Mirror for Princes
In the midst of tenth century Fatimid Egypt, and eleventh century Saljuq Persia two significant figures emerged, very much alike, yet in so many ways different. The comparison and contrast of both men renders a valuable historical lens from which to view Islam then and now.
Both were political “Josephs” to their contemporary “Pharaohs”, trusted by successive rulers, and asked to write a treatise on the proper way for the ruler to lead his subjects. In the midst of their wise guidance, both men died accompanying their master, one was assassinated, his master died one month later, and his rule was vanquished.1 The other died in the midst of endless rivalries, the rule he served would disappear a few generations later.2 Both men were no strangers to political and religious intrigue.
One was an Isma`ili Shi’ite, the other an orthodox Sunnite. Muhammad al Qadi al Nu`man, who served in various roles under Egypt’s first four Fatimid caliph-imams, is considered the most important figure of the formative era of Isma`ili Shi’ite Islam.3 His numerous works charted its course in terms of its juridical, communitarian and philosophical aspects. On another side of the Muslim world was Nizam al Mulk. He governed the Seljuq Persian empire under Alp Arlsan and his successor and son, Malikshah. In his appointment and support of the famous al Ghazali, although the Seljuq empire disappeared, his influence on the direction of orthodox Sunni Islam lasts to this day as mystical yet traditional, reflective yet not philosophical, open to the Holy but not prone to take in “heterodox” movements. 4
Al Qadi al Nu`man was concerned to give the philosophical and religious intellectual supports for the rule of the Fatimid Imams.5 In comparison, Nizam al Mulk’s concern was to guarantee an Islam safeguarded from any “heretical” sway of those religious interpreters of “inward” signs (the Batinis)6 as well as the unsettling claims of the philosophers.7 For Nizam al Mulk, the adherents of Islam must be faithful to the ruler, and the ruler is to govern in the way proper to Islam. This way of governance, well-articulated by al Ghazali, guaranteed that Muslim governance would include the authority of the caliph, the power of the sultan, and guidance of the `ulema’8. This approach, still accepted by Sunni Islam today, can be compared and contrasted to the Isma`ili understanding of the Imamate, which was considered to be divinely guided by that same light of prophecy given to the Prophet and his legitimate successors, the Imams.9
Although the two men shared two different philosophies of Muslim leadership and authority, and their differences are too great to simply gloss over here, nonetheless, their somewhat similar approach to the duties and responsibilities of the ruler is worthy of note, and is the topic of this short reflection.
Their works on governance are of the same genre as, what in the Middle Ages in Europe, was called “the mirror for princes”.10 The Muslim tradition of “the mirror”, however, has its own unique style, harkening back to what is believed to be the first of the “mirrors” written by the fourth caliph, ‘Ali, and collected in a book that the Shi`ite Muslims revere as second only to the Qu’an, Nahj al-balaghah.11 This “mirror” was allegedly addressed to a certain Malik al Ashtar, whom Ali had sent to govern Egypt, but who was assassinated on the way to his post, and never lived to govern. The tragic irony of all three authors of these “mirrors” is that none was able to establish a longevity for their rule, and all that survives of their rule today is the writing itself.
A common thread for all three “mirrors” is the challenge given to the ruler. In Ali’s “mirror”, as well as that of al Qadi al Nu’man, unlike that of Nizam al Mulk, there is no praise for the present ruler in the introduction. However in all three “mirrors’ we find an urging of the ruler to reflect on his former, and now present, situation, and know that it is God who makes all things possible. Moreover, all of the treatises stress that the ruler be fair and prudent in his dealings with men, that he be temperate in taking so that he does not appropriate to himself that which is not his to keep. Likewise the ruler should rely on God and his guidance. Ali and al Qadi al Nu’man begin with similar warnings to the ruler to reflect on his future legacy and his actions.
Ali begins his “mirror” in this way:
“Know, O Malik, that I am sending you to a land where governments, just and unjust, have existed before you. People will look upon your affairs in the same way that you were wont to look upon the affairs of rulers before you. They will speak about you as you were wont to speak about those rulers. And the righteous are only known by that which God causes to pass concerning them on the tongues of His servants. So let the dearest of your treasuries be the treasury of righteous action. Control your desire and restrain your soul from what is not lawful to you, for restraint of the soul is for it to be equitous in what it likes and dislikes. Infuse your heart with mercy, love and kindness for your subjects…”12
Al Qadi al Nu’man begins his treatise in similar fashion:
“O ruler of those ruled, remember what you once were, and look upon what you have become. Know for yourself what lasts. Be guided by that which has been (in your life) more than that which will be. Begin by advising yourself, and by looking upon the matters that pertain to your person as well as your knowledge of what is incumbent upon you. For before God there is nothing a man can boast of for himself except his own works. And before people there is nothing he can boast of except that which he leaves behind. Fear God especially with regards to your own matters and your own person. Watch over this since God has so charged you with it. Worship him with humility and he will thus exalt you, for humility is the nature of worship…”13
Nizam al Mulk, in a divergence from the introductions of Ali and al Qadi, does not begin with the traditional warning to the ruler. Rather, he begins with praise and glory to the One God who chooses some men to rule over others for the good of his servants:
“In every age and time God (be He exalted) chooses one member of the human race and, having adorned and endowed him with kingly virtues, entrusts him with the interests of the world and the well being of His servants; He charges that person to close the doors of corruption, confusion and discord, and He imparts to him such dignity and majesty in the eyes and hearts of men, that under his just rule they may live their lives in constant security and ever wish for his reign to continue…” 14
Although Nizam al Mulk is different from al Qadi in his introduction, the rest of his treatise gives plenty of advice (39 chapters) on practical items including how to collect taxes, assign wazirs (ministers), appoint judges, as well as how to handle the army, organize the work of slaves, and deal with the concerns of peasants. In a post script, written shortly before he was assassinated, Nizam al Mulk gives a detailed description (11 chapters) of the enemies of the state and how to deal with them, to prevent their infiltration into the army and government, as well as how to be on the lookout for their rebellious ideas.
These “enemies” were fellow Muslims, known in Persia as the “Batinis”, or those Shiite Muslims who claimed to have a hidden knowledge of God’s will, and belong to the leadership of an Imam. Interestingly enough for our purposes here, al Qadi al Nu’man laid the intellectual formation for these Muslims, known also as the Ismai`lis. Even more interesting is that the diverse thoughts of these two men with regards to Muslim government, which would have made them “enemies” to one another, also serves as the common ground for inspiring their exhortations to the ruler, different though they are.
One cannot help but move from tenth century Fatimid Egypt and eleventh century Seljuq Persia to the twenty-first century Islamic world of today. In particular, one is drawn into discussion of so many contemporary Muslim thinkers on the topic of what helps and what hinders Islamic countries in their search for cultural, intellectual, political, and societal progress and development.15 Specifically one thinks of the contemporary discussion of what constitutes Islamic heritage (Turath). Germinal to this paper’s topic is the thoughts of the Egyptian writer, Hasan Hanafi. In his stinging reproach to Muslims he points out that historically Muslims have been used to linking the praise of God with the praise of the ruler, even when at times what social justice called for was rebellion. What is needed, says Hanafi, is not praise, but concerted social action to make Islamic society more like the Islamic ideal, and less like the sole possession of the ruler.16
In this sense, even though all three of the “mirrors” which we have discussed take into account different historical circumstances and approach the issue of governance in different ways, they each warn the ruler of his responsibilities to create that just society among men.
A fuller development of the contrast and comparison of the great “Josephs” of 11th century Persia and 10th century Egypt, their philosophical and religious differences, as well as their similar desire to advise rulers, must be left to those more capable. Nonetheless, historical research serves as a helpful lens to view the Muslim world of today. Moreover, from an historical perspective one can better observe that in Muslim societies, as well as in non-Muslim societies there exists a seemingly cyclical failure of peoples and rulers to create that just society which lasts. Thus the thought of contemporary Muslims such as Hasan Hanafi could perhaps serve as a modern day “mirror” for modern day “princes”, and the “mirrors” of al Qadi al Nu’man and Nizam al Mulk, would be enemies of one another, as different as they are, show forth that common Muslim desire, which continues to this day, to build that just society based on prudence and fair rule.
It is hoped that this brief reflection will inspire a further inquiry into Muslim “mirrors” past and present, and that what they have to say to the Muslim and non Muslim world would help us in our modern day to build that ideal society so sought after then and now.
1: Husayn ibn `Ali, Nizan al Mulk, Siraset-name; English trans.H.Darke, The Book of Government, or Rules for Kings, 2nd edn (Routledge & Kegan Paul: London, 1978) cf. Intro.
2: Farhad Daftary, The Isma`ilis: Their History and Doctrines, (Cambridge Univerrsity Press, 1990) p 92-94.
3: Ibid.
4: Albert Hourani, A History of the Arab Peoples (The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1991) p 163-168.
5: cf. Daftary, The Isma`ilis p 92.
6: Nizam al Mulk, The Book p 238.
7: Hourani, A History p 168.
8: Ibid. p 143
9: William C. Chittick, A Shi’ite Anthology (State University of New York Press: Albany, 1981) cf. Intro.
10: Hourani, A History p 168
11: Chittick, A Shi’ite Anthology cf. Intro.
12: Ibid. p 68
13: al Qadi al Nu’man, Fema ‘ala al-Amir min muhasabat nufsehe translation mine.
14: Nizam al Mulk, The Book p 1.
15: Contemporary Muslim writers as diverse as Sayid al Qutb, Hasan Hanafi, Mohammed Arkoun, Adonis, and others have grappled with the question of what has helped and what has hindered progress in Islamic societies. Although their conclusions are different, their analysis is nonetheless useful to the student of Islam. The basis for their conclusions is their study of history.
16: Hasan Hanafi, Mouqfuna min al-Turath al-Qadeem ; First volume of his 5 volume work.