Saqi
Books, 2004.
12 Goldschmidt Jr and Davidson, A Concise History of the Middle East, p. 166.
13 Virginia H. Aksan, “Ottoman Political Writing, 1768–1808”, Internation Journal of Middle
Eastern Studies, Vol. 25, 1993, pp. 53–69.
14 Kemal H. Karpat, Turkey’s Politics: The Transition to a Multi-Party System. Princeton: Princeton
University Press, 1959.
15 Antony Black, The History of Islamic Political Thought: From the Prophet to the Present, Edinburgh:
Edinburgh University Press, 2001, p. 282.
16 Albert Hourani, Arabic Thought in the Liberal Age, 1798–1939, 2nd edition, Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1983, p. 46.
17 Halil Inalçik, “The Nature of Traditional Society”, in Robert E. Ward and D.A. Rustow (eds),
Political Modernization in Japan and Turkey, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1946,
pp. 42–63.
18 Antony Black, The History of Islamic Political Thought: From the Prophet to the Present, Edinburgh:
Edinburgh University Press, 2001, p. 284.
19 Knut S. Vikor, Between God and the Sultan: A History of Islamic Law, UK: C. Hurst & Co. Ltd,
2005, p. 230.
20 Ishtiaq Hussain, “The Tanzimat: Secular Reforms in the Ottoman Empire”, Faith Matters, 15
February 2011, https://faith-matters.org/images/stories/fm-publications/the-tanzimat-final-
web.pdf, last accessed on 21 September 2023.
21 Hourani, Arabic Thought in the Liberal Age, 1798–1939, p. 89.
22 Selim Deringil, The Well-Protected Domains: Ideology and the Legitimation of Power in the Ottoman
Empire, 1876–1909, London: I.B. Tauris, 1998, pp. 169–70.
23 Bernard Lewis, The Emergence of Modern Turkey, 2nd edition, Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 1968, p. 143.
24 Niyazi Berkes, The Development of Secularism in Turkey, Montreal: McGill University Press,
1964, p. 261.
25 Black, The History of Islamic Political Thought, p. 287.
26 Ibid.
27 Stanford J. Shaw and E.K. Shaw, History of the Ottoman Empire and Modern Turkey, New York:
Cambridge University Press, 1977, p. 177.
28 Khayr Al-Din Al-Tunisi, The Surest Path: The Political Treatise of a Nineteenth Century Muslim
Statesman, translated by Leon Carlos Brown, Cambridge, Harvard University Press, 1967,
pp. 84–94.
29 Hourani, Arabic Thought in the Liberal Age, 1798–1939, p. 82.
30 Khayr Al-Din Al-Tunisi, The Surest Path: The Political Treatise of a Nineteenth Century Muslim
Statesman, translated by Leon Carlos Brown, Cambridge, Harvard University Press, 1967,
pp. 163-64.
31 Ibid., p. 130.
32 “Sultan Abdulhamid II, a Life that Influenced a Century”, Daily Sabah, 11 February 2021,
https://www.dailysabah.com/arts/portrait/sultan-abdulhamid-ii-a-life-that-influenced-a-
century, last accessed on 21 September 2023
 Turkish Tanzimat Reforms and Dissolution of the Ottoman Caliphate 209

33 Razmik Panossian, The Armenians: From Kings and Priests to Merchants and Commissars,
Columbia University Press, 2013, p. 165.
34 Anthony Black, The History of Islamic Political Thought: From the Prophet to the Present, Routledge,
New York, 2010, p. 296.
35 Ronald Grigor Suny, “They Can Live in the Desert but Nowhere Else”: A History of the Armenian
Genocide, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2015, p. 155.
36 Mansoor Moaddel, Islamic Modernism, Nationalism, and Fundamentalism, 2005, The University
of Chicago Press, p. 157.
37 Niyazi Berkes (ed.), Turkish Nationalism and Western Civilization: Selected Writings by Ziya
Gökalp, London: Allen & Unwin, 1959, p. 302.
38 Edward J. Erickson, Ordered to Die: A History of the Ottoman Army in the First World War,
Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 2001, p. 97.
39 Andrew Mango, Ataturk: The Biography of the Founder of Modern Turkey, Overlook Press, New
York, 2002, p. 404.
40 Ibid.
41 Mustafa Akyol, “Turkey’s Troubled Experiment with Secularism”, The Century Foundation,
available at https://tcf.org/content/report/turkeys-troubled-experiment-secularism/
?session=1&session=1&session=1, accessed on 21 September 2023.
42 Mustafa Akyol, “Who was Behind the Coup Attempt in Turkey?”, The New York Times, 23
July 2016, https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/22/opinion/who-was-behind-the-coup-
attempt-in-turkey.html, accessed on 21 September 2023.
43 “Secularism Must Be Removed from Constitution, Turkey’s Parliament Speaker Says”, Milliyet,
27 April 2016.
 14
Arab and Iranian Nationalism against
European Colonialism

A ruler who needs religion to help him rule is a weakling. No weakling

should rule.
—Kemal Ataturk1

Arab Nationalism: Reaction to Pan-Turkism

Following the European Enlightenment, Ottoman Turks and Arabs felt the
importance of a nation state that celebrated a common ethnic and cultural identity,
which the commonality of religion could not compensate. The distinctive cultures
and civilisation of ancient Indians, Egyptians, Chinese and Greeks were revived
by the conceptualisation of nationalism during Aufklarüng or the Enlightenment
era in Europe, which, like the Turks, the Arab world also instinctually gravitated
towards.
The Arab world, long subjugated by the Turkish Caliphate, was exposed to
the concepts of nation state, social contract, democracy, civil liberties and
secularism in the wake of the Tanzimat reforms that the Ottomans themselves
initiated. Rifa At-Tahtawi was one of the pioneers in developing the concept of
watanniyah (nationality) in the Arab world after his exposure to the Western
world in the mid-nineteenth century. He further argued that the concept of
wataniyyah was applicable to Egypt as the country had had a different system and
 Arab and Iranian Nationalism against European Colonialism 211

structure since the era of Pharaohs and because of a sense of national identity
among the Egyptians.2
The Egyptian governor, Muhammad Ali, also sought to develop the concept
of nationalism in which he unsuccessfully envisioned building an Arabic empire
that could compete with the Ottomans. The Urabi Revolt, from 1879 to 1882,
was a nationalist uprising of Egyptians to depose Khedive Tewfiq Pasha and end
the British and French influence over the country. Led by Colonel Ahmed Urabi,
the revolt comprised Egyptians who resented Western European interference in
the country and the stranglehold of Turks, Circassians and Albanian on the
country’s important positions in the military and the government.3 Although the
Urabi Revolt was a failure as it was followed by direct British control of Egypt in
1882, which lasted until the Suez crisis of 1954, it sparked a great sense of Arab
nationalism in the consciousness of people from West Asia.4
Towards the end of the nineteenth century, many Christian Arab scholars
started promoting the idea of secularisation of the Arab nation and for accepting
every Arab person who speaks Arabic to be regarded as equal. One of the leading
Christian exponents of Arab nationalism was Boutros Al-Bustani, a Lebanese
Maronite who played a significant role in establishing “Al-Madrasah Al-
Watanniyah”. Nurturing the values of secularism among Arabs, Al-Bustani
distanced himself from following a Western way of life and emphasised the practice
of Arabic cultural and societal values in the education system developed in
Madrasah Al-Watanniyah.5
The rise of the Young Turk movement in Anatolia also had a corresponding
impact, with the rise of Arab nationalism at the expense of the Islamic political
construct under an Ottoman Caliphate, which was now fraying fast.

Abd Al-Rahman Al-Kawakibi: Mecca not Istanbul Seat of Caliphate

An early Syrian intellectual who called for pan-Arabism against Ottoman
imperialism, Abd Al-Rahman Al-Kawakibi (1849–1902) was an author, mostly
known for his two influential books, Tabai al-Istibdad wa-Masari al-Isti’bad (“The
Nature of Despotism”) and Umm al-Qura (“Mother of All Villages).6 He was also
the editor of the famous journal, Al-Manar, which Rasheed Rida launched.
Imprisoned several times and later exiled for stating that the Ottomans had
corrupted Islamic identity, Al-Kawkibi urged the Arabs to overthrow the Turks
and seize control of the caliphate. He believed Mecca should be the centre of
Islamic power, not Istanbul.7 He also emphasised that Arabs were of all nations
the most suitable to be an authority in religion and an example to the Muslims.8
212 Political Islam: Parallel Currents in West Asia and South Asia

His death in 1902, under “mysterious” circumstances, was attributed by his

family to poisoning by Turkish agents.

Sati Al-Husri: Arab Identity Predates Islam

Perhaps the best philosophical proponent of Arab nationalism was Sati Al-Husri
(1880–1968), a Syrian educationist in the Ottoman Empire. Al-Husri was fluent
in Arabic and Turkish and was influenced by German romantic nationalists, such
as Herder and Fichte.9
Al-Husri regarded the nation as a living entity with long historical roots that
affect its people, even if they may not acknowledge it. He rejected that state action,
religion or economic factors can affect the spirit of nationhood. Echoing Gokalp,
whom he detested for his Turkism, Al-Husri “established a barrier between
civilisation on the one hand, and culture on the other hand, taking the view that
the first, which comprises the sciences, technology, and modes of production, is
intrinsically ‘universal’, while the latter, which comprises customs and language,
is ‘national’.”10
Al-Hursi tried to distance Islam from Arabs and the Arabic language, arguing
that both existed before the coming of Islam and there is more to Arab identity
and culture than Islam. He argued that even if Islamic unity were to be achieved,
it would have to begin by forging Arab unity first.11

Arab Revolt and the Sykes–Picot “Betrayal”

The Arab population started becoming restive against the declining Ottoman
Empire during the Tanzimat era for a variety of reasons. The series of defeats of
the Ottomans in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries and the rise of Europe
showed the Arabs that the Turks were no longer the power they once were. When
the Ottoman Empire started reforming its administration and society based on
Western values, Arabs saw it as a departure from Islamic values and the Shariah,
the basis on which they had accepted the Turkish Ottoman Empire as a caliphate.12
The Arabs were also upset by the paucity of Arab representation in the higher
echelons of Ottoman administration (particularly legislative bodies) and over some
of the oppressive practices of the Ottomans that were blatantly discriminatory
and unjust against them.13
The high point of Arab nationalism came with the Arab Revolt (Al-Thawra
Al-Arabiya), when Arab forces, led by Sharif Hussein bin Ali (1854–1931) of
Mecca, launched a military uprising against the Ottoman Empire on 10 June
 Arab and Iranian Nationalism against European Colonialism 213

1916. Backed by the British Egyptian Expeditionary Force and the advice of T.E.
Lawrence (popularly known later as Lawrence of Arabia), the Sharifian Army, led
by the Hashemites, expelled the Ottoman presence from Hejaz and Transjordan.
After that, an Arab rebellion took control of Damascus, and the Arab kingdom of
Syria was briefly led by Feisal, one of Hussein’s sons.
The Arab Revolt was launched based on the so-called “McMahon–Hussein
Correspondence”. The British purportedly assured Sharif Hussein bin Ali of
Britain’s recognition of an independent Arab state from Aleppo to Aden if the
revolt was successful. However, differences arose over the distribution of territories
in the supposedly 10 letters exchanged between Hussein bin Ali, Sharif of Mecca,
and Lieutenant Colonel Sir Henry McMahon, British High Commissioner to
Egypt. Therefore, it was decided that the matter would be discussed later.
The British interest in forging a deal with Hussein bin Ali was twofold: first,
as the Sharif of Mecca, he had a great deal of influence over 70 million Muslims
in India, which would prevent them from turning against the British Raj; and
second, to blunt the Ottoman call for jihad around the world.14
Meanwhile, the misgovernance during a famine and the summary execution
of innocent peasants and scholars in 1916 by Djemal Pasha, the Ottoman governor
of Syria, became a trigger for Feisal, the son of Hussein bin Ali, to start the Arab
Revolt. When the insurrection successfully threw out Ottoman forces from Iraq
and Syria, the Arab revolutionaries were jubilant as they expected that their
promised independence was close at hand.
However, little did they know that the British government had promised to
hand over Ottoman-ruled Arab lands to other foreign countries. For example,
Britain and France had promised Russia, through a secret treaty in 1915, the
control of the Turkish straits. Italy and Greece were also told they could claim
portions of Anatolia, while France laid claim to all of Syria, including Lebanon
and Palestine.
The three Allied Powers—Britain, France and Russia—also signed a secret
pact in May 1916, known as the Sykes–Picot Agreement, which allocated to
Britain the control of present-day Jordan, southern Iraq, southern Israel and
Palestine, along with the ports of Haifa and Acre for strategic access to the
Mediterranean. France got areas of southeastern Turkey, the region of Kurdistan,
Syria and Lebanon. An enclave around Jaffa and Jerusalem was put under
international rule, for Russia was interested in ruling over Christian holy places.
The secret Sykes–Picot Agreement, which was made public by the Bolsheviks
214 Political Islam: Parallel Currents in West Asia and South Asia

when they came to power in Russia in 1917, was viewed as a betrayal by Arabs as
it negated Britain’s promises to them. This agreement’s legacy has led to much
resentment in the Arab world. Even terrorist groups like the ISIS exploit near a
century later the Arab resentment against the carving up of West Asia into British
and French mandates that later further gave way to the the still-fledgling and
mostly unstable Arab nation states.

Birth of Israel and Al-Nakba (Catastrophe)

The secretive Sykes–Picot Agreement was not the only shock that struck the Arab
and Muslim psyche during World War I. The 1917 Balfour Declaration by the
British government that promised the international Zionist movement its support
in re-creating the Jewish homeland in Palestine was a Nakba (catastrophe in Arabic)
from which the Arab and Muslim world has still not recovered.
Under the British Mandate for Palestine, from 1917 to 1948, the framework
for a future Jewish state was being laid by, mainly, European Jewish migrants
pouring into the Promised Land in hundreds of thousands, which led to the
destruction of the Palestinian society and homeland in 1948, and the permanent
displacement of a majority of the Palestinian Arabs.
On 14 May 1948, when the British Mandate for Palestine ended, the Zionist
leadership was ready to declare the establishment of the state of Israel. The
subsequent Arab–Israeli War of 1948 led to the victory of the newly founded
state against the combined armies of Egypt, Syria, Transjordan, Lebanon, Iraq
and Saudi Arabia. The Arab world mostly suffered humiliation in subsequent
wars with Israel, including the 1967 Six-Day War, 1967–70 War of Attrition,
1973 Yom Kippur War, 1982 Lebanon War and several lesser conflicts of lower
intensity. The war expelled 800,000 Palestinians from their homeland after the
1948 war, and they became refugees in neighbouring countries. and another
280,000 to 350,000 people became refugees of the 1967 war.
As the colonial mandates of European powers gradually came to an end after
World War II, the US became the primary security provider for many newly
founded independent nation states of West Asia. With the revival of pan-Arabist
movements, many radical anti-Western regimes liberated their respective states—
Egypt (1954), Syria (1963), Iraq (1968) and Libya (1969).

Gemal Abdel Nasser: Personification of Pan-Arab Zeitgeist

The successful anti-Western pan-Arabist regimes revived hopes of eventual Arab
 Arab and Iranian Nationalism against European Colonialism 215

unity. The heydays of this pan-Arabism were experienced under the leadership of
Gemal Abdel Nasser (1918–70).
One of the most revered and charismatic Arab leaders of the twentieth century,
Nasser played a central role in driving the British out of Egypt after their 72 year
rule by proxy. On 23 July 1952, Nasser and 89 officers of his secret Free Officers
group (which included his friend and future president, Anwar Sadat) staged an
almost bloodless coup against the British-backed King Farouk I.
For over a year, Major General Muhammad Naguib remained the puppet
head of state. However, in 1954, Nasser put Naguib under house arrest and became
the prime minister. That same year, an assassin from the Muslim Brotherhood
tried to assassinate Nasser but was caught. Nasser, then, clamped down heavily
against the Islamist organisation.
A committed socialist, Nasser confiscated the land of mega-rich Egyptian
landowners, who had prospered under King Farouk, and distributed it amongst
the Egyptian masses. Unlike Ataturk, Nasser did not approve of atheism and
made Islam the state religion. His popularity soared in the Arab world when he
won the Second Arab–Israeli War of 1956 against Britain, France and Israel over
the Suez Canal and nationalised the strategic waterway.15
After that, Nasser did something that left the Arab world in “stunned
amazement, which quickly turned into uncontrolled euphoria”.16 On 1 February
1958, Syria and Egypt formed the United Arab Republic (UAR), with Nasser as
president, who hoped the merger would one day spread to cover the entire Arab
world. It was during the three years (1958–61) of the Egypt–Syria political union
that pan-Arab nationalism peaked.
In 1961, Indian Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru, Gemal Abdel Nasser and
President Tito of Yugoslavia founded the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM).
However, Syria withdrew from the UAR in 1961, which Nasser blamed on Syrian
Baathists, calling them fascists.17 In September 1962, Egypt entered the Yemeni
civil war. The involvement in the long-drawn-out Yemen civil war was, in the
words of Nasser himself, “a miscalculation”.18
However, for Nasser, a more significant miscalculation was Egypt’s humiliating
defeat in the 1967 Six-Day War with Israel, which it fought alongside Syria,
Jordan and Iraq. On 5 June, Israel staged a sudden pre-emptive airstrike that
destroyed over 90 per cent of Egypt’s aircraft standing on the tarmac. A similar
aerial assault wiped out the Syrian Air Force. The entire war ended within a week.
Israel’s decisive victory led to the capture of the Gaza Strip, West Bank, Golan
216 Political Islam: Parallel Currents in West Asia and South Asia

Heights and the Old City of Jerusalem, with the status of these territories remaining
a major point of contention in the Arab–Israeli conflict.
In the wake of this defeat, Nasser resigned from office, but public
demonstrations forced him to return. After the three-year-long War of Attrition
to recover Israel-held Sinai Peninsula ended in an inconclusive ceasefire, Nasser
died of heart attack in September 1970.

Nasserism and Baathism: Anti-Atheistic, Anti-Islamist Socialism

Nasser’s political ideology, also known as Nasserism, can be described as pan-
Arabist socialism. It is ideologically opposed to Western capitalism, but equally
hostile to the spread of communism in the Arab world. It is well known that,
mindful of the spiritual heritage of the Arab world, Nasser made Islam the state
religion of Egypt, but he was strongly opposed to fundamentalist groups, like the
Muslim Brotherhood, and extremist ideologues, like Sayyid Qutb, who was
executed by hanging in 1966 for plotting to kill Nasser.19
Although in favour of modernisation, Nasserists are staunchly opposed to
Western interference in Arab affairs and seek progress and cooperation among
developing countries.20 They do not believe that Jews have a claim over their
ancestral “holy land”, but conform to the commonly held Arab view that Zionism
is an extension of European colonialism on Arab soil. Not a supporter of democracy
but of a one-party state, Nasser is also associated with building grand infrastructure
projects, like the Aswan Dam and Helwan City.
Despite Nasser disapproving the actions of Baathists, the ideology of the
latter is not vastly different from his own. Baathism, an Arab nationalist ideology,
is based on the concepts propounded by certain twentieth-century Syrian
intellectuals, namely, Michel Aflaq (1910–89), Zaki Arsuzi (1899–68) and Salah
Al-Din Al-Bitar (1912–80).21 It is mainly a secular political ideology based on
the principles of Arab nationalism, which, though socialistic in orientation, opposes
Marxian confiscation of private property or state socialism.22
With a strong current of modernisation, it believes that socialism is the sole
means for the progress of developing nations. Baathism does not fully adhere to
Islamic principles and is strictly opposed to Islamic fundamentalism. However, it
regards Islam as historical proof of “Arab genius” and a testament to Arab culture,
values and thought.23
Michel Aflaq, an Arab Christian, has praised Islam for its revolutionary quality
and believes that the Prophet had given socialism an Arab expression. Thus, in
 Arab and Iranian Nationalism against European Colonialism 217

the words of Aflaq, the chief Baathist philosopher: “Europe is as fearful of Islam
today as she has been in the past. She now knows that the strength of Islam
(which in the past expressed that of the Arabs) has been reborn and has appeared
in a new form: Arab nationalism.”24
Modern Arab nationalism has always had three main streams of thought
within it: socialism, liberalism and Islamism. Although the liberals and socialists
vehemently despise the Islamist elements, they still feel proud of the historical
achievements of Islam because of its Arab origins.25

Persian Constitutional Revolution (1905–11): Islam for Democracy

Towards the latter half of the nineteenth century, Western liberalism and democracy
had started inspiring young Iranian intellectuals and diplomats. Mirza Yousuf
Khan of the Qajar dynasty was among the first to claim that Western and Islamic
political principles were not contradictory but in agreement. According to him:
If you study the contents of the codes of France and other civilised
states, you will see how the evolution of the ideas of nations and the
experiences of the peoples of the world confirm the Sharia of
Islam…Whatever good laws there are in Europe…your Prophet set
down and established for the people of Islam 1,280 years ago.26
Another disseminator of liberal ideas in the latter years of the Qajar dynasty
was Mirza Malkham Khan (1831–1908). Educated in Paris, where he was
fascinated by humanism and the philosopher of positivism Auguste Comte,
Malkham Khan came under the influence of Jamal Al-Din Afghani through his
newspaper, Qanun (law). Malkham advocated parliamentary democracy in Iran
and called for the establishment of a bicameral assembly on British lines with the
assembly of representatives elected by the people themselves, while the upper
chamber consisting of unelected ‘notables’, including the mujtahids.27
These revolutionary ideas practically manifested in the Constitutional
Revolution of 1905–06. Opposed to Russian interference in the country’s affairs,
the revolution was engineered by the ulema, merchants and secular intellectuals,
as part of the Tobacco Protests, which forced the Qajar king to order the framing
of a constitution (making his power dependent on the will of the people) and
convene a national assembly in 1906.
The Constitution was inspired by the Belgian model but was ratified by a
committee of mujtahids. Thus, it stated: “Government according to the law of
Islam, justice, and equality, or according to science and civilisation…are one and
218 Political Islam: Parallel Currents in West Asia and South Asia

the same…the Europeans have taken their laws and constitutions from the Quran
and the words of the Imams.”28
However, the Constitution was abolished in 1908 by the new Qajar king,
with the support of Britain and Russia, and then re-established in 1909. It is
indeed surprising that most of the quietist Shia mujtahids of Najaf in Iraq
supported the constitutional movement. Shaikh Hussain Ahmad Naini expressed
such views cogently in his book, Admonition of the Nation (1909).29 The Shia
marja (source of emulation) said: “that freedom of the pen and speech both are
God-given freedoms, necessary for liberation from despotism (taghut).”30 However,
political instability continued until the Pahlavi dynasty under Reza Shah was
established in 1925, which lasted till the 1979 Islamic Revolution.

Palestinian Struggle: Violent Non-State Actors after 1967 War

It is customary to attribute “Palestinian resistance” to the activities of violent
non-state actors since the 1960s. Some scholars, however, argue that it started
with the onset of Jewish settlements in the beginning of the twentieth century.
The concept of military resistance was central to the ideology of Palestinian
resistance groups, such as Fatah (formerly the Palestinian National Liberation
Movement), which was established in 1959 by Yasser Arafat, who was then head
of the General Union of Palestinian Students at the Cairo University.
The common objectives of Palestinian resistance groups are “liberation of
Palestine” and recognition of a Palestinian state with east Jerusalem as its capital.
More limited goals include: the release of Palestinian prisoners in Israel; and
achieving the Palestinian right to return (referring to the millions of Palestinian
refugees displaced by the Israel–Palestinian conflict) to their homeland.

Establishment of Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) in 1964

Encouraged by President Gemal Abdel Nasser of Egypt, the Arab League began
the process of establishing the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) at its
first summit meeting in Cairo in 1964. The role of the PLO was to serve as an
umbrella organisation for all organisations serving the Palestinian cause. The core
ideology of the PLO stated that the Zionists had expelled Palestinians from their
country and established a state for Jews. Opposed to the “false ideology” of
Zionism, the PLO objected to the colonialist debasing of the Jewish faith and
called for unity among Muslim, Christian and even Jewish Palestinians, who
earlier constituted the Palestinian people. Israeli settlers were likened to White
 Arab and Iranian Nationalism against European Colonialism 219

settlers of South Africa, and Israel’s policies were akin to apartheid, while the
PLO saw itself akin to organisations like the Algerian National Liberation Front.
The face of the PLO, Yasser Arafat, was fond of extolling an independent Palestine
that would be a democratic and secular state, with Jews, Christians and Muslims
living together in peace.31
Besides Fatah and the PLO, the Palestinian movement soon developed several
other resistance organisations, like the Marxist–Leninist group formed by George
Habash called the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine; another Marxist–
Leninist group was the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine; the
now-defunct Abu Nidal Organisation; the Popular Front for the Liberation of
Palestine–General Command that had the famous Jihad Jibril Brigades; and the
Islamist groups, Palestinian Islamic Jihad and Hamas.

NOTES
1 H.C. Armstrong, Grey Wolf Mustafa Kemal: An Intimate Study of a Dictator, Chapter XLIX,
A. Barker, London, 1932.
2 Halim Barakat, The Arab World: Society, Culture, and State, Berkeley, CA: University of California
Press, 1993, p. 243.
3 Donald Malcolm Reid, “The Urabi Revolution and the British Conquest, 1879–1882”, in
M.W. Daly (ed.), The Cambridge History of Egypt, Vol. 2, 1999, Cambridge University Press,
pp. 217–38.
4 Thomas Mayer, The Changing Past: Egyptian Historiography of the Urabi Revolt, 1882–1982,
University Presses of Florida, 1988.
5 Khalil Abou Rjaili, “Boutros al-Bustani (1819–83)”, Prospects: The Quarterly Review of
Comparative Education, Vol. XXIII, Nos 1–2, 1993, pp. 125–33.
6 Charles Kurzman, Modernist Islam, 1840–1940: A Sourcebook, New York: Oxford University
Press, 2002, p. 152.
7 “Profile: Abd Al Rahman Al Kawkibi”, Al Jazeera, 28 January 2008, available at https://
www.aljazeera.com/features/2008/1/28/profile-abd-al-rahman-al-kawakibi.
8 Mohammed A. Bamyeh, Intellectuals and Civil Society in the Middle East, Bloomsbury
Publishing, 2012.
9 Adeed Dawisha, Arab Nationalism in the Twentieth Century: From Triumph to Despair, 1st
edition, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2016, p. 2.
10 Maher Charif, The Stakes of the Awakening in Arab Thought (Rihanat al-nahda fi’l-fikr al-
’arabi), Damascus: Dar Al-Mada, 2000, pp. 204-5.
11 Sati Al-Husri, “Muslim Unity and Arab Unity”, in John J. Donohue and John L. Esposito
(eds), Islam in Transition: Muslim Perspectives, 2nd edition, Oxford: Oxford University Press,
2007, pp. 49–53.
12 Ýlhan Arsel, Arap Milliyetçiliði ve Türkler (Arab Nationalism and Turks), Istanbul: Remzi Kitabevi,
1977, p. 186.
13 Hasan Kayalý, Arabs and Young Turks: Ottomanism, Arabism, and Islamism in the Ottoman
Empire, 1908–1918, Berkeley: California University Press, 1997, p. 23.
220 Political Islam: Parallel Currents in West Asia and South Asia

14 J. Timothy, Britain, the Hashemites, and Arab Rule, 1920–1925: The Sherifian Solution, London:
Frank Cass, 2003.
15 Robert St. John, “Gemal Abdel Nasser: President of Egypt”, Encyclopedia Britannica, available
at https://www.britannica.com/biography/Gamal-Abdel-Nasser, last accessed on 21 September
2023.
16 Adeed Dawishsa, Arab Nationalism in the Twentieth Century: From Triumph to Despair, Princeton:
Princeton University Press, 2009, p. 200.
17 Patrick Seale, Asad of Syria: The Struggle for the Middle East, Berkeley: University of California
Press, 1990.
18 Adeed Dawisha, Arab Nationalism in the Twentieth Century: From Triumph to Despair, Princeton
University Press, 2009, p. 235.
19 Fouad Ajami, “On Nasser and His Legacy”, Journal of Peace Research, Vol. 11, No. 1, 1974,
pp. 41–49.
20 Peter Mansfield, “Nasser and Nasserism”, International Journal, Vol. 28, No. 4, 1973,
pp. 670–88.
21 Youssef Choueiri, Arab Nationalism: A History—Nation and State in the Arab World, Wiley-
Blackwell, 2001.
22 John F. Devlin, The Ba’th Party: A History from its Origins to 1966, 2nd edition, Hoover Inst.
Pr, 1975.
23 Sami Hannah and George Gardner, Arab Socialism: A Documentary Survey, Brill, 1969.
24 Malise Ruthven, Islam in the World, New York: Oxford University Press, 2006, p. 319.
25 Mahdi Abdul Hadi, Second Arab Awakening: A Historical Background, Jerusalem: PASSIA,
2011, pp. 9–11.
26 Shaul Bakhash, Iran: Monarchy, Bureaucracy and Reform under the Qajars, 1858–1896, London:
Ithaca, 1978, pp. 39-40.
27 Hamid Algar, Religion and State in Iran 1785–1906: The Role of the Ulema in the Qajar Period,
Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1969.
28 Ibid., p. 253.
29 Karen Armstrong, Islam: A Short Introduction, New York: Modern Library, 2000, p. 149.
30 Farzin Vahdat, God and Juggernaut, New York: Syracuse University Press, 2002, pp. 70–71.
31 Helena Lindholm Schulz, The Reconstruction of Palestinian Nationalism: Between Revolution
and Statehood, Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1999.
THE AGE OF POLITICAL ISLAM
 15
Islamism, Jihadism and Modern Reformers
(1900–2020)

It is the nature of Islam to dominate, not to be dominated, to impose its

laws on all nations and to extend its power to the entire planet.
—Hassan Al-Banna1

Of the many scholarly definitions of Islamism, few come close to encapsulating

the meaning, scope and danger posed by this globalised religious–political
phenomenon to the modern society’s largely liberal and multi-cultural ethos than
the aforesaid statement made by the founder of Muslim Brotherhood.
The seamlessness with which Hassan Al-Banna conflates the religion of Islam
with Muslim political power is shocking. Moreover, the use of the word “dominate”
in the global context points to the alarming implications such a line of thinking
poses for world peace and, more directly, to the strength and stability of Muslim
polities, cultures and societies.2

Rise of Islamism as a Religious Revivalist Movement

Islamism has been described as a Muslim fundamentalist pushback against
modernism.3 In the words of William E. Shephard, Francois Burgat, James Piscatori
and Armando Salvatore, the term “Islamism/Islamist” has come into increasing
use in recent years to denote the views of those Muslims who claim that Islam, or
224 Political Islam: Parallel Currents in West Asia and South Asia

more specifically, the Islamic sharî¿ah, provides guidance for all areas of human
life.”4
Although opposed to monarchical rule, Islamism is critical of modern and
liberal political thought than it is towards medieval Muslim history, which since
Umayyad times followed dynastic despotism as its political model and whose
rulers sparingly adhered to Shariah rulings.
In simple terms, Islamism or Political Islam refers to an ideology that believes
that Islam is a revolutionary political movement and will attain the fulfilment of
its objectives only with the creation of an Islamic state or caliphate (like that of
the Rashidun caliphs) through political enforcement of the Shariah, although
there is debate over which school of jurisprudence – Hanafi, Shafi, Maliki, Hanbali,
Jafari or Ibadi version of Shariah — will this dispensation follow. It believes in
reconstituting modern states and the international order in constitutional,
economic and judicial terms, in accordance with a conceived return to the earliest
Islamic practices.
However, many Muslim intellectuals and reformers – including Kalaam
rationalists and Sufi spiritualists – have from the eleventh century on, objected to
a “mechanistic’, literal approach to Islam and have argued that the schools of law
instituted several generations after the Prophet’s death are too rigid in defining
Sharia. Many modern reformers are similarly critical of Islamism for viewing the
religion through a legalistic prism, for it being heavily political, communal and
collectivist in its approach 5. They point out that Islamism’s reductionist
interpretation of the faith robs it of its inner spiritual, ethical and intellectual
strengths, which in its holistic form engenders and nourishes moral vitality of
human society and civilisation. Thus, Islamism has been blamed for seeking to
revive Muslim societies either through political force6 or by launching aggressive
and hate-filled social activism. As for jihadism, it has become another distorted
derivative of Islamism, in that it finds indiscriminate violence as the only means
for achieving Islamist goals and sometimes waging violence in the name of jihad
as a goal in and of itself, which provides an easy passage to everlasting bliss. Thus,
modern jihadism has developed many features to death cults and apocalyptic/
doomsday cults.
The emphasis on a formulaic adherence to religious dogma and rituals,
outright rejection of every foreign influence and non-Muslim communities,
intolerance towards any rational argument for the common good, refusal to develop
scientific temper and insistence on drastic, uncompromising and extreme responses
 Islamism, Jihadism and Modern Reformers (1900–2020) 225

to complex social or political phenomena are issues that have been attributed to
Islamism, which is a derivative of and yet separate from the religion of Islam
itself. According to Robin Wright, Islamist movements have “arguably altered the
Middle East more than any trend since the modern states gained independence”.7
Islamism also appears post-modernist in its aversion to both modern rationality
as well as traditional religious spiritualism. As a post-modernist movement, its
proponents like Maududi call for instituting “theo-democractic” states, blending
the modern with the medieval. Thus, when Noah Feldman states, “[m]ainstream
Islamism has in principle accepted the compatibility of the sharia and democracy”,8
and yet there is little room for accepting the liberal embrace of divergent viewpoints
of other secular or religious communities.
Although, Islamists may allow the institution of shura (consultative bodies)
in their polity their approach is totalitarian and against democracy, in that they
seek the religious and the political powers to rest within a single religious-political
leader, a caliph or an ameer, of utmost moral, spiritual, political and intellectual
brilliance. Olivier Roy rightly observes, “the more radical the party, the more
central is the figure of the ‘amir’. Such a person would be a religious as a well as a
political leader.”9 However, they propose little in terms of institutional mechanisms
for holding the person holding the high office accountable for administrative
shortcomings, policy failures or misdemeanours and high crimes, and remain
silent on the method of succession, which proved to be the source of great ‘fitna’
even for the Rashidun caliphs.
In the words of Antony Black, “one-man rule, whether in the form of
hereditary monarchy or rule by one individual in the name of a principle, party
or common interest (‘dictatorship’), remained remarkably common throughout
the twentieth century, especially in the Arab world.”10 However, there is no denying
that despite their hostility to modern Western socio-political values, Islamists
take a distinctly modern materialist approach to both religion and polity.

Hassan Al-Banna’s Muslim Brotherhood: “Islam is the Solution”

A young social and religious activist, who was a habitué of the Salafiyya book
store in Cairo and often attended the lectures of Rasheed Rida there, was Hassan
Al-Banna, the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood (Arabic: Al-Ikhwan Al-
Muslimeen). Al-Banna joined the Society of Moral Behaviour at the age of 12
years and showed great interest in religious affairs and ways to the uplift of the
poor.
226 Political Islam: Parallel Currents in West Asia and South Asia

In 1927, he was appointed a teacher of Arabic language at a primary school

in Ismailia, near the Suez Canal. When Al-Banna saw the luxurious lifestyle of
the British living in the area and compared it to the miserable living conditions of
Egyptian workers, he was profoundly disturbed. So, in March 1928, with six
workers from a British labour force camp, Al-Banna founded the Society of the
Muslim Brothers to rejuvenate the Muslim community.11
This organisation founded by Al-Banna reached every section of the society.
Thus, in the words of Karen Armstrong:
Besides training the Brothers and Sisters in the rituals of prayer and
Quranic living, al-Banna built schools, founded a modern scout
movement, ran night schools for workers, and tutorial colleges to prepare
for the civil services examinations. The Brothers founded clinics and
hospitals in the rural areas, built factories where Muslims got better
pay, health insurance, and holidays than in the state sector, and taught
Muslims modern labour laws so that they could defend their rights.12
The Muslim Brotherhood soon emerged as a grassroots movement across many
countries of West Asia that aimed at mass mobilisation.
However, like Maududi’s Jamaat-i-Islami, the Muslim Brotherhood developed
the political ideology of establishing a Shariah-based Islamic state. One of its
famous slogans worldwide became, “Islam is the Solution”.13 In the 1930s and
1940s, the plight of the Palestinians transformed and radicalised its youth cadres.
With the onset of World War II, the Muslim Brotherhood started providing both
humanitarian and military aid to the Palestinian groups. The Nakba of 1948
further radicalised the ranks of Muslim Brotherhood. The group’s international
outreach made it an increasingly pan-Islamic movement, unrestricted by the
interests of the Egyptian nation state.
Al-Banna believed that Muslim liberals and Sufis had emasculated the idea of
jihad, and he wanted militant jihad to be fought against the British in Palestine.
Members of the Muslim Brotherhood, therefore, took the pledge that they would
“be soldiers in the call to Islam, and in that is the life for the country and the
honour for the Umma...We are brothers in the service of Islam...Hence we are the
‘Muslim Brothers’.”14
Like Maududi, Al-Banna believed that Islam was not just a spiritual means
for attaining salvation but a comprehensive religious and socio-political system
that could solve the challenges of modernity; hence, he called upon Muslims to
reject Western values.15 He also said:
 Islamism, Jihadism and Modern Reformers (1900–2020) 227

If the French Revolution decreed the rights of man and declared for
freedom, equality, and brotherhood, and if the Russian revolution
brought closer the classes and social justice for the people, the great
Islamic Revolution [had] decreed all that 1300 years before. It did not
confine itself to philosophical theories but rather spread these principles
through daily life, and added to them [the notions of ] divinity of
mankind, and the perfectibility of his virtues and [the fulfilment of ] his
spiritual tendencies.16
The growing influence of the Muslim Brotherhood threatened to rival the
writ of the Egyptian government, and the increasingly radical and revolutionary
statements made by Hassan Al-Banna only made matters worse. In 1948, the
organisation was banned, its members arrested and assets impounded. Against
this action of the Egyptian government, a student member of the Muslim
Brotherhood killed Egyptian Prime Minister Mahmud Fahmi Al-Nuqrashi in
December 1948. Al-Banna criticised the killing, but he was assassinated, allegedly
by the Egyptian secret police, in 1949.17
The Muslim Brotherhood had a tortuous journey after the death of its founder.
The movement went underground in Egypt and was considered a significant
threat by Gemal Abdul Nasser when one of its members tried to assassinate him
in October 1954. After that, six of its leaders were tried and executed for treason,
while many more were imprisoned, including the maverick ideologue Sayyid Qutb.
In addition, the Muslim Brotherhood was said to be involved in the 1982 Hama
uprising in Syria, which the Hafez Al-Assad regime brutally crushed by killing
1,000 people,18 according to Western government sources. However, journalist
Robert Fisk put the number at 20,000.19
From the 1980s to 2011, the Muslim Brotherhood either participated, was
intermittently banned or sometimes itself boycotted elections in Egypt and Jordan.
After the failed Arab Spring and the ouster of the Muslim Brotherhood-backed
Morsi government in 2013 by the Egyptian Armed Forces, led by General Abdel
Fattah Al-Sisi, the Muslim Brotherhood remains banned in Egypt, with Amnesty
International decrying several hundred members of Muslim Brotherhood being
given death sentences in that country.20 Several other Arab states (particularly
Gulf countries like Saudi Arabia and the UAE) have also banned Muslim
Brotherhood.
228 Political Islam: Parallel Currents in West Asia and South Asia

Taqi Al-Din Nabhani’s Hizb-ut-Tahreer (HuT): “Bloodless Coup for

Caliphate”
Born in Jerusalem, Taqi Al-Din Nabhani was a religious scholar who founded the
pan-Islamist radical yet avowedly non-violent party, the HuT. With both parents
being Islamic scholars, Al-Nabhani studied at the Al-Azhar University in Egypt
and the Dar Al-Uloom College of Cairo. After graduating in 1931, he returned
to Palestine.21
For Al-Nabhani, the depressing situation faced by the Muslim community in
the twentieth century was the result of the abolition of the caliphate in 1924.
Although many other Islamic scholars, like Rasheed Rida, had spoken of reinstating
the institution of the caliphate in the Arab world, no other contemporary made it
the mission of his life through his party. Distraught by the establishment of the
state of Israel and the Arab defeat in the 1948 war with Israel, Al-Nabhani founded
the HuT party in 1953. However, Transjordan, which controlled Jerusalem at
that time, banned the party as soon as it was founded. Therefore, Al-Nabhan
moved to Beirut, where he died in 1977.22
Since his death, the HuT has grown into a major international Islamist
movement. The party has spelled out a detailed programme and even drafted the
constitution for its Islamist state. It calls for the creation of a unitary and not
federal caliphate. It states that the state should be run by a caliph elected (not
chosen by bloodline) by Muslims. It also calls for military conscription of every
able-bodied male Muslim over 15 years of age and makes Arabic the sole language
of this state. As opposed to paper or electronic currency, it wants to make only
gold and silver the state currency. Membership of the state in secular international
institutions (which might include the UN and other global organisations) is strictly
forbidden by the constitution.23
Although the organisation claims to adopt a non-violent ideology, its methods
of gaining political power are considered dubious. Their first step is to “convert
new members, Second, they establish a network of secret cells, and finally, they
try to infiltrate the government to work to legalize their party and its aims.”24
Thus, the organisation seeks to stage a “bloodless coup” (or what it calls in Arabic,
nussrah).25
Since the 1950s, the party has spread to over 50 countries and is estimated to
have members in excess of “tens of thousands”,26 if not “about a million”.27 The
group is active in the Arab world, the United Kingdom (UK), Central Asia and
particularly South Asia (mainly Bangladesh, Pakistan and even Afghanistan). The
 Islamism, Jihadism and Modern Reformers (1900–2020) 229

so-called party or “Hizb” has been banned in China, Germany, Russia, Turkey,
Indonesia and almost all Arab states, barring Lebanon, Yemen and the UAE.28 A
2004 Nixon Centre report alleges that the HuT has been involved in coup attempts
in Jordan, Syria, Egypt, Tunisia and Iraq.29

Pahlavi Dynasty: The West’s Betrayal of Iranian Modernisation

As mentioned earlier, after the decline of the Qajar Empire, the Pahlavi dynasty
was established in Iran in 1925. Like Ataturk in Turkey, the founder of the Pahlavi
dynasty, Reza Shah (1878–1944), carried out sweeping social, political and
economic reforms. Many of the modernising projects related to building economic
infrastructure were successful. On 21 March 1935, the country’s name was also
changed from Persia to Iran (“land of the Aryans”), which highlighted an ethno-
nationalist identity.
In his bid to modernise the Iranian society, Reza Shah banned the wearing of
traditional Islamic clothing and instituted a law in which every Iranian was
supposed to wear Western clothes. He also forbade the Islamic separation of the
sexes and the veiling of women. In addition, he required mosques to have chairs
and stopped people from sitting on the mosque floors. Such measures caused
disaffection among the Shia clergy. In 1935, a rebellion broke out at the Imam
Reza Shrine in Mashhad. The people chanted, “The Shah is the new Yazid (the
Umayyad King who killed Imam Hussein).”30
During the reign of Reza Shah, Abdul Karim Haeri Yazdi founded the Qom
Seminary in 1922 At the seminary, Yazdi had a student, Ayatollah Khomeini,
who became the nemesis of the dynasty decades later. Reza Shah was neutral
during World War II, but his neutrality was viewed as opposition by British and
Russian troops. As a result, the Allied Powers launched a land, air and sea assault
on Iran in August 1941. The Iranian military collapsed under the barrage of
British aerial bombing and there was chaos across the country. However, it was
the Soviet forces who entered Tehran in 1941, and Reza Shah abdicated. The
British chose to make Reza Shah’s son, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, Iran’s new shah.
From 1909, the Anglo-Persian Oil Company (an antecedent of present-day
British Petroleum Company) was formed when oil was discovered in Iran. Soon,
it became the most profitable British business globally.’ However, the Iranians
lived in abject poverty, even as Iranian oil played a critical role in making Britain
a predominant power in the world. In 1951, Iranian Prime Minister Mohammad
Mosaddegh nationalised the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company and became a national
230 Political Islam: Parallel Currents in West Asia and South Asia

hero. In January 1953, the British and American intelligence, under Operation
Ajax, orchestrated the overthrow of the first democratically elected government
of Mosaddegh and strengthened the monarchical rule of the shah. To pre-empt
the Soviet influence, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi restarted economic reform
programmes and social projects, like women’s emancipation, under the so-called
White Revolution of 1963. However, the development projects were mired in
corruption. The wealth gap between the rich and the poor increased dramatically
as the “trickle-down” policy did not work and the oil wealth remained in the
hands of the elite and not the masses. In this backdrop, the Islamic Revolution of
Iran came about in 1979 and ended the 2,500 years of monarchical rule in Persia.

Ali Shariati: Revolutionary “Red Shiism” as Source for Social Justice

One of the most influential Iranian intellectuals of the twentieth century, Ali
Shariati (1933–77) was a Western-educated non-clerical Islamist with strong
socialist leanings.31 Having completed his graduation from the University of
Mashhad in 1955, he left for Paris to earn his PhD from the Sorbonne. He was
deeply influenced by Frantz Fanon, a political philosopher, and sociologist Georges
Gurvitch, and also came to know of the great French existentialist philosopher
Jean-Paul Sartre.32
On his return to Iran in 1964, Shariati became politically active and highly
critical of Iran’s Pahlavi monarchy and Western colonialism. He started teaching
at the University of Mashhad until his lectures and speeches became too critical
of the government, the clergy and even the Marxists.33
Shariati was a champion of revolutionary Shiism, which had started becoming
popular in the 1960s and was inspired by the global anti-colonial movements.
However, the young revolutionary thinker was frustrated with the pacifism of
what he called called “Black Shiism”, a term he used to describe orthodox Shia
clergy that, he claimed, tacitly supported the “oppression of the Shah” to “preserve
its own class interests”.34 By putting up a veneer of spiritualism and individual
piety, Shariati claimed that “Black Shiism” overlooked social justice against
oppression—which he considered was the true essence of Shiism. In its stead, he
advocated revolutionary “Red Shiism”, as practised by Imam Ali ibn Talib and
Imam Husayn ibn Ali, who he said stood up for the oppressed classes and did not
indulge in any theological disputes or dabbling into mysticism prevalent among
the “Black Shia”.
Shariati spoke of Islam as a political movement for a classless utopia and
 Islamism, Jihadism and Modern Reformers (1900–2020) 231

redefined Islamic terms, such as tawheed (monotheism) and jihad, as concepts

promoting social solidarity and liberation struggle. He criticised Western
ideological schools of liberalism and capitalism as they upheld the values of private
ownership,35 as opposed to the collective ownership of egalitarian societies that
existed in pre-capitalist and pre-feudal times. He was even critical of Marxism,
which he said placed the economy as the foundation of society. In contrast, it is
the human being and not the economy which lies at the foundation of society.36
Ali Shariati also criticised Western democracy because of what he found was
its allowance for demagogy. He charged that voting in these democracies was
strongly influenced by advertising techniques, which distract attention from real
issues and direct them to surface-level arguments. He maintained that Western
democracy was based on gold, cruelty and tricking, and was an anti-revolutionary
system different from rightful religious leadership’s guidance. Shariati championed
Islamic values and was highly critical of Muslims who adopted a Western outlook.
Thus, he said: “They need to replace their hollowness of soul…their collapse of
originality, their self-alienation, their other-worshipping...with the spirit of faith.”37
However, Shariati did not envision a primeval vision of Islam, as lived by the
first three generations after the Prophet, as a model for an ideal society. Instead,
in this regard, he took the philosophical approach of the modernists using critical
theory. In particular, Shariati wanted to radically update the social and political
programme of Islam, as the modernists had, with respect to women’s rights.38
Further, he said:
Islam pays attention to bread, its eschatology is based on active life in
the world, its God respects human dignity, and its messenger is
armed…The Prophet of Islam was the only one who simultaneously
carried the sword of Caesar in his hand and the heart of Jesus in his
chest…[This is] the religion whose founder is an “armed messenger”
and whose follower is Ali; the religion whose history began amidst politics
and struggle (jihad); the religion whose taxation is on a par with praying;
the religion which…has built societies, political and economic systems.39
It is important to note that Shariati said he was primarily interested in the historical
and social concept of tawheed, not in the truth of the Quran or of Muhammad or
Ali. In this way, he approached Islam as a system of governance and studied it as
a sociologist and not as a theologian.
From 1972 to 1977, Shariati was jailed and then put under house arrest by
the shah’s government because of his statements against the regime. He flew to
232 Political Islam: Parallel Currents in West Asia and South Asia

London on his release but died there from a heart attack. Some of his supporters
blamed the shah’s secret service for his early demise. According to Hamid Elgar,
Shariati was the number one ideologue of the Islamic Revolution in Iran that
occurred two years after his death.40 Although known as the ‘Teacher of the
Revolution’, his ideology did not form the basis of the Islamic Republic of Iran.41

Iranian Revolution of 1979: Islamism Attains Political Power

A far more charismatic leader than Shariati and politically the most successful
Islamist revolutionary of modern times was the Islamic “marja” in Imami (Twelver)
Shia Islam, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini (1902–89). He surprised the world
when he masterminded the 1979 Islamic Revolution in Iran while still in exile
(since 1964), to depose Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi. In the words of Armstrong:
The Iranian Revolution was the only revolution inspired by a 20th-
century ideology (the Russian and Chinese revolutions both owed their
inspiration to the nineteenth-century vision of Karl Marx). Khomeini
had evolved a radically new interpretation of Shiism: in the absence of
a hidden Imam, only the mystically inspired jurist, who knew the sacred
law, could validly govern the nation.42

Hokumat-e Islami: Velayat-e faqih (“Islamic Government: Rule of the

Jurist”)
Karen Armstrong refers to the expansion in meaning that Khomeini gave to the
post-occultation theory of Vilayat-e-Faqih in Imami or Ithna Ashariyya (Twelver)
Shia Islam, which states that Islam gives a faqih (Islamic jurist) custodianship
over its people. It is based on this interpretation of the theory of Vilayat-e-Faqih
that Ayatollah Khomeini made the following proclamation: “...This government
is no ordinary one; it is a canonical government. Opposition to this government
is opposition to the canon laws and is tantamount to rebellion against religion.”43
Khomeini used the theory of Vilayat-e-Faqih as the cornerstone for political
legitimacy of his theocratic state. Traditionally, the theory was used by Shia religious
scholars in a restricted, largely apolitical sense, wherein vilayah (guardianship)
was bestowed upon a faqih al-adil (just Islamic jurist) in non-litigious affairs (al-
omoor al-hisbiya) of the Muslims.44 The non-litigious affairs pertained to:
establishing the Friday and congregational prayers; implementing penal provisions;
supervising endowments; discretionary mandate over children, orphans and people
of unsound mind; and collecting religious taxes.
 Islamism, Jihadism and Modern Reformers (1900–2020) 233

According to this theory of limited guardianship of the Islamic jurist, the

divine authority to rule an Islamic state was “exclusively” vested with the infallible
imams of the Ahl Al-Bayt (that is, Twelve Imams from the family of the Prophet).
Based on this interpretation, the tradition fuqaha in the Twelver Shia sect left
secular power to Shia kings called “sultans” and, as religious leaders, did not
meddle in political matters.
Contrary to this understanding, Khomeini enforced Vilayat-e-Faqih, an
Islamic doctrine by which a faqih is considered the guardian of all affairs of Muslims
and is religiously authorised to establish and administer a political system on
behalf of the Hidden Twelfth Imam. This understanding of the concept of Vilayat-
e-Faqih is regarded as that of absolute guardianship (al-vilaya al-mutlaqa) of the
Islamic jurist.45
Ayatollah Khomeini further expanded on the jurisdiction of the faqih in his
book, Hokumat-e Islami: Velayat-e-Faqih (“Islamic Government: Rule of the
Jurist”).46 He proposed a new doctrine that the mandate could be attributed to an
individual: “if a worthy individual possessing [the qualities of legal expertise and
justice] arises and establishes a government, he will possess the same authority as
[the Prophet himself ] in the administration of society, and it will be the duty of
all peoples to obey him.”47 However, he qualified this statement by adding that
such powers would be confined to “rational and extrinsic” matters of government,
and the mandate of the individual jurist would not apply to religious affairs.
In its political sense, the concept of Vilayat-e-Faqih was first mentioned by
the early Shia mujtahids, like Al-Shaikh Al-Mufid (948–1022), and even briefly
by Muhaqqiq Karaki during the reign of Safavid ruler, Shah Tahmasp (1524–
76).48 However, according to John Esposito, the first Islamic scholar to advance
the theory of Vilayat-e-Faqih was Morteza Ansari (1781–1864).
Only Ayatollah Khomeini became the biggest proponent of the concept, even
enlarging the interpretation of the concept in the political sense and employing it
at the theoretical and practical levels. He advanced his theory in a series of lectures
in 1970, which was smuggled into Iran when he was in exile and distributed to
his supporters; and now forms the basis of the Constitution of thr Islamic Republic
of Iran.49 In other words, he not only transformed Vilayat-e-Faqih into a full-
fledged political ideology but also implemented it in a modern nation state.50

Khomeini’s Islamic Constitution: Qualified Democracy

Apart from the provision of Vilayat-e-Faqih, the Constitutional Law of the Islamic
234 Political Islam: Parallel Currents in West Asia and South Asia

Republic of Iran (qanun-i-asasi-yi Jumhurii-yi Islami-yi Iran), which was ratified

by a referendum in December 1979, had certain other interesting features.
There was an attempt to synthesise the Vilayat-e-Faqih doctrine with
democracy. The just jurist (faqih al-adil), in addition to having splendid spiritual,
moral, intellectual and religious education, must be “recognised and accepted as
Leader by the majority of the people”. However, the supreme leader, or leadership
council, was to be chosen by “experts elected by the people” (Articles 5 and 107).
In the words of Black:
A National Consultative Assembly (majlis), and also provincial and other
local councils, are to be elected, following the practice of shura (articles
6 and 7). Legislation by the majlis is subject to scrutiny by the Guardian
Council, which consists of six Religious Jurists, selected by the Leader
or Leadership Council, and six other jurists elected “from among the
Muslim jurists nominated by the Supreme Judicial Council” (articles
91, 94, 96 and 98).51
Therefore, Iran conducts elections for the position of the president, its majlis
(or parliament), its assembly of experts (which elects the supreme leader) and
local councils. According to the Constitution, all candidates running for these
positions must be vetted by the Guardian Council before being elected. So, Iran
Constitution adopted modern republican elements in its Islamist polity.
Khomeini believed in Muslim unity and worked hard on exporting his
revolution throughout the world. He believed that Shia and Sunni Muslims should
be “united and stand firmly against Western and arrogant powers”, particularly
the US, whom he repeatedly called “Iblees” (leader of the devils in Islam) and the
Great Satan in his speeches.52 Shortly after assuming power, Khomeini called on
Muslims of the world to wage Islamic revolutions worldwide. The pronouncement
caused consternation in many neighbouring Sunni countries, ruled by monarchs.
No wonder they supported Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, when he launched a
war against Iran that lasted eight years (1980–88) and killed over half a million
people.
Under Khomeini’s rule, a strict Islamic dress code was rigorously enforced.
The women were required to cover their hair and men were forbidden to wear
shorts. Alcoholic drinks, most Western movies and the practice of men and women
swimming or sunbathing together were banned. The broadcasting of any music
other than martial or religious on Iranian radio and television was also banned by
Khomeini in July 1979. In addition, he imposed capital punishment on
 Islamism, Jihadism and Modern Reformers (1900–2020) 235

homosexuals. According to Janet Afari, “the newly established regime of Ayatollah

Khomeini moved quickly to repress feminists, ethnic and religious minorities,
liberals, and leftists—all in the name of Islam.”53

Saudi Arabia: Wahhabi Dissidence and the Siege of Mecca (1979)

Established in 1932 by King Abdulaziz (also known as Ibn Saud), the Kingdom
of Saudi Arabia united the four regions of the Arabian Peninsula: Hejaz (western
region having the holy cities of Mecca and Medina); Najd (Central Arabia, which
was the seat of the Emirate of Diriyah, the first Saudi state, in 1727); parts of
Eastern Arabia (which included the governorate of Qatif that had major oilfields
and large Shia population); and Southern Arabia (Asir and Najran provinces,
with the latter having a large Ismaili Shia population).54
Abdulaziz built the kingdom through a series of conquests, starting with the
capture of Riyadh in 1902 (then called the third Saudi state). Then, with the aid
of Ikhwan (a radicalised Wahhabi militia made up of newly Islamicised Bedouins)
and the British, he took control of the four above-mentioned regions and declared
himself King of Hejaz in 1926.55 However, the zealotry of Ikhwan was difficult to
contain even for Abdulaziz and the militia started raiding the British protectorates
of Transjordan, Iraq and Kuwait. Under British pressure, Abdulaziz turned against
the Ikhwan and after a two year struggle, massacred its leadership in the decisive
Battle of Sabilla (1929).56 From that time onwards, the more extreme elements of
Wahhabism became enemies of the Wahhabi state, and their threat resurfaced
and haunted the kingdom often.57
For instance, in 1979, Juhayman Al-Otaibi’s group captured the Kaaba
compound (called Masjid Al-Haram) to herald the year 1400 Hijri in the Islamic
calendar (with some Hadeeth tradition suggesting that the fourteenth century
ushers in the apocalypse). This group called itself the Ikhwan (the name of the
first group of dissidents Abdulaziz had defeated in 1929) and came from Al-
Jamaa Al-Salafiyya Al-Muhtasiba (a Salafi group formed by the disciples of radical
Wahhabi thinker Muhammad Nasiruddin Albani and supported by Abd Al-Aziz
ibn Abdullah ibn Baz, who later in life became the Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia).58
Incensed by the ruler’s introduction of modernism into the kingdom’s highly
conservative society with the advent of television, radio, cars, etc., Al-Otaibi took
control of the holiest mosque in Islam by championing his associate and brother-
in-law, Mohammed Abdullah Al-Qahtani, to be the Mahdi, the promised saviour
of Muslims near the end times, who had come to remove the king and begin a
236 Political Islam: Parallel Currents in West Asia and South Asia

new messianic age.59 Al-Qahtani was killed in the recapture of the mosque, while
Al-Otaibi and 67 of his fellow fighters who survived the fighting were beheaded.
However, the threat of ultra-Wahhabi elements taking over the Saudi state started
to haunt the rulers.
This Grand Mosque seizure incident put a stop to the tepid social
modernisation of the Saudi kingdom after 1979, which also faced a threat from
the Iranian Revolution that broke out the same year and had started provoking
the Shia in the Qatif province against the Saudi state. Following the attack, the
Saudi rulers implemented stricter enforcement of Shariah and gave the ulema
(some co-opted from the ranks of the extremists themselves) more power in the
coming decades. They also exported radicalised youth, who could endanger internal
security, to foreign lands like Afghanistan to fight jihad, spread Wahhabism and
counter the threat from Khomeini’s revolution.

Status of Religion in Saudi Government

The Sunni Islam of the Salafi school (which non-Saudi detractors of Salafism
dub as Wahhabism) is not just a religion but a complete way of life in the kingdom.
Despite recent attempts at moderation by Saudi Crown Prince Muhammad bin
Salman, Salafi Islam is still strictly observed by the majority of the population
and is all-pervasive. According to Article 1 of the 1992 Basic Law of Governance:
“The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is a sovereign Arab Islamic State. Its religion is
Islam. Its constitution is Almighty God’s Book, The Holy Quran, and the Sunna
(Traditions) of the Prophet (PBUH). Arabic is the language of the Kingdom.”60
Like Iran, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia gives its ulema a direct role in the
government. However, Robert Baer states that since the time of its establishment,
the influence of the ulema has been only in specific sectors of governance. According
to an arrangement with the Saudi royal family, the ulema or religious establishment
has “control of the mosques, culture, and education”, but it “would never go near
core political issues, such as royal succession, foreign policy, and the armed forces”.61
The ulema has historically been led by the Al Ash-Sheikh family, the
descendants of Muhammad ibn Abd Al-Wahhab, second in prestige only to the
Al-Saud (the royal family). This is thanks to the still extant pact made in 1744
between Sheikh Muhammad ibn Saud and the theologian Muhammad ibn Abd
Al-Wahhab. In addition, a Council of Senior Scholars advises the king on religious
matters.
The so-called religious police, called haia or mutaween, patrols the streets,
 Islamism, Jihadism and Modern Reformers (1900–2020) 237

enforcing Islamic dress codes, separation of men and women in public places,
attendance at prayer in mosques five times each day, the ban on alcohol, etc.
However, their intrusive actions have been put under check following the reforms
undertaken by the present Crown Prince Muhammad bin Salman. The mutaween
are now banned from pursuing, questioning, asking for identification, arresting
and detaining anyone suspected of a crime. The punishment of flogging and the
death penalty for minors has also been disallowed now. In addition, the ban on
women driving motor vehicles has been lifted.62
However, Islamism of the Muslim Brotherhood version has become a major
security hazard for most Gulf Cooperation Council countries, including Saudi
Arabia. In recent years, the political activities of the Muslim Brotherhood-affiliated
Sahwa movement, led by Safar Al-Hawali, Salman Al-Awda and Awad bin
Mohammad Al-Qarni, have been curtailed in the country. The UAE has also
cracked down on the Muslim Brotherhood-backed Islamist group Al-Islah.63

The Concept of Jihad in Islam

In mainstream media, jihad is often understood as a monovalent concept related
to “militant violence”, “terrorism” and “armed combat”. However, the word jihad
in Islam refers to “struggle” and “striving” for a righteous cause. Ibn Rushd (Averroes)
has divided jihad into four categories:64 (i) jihad of the heart or struggle against the
self (Arabic transliteration: jihad bil qalb/nafs—deemed jihad al-akbar or the
“greater” jihad); 65 (ii) jihad of the tongue/pen or striving with education, the
pursuit of knowledge and counsel (jihad bil lisan/qalam); (iii) jihad of the hand
or development of civil society and material progress (jihad bil yad); and (iv)
jihad of the sword or combative war (jihâdun bissayf, the combative war, also
sometimes called qital fi sabilillah—armed combat for the sake of God only in
exceptional circumstances).66
It is thus evident that even when jihad is used in the context of armed combat,
it does not purport indiscriminate violence. In fact, it comes with a strict code of
conduct and inviolable rules of military engagement. In her brilliant treatise,
Jihad and Martyrdom in Islamic Thought and History,67 Asma Afsaruddin writes
that the earliest Islamic scholars were very clear about the Quranic injunction
that forbade initiating aggression by stating, “God does not love aggressors” (Quran
2:190).68 This is a clear and general prohibition against initiating hostilities under
any circumstances. In its normative usage, jihad refers to the struggle against evil
within the mind and soul of an individual and at the collective level — be it for
238 Political Islam: Parallel Currents in West Asia and South Asia

gaining knowledge, charity, development or related to warfare when it is

unavoidable.
Afsaruddin cites early Islamic scholar Mujahid b. Jabr (d. AD 722), who
preached that Muslims should not fight until the other side commences
fighting.69,70 Other Quranic exegetes, like Muqatil bin Sulayman, Abi Rabah, Ibn
Abbas and Al-Qummi, stated that Islam provided immunity to non-combatants
and were also insistent about waging defensive jihad. Muqatil b. Sulayman (d.
150/767), in fact, said that an enemy should be engaged in fighting upon the
contingent the enemy initiates hostilities.71 Clearly, only defensive jihad is
advocated in schools of Islamic law.
Imam Abu Sufyan Al-Thawri states that “fighting idol-worshippers is not an
obligation unless the initiation comes from them.”72 He then cites the Quranic
verse (60:8) to support his claim: “Allah forbids you not those who warred not
against you on account of your religion and drove you not out from your homes,
that you should show them kindness and deal justly with them. Lo! Allah loveth
the just dealers.”73
However, later scholars working for Umayyad and Abbasid rulers, mainly
around the tenth century, found such peaceful verses that put humanitarian
restrictions even during times of war inconvenient for achieving aggressive
imperialist objectives. Theologians, like Al-Tabari, Said Al-Tanukhi, Abu Bakr
Al-Sarukhshi and Ibn Qudama, during the Abbasid era, developed the view that
jihad primarily meant Islamic warfare and was aggressive rather than defensive in
nature. 74 Still, their views continued to be contested by several of their
contemporary and later scholars and jurists, like Fakhr Al-Din Razi and Abu
Abdullah Al-Qurtubi, who stuck to the position of the early Quran exegetes.
A central and recurring theme in Islamic jurisprudence is that war is only to
be waged according to religious principle—bellum pium (pious war) and bellum
justum (just war).75 The classic volume in this regard is The Book of the Law of
Nations, compiled by Muhammad bin Al-Hasan Al-Shaybani.
Indeed, it was during the time of the Umayyads and the Abbasids that Muslim
theologians divided the world between “dar al-Islam” (land of Islam) and “dar al-
kufr” (land of non-believers), sometimes even to settle issues related to territorial
jurisprudence and not based on hostility.76 Later, the coinages “murakkabah” (land
with mixed population of Muslims and non-Muslims) as well as “dar al-ahd”
(land of peace where both Muslims and non-Muslims could coexist) was
 Islamism, Jihadism and Modern Reformers (1900–2020) 239

supposedly introduced by the radical thinker Ibn Taimiyyah in his fatwa of

Mardin.77

Rise of Salafi-Jihadism: An Ideological Offshoot of Islamism

Many radical ideologues of the twentieth century, who were not as keen on
developing an Islamist counter to the secular, liberal or socialist political systems
of the modern age, resorted to distorting the militant version of jihad by turning
it into indiscriminate form of unending violence. This version of Jihad became
an ideology in its own right, which was ostensibly meant to achieve questionable
Islamist polity but a cult of unceasing violence, which sought to justify itself
through dubious eschatological interpretations in Hadeeth literature related to
formation of an end time global caliphate.
Hence, though jihadism grew out of Islamism as a militant path to achieve
an Islamic caliphate, it has become a war-like cult or somewhat of an apocalyptic
cult different from Islamism itself. The evolution of this ideology, which took
over a century, has unfortunately been associated with the Salafi school of Sunni
Islam and is known as Salafi-jihadism or “Jihadi-Salafism”, as the French political
scientist Giles Keppel first called it in 2002.78 Salafi-jihadism has come up with
concepts and methodologies that are quite different from the terms used by
Islamists. It has made militant jihad an essential Islamic incumbent (fard al-ain),
and has also introduced distorted connotations of tawheed, takfeer (declaring
person or community kafir to allow slaughter), al-wala-al bara (loyalty and
disavowal), hakamiyya (sovereignty), nikaya (war of attrition), tamkeen (political
and military consolidation), hijra (migration), khilafah (Caliphate), etc.79,80

Sayyid Qutb: Jihad against “Jahiliyya” (Modern Pagan Socio-political

System)
It has been said that Sayyid Qutb (1900–66) is the “philosopher of Islamic terror
and godfather ideologue of Al-Qaeda”.81 A secular man of letters until the 1930s,
Qutb’s outlook on modernity changed during his stay in the US from 1948 to
1950, and he became a harsh critic of Western materialistic culture and liberal
capitalism.
On his return from America, Qutb began championing an Islamic way of life
above all religions and socio-political systems. He mocked the Islamic canonical
injunction on defensive jihad and called for an active, offensive jihad against all
secular governments of the West and the Muslim world, including the rule of
Gemal Abdel Nasser in Egypt, his home country.
240 Political Islam: Parallel Currents in West Asia and South Asia

He compared the twentieth-century political systems to the pagan (Jahiliyya)

system of pre-Islamic Arabia and called for its replacement with Shariah-based
true and just Islamic society. Arrested and jailed for nearly a decade for plotting
the assassination of President Nasser, Qutb was executed in 1966. However, he
was viewed by radical ideologues as a martyr, and even Khomeini, on coming to
power, issued an Iranian postage stamp in Qutb’s honour showing him behind
bars.
Qutb acknowledged his intellectual indebtedness to Maududi and echoed
him by claiming that sovereignty belonged to God alone, but it had been violated
by Western humanists who place man above God in their secular worldview.82 In
his famous work, Ma’lim fi Al-Tariq (“Milestones Along the Way”), Qutb wrote:
“Any system in which the final decisions are referred to human beings...deifies
human beings by designating others than God as lords over men.”83
In the words of noted counter-terrorism expert A.E. Stahl:
The true meaning of Jihad has very little to do with Qutb’s radical
distortion of the term. Yet, due to misunderstandings in, inter alia, the
mass media, the true meaning of the word became wrongly associated
with Qutb’s offensive jihad and wrongly associated with Islam itself.84
Thus, Qutb ultimately “broke with mainstream Islam” with his adaptation of
jihad.85

Mohammad Farag: Jihad as “Essential Incumbent” (Fard Al-Ain)

Mohammad Abd Al-Salam Farag (1954–82) was a young radical jihadist who led
the Cairo branch of the terrorist group Al-Jihad. He was executed in 1982 for his
role in coordinating the 1981 assassination of Egyptian President Anwar Sadat.
An admirer of Sayyid Qutb, Al-Farag propagated his message in a radical
pamphlet, Al-Farida Al-Ghaiba (“The Neglected Obligation”),86 wherein he argued
that violent jihad was an essential duty in Islam that stood alongside the five
fundamental pillars of worship in Islam, namely, shahada, salat (known as ‘namaz’
in subcontinent), sawm (or ‘roza’ - fasting during month of Ramadan), zakat and
the Haj.
He dismissed Islamic scholars who emphasised that inner spiritual cleansing
was the “greater jihad” and claimed that the cited Hadeeth in this regard was a
fabricated tradition. He further asserted that jihad was fard al-ain (incumbent on
every Muslim for perpetuity) and not the normative fard al-kifayah (to be
conducted in the time of an existential threat and issued by the ruler). He also
 Islamism, Jihadism and Modern Reformers (1900–2020) 241

believed that the immediate targets for violent jihad should be Muslim regimes
because they had failed to enforce the Shariah rule. In fact, Farag is held responsible
for coining the term “near enemy” to describe modern Muslim states, which gain
priority as targets for jihadists over “far enemies”, such as the US or Israel.

Abdullah Azzam: Non-Negotiable, Perpetual, Transnational Jihad

The mentor of Bin Laden, Abdullah Azzam is known for introducing non-state
militant cadres and transnational jihad and discounting any talks or negotiations.
Most Salafi-jihadists have followed his famous slogan, “Jihad and the rifle alone:
no negotiations, no conferences, and no dialogues”.
Although the Prophet had himself signed peace treaties with polytheists of
Mecca, Azzam made jihad perpetual, non-negotiable and transnational with his
contention that “such defense was a personal obligation”.87 Moreover, although
Hadeeth literature prohibits it, Azzam allowed children to participate in militant
jihad without the permission of parent, and women to join in the fight without
the permission of their husbands.88 Thus, he said: “Many Muslims know about
the hadeeth in which the Prophet ordered his companions not to kill any women
or children, etc., but very few know that there are exceptions to this case.”89

Bin Laden: Terrorism as Legitimate Form of Jihad

On 24 April 2002, Osama bin Laden released an extended statement which
outlined Al-Qaeda’s religious justification for killing civilians in a total war against
the US, titled, “A Statement from Qaidat Al-Jihad Regarding the Mandates of the
Heroes and the Legality of the Operations in New York and Washington”.90 He
listed several conditions to invalidate Islam’s prohibition against the killing of
civilians and against terrorism as a ploy to defeat the enemy. His conditions
included:
• The norm of reciprocity, that is, when an aggressor, like the US, conducts
a military operation in which a large number of civilians are killed.
• The inability to distinguish civilians from combatants in the theatre of
war is not restricted to traditional battlefields.
• The role of civilians in aiding the enemy and their responsibility in electing
democratic representatives that launch wars against Muslim states.
• The transformation of enemy “strongholds” that are no longer just military
targets but economic centres, like the World Trade Center, which
financially support the military.
242 Political Islam: Parallel Currents in West Asia and South Asia

• The use of modern weaponry which invariably entails collateral damage.

• The acceptability of killing women and children if the enemy uses them
as human shields (called turs).
• The enemy’s violation of agreements or treaties (like the Sykes–Picot
Agreement’s betrayal) that puts the lives of Muslim populations in
danger.91

Al-Suri, Abu Bakr Naji and Al-Muhajir: Licence to Indiscriminate Violence

An Al-Qaeda ideologue until the 2001 US War on Afghanistan, Abu Musab Al-
Suri eventually became critical of Bin Laden’s leadership and devised his theory of
“nizam, la tanzim” (system, without organisation) for jihadism. He sought to
give religious sanction to “disaffiliated jihad”, by which he meant licence to wanton
acts of terrorism through lone-wolf operators. His online book, Call to Global
Islamic Resistance, became a big draw. Al-Suri’s sanction of lone-wolf operators
was criticised by many Islamic scholars, including the Mufti of Saudi Arabia,
Shaykh Abd Al-Aziz Al-Shaikh, and Sheikh Yusuf Al-Qaradawi.92
In the book, Idarat Al-Tawahhush (“Management of Savagery”), published
online in 2004, Abu Bakr Naji called on jihadists to carry out merciless acts of
savagery in order to psychologically weaken and terrorise the overwhelmingly
strong adversary. The book stated:
The increase in savagery is not the worst thing that can happen now or
(as it has already happened) in the previous decade or those before it.
Rather, the most abominable of the levels of savagery is less (abominable)
than stability under the order of unbelief.93
Terrence McCoy of The Washington Post94 and former MI-6 agent Alastair Crooke95
confirm that Naji’s book served as a guide for warfare for the ISIS in its military
strategy and operations.
Another treatise written by Abu Abdullah Al-Muhajir is Fiqh Al-Dima (or
the Jurisprudence of the Blood). This 569-page text sanctions the ISIS mutilation
of corpses, trade in human organs, killing of children and other ghastly war
crimes.96

The ISIS: Caliphate of the “End Times”

Although Al-Qaeda was waging a political war against the West, the ISIS
introduced the apocalyptic narrative into the jihadist discourse. By calling its
proto-state a seed caliphate, it envisioned itself as the group destined to unleash
 Islamism, Jihadism and Modern Reformers (1900–2020) 243

the prophesised Al Malahamal Kubra (an end time war mentioned in the Hadeeth
literature), which would usher in the rule of the promised Mahdi and the
prophesised Messiah.97
The ISIS named its online magazines based on two cities with apocalyptic
significance in Islamic eschatology, Dabiq and Rumaiiyyah. According to Islamic
religious teachings, it is wrong to speculate about the future. Even the Hadeeth
literature speaking about future occurrences has mystical overtones and cannot
be taken at face value.
The perversity of the ISIS’ thinking makes it more of a doomsday cult than a
movement championing the cause of Islam. It is clearly far removed from the
teachings of the religion it professes to espouse.

Modern Islamic Scholarship against Islamism

Many Islamic scholars have opposed the movement of Islamism or Political Islam
in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries and regard Islam primarily as a religion
rather than as a political system. Those who have opposed the politicisation of
Islam include conservative ulema, academicians, thinkers as well as Muslim liberals
and socialists.

Ali Abd Al-Raziq: Islam is Apolitical, Caliphate not a Divine Institution

As early as 1925, some Muslim scholars started warning about the rise of Political
Islam or Islamism as a new threat (just before the birth of the Muslim Brotherhood)
that would cause immense harm to both the Muslim world and international
peace and security. It was in the same year that Ali Abd Al-Raziq (1888–1966), a
disciple of Muhammad Abduh and a critic of his colleague Rasheed Rida, wrote
the book, Islam and the Principles of Governance.
Abd Al-Raziq was an Oxford scholar who became a senior member of Egypt’s
Al-Azhar University and echoed Chiragh Ali’s views on the place of politics in
Islam. As an Islamic scholar (alim), Al-Raziq proclaimed that the Prophet did not
set out to establish a state and Islam did not lay down any particular political
system. Here, “we meet for the first time a consistent, unequivocal theoretical
assertion of the purely and exclusively religious character of Islam”.98 Instead, Al-
Raziq asserted the rules which the Prophet laid down related to spiritual matters,
such as prayer and fasting, and “all of those apparently political actions, even
warfare, are means for the Prophet to establish the religion and promulgate his
religious call.”99
244 Political Islam: Parallel Currents in West Asia and South Asia

Thus, Al-Raziq claimed that the social norms of the Shariah could be changed
as they were developed out of specific historical circumstances. He stressed that
as the caliphate was itself a product of history and was not instituted by the
Prophet, it had no divine origin. Emphasising that the caliphate was a purely
political office with no religious significance or role, he stated:
All political functions are left to us, our reason, its judgements and
political principles. Religion…neither commands nor forbids [such
things], it simply leaves them to us so that in respect of them we have
recourse to the laws of reason, the experience of nations and the rules of
politics.100

Muhammad Said Al-Ashmawi: The Damage Caused by Political Islam

Muhammad Said Al-Ashmawi (1932–2013), the acclaimed judge of the Egyptian
Supreme Court, was a prominent Islamic scholar who analysed the dangers of
Political Islam for the Muslim society. According to him, the politicisation of
Islam had produced dangerous consequences for the Muslim world in recent
decades. The existence of political groups that used Islam as an ideology had
weakened the spiritual and moral compass of Islam. Even in historical times, the
linking of political power to heaven projected many Muslim leaders and caliphs
as being infallible agents of God, which led to tyranny and corruption in
government, as well as hindered development of rational thought. Al-Ashmawi
felt that it was now time to differentiate the spiritual and intellectual fundamentals
of Islam from the distortions of radical and political fundamentalism.101
According to him, many ethnic and nationalist issues—which are purely
political in nature—were given a religious twist over the centuries, which, in
turn, caused sectarian splits within the religion and introduced harshness and
hatred in the ecclesiastical discourse. Political Islam had also hindered the Muslim
world from learning humanitarian principles and in developing scientific temper
of the West. He said that instead of associating Sharia with legal rules, the term is
used in the Quran as the “path of Islam”, which covers three constituents: worship,
ethical code and social interaction.102
He further argued that several factions of Political Islam called on Muslims
to give up loyalty towards their countries, claiming that loyalty is a kind of
ignorance and that proper loyalty should be extended towards the larger Muslim
community of the world. Such dubious messaging gave birth to a kind of
anarchism, destroying the loyalty of the population towards their respective
 Islamism, Jihadism and Modern Reformers (1900–2020) 245

countries, and made them a threat to the law and order in their own countries
and across the globe. This led to people revolting against their governments without
any legitimate demands, ignoring the law, avoiding payment of taxes, and becoming
averse to participating in the country’s political life, joining the military or even
being part of the mainstream society.
In fact, according to Al-Ashmawi, the idea of the larger “Muslim community”
was very vague and could not be clearly drawn the way nationalism could be
visualised. Therefore, the call for loyalty towards such a vague and scattered entity
created political and social unrest.

Mohammed Arkoun: Jurists Decontextualised Quran

One of the most influential secular scholars in Islamic studies who contributed
immensely to Islamic reform was the great Algerian philosopher of Islam,
Mohammed Arkoun (1928–2010). Educated at the Sorbonne in Paris, Arkoun
advocated Islamic modernism, secularism and humanism.
By employing a conceptual and historical approach, Arkoun convincingly
demonstrated the way Islamic schools of jurisprudence invented legal techniques
to “de-historicize and decontextualize” Islam’s holy book, the Quran. By fabricating
social and historical narratives as the only acceptable interpretation of the scripture,
Arkoun showed that the narratives served to promote the power struggles and
conflict of interests in early Islamic history after the life of the Prophet. In Arkoun’s
view, consensus and obsolete jurisprudential augmentation models displayed a
lack of historical legitimacy and methodological soundness, serving more to protect
the interests of certain social classes (such as the jurists) than to pursue a correct
understanding of Islam.103
By critiquing Islamic jurisprudential reasoning, Arkoun sought to clear the
minds of modern Muslims from dogmatic ideas and religious authorities whose
views are not sacrosanct. Being a votary of freedom, he promoted critical thinking
to enable Muslims to contribute to the progress of human civilisation and engage
in a meaningful exchange of knowledge with others.104
Several other Arab Muslim scholars studied in France, just like Arkoun. They
approached the Quran from a rational and philosophical rather than conventional
theological perspective to reform Islam in accordance with the needs of modern
society. Prominent among these are Mohammed Abed Al-Jabri, Nasr Hamid Abu
Zayd, Hasan Hanif and even the noted Iranian scholar Abdolkarim Soroush.
246 Political Islam: Parallel Currents in West Asia and South Asia

Fazlur Rahman Malik: “Apostate” Pakistani Scholar Exiled to the US

An Islamic modernist, who was declared an “apostate” by conservative clerics in
Pakistan and exiled to the US, where he taught at the University of California,
Los Angeles, and the University of Chicago, Fazlur Rahman Malik called for the
revival of independent reasoning (ijtihad) for much-needed reforms.
He criticised Islamists or so-called Islamic revivalists who believed the main
challenge facing the Muslim world was the process of secularisation, which they
claimed to be the “removal of religious value from all aspects of society except
that defined as specifically religious”.105 Thus, according to Rahman, the main
goal of the Islamic revivalists was to arrest the process of secularisation and the so-
called “de-Islamisation” in Muslim societies. The underlying assumption of the
revivalists was that the same “Islam” which existed in the early Islamic community
was also capable of empowering modern Islamic societies. Therefore, the very
same Islamic institutions, legal codes and social mores of earlier times were suitable
for present Islamic societies, with only minor variations needed.
Rahman vehemently opposed these simplistic assumptions. To him, the revival
of modern Islamic societies required much more than following the trite and
hackneyed Islamic institutions and behaviours, and he was opposed to abandoning
Western institutions and behaviours. He criticised the position of the revivalists:
“To insist on a literal implementation of the rules of the Quran, shutting one’s
eyes to the social change that has occurred and that is palpably occurring before
our eyes, is tantamount to deliberately defeating its moral–social purposes and
objectives.”106
Rahman insisted that the illness afflicting modern Muslim societies was rooted
in a faulty Islamic methodology, not in the process of secularisation. He contended
that the decline of Muslim power did not occur because of Western invasions and
influences in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, but because of the intellectual
ossification that had set in after the collapse of the Abbasids in the thirteenth
century. Like Malek Bennabi, Rahman insisted that Muslims became colonised
because they had become “colonizable”.107
Rahman proposed a new methodology that strived to draw a clear distinction
between “historical Islam and normative Islam”.108 He stated that if one reads the
Quran carefully, repeated exhortations for taking care of the poor, the widows,
the orphans and the destitute can be found. Similarly, the Quran warns that the
rich hoard wealth, do not encourage the feeding of the poor, usurp the rights of
the orphan and are malevolent towards the widows. However, these social
 Islamism, Jihadism and Modern Reformers (1900–2020) 247

responsibilities were not mentioned enough by scholars and exegetes. Similarly,

Fazlur Rahman pointed out that the Quran opposed exorbitant usury on the
poor, as was practised in the Prophet’s time in the Arab world. However, he did
not place modern interest taken by banks to promote trade and business in that
category.
Many Muslim feminists, such as Amina Wadud and Sadiya Shaikh, regard
Fazlur Rahman as a feminist, although he never categorised himself as such. He,
however, believed that though the Quran insists that a man should only engage in
polygamy if he can do justice towards all his wives, it later claims that a man is
incapable of doing justice to more than one wife. Therefore, he said that the
Quran recommends monogamy. He also cited the examples of the Prophets’ wives
(Khadija and Ayesha) being businesswomen, which traditional ulema would not
allow modern Muslim women to be.109 In addition, in political matters, Fazlur
Rahman called on Muslim scholars to champion social justice in their polities
and extend the concept of shura to include inclusive democratic values.110
After Rahman, many other Islamic scholars who condemn terrorist groups
like Al-Qaeda and the ISIS and even the hudud laws (Islamic penal laws), as
enforced in Pakistan, have had to live outside the country. Out of these, Tahir-ul
Qadri and Javed Ghamdi are two prominent names. Whereas Tahir-ul Qadri is
known for his 600-page Fatwa on Terrorism and Suicide Bombing (among several
similar works), Javed Ghamdi has published deeply researched and insightful
Islamic counter-narratives against extremist and terrorist propaganda.

Abdullahi An-Naim: Secular State Vital for Practising Islam

Mahmoud Mohamed Taha, a Sudanese religious thinker, and his admirer,
Abdullahi An-Naim, introduced brilliant and compelling ideas about the dynamic
nature of Islamic thought, long ossified under juristic stagnation.
Taha (1909–85) stated that the verses of the Quran revealed in the Medinan
phase (when the Prophet also became a political figurehead) were appropriate in
their time as the basis of Islamic law. Nevertheless, the verses revealed in Mecca
(often considered abrogated by jurists) genuinely represented that the ideal and
universal religion would be revived when humanity had reached a stage of
development capable of accepting them. Thus, Taha interpreted the distinction
between these two phases in the Prophet’s career differently than Islamists, who
focus mainly on the Medinan phase.
One of Taha’s more eloquent disciples, Abdullah An-Naim (b. 1946),
248 Political Islam: Parallel Currents in West Asia and South Asia

summarises Taha’s views as follows:

Islam...was offered first in tolerant and egalitarian terms in Mecca, where
the Prophet preached equality and individual responsibility between all
men and women without distinction on grounds of race, sex or social
origin. As that message was rejected in practice…some aspects of the
message changed in response to the socio-economic and political realities
of the time.111
In his own right, An-Naim is no less an original Islamic thinker. He urges
Muslims to exercise ijtihad, which he equates with “civic reason”. Just as
Muhammad Said Al-Ashmawi, he emphasises on the ethical aspects of the Shariah
rather than its legal prescriptions.
Further, like Maulana Madani of India, An-Naim argues in his book, Islam
and the Secular State, the case for a secular state on religious grounds. According
to him, only if the state is devoid of religious bias will Muslims be able to practise
their faith entirely voluntarily, which is the only way any religion is meant to be
practised.112
Many scholars consider Sudan’s former Foreign Minister Hasan Al-Turabi
(1932–2016) and Doha-based Egyptian scholar Yusuf Qaradawi (b. 1926) as
moderate Islamists. Although Al-Turabi is known for championing monogamy
and women’s right to divorce, his links to terrorist organisations and his role as
the “true architect” in bringing the brutal Al-Bashir regime in Sudan to power
make him a highly controversial figure. Similarly, Qaradawi’s anti-Semitic remarks,
condoning Palestinian suicide bombers, and Saudi Arabia’s allegations that he has
links with terror groups have soiled his reputation.
In comparison, Rached Ghannouchi (b. 1941) of Tunisia is still highly
regarded, even in the West, as a “democratic Islamist”. He has been named one of
Time magazine’s 100 Most Influential People in the World in 2012 and Foreign
Policy’s Top 100 Global Thinkers. In addition, he has been awarded Chatham
House Prize in 2012 and the Jamnalal Bajaj Award in 2016 for “promoting
Gandhian values outside India”.
Though Ghannouchi champions multi-party democracy, claiming that it is
acceptable in Islam, he endeared himself to his opponents when he applauded the
courage of the leftists who came out on the streets of Tunisia during the Arab
Spring. Like a typical Islamist, he opposes homosexuality and gay marriage, but
disapproves of it being criminalised.
In present times, a religious scholar of great eminence who opposes extremist
 Islamism, Jihadism and Modern Reformers (1900–2020) 249

Islamist ideology is Abdallah bin Mahfudh ibn Bayyah (b. 1935). He has also
been quoted by President Barack Obama during his speech before the UN Security
Council in 2014. An Islamic scholar and professor of Islamic Studies at the King
Abdul Aziz University in Jeddah, he has founded the UAE-based Forum for
Promoting Peace in Muslim Societies. He is ably supported by his follower, Hamza
Yusuf (b. 1958), a distinguished Islamic scholar in his own right.113

NOTES
1 Vartan Gregorian, Islam: A Mosaic, Not a Monolith, Washington, DC: Brookings Institution
Press, 2003, p. 77.
2 Bassam Tibi, “The Totalitarianism of Jihadist Islamism and its Challenge to Europe and to
Islam”, Totalitarian Movements and Political Religions, Vol. 8, No. 1, 2007, pp. 35–54.
3 William E. Shepard, FranÇois Burgat, James Piscatori and Armando Salvatore, “Islamism”, in
John L. Esposito (ed.), The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Islamic World, Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 2009. https://www.oxfordreference.com/display/10.1093/acref/9780195305135.001.
0001/acref-9780195305135-e-0888, last accessed on 21 September 2023.
4 Ibid.
5 Olivier Roy, The Failure of Political Islam, Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1994.
6 Ana Belén Soage, “Introduction to Political Islam”, Religion Compass, Vol. 3, No. 5, 2009, pp.
887–96.
7 Robin Wright, “A Short History of Islamism”, Newsweek, 10 January 2015, https://
www.newsweek.com/short-history-islamism-298235, last accessed on 23 September 2023.
8 Noah Feldman, The Fall and Rise of the Islamic State, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University
Press, 2008.
9 Olivier Roy, The Failure of Political Islam, translated by C. Volk (1992), London: Tauris, pp.
43–44.
10 Anthony Black, The History of Islamic Political Thought: From the Prophet to the Present, Routledge,
New York, 2010, p. 325.
11 Kevin Borgeson and Robin Valeri, Terrorism in America, London: Jones and Bartlett, 2009,
p. 23.
12 Karen Armstrong, Islam: A Short History’, Modern Library, London, 2002, p. 156.
13 Kim Ghattas, “Profile: Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood”, BBC, https://www.bbc.com/news/world-
middle-east-12313405, last accessed on 23 September 2023.
14 Christopher De Bellaigue, “Counter-Enlightenment”, in The Islamic Enlightenment: The Struggle
between Faith and Reason, 1798 to Modern Times, New York: Liveright, 2017, p. 376.
15 Talmiz Ahmad, “Islam at the Heart of West Asian Politics (1979–2001)”, in West Asia at War,
HarperCollins, 2022.
16 Richard P. Mitchell, “The Solution”, in The Society of the Muslim Brothers, New York: Oxford
University Press, 1993, pp. 232–33.
17 Olivier Carré and Liv Tønnessen, “Bannâ, $asan al-”, in Esposito (ed.), The Oxford Encyclopedia
of the Islamic World, translated by Elizabeth Keller, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009,
https://www.oxfordreference.com/display/10.1093/acref/9780195305135.001.0001/acref-
9780195305135-e-0101, last accessed on 23 September 2023.
18 John Kifner, “Syrian Troops are Said to Battle Rebels Encircled in Central City”, The New York
Times, 12 February 1982, https://www.nytimes.com/1982/02/12/world/syrian-troops-are-said-
to-battle-rebels-encircled-in-central-city.html, last accessed on 23 September 2023.
250 Political Islam: Parallel Currents in West Asia and South Asia

19 Robert Fisk, “Freedom, Democracy and Human Rights in Syria”, The Independent, 16 September
2010. https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/commentators/fisk/robert-fisk-freedom-
democracy-and-human-rights-in-syria-2080463.html, last accessed online on 23 September
2023.
20 “Egypt: Sentencing to Death of more than 500 People is a ‘Grotesque’ Ruling”, Amnesty
International, 24 March 2014.
21 Marshall Cavendish Reference, Illustrated Dictionary of the Muslim World, Marshall Cavendish,
Singapore, 2011, p. 124.
22 Ibid.
23 Taqiuddin an-Nabhani, The Islamic State, London: De-Luxe Printers, 1998, pp. 240–76.
24 Ian MacWilliam, “Central Asia’s Islamic Militancy”, BBC, 15 December 2005, http://
news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/4531848.stm, last accesed online on 23 September 2023.
25 Houriya Ahmed and Hannah Stuart, Hizb ut-Tahrir: Ideology and Strategy, The Centre for
Social Cohesion, 2009.
26 Jean-Pierre Filiu, “Hizb ut-Tahrir and the Fantasy of the Caliphate”, Le Monde Diplomatique,
June 2008, https://mondediplo.com/2008/06/04caliphate, last accessed online on 23
September 2023.
27 Shiv Malik, “For Allah and the Caliphate”, New Statesman, 13 September 2004, archived
from the original on 25 January 2021.
28 James Brandon, “Hizb-ut-Tahrir’s Growing Appeal in the Arab World”, Terrorism Monitor,
Vol. 4, No. 24, 27 December 2006.
29 The Challenge of Hizb ut-Tahrir, Conference Report, Nixon Centre, 2004, p. xiii.
30 Ervand Abrahamian, History of Modern Iran, Cambridge University Press, 2008, p. 94, https:/
/dl.icdst.org/pdfs/files3/058c64b006c901fd93afa68c7ebefe4d.pdf.
31 Ali Gheissari, Iranian Intellectuals in the Twentieth Century, Austin: University of Texas Press,
1998.
32 Ali Rahnema, An Islamic Utopian: A Political Biography of Ali Shari’ati, London: I.B. Tauris,
1998.
33 Ali Shariati, Jahatgiri-ye Tabaqati-e Islam (Class Bias of Islam), in Collected Works, Vol. 10,
Tehran, 1980, pp. 37–38.
34 Kasra Aarabi, “Who was Ali Shariati”, Tony Blair Institute for Global Change, 11 February
2019, https://www.institute.global/insights/geopolitics-and-security/who-was-ali-shariati
35 Abbas Manouchehri, “Ali Shariati and the Islamic Renaissance”, PhD Dissertation, University
of Missouri, 1988, p. 78.
36 Fardin Qoreishi, Shariati and Thinking on West from Religious Neo Reflection, Nameh Pajouhesh
publisher, 2001, pp. 178–179.
37 Ali Shariati, What is to be Done?: The Enlightened Thinkers and an Islamic Renaissance, edited
by F. Rajaee, Houston, Texas: IRIS, 1986, p. 31.
38 Sayyed Javad Imam Jomeh Zadeh and Hosein Rouhani, “Comparative Inquiry on Western
Democracy and Commitment Democracy of Ali Sharity”, Department of Social Sciences,
University of Mashhad, 2007, pp. 59–78.
39 Ali Shariati, What is to be Done?: The Enlightened Thinkers and an Islamic Renaissance, edited
by F. Rajaee, Houston, Texas: IRIS, 1986.
40 Abdollah Vakili, Ali Shariati and the Mystical Tradition of Islam, Institute of Islamic Studies,
McGill University, 1991, pp. 30–37.
41 Ervand Ibrahamian, “Ali Shariati: Ideologue of the Iranian Revolution”, in Edmund Burke
and Ira Lapidus (eds), Islam, Politics, and Social Movements, Los Angeles: University of California
 Islamism, Jihadism and Modern Reformers (1900–2020) 251

Press, first published in MERIP Reports in January 1982, 1993, pp. 25–28.
42 Karen Armstrong, Islam: A Short History’, Modern Library, London, 2002, p. 174.
43 Imam Khomeini, Sahifeh-ye Imam: An Anthology of Imam Khomeini’s Speeches, Messages,
Interviews, Decrees, Religious Permissions, and Letters, Vol. 6, Tehran: The Institute for
Compilation and Publication of Imam Khomeini’s Works, 1999, p. 54.
44 Ahmad Vaezi, Shia Political Thought, London: Islamic Centre of England, 2004, pp. 25–35.
45 Hamid Mavani, “Khomeini’s Concept of Governance of the Jurisconsult (Wilayat al-Faqih)”,
The Middle East Journal, Vol. 67, No. 2, Spring 2013, pp. 207–28.
46 Ruhullah Khomeini, “Islamic Government and Other Writings”, in Hamid Algar (trans.),
Islam and Revolution: Writings and Declarations of Imam Khomeini, Berkeley, CA: Mizan Press,
1981.
47 Ibid., pp. 62, 64, 96.
48 John Esposito, “Ansari, Murtada”, in The Oxford Dictionary of Islam, 2003.
49 Ruhollah Khomeini, Islamic Government ($ukûmah al-Islâmîyah), translated by Joint Publications
Research Service, Manor Books, 1979.
50 Ibid.
51 Anthony Black, The History of Islamic Political Thought: From the Prophet to the Present, Routledge,
New York, 2010, p. 320.
52 Bruce Riedel, “Foreword”, in Becoming Enemies: U.S.–Iran Relations and the Iran–Iraq War,
1979–1988, Rowman & Littlefield, 2012.
53 Janet Afari, Foucault and the Iranian Revolution: Gender and the Seductions of Islamism, Chicago:
University of Chicago Press, 2010, p. 163.
54 Madawi Al-Rasheed, A History of Saudi Arabia, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002.
55 James Wynbrandt and Fawaz A. Gerges, A Brief History of Saudi Arabia, New York: Facts on
File, 2010.
56 Daniel Silverfarb, “Great Britain, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia: The Revolt of the Ikhwan, 1927–
1930”, The International History Review, Vol. 4, No. 2, May 1982.
57 Natana J. DeLong-Bas, Wahhabi Islam: From Revival and Reform to Global Jihad, New York:
Oxford University Press, 2014.
58 Joshua Teitelbaum, Holier than Thou: Saudi Arabia’s Islamic Opposition, Washington, DC: The
Washington Institute for Near East Policy, 2000.
59 Robert Lacey, Inside the Kingdom: Kings, Clerics, Modernists, Terrorists, and the Struggle for
Saudi Arabia, Penguin Group, 2009.
60 Embassy of Saudi Arabia, “About Saudi Arabia: The Basic Law of Governance”, Decreed 1
March 1992, Archived from the original on 23 March 2014, https://web.archive.org/web/
20140323165604/http://www.saudiembassy.net/about/country-information/laws/
The_Basic_Law_Of_Governance.aspx, last accessed online on 23 September 2023.
61 Robert Baer, “Why Saudi Arabia is Helping Crush the Muslim Brotherhood”, The New Republic,
26 August 2013, https://newrepublic.com/article/114468/why-saudi-arabia-helping-crush-
muslim-brotherhood, last accessed online on 23 September 2023.
62 ‘Haia can’t chase, arrest suspects’, Arab News, 14 April 2026, https://www.arabnews.com/
saudi-arabia/news/910016 , last accessed online on 23 September 2023.
63 Lori Plotkin Boghardt, “The Muslim Brotherhood on Trial in the UAE”, The Washington
Institute for Near East Policy, 12 April 2013, https://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-
analysis/muslim-brotherhood-trial-uae, last accessed online on 23 September 2023.
64 Rudolph Peters, “Chapter on Averroes’ Legal Handbook Al-Bidayah”, in Jihad in Medieval and
Modern Islam, Leiden: Brill, 1977.
252 Political Islam: Parallel Currents in West Asia and South Asia

65 Hadeeth on Greater Jihad: “Khatib al-Baghdadi relates in his ‘History’ on the authority of
Jabir: The Prophet came back from one of his campaigns saying: ‘You have come forth in the
best way of coming forth: you have come from the smaller jihad to the greater jihad.’ They
said: ‘And what is the greater jihad?’ He replied: ‘The striving (mujahadat) of Allah’s servants
against their idle desires,’ as quoted by Gabrielle Marinci in ‘Jihad Beyond Islam’, Berg
publishers, New York, 2006.
66 Averroes (Ibn Rushd), Bidayat Al-Mujtahid: The Distinguished Jurist’s Primer, chapter on jihad,
available at https://www.kalamullah.com/bidayat-al-mujtahid.html, accessed online on 23
September 2023.
67 Asma Afsaruddin, Jihâd and Martyrdom in Islamic Thought and History, New York: Oxford
University Press, 2013.
68 Marmaduke Pickthall (trans.), The Meaning of the Glorious Koran, New York: Dorsett Press,
1988.
69 Asma Afsaruddin, ‘Islamic Law and the Limits of Military Aggression’, in Tallyn Gray (ed.)
‘Islam and International Criminal Law and Justice’, Torkel Opsahl Academic EPublisher,
Brussels, 2008, https://www.toaep.org/nas-pdf/2-gray, last accessed on 23 September 2023.
70 Muhammad Al-Sháfi‘í and Al-Risála, (eds.), ‘Abd al-Latíf al-Hamím and Máhir Yásín alFahl,
Dár Al-Kutub Al-‘Ilmiyya, Beirut, 2005, p. 23.
71 Muqatil b. Sulayman, Tafsir, edited by ‘Abd Allah Mahmud Shihata, Beirut: Mu’assasat al-
ta’rikh al-‘arabi, 2002, pp. 167–68.
72 Ahmed Al-Dawoody, The Islamic Law of War: Justifications and Regulations, Palgrave Macmillan,
2011, p. 80.
73 Pickthall (trans.), The Meaning of the Glorious Koran (Surah 60, Verse 8), Plume, 1997.
74 Asma Afsaruddin, “Reconceptualizing the Military Jihad on the Basis of Non-Legal Literature”,
Maydan, 28 June 2018, available at https://www.themaydan.com/2018/06/reconceptualizing-
military-jihad-basis-non-legal-literature/, last accessed online on 23 September 2023.
75 Majid Khadduri, War and Peace in the Law of Islam, Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1955,
p. 58.
76 Muhammad Mushtaq Ahmad, “The Notions of Dar al-Harb and Dar al-lslam in Islamic
Jurisprudence with Special Reference to the Hanafi School”, Islamic Studies, Vol. 47, No. 1,
Spring 2008, pp. 5–37.
77 Yahya Michot, The Princeton Encyclopedia of Islamic Political Thought, Princeton: Princeton
University Press, 2012, pp. 238–41.
78 “Jihadist-Salafism” was first introduced in the book by Gilles Kepel, Jihad: The Trail of Political
Islam, Harvard: Harvard University Press, 2002.
79 Shadi Hamid and Rashid Dar, “Islamism, Salafism, and Jihadism: A Primer”, Commentary,
Brookings, 15 July 2016, accessed on 26 May 2020.
80 Shiraz Maher, Salafi-Jihadism: The History of an Idea, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016.
81 Adnan Musallam, “From Secularism to Jihad: Sayyid Qutb and the Foundations of Radical
Islamism”, Praeger, 2005.
82 Gilles Kepel, The Roots of Radical Islam, Saqi Books, New York, 2005.
83 Sayyid Qutb, Ma’alim fi Al-Tariq (Milestones Along the Way), first published in 1964, Idara
impex, 2019.
84 A.E Stahl, “Offensive Jihad,” International Institute for CounterTerrorism, 2011.
85 Dale C. Eikmeier, “Qutbism: An Ideology of Islamic-Fascism”, Parameters: US Army War
College Quarterly, Parameters 37, no. 1 (2007), Spring 2007.
86 Farag, Al-Farida Al-Gha’iba, Amman, n.d., pp. 28, 26, cited in (and translated by) Johannes
Jansen, The Neglected Duty, New York: Macmillan, 1986.
 Islamism, Jihadism and Modern Reformers (1900–2020) 253

87 Sebastian Gorka, “Understanding History’s Seven Stages of Jihad”, CTC Sentinel, Vol. 2, No.
10, 2009, p. 17.
88 Sadakat Kadri, Heaven on Earth: A Journey through Shari’a Law from the Deserts of Ancient
Arabia, Macmillan, 2012.
89 Dore Gold, Hatred’s Kingdom, Regnery Publishing, Washington D.C., 2003, p. 99.
90 Quintan Wiktorowicz and John Kaltner, “Killing in the Name of Islam: Al-Qaeda’s Justification
for September 11", Middle East Policy Council Journal, Vol. X, No. 2, Summer 2003, available
at http://www.mafhoum.com/press5/147S29.htm, last accessed online on 23 September 2023
91 Ibid.
92 Shaikh Hisham Kabbani, “Jihad, Terrorism and Suicide Bombing: The Classical Islamic
Perspective”, The Islamic Supreme Council of America, p. 16,
93 Jack Jenkins, “The Book that Really Explains the ISIS”, Think Progress, available at http://
thinkprogress.org/world/2014/09/10/3565635/the-book-that-really-explains-isis-hint-its-not-
the-quran.
94 Terrence McCoy, “The Calculated Madness of the Islamic State’s Horrifying Brutality”, The
Washington Post, 12 August 2014, available at http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-
mix/wp/2014/08/12/the-calculated-madness-of-the-islamic-states-horrifying-brutality/, last
accessed on 23 September 2023.
95 Alastair Crooke, “The ISIS’ ‘Management of Savagery’ in Iraq”, Huffington Post, 30 August
2014, available at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alastair-crooke/iraq-isis-alqaeda_
b_5542575.html.
96 Mark Townsend, “The Core ISIS Manual that Twisted Islam to Legitimize Barbarity”, The
Guardian, 13 May 2018, available at https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/may/12/
isis-jihadist-manual-analysed-rebutted-by-islamic-scholar, last accessed online on 23 September
2023.
97 William McCants, The ISIS Apocalypse: The History, Strategy, and Doomsday Vision of the Islamic
State, New York: St. Martin’s Press, 2016.
98 Erwin Rosenthal, Islam in the Modern Nation State, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1965 cited in Anthony Black, The History of Islamic Political Thought: From the Prophet to the
Present, Routledge, New York, 2010, pp. 316-319.
99 Charles E. Butterworth, “Law and the Common Good: To Bring about a Virtuous City or
Preserve the Old Order?”, in Mehrzad Boroujerdi (ed.), Mirror for the Muslim Prince: Islam
and the Theory of Statecraft, Syracuse University Press, p. 233.
100 Rosenthal, Islam in the Modern National State, Cambridge University Press, 1965, New York
p. 98.
101 Carolyn Fluehr-Lobban, Against Islamic Extremism: The Writings of Muhammad Sa’id al-
Ashmawy, Gainesville: University Press of Florida, 1998.
102 Muhammad Said Al-Ashmawi, Against Islamic Extremism: The Writings of Muhammad Sa‘id
al- Ashmawy, Abe Books, p. 191.
103 Mohammed Arkoun, Rethinking Islam : Common Questions, Uncommon Answers, Today, Boulder:
Westview Press, 1994.
104 Mohammed Arkoun, The Unthought in Contemporary Islamic Thought, Saqi Books, London,
2002.
105 Tamara Sonn, “Fazlur Rahman’s Islamic Methodology”, The Muslim World, Vol. 81, Nos 3–4,
1991, p. 226.
106 Rahman, Fazlur. (1982). Islam & Modernity: Transformation of an Intellectual Tradition.
Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, p. 19.
254 Political Islam: Parallel Currents in West Asia and South Asia

107 Malek Bennabi, Islam in History and Society, translated by Asma Rashid, Islamabad: Islamic
Research Institute, 1988.
108 Sonn, p. 19.
109 Tamarra Sonn, “Fazlur Rahman’s Islamic Methodology”, The Muslim World journal, Vol. LXXXI,
1991, p. 22.
110 Safet Bektovic, “Towards a Neo-Modernist Islam”, Studia Theologica—Nordic Journal of Theology,
Vol. 70, No. 2, 2016, pp. 160–78.
111 Mahmoud Mohamed Taha, The Second Message of Islam, translated with introduction by An-
NaÆim, Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press, 1987, p. 21.
112 An-Naim, Abdullahi Ahmed, Islam and the Secular State, Cambridge, MA, Harvard University
Press, 2008,
113 The UK daily, The Guardian, has referred to Hamza Yusuf as “arguably the West’s most
influential Islamic scholar”. See Jack O’Sullivan, “If You Hate the West, Emigrate to a Muslim
Country”, The Guardian, 7 October 2001, https://www.theguardian.com/world/2001/oct/
08/religion.uk, last accessed online on 23 September 2023.
 PART III
HISTORY OF MUSLIM POLITICAL
THOUGHT IN SOUTH ASIA

POLITICAL EXCLUSIVISM VERSUS

SYNCRETISM IN SOUTH ASIA
 16
Ingress of Islamic Political Rule and Thought
into India (712–1526 CE)

Delhi, the centre of religion and justice

Is the garden of Eden, and so populous.
If the splendor of this garden falls upon the ear
Mecca itself might go round it in reverence.
—Amir Khusrau in Qiranus Sadain1

In India, Muslim political rule was firmly established only around the thirteenth
century when Islamdom had outgrown the monolithic Arab caliphal control and
had started adopting values and customs of non-Arab cultures and, occasionally,
even non-Islamic practices.
Although the Arabs had invaded Sindh in the eighth century, they failed to
make inroads into the Indian heartland. Muslim invasions into the Gangetic
plains only started in the eleventh and twelfth centuries under non-Arab Persianate
and Turkic Ghaznavid and Ghurid rulers, who had newly converted to Sunni
Islam from Buddhism. Along with Turkic traditions and Mongol influences,
Persianate culture profoundly influenced the orientation of the neophyte rulers.
So, the ingress of Islam as a political power in north India in the twelfth century
already bore several eclectic influences as compared to the Arab caliphal rule which
the countries of West Asia had to contend with since the seventh century.
258 Political Islam: Parallel Currents in West Asia and South Asia

India was, thus, introduced not just to Islam but also to what the Chicago
historian Marshall Hodgson termed as an “Islamicate”,2 which makes the
distinction between religion on the one hand, and “the overall society and culture
associated historically with the religion” on the other.3 Through the term Islamicate,
Hodgson referred to characteristics of regions in which Muslims were culturally
dominant, but were not, properly speaking, religious.

Early Arab Muslim Encounters with India

In the early eighth century, Arab Islamic polity under the Umayyad caliphs was
struggling with its expansion, and the consequent exposure to foreign cultures,
when it first encountered, what it claims, threats emanating towards it from Sindh.
Contemporary Arab chroniclers, like Baladhuri, speak of “piracy” emanating from
the Sindh region of western India as a threat to Arab sea trade since the time of
the Rashidun Caliphs themselves.4 Although the second caliph, Umar, had
disapproved of sea battles, his maritime forces did conduct a few raids through
the Makran (Balochistan) region of the Indian subcontinent. After that, Caliph
Uthman and the governor of Bahrain are said to have launched a failed expedition
to Thana, near Mumbai, in 636 CE.5
According to Derryl Maclean, in the year 649 CE, a companion of the Prophet,
Hakim ibn Jabalah Al-Abdi, travelled to Sindh and then to Makran, and presented
a report on the area to Caliph Uthman.6 Later, he supported Caliph Ali and died
in the Battle of the Camel alongside Sindhi Jats (called Az-Zutt in Arabic), who
had become Muslims and had come to Arabia to support Ali.7 Subsequently, in
the reign of Muawiya ibn Abu Sufyan (661–680 CE), the region of Makran was
subdued and a garrison was stationed there.

Spread of Islam in Kerala from Seventh Century

Islam came to Kerala in the seventh century, earlier than its advent in the north of
the country from the eighth century onwards. It came to Kerala through Muslim
traders (mainly spice and silk traders) in the ports of Malabar.8 Muslim tombstones
with medieval dates, short inscriptions in old mosques and rare Arab coin
collections testify to the presence of Muslims on the Malabar Coast in the seventh
century.
Legend has it that a Hindu king, Cheraman Perumal Tajuddin, left for Arabia
to meet Prophet Muhammad and converted to Islam.9 Muslims in Kerala also
believe that the Cheraman Juma Mosque in Kodungullur in Thrissur district was
 Ingress of Islamic Political Rule and Thought into India 259

built in 629 CE (that is, during the lifetime of the Prophet). However, historians
generally doubt this date and believe Islam may have come to Kerala only in the
early ninth century.
Nonetheless, Kerala has remained more closely influenced by developments
in the Arab world than north India, with the latter being more exposed to the
Turkic–Persian Islamic orientation. In the words of Ronald Miller: “The Arab
affinity has affected and continues to affect the language, religion, and culture of
the ‘Mappilas’ (predominant community among Kerala Muslims coming from
north of the state) more profoundly than those of any other Indian Muslim.”10

Arab Conquest of Sindh

The first significant military campaign by Arabs in the Indian subcontinent took
place in 712 CE.11 The immediate cause of this invasion was the supposed
plundering of eight Arab ships that were taking gifts from the king of Ceylon to
Caliph Abd Al-Malik and his dreaded Umayyad commander, Hajjaj ibn Yusuf, at
the port of Debal (near today’s Karachi). Some historical accounts state that the
looted ships also carried beautiful women and valuable articles for the caliph.
Hajjaj demanded compensation from King Dahir of Sindh for the looted
ships. However, Dahir rejected the demand saying that he had no control over
the pirates. This angered Hajjaj, who took permission from the caliph to launch
the invasion of Sindh. After two of Hajjaj’s commanders failed to punish Dahir,
the dreaded commander sent his 15–17-year-old nephew and son-in-law,
Muhammad bin Qasim, to lead a major expedition. Chach Nama (a purported
historical text on the life of Muhammad bin Qasim) states that Qasim marched
at the head of a strong army through Shiraz (in Iran) and Makran and carried
ballistae (large wooden catapults to throw stones at forts and distant targets) with
him towards Debal.
It is said that each of the ballistae used by Qasim required 500 trained men to
operate. These giant catapults were sent by sea to join the main army at Debal.
Dahir’s garrison inside the stone fortification at Debal offered strict resistance,
but the bombardment of rocks by the ballistae forced them to capitulate. After
several similar battles in Nirun, south of modern Hyderabad, Sehwan (a
commercial centre) and lower Sindh, Muhammad bin Qasim fought and killed
Dahir in Brahmanabad in June 712 CE and married his widow, Rani Ladi. In a
few months, he even captured the capital, Aror, held by the raja’s son. After
capturing both lower and upper Sindh, Qasim proceeded towards Multan, which
also surrendered after some resistance.12
260 Political Islam: Parallel Currents in West Asia and South Asia

Muhammad bin Qasim sent a fifth of the war booty (ghanima) to the caliph’s
treasury and distributed the rest among the army. The non-Muslim civilians were
then divided into three categories for the imposition of jizya (the poll tax), with
people in the highest income bracket paying as much as 48 dirhams of silver; the
middle-income groups, 24 dirhams; and the lowest class, 12 dirhams. The number
of common people was counted to be about 10,000. After that, a ruling was
received from Hajjaj that since the people of Sindh had accepted the status of
being “dhimmis” (protected minorities), they would be permitted to pray in their
temples and even build new temples.13
There are two conflicting accounts of Qasim’s death on 18 July 715 CE in
Mosul, Iraq. According to the Arab historian Ahmad ibn Yahya ibn Jabir Al-
Baladhuri, he was killed due to a family feud with the governor of Iraq.14 However,
the more popular albeit less reliable account, according to historians, is given in
the Chach Nama, which claims to be a Persian translation by a certain Ali Kufi (in
the thirteen century) of an undated, original Arabic text. The text concludes with
the death of Muhammad bin Qasim which was supposedly caused by the false
charge made to the caliph by the daughters of Dahir, who had been taken captive
and allegedly forced into slavery after the campaign. The account relates that they
tricked the caliph into believing that Qasim had already violated their chastity
before sending them on. As a result of this deception, Qasim was wrapped and
stitched in oxen hides and sent to Baghdad, which resulted in his death en route
from suffocation.15
However, many modern historians doubt the Chach Nama account because
the capital of the caliphate under the Umayyads was Damascus and not Baghdad,
and because of other anachronisms and errors in the historical details given in it.
There are conflicting views about Muhammad bin Qasim among historians.16
Some historians like H.M. Elliot, Cousens, Majumdar and Vaidya, suggest that
he carried out coercive conversions, as much as his limited military forces could
force the local population.17 Others, like noted Israeli historian Yohanan Friedmann
along with India’s Prof. D. N. Jha praise Muhammad bin Qasim for his
conciliation of Brahmins to consolidate his power and his relative level of tolerance
towards his non-Muslim subjects (Hindus and Buddhists) in Sindh.18
Some historians have gone to the extent of claiming that Muhammad bin
Qasim equated Hindus with Jews and Christians (deemed as “People of the Book”
in Islam) and not as infidels. Thus, Prof. Jha cites medieval historian Baladhuri
reporting Muhammad bin Qasim’s purported statement: “the idol temple is similar
 Ingress of Islamic Political Rule and Thought into India 261

to the churches of the Christians, (to the synagogues) of the Jews and the fire
temples of the Zoroastrians (Arabic transliteration ‘mâ al-budd illâ ka-kanâ¾is
al-nacârâ wa ’l-yahûd wa-buyût nîrân al-madjûs’),19. Perhaps, Friedmann’s
assessment appears more plausible here that Muhammad bin Qasim’s policy towards
non-Muslims varied from place to place.20
In contrast, Pakistani historians have turned Muhammad bin Qasim into the
“First Pakistani” in their nationalist historical discourse dating back to the early
1950s, in a bid to bring some historical legitimacy to their state. In fact, the Bagh
ibn Qasim (the biggest park in Karachi) is named in honour of Muhammad bin
Qasim by Pakistani state.
After Muhammad bin Qasim’s death, Arab governors continued to occupy
Sindh well into the eighth and ninth centuries, until the Abbasid Caliphate started
to decline. Then, Sindh became independent under the Habbari dynasty which
ruled it for two centuries. After that, Sindh, Makran, Turan and Multan broke up
under different dynasties; and each was an independent kingdom in the early
eleventh century when the Ghaznavids invaded India. Largely, the Arabs were
unsuccessful in penetrating India and remained confined to Sindh. According to
Stanley Lane-Poole: “The Arabs had conquered Sindh but the conquest was only
an episode in the history of India and of Islam, a triumph without results.”21

Indian Cultural Influence on Medieval Arab Society

From ancient times, the people of India and the Arabian Peninsula were well-
acquainted with each other and had good relations in trade and business, leading
to transmission of socio-cultural values. However, it was during the Abbasid
Caliphate of Baghdad that cultural cooperation between India and the Arabs
reached its acme, when several books on astronomy, mathematics, medicine and
even political science were translated from Sanskrit into Arabic.
On the instructions of Abbasid Caliph Al-Mansur, the great Indian
mathematical treatise, Brahma Siddhanta, was translated into Arabic. It served as
the foundation text for Arab astrologers of that time to compute the motion of
the planets. Ibrahim Al-Fazari and Yaqub ibn Tariq translated the book, with the
cooperation of Hindu pandits, in 750 CE and the Arabic translation was called,
Az-Zîj alâ Sinî al- Arab or Sindhand Al-Kabir.22 In fact, historians believe that
the Siddhanta translation became the vehicle for the transmission of Indian
numerals from India to Baghdad. Further, with the help of Hindu pundits, Al-
Fazari also translated Brahmagupta’s book, Khandakhadyaka, and gave it the Arabic
name of Arkand.23
262 Political Islam: Parallel Currents in West Asia and South Asia

Both above-mentioned works were extensively used and exercised significant

influence in the development of astronomy in the Muslim world. Thus, what the
Western world today calls Arabic numerals were Indian numbers. The Arabic
word for numbers is Hindsah, which means “from India”. Arab scientists in Iraq,
especially Muhammad ibn Musa Al-Khwarizmi (9th century CE), used the new
numbers, including the Indian invention of zero, to further develop algebra. In
addition, some mathematical and astronomical terms were borrowed from Sanskrit.
In 750 CE, Ibn Muqaffa translated into Arabic the Panchatantra by the name
Kalila-wa-Dimna, which inspired the political self-help books for leadership.24
He also refers to Chankya Niti as Kitab Shanaq fil Tadbir, which is a collection of
political aphorisms in Sanskrit, not to be confused with Chanakya or Kautilya’s
Arthashastra. The ethical advice of Chanakya (Shanaq) and works on logic and
magic were translated, as catalogued by Ibn Nadim in his tenth-century Kitab Al-
Fihrist. Similarly, the Spaniard Abu Bakr Muhammad bin Walid Al-Tartushi
(1059–c. 1127) wrote the Muntakhabul Jawahir (Selected Gems), which included
the precepts of Chanakya, as a guide for kings. The fascinating story of Sindbad
was also partly of Indian origin. Even parts of Mahabharata were rendered into
Arabic by Ali Jabali in 1026 CE.

Invasions of Mahmud Ghazni

Apart from sending the Umayyad forces to capture Sindh, Hajjaj launched more
successful campaigns into Transoxiana. One of his generals, Qutayba bin Muslim,
reached Shash (modern Tashkent); and in the east, the forces penetrated as deep
as Kashgar (a city in today’s Xinjiang province of China). As a result, proselytisation
in Transoxiana was more successful than in Sindh, and soon the entire region of
Khorasan became the seat of the Samanid dynasty that ruled from 819 CE to
1005 CE.
In the tenth century, a newly converted rebellious Muslim commander of the
Samanids, Alptigin, withdrew to the Balkh region and then conquered the city of
Ghazni (in today’s southeastern Afghanistan) from Anuk, brother-in-law of Hindu
Shahi ruler of the region, Kabul Shah.25 After an extended period of infighting
following Alptigin’s death in 963 CE, his bondservant and son-in-law, Subuktigin,
seized power and became the ruler of Ghazni in 977 CE. In 986–87 CE, Hindu
Shahi ruler Jayapala marched towards Ghazni, but his forces were defeated. Despite
promising to not attack again, Jayapala decided on a second invasion after receiving
support from other Hindu kings. However, he was once again defeated by
Subuktigin. This enmity between Subuktigin and Jayapala made a deep impression
 Ingress of Islamic Political Rule and Thought into India 263

on the former’s son, Mahmud, who ascended the throne after Subuktigin’s death
in 997 CE.
Initially, Mahmud focused his attention on the Samanids, who were a major
threat to both his kingdom and the Abbasid Caliphate (then under Caliph Al-
Qadir, 991–1031 CE). By 999 CE, Mahmud had crushed the Samanids and
seized control of much of the Khorasan region. For this remarkable achievement,
the grateful caliph bestowed upon Mahmud the title of Yamin ud-Dawala (right
hand of the state) and Amin-ul-Mulk (trustee of the nation), though Mahmud
only gave nominal allegiance to the weakened caliph. After conquering the Samanid
vassal states of Khwarazm and Sistan, Mahmud turned his attention to his father’s
arch-foe, Jayapala, the Hindu Shahi ruler who reigned over a vast territory, from
Lamghan to the river Chenab and from the hills of southern Chenab to Multan.
Lured by accounts of India’s immense wealth and enmity with Jayapala,
Mahmud is said to have vowed to invade India every year, which eventually led to
the launch of 17 expeditions. By 1016 CE, Mahmud had defeated and killed
Jayapala; his successor, Anandpala; and Jaypala’s grandson, Sukhpala. He also
eliminated the Islmaili Shia ruler of Multan, Abul Fath bin Daud, because of his
alliance with Anandpala. Being a Sunni himself, Mahmud took great pride in
wiping out the Ismailis in Multan and desecrating their mosques, along with
Hindu temples. By 1018 CE, through repeated invasions, Mahmud had not only
decimated many kingdoms in Punjab but also the Rajput resistance in Rajasthan.
In September 1018 CE, Mahmud invaded east of Delhi and conquered Baran
(Bulandhshahar). The beautiful city of Mahaban (Mathura) surrendered, yet
Mahmud destroyed many of its temples and collected vast amounts of booty.
Mahmud is most infamous for his expedition against the Somnath temple
on the coast of Kathiawar. In October 1025 CE, he set out at the head of 30,000
regular cavalries and a vast army of volunteers for the grand temple through the
inhospitable desert of Jaisalmer and Anhilwara. The Chalukyan king of Anhilwara,
Bhudeva, offered resistance with his army of 20,000, but was soon routed. Then,
early in January 1026 CE, the sultan was ready for the assault on the Somnath
fortress by the seashore.
Although a later tradition stated that “50,000 devotees lost their lives in trying
to stop Mahmud” during his sack of Somnath temple,26 it is doubtful whether so
many devotees were killed by Mahmud’s smaller force. In fact, according to Romila
Thapar, this was a boastful claim, “constantly reiterated” in Muslim texts to
highlight “Mahmud’s legitimacy in the eyes of established Islam”.27 In the raid,
264 Political Islam: Parallel Currents in West Asia and South Asia

the temple was desecrated, the jyotirlinga broken and a wealth of 20 million dinars
was plundered. In April 1026 CE, Mahmud returned to Ghazni. In the same
year, the last of the Hindu Shahi rulers, Bhimpala, breathed his last, ending the
dynasty.28
Mahmud took pride in calling himself but-shikan (idol-breaker). Still, he had
Hindu fighters in his multi-racial army, who served under their own commander,
Salar-i-Hinduyan. Indeed, the anonymous historian of Tarikh-i-Sistan has
complained of ruthless massacres of Muslims and Christians by the pagan Indian
troops of Mahmud.29 In Sistan in 1003, they sacked a mosque and a church.30
Mahmud’s barbaric destruction of the Somnath temple embittered Hindu–
Muslim relations for centuries, particularly in north India. While medieval Persian
literature and modern Pakistani history books glorify the tragedy as a “historic
jihad against non-Muslims”, the rebuilding of the Somnath temple in the 1950s,
says Donald Smith, became a moment of Hindu repudiation of “almost a thousand
years of Muslim domination, and reassertion of Hindu supremacy” in post-
Partition India.31
Al-Biruni (who worked in the Ghaznavi court and went with the sultan’s
troops in some of the raids into India), in Kitab al-Biruni fi Tahqiq ma li-al-Hind,
the famous book that made him the founder of Indology, criticised Mahmud’s
invasion for “ruining the prosperity” of India.32 Moreover, according to him, it
caused antagonism among the Hindus for “all foreigners” and triggered an exodus
of scholars of Hindu sciences from the newly conquered Ghaznavid territory.33

Ghurid Dynasty and the Delhi Sultanate

A Persianate dynasty of Tajik origin, the Ghurids (from the mountainous region
of Ghur in Afghanistan) were initially vassals of the Ghaznavids, who had converted
to Sunni Islam from Buddhism after Mahmud’s invasion of Ghur in 1011 CE.
However, they soon became independent and, in 1150 CE, captured and plundered
the city of Ghazni, driving the Ghaznavids into Punjab. In 1186 CE, Sultan
Muhammad of Ghur conquered the principality of Lahore, thereby overthrowing
the Ghaznavid Empire altogether.
The Ghurids then confronted the Chauhan dynasty. They were initially
defeated in the First Battle of Tarain in 1191 CE. However, Muhammad Ghuri
vanquished King Prithviraj Chauhan in the Second Battle of Tarain in 1192 CE.
Finally, in 1193 CE, Qutbuddin Aibaq of the Ghurid dynasty seized control of
Delhi. After the death of Sultan Muhammad Ghuri in 1206 CE, Qutbuddin
 Ingress of Islamic Political Rule and Thought into India 265

Aibaq started the Mamluk dynasty in Delhi, marking the beginning of the Delhi
Sultanate, which stretched over large parts of the Indian subcontinent for 320
years (1206–1526 CE).34 The five dynasties that constituted the Delhi Sultanate
in chronological order were: the Mamluk dynasty (1206–90 CE); the Khilji dynasty
(1290–1320 CE); the Tughlaq dynasty (1320–1414 CE); the Sayyid dynasty
(1414–51 CE); and the Lodi dynasty (1451–1526 CE).
In India’s public imagination today, Delhi Sultanate is given little attention
compared to the succeeding Mughal dynasty. Yet, at its peak, it controlled all of
north India, Afghanistan and Bengal. Alauddin Khilji’s general, Malik Kafur,
even invaded the Pandya kingdom, with its capital in Madurai (today’s Tamil
Nadu), in 1310–11 CE. The Delhi Sultanate was also one of the few world empires
that was able to repel attacks by the Mongols (from the Chagatai Khanate) and
even enthroned a woman, Razia Sultan, who reigned from 1236 CE to 1240
CE—a rarity not just in the Muslim world but across the globe at that time.

India in the Sphere of Persianate Ajam

As mentioned earlier, Mahmud Ghazni paid informal obeisance to the Abbasid
caliph of his time and destroyed Indian temples to burnish his Islamic credentials.
However, ironically, it was his rule that marked the geographical and cultural
ascendance of non-Arab Muslims in the Islamic world, marking a shift from the
more sacred Arabic language to the relatively “secular” Persian. The gradual
inclusion of India in the growing region of Ajam (non-Arabic-speaking Muslim
world), from the eleventh to the ninteenth century, marked the political and
cultural assertion of non-Arab Muslims against the hegemony of Arab rulers over
the Muslim world.
Thus, the famous Persian poet Firdausi composed his great epic, Shahnameh,
at Mahmud Ghazni’s court, extolling the glorious feats of pre-Islamic Sassanid
kings up until the Arab conquest of Persia. Later Muslim rulers of India may not
have glorified India’s pre-Islamic past because of their Persian and Turkic origins,
but they patronised Persian language and literature in a growing rivalry of the
sphere of Ajam against the Arab in the Islamic world. In the words of Muzaffar
Alam, “North Indian Muslim rulers remained under the hegemony of the
resurrected Ajam. The courts of Delhi sultans imitated the ancient Sassanid culture
wholesale, and rulers looked upon Iranian heroes as their models.”35
During the Mongol invasions of Iran and Central Asia, there was continued
migration of Persian and Turkic princes, noblemen and scholars into India, which
266 Political Islam: Parallel Currents in West Asia and South Asia

enhanced the Persianate culture of the Indian ruling elite, but developed a kind of
inferiority complex among non-immigrant Indians close to the courts. The exact
process was accentuated under the Mughals when India became a haven for Persian
émigrés and Persian language and culture. “The ideal within the high culture of
north Indians,” Alam stated, “in this sense remained Perso-Turkic.”36 Thus, the
Ajami culture, unfortunately, remained confined to Perso-Turkic tradition,
although some Sufi poets like Amir Khusrau disapproved of the “Khorasani”
idiom and used Indian languages in their poetry.

Expediency of the Secular in Sacred Political Theory

With the rise of Persianised Ajam regions and culture in Arab-dominated Islamic
areas, the influence of non-Arab and secular ideas in Muslim religious and political
thought gradually increased. Many of the Shariah jurists came from non-Arab
regions and managed to cleverly integrate the demands of the Shariah with pre-
Islamic Persian, Turkic or North African heritage and traditions. As discussed
earlier, the Siyasatnama of Nizam Al-Mulk cited Persian precedents to justify
concepts of Shariah, thus using Sassanid examples to justify the nomination of
Umar as caliph by Abu Bakr.
On his part, Al-Ghazali employed both mystical and philosophical sensibilities
to justify and uphold the Shariah, but at times he argued the primacy of secular
decision making by the king on the grounds of political expediency. According to
Ghazali, “necessity makes lawful, what is prohibited”.37 Thus, the Turkic sultans
of Central Asia, including the Seljuks, codified administrative legislation as
Jahandari (worldly administration) measures to ostensibly support the Shariah
laws to make their political control more effective.
The attempt was to resolve the tension between pragmatic measures and
inviolable sacred laws in the matter of political governance, which increased after
Muslim rule was established in India under the Delhi Sultanate.
In Adab Al-Muluk, Adab Al-Harb and Fakhr-i-Mudabbir, the treatises
dedicated to Delhi’s Mamluk Sultan Shams Al-Din Iltutmish (1211–36 CE), the
emphasis was on the uncompromising finality of the Shariah which left little
room for secular and practical concerns related to administering a largely non-
Muslim population.

Barani’s Theory on the Shariah and the Zawabit (State Laws)

In this respect, Ziauddin Barani (1285–1358 CE) ushered in a relatively pragmatic
 Ingress of Islamic Political Rule and Thought into India 267

political approach, which was more in the tradition of Ghazali and Nizam Al-
Mulk, in that he ostensibly remained unflinching in commitment to Shariah’s
injunctions but managed to build a political theory in the prevailing environment.
He thus became the first “theoretician to justify secular laws among the
Mussalmans”.38 His famous work, Fatwa-i-Jahandari, was written as advice
(nasihat) for Muslim kings and has been compared to other historical works on
statecraft, such as Kautilya’s Arthashastra and Machiavelli’s The Prince.
Barani has been called a Muslim fundamentalist and a bigot because of his
emphasis on implementing the Shariah (Advice II) and his views regarding the
Hindus on matters of jizya and jihad. However, in his own time, Barani was
criticised by the mullahs for having diluted the importance of the Shariah and for
proclaiming himself as an Indian rather than a Turk. Indeed, after considering
the totality of circumstances in which he grew, many scholars believe that the
political thinker emphasised the Shariah chiefly to strengthen the legitimacy of
the rulers as a means to an end rather than an end in itself.
Thus, according to him, though it was desirable for the kings and nobility to
follow the Shariah, it was also important to formulate “zawabit” (state laws) in
the political domain for practical purposes. Further, he stated that these laws
need not be formulated in consultation with religious scholars (ulema). He also
said that the “zawabit” should not violate the Shariah in letter and spirit in normal
circumstances, but it could go beyond the writ of the Shariah given the vicious
nature of the people, even though “zawabit” may never be considered as right in
principle. Philosophically, the monarchy itself was against the Shariah, yet Barani
accepted it on the grounds of political realities.
He said that spiritual life could only be attained through humility, poverty
and self-abnegation, yet pride and self-glorification were essential for a king. He
added that a king could not survive without showing divinity (rububiyyah) and
so, kingship was the vice-regency (khilafat) of God. Therefore, in the interest of
defending Islam and annihilating the enemies of the faith, Muslim kings had to
adopt the ways of Persian emperors. He compared the situation with the eating of
carrion, which is prohibited in Islam except in extreme situations.39
In another famous work, Tarikh-i-Firoz Shahi, Barani discussed the dialogue
between Alauddin Khilji and Qazi Mughiz of Bayana over the importance of the
Shariah and the “zawabit”. Barani ends the discussion with Khilji’s purported
statement that he was not concerned with the agreement of his laws with the
Shariah, nor with his fate on Judgement Day, as his main concern was the state’s
interest.40
268 Political Islam: Parallel Currents in West Asia and South Asia

Inroads of Islam into Kashmir

Although the Arab governors of Sindh, including Muhammad bin Qasim, made
several expeditions to conquer Kashmir, they failed miserably. In the reign of
Abbasid Caliph Hisham, the governor of Sindh, Junaid, marched towards Kashmir
but was defeated by the raja of Kashmir, Lalitaditya Muktapida (724–60 CE).
Lalitaditya also stopped later invasions by succeeding Arab governors. In the
eleventh century, Mahmud Ghazni launched two campaigns against Kashmir
(1014 CE and 1021 CE), but was compelled to retreat because of heavy snowfall
and bad weather conditions on both occasions.
In the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, Muslim missionaries started to settle
in Kashmir. The earliest copy of the Quran in Kashmir, dated 1237 CE, was
calligraphed by Fateh Ullah Kashmiri.41 One of the newly arrived Muslim settlers
was Shah Mir, who, some historians say, was a descendant of the rulers of Swat
and came to Kashmir with his family in 1313 CE. A few years later, in 1320 CE,
the Mongols ravaged Kashmir and shook the foundations of its Hindu dynasty.
Taking advantage of the ensuing chaos, Rinchana, the Buddhist commander-in-
chief of King Suhadeva, the Hindu ruler of Kashmir, seized the throne. When
Rinchana did not get the cooperation of Hindu noblemen, it is believed that, on
the advice of Shah Mir, he decided to convert to Islam and took the name
Sadruddin. Some historians suggest that Rinchana decided to woo the invading
Mongols, who were then becoming Muslims in large numbers. After he died in
1323 CE, Hindu rule was re-established but remained embroiled in internal
political feuds.42
The situation changed when Shah Mir got public recognition for warding
off a second Mongol attack, which he capitalised by becoming the ruler of Kashmir
in 1339 CE, under the title Shamsuddin. He changed the Hindu feudal system
by introducing the grant of Turkic ‘iqta’, which won him loyal support amongst
Hindu and Muslim noblemen. Thus, he founded the Shah Mir dynasty that
ruled Kashmir for over 200 years (1342–1561 CE).
Under the rule of Shah Mir’s great-grandson, Sultan Sikander (1389–1413
CE), a large number of Kashmiri Hindus converted to Islam, and the Persianisation
of the Kashmiri administration took place. In the words of Andre Wink, “To
variable degrees, the greater part of the population of Kashmir valley converted in
the reign of Sikander Butshikan.”43 The process is said to have already started
during the reign of his father, Sultan Qutbuddin (1373–89 CE), with the arrival
of Mir Sayyid Ali Hamdani. However, the Islamisation of Kashmir is said to have
 Ingress of Islamic Political Rule and Thought into India 269

intensified under Suha Bhatt, prime minister of Sikander, who had recently
converted to the religion. Along with forced conversions, Kashmiri Brahmans
were dismissed from top positions, jizya was imposed and the famous sun temple
of Martanda was demolished. It is reported that towards the end of his life, Sikander
had scrapped the jizya.
Sikander’s policy was entirely reversed by his successor, Sultan Zaynul Abidin
(1420–70 CE), as he rebuilt temples and urged Kashmiri Brahmans to return to
Kashmir. Cremation tax was abolished, cow slaughter prohibited and even sati
was allowed (Sikander had prohibited it). The sultan also got the Mahabharata
and Rajatarangini translated into Persian. The Kashmiris gave Zaynul Abidin the
title of Badshah (The Great King), an honorific by which he is still remembered.

Hamdani’s Zakhiratul Muluk (Hindu–Muslim Segregation)

Sayyid Ali Hamdani played a significant role in spreading Islam in Kashmir and
brought several crafts and industries from Iran to the region. A Persian Sufi saint
of the Kubrawiya order, he authored many books and treatises, with his Persian
work, Zakhiratul Muluk, being a significant contribution in understanding political
ethics and rules of good government in his times.
The revered saint believed that a ruler who did not have a benign attitude
towards his people and who crossed the limits of the Shariah was the enemy of
God and the Prophet. According to Hamdani, the primary purpose of the state
was to enforce the Shariah to provide justice to Muslims. He divided the subjects
(raiyat) into Muslims and kafirs (disbelievers) and said that the ruler should protect
the lives and property of kafir citizens in a Muslim country. However, in addition
to paying the jizya, the non-Muslims were also supposed to follow a somewhat
elaborate set of conditions that were laid down in an agreement (ahad nama) by
Caliph Umar with the People of the Book and Zoroastrians. The conditions for
living in a Muslim state for non-believers, even as dhimmis (called zimmis in
South Asia), were detailed thus:
1) They should not build places of worship, 2) nor should they rebuild
or renew old and desolate ones 3) Muslim travellers should be allowed
to enter and stay in their religious buildings, and if 4) any Muslim
wants, he can stay as a guest for three or four days in their houses.
5) The zimmis should not act as spies. 6) If a relative of theirs is inclined
to accept Islam, the person should not be discouraged or dissuaded
from doing so. 7) They should give due respect to Muslims, and 8) if a
Muslim happens to visit a place where a non-Muslim occupies a seat,
270 Political Islam: Parallel Currents in West Asia and South Asia

the latter must vacate it for the Muslim. 9) They should not dress like
Muslims. 10) They should not use Muslim names. 11) They should
ride horses without reins and saddles. 12) They should not carry
weapons. 13) They should not use rings with engraved stones. 14) They
should not sell wine, nor should they drink in public. 15) To look
different from Muslims, they should wear clothes in their style. 16)
There should be no public demonstration of their rituals and customs
before the Muslims. 17) They should not live in the neighbourhood of
Muslims. 18) They should not carry their dead bodies through Muslim
graveyards. 19) They should not mourn their dead in public, and 20)
they cannot buy bondservants.44
Notwithstanding the so-called Shariah-oriented Indo-Muslim political
theorists, like Fakhr-i-Mudabbir, Hamadani and even Barani, most rulers of Delhi
Sultanate or even Kashmir found such political concepts too extreme and
impractical to be given a serious thought. Shams Al-Din Iltutmish, for instance,
is said to have told the firebrand theologians of his court that in terms of strength,
Muslims in the country were like salt in a dish and could not force the
overwhelming majority of non-Muslim subjects to embrace Islam. Sultan
Ghiyasuddin Balban (1266–87 CE), despite his fanaticism, considered rabid
political thinkers championing religious causes as seekers of narrow worldly gain
(ulama-i-duniya) and did not take their advice seriously. Firuz Tughlaq (1351–88
CE), in spite of his orthodox views, took an interest in Hindu traditions and
monuments, whereas Sikander Lodi (1489–1517 CE), whom many consider a
bigot, encouraged Hindus to learn Persian and participate in state management.

Sufi “Sabk-i-Hindi”: Allegorical Synthesis of Hindu–Muslim Ethos

Unlike many Arab theologians in West Asia, orthodox Islamic clergy distanced
itself from the masses and, just like the ruling elite, persevered in maintaining its
foreign roots and Persianate heritage. However, the Sufi movement entered India
in the eleventh and twelfth centuries and became a votary of democratic and
egalitarian principles of Islam. The Sufis believed that the elitist ulema had forgotten
these principles and had become the supporters of the state to gain worldly
comforts.
The universalist Sufi concept of “wahdatul wujud”, emphasising that “God is
one, and all is in God”, found resonance among the Hindus because of its closeness
to the ideals of Advaita spirituality in Vedanta literature. Thus, the attempts by
the ulema and political theorists of separating the masses of the sultanate into
 Ingress of Islamic Political Rule and Thought into India 271

camps of Muslims and non-Muslims was repudiated by most Sufis. In the sixteenth
century, Abul Fazl mentioned the presence of 14 major Sufi orders (silsilas) in
India, with Chishtiya, Suhrawardi, Qadariya, Naqshbandiya and Kubrawiya (in
Kashmir) being the most notable.
A remarkable development in Indian Sufi tradition was the evolution of Hindu
themes in the poetry of Sufis using “Hindavi” (similar to the Hindi language).
Thus, Shaikh Hamid Al-Din Nagauri (d. 1274 CE) and Baba Farid (d. 1265 CE)
are known for their dohas to this day. Among the celebrated Hindavi masnavis is
Mulla Daud’s Chandayan, an anthology compiled in 1379 CE, “which had the
distinction of being recited from the mosque pulpit of Delhi”.45
Shaikh Abdul Quddus (1456–1537 CE) wrote the Hindavi treatise Rushd
Nama or Alakh Bani, which identified Sufi beliefs with the philosophy of Shaivite
Gorakhnath. Some of his verses are said to find variant versions in the poetry of
Kabir and even Nath poetry.46 Similarly, Abdul Wahid Bilgrami (1510–1608
CE) wrote Haqaiq-i-Hind, which sought to reconcile Vaishnava symbols, including
the idioms of Hindu devotional lyrics, with orthodox Muslim beliefs.47
Among the most notable works in the pre-Akbar Hindavi tradition is Malik
Muhammad Jayasi’s Padmavat (1540–41 CE).48 The poem, originally written in
Awadhi but in Persian Nastaliq script, is the spiritually allegorical story of Sultan
Alauddin Khilji’s desire for Padmavati, the Queen of Chittor. Another celebrated
Sufi poet of the pre-Mughal age is Amir Khusrau, also known as the “Parrot of
India” (Tuti-e-Hind) and the father of qawwali. He is credited with writing in
many verse forms, including masnavi, ghazal (which he introduced in India),
rubai, qata, do-baiti and tarkib-band.
More importantly, Khusrau is known to literary critics today as one of the
inventors of “Sabk-i-Hindi”, an Indo-Persian diction that mixed the ethos of the
two cultures in its artistic compositions. In the words of Alam:
This process which began with Mas‘ud Sa‘d Salman and Amir Khusrau
and showed signs of stability first in fifteenth-century Timurid Herat,
combined in its idiom what may be termed as the best of the culture of
“Ajam”—that is to say the non-Arab world of eastern Islam. Sometimes,
this style is mentioned in our sources sometimes as tarz-i-
Hindustaniyana, matured and scaled to new heights in the late sixteenth
and seventeenth-century movement of taza-gui (fresh diction) among
Mughal poets.49
A remarkable aspect of this poetic diction was its use of the literary device
272 Political Islam: Parallel Currents in West Asia and South Asia

known as iham, used as deliberate ambivalence, that employed a word with different
meanings: one direct and immediate (qarib); and the other remote and strange
(gharib). Amir Khusrau used this poetic technique so that a word or a combination
of words could be used in as many senses as the poet intends and that all these
could be simultaneously intended (zul wujuh).
It can be said that, linguistically, Amir Khusrau was one of India’s first
nationalist poets, with traces of Sindhi, Lahauri, Kashmiri, Kubri, Dhur-Samandri,
Tilangi (Telugu), Gujar (Gujarati), Gauri (North Bengal), Bengali, Awad and
Delhi vernaculars and dialects found in his works.50 Khusrau profusely celebrated
the polyglot intellect of the Indian mind when he stated:
The people of Khita, Mongol, Turks, and Arabs
In speaking Indian dialects, get sewn lips
But we can speak any language of the world
As expertly as a shepherd tends his sheep.51
While Barani and Minhajus Siraj were highly critical of the presence of Hindus,
particularly Brahmans of India, Amir Khusrau waxed eloquently in their praise:
“Brahman in their knowledge and intellect are far superior to the knowledge of
all the books of Aristotle…Whatever the Greek revealed in philosophical thought
to the world, the Brahmans have a greater wealth.”52 It was, however, in India’s
praise that Amir Khusrau was the most eloquent. Thus, in Nuh Sipihr, he wrote:
“Hind was a paradise for the unbelievers since the advent of Adam till the coming
of Islam. Even in recent times, these infidels have had every pleasure of heaven
like wine and honey.”53
While the Delhi sultans lived in their palaces and stuck to their Perso-Turkic
ways of life, it was the Muslim Sufi saints who embraced the Indian subcontinent
and its people. In the process, they helped build a new syncretic ethos, which
later helped the Mughal ruler Akbar in blending the polity of Muslim invaders
with the cultural flavour and colours of India.

NOTES
1 Translation from Persian by S.A.A. Sandilvi, Great Indian Patriot, Amir Khusrau, New Delhi:
Publication Division, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, 1975, p. 24.
2 Marshall G.S. Hodgson, The Venture of Islam: Conscience and History in a World Civilization,
Vols 1–3, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1974.
3 Ibid, p. 57.
4 Yohanan Friedmann, “Minor Problems in Al- ’s Account of the Conquest of Sind.”
Rivista Degli Studi Orientali 45, no. 3/4 (1970): 253–60. http://www.jstor.org/stable/41880183
 Ingress of Islamic Political Rule and Thought into India 273

5 Yohanan Friedmann, “ ”. In P. Bearman (ed.). Encyclopaedia of Islam (Second ed.).

Brill Academic Publishers, p. 253.
6 Derryl N. Maclean, Religion and Society in Arab Sind, Leiden and New York: Brill, 1989. Also
see M. Ishaq, “Hakim Bin Jabala: An Heroic Personality of Early Islam”, Journal of the Pakistan
Historical Society, April 1955, pp. 145–50.
7 Maclean, Religion and Society in Arab Sind, p. 126.
8 P.P. Abdul Razak, “Colonialism and Community Formation in Malabar: A Study of Muslims
of Malabar”, Unpublished PhD thesis, Department of History, University of Calicut, 2013.
9 Manoj Ramachandran, ‘Cheraman Juma Masjid: Kerala Mosque built during Prophet’s
Lifetime,” Gulf News daily, 27 February, 2022, https://gulfnews.com/world/asia/india/
cheraman-juma-masjid-kerala-mosque-built-during-prophets-lifetime-1.86050107, last
accessed online on 23 September 2023.
10 Ronald E. Miller, Mappila Muslims of Kerala: A Study in Islamic Trends, Madras: Orient
Longman, 1976, p. 51.
11 Joshua J. Mark, Ancient India, World History Encyclopedia, 13 November 2012, https://
www.worldhistory.org/india/
12 Saiyid Athar Abbas Rizvi, The Wonder that was India, Vol. II, London: Sidgwick and Jackson,
1987.
13 Yohanan Friedmann, “The Origins and Significance of the Chach Nama”, in Yohanan
Friedmann (ed) Islam in Asia, Vol. I, South Asia, Jerusalem: Magnes Press/Westview Press,
1984, pp. 23–37.
14 John Keay, Chapter IX ‘Dharma and Defiance, India: A History, Harper Collins, 2000, https:/
/www.google.co.in/books/edition/India/0IquM4BrJ4YC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=muhammad+
bin+qasim+was+killed+due+to+a+family+feud+with+governor+of+iraq.&pg=PT300&printsec=frontcover
15 Akhtar Balouch, ‘Muhammad Bin Qasim: Predator or Preacher?’, Dawn, 8 April 2014, https:/
/www.dawn.com/news/1098562, last accessed on 23 September 2023.
16 Yvette Claire Rosser, ‘Curriculum as destiny: forging national identity in India, Pakistan, and
Bangladesh’, University of Texas, Austin, (2003).
17 Derryl N. MacLean, Religion and Society in Arab Sind, Brill, 1989, pp 22-29.
18 Yohanan Friedmann, “The Origins and Significance of the Chach Nama”, in Yohanan Friedmann
(ed) Islam in Asia, Vol. I South Asia, Jerusalem: Magnes Press/Westview Press, 1984, pp. 31–32.
19 Yohanan Friedmann, “ ”, in C.E. Bosworth, E. van Donzel, W.P.
Heinrichs and Ch. Pellat (eds), The Encyclopaedia of Islam, New Edition, Volume VII: Mif–Naz,
Leiden: E J. Brill, 1993, pp. 405–06.
20 Jamal Malik, ‘Chapter 1 Muslim Expansion: Trade, Military & the Quest for Political Authority
in South Asia (Approx. 700–1300)’ in Islam in South Asia, Handbook of Oriental Studies.
Section 2 South Asia, Volume: 37, Brill, 31 Mar 2020.
21 Lane-Poole, History of India: From Mohammedan Conquest to the Reign of Akbar the Great,
Grolier Society, London, 1907, p. 12, https://archive.org/details/historyofindia03jackuoft/
page/n9/mode/2up?view=theater, last accessed on 23 September 2023.
22 E.S. Kennedy, A Survey of Islamic Astronomical Tables, Vol. 46, Part 2, New Series, Philadelphia:
American Philosophical Society, 1956, pp. 2, 7, 12 (zijes no. 2, 28, 71).
23 Burjor Avari, India: The Ancient Past, A History of the Indian Subcontinent from c. 7000 BCE to
CE 1200, Routledge, Second Edition, London, 2016.
24 Ion Keith-Falconer, Kalilah and Dimnah or The Fables of Bidpai, Amsterdam: Philo Press
(reprinted), 1970 (1885).
25 Rizvi, The Wonder that was India, pp. 12–15.
274 Political Islam: Parallel Currents in West Asia and South Asia

26 Catherine B. Asher and Cynthia Talbot, India before Europe, Sterling, 2006, p. 42.
27 Romila Thapar, ‘Chapter 3: The Turko-Persian Narrative’ in Somanatha: The Many Voices of a
History, Penguin Books, London, 2004, pp. 38-76.
28 Ibid.
29 Raza, S. Jabir. “Hindus under the Ghaznavids.” Proceedings of the Indian History Congress 71
(2010), pp. 213–25. http://www.jstor.org/stable/44147488
30 Anirudh Kanisetti, ‘Mahmud of Ghazni had Punjab, Haryana, Karnataka soldiers: History is
not as simple as you think’, 6 October 2022, The Print, https://theprint.in/opinion/mahmud-
of-ghazni-had-punjab-haryana-karnataka-soldiers-history-is-not-as-simple-as-you-think/
1156172/
31 Donald E. Smith, India as a Secular State, Princeton University Press, London and Bombay,
1967, p. 386.
32 D. Deming, Science and Technology in World History, Vol. 2: Early Christianity, the Rise of Islam
and the Middle Ages, McFarland & Company, North Carolina, 2014.
33 M.S. Khan, “Al-Bîrûnî and the Political History of India”, Oriens, Vol. 25, 1976, pp. 86–115.
34 A. Schimmel, Islam in the Indian Subcontinent, Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1980.
35 Muzaffar Alam, The Languages of Political Islam: India 1200–1800, Chicago: University of
Chicago Press, 2004, p. 141.
36 Ibid.
37 Rizvi, The Wonder that was India, p. 163.
38 Mohammad Habib and Afsar Umar Salim Khan, ‘Political Theory of the Delhi Sultanate’,Kitab
Mahal, Allahabad, 1961, pp. 117-72.
39 Rizvi, The Wonder that was India, p. 159.
40 A.R. Fuller, A. Khallaque, Zia-ud-din Barani, The Reign of Alauddin Khilji Translated from
Zia-ud-din Barani’s Tarikh-I-Firuz Shahi, Pilgrim Publishers, Calcutta, 1967.
41 Mridu Rai, Hindu Rulers, Muslim Subjects: Islam, Rights, and the History of Kashmir, C. Hurst
& Co., London, 2004.
42 Howard Arnold Walter, ‘Islam in Kashmir’ in The Muslim World, Volume 4 (4), Wiley Online
Library, October 1914.
43 Andre Wink, The Making of the Indo-Islamic World, c. 700-1800 CE, University of Wisconsin,
Madison, 2020, p.108.
44 Alam, The Languages of Political Islam: India 1200–1800, p. 45.
45 Ibid., p. 89.
46 Saiyid Athar Abbas Rizvi and Œaileœa Zaidî (trans.), Alakh Bani, or, Rushd Nama of Shaikh
Abd-ul-Quddus Gangohi, Badri Prasad Sharma, 1971.
47 Francesca Orsini, “‘Krishna is the Truth of Man’: Mir ‘Abdul Wahid Bilgrami’s Haqâ’iq-i
Hindî (Indian Truths) and the Circulation of Dhrupad and Bishnupad”, in Allison Busch and
Thomas de Bruijn (eds), Culture and Circulation, Leiden: Brill, 2010.
48 Aditya Behl, Love’s Subtle Magic: An Indian Islamic Literary Tradition, 1379–1545, New York:
Oxford University Press, 2012.
49 Alam, The Languages of Political Islam: India 1200–1800, p. 121.
50 Amir Khusrau, Nuh Sipihr, edited by Wahid Mirza, Oxford University Press, Calcutta, 1950.
51 Ibid., p. 166.
52 Ibid., p. 162.
53 I.U. Hossain, “Identities of Composite Literary Tradition during the Sultanate of Delhi: A
Study of Amir Khusrau and Kabir in the Making of Indian Heritage”, International Journal of
Historical Insight and Research, Vol. 7, No. 1, 2021, pp. 37–48, available at https://doi.org/
10.48001/ijhir.2021.07.01.005. Last accessed online on 23 September 2023.
 17
Akbar’s Eclecticism and the Puritanical
Backlash (1526–1707 CE)

‘Adl-o-insaaf daan na kufr-o-na-deen

Aanchi dar hifz-i mulk darkaar ast
‘Adl-i bi-din nizam-e aalam ra
Bihtar az zulm-i shaahi dindaar ast
(Know that it is Justice; not Infidelity or Religion
That ensures the safety of the Country;
For the World is better served by Justice without Religion,
Than by the tyranny of a Religious King)
—Akhlaq-i-Jahangiri1

The sixteenth century ushered in a new phase of political stability in the Muslim
world, which was unprecedented in its scope and duration. The agrarian-based
Ottoman, Safavid and Mughal empires were all structurally similar and ruled
from the Balkans to Bengal for over 200 years.
By this time, the Mongol threat to the Muslim world had abated. Nevertheless,
there was a fundamentalist backlash to the rule of newly converted Mongols in
the Arab world, as evidenced in the rise of religious and political views of Ibn
Taimiyyah and his disciple Ibn Qayyim in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries.
However, the assimilation of the Turkic Mongol races in the Perso-Islamic world,
276 Political Islam: Parallel Currents in West Asia and South Asia

of which the Delhi Sultanate and the succeeding Mughal Empire in India were
vital constituents, did not find any resonance in India until the emergence of
Wahhabism in India in the early eighteenth century.
Another eclectic constituent in the Perso-Islamic world of the Ajam was the
introduction of Shia Islam in India since the time of Caliph Ali’s reign itself. It is
reported that some converted Sindhi Jats participated on the side of Caliph Ali in
the Battle of the Camel in 656 CE.2 Over the coming centuries, the Shia
community started to grow and began gaining political power in many regions of
India by the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. For example, in 1505 CE, King
Fateh Shah of the Shah Mir dynasty in Kashmir converted to Shia Islam.3
Again, in the sixteenth century, people of Gilgit are said to have converted
from Buddhism to Shia Islam following the invasion of Shia leader Shamsher of
Skardu. However, it was in the Deccan that the first noteworthy Shia power in
the name of Bahmani Kingdom (1347–1526 CE; with its capital in Gulbarga
and then Bidar) ruled. It then split into five smaller kingdoms, with three of them
having Shia rulers—Adil Shahi, Qutb Shahi and Nizam Shahi dynasties.

Tura-i-Changizi, Not Shariah, as the Mughal Norm

Despite being Hanafi Sunnis, the early Mughal rulers followed the “Tura-i-
Changizi” (Law of Genghis Khan) as punctiliously as they claimed to follow the
Shariah. They also had close relations with the Shia Safavid Empire of Persia in
the formative years of political struggle.
Zahiruddin Muhammad Babur (1483–1530 CE), known as the founder of
the Mughal Empire in India, succeeded his father, Umar Shaikh Mirza II, to the
throne of Ferghana (in modern Uzbekistan) in 1494 CE. In a couple of years, he
conquered the coveted city of Samarqand, but by 1497 CE, he lost both the city
and his kingdom of Ferghana to Shaybani Khan, the Uzbek leader. In the following
years, though Babur tried to win back the lost territories, he was not successful.
Then, Shah Ismail I, the founder of the Safavid Empire, helped him briefly
reconquer Samarqand. Thus, in October 1511 CE, Babur seized Samarqand but
only as a vassal of Shah Ismail I and had to fulfil the Persian emperor’s demand of
issuing coins in his name and adopting a Shia lifestyle. However, Babur became
unpopular in the predominantly orthodox Sunni country due to these measures,
and Shaybani’s nephew, Ubaydullah Khan, threw him out of Samarqand. From
then on, Babur started planning to invade India from Kabul.4
Later on, when Babur’s son, Humayun, lost his kingdom in Delhi to Sher
 Akbar’s Eclecticism and the Puritanical Backlash 277

Shah Suri, he also sought help from the Safavid Empire, which was extended to
him by Shah Tamasp on the condition that he converted to the Shia faith, which
Humayun ostensibly accepted. When Humayun died a few months after winning
back Delhi, his 13-year-old son, Jalaluddin Muhammad Akbar (1542–1605 CE),
was coronated by Humayun’s trusted Shia commander Bairam Khan, who was
then accorded the titles ataliq (guardian)5 and khan-e-khana (chief of chiefs).
Akbar’s mother, Hamida Banu Begum, was the daughter of the famous Shia
preceptor, Shaikh Ali Akbar Jami. Therefore, Akbar was raised in an eclectic Muslim
household that shaped his intellect into becoming a king with a heterodox outlook
on Islam.6
Before the coming of Mughals, most rulers of the Delhi Sultanate sought to
gain the approval of the Sunni ulema to legitimise their rule. Independent-minded
rulers, like Iltutmish or Alauddin Khilji, also tried to justify their inability to
meet the desired standards of Shariah; and even Barani was apologetic over the
zawabit (secular) practices of the state and called for keeping them under check.
However, with the coming of the Mughals, the primacy of the Shariah—
particularly of the Sunni Hanafi fiqh—did not feature as a fundamental
precondition for governance. The one glaring exception to the rule was the 49-
year-long puritanical reign of Aurangzeb Alamgir (1618–1707 CE). Thus, the
political treatise of Nasir Al-Din Tusi (a Twelver Shia with Ismaili occultists
leanings) named Akhlaq-i-Nasiri, the influence of “Tura-i-Changizi” (Law of
Genghis Khan; from whom the Mughal’s traced their lineage), as well as Timurid
traditions of Central Asia played a more influential role in formulating Mughal
political thought and culture than the didactic texts (adaab literature) of the Shariah
scholars.7
Here, it is important to note that Babur considered the “Tura-i-Changizi” as
an important albeit extra-religious convention and a part of his heritage:
My forefathers had always sacredly observed the rules of Changez
(Genghis Khan). In their parties, their courts, their festivals, and their
entertainments, in their sitting down and in their rising up, they never
acted contrary to the “Tura-i-Changizi”. The “Tura-i-Changizi” certainly
did not possess any divine authority, so that anyone should be obliged
to conform to them; every man who has a good rule of conduct ought
to observe it. If the father has done what is wrong, the son is ought to
change it for what is right.8
Notably, contemporaries of the empire founded by Babur characterised it as
278 Political Islam: Parallel Currents in West Asia and South Asia

the Timurid Empire, while the Mughal rulers preferred to call themselves
Chaghtayids, originating from Changez’s second son, Chaghtay, who ruled
Transoxiana.

Tusi’s Akhlaq-i-Nasiri: Akbar’s Political Guide Places Love Above Justice

In addition to the “Tura-i-Changizi”, it is said that Babur inherited political wisdom
from the great Shia astronomer, mathematician (pioneer of mathematical
trigonometry) and philosopher Nasir Al-Din Tusi. In 1235 CE, Al-Tusi wrote
Akhlaq-i-Nasiri (Nasirean Ethics), which contained his political philosophy that,
in the words of Antony Black, was “a synthesis of Aristotelian and Iranian ideas”,9
and served as the basis for the political orientation of most Mughal rulers. In the
words of Muzaffar Alam:
Tusi’s book was not simply among the five most important books that
Abu al-Fazl wanted to be read before Emperor Akbar regularly: it was
among the most favourite readings of the Mughal political elites. So the
emperor issued an instruction to his officials to read Tusi and Rumi in
particular.10
According to Tusi, practical wisdom (hikmat-i-amali) was very important
along with ethical revelations of the Shariah. The individual who attains perfection
through equanimity and equipoise (itidal) was the Nasirean ideal king, which
closely resembled the Platonic concept of the philosopher-king. The ultimate
aim of the king, in Tusi’s view, was to help his subjects reach “potential wisdom
by virtue of their mental powers”. In his conception of the ideal city or state (al
madinat-al fazila), people could be composed of different religions and social
backgrounds.11 All these principles appealed to the Mughal rulers governing a
diverse country like India.
Although an Ithna Ashraiyya (Twelver) Shia, Tusi incorporated some Ismaili
Shia thoughts developed under the Nizari Ismaili rule, and gave more credit to
the views of Plato and Aristotle on justice and political organisation than any
Sunni writer. He felt that human wisdom in earlier phases of historical evolution
(before the revelation of the Quran) may also offer beneficial wisdom. Thus, Tusi
was more open to a liberal interpretation of religious laws and injunctions.
Tusi’s political thoughts were based on his philosophy that humanity was in
between higher intellectual and spiritual planes and lower physical and ephemeral
ones in its present state of development: “Man’s perfection and the enabling of
his virtue were entrusted to his reflection, reason, intelligence, and will; and the
key of felicity and affliction…was given into the hand of his own competence.”12
 Akbar’s Eclecticism and the Puritanical Backlash 279

In addition, according to Tusi, human cooperation and social organisation

were provided by the organisation of techniques (tadbir-i sinai) such as sowing,
harvesting, cleaning, pounding, kneading and cooking. For this reason, “divine
wisdom has required that there should be a disparity of aspirations and opinions,
so that each desires a different occupation, some noble and others base, in the
practice of which they are cheerful and contented”.13 Thus, political wisdom
(hikmat-e-madani) was essential for upholding social order. Tusi stated:
The ordering of cities depends on kingship (mulk) and the ordering of
kingship on statecraft (siyasa) and that of statecraft on wisdom. When
wisdom prevails and the true law (namus-e haqq) is followed, order
(nizam) is obtained, as is the attention to the perfection of beings.
However, if wisdom departs, namus (law) is impaired, and when namus
is impaired the adornment of kingship disappears, and disorder (fitna)
makes its appearance.14
It is remarkable that Tusi spoke of mutual love (muhabbat) as a much higher
and nobler ideal for achieving social and state organisation than justice (adl)
itself, in that love enhanced cooperation across all sections of society and religious/
ethnic denominations. In fact, for Tusi, justice (adl) occupied the second position
when it came to the philosopher-king’s order of preference, as justice was somewhat
artificial, always enforced through regal exercise of power and through coercive
government machinery. However, love (muhabbat) inspired involuntary
participation from subjects belonging to all communities. Thus, Al-Tusi stated:
Justice leads to artificial union (of the state), whereas love generates
natural unity, and the artificial in relation to the natural is compulsive,
like an imposition. The artificial comes after the natural, and thus it is
obvious that the need for justice, which is the most accomplished human
virtue, is because of the absence of love.15

Akhlaq Genre of Mughal India: Justice above Religion

Historians like Jean Calmard believe that the Mughal rulers derived Akhlaq-i-
Nasiri traditions from Babur, who in turn inherited it from the last great Timurid
leader of Herat, Sultan Husain Bayqara (1470–1506 CE). Although the sultan
was a Sunni, he did not want to run his kingdom on strictly Sunni rules of
jurisprudence and had Shia leanings.16
The book inspired other political treatises in the “akhlaq” (ethics) genre,
attempting to simplify Tusi’s philosophical text itself. One of them was a small
280 Political Islam: Parallel Currents in West Asia and South Asia

book on ethics and politics, Akhlaq-i-Humayuni, initially titled Dastur Al-Wizarat,

by Qazi Ikhtiyar Al-Din Hasan Al-Husaini.17 In this book, the author stated that
he had encapsulated and tabulated some of the subtle and convoluted discourses
of Ibn Miskawayh (tenth-century philosopher of ethics and human evolution
said to be holding views similar to Darwin’s) and Nasir Al-Din Tusi on human
nature, the family, household and government. The book’s aim, according to the
author, was to provide the state officials with a manual for everyday activities for
enhancing the stability of the state. The author hoped the book would prove
helpful for Babur and his progeny in their running of government.
Another work on political ethics was Akhlaq-i-Muhsini by Husain Waiz
Kashifi. According to this treatise, justice played a vital part in the stability of the
country: “If his (the king’s) intention is justice, the result will be blessing, and the
country will become prosperous and well managed, but in the absence of justice,
blessings will depart, revenues will decline, and people will be in turmoil.”18 Thus,
a just king was the shadow of God, the source for all that was good in society. The
emphasis in the book was on the maintenance of balance in society than on
eradication of infidelity and idolatry, where the subjects should be treated as “sons
and friends” of the king.
Another notable work in the genre was Nurul Din Qazi Al-Khaqani’s Akhlaq-
i-Jahangiri, in which the ruler was advised to discipline his own self in order to
acquire moral authority to discipline and control others. According to Qazi, justice
and not religion should occupy a principal place in matters of governance, and a
just non-Muslim ruler served society better than an unjust Muslim one.19
In Tuhfa-i-Qutb Shahi Akhlaq-i-Badshahi by Ali ibn Taifur Al-Bistami, a
treatise in the akhlaq tradition, a passage citing the Hadeeth reads:
Even though Anushirwan is outside the circle of Islam, his justice was
of such a high order that the Prophet (boastfully) said: “I was born in
the age of Nushirwan, the just”!…Hajjaj ibn Yusuf (the Umayyad
governor of Iraq) was a born Muslim, companion of the companions of
the Prophet. Still, people mention his name spitefully because of his
cruelties, while Anushirwan, a fire-worshipper infidel, is always
remembered with adulation.20
The genre of akhlaq literature, which prospered under the Mughal patronage,
has a consistent theme of judging the ruler based on reason (aql) and not any
religious legal code. Justice, in these treatises, has an independent existence, which
is aimed at serving genuine public interest, be it for Muslim or non-Muslims.
 Akbar’s Eclecticism and the Puritanical Backlash 281

Abul Fazl and the Concept of Sulh-i-Kul (Universal Peace)

Abul Fazl ibn Mubarak, the grand wazir of Akbar from 1579 CE to 1602 CE,
was the author of the Akbarnama (“Book of Akbar”), a three-part official history
of Akbar’s reign (with the third volume known as the Ain-i-Akbari or the
“Constitution of Akbar”). He also translated the Bible into Persian and along
with his elder brother, poet laureate Faizi, was among the “Nine Jewels” (Navaratna)
of Akbar’s court.
Abul Fazl was educated by his father, Shaikh Mubarak, who was a follower of
the mystical Mahdavi movement that was much reviled by the Muslim orthodoxy.
From his father, Abul Fazl wrote, he “acquired many of the secrets of the
Illuminationists, the mysteries of the Sufis, and the marvellous observations of
the Peripatetics”.21
In the Akbarnama, Abul Fazl described the main qualities of Fatehpur Sikri,
built in 1571 CE by Akbar near Agra, which match the main qualities of a virtuous
city as outlined in Tusi’s akhlaq text. He believed that rather than the individual
who held the office, it was the institution of kingship that was endowed with farr-
i-izadi (a concept first developed by the illuminationist Sufi Shihabuddin
Suhrawardi), that is, a divine light transmitted to the king, which made him the
source of spiritual guidance.
Thus, for Abul Fazl, the institution of the king (padshah) veered close to that
of prophethood. According to him, padshahat meant “an established owner”, where
“pad” stood for stability and “shah” stood for the owner. Therefore, padshah was
an established owner whom no one could remove. Futher, as per Abul Fazl, padshah
was an agent of God, who worked for the welfare of his subjects and maintained
peace in his empire.
Abul Fazl promulgated the values of “Sulh-i-kul” (universal peace), which he
described were the cornerstone of Akbar’s rule of enlightenment. According to
this concept, all religions and schools of thought had freedom of expression but
on the condition that they do not undermine the authority of the state or fight
among themselves. People of all religious denominations, ethnicities and races—
be they Iranis, Turanis, Afghans, Rajputs, Deccanis and others—composed the
state’s nobility that executed state policies. In the spirit of Sulh-i-kul, Akbar
abolished the pilgrimage tax in 1563 CE and the jizya in 1564 CE. Even succeeding
Mughal emperors gave grants for building and maintaining places of worship.
Emperor Jahangir, Akbar’s son and successor, who was accused of assassinating
Abul Fazl, described Sulh-i-kul in the following words:
282 Political Islam: Parallel Currents in West Asia and South Asia

As in the wide expanse of the divine compassion there is room for all
classes and the followers of all creeds, so…in his Imperial dominions,
which on all sides were limited only by the sea, there was room for the
professors of opposite religions, and for beliefs, good and bad, and the
road to intolerance was closed. Sunnis and Shias met in one mosque
and Christians and Jews in one church to pray. He consistently followed
the principle of “universal peace”.22

Akbar’s Ibadat Khana and New Religion, Din-i-Ilahi

In 1575 CE, Akbar built a “House of Worship” called “Ibadat Khana” in his capital
Fatehpur Sikri. The hall was constructed around the cell of Shaikh Abdullah
Niyazi, who had left for Gujarat. The place was more of a debating hall, which
the emperor visited on each Thursday night, although the discussions continued
until Friday.
Initially, only Sunni religious scholars and sheikhs participated in the
discussions. However, over a period of time, many prominent ulema at the court
grew increasingly unruly and unpopular in these discussions and became the
target of ridicule by Abul Fazl and other intellectuals. These ulema included
prominent personalities, like Haji Ibrahim Sirhindi, Makhdumul Mulk and Shaikh
Abdun Nabi. After a few years, the doors of the Ibadat Khana were opened to
non-Muslim religious clerics and scholars, including Hindus, Roman Catholics,
Jesuits, Zoroastrians, Jains, Buddhists, Sikhs, and even atheists.23
Akbar got frustrated with the protracted and fractious debates held at the
Ibadat Khana by various religious scholars and concluded that no single religion
could claim the monopoly of truth. This realisation is said to have inspired Akbar
to propound his religion, Din-i-Ilahi, in 1582 CE. The new faith of Akbar had
elements of Sufi philosophy (the doctrines of Ibn Arabi’s wahdatul wujud);
devotionalism of Bhakti saints; some elements of Christianity, like crosses, and
Zoroastrianism (fire ceremonies); non-violence of Jainism that included
vegetarianism; and the universalism preached by Vedanta scholars who visited
the Ibadat Khana.
The central practices and beliefs of Din-i-Ilahi comprised a spiritual system
than a full-fledged religion. The principal beliefs of the faith were monotheism,
vegetarianism, non-violence, praise of God by pronouncing “Allah-u-Akbar” or
“Jalla Jalalahu” (meaning “may His brilliance be glorified”) and an anniversary
party of the faith to be attended by every member.24 Din-i-Ilahi is said to have
 Akbar’s Eclecticism and the Puritanical Backlash 283

survived the death of Akbar, but it never had a membership of more than 18
individuals, who were mainly from the Mughal nobility.
Various conservative Muslims were outraged about Akbar allegedly
propounding a new religion, and the qazi of Bengal province and Ahmad Shah
Sirhindi declared the new faith as blasphemy against Islam. Even Father Jerome
Xavier of the third mission to Akbar’s court in 1594 CE believed that Akbar was
not a Muslim but a superstitious pagan, who “aims at making a new religion, of
which he is himself to be the head: and it is said he already had numerous followers;
but that these are for the most part flatterers or people who have been bribed by
money.”25

The Fundamentalist Backlash

The non-conformist and eclectic conventions promoted by Akbar and his
successors outraged many ulema and conservative scholars of the age, and their
simmering discontent found political manifestation in the rise of Aurangzeb, the
bigoted ruler who ushered in the decline of the Mughal Empire.
As opposed to the Tusi school of political thought, the Ghazalian theory of
kingship was expounded in the Nasihatul Muluk and was the favourite among
both the ulema and the conservative Sufi scholars. In the book, Al-Ghazali had
bestowed upon the king the responsibility for defending the religion, following
the decline of the high office of the caliph.
To the translator, historian and the first Grand Mufti of India, Abdul Qadir
Badauni (1540–1615 CE),26 Akbar had violated not only his duty of defending
the faith but had also committed the sacrilegious act of starting a new religion
under the name of Din-i-Ilahi.

Badauni’s Muntakhab Al-Tawarikh: A Critique of Akbar’s “Irreligiosity”

In his famous work, Muntakhab Al-Tawarikh (“Selection from History”), Badauni
provided biographical accounts of Muslim religious figures, physicians, poets
and scholars. However, the book is famous for provoking debate because of its
hostile remarks about Akbar and his religious practices that were apparently
suppressed until the rule of Jahangir.
In the book, Badauni lamented that Hindu ascetics and Brahmans managed
to get “frequent private interviews with his Majesty” and:
There grew the conviction in his (Akbar’s) heart (as gradually as the
outline on a stone) that there were sensible men in all religions and
284 Political Islam: Parallel Currents in West Asia and South Asia

abstemious thinkers and men endowed with miraculous powers among

all nations. If some true knowledge was thus to be found everywhere,
why should truth be confined to one religion or to a creed like Islam,
which was comparatively new and scarcely a thousand years old.27
Critical of Akbar, Badauni further complained:
The teachings of Islam, on the contrary, were esteemed follies,
innovations, and inventions of indigent beggars, rebels and highway
robbers; and those who professed that religion was set down as
contemptible idiots. These sentiments had long been growing up in his
Majesty’s mind and gradually ripened into a firm conviction of their
truth.28
The historian was abusive towards the Shia in his book and disapproved of
Akbar for entertaining the Sufi ideal of wahdatul wujud (the oneness of existence)—
a belief he claimed puts the Almighty on par with His creation. His disapproval
of Mughal rule extended to the kingdom in general, and Badauni often wallowed
in unvarnished cynicism: “Hindustan is a wide place, where there is an open field
for all manner of licentiousness; and no one interferes in another’s business, so
that everyone can do just as he pleases.”29
A notable contemporary and ideological ally of Badauni and Ahmad Sirhindi
was Shaikh Abdul Haqq Muhaddis Dehlawi (1551–1642 CE). A critic of Akbar’s
latitudinarianism, Shaikh Abdul Haqq was a Qadariya Sufi who strove to reconcile
the Shariah with the mystic path. Much like Ghazali, he believed in the judicious
mix of scholarship, mystical ecstasy, adherence to Islamic laws and marifa (gnosis)
as the hallmark of a Sufi. A great defender of kingship, he wrote in his book,
Nuriya-i-Sultania: “no rank is higher than that of a king, and all words of
conventional praise are insufficient to return thanks to him.”30
Contrary to Akbar’s policies, however, Shaikh Abdul Haqq thought that the
kafir could never be just and urged Akbar and Jahangir to impose the Shariah law.
He even criticised Ibn Arabi’s concept of wahdatul wujud and said they were his
subjective observations. He said people who believed in this monistic concept
cried “Huma Ust!” (All is He) when their souls were foul and vicious.

Ahmad Sirhindi and the Naqshbandi Imprint on Aurangzeb

However, the most radical opposition to Akbar’s latitudinarianism—whose virulent
ideological strains against the Shia, Hindu and Sikh communities led to the rise
of fanatic Islam in the Indian subcontinent—ironically came from Naqshbandi
 Akbar’s Eclecticism and the Puritanical Backlash 285

Sufi Shaikh Ahmad Al-Faruqi Al-Sirhindi (1564–1624 CE). It is believed that

his highly conservative ideas were passed on to Aurangzeb by his scions, which
had a profound impact on the course of Indian political thought and ethos for
centuries.
Noted for his contribution to Sufi epistemology and practices by scholars
like Friedmann, Haar and Buehler,31 Ahmad Shah Sirhindi was accorded the title
Mujaddid Alf-i-Thani (“Reviver of the Second Millennium”) by his followers. An
indefatigable preacher against the alleged pantheism and Shia inclinations of Akbar
and Jahangir, Sirhindi was irate over the Mughal rule that allowed Hindus to
build their temples and even at times demolish Muslim mosques, which can be
gleaned from his famous letters (“Muktubat”) to his friends. Thus, he wrote:
The infidels of India fearlessly destroy mosques and build their own
places of worship in their stead. In Thanesar in the Krukhet
(Kurukshetra) there was a mosque and a shrine of a saint. Both have
been pulled down by the infidels and in their place now, they have built
a big temple. Agin, the infidels, freely observed the rituals of infidelity,
while Muslims are unable to execute most Islamic ordinances. For
example, on the day of “Ekadashi” when Hindus abstain from eating
and drinking, they see to it that no Muslim bakes or sells bread or any
other food in the bazaar. On the contrary, in the blessed month of
Ramazan, they cook and sell food openly. Due to the weakness of Islam,
nobody can stop them from doing this. Alas, a thousand times, alas!32
Sirhindi also refuted the basic monistic philosophy of Sufism, that is, the
concept of wahdatul wujud, as to him it smacked of pantheism, whereby God
and creation, angel and the devil, good and evil, were in unity. In its stead, he said
that any experience of unity between God and the world that a mystic has is a
purely subjective experience and occurs only in the mind of the Sufi and has no
objective counterpart in the real world. Therefore, mystical experience cannot
supplant the Shariah injunction that God is transcendent and not part of creation.
Thus, the Sufi saint advanced the idea of Wahdat Al Shuhud (the concept of the
unity of vision) instead of wahdatul wujud. Although Sirhindi’s concept of “Wahdat
Al-Shuhud” was further elucidated later by Shah Waliullah Dehlawi, it could never
replace the ideal of “wahdatul wujud” from the khanqah of various Sufi orders.
The spiritual and philosophical affinity between Advaita philosophy of
Vedanta and wahdatul wujud was highlighted by Shah Jahan’s eldest son, Dara
Shikoh, in his book, Majma ul-Bahrain (“The Confluence of the Seas”). However,
according to historian Ghulam Husain Salim, the Mughal prince’s book was
286 Political Islam: Parallel Currents in West Asia and South Asia

declared blasphemous by the royal ulema, who ordered his execution. Aurangzeb,
the youngest of the three brothers of Dara Shikoh, gladly carried out the command
in the bitter war of succession.33
Certain Naqshbandi sources claim that the spiritual successor of Ahmad
Sirhindi, Khwaja Muhammad Masoom Sirhindi, had five sons. The fifth son,
Shaikh Saifuddin, had the most widespread following and established a silsila.
Believed to be the spiritual guide to the Mughal emperor, Shaikh Saifuddin trained
Aurangzeb in the Naqshbandi tariqah.34 It is also claimed that out of 18 letters
that were sent to Aurangzeb by Shaikh Saifuddin, one of them urged him to
implement the Shariah rule in India.35
The bigoted policies of Aurangzeb against the Hindus, Sikhs, Shias and
advocates of moderate Islam for almost half a century were sufficient to damage
the foundations of the Mughal Empire, which started crumbling in his lifetime,
and more swiftly after his death in 1707 CE. He often used the pretext of crushing
political opposition as a means to carry out religious persecution—a policy that
led to a host of protests from Sikhs, Marathas, Jats and even Pashtuns.
His harsh imposition of the jizya tax on non-Muslims, in addition to pilgrim’s
tax and doubling of custom duties on Hindus, destruction of temples (the rebuilt
Somnath and Gyanvyapi being among the many) and the execution of his brothers
and all opposition figures make him one of the most infamous and tyrannical
figures in Indian history.
With the decline of the Mughal Empire in the eighteenth and nineteenth
centuries, radical movements and revivalist personalities started emerging in the
Indian subcontinent as the Muslim community struggled to retrieve its pristine
glory in a rapidly modernising world.

NOTES
1 Transliteration and translation from Muzaffar Alam’s, The Languages of Political Islam: India
1200-1800, University of. Chicago Press, 2004, p. 73. Dedicated to Emperor Jahangir in
1622, Nuruddin Qazi Al-Khaqani’s ‘Akhlaq-i-Jahangiri’ is the first major text on political
ethics compiled under the Mughals, which is inspired by the famed Persian political philosopher
and scientist Nasir Al-Din Tusi’s work Akhlaq-i-Nasiri.
2 Mirza Kalichbeg Fredunbeg, The Chachnama, Karachi: The Commissioner’s Press, 1900, p. 43.
3 Shahzad Bashir, Messianic Hopes and Mystical Visions: The Nurbakhshiya Between Medieval and
Modern Islam, University of South Carolina Press, 2003, p. 223.
4 S.A.A. Rizvi, The Wonder that was India: Volume 2, Picador, 2005, p. 92.
5 Dirk Collier, The Great Mughals and their India, Hay House, Inc., Delhi, 2016.
6 Audrey Truschke, Culture of Encounters: Sanskrit at the Mughal Court, New York: Columbia
University Press, 2016.
 Akbar’s Eclecticism and the Puritanical Backlash 287

7 Muzaffar Alam’s, The Languages of Political Islam: India 1200-1800, University of. Chicago
Press, 2004, p. 51.
8 John Leyden and William Erskine (trans), Babur-Nama, Vol II, Oxford, 1921, p. 7, cited in
Iqtidar Alam Khan, “The Turko-Mongol Theory of Kingship”, in Medieval India: A Miscellany,
Vol. II, Bombay, 1972, p. 14.
9 Anthony Black, The History of Islamic Political Thought: From the Prophet to the Present, Routledge,
New York, 2010, p. 151.
10 Muzaffar Alam, “A Muslim State in a Non-Muslim Context”, in Mehrzad Boroujerdi (ed.),
Mirror for the Muslim Prince: Islam and the Theory of Statecraft, Syracuse: Syracuse University
Press, 2013, p. 175.
11 G.M. Wickens, “Akhlaq-i-Nasiri”, in Ehsan Yarshater (ed.), Encyclopaedia Iranica, Vol. I, London:
Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1985, pp. 286–87.
12 Ibid., p. 47.
13 Ibid., p. 189.
14 Ibid., p. 233.
15 Nasir Al-Din Tusi, The Nasirean Ethics, translated by G.M. Wickens, London: Allen & Unwin,
1964, pp. 195–211, as cited in Muzaffar Alam’s, The Languages of Political Islam: India 1200-
1800, University of. Chicago Press, 2004, p. 55.
16 Jean Calmard, “Les Rituels Shiites et le Pouvoir: L’Imposition du Shiisme Safavide; Eulogies et
Malédictions Canoniques”, in Jean Calmard (ed.), Études Safavides, Paris: Institut Français de
Recherche en Iran, 1993, pp. 109–50.
17 Iqtidar Alam Khan, Tracing Sources of Principles of Mughal Governance, Social Scientist, Vol.
37, No. 5/6 (May-June 2009), p. 51.
18 Henry Goerge Keene (trans), Akhlaq-i-Muhsini, or, The Morals of the Beneficent, Andesite
Press, 2015, pp. 56-57.
19 Muzaffar Ali, Muzaffar Alam’s, The Languages of Political Islam: India 1200-1800, University
of. Chicago Press, 2004, p. 71.
20 Ibid., p. 73.
21 Abu Al-Fazl ibn Mubarak, The History of Akbar, Vol. IV, edited by Wheeler Thackston,
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2018, p. 565.
22 Jahangir, The Tuzuk-i-Jahangiri or Memoir of Jahangir, translated by Alexander Rogers, edited
by Henry Beveridge, 1909, Eulogium of Akbar, p. 37.
23 Vincent A. Smith, “Akbar’s ‘House of Worship’, or Ibadat-Khana”, Journal of the Royal Asiatic
Society of Great Britain and Ireland, Vol. 49, No. 4, 1917, pp. 715–22.
24 Waheed Ghaznavi, “A Note on Din-i-Ilahi”, Journal of the Pakistan Historical Society, Vol. 36,
No. 4, 1988, pp. 377–80.
25 Father Pierre Du Jarric S.J., Akbar and the Jesuits: An Account of the Jesuit Missions to the Court
of Akbar, translated with introduction and notes by C.H. Payne, London: Routledge, 1926, p.
68; published online by Cambridge University Press on 24 December 2009.
26 “Abd al-Qadir Bada’uni”, in Encyclopædia Britannica, last updated 1 January 2022. https://
www.britannica.com/biography/Abd-al-Qadir-Badauni, last accessed online on 24 September
2023.
27 Sir Henry Miers Elliot, History of India, Vol. 5: The Mohammedan Period as Described by its
Own Historians, edited by A.V. Williams Jackson, London: Grolier Society, 1907, p. 286.
28 Ibid., p. 289.
29 W.H. Lowe (trans.), Badauni’s Muntakhab-ut-Tawarikh, Vol. II, Calcutta: Asiatic Society, 1973,
p. 253.
288 Political Islam: Parallel Currents in West Asia and South Asia

30 Abdul Haqq Muhaddis Dehlawi, Nuriya-i-Sultania, Delhi: India Office Library (Delhi Persian
659b), ff.6-lla, 14a.
31 Yohanan Friedmann, Shaikh Ahmad Sirhindi: An Outline of His Thought and a Study of His
Image in the Eyes of Posterity, New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2000; J.G.J. ter Haar,
Follower and Heir of the Prophet: Shaykh Ahmad Sirhindi (1564–1624) as Mystic, Leiden: Van
Het Oosters Instituut, 1992; and Arthur Buehler, Revealed Grace: The Juristic Sufism of A%mad
Sirhindi (1564–1624), Louisville, KY: Fons Vitae, 2011.
32 Friedmann, Yohanan. Shaykh Ahman Sirhindi: An Outline of His Thought and a Study of His
Image in the Eyes of Posterity. McGill-Queen’s University Press, 1971, p. 82.
33 Ghulam Husain Khan, The Siyar-ul-Mutakherin, Vol. 1: A History of the Mahomedan Power in
India during the Last Century, London: Forgotten Books, 2018.
34 Anwar-un-Nabi, “Shaikh Muhammad Saif Ad Din Sirhindi Faruqi”, available at https://
www.naqshbandi.uk/naqshbandi-mujadidi/sayfuddin-ra/189-shaykh-muhammad-saif-ad-din-
sirhindi-faruqi-1049-1096-ah, last accessed online on 24 September 2023.
35 Muhammad Iqbal Mujaddidi (trans.), Maqamat Masumi, Vol. 4, Lahore: Zia-ul-Quran
Publications, 2004.
MODERN MUSLIM RADICALISM IN
SOUTH ASIA
 18
Muslim Fundamentalism in India under
British Colonialism (1707–1857 CE)

Ignorance leads to fear, fear leads to hatred, and hatred leads to violence.
This is the equation.
—Ibn Rushd (attributed)1

After Aurangzeb died in 1707 CE, the Mughal Empire began to decline steadily.
A host of weak successors, namely, Bahadur Shah (1707–12 CE), Jahandar Shah
(1712–13 CE), Farrukh Siyar (1713–19 CE), Muhammad Shah (1719–48 CE),
could not rid their governments from continual courtly intrigues, corruption of
the nobility and internecine wars of succession.
The abject surrender of Muhammad Shah to Nadir Shah (founder of the
Afsharid dynasty of Iran) and the subsequent massacre in Delhi of about 30,000
people in a single day (23 March 1739) severely tarnished Mughal prestige from
which it could never redeem itself. Nadir Shah plundered India’s immense wealth
in this assault, stealing the famous Takht-e-Taus (Peacock Throne) that was built
by Shah Jahan and is said to have cost the treasury twice as much as the Taj
Mahal,2,3 in addition to the famed Koh-i-Noor (“Light of the Mountains”) and
Darya-i-Noor (“Light of the River”) diamonds, which are now part of the British
and Iranian crowns respectively.
As Nadir Shah’s invasion exposed the weakness of the Mughal Empire,
prominent regional governors started to rule independent of Delhi’s control, like
292 Political Islam: Parallel Currents in West Asia and South Asia

Murshid Quli Khan of Bengal, Nizamul Mulk Asaf Jah of Hyderabad and Saadat
Khan of Awadh. Rajput rulers also started governing quite independently of
Mughal control in their territories, while rebellious states under the Marathas,
the Sikhs and the Jats started threatening the integrity of the empire.

Rise of European Colonial Powers

The nemesis of the great Mughal Empire, however, came from a most unlikely
source. It was the European maritime trading companies that had started their
commercial activities in the coastal regions from the fifteenth century onwards,
even before Babur could first set foot in Hindustan, that proved to be the nemesis
for later Mughals and their many independently run provincial governorates.
In 1492 CE, Christopher Columbus unintentionally discovered the Americas
for the Europeans, even though he was trying to find a nautical route to India. Six
years later, Vasco da Gama succeeded where Columbus had failed, by becoming
the first European seafarer to establish direct trade links with India when he
circumnavigated Africa and through the Cape of Good Hope arrived in Kozhikode
(Calicut in English). By the seventeenth century, the Dutch, English, French and
Denmark–Norway sailors had set up trading posts in India. However, over the
next 100 years, the contest for maritime trading dominance in the subcontinent
was mainly limited to Britain and France, who fought each other through their
proxy Indian rulers and direct military intervention.
The rise in European ships plying India’s western shorelines threatened the
predominantly Middle Eastern traders and Indian Muslim communities that ruled
the Arabian Sea. In fact, fourteenth-century Moroccan explorer Ibn Battuta speaks
of the considerable presence of Muslim seafarers and traders in Kerala, the Maldives
and surrounding coastal regions before the coming of the Europeans. He writes
that critical administrative positions in the kingdom of Kozhikode, such as that
of the “Shah Bandar” (port commissioner), were held mainly by Muslims. He
also mentions many Muslim ship-owning merchant magnates, known as nakhudas,
who had spread their shipping businesses across the Indian Ocean.4

Tuhfatul Mujahideen: Kerala’s Kunjali Marakkar versus the

Portugese
Following the successful expedition of Vasco da Gama to Kozhikode, the
Portuguese rapidly expanded their territories in the Indian Ocean region. They
ruled the seas between Ormus (the Portuguese word for the island of Hormuz in
 Muslim Fundamentalism in India under British Colonialism 293

the Persian Gulf ) and the Malabar Coast and south Ceylon.5 It was only natural
that the Arab sea traders and the Mappila community (the mixed West Asian–
Indian Muslims of Kerala and the Lakshadweep), who had complete domination
of these seas, entered into open confrontations with the Portuguese naval forces.
Thus, by the 1520s, there were many clashes between the Portugese and the
Mappilas in various places, from Ramanathapuram and Thoothukudi to northern
Kerala and western Sri Lanka.6
Four admirals (known by the title Kunjali Marakkar) of the fleet of the
Samoothiri (Zamorin in Portuguese), the ruler of Kozhikode, resisted the
Portuguese invasion of their kingdom from the seas from 1520 CE to 1600 CE—
the first naval defence of the Indian coast against European colonisers. However,
it is said that the wily Portuguese eventually convinced the Zamorin, in 1598 CE,
that Marakkar IV (the fourth admiral) intended to take over the kingdom. The
Kozhikode king joined hands with the Portuguese to defeat Marakkar IV, ending
in his defeat and death in 1600 CE.7
A Keralite Muslim, Zainuddin Makhdoom II (born around 1532 CE), wrote
a book in Arabic, Tuhfatul Mujahideen (“Gift for Islamic Fighters”), giving details
of the Muslim admiral Kunjali Marakkar of Kozhikode giving a tough fight to
the Portuguese from 1498 CE to 1583 CE. This book has lived in the collective
memory of the Mappilas, inspiring them to do jihad (in terms of militant violence)
against oppression, and even has a copy preserved in Al-Azhar University in Cairo.
Most Mappilas were low-caste Hindus of Malabar who had converted to
Islam because of discrimination by high-caste Hindu landlords. They had grown
rich by becoming maritime traders and coming close to, and even inter-marrying
with, the Arab traders before the arrival of European seafarers. However, with the
Portuguese and other European maritime powers obliterating their erstwhile
domination of sea trade, the Mappila again fell on hard times.
In the latter half of the eighteenth century, the Mysore Kingdom, ruled by
Haider Ali, occupied northern Kerala. Haider Ali dealt harshly with the high-
caste Nair community, executing many rebellious leaders and forcibly relocating
them to Mysorean highlands. This caused much resentment in the society, and
the British exploited this when the East India Company allied with the high-caste
Hindus to fight the kingdom of Mysore. When Haider Ali’s son, Tipu Sultan
(pioneer of rocket artillery and the leader who commissioned Zainul Abedin
Shustari to write the military manual, Fathul Mujahideen8), lost the decisive Anglo-
Mysore War in May 1799 CE, Malabar was captured by the British and organised
as a district under the Madras Presidency.
294 Political Islam: Parallel Currents in West Asia and South Asia

Under a discriminatory land tenure system, the Mappilas (along with other
low-caste Hindus) were again denied landownership, reinstating the norm of pre-
modern Kerala. From 1836 to 1921, the Mappilas launched a series of revolts
against the oppression of Hindu landlords and the British rule, which snowballed
by becoming part of the Khilafat movement, leading to an explosion of violence
in 1921–22, known as the Malabar Uprising. Initially supported by Mahatma
Gandhi, the movement was brutally crushed by invoking martial law in the region,
followed by the trial and execution of many Mappila rebels. An infamous incident,
called “Wagon Tragedy”, remains part of the collective memory of Kerala Muslims
against the Western rule, when a total of 67 Mappila prisoners were killed due to
suffocation as they were being transported in a closed freight wagon from Tirur
to the Central Prison in Podanur on 10 November 1921.9
These events are important to note while understanding Muslim anger against
Western powers in Kerala and their relatively larger exodus to the ISIS-held
territories in Afghanistan and Syria in recent years. The bitter memories of the
Portuguese and British rule still resound in the collective Muslim psyche in Kerala,
while the call to fight Western “crusaders” by jihadist groups, like the Al-Qaeda
and the ISIS, finds resonance among fanatical elements in the community.

Fatawa-i-Alamgiri: Muslim Legal Text under Aurangzeb and the

British
Islam had never established itself as the state religion of India under the Mughal
rule. This was a cause of great frustration among most ulema and even Sufi scholars,
like Ahmad Shah Sirhindi, which gave rise to a firebrand political movement
culminating in the ascendance of Aurangzeb to the throne.
During the Delhi Sultanate era, the judiciary and state law enforcement
institutions, such as the hisbah (an institution for “promoting religious virtue and
preventing vice”), used to provide enough incentives for the ulema to keep them
in good humour.10 However, such state support was not extended to the ulema by
Akbar, particularly in the later years of his reign. This galvanised the clerics in
their support of Aurangzeb’s Islamisation agenda against the religious
latitudinarianism of his predecessors.
According to Princeton scholar Muhammad Qasim Zaman, in the two
centuries following the reign of Aurangzeb, the ulema overemphasised the study
of original Islamic sources and downplayed the importance of rational sciences
and free enquiry.11 Further, the ulema of this period claimed that “Muslim political
 Muslim Fundamentalism in India under British Colonialism 295

decay in India was a function of religious decline, the result of the contamination
of thought and practice with local polytheism and alien philosophies.”12
However, the ulema were also faced with a dual problem: how would they
determine the constitutional basis and legal code for an Islamic state; and which
Islamic school of jurisprudence should be chosen out of the four equally respected
madhahib (Hanafi, Shafii, Maliki and Hanbali) in Sunni Islam in India?
Although the Hanafi madhab, being followed by most Sunnis in India, was
believed to be the official school during the Muslim rule in India, Mahmud of
Ghazni had himself turned away from Hanafi Sunni school to the Shafii madhab,
according to scholars like Imam Al-Haramayn and Taj Al-Din Al-Subki. 13 It is
claimed that Mahmud wanted to please Abbasid Caliph Al-Qadir, who had
transferred the qada (judgeship) from the Hanafis to the Shafiis, as enunciated in
his statement of creed, known as Risala Qadiriyya (1031 CE), that supported the
Shafii school of law and the Ashari theology. Thereafter, the Hanafi madhab was
never given a formal sanction of being the official madhab by either the Ghurids,
the Delhi Sultanate or the Mughals (barring Aurangzeb). Furthermore, the Hanafi
doctrines were never transformed into a coherent and “unequivocal body” of
authoritative rulings that the judges were obliged to abide by as a body of rulings,
before the last of the great Mughals. In fact, Akbar had reduced the power of
Hanafi madhab in the Mughal polity: “With an official document, known as
Mahdar, he attempted to assume final authority in case of conflicting doctrines of
madhahib.”14
The challenge for the ulema under Aurangzeb was how to convert India into
“dar al-Islam” (dominion of Islam) when the doctrines of the Hanafi madhab had
got mixed up with several divergent views and weak opinions (fatwas) of the
school. Again, these legal doctrines were scattered in several books, most of which
were not available in India.15 To overcome these problems, Aurangzeb himself
chose to emphasise his adherence to the Hanafi madhab in order to “gain the
support of the Sunni ulama and the Turani umara (lords) against the Rajput and
Irani umara (lords), who had sympathies for his rivals.” To this end, Aurangzeb
“put all his efforts in the direction that all the Muslims should adhere to the
unanimous views of the Hanafi jurists”,16 and therefore patronised the compilation
of the Fatawa-i-Alamgiri or Fatawa-i-Hindiyya (a comprehensive Hanafi legal
text).17
This Shariah-based (Hanafi school-oriented) compilation was completed in
1672 CE. Its original 30 volumes (printed now in six volumes) covered issues of
296 Political Islam: Parallel Currents in West Asia and South Asia

statecraft, general ethics, personal laws, inter-religious matters, property and

inheritance laws, military strategy, economic policy, transaction and taxation,
justice and punishment. Fatwa-i-Alamgiri served as the law and was prepared to
be the main regulating body of the Mughal Empire under Aurangzeb.18
Vaunted as “the greatest digest of Muslim law made in Mughal India”,19 the
legal compendium comprised verses from the Quran and Hadeeth narrations
taken from Sahih Al-Bukhari, Sahih Al-Muslim, Sunan Abu Dawood and Jami Al-
Tirmidhi. It is believed that prominent Hanafi scholars from different parts of
the world were gathered by Aurangzeb—300 from the subcontinent, 100 from
Iraq and 100 from Hejaz (the western region of the Arabian Peninsula, where the
Islamic holy cities of Mecca and Medina are located)—for the compilation of
Fatawa-i-Alamgiri. The project was led by Shiekh Nizam Burhanpuri and drew
on the scholarship of another Naqshbandi scholar, Shah Abdur Rahim (father of
Shah Waliullah Dehlawi).20 To Aurangzeb, the treatise was his puritanical and
abstract magnum opus, to rival earlier Mughal corporeal marvels of Taj Mahal
and Fatehpur Sikri over time.
Although earlier versions of Hanafi legal treatises were written in India to
assist muftis and qazis and also harmonise their juristic differences, such as the
Fatawa Ghiyathiyah (written in 1287 CE and attributed to Balban) and the Tatar
Khaniya (completed in 1388 CE and attributed to Muhammad Tughlaq), no
work before the Fatawa-i-Alamgiri was officially patronised by the emperor himself.
It is believed that the Islamic jurists (fuqaha) themselves wanted to keep the rulers
away from interfering in matters of the Shariah.21
However, medieval historian Richard Eaton states that the Fatawa did not
necessarily bind Aurangzeb from acting independently: “The Emperor also used
the finished text to guide the farmans, or Imperial decrees, although this did not
prevent him from tailoring his interpretations of the text to fit particular
circumstances.”22 According to Alan Guenther, the Fatawa-i-Alamgiri was a means
of the emperor to wrest control of the ulema away from the Shariah and bring it
into the domain of the state. Thus, Guenther believes that the Fatawa-i-Alamgiri
resulted from a tension between Aurangzeb and the jurists and that the
compendium was mainly a legal Hanafi text and never a piece of legislation.23
More than Al-Marghilani’s famous Hanafi legal text, Al-Hidaya, the Fatawa-
i-Alamgiri became the reference text for the British Raj to control their Muslim
subjects better. The British rigidly impose Hanafi ulema’s version of Islamic law
on a broad cross-section of Indian population from eighteenth century onwards.24
 Muslim Fundamentalism in India under British Colonialism 297

Charles Hamilton, William Jones and Neill Baillie translated parts of the document
and other Hanafi texts that shaped Islamic law and jurisprudence for India, Pakistan
and Bangladesh in the twentieth century.25 Consequently, the Hanafi madhab no
longer remained a legal doctrine but was the definitive image of Islam in the eyes
of non-Muslims. The British colonialist could not differentiate the Hanafi code
as merely a school of jurisprudence and equated it with religion, stripped of its
spiritual and cultural vitality and ossified in legal casuistry.

Shah Waliullah Dehlawi: Meeting with Abd Al-Wahhab in Medina

One of the leading scholars in developing the Fatawa-i-Alamgiri was Shah Abdur
Rahim, who also built Madrasah-i Rahimiyah. After his death in 1718 CE, Abdur
Rahim’s son, Shah Waliullah Dehlawi (1703–62 CE)—the eminent Sufi mystic,
religious scholar and reformist—started teaching at the madrasa. In fact, the
madrasa became a leading institute of Islamic learning and Muslim resistance
against British occupation under Shah Waliullah Dehlawi’s sons, namely, Shah
Abdul Aziz, Shah Rafi and Shah Abdul Qader, who taught there. Following the
death of Abdul Aziz, the leadership of the madrasa was passed on to his son, Shah
Muhammad Ishaq.
After the invasion of Nadir Shah in 1739 CE, several regional governors and
rebellious rulers started to challenge the Mughal sway over the country. Prominent
among the threats faced by Muslim rulers of the subcontinent was that from the
Maratha Empire, whose boundaries, by 1757 CE, extended from the Indus in
the north to northern Kerala in the south. In 1758 CE, the Maratha Empire
nominally occupied Delhi, then conquered Lahore by driving out Timur Shah
Durrani, the son and viceroy of the Afghan ruler, Ahmad Shah Abdali.26
Fearing that the Marathas would wipe out the Mughal rule altogether, Shah
Waliullah Dehlawi, with several other Muslim clergy members, invited Ahmad
Shah Abdali to defeat the Hindu Maratha power.27 Already upset by the defeat of
his son Timur Shah, Abdali decided to invade India and fight the growing Maratha
challenge. On 14 January 1761, he dealt a decisive blow to the Maratha Army in
the Third Battle of Panipat.28
Shah Waliullah is often credited with successfully persuading Abadali to rescue
Mughal rule in India from decimation by the Maratha Empire, but the impact of
this Naqshbandi scholar and political activist on the course of Indian history
does not end here.29 His ideas spurred violent jihadist actions among many of his
followers in subsequent years, be it against the British East India Company or
298 Political Islam: Parallel Currents in West Asia and South Asia

non-Muslim rulers of the country. In Shah Waliullah Dehlawi, many Muslims of

the subcontinent found a “mujaddid” (reviver of faith who, according to the
Prophet, comes in every century), who reconciled many of the internal disputes
within Sunni Islam in order to prepare his community to take on the Shia as well
as all non-Muslim adversaries.
Thus, Shah Waliullah made it his mission to bring synthesis or reconciliation
(tatbeeq) among diverse views of the Sunni community. He made compelling
arguments to reconcile the injunctions of the Quran and the Hadeeth (manqulaat)
with the rational sciences (maqulaat). He believed that the differences among the
Sunni schools of jurisprudence (fiqh)—the Hanafi, Shafii, Maliki and Hanbali—
could be eliminated with the use of “demonstrated proof ” (burhan), “intuition”
(wijdan) and “demonstrated knowledge” (manqool). He also praised Sirhindi for
his attempts at tatbeeq between Sufi mysticism and the Shariah.30
As mentoned earlier, the great Andalusian mystic Ibn Arabi expounded, among
the major theological tensions between Sufism and the Shariah, the monistic
concept of wahdatul wujud. According to hard-line ulema with a strict
interpretation of tawheed (oneness of God), the Sufi concept of wahdatul wujud
posits that the entire creation is part of godhead, which violates the monotheistic
Islamic argument that God is transcendent and separate from creation. Therefore,
no created thing bears any similitude nor has a share in God’s power. In fact, to
make creation a part of the creator is tantamount to committing the biggest and
most unpardonable sin of “shirk” (associating or including anything with godhead,
in this case all of creation) in Islam.
However, purist Sufis regard the Islamic term tauheed (which comes from the
word waahid or “one”) as being monistic, underscoring the impossibility of any
real existence occurring outside of God. To resolve this philosophical conundrum,
Ahmad Shah Sirhindi used the term “Wahdat Al-Shuhud” (oneness of witness)
instead of “Wahdatul Wujud”. That is, the mystic in a state of trance perceives no
difference between God and his creation, but this is only the delirious and subjective
experience of a mystical mind that “witnesses oneness”, even though the creator
and creation are separate from each other.
Despite Sirhindi’s arguments, many reputed Sufis continued to abide by Ibn
Arabi’s original concept of ‘wahdatul wujud’. Among the Sufis who did not
embrace Sirhindi’s monotheistic ideal of ‘wahdatul shuhud’ were Shah Waliullah’s
father and eminent Sufi scholar Shah Abdur Rahim (d. 1718 CE), the noted
Persian poet Mirza Abd Al-Qadir Bedil (d. 1720 CE) and the noted Persian poet
 Muslim Fundamentalism in India under British Colonialism 299

and intellectual Mir Ali Muttaqi (d. 1810 CE).31 In an attempt to resolve this
contentious issue, Shah Waliullah wrote a mind-bending argument, Faisla-i-
Wahdatal-Wujud Wa ‘al Shuhood, to rationally prove the difference between the
two concepts mentioned in the title of his work was merely semantic.32
Shah Waliullah also provided his understanding of the theory of the caliphate,
again intending to reconcile both the Sufi mystics and the hard-line ulema following
a minimalist interpretation of the Shariah. He distinguished between the inner or
spiritual (batini) caliphate that promotes the highest values of spirituality and
ethics, instead of the political (zahiri) caliphate that is only expected to uphold
Islamic forms of worship and rituals in society. He observed that the first four
caliphs were both the “batini” (spiritually enlightened) and “zahiri” (temporal
and practically astute) leaders of the community. After them, Muslim caliphates
mainly comprised zahiri caliphs, such as the Abbasids. Therefore, the community
should not fret too much about caliphs who may not seem to measure up to the
highest levels of spiritual and ethical conduct.
There has been much speculation on whether Shah Waliullah ever actually
met Muhammad ibn Abd Al-Wahhab, founder of the so-called Wahhabi movement
in the Arabian Peninsula, as both of them were contemporaries. In fact, Shah
Waliullah had travelled to Hejaz (the region of Mecca and Medina) as a young
man to perform the Haj around 1730 CE. According to Charles Allen, Shah
Waliullah and Al-Wahhab were both contemporaries and were taught by an
immigrant Naqshbandi Sufi teacher, Muhammad Hayat from Sindh, who was
from the line of Ahmad Shah Sirhindi himself.
At Medina, Al Wahhab studied initially under a fellow Nejdi, Abd Allah
ibn Ibrahim ibn Sayf, a known admirer of the theology of Ibn Taimiyyah,
who then introduced him to an Indian immigrant named
MUHAMMAD HAYAT of Sindh, a prominent teacher of Hadith.
Although a follower of Shafii school of jurisprudence and not a Hanbali,
Muhammad Hayat was a Naqshbandi Sufi of the line of 16th-century
hardline revivalist Sheikh Ahmad Shah Sirhindi—and he too was an
admirer of the heretical Sheikh Ibn Taymiyya. Muhammad Hayat and
his father are known to have taught a great many students in Medina.
Besides Al Wahhab from Nejd, these Talibs included a young man from
Delhi: Shah Waliullah.
Few historians seem to have realised that Shah Waliullah of Delhi, born
in 1703, and Al-Wahhab of Nejd were not only contemporaries but
studied in Medina over the same period and had at least one teacher in
300 Political Islam: Parallel Currents in West Asia and South Asia

common…Thus, the intriguing possibility presents itself that these two

young revolutionaries to be may have sat in the same class and even
exchanged ideas.33
Other historians have also confirmed the above-mentioned claims of Charles
Allen about the teacher of Al-Wahhab being a Naqshbandi Sufi scholar, greatly
influenced by the religious teachings of Ahmad Shah Sirhindi.34
Again, some of the Barelvi Sufi critics of Shah Waliullah Dehlawi disregard
his Sufi writings and consider him a complete Wahhabi. His position against
“istighatha” (seeking help from prophets and Muslim saints) and equating it with
shirk has been cited as evidence of his non-Sufi and Wahhabi ideals. However,
even more than Shah Waliullah, who has made profound observations on Sufi
thought, it is in his son, Shah Abdul Aziz, that one finds clear strains of Wahhabi
ideology.
Thus, to overcome the decline of Muslim power in the country, Shah Waliullah
sought to unite Sunni Muslims, bury doctrinal disputes within their sect and
present a united front against their adversaries. Although a Sufi of the Naqshbandi
order, he called for adopting the Shariah to overcome contemporary socio-political
problems, and also worked towards resolving the confusion between Sufi beliefs
and Islamic teachings. Further, alarmed by the growing influence of Hindu religion
and culture on Indian Muslims, he urged Muslim nobles to raise a purely Sunni
army to overpower the rising Sikh, Jat and Maratha power in the country. Shah
Waliullah was also against the Persian and allegedly Shia influence on Mughal
India, which he believed diluted the purity of Islam. Although a Sufi himself, he
was opposed to certain monistic beliefs and so-called Hindu practices of Indian
Sufis, which he considered bidah (religious innovation).
This line of thinking greatly influenced many influential Indian Muslim
scholars and activists after him and formed the basis for what came to be known
as the Deobandi school of thought. In the words of Tariq Hasan:
It is his (Shah Waliullah’s) school of thought that is often referred to as
the Waliullah Movement, which is regarded as the seminal 18th-century
movement for reforms amongst Indian Muslims.
It is the seed from which germinated all schools of reform including the
Mohammedia Movement in the 19th century in North India, the Faraizi
movement for agrarian and socio-religious reforms in Bengal, the Saiyad
Ahmad Barelvi movement for Jihad (not to be confused with the later-
day Barelvi movement of Sunni Muslims) and finally the Deoband
Movement in the mid-19th century.35
 Muslim Fundamentalism in India under British Colonialism 301

Shah Abdul Aziz and the “Wahhabi” Tariqa-i-Muhammadiya

Movement
The spiritual successor of Shah Waliullah was his son, Shah Abdul Aziz (1746–
1824 CE), who, as shown by his writings, was even more extreme in his views
towards the Shia (whom he considered a Shia) than his father. He also translated
the Quran into Urdu, as the nascent Indian language had gradually started to
replace Persian.
Unlike his father’s time when Hindu Maratha power seemed to be threatening
Muslim rule in India, Shah Abdul Aziz was witness to the rise of the British East
India Company, which was steadily increasing its political sway over India after
defeating the Nawab of Bengal, Siraj-ud-Daula, in the Battle of Plassey (1757
CE). They, then, vanquished the combined armies of Mir Qasim of Bengal, Shuja-
ud-Daula of Awadh and Mughal Emperor Shah Alam II in the Battle of Buxar
(1764 CE). Eventually, the British East India Company invaded Maratha territory
by the end of the three Anglo-Maratha wars (1775–1819 CE).
In these adverse circumstances, Shah Abdul Aziz issued a fatwa that declared
territories under British rule “dar al-harb”, but kept territories under Hindu rulers
outside of this categorisation.36 Although the fatwa did not provoke an immediate
violent reaction or any Muslim campaign against territories under British control,
it did become the basis for Muslim uprising against the British East India Company
in the Revolt of 1857.
Shah Abdul Aziz is also considered the founder of the Tariqa-i-Muhammadiya
movement, which many of his detractors considered to be nothing else but radical
Wahhabism under a different name.

Sayyid Ahmad Barelvi: India’s First Jihadist based in Balakot

Perhaps the most famous disciple of Shah Abdul Aziz was Sayyid Ahmad Barelvi
(1786–1831 CE), from Raebareli city in today’s Uttar Pradesh. Labelled by his
detractors as a Wahhabi, even though he did not consider himself as such. Edward
Mortimer says Sayyid Ahmad is fore-runner of modern Islamists in the way they
wage jihad and he attempted to form an Islamic state with strict enforcement of
the Shariah.37 Olivier Roy also finds in him the first modern Islamic leader who
led a “religious, military and political” campaign; and for this cause, he did not
just address the rulers but also rallied the common people for jihad.38
In matters of theology, he followed a puritanical interpretation of tawheed
(Islamic monotheism), which smacked of a muwahidun (Wahhabi) interpretation
302 Political Islam: Parallel Currents in West Asia and South Asia

in that it was devoid of the traces of monistic interpretations—wahdatul wujud.

Sayyid Ahmad Barelvi was staunchly opposed to the veneration of saints or visit
to the graves of holy men, which the common Sufi followers practised and
considered to be bidah. His teachings were compiled by an acolyte, Shah Ismail
Dehlavi, in the form of two treatises, Sirat’ul Mustaqim (“The Straight Path”) and
Taqwiyatul-Iman (“Strengthening of the Faith”).39
Sayyid Ahmad Barelavi was disturbed by the conquest of Muslim-ruled
territories in India by the British East India Company. In particular, he was
concerned about the growing activities of Christian missionaries and what he
considered was their systematic movement for religious conversions. The issue
triggered a strong desire in him to wage war against the British East India Company
across the country.
Sayyid Ahmad was, thus, the first radical Islamist theologian of the
subcontinent who worked towards stirring a scholarly, military and political
movement to combat the British threat. He directly addressed Muslim masses
and not just prominent rulers in his call for jihad against the British rule. For this
purpose, he sought help from Pindari nawab of the state of Tonk in today’s province
of Rajasthan. His plea for support was not limited to Muslim rulers only, but
extended to the Hindu king of Gwalior and Maratha nobleman Raja Hindu Rao
as well, to whom he wrote:
It is apparent to you that unfriendly foreigners of a distant land have
become masters of the country, that traders have assumed the dignity
of “Sultanat” and destroyed the reign of great rulers…by depriving them
from respect and honour…The purport of this affectionate letter will
truly be explained to you in details by Haji Bahadur Shah who is an old
associate of mine.40
He first participated in a war against the British by joining the forces of
Ameer Khan, the ruler of Tonk, in 1810 CE. However, Sayyid Ahmad left the
service of Ameer Khan when he became an ally of the East India Company, in
1817 CE, after the Third Anglo-Maratha War. Between 1818–21 CE, he visited
numerous towns in northern India, preaching against many Sufi and Shia beliefs
and practices, which he considered were polytheistic.41 Once, he told his disciples
who had sworn allegiance (bayah) to him:
Brethren! the purpose of performing the “bayah” is that you should
give up everything you do which is of the nature of polytheism or heresy,
your making of taziyah (Shia passion play tableaus), setting up of banners,
 Muslim Fundamentalism in India under British Colonialism 303

worshipping the tombs of saints and martyrs, making offerings to them

and taking vows in their names. All this you should give up, and do not
believe that your good and ill come from anyone except God; do not
recognize anyone but Him as having the power to grant the fulfilment
of your wishes. If you continue [in this way of polytheism and heresy],
merely offering “bayah” will bring no benefit.42
After returning from the Haj in 1823 CE, Sayyid Ahmad decided to fight the
Sikh Kingdom of Maharaja Ranjit Singh, which he feared was expanding too
deep into Afghanistan, a Muslim region. To check Ranjit Singh’s advance and
establish a base for launching a future invasion of India, Sayyid Ahmad sought to
establish a Shariah-based Islamic state in the North-West Frontier in the Peshawar
Valley. In late 1826 CE, funded by nawabs like Ameer Khan, Sayyid Ahmad
arrived in Peshawar with 8,000 mujahideen fighters and set up bases in the towns
of Hund and Zaida in the Swabi district.43 His fighters were educated in both
theological doctrines and warfare training. In December 1826 CE, Sayyid Ahmad
and his fighters clashed with Sikh troops at Akora with some success. After a
month, he was declared “khalifah” and was also given the title of “imam”.
After becoming the khalifah, Sayyid Ahmad imposed his own strict version
of the Shariah and increased the land revenue to the religious tithe (ushr) of 10
per cent of crop yields. In addition, he prohibited some evil social practices,
polygamy of having more than four wives, denial of inheritance to women and
clan wars. These measures eventually drew fierce backlash from Afghan patriarchical
tribal leaders, who did not accept his reformist fundamentalism. By 1830 CE,
many of Sayyid Ahmad’s mujahideen were killed, and the movement was forced
to retreat to the hills. Then, in 1831 CE, Sayyid Ahmad was decapitated by the
Sikh Army in Balakot, while his disciple, Shah Ismail Dehlavi, was shot dead.

Shah Ismail Dehlavi’s Treatises on ‘Tariqa-i-Muhammadiya’

It is important to note that Shah Ismail Dehlavi (1771–1831 CE) was the grandson
of Shah Waliullah Dehlawi. Impressed by the cause of Sayyid Ahmad Barelvi, he
joined his movement along with Maulvi Abdul Hai (d. 1828 CE). The agenda of
their new movement, known as “Tariqah-i-Muhammadiya”, was to fight British
colonisers and their allies, as well as to purify the tenets of Islam from Hindu
customs, traditions and cultural practices. To this effect, Shah Ismail wrote two
treatises: Sirat’ul Mustaqim and Taqwiyatul-Iman. In the words of the famous
historian Barbara Metcalf:
304 Political Islam: Parallel Currents in West Asia and South Asia

Sayyid Ahmad’s reformist teachings were set down in two works that,
when printed on the new lithographic press of the day, soon achieved
wide circulation. The Sirat’ul Mustaqim (the Straight Path) was compiled
by Muhammad Ismail in 1819. Written initially in Persian, it was
translated into Urdu to reach a wider audience. The second work,
Taqwiyatul-Iman or the strengthening of the Faith, was written directly
in Urdu. The two works stressed above all the centrality of tawhid, the
transcendent unity of God, and denounced all those practices and beliefs
that were held in any way to compromise that most fundamental of
Islamic tenets. God alone was held to be omniscient and omnipotent.
He alone, entitled to worship and homage. There were, the followers of
Sayyid Ahmad argued, three sources of threat to this belief: false Sufism,
Shia doctrines and practices, and popular custom.44
The Tariqah-i-Muhammadiya movement has been called the Indian version
of Wahhabism, starting from Sayyid Ahmad Barelvi. However, the movement
appears to have more in common with the Naqshbandi silsila of Sirhindi’s Sufism,
which, as mentioned earlier, was one of the major influences for the rise of
Wahhabism in Central Arabia.
After his death, Sayyid Ahmad Barelvi was turned into an imam by the Tariqah-
i-Muhammadiya, more in the fashion of a Sufi or Shia religious leader, the precursor
of the Ahl-i-Hadeeth movement in the subcontinent.45

Spread of Tariqah-i-Muhammadiya in Bengal

The manner of Islam’s advent in Bengal has remained a contentious issue.
According to historical sources, Muslim traders first visited the province during
the early years of Islam’s spread and traversed the maritime route to reach China.
Coins of the Abbasid age have been excavated in Bengal, matching the Buddhist
rule of the Pala Empire in the region. One of the first Sufi mystics to reach the
region was Shah Sultan Rumi in the eleventh century.46
In 1203 CE, a Turko-Afghan general of the Ghurid Empire, Bakhtiyar Khalji,
defeated King Lakshman Sena of the Sena Empire of Bengal. His conquests of
Bengal and Bihar led to the establishment of the Khalji dynasty of Bengal from
1203 CE to 1227 CE. His reign is said to have been responsible for the
displacement of Buddhists from the region and the desecration of their religious
sites and academic institutions, including the famed Nalanda University. The
fourteenth, fifteenth and sixteenth centuries saw the rise of the Bengal Sultanate,
the dominant power of the Ganges–Brahmaputra Delta. Its five dynastic periods
 Muslim Fundamentalism in India under British Colonialism 305

reached their peak under Hussain Shahi dynasty. Its vast expanse, along with its
vassal states, covered Odisha (modern Orissa) in the southwest, Arakan (region
of Rohingya population) in the southeast and Tripura in the east.
The Bengali, Assamese and Arakanese Muslim communities (of largely Hanafi
Sunnis) trace their histories to the Bengal Sultanate—a dynasty of Perso-Turkic,
Arab, Pashtun and Bengali elites.47 The establishment of a single united Bengal
Sultanate in 1352 CE, by Shamsuddin Ilyas Shah, eventually developed a “Bengali”
socio-linguistic identity. European traders identified the Bengal Sultanate as “the
richest country to trade with”.48 However, with the rise of the Suri Empire and
then the expansion of Mughals, the Bengal Sultanate disintegrated, and the region
turned into the Bengal subah (province) under the Mughal Empire.
With the decline of the Mughal Empire and the capture of India’s eastern
provinces by the British after winning the Battle of Plassey in 1757 CE, Muslims
of the former Bengali subah felt politically weakened and fell for the militant
message of Sayyid Ahmad Barelvi. Thus, the former Bengal Sultanate region soon
became a hotbed of Shah Abdul Aziz’s Tariqa-i-Muhammadiya movement. Most
of these socio-political and militant activists belonged to the ideology of Sayyid
Ahmad Barelvi or Wahhabism that they learnt in Mecca while travelling for the
Haj.

Titu Mir: Sayyid Ahmad Barelvi’s Ardent Disciple

A clear example is that of Syed Mir Nisar Ali, better known as Titu Mir (1782–
1831 CE), an Islamic scholar and hafiz (memoriser) of the Quran, who became a
disciple of Sayyid Ahmad Barelvi in Mecca when both of them were performing
the Haj pilgrimage. Titu Mir was impressed by Sayyid Ahmad’s puritanical
teachings and his advocacy of jihad for purging non-Islamic practices from
society.49
Upon his return from Mecca, he mobilised the Muslim peasantry that felt
exploited by Hindu zamindars (landlords) and the British East India Company,
which forced them to cultivate indigo. Titu Mir asked the peasants to be more
spiritually disciplined, observe the Shariah’s injunctions punctiliously and stop
praying at the graves of saints. Gaining huge support from the Muslim and even
Hindu peasantry, Titu Mir proclaimed himself the “badshah” of a large area around
Narkelberia and built a bamboo fort (“Bansher Kella”) there. On 18 November
1831, after receiving instructions from Lord William Bentick, the Governor-
General of India, the British forces bombarded Titu Mir’s bamboo fort, which
306 Political Islam: Parallel Currents in West Asia and South Asia

took a long time to breach. Titu Mir was bayoneted to death, while 800 of his
fighters were arrested, with many being tried and hanged to death.50

Shariatullah and the Faraizi Movement

Another prominent Bengali leader and a more accomplished Islamic scholar than
Titu Mir was Haji Shariatullah, who founded the Faraizi movement in Bengal in
1818 CE. Having lived in Arabia for 19 years (1799–1818 CE), Shariatullah was
deeply influenced by Wahhabi principles prevalent in the region at that time. On
returning to India, he was well received for his scholarship in Arabic literature
and fiqh (jurisprudence).
When Shariatullah witnessed the social ills and religious practices of fellow
Bengali Muslims, he started preaching for strict compliance of obligatory religious
duties or faraiz, from which his movement derived its name. He believed that by
shunning non-Islamic Sufi practices of visiting graves, etc., and adherence to
tawheed (belief in the oneness of God) and taubah (sincere repentance), even the
poorest of peasants would receive divine guidance and help to overcome their
problems.
The movement became very popular and spread to Dhaka, Faridpur, Barisal
and Comilla, and even caused a riot in the Nayabari district of Dhaka. The Hindu
and Muslim landlords and European indigo planters were afraid that Shariatullah’s
teachings would stir up a peasant revolt against oppressive taxation and enforced
cultivation of indigo. For his part, Shariatullah urged the peasants to stop paying
heavy taxes to the landlords and opposed the ban on slaughter of cattle during
Eid festival. For such activities, he was put in prison several times.51

Dadu Miyan: Rage of the Indigo Cultivators

Haji Shariatullah died in 1840 CE and his movement was then led by his only
son, Muhsinuddin Ahmad alias Dadu Miyan (also spelt as Dudu Miyan).52
Though not as great a scholar as his illustrious father, he gave the Faraizi movement
a better organisational structure. To him, the land belonged to those who worked
it, not the landlords or British rulers. He established a khalifah in every village
and set up an independent administrative structure.53 Like his father, Dadu Miyan
was arrested many times at the behest of the landlords for asking peasants not to
pay taxes. During the 1857 revolt, the British government kept him in Alipore
prison as a precaution. He was released in 1860, but two years later, he died of
natural causes at the age of 43.54
 Muslim Fundamentalism in India under British Colonialism 307

After its initiation in the northwestern regions of the country by Sayyid Ahmad
Barelvi and his loyal comrade-in-arms Shah Ismail Dehlavi, the Tariqa-i-
Muhammadiya movement spread to the eastern states of India. Despite its
stridently radical Islamist message, it reached out to the concerns of the common
people and, in the east, took up the cause of the lowly peasants. Although its
religious extremism stopped it from becoming hugely popular, it impacted the
outbreak of the 1857 revolt and the Partition of Bengal, both in 1905 and in
1947. With a mix of Wahhabi and Naqshbandiya strains, it also became the
precursor to the emergence of the Ahl-i-Hadeeth community in India.
However, the historical importance of this movement has increased in recent
decades because the Tariqa-i-Muhammadiya has striking similarities with the non-
state jihadi groups operating in South Asia in the twenty-first century, with their
Wahhabi and Deobandi ideologies and methodologies being first introduced to
the subcontinent by this movement.

Wilayat Ali and Inayat Ali: Barelvi’s Warriors till 1857 CE

The period between Sayyid Ahmad Barelvi’s death in 1831 CE and the famed
1857 revolt is, to a great extent, the history of the activities of Wilayat Ali (1790–
1852 CE) and Inayat Ali (1794–1858 CE) of the Sadiqpur family of Patna (then
called Azeemabad). Dubbed by the British historian William Hunter as Indian
Wahhabis, these two brothers were described thus:
Indefatigable as missionaries, careless of themselves, blameless in their
lives, supremely devoted to the overthrow of their English infidels,
admirably skilful in organising a permanent system for supplying money
and recruits, the Patna caliphs stand forth as the types and exemplars of
the sect. Much of their teaching was faultless, and it was given to them
to stir up thousands of their countrymen to the truer life and purer
conception of the Almighty.55
The two brothers had sworn allegiance to Sayyid Ahmad Barelvi himself and
had served him in the North-Western Frontier Province, fighting the Sikh forces
for years. In 1829–30 CE, Sayyid Ahmad sent Wilayat Ali and Saiyyad Mohammad
Ali Rampuri to Hyderabad (Deccan) to propagate his teaching. After Sayyid
Ahmad died in Balakot in 1831 CE, Wilayat Ali became the leader of the militant
movement. His group propagated that Sayyid Ahmad did not die in the battle
but had gone into hiding. The two brothers propagated myths about Sayyid
Ahamd’s spiritual powers and kept sending recruits to their base in Sittana town
in the Frontier region.
308 Political Islam: Parallel Currents in West Asia and South Asia

In 1847 CE, the British defeated the forces of Wilayat Ali in Dub. Wilayat
Ali and his soldiers were arrested and sent back to Patna following the defeat.
However, by 1851 CE, he returned to the Frontier region and fomented revolt
within the 4th Native Infantry stationed at Rawalpindi. The movement suffered
an irreparable loss when Maulana Wilayat Ali suddenly passed away in October
1852.
Inayat Ali succeeded his elder brother and took on the British forces in 1853
CE, in which many of his mujahideen soldiers died and he narrowly escaped. In
October 1857, Inayat Ali made a successful night attack on the British assistant
commissioner at Sheikhjana. Nevertheless, the outbreak of the 1857 rebellion cut
off his supplies from Patna, forcing him to suspend his operations. Inayat Ali
died in Swat in 1858 CE.56

NOTES
1 Edited by Miguel Cruz Hernaìndez, Averroes, Antologia, Fundacion El Monte, Seville, 1998.
2 Fergus Nicoll, Shah Jahan, London: Penguin Books, 2009.
3 K.R.N. Swamy, “As Priceless as the Peacock Throne”, The Tribune, January 30, 2000.
4 Sebastian R. Prange, Monsoon Islam: Trade and Faith on the Medieval Malabar Coast, Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 2018.
5 Sanjay Subrahmanyam, The Career and Legend of Vasco da Gama, New York: Cambridge
University Press, 1997, p. 288.
6 Chandra de Silva, ‘Portuguese Interactions with Sri Lanka and the Maldives in the Sixteenth
Century: Some Parallels and Divergences’, Sri Lanka Journal of the Humanities, 2001, p. 10.
7 Sanjay Subramanian, The Portuguese Empire in Asia, 1500-1700; A Political and Economic
History, John Wiley and Sons, 2012, https://www.google.co.in/books/edition/
The_Portuguese_Empire_in_Asia_1500_1700/-DZciX6WxgUC?hl=en
8 Robert Elgood, Firearms of the Islamic World: In the Tared Rajab Museum, Kuwait: I.B. Tauris,
1995, p. 164.
9 Dr. Sivadasan P., Wagon Tragedy: Kanalvazhiyile Koottakuruthi, National Book Stall, Kottayam,
2011.
10 Sardar M.A. Waqar Khan Arif, ‘The Legal System of Sultans of Delhi: An Overview’,
International Journal of Development and Sustainability ISSN: 2186-8662 – www.isdsnet.com/
ijds Volume 6 Number 12 (2017).
11 Muhammad Qasim Zaman, The Ulama in Contemporary Islam: Custodians of Change, Princeton
Studies in Muslim Politics, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2002.
12 Kamran Bokhari, “Cradle of Chaos: On the Deobandi Sect”, The New Indian Express, 9 January
2022, available at https://www.newindianexpress.com/magazine/2022/jan/09/cradle-of-
chaoson-the-deobandi-sect-2403881.html, last accessed online on 24 September 2023.
13 Joseph Schacht, An Introduction to Islamic Law, Clarendon Press, 1966, p. 65.
14 Muhammad Khalid Masud, “Religion and State in Late Mughal India: The Official Status of
Fatawa Alamgiri”, LUMS Law Journal, Vol. 3, No. 1, 2016, p. 37.
15 Muhammad Saqi Musta’id Khan, Ma’asir I Alamgiri, first published in 1871, Gorgias Press 13
February 2009.
 Muslim Fundamentalism in India under British Colonialism 309

16 Ibid.
17 Sheikh Nizam, Al-Fatawa Al-Hindiyya, 6 vols, 3rd edition, Beirut: Dar Ihya’ al-Turath
al-’Arabi, 1980.
18 Nazarudeen Al-Bernhapuri, Fatawa Hindiyyah, Vol. 1 1st edition, Damascus, Beirut, Kuwait:
Dar an-Nawadir, 2013.
19 The Cambridge History of India, Vol. 5, p. 317.
20 Muhammad Basheer Ahmad, The Administration of Justice in Medieval India, Manager of
Publications, 1952, p. 42.
21 Masud, “Religion and State in Late Mughal India: The Official Status of Fatawa Alamgiri”,
Lahore University of Management Science. 2020.
22 Richard M. Eaton (ed.), India’s Islamic Traditions, New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2003,
p. 168.
23 A.M. Guenther, “Hanafi Fiqh in Mughal India: The Fatawa-i Alamgiri”, in ibid., p. 211.
24 Daniel Collins, “Islamization of Pakistani Law: A Historical Perspective”, Stanford Journal of
International Law, Vol. 24, 1987, pp. 511–32.
25 K. Ewing, Sharia and Ambiguity in South Asian Islam, University of California Press, 1988.
26 Kaushik Roy, India’s Historic Battles: From Alexander the Great to Kargil, Orient Longman,
2004, p. 90.
27 Ashvini Agrawal, “Events Leading to the Battle of Panipat”, in Studies in Mughal History,
Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1983, p. 26.
28 H.G. Keene, The Fall of the Moghul Empire of Hindustan, Vol. VI, Kessinger Publishing Co (17
June 2004), pp. 80–81.
29 Ashvini Agrawal, “Events leading to the Battle of Panipat”, Studies in Mughal History, Motilal
Banarsidass, 1983, p. 26.
30 Fazlur Rahman, Revival and Reform in Islam: A Study of Islamic Fundamentalism, Oxford: One
World, 2000.
31 Muzaffar Alam, The Languages of Political Islam: India 1200–1800, Chicago: University of
Chicago Press, 2004, p. 171.
32 Barbara D. Metcalfe, Islamic Revival in British India: Deoband, Berkeley: University of California
Press, 1984, pp. 16–45.
33 Charles Allen, God’s Terrorists: The Wahhabi Cult and the Hidden Roots of Modern Jihad,
Cambridge: Da Capo Press, 2006, pp. 48–49.
34 Basheer M. Nafi, “A Teacher of Ibn ‘Abd al- and the
Revival of ’s Methodology”, Islamic Law and Society, Vol .13, No. 2, 2006,
pp. 208–41.
35 Tariq Hasan, Colonialism and the Call to Jihad in British India, Delhi: Sage, 2015, p. 43.
36 Ibid.
37 Edward Mortimer, Faith and Power: The Politics of Islam, Faber & Faber, 1982, pp. 68-70
38 Olivier Roy, Islam and Resistance in Afghanistan, Cambridge University Press, 1985, pp. 57–8.
39 Barbara Metcalf, “Islamic Revival in British India: Deoband, 1800-1900’, Princeton University
Press, 1982, pp. 56-57.
40 Shah Muhammad, Muslims and India’s Freedom Movement, New Delhi: Institute of Objective
Studies, 2002, pp. 10-11.
41 Barbara D. Metcalf, Islamic Revival in British India: Deoband, 1860–1900, Princeton: Princeton
University Press, 1982, p. 58.
42 Muhammad Hedayetullah, Sayyid Ahmad: A Study of the Religious Reform Movement of Sayyid
Ahmad of Ra’e Bareli, Montreal, Canada: McGill University, 1968, p. 134.
310 Political Islam: Parallel Currents in West Asia and South Asia

43 Altaf Qadir, Sayyid Ahmad Barailvi, London: Sage, 2015, p. 57.

44 Barbara Metcalf, “Islamic Revival in British India: Deoband, 1800-1900’, Princeton University
Press, 1982, pp. 56–57.
45 Muhammad Hedayetullah, Sayyid Ahmad: A Study of the Religious Reform Movement of Sayyid
Ahmad of Ra’e Bareli, Sheikh Muhammad Ashraf publishers, University of Michigan, pp. 113,
115, 134.
46 Richard M. Eaton, The Rise of Islam and the Bengal Frontier, 1204–1760, University of California
Press, 1996.
47 Ainslie Embree (ed.), Encyclopedia of Asian History, Asia Society, New York, 1988, p. 149.
48 M. Shahid Alam, Poverty from the Wealth of Nations: Integration and Polarization in the Global
Economy since 1760, Palgrave Macmillan (7 July 2000), p. 32.
49 Atis Dasgupta, “Titu Meer’s Rebellion: A Profile”, Social Scientist, Vol. 11, No. 10, 1983, pp.
39–48.
50 Ibid.
51 Sufia M. Uddin, Constructing Bangladesh: Religion, Ethnicity, and Language in an Islamic Nation,
North Carolina: University of North Carolina Press, 2006, pp. 53–54.
52 Moin-ud-Din Khan, “Haji Shari’at-Allah”, Journal of the Pakistan Historical Society, Vol. 11,
No. 2, 1963, p. 106.
53 U.A.B. Razia Akter Banu, Islam in Bangladesh, Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1992, pp. 37–38.
54 Kenneth W. Jones, Socio-Religious Reform Movements in British India, Cambridge University
Press, 2006.
55 W.W. Hunter, The Indian Muslamans, Tribner and Company, 1871, Createspace Independent
Pub (6 September 2017), p. 68.
56 Ayesha Jalal, Partisans of Allah: Jihad in South Asia, Lahore: Sang-e-Meel Publications, 2010.
 19
Indian Muslims: From Rulers to Subjects of
British Raj (1857–1920)

The Musalmans of India are, and have been for many years, a source of
chronic danger to British power in India.
—W.W. Hunter1

Rebellion of 1857: The Glory of Hindu–Muslim Unity

The rebellion of 1857 against the rule of the British East India Company, which
broke out in May 1857 and lasted up to June 1858, has been variously described
in an eloquent manner as India’s First War of Independence by most historians
from the subcontinent and as Sepoy2 Mutiny by British colonial historians. The
aim of the insurgents, both Muslims and Hindus, was to restore the pre-British
political order in India. Muslim rebels, in particular, wanted to restore their past
imperial glory. Although political and economic causes were potent enough to
bring about the countrywide upheaval, ultimately it was socio-religious causes
that proved to be the trigger for the revolt.
The rapid annexation of Indian territories by the British East India Company
through dubious policies, like Governor-General Wellesley’s subsidiary alliances
and Governor-General Dalhousie’s “Doctrine of Lapse”, and the 1856 Enlistment
Act caused a seething resentment among the Indian rulers (rajas and nawabs) and
even Indian sepoys working for the British East India Company. However, as
observed by famed historian Surendra Nath Sen: “Religion is the most potent
312 Political Islam: Parallel Currents in West Asia and South Asia

force in the absence of territorial patriotism, and in 1857 men from all walks of
life joined hands with the sepoys in the defence of religion.”3 The mutiny was
“the last attempt made by the Brahmanas and the maulvis, who had the support
of the masses, to put up a last-ditch fight to save India from the clutches of the
foreigners.”4
Although Hindus, Muslims and Sikhs came together for reasons that had
more to do with protecting their respective religions from British imperialism
and the spread of Christianity, their unity under an aged Mughal ruler developed
a rare semblance of Indian nationalism. Thus, despite the eventual failure of the
revolt, the movement did give birth to a sense of national unity and identity.
In 2007, that is, 150 years after the rebellion, former Indian Prime Minister
Manmohan Singh, addressing a packed house of the Indian Parliament, stated:
What is significant is that despite rallying under the flag of “deen” and
“dharma”, the rebellion was united. There was no division between
Hindus and Muslims in their resistance to alien domination…In every
“ishtahar” (advertisement) that the rebel leadership issued, Hindus and
Muslims were called upon to rise together to fight against British rule
and to remove it.5
However, for many British strategists at that time, the rebellion was mainly
the result of a Muslim conspiracy. According to Colonel George Malleson, a
prominent historian of the 1857 revolt: “The war was the result of a premeditated
conspiracy which had its ramifications all over India and which had among its
prime movers the Maulavis [Indian ulema].”6
The trigger for the nationwide rebellion came on 10 May 1857 in Meerut, in
the northern state of Uttar Pradesh. Hindu and Muslim sepoys (especially from
the 11th Bengal Native Infantry), joined by civilians, marched to Delhi and reached
the Red Fort in the early hours on 11 May. Here, they proclaimed octogenarian
Bahadur Shah Zafar, the Mughal ruler, as the emperor of India.
The representation of Muslims in the march to Delhi was equal to that of
Hindus. Muslim sources name Sheikh Peer Ali, Ameer Qudrat Ali, Sheikh Hasan
ud-Deen and Sheikh Noor Muhammad as prominent Muslims who took part in
the march to Delhi.7 In fact, many of the leaders had already prepared the Muslim
masses for years before the outbreak of the revolt against the British. Among these
were Maulvi Ahmadullah Shah of Faizabad, Imdadullah Muhajir Makki of
Muzaffarnagar, Fazl-e-Haq of Khairabad and Azimullah Khan, an associate of
Nana Sahib.8
 Indian Muslims: From Rulers to Subjects of British Raj 313

In the British sources, certain groups of Muslim revolutionaries were termed

ghazis or jhadis and mujahideen: “When the Mutiny was at its height, hundreds
of thousands of ghazis (Muslim fighters) converged at the hotspots of revolt that
included Delhi, Lucknow, Bareilly, Agra, and Thana Bhawan, besides Kanpur
and Shahjahanpur, and fought till the end.”9 Irfan Habib describes these ghazis as
a mixed bag of Wahhabi clerics and Naqshbandis, but mostly composed of skilled
wage-earning classes.10 The description of these so-called ghazis was precise: “gray-
bearded men of the Rohilla race, clad in green, with green turbans and
kummerbunds, round shields on the left arm, and curved talwars that would split
a hair”.11
It was not just the ulema or ghazis but even the Muslim nawabs and landlords
who fought valiantly and made numerous sacrifices in this campaign. For instance,
Nawab Tafazzul Husain Khan of Farrukhabad supported the mutineers, and so
he was exiled by the British to Hejaz, where he is said to have died in poverty. The
British executed Nawab of Jhajjhar, Abdul Rehman Khan, for participating in
the uprising. He was hanged at the Delhi Kotwali on 23 December 1857. Other
prominent leaders, namely, the Nawab of Ambapani, Fazil Mohammad Khan
and the Nawab of Farrukhnagar, Ahmed Ali Khan, were also hanged in 1857 for
their participation in the campaign against the East India Company.
On 19 May 1857, many Muslim leaders raised the cry of jihad from Delhi’s
Jama Masjid. However, Mughal ruler Bahadur Shah Zafar did not approve of
calling of the struggle against the English in the name of religion. “To him, the
struggle was not religious. He apprehended that such slogans were bound to
exasperate the Hindus.”12 He, thus, declined to call the fight against the English
a jihad because it would give a wrong signal to the sepoys, the majority of whom
were Hindus.
Just like Bahadur Shah Zafar, Birjis Qadar (who was Nawab of Awadh at that
time) issued a pronouncement on 17 August 1857 that highlighted the following
points: “(a) cruelty and misbehaviour of English (b) united defence of the religions
of the Hindus and Muslims. (c) Extirpation of English rule from India by all
means.”13 The martyred Mughal prince, Feroz Shah, also issued a similar
proclamation on 25 August 1857, emphasising Hindu–Muslim unity. In almost
all the proclamations, the rebel leaders laid emphasis on unity for the protection
of deen (Islamic faith) and dharam (Hindu religion), which they claimed was in
danger under the English rule.14 These apprehensions about the danger to the
religion of Hindus and Muslims were not without foundation.
314 Political Islam: Parallel Currents in West Asia and South Asia

In order to buttress Hindu–Muslim unity, Bahadur Shah Zafar issued an

order to his general, Bakht Khan, that the sepoys and the army officers should
shun cow slaughter on Eid Al-Adha festival. A stern warning was given to the
Muslims that violation of the order could lead to death. Futher, the order stated
that if anyone encouraged cow slaughter, he could be given the death penalty.
Bakht Khan enforced this order, despite some Muslim leaders, like Hakim
Ahsanullah Khan, expressing their unhappiness over it.15
Although freedom-loving Hindu rulers (like Nana Sahib and Rani of Jhansi)
fought together with Muslims in the revolt, the British regarded Muslims as the
main formenters and prospective beneficiaries of the uprising. In the words of
Belkacem Belmekki:
The British had always regarded the Muslims as their archenemy in
India due to the fact that they (the British) had unseated them from
power, and the fact that the insurgents endeavoured to restore Bahadur
Shah II to power convinced the British enough to assume that the
Muslim leaders were behind the planning and leading of the uprising.16
Commenting on this, Thomas Metcalf wrote: “As the former rulers of Hindustan,
the Muslims had, in British eyes, necessarily to place themselves at the head of a
movement for the overthrow of the British Government.”17
The 1857 revolt ended as a major humanitarian disaster for the Muslims. It
is believed that the ulema and Sufi fighters were slaughtered in thousands across
the country, the Mughal capital of Delhi was emptied of its Hindu and Muslim
people and they were not allowed to return to reclaim their homes and businesses.
In the words of S.R. Wasti: “Mass massacres, indiscriminate hangings, inhumane
tortures and large-scale confiscation of properties were some of the means adopted
by the British.”18
The great Urdu poet Mirza Ghalib was one of the few people allowed to
remain in Delhi (mainly because of his neutrality during the conflict) following
the British re-conquest of the capital. However, Ghalib was deeply disturbed by
the violence and desolation of the city, as expressed in the following verse:
Shehr-e Dehli ka zarra zarra-e khaak
Tishna khoon hai har Musalman ka

The city of Delhi is thirsty for Muslim blood

And every grain of dust must drink its fill.19
 Indian Muslims: From Rulers to Subjects of British Raj 315

Paradigmatic Shift to Education Centres, Religious Reforms

The Revolt of 1857 came to a symbolic end with the British exiling the last
Mughal ruler, Bahadur Shah Zafar, to Rangoon (in Myanmar), following his
capture at Humayun’s Tomb on 20 September 1857. Concurrently, his sons, Mirza
Mughal and Mirza Khizr Sultan, as well as his grandson, Mirza Abu Bakht, were
shot dead by Major William Hodson.20
It would be incorrect to claim that the Muslim community wholly favoured
a militant response to British colonialism. There were many conflicting views of
Muslim religious scholars and imams of the time, who questioned whether the
declaration of British-ruled Indian territories as “dar al-harb” validated carrying
out militant jihad or whether jihad itself always meant carrying out armed
combat.21 There were also profound differences among Muslim clerics whether
1857 offered the right circumstances for conducting and winning the war against
the British.22
For instance, the position of Maulvi Ahmadullah Shah (who was representative
of Peshwa Nana Sahib in London) in favour of militant jihad was not accepted by
the ulema in Delhi, and he was soon captured and imprisoned in the capital. It is
another matter that this great freedom fighter, lauded by Thomas Seaton as a
“man of great abilities, of undaunted courage, of stern determination, and by far
the best soldier among the rebels. ... The Moulvi was a remarkable person. His
name was Ahmad-Ullah and his native place was Faizabad in Oudh. In-person,
he was tall, lean and muscular, with large deep eyes, beetle brows, a high aquiline
nose, and lantern jaws”,23 was released from Faizabad prison by mutineers. He
then became an adviser to Begum Hazrat Mahal of Awadh during the mutiny led
by her.
Thus, the fact remains that many Muslim clerics and intellectuals did not
follow Bahadur Shah Zafar or Maulvi Ahmadullah Shah and were sceptical about
resorting to warfare against the British. Both Mirza Ghalib and historian Maulvi
Zakaullah were not harassed by the British during the mutiny as they called for
reconciliation with the British. The great Muslim reformist Sir Syed Ahmad Khan
publicly denounced the call for jihad against the British in Bijnor in 1857. Several
ulema also issued a fatwa during the revolt against Mughal Emperor Bahadur
Shah Zafar and praised the British for permitting Muslims to continue practising
their religion freely.24
It is also said that Maulana Muhammad Qasim Nanautawi and Maulana
Rashid Ahmad Gangohi, who later founded the Darul Uloom Deoband, were
316 Political Islam: Parallel Currents in West Asia and South Asia

initially opposed to the revolt, but once the stories of British brutality and repression
were reported, they joined the rebellion. However, there remain conflicting views
on the extent of the involvement of Muhammad Qasim Nanautawi and Rashid
Ahmad Gangohi in the 1857 uprising, particularly in the disturbances that took
place in Thana Bhawan and then, in Shamli. In the words of Barabara Metcalf:
Deobandis caught up in the nationalist movement after World War I,
came to believe that the founders of their school, particularly
Muhammad Qasim, Rashid Ahmad, and Imadullah, had joined the
rebels, organising a counter-government and engaging in a military revolt
during September of 1857 in the qasbah of Thana Bhawan and Shamli.
This account has been invariably accepted, yet this view of events at
Thana Bhawan, identifying each member’s posts, and the course of the
uprising, appear only in secondary sources, written after about 1920.
Earlier biographies argue that the accusations of involvement were those
of enemies and that the ultimate release from the jail of Rashid Ahmad,
who spent six months confined, and the fact that Muhammad Qasim
was never arrested, testify to the loyalty (to the British) of both men.25
The disturbance in Thana Bhawan is said to have arisen out of a dispute
between a Hindu trader and a youth by the name of Hafiz Mohammad Zamin
(who belonged to a rich Muslim family of clerics), when the former sold an elephant
to the latter. On the suspicion that the Muslim youth was a supporter of the 1857
rebellion, the British district collector investigating the transaction issued the
order that he should be executed. However, the hanging of Zamin, without any
legal process, triggered off a mass protest, which involved both Muhammad Qasim
Nanautawi and Rashid Ahmad Gangohi, along with Haji Imdadullah Makki.26
In the wake of this incident, the ulema in the nearby town of Shamli issued a
decree sanctioning jihad against British rule, which led to a spurt of violence and
a heavy British clamp down, with many Muslim fighters being given the death
sentence and others being exiled to the Andaman and Nicobar Islands (referred
to as “Kala Pani”) for life. Haji Imdadullah, considered to be the instigator of this
uprising, escaped arrest and fled to Punjab. From there, he went to the holy city
of Mecca, where he earned much respect and was known as “Muhajir Makki”
(refugee of Mecca), and eventually died in the city.
The failure of the Shamli uprising is said to have deeply disturbed both
Nanautawi and Gangohi and they accepted that it was futile to try to defeat the
British militarily. Instead, they decided to start the “jihad of the pen” by
concentrating on preserving Islamic education to safeguard their religion and
 Indian Muslims: From Rulers to Subjects of British Raj 317

culture from what they conceived was the onslaught of British educational system.
According to Ziaul Hasan Farouqi: “Shamli and Deoband are, as a matter of fact,
the two sides of one and the same picture. The difference lies only in weapons.
Now the sword and the spear were replaced by the pen and the tongue.”27

Establishment of Darul Uloom Deoband

The district of Saharanpur, in the extreme west of the present state of Uttar Pradesh,
is famous for the Islamic seminary of Darul Uloom (House of Knowledge) in
Deoband, a small town about 20 kilometres from the district headquarters.28
Established on 13 May 1866 by Muhammad Qasim Nanautawi, Sayyid
Muhammad Abid, Fazlur Rahman Usmani, Rashid Ahmad Gangohi, among
others, this educational institution followed the Hanafi–Maturidi school of Sunni
theology.29 In the words of Metcalf:
The madrasa at Deoband began modestly in 1867 (a decade after the
Great Rebellion) in an old mosque, the Chatta Masjid, under a spreading
pomegranate tree which still stands. The first teacher and the first pupil,
in a coincidence deemed auspicious, were both named Mahmud: Mulla
Mahmud, the teacher, and Mahmud Hasan, the pupil, who was later to
become the school’s most famous teacher.30
Surprisingly, this new Islamic seminary followed British educational
institutions in that it had classrooms and a central library. In addition, the school
was not an adjunct to a mosque or a home and was run by a professional staff,
had a fixed course of study and an examination system, after which prizes were
awarded at an annual public convocation. This was, in fact, unlike the other
conventional schools at that time that followed the informal familial pattern. For
example, in the famous Firangi Mahal in Lucknow, family members taught students
in some part of a household compound and they only read a particular book with
a teacher who, at the end of the session, issued a certificate (sanad) validating the
student’s accomplishment, thereby allowing him to seek another teacher for a
new course.
The new seminary was also different in terms of its funding, as it was wholly
dependent on public contributions and not on waqf holdings (an Islamic
endowment of property to be held in trust and used for a charitable or religious
purpose) or contributions by wealthy pirs. Whereas the students of earlier
seminaries were trained to become government servants under Muslim rulers, the
Deobandi ulema sought to create a body of religious leaders able to serve their
318 Political Islam: Parallel Currents in West Asia and South Asia

fellow Muslims’ daily legal and spiritual needs apart from government ties. This
form of education departed from the Sufi style of close “pir” and “murid” style of
education.31
Students were expected to study a fixed and comprehensive course of studies,
originally scheduled for 10 years but later reduced to six. These studies covered
the “manqulaat” (education in Quran and Hadeeth as well as associated literature)
and the “maqulaat” that pertained to the analytical studies of fiqh or law,32 logic
and philosophy as taught in the cities of Lucknow and Khairabad. Thus, the
curriculum of Dars-i-Nizami 33—a system developed by the great scholar
Nizamuddin Sihalivi (born on 27 March 1677 in Barabanki district, Uttar Pradesh)
for Firangi Mahal in Lucknow in 1748—was adopted by the seminary. The syllabus
broadly covered hafiz (Quranic memorisation), sarf and nawh (Arabic syntax and
grammar), tafseer (exegesis of Quran), tarikh (Islamic history), the Shariah and
fiqh (Islamic law and jurisprudence) and knowledge of Persian and Urdu.

Deobandi School of Sunni Islam: Sufi–Wahhabi Syncretism

The Darul Uloom Deoband drew its ideological inspiration from Shah Waliullah
Dehlawi and Muhammad Qasim Nanautawi, who tried to reconcile the Hanafi,
Asharite, Maturidi and Sufi traditions with the ascendant Wahhabi/Salafi
thought.34
As the Deobandi movement began in opposition to British colonialism and
to counter the increasing influence of Christian and Western education in the
country, the seminary excluded all forms of learning from its curriculum that it
did not deem to be of religious significance. Even secular sciences and philosophical
schools in Islamic history were not taught out of fear that with the decline of
Muslim political power, the community might become susceptible not only to
Hindu and Christian religious and cultural influences but also to the more secular
orientations of Mughal kings like Akbar, and eclectic poets and philosophers.
Over a period of time, it has got associated with its own version of a more
conservative form of Sufi Islam, which seeks to stick punctilious closer to the
Hanafi school of jurisprudence than to the more eclectic Sufi practices. In fact,
the Deobandi school has come to signify a combination of Sufi and Salafi beliefs,
a syncretic amalgam of the two Sunni orientations. Here are some of the principles,
which are often attributed to the Deobandi school of Sunni Islam, even though
not all Deobandi scholars may not fully subscribe to them.
 Indian Muslims: From Rulers to Subjects of British Raj 319

Adherence to Taqleed (Strict Conformity to Hanafi School)

‘Taqleed’ refers to a theological concept wherein a religious devout unquestioningly
accepts all rulings and decisions of religious jurist without even knowing the basis
of those decisions and just believing that the scholar has made the right
interpretation of the Shariah (as enshrined in the Quran and Hadeeth).35 To
avoid the great fitna in Islamic history over theological issues, which the community
had suffered for many centuries, tendency to accept religious rulings without
asking how (bila kaifa) gained acceptance. As differences among religious jurists
increased and confusion even on exact rituals and modes of worship grew among
various schools of fiqh (religious jurisprudence) in Sunni Islam, followers of various
jusristic schools decided to adhere to the rulings of their own preferred jusristic
schools without entering into contentious theological debates causing internal
discors.
For instance, both Deobandi and Barelvi schools of Sunni Islam in India
accept the legal decisions of Abu Hanifa (i.e. Hanafi school) and the spiritual and
philosophical theological approaches of the Ashari-Maturidi Kalaam schools.36
However, the punctilious adherence to taqleed has itself subjected various Muslim
schools, like the Deobandi ulema to much criticism from liberal Muslims and
non-Muslims for being too rigid, conservative and irrational, in a highly progressive
modern world. By categorising any kind of change as unwarranted innovation
(bidaa) in religion, taqleed has been seen as a major stumbling block to ijtihad
(independent reasoning) in matters of religious jurispreudence.
Even the hyper-conservative Salafi-Wahhabi detractors, often find fault with
Deobandi taqleed by claiming the latter follow Abu Hanifa’s school of
jurisprudence to the extreme, for instance in their continuing adherence to ‘instant
triple talaq’.37 To the Deobandis, taqleed is not a hindrance but a blessing for true
religious followers. They claim it has helped Indian Muslims stick to their pre-
modern religious moorings, even in times when modern relavitism has changed
the character of various religious communities beyond recognition.
Both Deobandis and Barelvis follow not only the Hanafi school of
jurisprudence but also the Asharite and Maturidi theological traditions that differ
from the school of the Ahl-i-Hadeeth (belief system similar to ‘Ahl-Al Hadeeth’
in West Asia) on a wide variety of theological issues related to Allah’s attributes,
the role of philosophy in religion, etc., the Salafi schools have remained highly
critical of both Deobandi and Barelvi theologies. The deep-seated Deobandi and
Barelvi differences are discussed later.
320 Political Islam: Parallel Currents in West Asia and South Asia

Unique Position on Tawassul and Istighatha

The Deobandis are also often caught between the dialectical extremes of the Barelvi
Sufis and the Salafi-Wahhabis. While the Salafis, particularly the supporters of
Muhammad Wahhab, criticise Deobandis for not discrediting Sufism altogether
and for showing philosophical ambivalence over Ibn Arabi’s monistic concept of
‘wahdatul wujud’ (oneness of existence), some of the Sufi schools and Barelvis
denigrate Deobandis for their opposition to holding festivities on the grave of the
prophets and the companions or Sufi saints. Often accused of being “crypto-
Salafis” by both Sunni Sufis and the Shia communities, the Deobandi avoidance
of tawassul (intercession by naming saints in prayers to God) and istighatha (visiting
graves and invoking the dead for acceptance of prayers) 38 appears more in line
with the Salafi and Ahl-i-Hadeeth positions than those of conventional Sufis.
However, Deobandis desist from decrying mainstream Sufi beliefs as un-Islamic
in entirety, like many mainstream Salafis of out times do.
In addition to Salafis, Deobandi scholars are also severely criticized by the
Sufi-oriented Barelvi sub-sect for their ambivalent position and at times outright
opposition to extolling the high status of the Prophet as the first emanation of the
divine light (noor) as per Sufi beliefs. Moreover, Deobandi scholars are often accused
of opposing Sufi celebration of Prophet’s birthday (Mawlid), even though Darul
Uloom Deoband states it opposes the unethical and irreligious manner in which
such festivities are conducted,39 and for their view that the Prophet did not have
knowledge of the unseen (ilm-e-ghaib), a position also upheld by the Salafi school.
Thus Deobandis are blamed by the Sufi-orinted Barelvis of being crypto-Salafi
Wahhabis.
As for the Deobandis themselves, their position is often to find a middle
ground between Salafi and Sufi positions. They frequently underscore Salafi-Sufi
convergences, highlighting Salafi scholars extolling some Sufi mystics in history
and vice versa. Thus, Deobandi scholar Mawlana Abd al-Hafiz al-Makki states
that contemporary hardline Salafi opposition to Sufism in its entirety is baseless.
Infact:
The truth, in reality, is different. According to the imams and revered
personalities of the Salafi movement itself, the Sufis are an Islamic group
like other Islamic groups, such as the hadith experts (muhaddiths), jurists
(faqihs), theologians (mutakallims), historians and mujahids etc. Among
them are the correct and incorrect, the pious and impious, and authentic
and false.40
 Indian Muslims: From Rulers to Subjects of British Raj 321

Both Deobandi and Barelvi schools follow the Hanafi fiqh and have have
largest number of Sunni followers in south Asia. It is noteworthy that, Hanafi
school of jurisprudence has been the subject of Salafi criticism for centuries.41
Abu Hanifah is often charged by his Salafi detractors for having depended
excessively on ‘qiyas’ (rational analogy) and ‘ijitihad’ (independent reasoning) in
his codification of Islamic fiqh (jurisprudence), while interpreting Quran and
Hadeeth scriptural references.42 In fact, Abu Hanifa is said to belong to the early
Islamic movement of ahl al-ra’y (scholars using rational derivations) as opposed
to the more conformist ahl al hadeeth (scholars of traditional literalism or
conformism).43
Abu Hanifa is also clubbed among Murjia scholars, those who deferred or
suspended judgment while adjudicating on the faith of any person (particularly a
self-declared Muslim) by claiming that God alone has the right to judge about
the faith of a person, whether the person is a believer or not. In addition, Ashari
school avers that faith in God is of a static nature and is never affected by a
person’s deeds and one cannot be adjudged a non-believer just on the basis of
one’s apparent non-compliance of Shariah laws.
This pacifist stance itself has made Abu Hanifa and Ashari Kalaam school
the subject of criticism among mainstream Salafi scholares. According to theologian
Allama Shahrastani “Abu Hanifa and his companions were branded ‘Murjatus
Sunnah’, or ‘Murjia’ (deferrers)”.44 Even today, ISIS uses the term Murjia to vilify
pacifist Muslims (mostly Hanafi adherents of Sunni Islam) for being morally
weak in making religious judgments.
The reluctance of Murjia scholars to make conclusive pronouncements against
the faith of people (with whom Abu Hanifa came to be associated) made them
popular among Sufi mystics who had a more universalist understanding of Islamic
values. When the militant and rationalist theological schools of ‘jabariyya’ (under
the Umayyads) and the Mutazila under Abbasid empire fell by the 10th to 12
centuries, it was the Ashari-Maturidi mystical theologians, who peacefully won
over Mongol forces and much of their central Asian regions embraced the Hanafi
version of Sufi-Ashari Sunni faith. Thus, Hanafi school of jurisprudence grew
popular in Central Asia and India, where it continues to be the dominant version
of Islam to this day.
It should be noted here that many of the above-mentioned positions generally
associated with so-called “Deobandi theology” (which has both hardline and
moderate strains) may not be found among all of its scholars and adherents, who
322 Political Islam: Parallel Currents in West Asia and South Asia

may individually show remarkable flexibility of views on Sufi and Salafi theological
positions
Despite its many detractors, the Deobandi movement has been successful in
its mission of keeping the Muslims of the subcontinent close to their pre-modern
Islamic moorings. Also, over the decades, it has produced highly acclaimed Islamic
scholars, like Mahmud Deobandi, Mahmud Hasan Deobandi (also known as
Shaykh Al-Hind), Ashraf Ali Thanvi (jurist, Chishti Sufi scholar and author of
great treatises, like the popular handbook, Bahishti Zevar), Anwar Shah Kashmiri,
Hussain Ahmad Madani, Muhammad Ilyas Al-Kandhawi (founder of Tablighi
Jamaat) and many more.
The political organisations associated with Deobandi school include: Jamiat
Ulama-i-Hind (JUH, in India) and Jamiat Ulama-i-Islam (JUI, the breakaway
faction of JUH in Pakistan); the pre-independence party, Majlis-i-Ahrar-i-Islam;
and the world’s most prominent religious organisation, Tablighi Jamaat.45 The
role of Deoband in the Indian freedom struggle, as well as militant groups in
Afghanistan and Pakistan associated with this school of Hanafi theology, will be
discussed later.

Indian Modern Reformists: Votaries of Western Rationalism

While the ulema of Deoband and other seminaries were preoccupied with
preserving Islamic religious and cultural traditions in the aftermath of the failed
Revolt of 1857 and the direct rule of the British queen over India, many Indian
Muslim thinkers started to educate themselves in Western rational sciences, along
with a re-examination of the sources of Islamic jurisprudence. Often known as
Muslim modernists—starting in Bengal with Sayyid Karamat Ali (1796–1876)
and his disciple, Syed Ameer Ali (1849–1928); and then in northern India with
Sir Syed Ahmad Khan (1817–98) and his colleague, Chiragh Ali (1844–95), as
well as Allama Shibli Nomani (1857–1914)—these intellectuals called for
reformative thinking in Islam, in step with modern rationalistic thought and
values.

Chiragh Ali: Advocate of Modern Reconstruction of Islamic Law

Maulvi Chiragh Ali, a Muslim scholar, was born in Meerut, although his family
was originally from Kashmir. A polyglot who knew Persian, Arabic, English,
French, Hebrew, Aramaic, Latin and Greek,46 Chiragh Ali worked in the
government of the nizam of Hyderabad, where he rose to the position of finance
secretary.47
 Indian Muslims: From Rulers to Subjects of British Raj 323

His main argument was against Western Orientalist criticism of Islam.

Primarily, he contended that the Islamic legal system and schools were human
institutions that merely interpreted the meaning of the Quran in their place and
time and were capable of amendment:
The ideas that Islam is essentially rigid and inaccessible to change, that
its laws, religious, political and social, are based on a set of specific
precepts which can neither be added to, nor taken from, nor modified
to suit to altered circumstances; that its political system is theocratic,
and that in short, the Islamitic code of law is unalterable and
unchangeable, have taken a firm hold of the European mind, which is
never at any trouble to be enlightened on the subject.48
Chiragh Ali emphasised that the Quran taught religious doctrine and ethical
rules, but did not offer a detailed code of unchangeable civil laws or formulate a
particular political system:49
The fact that Muhammad did not compile a law, civil or canonical, for
the conduct of the believers, nor did he enjoin them to do so, shows
that he left to the believers in general to frame any code, civil or canon
law, and to found systems which would harmonize with the times, and
suit the political and social changes going on around them.50
Further, he believed that there was no place for taqleed (strict adherence) in
Islamic law, even though many ulemas insisted on it. Thus, he argued:
[i]n the first place the founders of the four schools of jurisprudence (in
Sunni jurisprudence) never claimed any authority for their system or
legal decisions, as being final…They were very far from imposing their
analogical deductions or private judgments on their contemporaries,
much less of making their system binding on the future generation of
the wide-spreading Moslem Empire.51
Thus, Chiragh Ali, who was close colleague of Sir Syed Ahmad Khan, contended
that every school of Sunni fiqh was changeable and could bring about
improvements: “Consequently, the legislation of the ‘Mohammadan Common
Law’, i.e., the Shari’a, was changeable and progressive.”52
Chiragh Ali also devoted special attention to jihad in his book, A Critical
Exposition of the Popular “Jihad”: Showing that All the Wars of Mohammad Were
Defensive and that Aggressive War or Compulsory Conversion is Not Allowed in the
Koran. In it, he emphasised that the Prophet’s wars were defensive and that the
Quran did not allow aggressive warfare or forced conversion. He even stressed
324 Political Islam: Parallel Currents in West Asia and South Asia

that Islam was republican in outlook, as evident from the election and high level
of accountability and scrutiny faced by the first four Rashidun Caliphs, and that
the spirit of consultation and consensus building even in the rule of the Prophet
(who had access to divine revelation) was in keeping with the democratic ideal.53
Further, Chiragh Ali was of the view that “church and state” in Islam were
not conjoined, as illustrated in an incident from the Prophet’s life, where he claimed
that in matters of religion, he should be obeyed, but on other matters (which
included him being a head of state), he was just human.

Sir Syed Ahmad Khan: Ideological Protégé of Ghalib

One of Chiragh Ali’s close friends was Sir Syed Ahmad Khan, the celebrated
Indian Muslim reformer and educationist who founded the Muhammadan Anglo-
Oriental (MAO) College in 1875, which later became Aligarh Muslim University.
In 1858, he wrote a daring critique of British policies that he felt led to the Revolt
of 1857 in an Urdu booklet, Asaab-e-Baghaawat-e-Hind (later translated into
English as The Causes of Indian Revolt). However, he believed that only by giving
up the rigidity of their religious outlook and by embracing Western rationality
and scientific outlook can the Muslim community recover from its rapid decline.
Syed Ahmad’s early career gave a few hints of his future modernist outlook.
Born in a family of Mughal noblemen, his early writings were in the tradition of
conservative Sufi mujadidi thought of Sirhindi and Waliullah Dehlawi, albeit
veering towards ghair muqallid (Ahl-Al-Hadeeth) thought in its aversion towards
blind adherence to the Hanafi school.54
One of the essential formative influences that helped Syed Ahmad develop a
modernist outlook was the celebrated Urdu poet Mirza Ghalib. In 1855, Syed
Ahmad approached the great literary genius to write a taqriz (a laudatory foreword)
for his scholarly work on Abul Fazl’s Ain-i-Akbari. Ghalib was himself an admirer
of Syed Ahmad’s literary gifts, but on reading the book, he wondered why should
the bright youth focus on the past and celebrate Akbar’s rule and constitution
when the British were making great strides in the study of science, humanities
and political science. Ghalib wrote the foreword, but he also produced a poem
for Syed Ahmad in which he urged the youth to stop wasting his talents on the
study of the past and look at the modern glories that the British mind was
unravelling. Shamsur Rahman Faruqi has rendered an English translation of this
Persian poem by Ghalib, a section of which reads:55
Go to London, for in that shining garden
 Indian Muslims: From Rulers to Subjects of British Raj 325

The city is bright in the night, without candles,26

Look at the businesses of the knowledgeable ones:
In every discipline, a hundred innovators! 27
Before the Laws and Rules that the times now have
All others have become things of yesteryears,28
Wise and sensitive and prudent one,
Does your book have such good and elegant Laws?29
When one sees such a treasure house of gems
Why should one glean corn from that other harvest?30
It must be noted that Syed Ahmad Khan was loyal to the British during the
1857 revolt, in which he saved many English lives.56 By 1867, he rose to the
position of judge at a Small Causes Court and retired from service in 1876. Highly
critical of the Indian National Congress (INC), Syed Ahmad called upon the
Muslims to shed their animosity towards the British and loyally serve the Raj. For
this reason, he was disliked by large sections of the conservative ulema and freedom
fighters. Moreover, many Islamic scholars objected to his rationalist justifications
of the purely spiritual and metaphysical claims of their religion.57
Syed Ahmad argued that the Quran should be studied in the context of its
time and place, and over-reliance on medieval scholars for its correct understanding
should be avoided. He believed that the Hadeeth literature did not always furnish
an adequate basis for Islamic law and therefore, it was essential to take all the
“exotic” ideas and study them from their correct, rational perspectives. In his
treatise, Ahkam-i Ta’am-i Ahl-i Kitab, he emphasised that Islam, Christianity and
Judaism had a common origin, and that in Islam, there was nothing that opposed
the study of science and there was no fear in pursuing it.
However, Aligarh Muslim University could hardly initiate the religious reforms
that Syed Ahmad envisioned. In the words of Daniel Brown, “Sayyid Ahmad was
forced by donors to remove himself from any involvement in the religious
curriculum, and the traditional ulama were brought in to do the job.”58
It has often been claimed that Syed Ahmad Khan was the founder of the so-
called “two-nation theory”. However, it is difficult to argue either in favour or
against such a claim conclusively. At times, Syed Ahmad considered Hindus and
Muslims of India to be one qaum (nation)—arguing that “qaum” should be used
to describe the inhabitants of India, even if they have individual characteristics.59
He further explained: “By the word ‘qaum’ I mean both Hindus and Muslims.
That is the way in which I define nation. In my opinion it matters not whatever
326 Political Islam: Parallel Currents in West Asia and South Asia

be their religious belief because we cannot see anything of it. But what we see is
that all of us, whether Hindus or Muslims, live on one soil, are governed by one
and the same ruler, have the same sources of benefits and equally share the hardships
of famine”60 In another instance, the great Indian Muslim modernist stated: “India
is like a bride which has got two beautiful and lustrous eyes—Hindus and
Mussalmans. If they quarrel against each other, she will lose one eye.”61
Syed Ahmad Khan was also associated with prominent Hindu luminaries of
his time, like Swami Vivekananda and Debendranath Tagore. He held a session
in Benares for Swami Dayananda Saraswati to expound his vision for the Arya
Samaj. He even forbade the slaughter of cows on the campus of his college. In the
words of Prof. Rahat Abrar, “In the 19th century, he opposed cow slaughter.
When AMU was established, he banned it on campus. Once during Eid ul-Zuha,
an employee had with him a cow for qurbaani (sacrifice), and he rushed there
rightaway to stop it. He asked all Muslims to stop.” 62
However, in the wake of a bitter feud on whether Hindi or Urdu should
receive official status for use in government departments, courts and educational
institutions, Sir Syed ardently supported the case for Urdu language. As the political
discussion on this matter became heated, his views on united Hindu–Muslim
nationhood started changing. In a speech to Shakespeare, the governor of Benares,
he said: “I am convinced now that Hindus and Muslims could never become one
nation as their religion and way of life was quite distinct from each other.”63
Later, in a speech delivered at Meerut in March 1888, he opined:
Suppose that the English community and the army were to leave India,
taking with them all their cannons and splendid weapons and all else,
who then would be the rulers of India? Is it possible that under these
circumstances, two nations—the Mohammedans and the Hindus—
would sit on the same thrones and remain equal in power? Most certainly
not. It is necessary that one of them should conquer the other. To hope
that both could remain equal is to desire the impossible and the
inconceivable. But until one nation has conquered the other and made
it obedient, peace cannot reign in the land.64
In addition, he was sceptical about the implementation of parliamentary
democracy in India where, he said, communal divisions were rampant and elections
would present inequitable outcomes. In his 1883 speech at Patna, Syed Ahmad
Khan praised democracy and said that “representation by election…(was) no doubt
the best system that can be adopted…where the population is composed of one
 Indian Muslims: From Rulers to Subjects of British Raj 327

race and creed.” However, in societies of mixed faith, he feared the representative
government would mean the representation of the views and interests of the
majority of the population, so that “the larger community would totally override
the interests of the smaller, (which) might make the differences of race and creed
more violent than ever”. Thus, he preferred British imperial rule because, “in
India peace cannot be maintained if either Hindus or Muslims rule the country.
It is therefore inevitable that another nation should rule over us.”65
Incidentally, this line of thinking anticipated the views of the exponents of
the two-nation theory, such as Allama Iqbal and Muhammad Ali Jinnah, which
led to the creation of Pakistan in 1947.

Aligarh Movement and the Flowering of Urdu Literature

Syed Ahmad Khan was not just a non-conformist thinker; he was also a social
activist and founder of social and educational institutions. He established schools
at Muradabad (1858) and Ghazipur (1863). His more ambitious undertaking
was the establishment of the Scientific Society in 1864, which published Urdu
translations of many English scientific and academic books. In 1869, he went to
England with his sons and was awarded the Order of the Star of India by the
British government. After visiting the universities of Oxford and Cambridge, he
returned to India and started building a college for Indians based on their model.66
In 1875, he founded “Madrasatul Uloom Musalmanan-e-Hind” which, after
two years, was named MAO College.67 The main objective behind establishing
the MAO College in Aligarh—which, as mentioned earlier, eventually developed
into Aligarh Muslim University in 1920—was to make it the cradle of new
leadership for Indian Muslims, in step with current conditions in the world and
based on new kinds of knowledge, as well as to protect Islam and the Muslim
identity in the face of rapid societal transformation.68
The impact of the Aligarh movement was felt in almost all regions of the
Indian subcontinent during the late nineteenth and twentieth centuries. The
movement’s annual educational conferences were held in several regions across
India to promote modern education among Muslims, leading to the growth of
similar institutes, such as Osmania University (established in Hyderabad in 1918),
Darul Uloom Nadwatul Ulama (a seminary with modern education that was
established in Kanpur in 1893 and shifted to Lucknow in 1898), Dacca University
(established in July 1921), Jamia Millia Islamia (1920) and many more. Moreover,
at the onset of the twentieth century, Aligarh movement was the progenitor of
328 Political Islam: Parallel Currents in West Asia and South Asia

several socio-religious movements, like the Khilafat movement and the Pakistan
movement.
Among the prominent members of the Aligarh movement, in addition to
Syed Ahmad Khan, were Maulvi Samiullah Khan, Raja Jai Kishan Das (editor of
Aligarh Institute Gazette), George Farquhar Irving Graham (member of the
Scientific Society), Zakaullah Dehlavi, Nazeer Ahmad Dehlavi, Ross Masud, Henry
Sidon (the first principal of MAO College) and Mahendra Singh of Patiala (donor
of MAO College). This was also the time when many Urdu thinkers and literary
luminaries produced important works, with Muhammed Hussain Azad writing
an acclaimed treatise on Urdu poetry, Aab-e-Hayat (1880); Maulana Altaf Hussain
Hali’s epic Urdu poem, Madd-o-Jazr-e-Islam (“The Ebb and Flow of Islam”),
popularly known as Musaddas-e-Hali (1879); Shibli Nomani’s tour de force, Seerat-
un-Nabi (“Life of the Prophet”), and Al-Farooq (biography of Caliph Umar); and
the brilliant Urdu novelist and reformist Nazeer Ahmad’s prolific work.

Syed Ameer Ali: Islam is Anti-Feudal and Democratic

Among the modernists, Justice Syed Ameer Ali from Calcutta (1849–1928) was
known for his contribution to the law of India, particularly the Muslim Personal
Law (Shariat) Application Act (dealing with marriage, succession, inheritance
and charities among Muslims), which was eventually passed in 1937. Ameer Ali
believed in progressive social laws and held that Islam was highly adaptive in this
respect. He wrote: “Each age has its own standard. What is suited for one time is
not suited for the other.”69
Tracing his ancestry to Prophet Muhammad’s daughter Fatima, Ameer Ali
studied at the Bar of the Inner Temple in England in 1873. He was the first
Indian to be appointed to the judicial committee of the Privy Council in 1909
and helped establish the first mosque in London. He also played a key role in the
formation of the All-India Muslim League in 1906 (established its London office)
and helped secure the first separate electorate for Muslims in Bengal in 1909.
However, he quit the Muslim League in 1913 and drifted away from the British
government, following its policies against the Turkish sultan. He was also one of
the key figures for starting the British Red Crescent Society for helping people in
need.
Of his several notable books, The Spirit of Islam (1891) remains a classic, in
praise of which David Margoliouth wrote: “The charming and eloquent treatise
of Syed Ameer Ali, The Spirit of Islam, is probably the best achievement in the
 Indian Muslims: From Rulers to Subjects of British Raj 329

way of an apology for Mohammed that is ever likely to be composed in a European

language.”70
Although a Shia, Ameer Ali considered it possible for the Shia apostolical
imamate and the pontifical Sunni caliphate, such as that of Abu Bakr, Umar and
Uthman, to coexist, as proven by Ali being an adviser to both Umar and Uthman.
He, thus, rejected the mainstream Shia view that considered the caliphate of Abu
Bakr, Umar and Uthman as illegitimate.71 For him, these caliphs were appointed
through unanimous suffrage of Muslims and it was for protecting the unity of
Muslims that Ali pledged his allegiance to Abu Bakr.
Ameer Ali was deeply influenced by Muslim philosophers, such as Ibn Rushd
and Ali bin Taba Taba.72 He advocated that Islam itself was founded upon liberal
principles and certain terms, such as hurriyet (liberty), were identical to modern
Western values. He further asserted that the Prophet had ushered in a democratic
system, which took control away from dominant tribes and was opposed to the
feudal structure of society.73 He strongly affirmed that the political spirit of Islam
was similar to modern political ideals, one which espouses suffrage of the people
and provides for a written constitution (such as the Prophet’s Mithaq Al-Madina)
and leads to the establishment of a “Republic”.

Ahl-i-Hadeeth: Quietist Descendants of Tariqa-i-Muhammadiya

Following the failure of the Revolt of 1857, the Tariqa-i-Muhammadiya movement
became the prime target of continued British repression. In this period, many
leaders of the movement started abandoning their militant outlook and sought
pragmatic accommodation with the British.
One of the early quietists was Karamat Ali Jaunpuri (1800–73), who
established Madarsa-i-Hasafia in Jaunpur. Although he had no differences with
the religious doctrines of Haji Shariatullah and Dadu Miyan, Karamat Ali did
not accept their verdict that India under British rule was “dar al-harb”, because he
believed that the British did not interfere in the religious affairs of the Muslims.
He also opposed the suspension of congregation prayers on Fridays and Eid festivals
by the Faraizi movement leaders on the pretext of the “dar al-harb” argument.
The movement started by Karamat Ali was called the Taiyuni movement,
derived from the Arabic word “Taiyun”, meaning “to identify”. Karamat Ali spread
his message to Noakhali, Chittagong, Assam, Rangpur and many other interior
areas in eastern India. He wrote several books, among which Miftah ul-Jannah
still remains highly popular.74
330 Political Islam: Parallel Currents in West Asia and South Asia

Karamat Ali worked hard to revive original Islamic teachings in eastern India
at a time when Muslim populations there were giving up on salat (Muslim prayer)
and sawm (fasting particularly during month of Ramadan). The mosques too had
stopped calling out azan (call to prayer) and had adopted Sufi rituals solely to
please their local saints. He also taught against blind adherence (taqleed) of any of
the four classical Sunni jurists and to follow the ways of the early adherents of the
Prophet (salaf ).
Similar doctrinal principles—which are, in essence, closer to Hanbali school
prevalent in the Arabian Peninsula and an ideological outlook reminiscent of the
Zahiri school of thought (that gives precedence to the outward, obvious or manifest
meaning of scriptural text)—were propagated in central India by Nawab Siddiq
Hasan Khan of Bhopal (1832–90) and Syed Nazeer Husain of Delhi, whose
movement is today better known in the Indian subcontinent as the Ahl-i-Hadeeth
(followers of tradition) movement.
Tracing its ideological heritage from Ibn Taimiyyah, Abd Al-Wahhab, Yemeni
theologian Muhammad Al-Shawkani to his disciple, the “Najdi Sheikh” Abd Al-
Haq Benarsi, among Indian Muslims, the Ahl-i-Hadeeth movement’s leading
Urdu treatise in India is Shah Ismail Dehlavi’s book, Taqwiyatul-Iman
(“Strengthening of the Faith”), which is considered as its manifesto.75
This new non-militant religious movement, in the post-1857 era, was critical
of Sufi rituals that drifted towards idolatry (the inexcusable sin of shirk) and the
blind adherence (taqleed) of Deobandis to the Hanafi school of jurisprudence.
The leaders of the movement eventually renounced violent rebellion against the
British rule and one of the leading Ahl-i-Hadeeth scholars from Punjab,
Muhammad Hussain Batalvi (1840–1920), wrote a petition to the British Indian
administration, following which the British government stopped calling them
“Wahhabi” in official correspondence and conceded to refer to them as Ahl-i-
Hadeeth. The movement started spreading to various corners of India and in
1920, it opened a centre in Srinagar.

Barelvi Movement: Sufi Pushback to Ahl-i-Hadeeth and Deobandi

Movements
While the Deobandi movement was critical of certain Sufi practices, like
overzealous veneration of saints, which it deemed often verged towards idolatory,
the Ahl-i-Hadeeth considered the Sufi philosophy of wahdatul wujud itself to be
 Indian Muslims: From Rulers to Subjects of British Raj 331

anti-Islamic because of its association of the existence of creation with the existence
of the creator or God Almighty.
As the influence of these two movements spread in the subcontinent in the
eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, a virulent ideological opposition, even from
the peaceable Sunni Sufis, against Deobandi and Ahl-i-Hadeeth movements, in
the form of so-called Barelvi movement began under the leadership of Imam
Ahmad Raza Khan Barelvi (1856–1921).
Curiously, the Barelvi movement formally called itself Ahl-e-Sunnat wal
Jamaat, which is the full name of the Sunni sect itself. By claiming the full name
of the Sunni sect of Islam for its own movement, the Barelvi school sought to
underscore that its theology alone followed the pristine and legitimate form of
Sunni Islam. In addition, it considered the beliefs of the Ahl-i-Hadeeth movement
and its affiliates (in which it also included Deobandis) as deviant from the
mainstream Sunni fold. Let us take a look at some of the key doctrines of this
movement.

Belief in Noor-i-Muhammadiya (Light that Predates Creation)

Barelvis are Sunni Muslims who, in South Asia, follow the Hanafi school of
jurisprudence, the Maturidi school of theology and the Qadiri or Chishti Sufi
orders. The Barelvis accord a very high station to the Prophet and believe that
before his birth as a human, he existed as a light predating creation.
They, thus, believe that the mention of the word “noor” (light) in the Quran
(in Surah 5, verse 15) refers to the Prophet. This belief of the Barelvis is common
among all Sufis and stands in stark contrast to that of the Salafis, who only accord
the status of a human to the Prophet (albeit the last and greatest) and that of
being the first light created by God.76

Prophet Still Views and Witnesses All Actions (Hazir-o-Nazir)

Like most Sufis, Barelvis believe that Prophet Muhammad views and witnesses
the actions of all people. Therefore, they believe that the Prophet is both hazir
(present) and nazir (witness) at all times.77
In fact, the Prophet does not just observe everybody but even knows their
good and bad deeds, as well as the strength of their faith, along with what a
person has done to hinder one’s spiritual progress. This is among the central
tenets of the faith, which is not accepted by the Deobandi and Ahl-i-Hadeeth/
Salafi-Wahhabi movements.
332 Political Islam: Parallel Currents in West Asia and South Asia

Intercession (Tawassul) of the Prophet (Both during and after Lifetime)

Although there is unanimous concensus that the Prophet often prayed to God for
people as an intermediary several times in his life, the Barelvis believe that there is
clear jurisprudential evidence to prove that the Prophet prays for the devout even
at present, and that his intercession increases the chances of the acceptance of the
prayer.78
They believe that the Prophet has the title of Shaafi, one who performs
intercession. Like most Sufis, Barelvis also believe that not just the Prophet but
other pious souls, angels, martyrs, saints and Quran memorisers, both living or
dead, can intercede. Further, they point out that the intercession by Prophets
Jacob and Jesus is mentioned in the Quran.
The position of Sufis and Barelvis that even dead people (if they may be
prophets or saints) can intercede is rejected by Ahl-i-Hadeeth and Salafi
movements, which consider visiting graves of the deceased as forbidden. For their
part, the Deobandis do not forbid visiting of the graves of saints, but enjoin their
followers to pray to God alone and ask Him to shed his blessings and forgiveness
on the departed soul and if he or she be a pious one, to accept the plaintiff ’s
prayers on behalf of the pious departed. The Deobandis do not accept direct
invocation to the person in the grave.79

Prophet’s Knowledge of the Unseen (Ilm-i-Ghaib)

Another key belief of the Barelvis is that Prophet Muhammad has knowledge of
the unseen. They believe that God Almighty had bestowed on the Prophet special
knowledge and had kept him ummi (unlettered and untaught by humans as he
could not read or write) because the Almighty wanted to grant him innate
knowledge of the unseen realms.
This belief is also not acceptable to the Ahl-i-Hadeeth as they contend that
the Quran and Hadeeth literature do not specify this Sufi or Barelvi claim.

Celebrations and Singing of Hymns

The Barelvis believe in celebrating Milad-un-Nabi (birthday of the Prophet). They
venerate the saintly Sufis who are chronologically linked in a chain leading to the
Prophet. They do group dhikr (chanting), which the Ahl-i-Hadeeth see as
supererogatory, and use musical instruments while singing devotional compositions
(like hamd and naat), mostly in the form of qawwalis. While Deobandis give
 Indian Muslims: From Rulers to Subjects of British Raj 333

qualified acceptance to some of these practices, the Ahl-i-Hadeeth oppose them,

calling them bidah (innovation) in religion.

Ahmad Raza Khan’s Fatwa Declaring Deobandis and Wahhabis Kafir

It is curious to note that the Barelvi movement draws inspiration from the Sunni
Sufi doctrines of Shah Abdur Rahim (1644–1719), who was the father of Shah
Waliullah Dehlawi, whom both Deobandis and Ahl-i-Hadeeth consider the
founding father of their missions in India. The other inspirational leader for the
movement was Fazl-e-Haq Khairabadi (1797–1861), a religious scholar and literary
figure who wrote extensively against Wahhabism as well as issued fatwa against
Ismail Dehlavi. He also met Bahadur Shah Zafar during the Revolt of 1857 and
issued fatwa of jihad to fight against the colonial government. For this action, the
British later arrested him and sent him into exile in the Andaman and Nicobar
Islands (Kala Pani).80
However, the real founder of the movement was Ahmad Raza Khan Barelvi.
Francis Robinson, a leading scholar of Islam in the subcontinent, considered him
to be a polymath as he was a jurist, theologian, poet and mystic.81 He wrote
several hundred books in Arabic, Persian and Urdu, including the 30-volume
fatwa compilation, Fatawa Razaviyya, and Kanzul Iman (translation and
explanation of the Quran).82
In his famous fatwa, “Hussam Al-Haramain” (Swords of the Two Holy
Mosques of Islam), issued in 1906, he declared Deobandis to be “Wahhabis” and
branded both of them as apostate (kafir). The Barelvi community still considers
the fatwa valid. He even called Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiyani (1835–1908),
founder of the Ahmadiya movement, an anti-Christ for his alleged claims of
being the Messiah (or Christ) in his Second Coming, and a later purported claim
of being a prophet himself. The Barelvi animosity towards the Taliban, the Al-
Qaeda, the ISIS and even the Ahmadiyas can be understood on the basis of Ahmad
Raza Khan’s fatwa.83
Leading his religious movement since the 1880s, Raza Khan established Islamic
schools in 1904, with the prominent among them being Manzar-e-Islam in Bareilly
and other madrasas in Pilibhit and Lahore. Surprisingly, he generally avoided
making political statements or giving calls for political action. Until his death in
1921, he maintained that India under the British rule remained “dar al-Islam” as
there was freedom for Muslims to offer their prayers (namaz) and follow their
customs and traditions.
334 Political Islam: Parallel Currents in West Asia and South Asia

Partition of Bengal, Swadeshi Movement and the Muslim League

(1905–06)
As discussed earlier, in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, the influence of
the Tariqa-i-Muhammadiya militant movement (or the so-called Wahhabi
militancy) against the British rule was quite strong under radical leaders from
Bengal and Bihar, such as Titu Mir, Dadu Miyan and members of the Faraizi
movement, just as it was under Sayyid Ahmad Barelvi, Shah Ismail Dehlavi and
others fighting in the northwestern regions of the country.
Even today, Assam’s Muslims constitute a third of the population, which
makes it the Indian state with the largest Muslim population in the country, as
Jammu and Kashmir (with a larger Muslim population) has now become a union
territory.84 The presence of such a huge Muslim population in itself became a
cause for communal disharmony in the beginning of the twentieth century, when
the British government decided to partition the state of Bengal in 1905, leading
to the outbreak of the Swadeshi movement.
With a population of 78.50 million, the Bengal Presidency was British India’s
largest province in 1905, encompassing Bengal, Bihar, parts of Chhattisgarh,
Orissa and Assam. In an ostensible plan to divide this large and unwieldy province,
the then Viceroy of India, Lord Curzon, decided to reorganise it on communal
lines by separating the mainly Muslim eastern areas from predominantly Hindu
western areas. With this announcement on 19 July 1905, Curzon split Bihar and
Orissa and joined 15 eastern districts of Bengal with Assam.85
The Partition of Bengal was seen by members of the INC as an attempt by
the British to undermine the mainly Hindu-led national agitation by separating
them from Muslims in the politically active eastern regions of the Bengal
Presidency. Muslims now enjoyed a majority in the new and separate eastern
province, who had even earlier not been highly active in the national movement,
but now might come even closer to the British government after getting a majority
province for themselves.
This move, announced by Lord Curzon, sparked massive protests not only in
the Bengal Presidency but also across India, with Bombay, Poona and Punjab
witnessing mass demonstrations against the British attempt to “divide and rule”.
Initially, the Muslim leaders did not support the British decision to divide the
province86 and many of them, like Liakat Hussain, Abdul Hakim Ghaznavi, Abdul
Rasul, Maniruzzaman, Ismail Hussain Siraji, Abul Husain and Din Mahommed,
took a prominent role in the agitations.
 Indian Muslims: From Rulers to Subjects of British Raj 335

However, the strident Hindu revivalist tone during the Swadeshi movement
not only alienated Muslims but also caused a division between the “moderate”
and “extremist” elements in the Congress Party. Exhortations for the reinstatement
of Hindu rashtra, constant references to the Gita, vow of self-sacrifice before
Goddess Kali and observance of “Birashtami” rituals (to commemorate Hindu
heroes against medieval Muslims) drew the Muslims away from the Swadeshi
movement. Statements by movement leaders, like Bipinchandra Pal, “to separate
national life from religion would mean the abandonment of religious and moral
values in personal life also”, did not enthuse Muslim support.87
As a result, several prominent Muslim leaders, such as the Nawab Salimullah
of Dhaka, turned in favour of the Partition of Bengal as they felt that the move
would empower the Muslim community. The polarisation of society on communal
lines grew to the extent that communal riots broke out in the eastern part of
Bengal: first, in Ishwargunj in Mymensingh district in May 1906, which then
triggered riots in Comilla, Jamalpur, Dewangunge and Bakshigunj in March
1907.88
The uproar over the Partition of Bengal and the emergence of Hindu
nationalist factions in the Congress during the Swadeshi movement triggered the
need for separatist politics among the Muslims in India. In 1909, the British
exploited the tension between the two communities and separate electorates were
established for Hindus and Muslims. In fact, the demand for separate Muslim
states grew from this point onwards.
It is in this polarised atmosphere that Nawab Salimullah founded the All-
India Muslim League on 30 December 1906 in Dhaka. The first honorary
president of the Muslim League was Sultan Muhammad Shah (Agha Khan III).
The party’s constitution was framed in 1907, as the Green Book, written by Maulana
Muhammad Ali (a leading scholar of the Lahore Ahmadiya movement).

Indian Pan-Islamism: Silk Letter Conspiracy and the Khilafat

Movement
As World War I was about to commence, a few Deobandi leaders, with some
links with Indian freedom fighters of the Ghadar movement, hatched a conspiracy
against the British rulers by forging an alliance with their adversaries, namely, the
Ottoman Empire, the Emirate of Afghanistan and the German Empire.89
The conspiracy, known as the Silk Letter movement (“Tehreek-e-Reshmi Rumal”
in Urdu), used letters written in silk cloth for spreading its secret information and
336 Political Islam: Parallel Currents in West Asia and South Asia

lasted between 1913–20. With the Sikh convert to Islam, Ubaidullah Sindhi,
Mahmud Hasan (principal of Deoband school) and Hussain Ahmad Mehmood
leading the conspiracy, the movement was quite secular in that Maharaja Mahendra
Pratap was associated with the revolutionaries and coordinated their activities
with leaders of the Ghadar movement, led by mainly US-based expatriate Indians.
Maharaja Mahendra Pratap was also made President of India’s first provisional
government-in-exile, established in Kabul in 1915 by the Deobandi revolutionaries.
However, the plot was exposed and top Deobandi leaders were arrested.
Mahmud Hasan and Hussain Ahmad Madani were apprehended by the British
in Mecca on their way to Turkey. Fearing protests in India if these leaders were
brought back home, they were exiled to Malta and released after a few years.90
Although the Indian Muslims hardly ever paid any political or spiritual
obeisance to a foreign caliph, they empathised with the cause of the Ottoman
monarch (who was also the titular caliph of the world’s Sunni Muslims) when his
rule was threatened by the same colonial power (the British) which had enslaved
India. The upholder of the Hanafi, Maturidi schools of Sunni Islam to which
most Indians also belonged, Indian Muslims had more empathy towards Hanafi
Ottomans than towards Arab rebels who in partnership with British imperial
forces were struggling to throw off the Turkish yoke at that time.
To show solidarity with the vanquished Ottoman caliph, the Khilafat
movement (1919–24) was launched, led by Oxford-educated journalist Maulana
Muhammad Ali Jawhar and his brother, Maulana Shaukat Ali, along with several
prominent Muslim leaders, including Maulana Abul Kalam Azad and Hakim
Ajmal Khan. In 1920, the movement aligned itself with Gandhi’s Non-Cooperation
movement and the joint call for “Khliafat” and “Swaraj” revived the memories of
1857 Hindu–Muslim unity against the British rule.91
For its founders and followers, Khilafat was not a religious movement but
was just a show of solidarity with their fellow Muslims in Turkey, and was aimed
at the British government to allow the continuance of the caliph’s reign. However,
the peaceful nationwide demonstrations took a vicious turn in Kerala, when the
depressed Mappila peasants engaged in violent attacks against the British and the
Nair landlords. Gandhiji had to finally call off the civil disobedience movement
following the Chauri Chaura incident, in which 22 policemen and three civilians
were killed on 22 February 1922. By that time, Muslim enthusiasm had also died
out with the separation of the caliphate from the sultanate in 1922 and the abolition
of the caliphate in 1924.92
 Indian Muslims: From Rulers to Subjects of British Raj 337

The support of the Congress Party for a pan-Islamist movement came in for
some criticism. A new crop of Muslim leaders came to the forefront, with Ali
brothers joining the Pakistan movement and Maulana Azad and Hakim Ajmal
Khan joining the INC and being celebrated in India as freedom fighters.93

NOTES
1 W.W. Hunter, Chapter 1 “The Standing Rebel Camp on our Frontier”, The Indian Muslamans,
Tribner and Company, 1871, Createspace Independent Pub (6 September 2017), p. 2, https://
www.sanipanhwar.com/The%20Indian%20Musalmans%20by%20W.%20W.%20Hunter %20-
%201876.pdf.
2 Sepoys were Indians who served in the British Army under the East India Company.
3 Surendra Nath Sen, “The Inevitability of the Mutiny”, in Ainslee T. Embree (ed.), 1857 In India:
Mutiny or War of Independence, Boston, MA, D.C. Heath and Company (1 January 1968), p.
412, n. 1.
4 Khushhali Lal Srivastava, The Revolt of 1857 in Central India: Malwa, Allied Publishers, Bombay,
1966, pp. 56–74.
5 “1857 Revolt Tribute to Hindu–Muslim Unity”, Hindustan Times, 10 May 2007, https://
www.hindustantimes.com/india/1857-revolt-tribute-to-hindu-muslim-unity/story-
O63aYNEyG7j1CyALJOFYYI.html, last accessed on 24 September 2023.
6 G.B. Malleson, The Indian Mutiny of 1857, Rupa, New Delhi, 2005(1891), p. 19.
7 Saquib Salim, Glorious Role of Muslims in Freedom Struggle, Awaz the Voice, 15 August 2022,
https://www.awazthevoice.in/india-news/the-glorious-role-of-muslims-in-freedom-struggle-
4918.html, Last accessed on 24 September 2023.
8 Syed Ubaidur Rahman, “Muslims Played a Pivotal Role in 1857 War of Indian Independence”,
The Siasat Daily, 27 December 2021, https://www.siasat.com/muslims-played-pivotal-role-in-
1857-war-of-indian-independence-now-they-are-labeled-foreigners-2248878/
9 Ibid.
10 Irfan Habib, “The Coming of 1857”, Social Scientist, Vol. 26, January–April 1998, p. 12.
11 W. Forbes-Mitchell, Reminiscences of the Great Mutiny, 1857–59, chapter XV, Normanby Press,
2016, p. 127.
12 Charles Theophilus Metcalfe, Two Narratives of the Mutiny in Delhi, Kessinger, 2010 (1898).
13 Husain, Iqbal. “Awadh Rebel Proclamations during 1857-58.” Proceedings of the Indian History
Congress 58 (1997): 482–92. http://www.jstor.org/stable/44143952
14 “The Delhi Proclamation, May 1857”, cited in Charles Ball, The History of Indian Mutiny, Vol. 1,
Sang-e-Meel, 2005, p. 459.
15 Barbara D. Metcalfe, Islamic Revival in British India: Deoband, Berkeley: University of California
Press, 1984, p. 170.
16 Belkacem Belmekki, “The Impact of British Rule on the Indian Muslim Community in the
Nineteenth Century”, Revista de Filología Inglesa, Vol. 28, 2007, pp. 27–46.
17 Thomas R. Metcalf, The Aftermath of Revolt: India 1857–1870, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University
Press, 1965, p. 301.
18 S.R. Wasti, “British Policy towards the Indian Muslims Immediately after 1857”, in Muslim
Struggle for Freedom in India, Delhi: Renaissance Publishing House, 1993, p. 7.
19 Ralph Russell - Khurshid Islam (eds.), Ghalib 1797-1869 – Life and Letters, Delhi 1994, p. 149.
20 Tara Chand, History of the Freedom Movement in India, New Delhi: Publications Division, 1967.
338 Political Islam: Parallel Currents in West Asia and South Asia

21 Ayesha Jalal, The Partisans of Allah: Jihad in Colonial India, Harvard University Press, Cambridge,
2018.
22 Crispin Bates and Marina Carter, “Religion and Retribution in the Indian Rebellion of 1857”,
Leidschrift, Vol. 24, No. 1, 2009, pp. 51–68.
23 Cited in G.B. Malleson, The Indian Mutiny of 1857, Rupa, New Delhi, 2005(1891), p. 19.
24 Jalal, The Partisans of Allah: Jihad in Colonial India, p. 116.
25 Barbara D. Metcalf, “Ulama in Transition”, in Islamic Revival in British India: Deoband, 1860–
1900, Princeton University Press, 2014, p. 82.
26 Tariq Hasan, Colonialism and the Call to Jihad in British India, New Delhi: Sage, 2015.
27 Z. H Faruqi, The Deoband School and the Demand for Pakistan, Asia Publishing House, Bombay,
1963, pp. 16-17.
28 Hasan, Colonialism and the Call to Jihad in British India.
29 Brannon D. Ingram, Revival from Below: The Deoband Movement and Global Islam, Oakland:
University of California Press, 2018.
30 Barbara D. Metcalf, “The Madrasa at Deoband: A Model for Religious Education in Modern
India”, Modern Asian Studies, Vol. 12, No. 1, 1978, pp. 111–12.
31 Ibid.
32 Hamid Mahmood, The Dars-e-Nizami and the Transnational Traditionalist Madaris in Britain,
Queen Mary University of London, 2012.
33 M. van Bruinessen and S. Allievi, Producing Islamic Knowledge: Transmission and Dissemination in
Western Europe, Routledge, 2013, p. 99.
34 Muhammad Qasim Zaman, “Religious Education and the Rhetoric of Reform: The Madrasa in
British India and Pakistan”, Comparative Studies in Society and History, Vol. 41, No. 2, 2014, pp.
294–323.
35 Taqleed, Islamic Law, History and Society, Britannica, https://www.britannica.com/topic/taqleed,
last accessed online on 24 September 2023.
36 Barbara D. Metcalf, Islamic Revival in British India: Deoband, 1860–1900, 3rd edition, New
Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2002, p. 141.
37 Maulana Furqan Mehrban Ali Al Madani, ‘Salafi Muslims in India support the Bill against Triple
Talaq’, Sabrang English, 1 February 2019, https://sabrangindia.in/salafi-muslims-india-support-
bill-against-triple-talaq/, last accessed on 24 September 2023.
38 The concept is discussed in the section on Ahmad Shah Sirhindi.
39 Mawlana Khalil Ahmad Saharanpuri, ‘Al Muhannad: Deoband on Mawlid’, Correcting the Record,
deoband.org, https://www.deoband.org/2011/02/correcting-record/al-muhannad-deoband-on-
mawlid/
40 Mawlana Abd al-Hafiz al-Makki, ‘Sufism and the Imams of the Salafi Movement: Introduction’,
Correcting the Record, deoband.org, https://www.deoband.org/2010/11/sufism/sufism-and-the-
imams-of-the-salafi-movement-introduction/, 20 November 1986 (17/3/1407 AH).
41 Joseph Givony, “Murjia and the Theological School of Abu Hanifa: A Historical and Ideological
Study”, University of Edinburgh, 1977, https://www.academia.edu/66059693/Murjia_and_
the_theological_school_of_Abu_H_ani_fa_a_historical_and_ideological_study
42 Dar, Eissa (2018). Does Abu Hanifah Reject Sound Hadith in Order to Formulate Legal Rulings?
A Study of Abu Hanifah’s Usul and His Competency in Hadith. 10.13140/RG.2.2.34650.18883.
43 Daniel W. Brown (1996), Rethinking tradition in modern Islamic thought, Cambridge University
Press, pp. 13–15.
44 Joseph Givony, ‘The Murjia and the Theological School of Abu Hanifa: A Historical and Ideological
Study’, University of Edinburgh, 1977, p. 168, file:///C:/Users/Dr.%20Adil/Downloads/
 Indian Muslims: From Rulers to Subjects of British Raj 339

Givony%201977_FULL.pdf.
45 F. Tabassum, Deoband Ulema’s Movement for the Freedom of India. New Delhi: Jamiat Ulama-i-
Hind, in association with Manak Publications, 2006; pdf at At-Tahawi blog, July 2007.
46 Sohail H. Hashmi, Just Wars, Holy Wars, and Jihads: Christian, Jewish, and Muslim Encounters and
Exchanges, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012, p. 307.
47 A.N.M. Wahidur-Rahman, “The Religious Thought of Moulvi Chiragh ‘Ali”, MA Thesis, Institute
of Islamic Studies, McGill University, Montreal, 1982.
48 Chiragh Ali, The Proposed Political, Legal, and Social Reforms in the Ottoman Empire and other
Mohammadan States, Bombay: Education Society Press, 1883, pp. 1–2.
49 Carimo Mohomed, “A Historiographical Approach to the Qur’an and Shari’a in Late 19th Century
India: The Case of Chiragh ‘Ali”, História da Historiografia, Vol. 8, No. 17, 2015.
50 Ali, The Proposed Political, Legal, and Social Reforms in the Ottoman Empire and other Mohammadan
States, p. 11.
51 Ibid., p. viii.
52 Ibid., pp. xii–xiii.
53 Chiragh Ali, A Critical Exposition of the Popular “Jihad”: Showing that All the Wars of Mohammad
Were Defensive and that Aggressive War or Compulsory Conversion is Not Allowed in the Koran.
Createspace Independent Pub, 16 June 2015.
54 Daniel Brown, A New Introduction to Islam, Oxford: Blackwell, 2004, p. 204.
55 Shamsur Rahman Faruqi, “From Antiquary to Social Revolutionary: Syed Ahmad Khan and the
Colonial Experience”, Columbia University, 20 October 2016, available at https://web.archive.org/
web/20161020101507/http://www.columbia.edu/itc/mealac/pritchett/00fwp/srf/
srf_sirsayyid.pdf.
56 Shafey Kidwai, Sir Syed Ahmad Khan: Reason, Religion and Nation, Taylor & Francis, New Delhi,
2020.
57 Dietrich Reetz, “Enlightenment and Islam: Sayyid Ahmad Khan’s Plea to Indian Muslims for
Reason”, The Indian Historical Review, Vol. 14, Nos 1–2, 1988, pp. 206–18.
58 Brown, A New Introduction to Islam, p. 205.
59 Sir Saiyyid Ahmad Khan, Taalim aur Ittifaq Maqalate Sir Sayyid: Taqriri Maqalat, Lahore: Majlise
Taraqqi-e Adab, 1963, cited in Hafeez Malik, Sir Sayiid Ahmad Khan and Muslim Modernization
in India and Pakistan, New York: Cambridge University Press, 1980, p. 244.
60 Mushirul Hasan, “Aligarh’s ‘Notre Eminent Contemporain’: Assessing Syed Ahmad Khan’s
Reformist Agenda.” Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 33, No. 19 (1998), p. 1079.
61 Shan Muhammad (compiler), Writings and Speeches of Sir Sayyid Ahmad Khan, Bombay: Nachiketa,
1972, p. 160.
62 Quoted in Aresh Shirali, “The Enigma of Aligarh”, OPEN, 10 August 2017, https://
openthemagazine.com/freedom-issue-2017/freedom-issue-2017-dispatches-from-history/the-
enigma-of-aligarh/, last accessed online on 25 September 2023.
63 Altaf Husain Hali, Hayat-i-Javed: A Biographical Account of Sir Sayyid, translated by David J.
Mathews and K.H. Qadiri, Delhi: Idarah-I-Adabiyat-I-Delli, 1979.
64 Sir Syed Ahmad Khan’s speech quoted by Dilip Hiro, The Longest August: The Unflinching Rivalry
between India and Pakistan, London: Nation Books London, 2015, p. 6.
65 P. Hardy, The Muslims of British India, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1972, p. 137.
66 Ibid., p. 103.
67 Kidwai, Sir Syed Ahmad Khan: Reason, Religion and Nation.
68 David Lelyveld, “Disenchantment at Aligarh: Islam and the Realm of the Secular in Late Nineteenth
Century India”, Die Welt des Islams, New Series, Vol. 22, No. 1/4, 1982, pp. 85–102.
340 Political Islam: Parallel Currents in West Asia and South Asia

69 Syed Ameer Ali, The Spirit of Islam: A History of the Evolution and Ideals of Islam, with a Life of the
Prophet, Christophers, 1948, London, p. 240.
70 D.S. Margoliouth, Mohammed and the Rise of Islam, Gorgias Press LLC, London, 1905, p. vii.
71 Syed Ameer Ali, The Spirit of Islam: A History of the Evolution and Ideals of Islam, Cosimo Classics,
New York, 2010 (1890).
72 Ibid., pp. 288–89.
73 Ibid., 411.
74 Rajarshi Ghose, Politics for Faith: Karamat Ali Jaunpuri and Islamic Revivalist Movements in British
India Circa 1800–73, Chicago: University of Chicago, 2012.
75 Muhammad Afzal Upal and Carole M. Cusack (eds), Handbook of Islamic Sects and Movements,
Leiden: Brill, 2021, p. 639: “They called themselves variously as Muwahideen (that is, unitarians,
the term preferred by Nawab Siddiq Hasan Khan), and Ahl e-Hadith (that is, the Followers of
the Prophet’s Words, the term preferred by Syed Nazir Hussain).”
76 Coeli Fitzpatrick and Adam Hani Walker, Muhammad in History, Thought, and Culture: An
Encyclopedia of the Prophet of God, 2 vols, ABC-CLIO, 2014, pp. 300–01.
77 Jonathan E. Brockopp, The Cambridge Companion to Muhammad, New York: Cambridge
University Press, 2010, p. 127.
78 Muhammad Al-Zurqani, Sharh al-Mawahib al-ladunniyah, Beirut: Dar al-Ma’rifa, 1956-57, pp.
304–05.
79 Jawad Syed, Edwina Pio, Tahir Kamran and Abbas Zaidi (eds), Faith-based Violence and Deobandi
Militancy in Pakistan, Springer, London, 2016, p. 377.
80 Iqbal Husain, “Fazle Haq of Khairabad—A Scholarly Rebel of 1857”, Proceedings of the Indian
History Congress, Vol. 48, 1987, pp. 355–65.
81 Francis Robinson, “Varieties of South Asian Islam”, Research Paper No. 8, Centre for Research in
Ethnic Relations, University of Warwick, 1988, p. 8.
82 Usha Sanyal, Devotional Islam and Politics in British India: Ahmad Raza Khan Barelwi and His
Movement, 1870–1920, Oxford University Press, 1996.
83 M. Ahmad, Saiyid Ahmad Barelavi: His Life and Mission (No. 93), Lucknow: Academy of Islamic
Research and Publications, 1975, p. 27.
84 Monirul Hussain, “Muslims of the Indian State of Assam: A Note”, Institute of Muslim Minority
Affairs Journal, Vol. 8, No. 2, 1987, pp. 397–402.
85 Burton Stein, A History of India, 2nd edition, Wiley-Blackwell, New Jersey, 2010.
86 Barbara Metcalf and Thomas Metcalf, A Concise History of Modern India, 2nd edition, New York:
Cambridge University Press, 2006.
87 Sumit Sarkar, The Swadeshi Movement in Bengal, 1903–1908, Permanent Black, Delhi, 1977, p.
76.
88 John R. McLane, “The Decision to Partition Bengal in 1905”, Indian Economic and Social History
Review, Vol. 2, No. 3, 1965, pp. 221–37.
89 K.H. Ansari, “Pan-Islam and the Making of the Early Indian Muslim Socialist”, Modern Asian
Studies, Vol. 20, No. 3, 1986, pp. 509–37.
90 M. Naeem Qureshi, “The ‘Ulamâ’ of British India and the Hijrat of 1920", Modern Asian Studies,
Vol. 13, No. 1, 1979, pp. 41–59.
91 Gail Minault, The Khilafat Movement: Religious Symbolism and Political Mobilization in India,
Columbia University Press, New York, 1982.
92 Sankar Ghose, Mahatma Gandhi, Allied Publishers, New Delhi, 1991, pp. 124–26.
93 M. Naeem Qureshi, Pan-Islam in British Indian Politics: A Study of the Khilafat Movement, 1918–
1924, Brill, 1999.
 20
Two-Nation Theory and the Rise of Radical
Islam in India (1920–2022)

I am a part of this indivisible unity that is Indian nationality. I am

indispensable to the noble edifice, and without me, this splendid structure
of India is incomplete. I am an essential element which has gone to
build India. I can never surrender this claim.
—Maulana Azad, INC Presidential Address, 19401

It is curious to note that many Indian Muslim leaders who embraced Western
education (mainly those belonging to the Aligarh school) became advocates of
the divisive two-nation theory. At the same time, a majority of ulema stuck close
to the moderate elements of the INC and were advocates of a secular India. This
chapter will study the philosophy and actions of the ideologues of the two-nation
theory that led to the unfortunate partition of the country, which then exacerbated
the scourge of radical Islamism in the subcontinent, with particular emphasis on
its growth in four Muslim-dominated states: Pakistan, Afghanistan, Bangladesh
and the Maldives.
Western-educated Muhammad Iqbal and Muhammad Ali Jinnah believed
that the socio-religious differences between Hindus and Muslims were wholly
incompatible and irreconcilable, and therefore they favoured separate nations for
the two communities. At the same time, many prominent Islamic scholars, like
Maulana Hussain Ahmad Madani and Maulana Abul Kalam Azad, fought for
342 Political Islam: Parallel Currents in West Asia and South Asia

India’s freedom against the British rule and became advocates of a secular India.
As mentioned earlier, Sir Syed Ahmad Khan was not enthused with the INC’s
idea of composite nationalism and he is often viewed as the person who
propounded the two-nation theory. His line of thought resonated with several
other Muslim leaders of his time and those who came after him.
The rise of assertive Hindu nationalist leadership under the Lal-Bal-Pal
triumvirate (short version of three names of assertive nationalist leaders in British
India—Lala Lajpat Rai, Bal Gangadhar Tilak in , and Bipin Chandra Pal) in the
INC, particularly during the Swadeshi movement, also made many Muslim leaders
uncertain about the fate of their community in a Hindu-majority India. Thus,
considering that political power had slipped away from the Muslims of India, the
community faced a deep fear of the future—an apprehension about prolonged
alienation, decline and decadence in their own country. This grim and sombre
mood was reflected in much of the literary works of Muslim Urdu poets from the
eighteenth century onwards. A lament for the decline of Mughal fortunes after
the sack of Delhi by Nadir Shah became a genre of classical Urdu poetry, known
as shahr ashob (“the city’s misfortune”), whose best exponents were Mirza Rafi
Sauda (1713–81) and perhaps the greatest Urdu poet, Mir Taqi Mir (1724–1810).

Muhammad Iqbal: Poetic Re-imagination of a Future Muslim State

In 1935, Muhammad Iqbal (1877–1938) captured the continuing sense of Muslim
angst in his poem, “Bal-e-Jibril” (“Gabriel’s Wing”):

Ragon Mein Woh Lahoo Baqi Nahin Hai

Woh Dil, Woh Arzoo Baaqi Nahin Hai
Namaz-o-Roza-o-Qurbani-o-Hajj
Ye Sub Baqi Hai, Tu Baqi Nahin Hai

That blood of pristine vigour is no more;

That yearning heart’s power is no more;
Prayer, fasting, Haj, sacrifice survive,
But in thee nature’s old dower is no more.2

According to renowned journalist Khushwant Singh, Muhammad Iqbal was

born in Sialkot in 1877. He was the grandson of a Kashmiri Brahman, Kanhaya
Lal Sapru, of Saprain village. Iqbal’s father, Rattan Lal, had converted to Islam
and was given the name Nur Muhammad.3 Iqbal did graduation from Cambridge
and completed PhD from Munich University, by submitting his thesis,
 Two-Nation Theory and the Rise of Radical Islam in India 343

“Development of Metaphysics in Persia”, in 1908. An authority on Islamic

philosophy and mysticism, he studied German and was also influenced by the
works of Fichte, Nietzsche, Bergson and Goethe.
In the words of Phillips Talbot, Iqbal, like John the Baptist, dedicated his life
to rousing Muslim intellectuals out of their sense of despondency and devised
ways for the spiritual and political revival of the community.4 In order to bring
Muslims of the subcontinent out of the morass of self-absorption and defeatism,
Iqbal insisted that they should not self-sabotage their sense of “self”, as conventional
Sufi saints used to insist while training their initiates. He was also a great advocate
of khudi—a term he associated with the Quranic word rooh (an intrinsic divine
spark)—and insisted that it should be nurtured and not be confused with ego.
For Iqbal, “khudi” was related to the continuous struggle in life for a higher
purpose; and certain qualities were essential for the growth and consolidation of
khudi, like ishq (love), faqr (indifference to material possessions), courage and
creativity. He also listed factors that weakened khudi, like fear, beggary and slavery.
According to him, Khudi was:
The light of the self, and the fire of the self/Constitute the very essence
of Islam, the fire of the Self nourishes life with enlightenment and
consciousness/This is the nature of every object, and this is the cause of
growth; however, the Nature has concealed its essence.5
Iqbal waxed eloquently in his glory of the khudi:
Khudi ki jalwaton mein Mustafai
Khudi ki Khalwaton mein Kibriyai
Zameenon Aasmano Arsh-o-Kursi
Khudi ki zad mein hai saari khudai.
Selfhood in the world of men is prophethood;
Selfhood in solitude is godliness;
The earth, the heavens, the great empyrean,
Are all within the range of Selfhood’s power.6
In Rumuz-i-Khudi, he urged that a person must nurture the inner self (khudi),
but once this has been accomplished, the person should dedicate this self to the
nation’s needs, as man cannot realise the “self ” outside of society.7
Iqbal’s political thought went through several phases of evolution. In his early
years (up to 1905), he was not so much of an Islamist and believed in Indian
nationalism; indeed, his interests in these years pertained less to politics.8 He
344 Political Islam: Parallel Currents in West Asia and South Asia

wrote the patriotic “Tarana-e-Hindi”, which is sung even today: “Sare Jahan se
Achcha Hindostan Hamara” (Better than the whole world is India of ours), which
was published in the weekly journal Ittehad on 16 August 1904 and was later
published in 1924 in Iqbal’s Urdu anthology Bang-e-Dara.9 According to Riffat
Hassan: “Two things which stand foremost in Iqbal’s pre-1905 political poetry is:
his desire to see a self-governing and united India free of both alien domination
and inner dissension.”10 It is ironic that this poet wrote “Tarana-e-Milli” (Anthem
of the Muslim Community) in 1910, which had a global Islamist theme and
overlooked his earlier assertions of Indianness. The poem begins as:
Cheen-o-Arab humara, Hindostan hamara
Muslim hain hum vatan hai saara jahan hamara.11
China and Arab are ours, India is ours
As Muslims, our nation is the whole world.12
From 1905 to 1908, during the Partition of Bengal and the Swadeshi
movement, Iqbal’s political philosophy underwent a major change. This was a
period of transition when his political philosophy started veering towards pan-
Islamism and Politicsal Islam. It was also in 1905 that Iqbal visited Europe to
pursue higher education and stayed there for three years. Thus, it was in Europe
that he became unsure of pan-Indian nationalism and became a supporter of
pan-Islamism. He opposed race and nationality and called for unity among
Muslims worldwide. He wrote: “Break, break the idols of colour and race/In the
Millat (community) yourself you must efface/Call not yourself of Turkish
nationality, or an Irani, or an Afghani.”13
From 1926 onwards, Iqbal believed in Islamic universalism and considered
that the state’s boundaries were for administrative convenience only and the affinity
of Muslims was spiritual. He also started opposing Western separation of religion
from politics. He said: “politics has its roots in the spiritual life of man…[and]
religion is a force of great importance in the life of individual as well as nations.”14
Iqbal believed that Islam was a religion not limited by time and space and therefore,
Muslim nationality had no geographical basis.
It seems to me that God is slowly bringing home to us the truth that
Islam is neither nationalism nor imperialism but a League of Nations
which recognises artificial boundaries and racial distinctions for facility
of reference only, and not for restricting the social horizon of its
members.15
He was not against the idea of democracy but was critical of some aspects of
 Two-Nation Theory and the Rise of Radical Islam in India 345

Western democracy. Iqbal considered the Western democratic system to be same

as old European Caesarism or imperialism, which only protected the interest of
capitalists. He was against the philosophy of one man, one vote. Further, Iqbal
believed that majority of the common people could not be equal to a wise man
and therefore, he was in favour of a wise man’s decision. For him, democratic
institutions, such as election, membership, council and presidentship, were rotten
eggs of the new civilisation.16
Iqbal believed that an Islamic state based on democratic values could provide
a better political system, but Western materialism, bereft of religious values, could
only lead to a recurrence of wars, which he had witnessed at the outbreak of
World War I. The key features of Iqbal’s ideal Islamic state were: it would represent
tawheed (unity of godhead) as its central principle; and it would be free of any
discrimination based on Islamic sects, colour, geography and language.
Thus, tawheed would be the binding force among the state’s Muslim subjects.
The citizens would have the prerogative to elect their representatives, but both
(electors and elected) should work within the boundaries of Allah’s law. An Islamic
consultative assembly would be put in place to monitor the laws and policies
following Islamic law. Parliamentarians (not ulema) would be responsible for
observing divine law and considering the option of ijtihad (innovation) for
accommodating change following the modern age.
Iqbal believed that the whole Muslim world must implement spiritual
democracy to attain peace and prosperity. He discouraged the concentration of
wealth in a few hands and emphasised the need for an Islamic economic system
to ensure equal distribution of resources and economic upliftment. He also rejected
the rule of kingship and feudalism.17 However, although Iqbal rejected secularism
and nationalism, he did not specify whether his ideal Islamic state was a theocracy.
In addition, he criticised the religious scholars (ulema) for having “reduced the
Law of Islam practically to the state of immobility”.18
This ideological vision of an Islamic state to revive Islam formed the basis for
Iqbal’s support for the two-nation theory and the creation of Pakistan. In his
presidential address at the 21st Annual Session of the All-India Muslim League in
1930, Iqbal spoke of his vision of an independent state for Muslim-majority
provinces in northwestern India, where he called for “the amalgamation of North-
West Muslim-majority Indian states” consisting of Punjab, North-West Frontier
Province, Sindh and Baluchistan.19 He stated that for the Muslims of India, there
could be no prospect of peace unless they were recognised as a nation in which
346 Political Islam: Parallel Currents in West Asia and South Asia

the Muslim-majority units were given the same privileges as the Hindu-majority
units. Iqbal said:
To Islam, matter is spirit realising itself in space and time…Self-
government within the British Empire, or without the British Empire,
the formation of a consolidated North-West Indian Muslim State appears
to me to be the final destiny of the Muslims, at least of North-West
India.20
Exasperated by the infighting within the Muslim League, between its factional
leaders like Sir Mian Muhammad Shafi and Fazlur Rahman, Iqbal considered
only Jinnah to have the leadership abilities to draw the support of the Muslim
masses for the party and to ensure inter-party harmony. Thus, Iqbal persuaded
Jinnah to leave his practice as a lawyer in London and resume his political career
by becoming the leader of the Muslim League on 21 June 1937: “I know you are
a busy man, but I do hope you won’t mind my writing to you often, as you are the
only Muslim in India today to whom the community has the right to look up for
safe guidance....”21 In fact, some historians believe that Iqbal’s close correspondence
with Jinnah proved critical in the latter’s acceptance of the idea of the two-nation
theory and the creation of Pakistan.
Ironically, Iqbal was critical of Deobandi scholars for their support to the
INC and their advocacy of a secular and democratic India. In the 1930s, he
became actively involved in raising funds for the Muslim League and is generally
considered to be the formal founder of the two-nation theory.

Muhammad Ali Jinnah and the Partition of India

The 1936–37 provincial elections held in 11 provinces of British India clearly
showed that the Muslims did not vote en masse either for the Muslim League or
the Congress Party. In the elections, the Muslim League only managed to capture
25 per cent of the seats reserved for Muslims. It was the Unionist Party in Punjab
and the United Party in Sindh, mainly representing the interests of the Hindu,
Muslim and Sikh landed gentry, that won the elections in the two provinces most
critical for the Muslim League.
By the time of Iqbal’s death in 1938, the Muslim League decided that the
time had come to whip up communal sentiments in the Muslim masses and rake
up fear in the name of their under-representation in politics by the British and
the INC. By 1940, Muhammad Ali Jinnah had become the chief flagbearer of the
two-nation theory of Syed Ahmad Khan and Iqbal, when he enunciated it in
stark and blatant terms:
 Two-Nation Theory and the Rise of Radical Islam in India 347

It is a dream that the Hindus and Muslims can ever evolve a common
nationality…Hindus and Muslims belong to two different religious
philosophies, social customs, and literary traditions. They neither
intermarry nor eat together, and indeed they belong to two different
civilisations which are based mainly on conflicting ideas and
conceptions.22
Ironically, Jinnah, who claimed to represent the Muslim community and its
religious and social customs, was known as an Anglophile who enjoyed drinking
liquor and eating bacon and egg sandwiches. He was born in a family of the
Khoja caste in Gujarat, a household that had converted from Hinduism to the
Ismaili Shia Nizari sect of the Agha Khan. In the words of Vali Nasr: “Jinnah was
an Ismaili by birth and a Twelver Shia by confession, though not a religiously
observant man.”23
A barrister by profession, Jinnah joined the INC in 1906 and was called, by
Gopal Krishna Gokhale, “an ambassador of Hindu–Muslim unity”.24 He joined
the Muslim League in 1913, but still played an essential role in bringing together
the Congress Party and the Muslim League in the Lucknow Pact of 1916. However,
he became highly critical of Mahatma Gandhi’s civil disobedience movements
and considered them to be fomenting anarchy.
In the 1920s, Jinnah also warned Mahatma Gandhi about his use of religious
idioms to mobilise people against the British rule, which he alleged would widen
the wedge between Hindus and Muslims and jeopardise the unity of India. He
was opposed to the usage of some terms, like “Ram Rajya” and “Khilafat”, by
Mahatma Gandhi during the Non-Cooperation movement. He even refused to
call Muhammad Ali, the leader of the Khilafat movement, “Maulana” at the Nagpur
session of the Congress Party in 1920, because of which he was hooted at and had
to leave the session in disgust. This incident became the immediate reason for his
resignation from the Congress Party.25
Later, in response to the Nehru Report of 15 August 1928, which called for
the dominion status of India and reserved seats for minorities, Jinnah put forward
his famous 14 points, which envisaged a federal government with equal autonomy
to all provinces, with Muslim representation being a third in central and provincial
legislatures and cabinets. However, Jinnah’s points were not acceptable to the
Congress Party because of the weak and impractical federal structure and over-
emphasis on minority reservations. Feeling slighted, Jinnah declared that the
Congress’ rejection of his 14 points marked the “parting of ways” and that he
348 Political Islam: Parallel Currents in West Asia and South Asia

would not have anything to do with the INC in the future. However, factions in
the Muslim League were also critical of his leadership and opposition from the
Punjab Muslim League forced Jinnah to withdraw from politics. He then left for
England and from 1930 to 1935, he practised before the Privy Council.
At the instance of Iqbal and other Muslim League members, Jinnah returned
to politics. Following the setback in the 1937 elections for the Muslim League, he
decided to embrace Iqbal’s two-nation theory wholeheartedly and launched a
campaign among Muslims of the subcontinent in favour of a homeland to secure
their interests. On 22–23 March 1940, in Lahore, Jinnah led the Muslim League
into adopting a resolution to form a separate Muslim state, Pakistan.
It was Jinnah’s divisive communal politics which finally bore fruit for the
Muslim League. In the Constituent Assembly elections in December 1945, the
Muslim League won every seat reserved for Muslims. After the failure of the
Cabinet Mission Plan in 1946, Jinnah declared 16 August as “Direct Action Day”.
This call for “direct action” unleashed nationwide communal riots; in Calcutta
alone, allegedly over 4,000 people were killed and 100,000 people rendered
homeless. There were also widespread religious riots in the United Provinces,
Punjab, Bihar, North-West Frontier Province and other provinces.26 In the wake
of such developments, the British government decided to give freedom to India
and partitioned the country into two separate states. India and Pakistan thus
emerged as independent states in mid-August 1947.
The partition of the country led to the displacement of about 20 million
people along religious lines, and estimates of the death toll vary from several
hundreds of thousands to 2 million people.27 Jinnah became the first Governor-
General of Pakistan and was revered by Pakistanis as their “Quaid-i-Azam”
(Founding Leader). He died of tuberculosis on 11 September 1948.
The fact remains that more Muslims stayed on in India as compared to those
who left for Pakistan. The two-nation theory suffered another blow when Pakistan
split into two states in 1971 and Bangladesh was born. Historian and author
Ayesha Jalal asks the ironical question “If the Muslims are supposed to be one
nation—then how come they are living in three different states?”28

Abul Kalam Azad: Hindus, Muslims Share Common Destiny

In stark contrast to Jinnah, Maulana Abul Kalam Azad (1888–1958) was not an
Anglophile but a fierce independence activist and Islamic theologian, who was
committed to many Gandhian ideals. Sent to jail many times during the freedom
 Two-Nation Theory and the Rise of Radical Islam in India 349

struggle, he worked for Hindu–Muslim unity through his Al-Hilal newspaper.

He was the president of the INC from 1940 to 1945 and became the first education
minister of independent India. He was conferred the Bharat Ratna posthumously
in 1992.
Home schooled and self-taught master of several languages, like Bengali,
Persian, Urdu, and English, he was a theologian who had studied all the four
Sunni madhahib, that is, Hanafi, Shafii, Maliki and Hanbali.29 He was also a
scholar of world history and philosophy, and an avid student of modern science.
In 1899, when only 11 years old, Azad published a poetical journal, Nairang-e-
Aalam, at Calcutta. In 1900, he also became the editor of a weekly, Al-Misbah.30
In 1903, he brought out a monthly journal, Lissan-us-Sidq, and in 1905, he
was editing the theological journal, Al-Nadwa (of Nadwatul Ulama seminary in
Lucknow), at the invitation of the great Islamic scholar Shibli Nomani.31 In 1912,
Maulana Azad started his daring Urdu weekly, Al-Hilal, which openly attacked
British policies and spoke of the challenges facing common people. Although a
pan-Islamist and close to the idea of Khilafat in his early years, his philosophy
changed after joining Gandhi in the Non-Cooperation movement, and he became
a staunch Indian nationalist. His later publications, namely, Al-Balagh (1916), a
nationalist journal, and the weekly Paigham (1921), were banned by the British
government because of their anti-colonial and nationalist content.32
Azad, a vociferous supporter of Hindu–Muslim unity, was a staunch critic of
the two-nation theory. In his presidential address at the Ramgarh session of the
INC in 1940, Azad stated that Hindus and Muslims had developed a composite
culture and shared a common destiny:
Our (Hindu–Muslim) language, our poetry, literature, society, our tastes,
our dresses, our traditions and the innumerable realities of our daily life
bear the zeal of a common life and a unified society...our social
intercourse for over 1,000 years has blended into a united nationalism.3
This statement by Azad stands in stark contrast to Jinnah’s assertion:
The Muslim nation is a nation of one hundred million and, more
importantly, a nation with its own culture and civilisation, language
and literature, art and architecture, names and place-names, values and
laws and moral norms, as well as customs, calendar, history, traditions,
affinities, and ambitions, in a word, a nation with its own, special view
of life.34
350 Political Islam: Parallel Currents in West Asia and South Asia

Towards the end of his life, Azad frequently spoke about the idea of world
citizenship. For instance, in his speech at the Second Session of the Indian National
Commission for Cooperation with United Nations Educational, Scientific and
Cultural Organization (UNESCO), he said:
We must have new maps for children in the elementary stages in which
the world will be painted in one colour; we must teach the child that he
is a citizen of the world first and foremost, and then go on to tell him
that just as a town is divided into different wards for purposes of
convenience...so the world is divided into segments...but such divisions
do not disrupt the unity of the world.35
Azad was dissatisfied with the traditional interpretations of the Quran and
was critical of most authors of earlier commentaries (tafseer), who, he believed,
“did not aim at representing what the Koran actually states”.36 Instead, according
to Azad, many commentators had their own personal view to advance and used
the sacred text to lend support to that view.37
Azad, however, was not a modernist like Iqbal when it came to ijtihad
(independent reasoning and innovation) or the need for changing Islamic
injunctions in accordance with the times. He did not believe in modernising
Islamic dogma but in reviving the original Islamic teachings, many of which he
believed later Muslim theologians had tempered with. Thus, he wrote in 1913
that Muslims need not lay down a new foundation for religion, instead they
should revive and reconfirm what the Quran itself instructs.38
Today, India hosts the third-largest Muslim population in the world, mainly
because of the ideology of Mahatma Gandhi, Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru, Maulana
Azad and other freedom fighters, who laid the foundation of a secular Indian
union.

Hussain Ahmad Madani: Islam Recognises Nationality by Land,

Not Faith
Maulana Hussain Ahmad Madani (1879–1957), leading Islamic theologian, mystic
and freedom fighter of the Silk Letter conspiracy, became the head of Deobandi
Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind (JUH; Council of Indian Muslim Theologians) in 1940,
and was the rector of the Deoband madrasa.
When the Muslim League under Jinnah was glorifying its two-nation theory,
Madani insisted that all the inhabitants of India were members of a “united
nationality” (Muttahida Qaumiyat) despite differences in religion. As a Deobandi
 Two-Nation Theory and the Rise of Radical Islam in India 351

religious scholar, he argued that Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs and other Indians must
join hands to work for an independent, united country, where all communities
enjoy equal rights and freedoms.
In 1947, Madani elaborated on his theory of united nationalism in the book,
Muttahida Qaumiyat aur Islam (“United Nationalism and Islam”), which was a
rebuttal of Iqbal’s idea of a Muslim state and was translated into English only in
2005. In this book, Madani’s core argument was that Islam does not oppose
nationhood based on a common motherland (watan), language (zubaan), ethnicity
(nasl) or colour (rang), and that both Muslims and non-Muslims can share this
common nationhood.39
Reportedly, Madani had a rather fierce debate with Muhammad Iqbal on
whether the identity of a nation depends on its religion or territory. In December
1937, Madani said at a political meeting that people living abroad did not
distinguish Indians as “Muslim, Hindu, Sikh or Parsi”, but viewed all as
“Hindustani” (Indian). He even said that “watan” (nation) was based on territory,
while millat was a term linked to religious community. Iqbal made fun of this
statement by Madani and penned a poem, “Hussain Ahmad”, in Armaghan-e-
Hijaaz, his book of verses in Persian:
Hanooz Nadand Rumooz-E-Deen,
Warnaza Deoband Husain Ahmad!
Aen Che Bu-ul-Ajabi As Saroad
Bar Sar-E-Minbar Ke Millat
Az Watan Ast Che Bekhabar
Za-Maqam-E-Muhammad Arabi Ast

(Rough Translation: The Ajamites (non-Arabs) do not yet know the

fine points of our faith; Otherwise, Husain Ahmad of Deoband! What
is this foolhardiness? A sermon song from the pulpit that a nation by a
homeland be! From the real position of the Arabian Prophet, how sadly
unaware is he!)40
Madani responded to Iqbal by claiming that Prophet Muhammad’s Charter
of Medina (Mithaq Al-Madina) considered all residents of the city-state of Medina,
whether Muslim and non-Muslims, as belonging to one community (qawm). It is
reported that Iqbal, finally, had to accept that a qawm includes both Muslims
and non-Muslims.41
Further, Madani argued that the word ‘qaum’, which appears about 200 times
352 Political Islam: Parallel Currents in West Asia and South Asia

in the Quran, is often used while describing the community of Noah, Abraham
or other prophets. At times, some people of the prophets’ qaum rejected the
divine message, but they remained legitimate members of the qaum. This fact,
combined with the people of Madina who were regarded as part of the Prophet’s
Charter of Medina (even though many of them were non-Muslims), substantiated
the claim that, according to Islam, Muslims and non-Muslims could be part of
the same qaum (community or nationhood) if they shared a common ethnicity,
language or motherland. Thus, Madani contended that the two-nation theory
(do qawmi nazariya) that Jinnah and Iqbal spoke of had no basis in the Quran.
Another devout Muslim who opposed the idea of the two-nation theory was
the Pashtun freedom fighter Abdul Ghaffar Khan (or Badshah Khan; nicknamed
“Sarhadi Gandhi”—Gandhi of the Frontier), who shared the ideology of non-
violence with Mahatma Gandhi. In 1929, Ghaffar Khan founded “Khudai
Khidmatgar”, an anti-colonial non-violent resistance movement, that suffered
some of the worst kinds of repression from British forces during the Indian freedom
struggle.42 He was deeply disappointed when the Congress accepted the Muslim
League’s demand for India’s partition and complained to its leadership, “you have
thrown us to the wolves”.43

Maududi’s “Theo-Democratic Model”

One of the most popular, controversial and influential Islamic political
philosophers of modern times, Maulana Abu Ala Al-Maududi (1903–79; born
in Aurangabad, in present-day Maharashtra) has been called the “Karl Marx of
Political Islam or Islamism”, and also been described as “the most systematic thinker
of modern Islam”.44 The ideology of Maududi covers “Quranic exegesis, hadith,
law, philosophy, and history”.45
A polyglot known for his command over Arabic, Persian and Urdu, Maududi
was also fluent in English and German and had assiduously studied many
Enlightenment philosophers, like Fichte, Mill, Hegel, Adam Smith, Rousseau,
Voltaire, Montesquieu, Darwin, Goethe and Herder. Comparing the contribution
of Muslim political philosophers to Western Enlightenment luminaries, Maududi
admitted that Muslim political philosophers did not reach even 1 per cent of the
latter’s contribution.46
However, to his detractors, including traditionalist ulema and leftist and liberal
thinkers, Maududi was a fundamentalist scholar whose ideology and organisation
(Jamaat-i-Islami) promoted Islamic fundamentalist movements—some of which
became jihadist groups around the world. In the words of Nadeem Paracha:
 Two-Nation Theory and the Rise of Radical Islam in India 353

To the left and liberal segments, he (Maududi) is remembered as the

man who let the US use JI [Jamaat-i-Islami] (during the Cold War) to
undermine leftist and progressive politics in Pakistan, whereas many
Islamic parties opposed to the JI once went on to declare him to be a
religious innovator who attempted to create a whole new sect
(Maududiyat).47
Like most fundamentalists, Maududi was against both modernism and
religious traditionalism. He employed a systematic structure of justification for
his politico-religious ideology and tended to understate the spiritual and ritualistic
aspects to present an alternate socio-political order in the name of Islam. According
to him, the Quran did not merely provide rules of morality and ethics but also
had guidance for the political, social and economic fields.
For Maududi, Islam was not just a religion but “a revolutionary ideology and
a revolutionary practice that aims to destroy the world’s social order totally and
rebuild it from scratch”.48 He believed that the Shariah was a complete “code” in
Islam’s “total scheme of life”.49 However, Maududi was a gradualist and was
opposed to sudden or violent change. Thus, he emphasised a patient and step-by-
step approach, for, according to him, “the more sudden a change, the more short-
lived it is”.50 Among his many works, mostly written in Urdu, the important ones
focused on politics and include Al-Khilafah Al-Mulk, Al-Dawlah Al-Islamiyyah,
Al-Jihad fil Islam and Al-Hukumah Al-Islamiyyah.
The establishment of an Islamic state, according to Maududi, was essential
for realising the objectives set by Islam, which was a comprehensive reform
programme that sought to propagate virtue and obliterate vice, as defined by the
Shariah.51 In addition, the Islamic state was to be based upon four principles: (i)
recognition of the sovereignty of God and His laws above people’s laws; (ii)
authority of the Prophet and his instructions/example; (iii) the state was the
vicegerent of God; and (iv) the state had to conduct its affairs by mutual
consultation (shura) among all the Muslims.52
Further, the head of the Islamic state would be an imam, caliph, ameer, khalifah
or representative of God/Prophet on earth, and function as the representative of
Muslims. The ruler could not impose his whims on how people should educate
their children, or what script they were supposed to use, and had to impose the
divine law. Thus, the ruler in an Islamic state was to run the state by “popular
viceregency” than by “popular sovereignty”.
Unlike some classical jurists, Maududi’s imam, caliph or ameer did not come
354 Political Islam: Parallel Currents in West Asia and South Asia

from the Quraysh or any high family or tribe of special status, but was a devout,
responsible and trustworthy leader, in excellent health, that helped him take up
the burdens of governance. As detailed by Maududi, the Islamic state had no
room for political parties nor a political opposition; its policies were calibrated to
meet the needs of the population and keep it satisfied. There was, thus, no reason
for regular elections or frequent changes of administration. The government would
be run through consultation (or shura) and the ruler, like the Pious Caliphs,
could be selected, appointed or elected (all three words are used) through a
consultative process.
To ensure that the high office of the ruler had the full confidence of the
nation, Maududi highlighted three principles: (i) the choice of the head of state
should depend on the general will (close to Rousseau’s concept), with nobody
allowed to impose himself by force as ruler; (ii) no clan or class should be allowed
monopoly of rulership; and (iii) the selection of the ruler should be made without
coercion.53
According to Maududi, the most qualified for the highest political position
in the Islamic state should not just be most knowledgeable and capable in running
the affairs of the government, but also be a person of great piety and most upright
character. In addition, the legal requirements for any candidate holding public
office were that the person should: (i) be a Muslim; (ii) be male; (iii) be of adult
age and sane; and (iv) be a citizen of the Islamic state.
When it came to the legislative council (majlis al-shura), Maududi said that
all council members should be of impeccable character, have full faith in the
Shariah and have sound knowledge of Arabic as well as the Quran and the Sunna.
Members of the council should also be acquainted with the views of the earlier
mujtahids (experts who, in the light of religion, could use reason to interpret
law). Members of the majlis al-shura should not be handpicked by the ruler but
should be luminaries, enjoying the people’s trust. In addition, the legislative work
should conform to the Shariah and perform the following four functions: (i)
interpretation; (ii) instances where the Shariah had not laid down specific
injunctions but had made provisions for analogous situations (i.e. employed qiyas);
(iii) inference from general principles to derive guidance for situations where the
Shariah had provided nothing specific; and (iv) “province of independent
legislation”, where the Shariah was silent and the matter is left to the discretion
and judgement of men. Even with such curtailed scope for functioning, the
legislative remained a consultative body whose views and judgements would not
be binding on the ruler.
 Two-Nation Theory and the Rise of Radical Islam in India 355

Still, Maududi insisted that his model of an Islamic state was not theocratic
but what he called “theo-democracy”. Thus, he stated:
The theocracy built up by Islam is not ruled by any particular religious
class but by [the] whole community of Muslims including the rank and
file. The entire Muslim population runs the state in accordance with
the Book of God and the practice of His Prophet. Therefore, if I were
permitted to coin a new term, I would describe this system of
government as a theo-democracy, that is to say, a divine democratic
government because under it, the Muslims have been given limited
popular sovereignty under the suzerainty of God.54
Although Maududi’s model of an Islamic state did not openly state that
residents living within its territories subscribe to its ideology, he insisted that
non-Muslim minorities rights in the Islamic state would be those specified in the
Shariah teachings on the dhimmis (where they are protected subjects but not
equal citizens) and alluded to the Ottoman millet system, wherein independent
courts of law pertaining to “personal law” of each religious community was allowed
to rule itself under its laws.
However, Maududi’s views on women’s rights were the rather regressive. He
supported the complete veiling and segregation of women; the greatest threat to
“morality”, for him, was “women’s visibility” in the public space.55 Indeed, to
him, “Art, literature, music, film, dance, use of makeup by women: all were
shrieking signs of immorality.”56 Thus, his views were highly conservative when
it came to women’s rights:
To the woman, it assigns the duty of managing the household, training
and bringing up children in the best possible way, and providing her
husband and children with the greatest possible comfort and
contentment. The duty of the children is to respect and obey their
parents, and, when they are grown up, to serve them and provide for
their needs.57

The Founding of Jamaat-i-Islami

Despite his knowledge of European philosophers of the Enlightenment era,
Maududi’s Islamic vision did not seek modern solutions for contemporary Muslim
issues. He was criticised for his fundamentalism by liberal scholars, while religious
scholars blamed him for interpreting Islam as a political theory. The German
materialist philosophers he read made his interpretation of Islam devoid of its
356 Political Islam: Parallel Currents in West Asia and South Asia

essentially spiritual moorings. Still, Maududi left a tremendous intellectual

influence on the Muslim world, inspiring Islamist figures, like Sayyid Qutb,
General Zia-ul-Haq and Ayatollah Khomeini, and motivating his own
organisation, Jamaat-e-Islami, the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood and the 1980s
regimes in Sudan with his ideas.
In August 1941, Maududi formed his religious–political movement named
Jamaat-i-Islami. This organisation actively opposed the partitioning of India, with
Maududi arguing that the concept violated the ideal of the umma.58 He even
opposed Pakistan’s clandestine sponsorship of the Jammu and Kashmir insurgency
while professing to observe a ceasefire with India. However, after the formation
of Pakistan, Maududi and his followers moved to Pakistan and by 1949 they
shifted their focus to practically turning Pakistan into an Islamic state. While
Maududi personally led the Jamaat-i-Islami (Pakistan) wing, the organisation
also opened Jamaat-i-Islami Hind and Jamaat-i-Islami Bangladesh branches.
The Jamaat-i-Islami played a significant role in bringing down the liberal
administration of Ayub Khan in 1969, as also overthrowing Prime Minister
Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto in 1977.59 The organisation was particularly influential in
the early years of Islamisation campaign launched by General Zia-ul-Haq in
Pakistan.

Excommunication of the Ahmadiya Movement

The Ahmadiya community was founded by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad (1835–1908),
who was born in Qadian town of Punjab. On 23 March 1889, he formally
established the Ahmadiya community by accepting ceremonial allegiance from
his followers.
With 10 million adherents in about 200 countries worldwide, the Ahmadiya
community or Ahmadis have been led by a succession of caliphs since the death
of its founder.60 The Ahmadiya community believes its founder to have been
divinely appointed as both the prophesised end-time Muslim leader, that is, the
Promised Mahdi (Guided One), as well as the Christian Messiah (the Muslim
version of Christ) who would usher in the final triumph of Islam through peaceful
means.61
The Ahmadis believe that Mirza Ghulam Ahmad’s reforms have led to Islam’s
propagation, revival and renaissance.62 The term “Qadiyani” is often used
pejoratively against the Ahmadiyas by their other Muslim detractos. A faction
(known as Lahore Ahmadiyas) does not believe Ghulam Ahmad to be the Prophet,
but just Mahdi and Christ.63
 Two-Nation Theory and the Rise of Radical Islam in India 357

When Pakistan was founded, to spread its influence in the country, Jamaat-i-
Islami launched a nationwide campaign against the relatively recently established
Ahmadiya sect. In 1953, Maududi-led Jamaat-i-Islami led a major public campaign
against the Ahmadiya community in Pakistan, declaring that it should be declared
un-Islamic as it did not believe in Prophet Muhammad as the last messenger of
God, which, according to Jamaat-i-Islami, was an essential article of the Islamic
faith. Along with many prominent ulema, Maududi wanted the Pakistani
government to designate the Ahmadiya community as non-Muslim, and even
wanted Ahmadis, like Pakistan’s first Foreign Minister Muhammad Zafrullah
Khan, to be sacked from their posts.64
The public campaign led to riots in Lahore that caused the death of at least
200 Ahmadis and left many of them displaced.65 Maududi was arrested and
sentenced to death for his part in the agitation. However, the government faced
intense public pressure to revoke his death verdict and after two years of
imprisonment, Maududi was released. Pakistan, then, adopted the 1956
Constitution, which incorporated the Jamaat-i-Islami demands. The National
Assembly of Pakistan declared Ahmadis as a non-Muslim minority, and after
another government ordinance in 1984, the caliph of Ahmadiyas decided to leave
Pakistan and shift his seat to Fazl Mosque in London.66

Tablighi Jamaat: Apolitical Antithesis to Jamaat-i-Islami

In stark contrast to Maududi’s Jamaat-i-Islami, which sought to bring about an
Islamic political and socio-economic revolution to remove the contemporary
liberal, democratic and capitalist order of the world, the Tablighi Jamaat (translated
as “propagation party”) came up as “an apolitical, quietist movement of internal
grassroots missionary renewal”.67
Founded by Deobandi scholar Muhammad Ilyas Al-Kandhlawi in Mewat in
1926, Tablighi Jamaat was not an intellectual movement and was averse to any
political or even theological debates on matters of jurisprudence (fiqh). With its
headquarters in Nizamuddin Markaz Mosque in south Delhi, its travelling
preachers taught the basics of Islam to the masses and enjoined the discipline of
worship and abstinence from sin.
Focusing on the poor and lower segments of society, the movement had
assembled up to 80 million followers by 2010;68 and its quietist aversion to
contentious issues extended its influence to over 150 countries across the globe.69
In The World Almanac of Islamism, the American Foreign Policy Council affirmed
358 Political Islam: Parallel Currents in West Asia and South Asia

that the Tablighi Jamaat taught jihad “primarily as personal purification rather
than as holy warfare”.70 Although apolitical and against violence, Stratfor Global
Intelligence found some of its members connected with terrorism, namely, Zacarias
Moussaoui (charged in the 9/11 attacks), Herve Jamal Loiseau and Syed Rizwan
Farook.71
The teachings of Tablighi Jamaat are said to cover six principles: kalimah
(profession of faith); salat (Islamic prayer); ilm-o-zikr (knowledge and recitation);
ikraam-e-Muslim (respect for Muslims); ikhlas-e-niyat (sincerity of intention); and
dawat-o-tabligh (invitation to faith and propagation).72

Split within the Deobandi Movement: Madani’s JUH versus

Usmani’s JUI
Unlike the apolitical Tablighi Jamaat, the JUH is a political Deobandi organisation,
which had close ties with the INC during the freedom struggle against British
colonial rule in India.73
In 1928, as massive nationwide protests for India’s independence ensued under
the leadership of Mahatma Gandhi, in which JUH members also participated,
the British asked Indian leaders to hammer out a constitutional framework of
their own. In response, the INC prepared the Nehru Report. However, one faction
of the Deobandi movement found that the report fell short regarding the JUH
demand for a political system to protect Muslim social and religious life from
interference by the central government. This divergence within the JUH over the
provisions of the Nehru Report led a section of the Deobandi community to
support the Muslim League’s separatist call.
An eminent Deobandi scholar, Maulana Ashraf Ali Thanvi, and his student,
Shabbir Ahmad Usmani, led this dissent within the Deobandi movement.
Ultimately, it was Usmani who spearheaded the reshaping of the Deobandi religious
sect and played a critical role in charting the geopolitical divide that still defines
South Asia today. By 1939, the rift widened to the extent that Maulana Thanvi
issued a fatwa calling on Muslims to support the Muslim League. After that, he
resigned from Darul Uloom Deoband and spent the last years of his life supporting
the formation of Pakistan.
Most Deobandis remained loyal to Hussain Ahmad Madani’s inclusive message
and viewed his support for a secular India in keeping with Prophet Muhammad’s
ideal of Mithaq Al-Medina, which gave equal rights to people of various religious
persuasion. However, Shabbir Usmani caused a splinter within Deobandis by
 Two-Nation Theory and the Rise of Radical Islam in India 359

founding JUI in 1945, as a rival to Madani’s JUH, as he was deeply sceptical of

Hindu–Muslim unity in a future secular Indian state.
After the Partition in 1947, the spiritual home of the Deobandi movement
remained in India, but Pakistan became the country of choice for the breakaway
JUI. In Pakistan’s first Constituent Assembly, the JUI spearheaded the push for
an “Islamic political system”. Shabbir Usmani played a central role in drafting the
Objectives Resolution that placed Islam at the centre of the constitutional process.
The resolution stated that “sovereignty over the entire universe belongs to God
Almighty alone and the authority which He has delegated to the State of Pakistan.”
It further added, “the principles of democracy, freedom, equality, tolerance and
social justice” must be followed “as enunciated by Islam”. Adopted in 1949, the
Objectives Resolution was viewed as a massive victory for the JUI and other
Islamists, who were sceptical of the more liberal elements in Pakistan’s top
leadership.74
Since independence, Darul Uloom Deoband and its affiliated organisations,
like the JUH and Tabligh Jamaat, have adopted a pacifist approach towards the
India. However, for the Afganistan–Pakistan-based Deobandi groups, like the
Taliban and Jaish-e-Mohammed, India is dar al-harb (dominion of war). Therefore,
one needs to differentiate between Deoband and India’s JUH and Pakistan-based
JUI.

Islamisation of Pakistan and the Legacy of Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto

Pakistan was founded more in the name of protecting Muslims from the likely
prospect of becoming a vulnerable minority community in a post-colonial India,
rather than on the promise of establishing an Islamic state based on the lines of
the Shariah, as Muslims of India had not lived under such a dispensation in their
history, barring a few exceptions.
For this reason, most ulema, including Maududi, had initially opposed
Pakistan’s creation because Jinnah and the Muslim League did not conceive of the
new state as a “theocracy”. Jinnah vowed to separate politics from religion and
ensure equal citizenship rights to people of all religious communities in Pakistan.
In his inaugural address to the Constituent Assembly, he asserted: “...in the course
of time, Hindus will cease to be Hindus, and Muslims will cease to be Muslims,
not in the religious sense because that is the personal faith of the individual, but
in the political sense as citizens of one nation.”75
Even the political elite of Pakistan, comprising feudal lords and bureaucratic
360 Political Islam: Parallel Currents in West Asia and South Asia

communities, wanted the role of Islam to be restricted to that of cultural identity.

This was because:
the system of education under which they were educated made them
familiar with only the Western type of democracy based on the principle
of separation of religion from politics...Their position was subsequently
strengthened by Pakistan’s alignment and dependence on the West in
economic and defence matters.76
Another impediment in making Pakistan an Islamic state was expressed by
the Enquiry Commission looking into the anti-Ahmadiya riots of 1953, which
admitted the divergences within the religious sects and sub-sects on Islamic beliefs
and ideology. The Commission recommended, “Nothing but a bold reorientation
of Islam to separate the vital from the lifeless can preserve it as a world idea and
convert the Mussalman into a citizen of the present and future world from the
archaic incongruity that he is today.”77 The problem of a lack of proper definition
of Islam was even noted by Chief Justice Mohammad Munir’s report which stated:
...keeping in view the several definitions given by the ulema, need we
make any comment except that no two learned divines are agreed on
this fundamental. If we attempt our own definition as each learned
divine has done and that definition differs from that given by all others,
we unanimously go out of the fold of Islam.78
However, the views of the ulema were accommodated in the 1956 Constitution
to some extent, in which Pakistan was declared as an Islamic Republic. The JUI
chief, Shabbir Usmani, and the Jamaat-i-Islami played a significant role in giving
an Islamic orientation through the Objectives Resolution. Nevertheless, in the
1962 Constitution, the Ayub government removed the title of Islamic Republic
by positing that Pakistan cannot be theocratic because there is no priesthood in
Islam and, as such, it is “theocratic only to the extent that real sovereignty belongs
to God”.79
Meanwhile, Jamaat-i-Islami and other religious groups started whipping up
Islamist rhetoric and demanded Nizam-i-Mustafa (political system of the Prophet)
from the politicians. Even socialist leaders, like Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto, who once
said that the question of Islam in the political context of Pakistan is irrelevant
because both the exploiters and the exploited are Muslims, started introducing
Islamic phraseology in their political messages and called for “Islamic socialism”.
Bhutto invited Afghan mujahideen, like Hekmatyar and Rabbani, to Pakistan
and lent them support during his rule. He also succumbed to pressure from
 Two-Nation Theory and the Rise of Radical Islam in India 361

religious groups, like the Jamaat-i-Islami and the Majlis-i-Ahrar-i-Islam, as well

as Saudi Arabia and criminalised the religious practices of Ahmadis and prevented
them from claiming they were Muslims or from “behaving” as Muslims. Further,
the Ahmadis were barred from going to Saudi Arabia to perform the Haj.80
After staging a coup and executing Bhutto, General Zia-ul-Haq justified his
military takeover in the name of Islam. In his speeches, press conferences and
deliberations, he blamed previous Pakistani leaders, particularly Zulfiqar Ali
Bhutto, for not promulgating Islami laws in Pakistan and for prevaricating on the
imposition of Islamic Shariah rule and the establishment of Nizam-i-Mustafa.

General Zia’s Islamisation: Implementing Maududi’s Model

After taking office as the President of Pakistan on 16 September 1978, General
Zia-ul-Haq brought about structural changes to Pakistan’s polity by introducing
many features from what appears to be Maududi’s model of Islamic governance.
On assuming power, Zia “accorded Maududi the status of a senior statesman,
sought his advice, and allowed his words to adorn the front pages of the newspapers.
Maududi proved receptive to Zia’s overtures and supported his decision to execute
Bhutto.”81 Although Maududi wanted the Shariah to be introduced gradually
and by education to make it lasting, rather than by state fiat, he still supported
Zia and his programme of Islamisation or “Sharisation”.
Like Maududi, Zia was opposed to the notion of multiparty “parliamentary
democracy”; and the Council of Islamic Ideology, which Zia instituted, announced
that elections based on political parties were un-Islamic and unlawful. Instead,
Zia preferred the presidential form of government that accorded powers to the
president similar to that of an ameer or caliph, as conceived in Maududi’s model
of Islamic governance.
Taking another leaf from Maududi’s tomes, Zia replaced the Parliament
(National Assembly) with the new institution of “Majlis-e-Shura” (a consultative
council of unelected technocrats). On 1 December 1984, Zia announced that
elections were to be held on a non-party basis. This allowed ethnic and sectarian
mobilisation to fill the void left by the banning of political parties, to the detriment
of national integration, which, in the 1990s, became a primary concern for
Pakistan’s internal security.
In another controversial move, Zia replaced parts of the Pakistan Penal Code
with the 1979 Hudud Ordinance, which included punishments of whipping,
amputation and stoning to death for theft, adultery and fornication. Zia’s military
362 Political Islam: Parallel Currents in West Asia and South Asia

government also punished violators of existing blasphemy laws more severely by

adding new clauses to target Ahmadi beliefs and those of non-Muslims. A new
Section 295-C, prescribing death penalty for blasphemy against the Prophet, was
added.82 The introduction of hudud and blasphemy laws based on Hanafi fiqh of
Sunni Islam, in particular, made the Shias uneasy as they now saw Pakistan turning
into a fiercely Sunni state.
Furthermore, the order for women to cover their heads in public was enforced
in educational institutions and on state television. Women’s participation in sports
was severely restricted. Also, their legal rights were curtailed and their testimony
was given half the weight of a man’s testimony.83 Economic Islamisation came
through the establishment of zakat (tax) collection committees and a 2.5 per cent
annual deduction from personal bank accounts on the first day of Ramadan,
which was to be used for poverty relief. There was also the abolition of riba
(interest), with the subsequent adoption of interest-free banking based on the
Saudi Arabia model. In addition, madrasa education was promoted and, for the
first time, received state sponsorship.
In this period, many new sectarian groups came up. In 1979, the Tehrik-e-
Nafaz-e-Fiqh-e-Jafaria was born to protect the Shia rights, while the radical
Anjuman Sipah-e-Sahaba of the Deobandi school rose as a significant threat against
the Shia sect. The Jamaat-e-ulema-Pakistan, representing the Barelvi school, also
came up under Zia’s rule to ward off the growing Deobandi threat.84 The
Islamisation of Pakistan could not be reversed following the death of Zia-ul-Haq
in a plane crash in August 1988, but it opened the floodgates to the rise of more
violently extreme religious organisation and movements, which have destabilised
both Pakistan and the adjoining region in its wake.

Rise of Terrorist Groups in Pakistan

The departure of Soviet troops from Afghanistan in 1988, followed by the death
of Zia-ul-Haq, left tens of thousands of Afghan refugee children in Pakistan to be
educated in extremist madrasas that had become training grounds for ideologically
radicalised militants. An extremist version of Deobandism, with teachings close
to the Wahhabi “Tariqa-i-Muhammadiya”, had infused the young minds, who
were trained not to become religious scholars but to fight jihad.85 Meanwhile,
thousands of Afghan Arabs left Afghanistan and became insurgents or terrorists
in other countries, such as Egypt, Bosnia, Algeria and Chechnya.
The withdrawal of the Soviet troops was followed by an intra-Islamist war in
 Two-Nation Theory and the Rise of Radical Islam in India 363

Afghanistan, which the Pakistani intelligence agencies deftly exploited to prop up

the Taliban regime in the country in 1996. Using its now unemployed, radicalised
madrasa cadres, Pakistan’s intelligence agencies also galvanised a Muslim separatist
uprising that had already been fomented in Jammu and Kashmir in 1989. Apart
from the Ahl-i-Hadeeth/Salafi Lashkar-e-Taiba (founded by Hafiz Saeed, Abdullah
Azzam and Osama bin Laden in 1986) and the Jamaat-i-Islamia-backed Hizb-ul-
Mujahideen, Deobandi militant groups conducting their jihadist operations in
Kashmir included Harkat-ul-Mujahideen, Harakat-ul-Ansar and Jaish-e-
Mohammed.
Within Pakistan, the Deobandi Sipah-e-Sahaba and Lashkar-e-Jhangvi groups
targeted the Shia community, while the Tehreek-i-Taliban fought the Pakistani
state to impose its version of fundamentalist Islam on the country. Some groups
within the Sufi Barelvis (who are Hanafi Sunnis like Deobandis) in Pakistan also
indulged in acts of violent extremism over the years, even though they did not
develope terrorist groups like some Deobandi organisations. If violation of the
idea of “tawheed” (commission of shirk—equating somebody or anything to God)
became the reason for Salafi jihadists to declare people apostates and worthy of
slaughter (under the concept of takfeer), for Sufi Barelvis, any insult to Prophet
Muhammad, or even other prophets, was considered blasphemous and could
justify punishment by death. The “Rangila Rasool” agitation in the 1920s was
the first angry protest led mainly by Barelvi Muslims against insult of the Prophet.
On 6 April 1929, a young carpenter, Ilm-ud-din (a devout Barelvi protestor),
killed a publisher named Rajpal for publishing the book, Rangila Rasool, which
focused on the marriages of the Prophet.86
In 1950, Barelvi scholars initiated a movement, “Majlis-e-Tahaffuz-e-Khatme
Nabuwwat” (Assembly to Protect the End of Prophethood), aiming to protect
the belief in the finality of the prophethood of Muhammad against the claim of
the Ahmadiya founder, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad of Qadian, that he was a prophet
of Islam. As the determination of Muhammad as the last Prophet made the Quran
and Hadeeth literature the source of divine guidance for Muslims, Ghulam
Ahmad’s claim of prophethood in the nineteenth century, even if theoretically
accepted as Islamic, made them redundant in the face of the new prophet’s latest
revelations. These concerns led Barelvi scholars, like Shah Ahmad Noorani
Siddiqui, to start protests against the Ahmadis, which coincided with protests led
by Maududi’s Jamaat-i-Islami.
In the face of Deobandi and Ahl-i-Hadeeth’s persecution of Barelvis—that
364 Political Islam: Parallel Currents in West Asia and South Asia

is, their killing by Tehreek-i-Taliban Pakistan, Sipah-e-Shaba and Lashkar-e-

Jhangvi, as well the occupation of Barelvi mosques by Deobandi organisations—
Muhammad Saleem Qadri, a Barelvi leader, founded a violent group, Sunni
Tehreek, in the 1990s. Barelvis also rallied against the death sentence of Mumtaz
Qadri, a security guard who killed Punjab Governor Salman Taseer for his defence
of a Christian lady (Asia Bibi) who was given capital punishment by a court on
the charge of blasphemy.87 When Asia Bibi was eventually acquitted and Qadri
hanged to death, radical Barelvi party, Tehreek-e-Labbaik Pakistan (TLP), held
huge protests across Pakistan in 2018. The controversy over French cartoons also
stirred huge protests across Pakistan in 2021, when the TLP demanded that the
government deport the French ambassador. The TLP was then banned for many
months and the protests ebbed, with the party ban being lifted only towards the
end of the year.

Afghanistan: Epicentre of the “Great Game” and Global Jihad

As mentioned earlier, Ahmad Shah Abdali established the Durrani Empire in
Afghanistan in the late eighteenth century, which, at its peak, spanned from eastern
Iran to northern India. Following the dismemberment of the Durrani Empire,
British forces and Maharaja Ranjit Singh forged a tripartite alliance to enthrone
Shah Shuja in Afghanistan. However, they faced humiliating defeat in the First
Anglo-Afghan War that ended in 1842. After that, Dost Muhammad was able to
recapture Afghan territory and ruled it until his death in 1863, with his empire
becoming a buffer state between the British Empire and the Tzarist empire of
Russia as part of what Rudyard Kipling called the “Great Game” between the two
powers in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries.88
After the Third Anglo-Afghan War in 1919, Afghanistan became free of foreign
dominance and emerged as the independent Kingdom of Afghanistan in June
1926 under Amanullah Khan. The monarchy continued for nearly half a century
until Zahir Shah was overthrown in 1973. By 1978, the communist People’s
Democratic Party of Afghanistan seized power, but faced stiff resistance from the
US and Pakistan military-backed guerrilla mujahideen forces. Then, in December
1979, the Soviet Army invaded the country.
Following the Soviet invasion, the US, the UK, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and
Egypt viewed the conflict in Afghanistan as part of the Cold War struggle and
assisted anti-Soviet forces, with the US Central Intelligence Agency aiding Pakistani
intelligence agencies in a programme called Operation Cyclone. The North-West
 Two-Nation Theory and the Rise of Radical Islam in India 365

Frontier Province of Pakistan became the base for Afghan resistance fighters, with
Madrasa Haqqaniya (of the now-infamous Haqqani household) becoming the
organisational and networking base for anti-Soviet Afghan fighters in the mid-
1980s.89 Oil-rich Muslim countries provided not only funds but also thousands
of volunteer fighters known as “Afghan Arabs”, later known as Salafi jihadists,
including latter-day terrorists, like Osama bin Laden, Ayman Al-Zawahiri (both
founders of Al-Qaeda) and Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi (ideological forerunner of the
ISIS).90

The Taliban: Throwback to Pre-Modern, Regressive Society

The political ideology of the Taliban has been described as a highly regressive
form of Islamic polity, even by the standards of the most fundamentalist and
militant groups in Islam, in which Deobandi Hanafi Maturidi orientation
combines with Pashtun social and cultural norms called “Pashtunwali”.91
Emerging in 1994 as one of the prominent factions in the civil war, the
movement primarily consisted of students (talib) from the Pashtun areas of eastern
and southern Afghanistan. The story goes that in 1992, Mullah Omar (founder
of the Taliban) had been studying in the Sang-i-Hisar Madrasa in Maiwand
(northern Kandahar province). Unhappy over intra-Islamist infighting and the
fact that Islamic law had not been installed in Afghanistan after the ousting of
communist rule, he managed to band together 50 fellow students to found a
group called the Taliban (or students) in September 1994.92 In contrast, some
experts believe that Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence was heavily involved in
“creating” the Taliban, with the main supporters in Pakistan allegedly being General
Naseerullah Babur and Maulana Fazlur Rahman of Jamiat Ulama-i-Islam (F).93
During its first regime from 1996 to 2001, the Taliban’s religious and political
philosophy was said to be heavily based on the works of Grand Mufti Rashid
Ahmad Ludhianvi.94 Unlike many Islamist groups, the Taliban was opposed to
all forms of modernity and forbade the consumption of pork and alcohol, along
with music, radio, television, photography, filming and the Internet; even sporting
events, including football, chess and kite flying, were banned.95
There were also a lot of inconsistencies in the Taliban’s political structure and
system. For example, in Kandahar, the tribal system was based on consultation
with a council (jirga) that could be equated with the Islamic shura. However, the
Taliban leader of the first regime, Mullah Omar, eventually made decisions
independent of the jirga. The Taliban spokesman, Mullah Wakil, explained: “They
366 Political Islam: Parallel Currents in West Asia and South Asia

(decisions) are based on the advice of the Amir-ul Momineen. For us, consultation
is not necessary. We believe that this is in line with the Sharia. We abide by the
Amir’s view even if he alone takes this view.”96 Curiously, the Taliban opposed
debating Islamic doctrinal matters with other Muslims: “The Taliban did not
allow even Muslim reporters to question [their] edicts or to discuss interpretations
of the Quran.”97
One of the worst aspects of Taliban rule was the banning of women from
education and work, the strict observance of purdah (physical separation of the
sexes), avoiding their movement outside their homes and the imposition of burqa
(strict concealment of their body with clothing from head to toe, with only a
small slit for eyes to see). In the words of Physicians for Human Rights: “No
other regime in the world has methodically and violently forced half of its
population into virtual house arrest, prohibiting them on pain of physical
punishment.”98 In addition, the Taliban was a highly repressive regime and
persecuted the minorities, such as Shia Hazaras, Christians, Hindus and Sikhs,
under their rule. Men were forced to grow beards and wear turbans outside their
homes; and responding to the prayer call and offering congregational prayers was
made compulsory for Muslim men.
Although Mullah Umar officially banned opium cultivation in 2001,99 the
drug trade allegedly continued to fill the the measly Taliban treasury coffers. Also,
intemperance matched with inconsistency in Mullah Umar’s decision-making.
In 1999, he issued a decree calling for the protection of two lofty sixth-century
Buddha statues in Bamyan, in the Hazarajat region of central Afghanistan.
However, in March 2001, he issued the decree that “all the statues around
Afghanistan must be destroyed”, after which the Taliban blew up the Bamyan
statues.100 The US invaded Afghanistan on 7 October 2001, after the Taliban
regime refused to hand over the Al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden, the mastermind
of the 9/11 attacks. By early December that year, the Taliban regime collapsed,
while its resistance against the US occupation continued for nearly two decades.
The Taliban recaptured Kabul on 15 August 2021, with the US forces
withdrawing from Afghanistan before the twentieth anniversary of the 9/11 attacks.
The new Taliban leaders have talked of a “softer” enforcement of their shariah
interpretation and have urged the US and other countries to recognise their regime.
Thus far, the regime has not gained recognition from any country in the world, as
every nation is waiting for the fulfilment of its commitment against terrorism
and for restoring human rights (particularly women’s rights and rights of
minorities) in the country.
 Two-Nation Theory and the Rise of Radical Islam in India 367

Rise of Political Islam in Bangladesh and the Maldives

The birth of Bangladesh was a natural repudiation of the two-nation theory. The
Bangla identity proved so strong that the province of East Pakistan declared its
independence from the Islamic Republic of Pakistan and became the sovereign
state of Bangladesh on 26 March 1971.
The new republic, under the leadership of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, was
believed to be free from communal politics once and for all. The 1972 Constitution
declared secularism as one of the fundamental principles of state policy and
prescribed measures for its implementation. Religion-based communal
organisations with a political purpose were banned, be it pro-Pakistan parties,
like the Jamaat-i-Islami or the Muslim League, or Islamist militant groups, like
the Razakars, the Al-Badr and the Al-Shams, involved in genocidal killings
alongside Pakistani forces during Bangladesh’s independence struggle. 101 However,
with a Muslim population of 87 per cent at that time, the idea of secularism was
viewed by a large section of the Muslim community as an anti-Islamic philosophy
rather than a religion-neutral political principle.
In January 1975, Sheikh Mujibur Rahman introduced one-party socialist
rule and increased the president’s constitutional powers. With his assassination in
1975, political instability ensued, which ended with Ziaur Rahman becoming
the army chief in 1977. During his reign, the Quranic verse, “Bismillah-ir-Rahman-
ir-Raheem” (Beginning with the name of Allah, Most Mericful and Most
Beneficent’), was added to the Preamble of the Constitution and provisions for
the implementation of secularism were watered down. There was compulsory
broadcast of azan on the radio and television five times a day, and a new Division
of Religious Affairs under a full minister was introduced.102
Under the reign of Ziaur Rahman’s successor, General Ershad (from 1982 to
1990), Islamisation picked up further pace. His establishment of zakat fund,
frequent visits to the shrines and mosques and liberal grants to Islamic institutions
caused a sense of unease among the minorities over the undermining of secularism
in the country. Eventually, on 7 June 1988 (Eighth Amendment to the
Constitution), Ershad declared Islam as the state religion of Bangladesh. This
caused a natural reaction among the religious minorities and led to the formation
of Hindu–Buddha–Christian Okiya Parishad (United Council) to protect their
rights and interests.
The end of Ershad’s military regime ushered in the rule of democratic parties
in Bangladesh in the 1990s. During the first presidential term of Khaleda Zia,
368 Political Islam: Parallel Currents in West Asia and South Asia

madrasa education was expanded and received state support, while new Islamic
organisations, like Ahl-i-Hadeeth, raised campaigns against the country’s Ahmadi
population. Campaigns were also launched for the arrest of secular writers, like
Tasleema Nasreen, on charges of heresy. The coming to power of Sheikh Hasina-
led Awami League (1996–2001) revived the philosophy of separation of state and
religion, yet the period witnessed a rise in incidents of violent extremism taking
place around the country. The re-election of Khaleda Zia as premier in 2001, at
the head of a combine that included Jamaat-i-Islami, unleashed a phase of violence
against the Hindu community, with the rise of terror groups, like Jamaat-ul-
Mujahideen Bangladesh, Jagrata Muslim Janata Bangladesh and Harkat-ul-Jihad-
Islami. In 2007–08, most of the top leaders of Jamaat-ul-Mujahideen Bangladesh
were executed following a court verdict.
Between 2013 to 2016, there were several attacks on secular and atheist writers,
foreigners, homosexuals and religious minorities. By 2 July 2016, a total of 48
people had been killed in such attacks.103 A belated but heavy government
crackdown in 2016 led to the arrests of tens of thousands of people, putting an
end to the spate of attacks.104 The government also sought to restore the secular
provisions of the Constitution, watered down after the initial years of
independence, even though Islam remains the state religion of Bangladesh.
The Maldives is among the four countries of the subcontinent with a sizeable
Muslim population. With a 100 per cent Sunni population, at least 170 Maldivian
youth (as per official figures) have left for Syria to join the ISIS and Jabhat Al-
Nusra since 2014.105 In addition, the Maldives has itself witnessed several terror-
related attacks in recent years. This high level of religious radicalisation in the
small country of half a million people is often attributed to Maumoon Abdul
Gayoom, who was the country’s president from 1978 to 2008.106 Having received
education in Egypt’s famed Al-Azhar University and other Islamic centres of East
Africa, Gayoom restricted Maldivian citizenship to Muslims and even introduced
the death penalty for apostasy.107

NOTES
1 J.S. Rajput, “Maulana and his Philosophy”, The Pioneer, 7 November 1940, available at https:/
/www.dailypioneer.com/2014/columnists/maulana-and-his-philosophy.html, last accessed
online on 25 September 2023.
2 Muhammad Iqbal, “Bal-i-Jibril”, translated by Naeem Siddiqui, https://www.iqbal.com.pk/
938-poetical-works/english-translations/gabriels-wing-quatrains/1328-that-blood-of-pristine-
vigour-is-no-more, last accessed on 26 September 2023.
 Two-Nation Theory and the Rise of Radical Islam in India 369

3 Khushwant Singh, “Iqbal’s Hindu Relations”, The Telegraph, 9 April 2022, available at https:/
/www.telegraphindia.com/opinion/iqbal-s-hindu-relations/cid/1027015.
4 Phillips Talbot, “The Rise of Pakistan”, Middle East Journal, Vol. 2, No. 4, October 1948, pp.
381–98.
5 D.M. Ahmad, “Iqbal’s Theory of Muslim Community and Islamic Universalism”, in D.W.
Qureshi (ed.), Iqbal Review, Lahore: Iqbal Academy Pakistan, 1995.
6 Cited from Dr Arif Bashir, ‘Unravelling the Mysteries of the Self ’, 19 November 2020,
Greater Kashmir, https://www.greaterkashmir.com/todays-paper/unravelling-the-mysteries-of-
the-self, last accessed on 26 September 2023.
7 David Lelyveld, “Muhammad Iqbal”, in Richard C. Martin (ed.), Encyclopedia of Islam and the
Muslim World: A–L, Macmillan, 2004, p. 356.
8 F.A. Parray, Zarb-i-Kaleem: Socio-political Thought of Iqbal, Iqbal Institute, University of Kashmir,
2013.
9 ‘Saare Jahan Se Accha: Facts about the song and its creator’, India Today, New Delhi, 21 April,
2016, https://web.archive.org/web/20170123084302/http://indiatoday.intoday.in/education/
story/saare-jahan-se-accha-facts/1/647730.html, last accessed online on 26 September 2023.
10 Riffat Hassan, “Understanding Iqbal’s ‘Dream’ of Pakistan”, The Nation, 14 August 2008,
http://riffathassan.info/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Understanding_Iqbals_dream_of_
Pakistan.pdf, last accessed online on 26 September 2023.
11 Muhammad Iqbal, Bang-e-Dara (Urdu edition), PublisherCreatespace Independent Publishing
Platform, 2018; Transliteration of Tarana-e-Milli (Poem 101) in anthology ‘Bang-e-Dara’ (The
Sound of the Bell), published in 1924; http://iqbalurdu.blogspot.com/2011/04/bang-e-dra-
101-tarana-e-milli.html, last accessed online on 26 September 2023.
12 Translation by the author of Taranah-e milli “Song of the Religious Community”, first published
in 1910, added to anthology Bañg-e Dara (The Sound of the Bell), 1924.
13 Quoted from Tahir Abbas Tayib and Sajida Perveen, ‘Political Philosophy of Allama Iqbal: A
Literary Review’, Orient Research Journal of Social Sciences December 2018, Vol.3, No. 2,
p. 255.
14 L.-C. Maitre, Introduction to the Thought of Iqbal, Iqbal Academy, Lahore, 1963.
15 A.Q. Khan and Nadeem Ahmad, “A Brief Introduction to Allama Mohammad Iqbal’s Political
Philosophy”, Pakistan Journal of Social Research, Vol. 3, No. 4, December 2021, p. 341.
16 Javed Majeed, Muhammad Iqbal: Islam, Aesthetics and Post Colonialism, Routledge, London,
2009.
17 A.Q. Khan and Nadeem Ahmad, “A Brief Introduction to Allama Mohammad Iqbal’s Political
Philosophy”, Pakistan Journal of Social Research, Vol. 3, No. 4, December 2021, pp. 338–44.
18 Muhammad Iqbal, The Reconstruction of Religious Thought in Islam, reprint edition, Sang-e-
Meel, Lahore, 2004 (1934), p. 131.
19 “Sir/Allama Muhammad Iqbal’s Presidential Address to the Allahabad Session of the All-India
Muslim League in 1930”, Heritage Times, 22 September 2019, https://www.heritagetimes.in/
allama-iqbal-muslim-league-two-nation-theory/, last accessed on 23 September 2023.
20 Iqbal Singh Sevea, The Political Philosophy of Muhammad Iqbal: Islam and Nationalism in Late
Colonial India, New York: Cambridge University Press, 2012, p. 14.
21 G. Allana, Pakistan Movement Historical Documents, Karachi: Department of International
Relations, University of Karachi, 1969, pp. 129–33.
22 Address by Quaid-i-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah at Lahore Session of Muslim League, March,
1940, Islamabad: Directorate of Films and Publishing, Ministry of Information and
Broadcasting, Government of Pakistan, 1983, pp. 5–23, available at http://www.columbia.edu/
370 Political Islam: Parallel Currents in West Asia and South Asia

itc/mealac/pritchett/00islamlinks/txt_jinnah_lahore_1940.html. Last accessed online on 26

September 2023.
23 Vali Nasr, The Shia Revival: How Conflicts within Islam will Shape the Future, New York: W.W.
Norton & Co., 2006, p. 88.
24 Ian Brant Well, Jinnah’s Early Politics: Ambassador of Hindu-Muslim Unity, Permanent Black,
Ranikhet India, First Edition (1 January 2005).
25 Mohammad Ayoob, “The Multiple Facets of Mohammad Ali Jinnah”, The Outlook, 26
September 2020.
26 Ian Talbot, “Planning for Pakistan: The Planning Committee of the All-India Muslim League,
1943–46”, Modern Asian Studies, Vol. 28, No. 4, 1994, pp. 875–89.
27 Ibid.
28 Cited by Secunder Kermani in ‘How Jinnah’s ideology shapes Pakistan’s identity’, BBC, 18
August 2017, https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-40961603.
29 Dr. Azmal Hoque, ‘Concept of Legacy and Ancestry of Maulana Abul Kalam Azad: A Study’,
IJCRT, Vol. 1, Issue 1, July 2013, file:///C:/Users/adil/Downloads/IJCRT1134652.pdf, last
accessed online on 26 September 2023.
30 Khwaja Ahmad Faruqi, ‘Maulana Azad as a Man of Letters, 1958, Indian Literature. Vol. 1,
No. 2, pp. 6–13.
31 Nishat Qaiyoom, “Maulana Azad’s Journalistic Crusade against Colonialism”, Proceedings of
the Indian History Congress, Vol. 73, 2012, pp. 678–85.
32 Nishat Qaiyoom, “Maulana Azad’s Journalistic Crusade Against Colonialism,” Proceedings of
the Indian History Congress 73 (2012): 678–85, http://www.jstor.org/stable/44156263
33 Abul Waheed Khan, India Wins Freedom: The Other Side, Karachi: Pakistan Education
Publishers, 1961, p. 27.
34 Speeches of Maulana Azad 1947-55, Publications Division, Ministry of Information &
Broadcasting Government of India, Delhi, 1956, https://archive.org/details/in.gov.ignca.4666/
page/n5/mode/1up?view=theater, pp. 150-51.
35 Ibid., p. 152.
36 Abul Kalam Azad, The Tarjuman al-Koran, Vol. I, Pragati Art Printers, Hyderabad, 1965,
p. xxxix.
37 Ibid.
38 Marietta Stepanyants, “The Philosophical and Socio-political Views of Maulana Azad”, in
Marietta Stepanyants (ed.), Russia Looks at India: A Spectrum of Political Views, Delhi: Saujanya
Books, 2011, pp. 200–17.
39 Yoginder Sikand, “The United Nationalism of Maulana Madani”, The Milli Gazette, 1–15
August 2004, https://www.milligazette.com/Archives/2004/01-15Aug04-Print-Edition/
011508200434.htm
40 Rasheed Kidwai, “Why We Miss Scholars like Maulana Madani Today”, Observer Research
Foundation, 21 September 2018, available at https://www.orfonline.org/expert-speak/44385-
why-we-miss-scholars-like-maulana-madani-today/, last accessed online on 27 September 2023.
41 Ibid.
42 Abdul Ghaffar Khan, Ideas of a Nation: Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan, Penguin Books, New
Delhi, 2010.
43 Ali Usman Qasmi and Megan Eaton Robb, Muslims against the Muslim League: Critiques of the
Idea of Pakistan, Cambridge University Press, 2017.
44 Wilfred Cantwell Smith, Islam in Modern History, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1957,
p. 233.
 Two-Nation Theory and the Rise of Radical Islam in India 371

45 Abdullah Saeed, Islamic Thought: An Introduction, Routledge, New York, 2006, p. 145.
46 Irfan Ahmed, “Mawdudi, Abu al-A’la (1903–79)”, in The Princeton Encyclopedia of Islamic
political Thought, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2013, p. 333.
47 Nadeem F. Paracha, “Abul Ala Maududi: An Existentialist History”, Dawn, 13 April 2022,
https://www.dawn.com/news/1154419, last accessed online on 26 September 2023.
48 Abu Ala Al-Maududi, “The Process of Islamic Revolution”, July 1990, available at http://
www.islamicstudies.info/literature/process.htm.
49 Maryam Jameelah, “An Appraisal of Some Aspects of Maulana Sayyid Ala Maudoodi’s Life
and Thought”, Islamic Quarterly, Vol. 31, No. 2, 1987, p. 127.
50 Seyyed Vali Reza Nasr, Mawdudi and the Making of Islamic Revivalism, Oxford University
Press, 1996.
51 Jan-Peter Hartung, A System of Life: Maududi and the Ideologisation of Islam, Oxford University
Press, 2014.
52 Sayyid Abul A’la Maududi, The Islamic Law and Constitution, translated and edited by Khurshid
Ahmad, Islamic Publications, 1960, pp. 50, 136, 138 and 145.
53 Ibid., p. 252.
54 Abu al-A’la al-Mawdudi, “Political Theory of Islam”, in John J. Donahue and John L. Esposito
(eds), Islam in Transition: Muslim Perspective, New York: Oxford University Press, 1982, p.
253.
55 Irfan Ahmad, “Cracks in the ‘Mightiest Fortress’”, in Filippo Osella and Caroline Osella (eds),
Islamic Reform in South Asia, Cambridge University Press, p. 322.
56 Ibid.
57 Abul A’la Mawdudi, Towards Understanding Islam, translated by Khurshid Ahmad, Islamic
Publications, 1979.
58 Irene Oh, The Rights of God: Islam, Human Rights, and Comparative Ethics, Washington, DC:
Georgetown University Press, 2007, p. 45.
59 Malise Ruthven, Islam in the World, 2nd edition, Penguin, 2000.
60 Larry DeVries, Don Baker, Dan Overmyer, Asian Religions in British Columbia. University of
Columbia Press, January 2011.
61 Antonio R. Gualtieri, Conscience and Coercion: Ahmadi Muslims and Orthodoxy in Pakistan,
Guernica Editions, 1989, p. 20.
62 Adil Hussain Khan, From Sufism to Ahmadiyya: A Muslim Minority Movement in South Asia,
Indiana University Press, 2015, p. 2.
63 Gerdien Jonker, The Ahmadiyya Quest for Religious Progress: Missionizing Europe 1900–1965,
Leiden: Brill, 2015.
64 Ruthven, Islam in the World.
65 Ali Kadir, “Parliamentary Heretization of Ahmadiyya in Pakistan”, in Gladys Ganiel (ed.).
Religion in Times of Crisis, Leiden: Brill, 2014, p. 139.
66 Ishtiaq Ahmed, The Politics of Religion in South and Southeast Asia, New York: Routledge,
2011, p. 89.
67 Barbara D. Metcalf, “‘Traditionalist’ Islamic Activism: Deoband, Tablighis, and Talibs”, Social
Science Research Council, 1 September 2009, available at http://essays.ssrc.org/sept11/essays/
metcalf.htm, last accessed online on 27 September 2023.
68 “Tablighi Jamaat”, Pew Research Center Report, 15 September 2010, available at https://
web.archive.org/web/20200402231048/https://www.pewforum.org/2010/09/15/muslim-
networks-and-movements-in-western-europe-tablighi-jamaat/#fn-5877-41, last accessed online
on 27 September 2023.
372 Political Islam: Parallel Currents in West Asia and South Asia

69 Matthew J. Kuiper, “Tablighi Jama¿at”, Oxford Bibliographies, 22 February 2018, available at

https://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/display/document/obo-9780195390155/obo-
9780195390155-0250.xml?rskey=K4mTeG&result=1&q=Tablighi+Jamaat#firstMatch,
accessed online on 27 September 2023.
70 “Tablighi Jama’at”, in The World Almanac of Islamism, American Foreign Policy Council,
Archived from the original on 23 March 2016, https://almanac.afpc.org/uploads/documents/
Tablighi%20Jamaat%202017%20Update.pdf.
71 Tablighi Jamaat: An Indirect Line to Terrorism, on Security, Stratfor Global Intelligence, 23
January 2008, https://worldview.stratfor.com/article/tablighi-jamaat-indirect-line-terrorism
72 Nicholas Howenstein, “Islamic Networks: The Case of the Tablighi Jamaat”, United States
Institute of Peace, 12 October 2006.
73 Kamran Bokhari, “Cradle of Chaos: On the Deobandi Sect”, The Indian Express, 9 January
2022, available at https://www.newindianexpress.com/magazine/2022/jan/09/cradle-of-
chaoson-the-deobandi-sect-2403881.html.
74 Ibid.
75 Khaled Ahmed, “The Fractured Image of Muhammad Ali Jinnah”, Himal, Vol. 11, No. 2,
February 1998, p. 25.
76 Rafique Afzal, “Pakistan: Struggle for an Islamic State, 1947–71”, in Waheed-ul-Zaman and
M. Saleem Akhtar (eds), Islam in South Asia, Islamabad: National Institute of Historical and
Cultural Research, 1993, p. 512.
77 John J. Honigmann “Intensional Orientation and National Unity: A Case Study from Pakistan,”
A Review of General Semantics, Vol. 13, No. 2 (1955), pp. 108–15. http://www.jstor.org/
stable/42581590
78 Andrew Wilder, “Islam and Political Legitimacy in Pakistan”, in Muhammad Aslam Syed
(ed.), Islam and Democracy in Pakistan, Islamabad: National Institute of Historical and Cultural
Research, 1995, p. 43.
79 Report of the Constitution Commission, Pakistan 1961, Karachi: Government of Pakistan Press,
1961, pp. 72–76, cited in “Ethnicity, National Identity and Praetorianism: The Case of
Pakistan,” Asian Survey, Vol. 16, No. 10, October 1976, p. 924.
80 Jai Kumar Verma, “Growth of Fundamentalism in Pakistan and its Repercussions”, India Defence
Review, 20 May 2015, available at http://www.indiandefencereview.com/news/growth-of-
fundamentalism-in-pakistan-and-its-repercussions/.
81 Vali Nasr, Mawdudi and the Making of Islamic Revivalism, OUP USA, 1996, p. 41.
82 Smruti S. Pattanaik, “Islam and the Ideology of Pakistan”, Strategic Analysis, Vol. XXII, No. 9,
December 1998, available at https://ciaotest.cc.columbia.edu/olj/sa/sa_98pas02.html, last
accessed online on 27 September 2023.
83 Husain Haqqani, Pakistan: Between Mosque and Military, Washington, DC: Carnegie
Endowment, 2010, p. 144.
84 Pattanaik, “Islam and the Ideology of Pakistan”.
85 Gilles Kepel, Jihad: The Trail of Political Islam, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press,
2002.
86 Ayesha Jalal, Self and Sovereignty: Individual and Community in South Asian Islam Since 1850,
Routledge, 2000.
87 “Salman Taseer: Thousands Mourn Pakistan Governor,” BBC Newsm 5 January 2011, https:/
/www.bbc.com/news/world-south-asia-12116764
88 Seymour Becker, “The ‘Great Game’: The History of an Evocative Phrase”, Asian Affairs, Vol.
43, No. 1, 2012, pp. 61–80.
 Two-Nation Theory and the Rise of Radical Islam in India 373

89 Sana Haroon, “The Rise of Deobandi Islam in the North-West Frontier Province and its
Implications in Colonial India and Pakistan 1914–1996”, Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society,
Vol. 18, No. 1, 2008, pp. 66–67.
90 Marc Sageman, Understanding Terror Networks, Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania
Press, 2004, pp. 5–8.
91 Antonio Giustozzi (ed.), Decoding the New Taliban: Insights from the Afghan Field, New York:
Columbia University Press, 2009, p. 249.
92 Kamal Matinuddin, The Taliban Phenomenon, Afghanistan 1994–1997, Oxford University
Press, 1999, pp. 25–26.
93 Alex Strick van Linschoten and Felix Kuehn, An Enemy We Created: The Myth of the Taliban–
Al Qaeda Merger in Afghanistan, Oxford University Press, 2012, pp. 121–22.
94 Michael Semple, Rhetoric, Ideology, and Organizational Structure of the Taliban Movement,
Washington, DC: United States Institute of Peace, 2014, pp. 9–11.
95 Matinuddin, The Taliban Phenomenon: Afghanistan 1994–1997.
96 Quoted in Peter Mardsen’s, ‘The Taliban: War, Religion and the New Order in Afghanistan’,
Zed Books, 1998, p. 65.
97 Ahmed Rashid, Taliban: Militant Islam, Oil and Fundamentalism in Central Asia, New Haven:
Yale University Press, 2000.
98 The Taliban’s War on Women, Physicians for Human Rights, Boston and Washington DC,
August 1998, https://web.archive.org/web/20210812221749/https://phr.org/wp-content/
uploads/1998/08/afghanistan-taliban-war-on-women-1998.pdf, last accessed online on 27
September 2023.
99 Graham Farrell and John Thorne, “Where have All the Flowers Gone?: Evaluation of the
Taliban Crackdown against Opium Poppy Cultivation in Afghanistan”, International Journal
of Drug Policy, Vol. 16, No. 2, 2005, pp. 81–91.
100 Pierre Tristam, Pierre. The Buddha Statues in Bamiyan, Afghanistan, The New York Times
Company, February 14, 2009, https://web.archive.org/web/20090214194606/http://
middleeast.about.com/od/afghanista1/a/me080910.htm, last accessed online on 27 September
2023.
101 Harun-or-Rashid, “De-secularisation and Rise of Political Islam in Bangladesh”, Journal of the
Asiatic Society of Bangladesh, Vol. 57, No. 1, 2012, pp. 29–40.
102 Emajuddin Ahamed, “Islamization in Bangladesh: Political Rhetoric or Substantive?”, in
Bangladesh: Bureaucracy and Development, Dhaka: Mizan, 2006, pp. 315–24.
103 “Fourth Secular Bangladesh Blogger Hacked to Death”, Al Jazeera, 7 August 2015; and Arun
Chowdhury and Shamil Shams, “Bangladeshi Bloggers Pay the Price of Upholding Secularism”,
Deutsche Welle, 30 March 2015, https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2015/8/7/fourth-secular-
bangladesh-blogger-hacked-to-death, last accessed on 27 September 2023.
104 “Round Up the Usual Suspects: A Spate of Assassinations Provokes a Heavy-handed Response”,
The Economist, 18 June 2016.
105 Antonia Gough, ‘The Maldives: An Unlikely ISIS Haven’, Global Risk Insights, March 22,
2021.
106 Hasan Amir, Islamism and Radicalism in the Maldives, Monterey, CA: Naval Postgraduate
School, 2011.
107 Siddharth Roy, “The New Kid on the Islamist Block”, The Diplomat, 4 March 2019, https://
thediplomat.com/2019/03/the-maldives-the-new-kid-on-the-islamist-block/, last accessed on
27 September 2023.
 PART IV
EPILOGUE
 21
Parallel and Distinctive Political Currents in
West Asia and South Asia

West Asia may be the birthplace of Islam, but it is South Asia which has the
world’s largest Muslim population of about 600 million.1 In fact, four of the
eight countries of South Asia—Afghanistan, Bangladesh, the Maldives and
Pakistan—have Islam as their state religion, with majority Muslim population.
Further, although Muslims constitute only a third of the total population of South
Asia, one in three Muslims in the world today are of South Asian origin. Indonesia,
in Southeast Asia, has the world’s largest Muslim population, that is, it is home to
12.7 per cent of the world’s Muslims.2 However, the next three countries in terms
of largest Muslim population in the world come from South Asia, with Pakistan
having 11.10 per cent, India having 10.90 per cent and Bangladesh having 9.20
per cent of the world’s Muslims.3
India has been witness to the rise of Islam since the early stages of the religion’s
emergence in West Asia. It was during the lifetime of the Prophet himself that the
last the ruler (the Cheraman Perumal) of Chera dynasty is said to have converted
to Islam and the first Indian mosque—the Cheraman Juma Mosque—was built
in 624 CE at Kodangallur, Thrissur. Tamil Muslims also claim that mosques
belonging to early seventh century (such as Palaiya Jumma Palli, built in Kilakarai
in 630 CE) on the eastern coast suggest that Islam came to the province during
the Prophet’s lifetime. The Barwada Mosque in Ghogha, Gujarat, is also said to
have been built before 623 CE.4
378 Political Islam: Parallel Currents in West Asia and South Asia

Perhaps, the message of Islam spread in a peaceful manner in some coastal

areas of India during the lifetime of the Prophet. It is even said that many Hindu
Jats of Sindh had converted to Islam and joined the side of Caliph Ali ibn Talib in
the Battle of the Camel (656 CE) and died fighting. This early exposure to Islam
happened much before the imperialist Umayyad Empire (beneficiaries of the first
and second fitnas) sent its forces to Sindh on the instructions of Hajjaj ibn Yusuf,
under Muhammad bin Qasim, in the early eight century.

Muslim Oriental Despotism in India

Islam formally entered mainland India as a political and military force only in the
eleventh century, from Turkic Central Asia, and brought in its wake elements of
Turkic-Persian political and cultural influences. As this review of Islamic political
evolution shows, the pristine egalitarian polity of the Prophet and the Rashidun
Caliphs had been long abandoned by the Umayyad Caliphate and then, the
Abbasid Caliphate. Later, mainland India faced the invasions of the Turkic
Ghaznavids and Ghurids in the eleventh and twelfth centuries, when the unitary
caliphate governing all Muslims under the Abbasids was already disintegrating
and ambitious new sultans, paying partial obeisance to the Abbasid caliph in
Baghdad, were ruling their kingdoms almost independently.
By this time, the Islamic checks and balances on the office of the caliph (as
practised by the Rashidun Caliphs) had been long forgotten, and the immunity
from prosecution that was extended to the caliphs under the Umayyads and the
Abbasids had now passed on to the independent kings (or sultans). Thus, Antony
Black found in Nasihatul Mulk (ascribed to Ghazali) the following words:
God has singled out two groups of men and given them preference over
others: one prophets, and the other kings. Prophets He sent to His
servants to lead them to Him, and kings to restrain them from [aggression
against] each other; and in His wisdom he [delegated to kings] the well-
being of the lives of His servants, and He gave [kings] a high status.5
This incipient strain of the almost divine status of kings was further enhanced
in India during the Delhi Sultanate, starting from Ghiyasuddin Balban (reigned
1265–87), who officially adopted the “Tura-i-Changizi” (Law of Changizi) as
the norm for governance, alongside Islamic law. Later, Akbar, adopting the title
of “Zill-e-Ilahi” (the shadow of God on earth) and the manners of the Persian
court (following non-Islamic Sassanian norms), introduced the practices of
zaminbos (prostrating and kissing the ground in front of the king) and paibos
(kissing the king’s feet on the throne).
 Parallel and Distinctive Political Currents in West Asia and South Asia 379

India: A Refuge for Islamdom during Mongol Invasions

Islamic polity in India grew from the eleventh to twelfth century onwards, virtually
independent of any Arab sovereign—caliph or sultan—and was relatively less
troubled from Mongol invaders (both non-Muslim and Muslims) than their West
Asian counterparts, following the decline of the Abbasid Caliphate in the twelfth
and thirteenth centuries. While the sultans of Delhi were consolidating their
political footings in India, the Mongols under Genghis Khan and his successors
were devastating much of Central Asia, China, Persia, Iraq, much of Asia Minor
and large parts of southern Russia.
The killing of the last Abbasid caliph, with the sack of Baghdad in 1258 CE,
forced many Arab, Persian and Turkic scholars, savants, bureaucrats, artists and
nobleman to flee these Islamic lands and seek the protection of the Delhi sultans.
Under Balban, over 15 muhallaas (neighbourhoods) were established in Delhi to
house immigrants from Central Asia, Iran and the Middle East, giving the capital
city a cosmopolitan character.6
The chronicler Minhajus Siraj, who visited Delhi in 1237 CE, was moved to
observe:
the capital city of Dehli,...is the seat of government of Hindustan, and
the center of the circle of Islam...the retreat and resting place for the
learned, the virtuous, and the excellent of the various parts of the world;
and those who, by the mercy of God...escaped from the toils of the
calamities sustained by the provinces and cities of Ajam (non-Arab
Muslim world), and the misfortune caused by the (rise of ) infidel
Mongols, made the capital—the asylum of the universe....7
Thus, even before the Mughal Empire, the Delhi Sultanate rivalled, if not
surpassed, many of West Asian centres of political, economic and cultural grandeur,
as was acknowledged by the great Moroccan explorer Ibn Battuta, who came to
stay in Delhi from 1334 CE to 1342 CE, found it “a vast and magnificent city,
uniting beauty with strength. It is surrounded by a wall that has no equal in the
world, and is the largest city in the entire Muslim Orient”.8

Muslim Rule in South Asia: The Ashraf, Ajlaf, Arzal Caste System
Islam entered India not as a religion with its pristine egalitarian message, wherein
the Prophet disapproved of his followers to stand up on his arrival, but as an
imperialist power out to conquer a non-Muslim civilisation.
380 Political Islam: Parallel Currents in West Asia and South Asia

There was mostly a clear divide between the ruling foreign elite and the non-
Muslim Indian masses for centuries, and it was only over a period of time that the
foreign invaders began to accept and embrace the place and the people they had
started to rule. At least in the early centuries of Islam, its faqih and ulema stood
for egalitarian principles and championed the cause of the masses (such as Imam
Abu Hanifa, Imam Hanbal and the Shia imams) against the oppressive excesses
of the Umayyad and Abbasid caliphs (who had robbed the title of caliph of its
spiritual and religious import). However, the ulema who came to India with the
Turkic-cum-Persianate rulers remained members of the state elite, and failed to
engage with the ordinary Indians or present their foreign culture and religion in
a humane light.
This task was, to a great extent, taken up by the Sufi mystics, like Muinuddin
Chishti and Nizamuddin Auliya, who developed ties with the Indian laity, as well
as with the great Hindu scholars, advaitins and Jain sages and worked towards
developing a syncretic Indian cultural ethos.
Far from promoting an egalitarian order, Muslim conquerors of Central Asia
applied a system of religious stratification and ethnic segregation of their own,
even among members of the Muslim community in the country. These caste
divisions between the Ashraf (the foreign ruling elite, also known as “tabqa-i
ashrafiyya”)9 and Ajlaf (Indian converts) were far more stark and discriminatory
than those found in West Asia in medieval times; and this Muslim caste system
continues in South Asia to this day.10 The untouchable Hindu converts to Islam
are categorized as the lowest in this social structure and are known as Arzal
(‘degraded’). Both Ajlaf and Arzal categories are known as ‘Pasmanda’ (literally,
the left behind’). In 1957, Louis Dumont noted that Muslim conquerors purposely
adopted the Hindu caste system “as a compromise which’degraded’). h they had
to make in a predominantly Hindu environment”.11
In fact, Muslim rulers found the Hindu caste system convenient to keep the
vast native Indian population divided and repressed, and they introduced the
Muslim caste system to encourage this socially and politically convenient system
for the ruling elite. Many of the low-caste Ajlaf included Indian artisans and
workers, like julaha (weaver), darzi (tailor), rangrez (dyer), qasai (butcher) and
barhai (carpenter).

Impact of Indian Radical Movements on West Asia

The inability to convert the whole of India to Islam, as also the frustration of
 Parallel and Distinctive Political Currents in West Asia and South Asia 381

witnessing some Indian Muslim rulers like Akbar adopting non-Islamic beliefs
and practices, caused much resentment and fear among the traditional ulema,
nobility and even some Indian Sufi scholars over the future of Islam in the
subcontinent. Thus, we have read how Naqshbandi Sufi scholars, like Ahmad
Shah Sirhindi, devised the concept of “Wahdat Al-Shuhud” as a theological counter
to “Wahdatul Wujud” in order to counter Vedic monism with orthodox Islamic
monotheism, as the former inclusive belief system had started undermining Islamic
philosophical, and thereby political, ascendance in India.
It was Sirhindi’s line of thinking, which objected to Akbar’s inclusive “Din-i-
Ilahi” brand of a syncretic religion, which ultimately manifested in Aurangzeb’s
fundamentalist and puritanical overthrow of Mughal eclecticism, leading to the
decline of the empire in the eighteenth century. It was also this radical, hard-line
thought that is said to have influenced Al-Wahhab, who was taught by Naqshbandi
scholars of Sirhindi’s school in early eighteenth century, that led to the rise of
Wahhabism, as discussed earlier in the book.
Later, Wahhabi radicalism spread to both India and Central Arabia and played
a major role in the spread of Islamic militancy in the Arabian Peninsula and the
northwestern region of India, of which we are painfully aware. Similarly, it was
Maulana Maududi’s ideology of Political Islam that became popular in India and
then Pakistan, which made him the Karl Marx of global Islamism, with its hard-
line Arab exponents, namely, Sayyid Qutb, Khomeini and Bin Laden,
acknowledging Maududi’s contribution in their ideological make-up.
Having said that, the contribution of Indian Islamic scholars, like Maulana
Abul Kalam Azad, Maulana Hussain Ahmad Madani and Abul Hasan Nadwi,
influenced many Muslim scholars around the world. Indian theological schools
of Deoband and Barelvi Islam also made deep contribution to Muslim thought
around the world, with peaceful and apolitical Tablighi Jamaat becoming one of
the largest religious organisations in the world.
If West Asia experimented with Political Islam, presenting Twelver Shia and
Sunni Wahhabi models of Islamic government in Iran and Saudi Arabia
respectively, the South Asian subcontinent too produced its own versions of Islamist
states in Pakistan and Afghanistan under the Taliban. It has also provided an
Indian Muslim ideology that accepts values of secularism and democracy in the
ideology of Ahmad Madani and Maulana Azad.
Muslims contributed to the Indian freedom struggle right from the First War
of Independence in 1857. This is testified by the many slogans and paeans of the
382 Political Islam: Parallel Currents in West Asia and South Asia

freedom struggle penned by Muslim freedom fighters, be it “Jai Hind” (“Hail

India”, a slogan given by Abid Hassan Safrani);12 “Inquilab Zindabad” (“Long
Live the Revolution” by Hasrat Mohani);13 “Angrezon Bharat Chhoro” and “Quit
India” (slogans coined by Yusuf Meherally),14 or Surayya Tyabji who designed
India’s tricolour.15
The following untranslatable lines written by Bismil Azimabadi were
immortalised by the martyrdom of its great populariser, Ram Prasad Bismil (hanged
to death by the British along with Ashfaqullah and Roshan Singh):
Hai liye hathyaar duhsman taak mein baitha udhar
Aur hum tayyar hain seena liye apna idhar,
Khoon se khelenge holi gar watan mushkil mein hai
Safaroshi ki tamanna ab hamare dil mein hai.
There the enemy lies in wait bearing a weapon
And here we are ready with our open chests
We shall celebrate Holi in blood if the nation is in peril
As the will to sacrifice heads now swells in our hearts.16
It has often been said that Islam needs to reform itself. However, as Islam is
not a monolith, every reform movement eventually becomes a sect, sub-sect, school
or socio-political movement, among many others, within Islam. This process has
been taking place for the last several centuries as it was never possible to truly
close the so-called “gates of ijtihad”. The orthodox schools continue to stick to
their belief systems in the modern age, just like their counterparts in other religions.
New and politically radical versions often end up being violently extreme and
gain a cult status, while many groups and organisations—moderate and extreme—
continue to be either ignored, used, abused, exploited or manipulated by various
political forces and states of the Muslim world, and even indirectly by big non-
Muslim powers. This politicisation and militarisation of religion is not typical
only to Islam, but it certainly mixes the sacred and the profane.

NOTES
1 “10 Countries with the Largest Muslim Populations, 2010 and 2050”, Pew Research Center’s
Religion and Public Life Project, 2 April 2015, https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2015/
04/02/muslims/, last accessed online on 27 September 2023.
2 “The Future of the Global Muslim Population (Projections for 2010–2030)”, The Pew Forum
of Religion and Public Life, 27 January 2011, available at https://web.archive.org/web/
20110209094904/http://www.pewforum.org/The-Future-of-the-Global-Muslim-
Population.aspx.
 Parallel and Distinctive Political Currents in West Asia and South Asia 383

3 “Muslim Population by Country”. The Future of the Global Muslim Population. Pew Research
Center. Archived from the original on 9 February 2011, https://web.archive.org/web/
20110209094904/http://www.pewforum.org/The-Future-of-the-Global-Muslim-
Population.aspx, last accessed online on 27 September 2023.
4 Barbara D. Metcalf, Islam in South Asia in Practice, Princeton: Princeton University Press,
2009.
5 Antony Black, The History of Islamic Political Thought: From the Prophet to the Present, Edinburgh:
Edinburgh University Press, 2001, p. 94.
6 Nishtha Gaur Singh, ‘Dehliviyat: The Making and Un-Making of Delhi’s Indo-Muslim Urban
Culture, c. 1750-1900’, Princeton University, 2014, p. 28.
7 Anthony Welch, Hussein Keshani and Alexandra Bain, ‘Epigraphs, Scriptures and Architecture
in the Early Delhi Sutanate’, in Gülru Necipoglu (ed.), Muqarnas, An Annual on the Visual
Culture of the Islamic World , Vol. 19, Brill, 2002, p. 16.
8 Medha Saxena, ‘Ibn Battuta and his Times’, The Wire, 2 July 2017, https://thewire.in/history/
ibn-battuta-and-his-times.
9 Julien Levesque, “Debates on Muslim Caste in North India and Pakistan: From Colonial
Ethnography to Pasmanda Mobilization”, HAL Open Science, 2020, hal-02697381, file:///
C:/Users/Dr.%20Adil/Downloads/Debates%20on%20Muslim%20castes_WP15.pdf, last
accessed on 28 September 2023.
10 Laurence Gautier and Julien Levesque, “Introduction: Historicizing Sayyid-ness: Social Status
and Muslim Identity in South Asia”, Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, Vol. 30, No. 3, 2020,
pp. 383–93.
11 Azra Khanam, Muslim Backward Classes: A Sociological Perspective, Sage, 2013, p. 22.
12 Syed Akbar, ‘Remembering Netaji’s Aide behind ‘Jai Hind’”, The Times of India, 11 April
2022, available at https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/hyderabad/remembering-netajis-
aide-behind-jai-hind/articleshow/90767611.cms, last accessed online on 28 September 2023
13 “India Remembers Maulana Hasrat Mohani Who gave the Revolutionary Slogan ‘Inquilab
Zindabad’”, Zee News, 2 January 2017, https://twitter.com/ZeeNewsEnglish/status/
815899959434223616
14 Aarefa Johary, ‘The Man Who Coined the Slogan Quit India: Remembering Yousuf Mehrally’,
Scroll.in, 08 August 2017, https://scroll.in/article/846450/who-coined-the-slogan-quit-india-
it-wasnt-gandhi, last accessed online on 28 September 2023.
15 Suman Saurav, “Surayya Tyabji: The Woman Who Designed India’s National Flag”, Feminism
in India, 10 December 2018, available at https://feminisminindia.com/2018/12/10/surayya-
tyabji-designed-national-flag/.
16 Rough translation by the author of the nationalist poem sung by Indian freedom fighters
during the independence struggle.
 Select Bibliography

Albert Hourani, A History of the Arab Peoples, Faber & Faber, 2013.
Alfred Guillaume, The Life of Muhammad: A Translation of Ibn Ishaq’s Sirat Rasulul
Allah, London: Oxford University Press, 1955.
Antony Black, The History of Islamic Political Thought: From the Prophet to the
Present, 2nd edition, UK: Edinburgh University Press, 2011.
Arthur Goldschmidt Jr and Lawrence Davidson, A Concise History of the Middle
East, American University in Cairo Press, Cairo, 2009.
Barbara D. Metcalfe, Islamic Revival in British India: Deoband, Berkeley: University
of California Press, 1984.
Barnaby Rogerson, The Heirs of the Prophet Muhammad and the Roots of the Sunni–
Shia Schism, London: Abacus Publishers, 2006.
Bassam Tibi, Islamism and Islam, Kaveri Books, 2014.
Bernard Lewis, Islam and the West, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993.
Bernard Lewis, The Political Language of Islam, Chicago and London: University
of Chicago Press, 1988.
Daniel W. Brown, A New Introduction to Islam, Blackwell Publication, 2017.
Edward W. Said, “The Scope of Orientalism”, in Orientalism, New York: Vintage
Books, 1979.
Erik Ringmar, The Muslim Caliphates, Open Book Publishers, Istanbul, 2020.
Florian Pohl, “Muslim World: Modern Muslim Societies,” Marshall Cavendish,
New York, 2010.
Fred M. Donner, Muhammad and the Believers: At the Origins of Islam, Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press, 2010.
G.R. Hawting, The First Dynasty of Islam, Routledge, London, 2000.
 Select Bibliography 385

Halim Barakat, The Arab World: Society, Culture, and State, Berkeley, CA: University
of California Press, 1993.
Herbert J. Muller, The Loom of History, New York: Harper & Brothers, 1958.
Hugh Kennedy, The Armies of the Caliphs: Military and Society in the Early Islamic
State, London and New York: Routledge, 2001.
Jeffrey T. Kenney, Muslim Rebels: Kharijis and the Politics of Extremism in Egypt,
New York: Oxford University Press, 2006.
John L. Esposito and Natana J. DeLong-Bas, Shariah: What Everyone Needs to
Know, UK: Oxford University Press, 2018.
Jonathan Porter Berkey, The Formation of Islam: Religion and Society in the Near
East, 600–1800, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003.
Joseph Schacht, An Introduction to Islamic Law, Clarendon Press, 1966.
Karen Armstrong, Islam: A Short History, New York: Modern Library, 2000.
Khaled Hroub (Ed): Political Islam: Context versus Ideology, Saqi Books, 2010.
Lane-Poole, History of India: From Mohammedan Conquest to the Reign of Akbar
the Great, Grolier Society, London, 1907.
Lesley Hazleton, After the Prophet: The Epic Story of the Shia–Sunni Split in Islam,
Knopf Doubleday Publishing Group, London, 2009.
Lesley Hazleton, The First Muslim: The Story of Muhammad, Riverhead, 2013.
Madawi Al-Rasheed, A History of Saudi Arabia, Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 2002.
Madawi Al-Rasheed, Carool Kersten and Marat Shterin (eds), Demystifying the
Caliphate: Historical Memory and Contemporary Contexts, Oxford University
Press, London, 2012.
Marshall G.S. Hodgson, The Venture of Islam: Conscience and History in a World
Civilization, Vols 1–3, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1974.
Maxime Rodinson, Muhammad: Prophet of Islam, I.B. Tauris, 1971.
Muhammad Hamidullah, The First Written Constitution of the World, University
of Virginia, 1968.
Muhammad Tahir-ul-Qadri, Islam on Love and Non-Violence, Minhaj Books, 2014.
Muzaffar Alam, The Languages of Political Islam: India 1200–1800, Chicago:
University of Chicago Press, 2004.
Natana J. DeLong-Bas, Wahhabi Islam: From Revival and Reform to Global Jihad,
New York: Oxford University Press, 2014.
Patricia Crone and Martin Hinds, God’s Caliph: Religious Authority in the First
Centiries of Islam, Campbridge University Press Cambridge, 2003.
386 Political Islam: Parallel Currents in West Asia and South Asia

Patricia Crone, God’s Rule: Government and Islam, Columbia University Press,
New York, 2004.
Philip K. Hitti, History of the Arabs: From the Earliest Times to the Present, 10th
edition, New York: The Macmillan Company, 2002.
Qamaruddin Khan, Political Concepts in the Quran, Lahore: Islamic Book
Foundation, 1982.
R. Bosworth Smith, Mohammed and Mohammedanism, US: Book Tree, 2002.
Richard M. Eaton (ed.), India’s Islamic Traditions, New Delhi: Oxford University
Press, 2003.
S.H.M. Jafri, The Origins and Early Development of Shia Islam, London: Longman,
1979.
Sadakat Kadri, Heaven on Earth: A Journey through Shari’a Law from the Deserts of
Ancient Arabia to the Streets of the Modern Muslim World, Macmillan, 2012.
Saiyid Athar Abbas Rizvi, The Wonder that was India, Vol. II, London: Sidgwick
and Jackson, 2020.
Sayed Khatab, The Power of Sovereignty: The Political and Ideological Philosophy of
Sayyid Qutb, Routledge, London, 2006.
Shiraz Maher: Salafi-Jihadism: The History of an Idea, Oxford University Press,
2016.
Tarek Osman: Islamism: What it means for the Middle East and the World, Yale
University Press; 1st edition, 2016.
Vali Nasr, The Shia Revival: How Conflicts within Islam will Shape the Future,
New York: W.W. Norton and Company, 2006.
W. Montgomery Watt, Muhammad at Medina, Oxford University Press, New
York, 1956.
Wilferd Madelung, The Succession to Muhammad, Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1997.
Yohanan Friedmann, Shaikh Ahmad Sirhindi: An Outline of His Thought and a
Study of His Image in the Eyes of Posterity, New Delhi: Oxford University
Press, 2000.
 Index

Abbasid Golden Age, 118, 147 Al-Aziz, Umar ibn Abd, 94-96, 98
Abdallah bin Mahfudh ibn Bayyah, 249 Al-Baghdadi, Abu Bakr, 128
Abduh, Muhammad, 185-88, 193, 197, Al-Banna, Hassan, 223, 225, 227
243 Al-Biruni, 117, 264
Abdulaziz (ibn Saud), 179, 199, 235 Al-Ghazali, Abu Hamid (Algazel), 145
Abdullahi An-Naim, 247 Al-Hidaya, 296
Adaab, 119, 277 Al-Hilal, 349
Advaita, 145, 270, 285 Ali Abd, Al-Raziq, , 3, 52, 188, 243-44
Ahl Al-Bayt, 17, 44, 49, 123-24, 135, 148, Ali, Chiragh, 243, 322-24
233 Ali, Inayat, 307-08
Ahl Al-Hadeeth, 99, 101-05, 176-77, 324 Ali, Maulana Shaukat, 188, 336
Ahl Al-Rai, 99-102 Ali, Muhammad, 179, 194, 197, 211, 335
Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jamaat, 44 Ali, Sharif Hussein bin, 212-13
Ahmadiya movement, 356-57 Ali, Syed Ameer, 322, 328-29
Ajam, 379 Ali, Wilayat, 307-08
Ajlaf, 380 Aligarh Movement, 327-28
Akbar the Great, 277-86 Al-Islam Deen Wa Dawlah, 6
Akbarnama, 281 Al-Karaki, Al-Muhaqiq, 181-82
Akhlaq-i-Jahangiri, 275, 280 Al-Khwarizmi, 117, 262
Akhlaq-i-Nasiri, 277-79 Al-Kindi, Abu Yusuf Yaqub ibn Ishaq, 139
Al Rahman, Al-Kawakibi, Abd, 211 Al-Maududi, Maulana Abu Ala, 352
Al Tabari, Ibn Jarir, 134 Al-Mawardi, 10, 17-19, 129-30
Al Tunis, Khayr Al-Din, 201-02 Al-Sadiq, Imam Jafar, 106, 148
Al wala wa al bara, 279 Al-Salam, Farag, Mohammad Abd, 240
Al-Ahkam As-Sultaniyyah, 18, 129 Al-Zarqawi, Abu Musab, 365
Al-Ashari, Abu Al-Hasan, 128 Al-Zawahiri, Ayman, 365
Al-Azhar University, 106, 127, 129, 134, Ameer Al-Mumineen, 60-61, 93-94, 120,
186, 194-95, 197, 228, 243, 293, 368 Amman Message, 103
388 Political Islam: Parallel Currents in West Asia and South Asia

Aquinas, Thomas, 141, 145 Dars-i-Nizami, 318

Aristotle, 118, 121-22, 140-41, 167, 278 Darul Uloom Deoband, 315, 317-18, 320,
Arkoun, Mohammed, 245 358-59
Arthashastra, 7, 262, 267 Dawah, 43
Arzal, 379-80 dawlah islamiyyah, 6
Asabiyya, 167-68 Dehlawi, Shah Waliullah, 285, 296-300,
Asharism, 128-29 303, 318, 333
Ashtiname, 40 Dhimmi, 20-21, 260, 269, 355
Ataturk, Mustafa Kemal, 206 Din-i-Ilahi, 282-83, 381
Aurangzeb Alamgir, 277 Diriyah, 274-76, 278-79, 196, 235
Azad, Abul Kalam, 348-50
Azimabadi, Bismil, 382 Efendi, Mustafa Sabri, 52
Aziz, Shah Abdul, 297, 300-01, 305 Erdogan, Recep Tayyip, 207
Azzam, Abdullah, 241, 363 Ertugrul, 162

Baathism, 216 Faraizi Movement, 306, 334

Babur, 276-80 Fard al Ain, 43, 239-40
Baghdad Railway, 203 Fard Al Kifayah, 240
Bahai faith, 186-87 Fatah (formerly the Palestinian National
Balban, Ghiyasuddin, 270, 378 Liberation Movement), 218-19
Balfour Declaration, 214 Fatawa-i-Alamgiri, 295-97
Barani, Ziauddin, 266-67, 270, 272, 277 Fatimids, 127-28, 133-34, 149
Barelvi, Ahmad Raza Khan, 331, 333 Fatwa-i-Jahandari, 267
Barelvi, Sayyid Ahmad, 301-05, 307, 334 Fazl, Abul, 271, 281-82, 324
Batini, 127-28, 143, 145, 299 Fazl-e-Haq Khairabadi, 333
Battle of Badr, 53 Firangi Mahal, 317-18
Battle of Camel, 22, 78, 123, 258, 276, Fitna, 47, 51, 78, 79, 86, 90-91, 94-95,
278 106, 113, 127, 225, 279, 319, 378,
Battle of Harrah, 90
Battle of Siffin, 79-80, 86, 113, 123 Gandhi, Mahatma, 59, 187-88, 294, 336,
Battle of Yamamah, 56 347-50, 352, 358
Gangohi, Rashid Ahmad, 315-17, 365
Chach Nama, 259-60 Gemal Abdel Nasser, 214-15, 218, 239
Chauhan, Prithviraj, 264 Ghalib, 314-15, 324
Cheraman Perumal Tajuddin, 258 Ghuluww (Shiism), 164
Crusades, 158, 161 Gibbon, Edward, 58
Dadu Miyan, 306-07 Gulen movement, 207

dar al-harb, 21, 301, 315, 329, 359 Haia or Mutaween, 237
dar al-Islam, 21, 171, 238, 295, 333 Haji Shariatullah, 306, 329
dar al-sulh, 21 Hamdani, Sayyid Ali, 268-69
 Index 389

Hanafi, 9, 18, 44, 100-02, 104-05, 129, Iranian Revolution, 127, 149, 232, 236
177, 200, 203, 224, 276-77, 295-98, ISIS, 6, 14-15, 23, 38, 53, 80, 135, 169-
305, 318-19, 321-22, 336, 349 70, 178, 214, 242-43, 247, 294, 368
Hanbali, 9, 44, 102, 105-06, 177, 224, Islamic Resurgence, 3
295, 298-99, 349 Istighatha, 177, 300, 320
Hanifa, Abu, 9, 22, 101, 104-05, 319, 321, Istihsan, 104=06
380 Ithna Ashariyya Shia, 14, 122, 126, 148,
Harakat-ul-Ansar, 363 181, 232
Harkat-ul-Mujahideen, 363
Hasan Al-Askari, 124, 127 Jafari, 44, 104, 106, 224
Hasan Al-Turabi, 22, 248 Jahiliyya, 33, 239-40
Hasan-i-Sabah, 149-50 Jaish-e-Mohammed, 359, 363
Hashashin, 150, 157, 166 Jamaat-i-Islami, 6, 24, 226, 352, 355-57,
Hejaz Railway, 203 360-61, 363, 367-68
Hijra, 239 Jamal Al-Din Afghani, 183-86, 217
Hilf Al-Fudul, 38-40 Jami Al-Tirmidhi, 107, 296
Hisbah, 294 Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind, 322, 350
Hizb-ul-Mujahideen, 363 Jamiat Ulama-i-Islam, 322, 365
Hizb-ut-Tahreer, 15, 228 Janissaries, 163, 198
Hodgson, Marshall, 258 Jawhar, Muhammad Ali, 188, 336
jihad al-akbar, 237
Ibadat Khana, 282-83 Jinnah, Muhammad Ali, 327, 341, 346-48
Ibn Arabi, 142, 144-45, 165, 282, 284, Jirga, 365
298, 320 jizya, 20-21, 38, 62, 97-98, 260, 267, 269,
Ibn Bajja (Avempace), 140 281, 286
Ibn Hanbal, 9, 93, 102, 106, 116, 118
Ibn Hazm, 9, 18, 22, 97, 145 Kalaam scholasticism, 99, 101-02, 105,
Ibn Khaldun, 10, 19, 52, 105, 118, 133, 115, 117, 128, 224
141, 165-68, 201 Kalila wa Dimna, 262
Ibn Muqaffa, 10, 118-20, 262 Kant, Emannuel, 147
Ibn Qutaiba, 10, 136-37 Karbala, 9, 89-92, 94, 113, 122, 125-26,
Ibn Rushd, 10, 22, 105, 118, 134, 140- 179
42, 144-45, 147, 167, 169, 237, 291, Khan, Abdul Ghaffar, 352
329 Khan, Genghis, 214-16, 239
Ibn Sina or Avicenna, 117, 139 Khan, Hulagu, 156
Ibn Taimiyyah, 19, 103, 106, 143, 165-66, Khan, Nawab Siddiq Hasan of Bhopal, 330
168-71, 177, 186, 330 Khariji, 17-18, 48, 52, 71, 78-80, 86, 96-
Ijtihad, 12, 18, 102, 104-06, 161, 201, 97, 100, 104, 106, 130, 135
246, 248, 319, 345, 350, 382 Khomeini, Ruhollah, 232
Ilm-i-Ghaib, 332 Khulafa-e-Rashidun, 5, 44
Iqbal, Muhammad, 342-46 Khumm, Ghadeer, 123
390 Political Islam: Parallel Currents in West Asia and South Asia

Khusrau, Amir, 257, 266, 271-72 Muahid, 20

Kitab Al-Tauheed, 177 Muhabbat, 279
Kunjali Marakkar, 292-93 Muhammad Hayat of Sindh, 299
Muhammad ibn Abd Al-Wahhab, 103,
Laden, Osama bin, 241, 363, 365-66 106, 174-76, 236, 299
Lashkar-e-Jhangvi, 363-64 Muhammad, Al Farabi, Abu Nasr, 121-22
Lashkar-e-Taiba, 363 Mujaddid, 145, 298
Lawrence, T.E., 213 Muqaddimah, 167-68
Lewis, Bernard, 8, 31, 118 Murakkabah, 238
Muruwwa, 33-34, 47
Ma’lim fi Al-Tariq (Milestones along the Musa Al-Kazim, 124-25, 148
Way), 240 Musaylimah, 55-56
Madani, Maulana Hussain Ahmad, 341, Mushwarah, 12, 201
350, 381 Muttahida Qaumiyat aur Islam, 351
Madkhali, 13-14 Muwahidun, 301
Madrasah-i-Rahimiyah, 297
Maharaja Ranjit Singh, 303, 364 Nabhani, Taqi Al-Din, 20, 52, 228
Mahmud II, 198 Naji, Abu Bakr, 242
Mahmud of Ghazni, 136, 295 Nanautawi, Muhammad Qasim, 315-18
Majlis-e-aam, 63 Napoleon Bonaparte, 194
Majlisi, Muhammad Baqir, 165, 182-83 Nasihatul Muluk, 136, 283
Maldives, 13, 24, 292, 341, 367-68, 377 Nawab Salimullah of Dhaka, 335
Malik, Fazlur Rahman, 22, 246 Nicomachean Ethics, 141
Maliki, 44, 102, 104-05, 142, 224, 295, Nizam Al-Mulk, 7, 10, 138, 142, 146, 150,
298, 349 266-67
Malookiyat, 87-88, 91 Nizam-e-Mustafa, 5, 39
Mamluk, 51, 157, 159-60, 162, 171, 194, Nizamuddin Auliya, 380
196, 265-66
Mappila, 259, 293-94, 336 Osman I, 162
Maratha Empire, 297 Ottomans, 162, 164, 175-76, 180, 182-83,
Mardin, 170-71, 239 193, 197-98, 212
Marifa, 145-46, 284
Marja, 218, 232 Panchatantra, 119, 262
Maududi, 22, 24, 88, 187, 225-26, 352- Pasha, Muhammad Ali, 195-97
57, 361 Plato, 118, 121, 141, 167, 278
Mawali, 97-98, 114
Miftah ul-Jannah, 329 Qadar, Birjis, 313
Mir Taqi Mir, 342 Qadir, Badauni, Abdul, 283
Mithaq Al-Madina, 36-38, 329, 351 Qadiyani, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, 333,
Mohani, Hasrat, 282 356, 363
Mortimer, Edward, 301 Qajar dynasty, 183, 217
 Index 391

Qaradawi, Yusuf, 248 Shahnameh, 136, 265

Qaramita, 133 Shahrukh, Timur’s son, 161
Qiyas, 101-02, 104-05, 321 Shariati, Ali, 230-31
Qutb, Sayyid, 168, 187, 216, 227, 239-40, Sipah-e-Shaba, 364
356, 381 Sir Syed Ahmad Khan, 184, 315, 322-27,
342
Rached Ghannouchi, 15, 248 Six-Day War 1967, 214-15
Rahim, Shah Abdur, 296-98, 333 Siyasatnama, 7, 138, 266
Rahman, Sheikh Mujibur, 367 Suhrawardi, Yahya, 144
Rahman, Ziaur, 367 Suleiman, the Magnificent, 163
Rashid Rida, 6 Sulh Al-Hudaybiyyah, 40
Razi, Fakhr Al-Din, 165, 167, 238 Sulh-i-Kul, 281
Revolt of 1857, 301, 315, 322, 324, 329, Sultan Mehmed, Ottoman conqueror, 162
333 Sultan Muhammad Shah (Agha Khan III),
Ridda Wars, 49, 55-57 335
Rifa At-Tahtawi, 197, 210 Sunan Abu Dawood, 107, 296
Risale-i-Nur Kulliyati, 7 Suyuti, Jalaluddin, 165
Rumi, Jalaluddin, 143, 165 Sykes–Picot Agreement, 213-14, 242
Rumuz-i-Khudi, 7
Tablighi Jamaat, 322, 357-58, 381
Safavid, 149, 162-65, 181-83, 193, 233, Tabqa-i Ashrafiyya, 380
275-77 Taha, Mahmoud Mohamed, 247
Sahaba, 48, 60, 105, 123 Tahmasp (Safavid King), 165, 233
Sahih Al-Bukhari, 21, 107, 296 Tajseem, 177
Sahih Al-Muslim, 296 Talib, Ali ibn Abi, 44, 54, 71, 76-81, 113,
Sahih Bukhari, 53, 57, 123, 130, 230, 378
Said, Al-Ashmawi, Mohamed, 3 Taliban, 6, 15, 333, 359, 363, 365-66
Salafi-jihad, 15, 106, 239, 241 Tanzimat, 199-203, 210, 212
Salahuddin Ayyubi, 135 Taqiyya, 107, 125-26, 149, 182
Salman, Muhammad bin, 174, 236-37 Taqwiyatul-Iman, 302-04, 330
Saqifah, 53-54, 57, 59, 130 Tariqah-i-Muhammadiya, 303-04
Selim III, 197-98 Tauheed, 42, 44, 102, 115, 177, 298
Seljuk, 133, 136, 138, 145, 149-50, 158- Tawassul, 177, 320, 331
59, 162, 266 Tehreek-e-Labbaik Pakistan (TLP), 364
Shafii, 9, 44, 102, 104-05, 117, 146, 177, Tehreek-e-Reshmi Rumal, 335
295, 298, 349 Tehreek-i-Taliban Pakistan, 364
Shah Abbas I, 164 Timur (Tamerlane), 160-61
Shah Mir of Kashmir, 268, 276 Tipu, 194, 293
Shah, Ahmadullah, 312, 315 Titu Mir, 305
Shah, Nadir, 183, 291, 297, 342 Tuhfatul Mujahideen, 292-94
Shah, Zahir, 364 Tura-i-Changizi, 276-78, 378
392 Political Islam: Parallel Currents in West Asia and South Asia

Tusi, Nasir Al-Din, 165-67, 277-78, 280 Yasa Code of Mongols, 157, 169
Yasser Arafat, 218-19
Ulema, 9-10, 120, 138, 142, 146, 149, Yeni cheri, 163
163, 165, 182, 195-96, 200, 217, 236, Young Ottomans, 200-01
243, 247, 267, 270, 277, 282-83, 286, Young Turks, 204
294-96, 298-99, 312-17, 319, 322, Yusuf, Al-Hajjaj ibn, 96
325, 345, 352, 357, 359-60, 380-81 Yusuf, Hamza, 249
Umar, Mullah, 366
Ummah, 4, 201 Zafar, Bahadur Shah, 312-15, 333
Uyun al-Akhbar, 10, 136 Zahiri, 101, 104, 116, 143, 145, 177, 299
Zaid ibn Ali, 125-26
Vilayat-e-Faqih, 149, 181-82, 232-34 Zakat, 19-20, 55, 57, 125, 149, 240, 362
Zawabit, 266-67, 277,
Wahdatul Shuhud, 298 Zionist movement, 214
Wahdatul Wujud, 145, 177, 186, 210, 282, Ziya Gokalp, 205
284-85, 298, 302, 320, 330, 381