The History Of Salafism II

Tamerlane:

Timur is better known today as “Tamerlane”, which is based on the moniker “Timur-i Leng” (meaning “Timur the Lame”). Tamerlane was not of the Borjigin clan of the anointed Mongolian line, and so did not consider himself a proper Mongol. It was for this reason that he refrained from adopting the moniker, “Khan” for his honorific; using the Islamic “Amir” instead. He even eschewed the Uyghur script espoused by all Mongolian regimes since Ghengis Khan (which had been a script associated with Manichaeans and Buddhists); opting instead to use Turkic and Middle Persian as his empire’s lingua franca.  Moreover, he made his capital not Qara Qorum or Balkh (the traditional Mongolian capitals), but instead the Gök-türk city of Samar-kand[a].

Regrettably, Timur is often conflated with “Ghenghis Khan” [Universal King] by those who harbor biases against the Mongols. In fact, the two men could not have been more different.  Other than both being monotheist, Tengri-ism and Islam are diametrically opposed in virtually every way. (For more on this point, see my essay, “The Long History Of Legal Codes”.)

In the late 1300’s, Tamerlane converted from the traditional Mongol Faith (Tengri-ism) to Islam. Subsequently, he fashioned himself a “Ghazi” (warrior for Islam); and soon proved himself to be the quintessential Salafist (see Appendix 2 for more on this point).

Over the course of his reign, Tamerlane massacred entire societies. Total deaths due to his rampages amounted to over 17 MILLION people: roughly 5% of the world’s population at the time. {7} He did not do this because it was (logistically) necessary for the expansion of his empire. That is to say: His vicious, unrelenting onslaughts were not undertaken in order to secure his sovereignty over newly-conquered territory. Conquerers don’t commit genocide AFTER they’ve already triumphed…unless, that is, there is something other than sheer conquest motivating them. {8}

Tamerlane’s genocidal rampage was not just ANY genocidal rampage. His reign of terror was driven by religious zealotry (that is, above and beyond his insatiable avarice). Thus he was not MERELY a megalomaniac; he was a SALAFI megalomaniac. To recapitulate: Salafism is based on the goal of bringing things back to the ways of the “Salaf”. That is exactly what Tamerlane had in mind. {13}

Tamerlane completely razed the Zoroastrian holy city of Beyhagh (site of the Azarbarzin temple; later known as “Sabzevar”), slaughtering its entire population (over 90,000) for good measure. He also completely razed the [k]Hazar city of Xacitarxan (later rebuilt as “As[h]trakhan”).

In 1398, Tamerlane massacred 100,000 civilians in Delhi. (!) Why, in heaven’s name, would he have done such a thing? There’re no need to speculate; he TOLD us why. He stated–in no uncertain terms–that his motivation for the invasion of Hindustan was to purify a land from the defilement of the infidels, thereby bringing it to the true Faith of “the prophet”.

Salafism, we should remember, is about ideological PURITY. Thus “dua” (acts of supplication) are a matter of PURIFICATION [“tazkiah”] rather than of edification. The concern, then, is piety; not probity. Tamerlane was not concerned about “enlightening” anyone; he was focussed solely on effecting absolute Islamic dominion.

To make sure this was loud and clear, when explaining why he was driven to wage war against the non-Muslims of Hindustan in his memoirs, Tamerlane quoted 66:9 of the Koran. In citing that particular passage, he reveled in the fact that he was able to put to the sword a hundred thousand residents. He even boasted about how all the women were made sex-slaves for his soldiers. (Delhi was under a sultanate at the time; though it was primarily populated by Hindus. So far as he was concerned, the Muslims in the region were insufficiently devout; so were not REALLY Muslims.) Tamerlane explicitly stated that he could not let the prisoners of war go free, as they were idolaters (read: infidels). Therefore they ALL needed to be executed. {9}

The “takfiri” legacy was thus taken to new heights. As we’ve seen, the theological territory on which Tamerlane was treading had already been well-trodden for over seven and a half centuries, starting with Mohammedan military generals like Uqba ibn Nafi (“Akbah”) and Khalid ibn al-Walid.

In committing those incredible atrocities, Tamerlane was following a long-established precedent. And so it went. When some people in the city of Isfahan (central Persia) rebelled against the “jizya” (a sometimes onerous tax levied on non-Muslims due to their “dhimmi” status), Tamerlane slaughtered the entire population of the city (estimated at approximately 200,000), including women and children. He virtually exterminated the Nestorians…for being Nestorian. Other Christians were slaughtered with impunity…simply because they were Christian. Hindus were slaughtered with impunity because they were Hindu. And so it went with Buddhists and Tengri-ists and Zoroastrians and Manicheans, et. al.

Tamerlane killed (non-Muslim) civilians gratuitously for no other reason than that they were denizens of Dar al-Kufr (and thus within the ambit of Dar al-Harb). He justified all that he did–stating over and over and over that he was doing god’s work. This should ring some bells. The trope has been used ubiquitously–from the rallying cry of Frankish Crusaders to the Nazi credo, “Gott mit Uns”.

Tamerlane even slaughtered peaceable (Buddhist) monks wherever he went. Suffice to say, he did not do so because they were fighting back. He did so SOLELY because they were committing “shirk”. They weren’t combatants; they were blasphemers. More than anything else, Tamerlane aspired to be an exalted “ghazi”–like so many celebrated cynosures before him.

The countless libraries and churches that Tamerlane razed were not posing a danger to his army; or in any way undermining his sovereignty. He eliminated all systems of thought that stood in his path; and did so for purely theological reasons. His genocidal rampage covered massive swaths of the globe; impelled–more than anything else–by religious zealotry.

Once he finished with Hindustan, Tamerlane turned his sights to the West. Eventually, the once-flourishing center of learning at Rhesaina in Syria was sacked as well. Then on to Baghdad, where the residents were the WRONG KIND of Muslims…so were summarily deemed heretics. (There we go with that preoccupation with “takfir” again.) When Tamerlane had close to 100,000 people beheaded in THAT city, he likely had Koranic passages like the following in mind:

• verses 190-193, 216, and 244-246 in Surah 2
• verses 28, 55, 118, and 151 in Surah 3
• verses 74-76, 89, 95, and 101 in Surah 4
• verses 33, 51-57, and 80 in Surah 5
• verse 13 in Surah 6
• verses 12, 39, 60, and 65 in Surah 8
• verses 5, 12-15, 19, 23, 27-30, 36-39, 44, 73, 81, 111, and 122-123 in Surah 9

…as well as 22:39-40/78, 33:60-62, 47:3-4, 48:16/29, 60:1-13, 61:4, 71:26, and 98:6…to mention forty possible examples.

This was, of course, in addition to Tamerlane’s favorite passage: 66:7-9.  Those who insist that militant Salafism has nothing to do with what is written in Islamic scripture are advised to read the Koran.  The ulama adumbrated in part I of this essay were not conjuring their ideology from whole-cloth.

It didn’t help that the famed Mamluk exegete, Ibn Kathir of Damascus (a student of Ibn Taymiyyah, it might be noted) had just proclaimed–in his landmark “tafsir”–that all the above (more belligerent) verses superseded the more conciliatory verses (e.g. 2:256, 4:114, 25:63, 41:34, 60:8, and 109:6). Many heeded this infelicitous exegetical approach, per the precedent known as “naskh” [abrogation].  (For more on this point, see Appendix 3.)

Soon thereafter, Tamerlane slaughtered the entire population of Ardabil in the Azeri region of northern Persia.  Do Islamic apologists really mean to suggest that such rapacious conquest had nothing whatsoever to do with Koranic injunction?

Tellingly, the majority of those massacred in Baghdad by Tamerlane’s forces were non-Muslims. In his “takfiri” fervor, this self-proclaimed “sword of Islam” was merciless when it came to “kuffar”. And, to rationalize his fanaticism, he had recourse to a plenitude of scriptural backing.

The myth that Baghdad was razed by Genghis Khan is as erroneous as it is perverse. It was a MUSLIM (the “Sword of Islam”) who destroyed the city; not a Tengri-ist. Tamerlane’s massacres in the region occurred c. 1400. The first Mongols had arrived in Baghdad 142 years earlier. Genghis died in 1227…over 5,500 kilometers away, in Western Xia. {10}

And so it went: Tamerlane devastated the Levant that fateful year. Then it was on to Anatolia the next year (c. 1400-1401), where–after promising “no bloodshed” in Sivas–he had 3,000 prisoners buried alive, thus technically keeping his promise.

To reiterate: Tamerlane’s agenda was loud and clear. The promulgation of Islam was his sine qua non. There was no other reason to destroy such invaluable stores of knowledge than to facilitate totalitarian theocracy–an enterprise that entailed eradicating all other forms of thought. And so we see that the noxious effects of Al-Ghazali’s seething contempt for intellectual activity (of ANY kind) continued to reverberate. Critical inquiry was the work of Satan. End of discussion.

There can be no denying the fact that Tamerlane was simply following in the footsteps of Islamic conquers before him. {10} Other than generals like Khalid ibn al-Walid and Uqba ibn Nafi (a.k.a. “Akbah”), who might he have had in mind? The celebrated Umar ibn al-Khattab…as well as Muhammed ibn Qasim Saqafi…and Mahmud Ghazni…and Bakhtiyar Khilji. Indeed, the odious precedent had been established by MoM HIMSELF with the notorious massacre of the (Jewish) Qurayza tribe.

Tamerlane may have ALSO been thinking of an oft-cited quotation of MoM, found in Bukhari’s Hadith: “I have been ordered to fight the people until they say, ‘None has the right to be worshipped but god.’ And if they say so, and pray as we pray, and face our qibla, and slay those we slay, then their blood and property shall be protected, and we will not interfere with their affairs except according to our laws” (Book 8; no. 387).

It seems an inner “spiritual” struggle was not part of this game-plan. As if this weren’t clear enough already, Koranic passages like those listed above reveal that waging war against non-Muslims (“Dar al-Harb”) was entirely about religious doctrine…even after we take into account quasi-concessions like:

• 4:89-90 (one is not OBLIGATED to fight those who haven’t attacked one first)
• 5:32 (a reference to the tale of Cain and Abel, which pertained exclusively to the Hebrews, so did not apply to Muslims)
• 8:61 (you’re enjoined to fight non-Muslims; BUT…if they incline toward peace, then you are not forbidden to follow suit if you so choose)

In any case, such salutary excerpts were over-ridden by the more militant passages, per the trump-card (“naskh”) propounded by Ibn Kathir. The message was quite clear. So we should not be surprised by the fact that so many Islamic potentates have honored it throughout the course of history. {16}

It’s also worth noting that Tamerlan’s construction projects primarily involved the building of mosques; not of (vital) public infrastructure.  This showed where his priorities were.  He was–moreover–a glutton for decadence.

At this point, the questions arises: Is all this some cherry-picking expedition?  No. It is simply highlighting auspicious events that are indicative of an overwhelming trend.  The few happy exceptions prove the rule. {29}

If we scour the volumes of Islamic sources that recount the events adumbrated thus far, we find something quite remarkable: In not a single case was there any indication that such events were seen as regrettable aberrations in an otherwise pristine record of civility.  Quite the contrary.  Such incidents were recounted with pride.

This point is worth reiterating: At no point was a comment made that such deeds contravened the Sunnah.  Why not?  Because such deeds did NOT, in fact, contravene the Sunnah.  The “it was another time, in another place” rationalization doesn’t hold water, as our survey has shown such atrocities occurring across epochs and across geographies.

There is a clear pattern throughout Islamic history, throughout the Muslim world.  Tamerlane had done across the Eurasian Steppes during the Middle Ages what MoM had done in Arabia in the 7th century…and what Daesh would do in al-Sham at the onset of the 21st century.  He was one of many to pass the Salafi baton. And so it continued to pass.

The High Middle Ages:

In India, there was a thriving slave market during the Tughlaq dynasty (1320-1413) of the (Sunni) Delhi Sultanate–especially under sultans Ghiyas ud-Din, Muhammad, and Firuz. Who were enslaved? Non-Muslims. This was in keeping with the Koran (ref. 4:24-25/36, 16:71, 23:6, 24:31-33/58, 33:50-55, 70:30, etc.)

In 1360, during an incursion into the region, the Tughlaq sultan, Firuz destroyed much of the (Bengal) Jagganath Temple at Kataka in Orissa [“Odisha”]. As we have seen, this was part of a long tradition of destroying thousands of Hindu temples across India. Firuz–who enforced strict sharia–also led raids into Gujarat and the Sindh. This was done in the name of stifling infidel activity. In 1387, he put down a slave rebellion.

Back in the Middle East, the Levant ended up changing hands numerous times (prior to Ottoman rule). The (Ishma’ili / Shia) Fatimids controlled Jerusalem from c. 1000 until 1071, whereupon the (Turko-Persian Sunni) Seljuks overtook the city. In 1098, the Fatimids re-took the city. It was their subsequent expulsion–and slaughter–of Christians that triggered the Crusades the following year; and subsequently led to the establishment of the so-called (Frankish / Christian) “Kingdom of Jerusalem”…which would be intermittent and short-lived.

After seizing Jerusalem in 1187, the (Sunni) Ayyubid dynasty allowed fellow “People of the Book” (Jews; as well as Christians) to live as “dhimmis” in the region–per the Treaty of Ramla c. 1192. This was done under the Kurdish leader, Salah ad-Din (a.k.a. “Saladin”), who had defected from the (Zengid) Fatimids, the rulers of which were Oghuz Turks.

In 1244, Jerusalem was sacked by the (Sunni) Khwarezmian Tatars, who–once again–started purging the Levant of non-Muslims. These Tatars were soon driven out by the Ayyubids, who returned to power in 1247…yet were then ousted by the (Sunni) Mamluks in 1260. Some–though not all–Mamluk leaders also sought to drive out non-Muslims; and–as we’ve seen–had plenty of scriptural backing (as well as historical precedent) to rationalize their pogroms.

To summarize: Each successive Islamic regime continued (intermittently) purging the Levant of non-Muslims…even in the midst of the faltering (Christian) Kingdom of Jerusalem. Meanwhile, the Christians in the region were JUST AS MUCH religious fanatics; and–accordingly–sought to purge the region of infidels from their own point of view. The bigotry went in both directions; which, of course, does not justify it in EITHER direction. It might also be noted that the Frankish Crusaders were FAR MORE anti-Semitic than the Islamic leaders; and more aggressively persecuted / slaughtered Palestinian Jews. (During the Crusades, Jews often sought refuge with Levantine MUSLIMS.)

The Mamluks would remain in Jerusalem until they were driven out by the (Hanafi) Ottoman Turks in 1517. That pivotal shift occurred under the storied sultan, Selim. (The Mamluks had managed to persist even after Tamerlane’s hegemony in the late 14th century.) It was the next sultan, Suleyman “the Magnificent”, who endorsed a moderated version of pluralism. Consequently, he opted to accord unprecedented (though limited) rights to fellow “People of the Book” (i.e. Jews and Christians) under his reign. This was done via the new “Kanun‐i Osmani” legal order.

It was clear that such a novel policy (referred to specifically as “Kanun-i Raya”) was a departure from–not a continuation of–Islamic tradition. (For more on the history of political systems, see my essay: “The History of Legal Codes”.)

Be that as it may, Suleyman committed genocide against the Yazidis, as they were deemed to be something far worse than mere infidels; they were considered DELIBERATE “mu-kafir-un” [apostates]…an appraisal that put “takfiri” mania / hysteria into overdrive.

Suleyman would continue Ottoman hegemony into Persia, where he ousted the (Shia) Safavids–who were also deemed apostates, as they had recently converted the Persians to Imamiyyah (“Twelver” Shiism). {27}

It was during the Safavid era (beginning c. 1500) that the (Shia) “Akhbari” school was ascendent in Persia and Mesopotamia. The school’s hallmark feature was the adamant repudiation of “ijtihad” (independent thinking). Its governance was characterized by a disdain for anything not based on the Koran / Sunnah. Sadly, this set a precedent that would endure for the Safavid dynasty’s duration…in the form of Shia fundamentalism (a precursor to Khomeinism.) As we saw in the previous piece (part 1 of this essay), such pathological contempt for Reason was nothing new; and had been fortified across the region by the Salafi icon: Al-Ghazali. Even Shiites took their queue from him. This is a reminder that Sunni fundamentalism (i.e. Salafism) is not the only form of Islamic fundamentalism. Shiites are just as susceptible to religious pathology–though on their own terms.

Any prospects for a resurgence of an Islamic “Golden Age” in Persia were eliminated once a Messianic figure (known as “Ismail”) became Shah. A Shiite fanatic, Ismail anointed himself as the “Mahdi” (the last imam). (He even considered himself to be the reincarnation of Ali.) His regime inaugurated the clerical aristocracy now known as the Ulema–a cadre of self-proclaimed “experts” on all religious matters (which effectively meant: on ALL matters).

The Ayatollahs of Iran’s CURRENT Shia theocracy harken back to the Safavid heyday. Indeed, there was nothing “revolutionary” about the Islamic “Revolution” of 1979 (other than the political overthrow itself). The retrograde transition to Khomeinism simply re-instituted a regime that had been lost to secularity. (Ironically, today’s Ayatollahs fashion themselves as Usuli Shiites–thereby purporting to CHAMPION what they refer to as “ijtihad”…when, of course, they forbid anything that remotely resembles independent thought. Go figure.)

As we saw with the Safavids, the fanaticism was not always Sunni. Note the (Persian) Shiite fanatic, Hasan as-Sabbah of Rayy, who founded the infamous fedayeen group: the “Hashashiyan” [“hashish-eaters”; etymological basis for “assassin”] in the late 11th / early 12th century. Hasan as-Sabbah was a cultic figure affiliated with the “Nizari” sect of Isma’ili Shiism; and operated out of the “Alamut” [Eagle’s Nest] castle in the Alborz mountains of northern Persia. He identified with the Fatimids of Egypt rather than the Seljuk rulers of his own land; and “da’i” (alt. “dawa”; missionary work) defined his life.  His sect was characterized–above all else–by obsessive devotion.  So far as adherents were concerned, piety was the sine qua non of human life; and anyone who strayed from that was, well, assassinated.

In the Far East, it is worth noting the oft-celebrated sultan of Delhi, Sikandar of the (Pashtun) Lodi dynasty–who reigned in the late 15th / early 16th century. This self-proclaimed “ghazi” was renown for his rigid intolerance of other Faiths. Those who dared advocate for tolerance of Hinduism and Buddhism were prosecuted as heretics. His proto-fascistic regime was effectively a totalitarian Salafi theocracy–in the vein of, say, the Taliban in the Hindu Kush or the House of Saud in Arabia.

Alas, that wasn’t the end of Islamic theocracy in India. During the late 17th century, Mughal Emperor Abul Muzaffar Muhi ud-Din Muhammad (a.k.a. “Aurangzeb”; alt. “Alamgir”) ensured the Salafi tradition remained alive. Like Tamerlane, Aurangzeb was a Hanafi zealot. Alas, the notably-liberal Mughal crown-prince, Dara Shukoh never made it to the throne because he was assassinated by his younger, more pious brother. Aurangzeb promptly instituted “Fatawa-i Alamgiri” (a draconian version of sharia law named after himself) across the Sindh, Punjab, Baloch, India, Kashmir, and Bengal. This included a policy of “rajm” (stoning to death of transgressors), the enslavement of non-Muslims, and the routine beheading of apostates.

Predictably, Aurangzeb–as with all Salafi tyrants before him–destroyed countless Hindu / Buddhist temples–including the three most sacred:

• at Varanasi: Vish-vanath[a]
• at Mathura: Keshav[a] Dev[a]
• at Saurashtra in Gujarat / Sorath: Somnath

Aurangzeb erected giant mosques in their place. Eventually, there would also be rampant destruction of countless temples at Chittorgarh, Amer, Khandela, Jodhpur, Bijapur, Udaipur, etc. Such an enterprise was entirely theocratic in nature; not–as some apologists might now say–geo-political in nature. {18}

Aurangzeb became notorious for routinely executing subversives and heretics–including Hindus (notably: the Maratha ruler, Sambhaji), Sikhs (notably: Guru Tegh Bahadur), and Sufis (notably: Sarmad Kashani). He was determined to destroy the great Buddha statues at Bamiyan (constructed a generation before MoM was born)…yet lacked the technology to do so efficiently. So the project was deferred…until those of the same mind eventually got around to it.

Sure enough, three centuries later, the Taliban carried out this execrable task. (They also had the technology to capture the demolition on video, for the world to witness.)

Aurangzeb lives on in infamy, as his name is synonymous with religious intolerance, brutal oppression, and even (in spite of 2:256 and 109:6; both abrogated) coerced conversion. Needless to say, blasphemy laws in the Punjab are not a recent Pakistani invention. (The Salaf would have banned YouTube as well!)

When we look at the Hindu Kush today, we should bear in mind that the region has been subjected to a long history of brutal Islamic theocracy. {12}

The tyrants enumerated here were not anomalies. They were ALL doing what they did for the same reasons; and they all–taken together–constitute an undeniable trend. When we see their equivalents in the modern era (e.g. Zia ul-Haq in Pakistan or Mullah Mohammed Omar in Afghanistan), we should understand that this Salafi mindset is nothing new. The Haqqani network of madrasahs across Waziristan is precisely what MoM himself would have prescribed. {11}

During the Middle Ages, it was only within certain pockets that the impresarios of Islam exhibited prodigious tolerance–most notably in cosmopolitan centers like Cordoba, Toledo, and Granada in Andalusia (as well as in Damascus and Baghdad in the Middle East) during the so-called “Golden Age” of Islam. Note that during that epoch, Cordoba and Baghdad were the two largest cities in the world (between 1 and 2 million residents each); so it would have been strange had some sort of quasi-intellectual activity NOT occurred in these places. While there was intermittent “convivencia” (inter-cultural amicability) in Andalusia during this Islamic “Pyrite Age”, it is important not to confuse the (very notable) exceptions to the rule.

Invariably, there were lulls in the malignant illiberalism throughout Dar al-Islam; and–in some regions–there were periods of relative peace.  Even as geo-political exigencies varied, the core doctrine (the Sunnah) remained the same as it ever was (with minor adjustments at the fringes, as the religion ramified into different factions).  Such felicitous eventualities cannot be attributed to changes in the creed as originally conceived; they were due to changing circumstances “on the ground”.  (Note that the same can be said of the Roman Catholic Church when surveying the occurrence of atrocities in the Holy Roman Empire.  That some Jewish communities dwelled peaceably in the Rhineland during the Middle Ages does not mean that anti-Semitism was not hardwired into the Nicene creed.  The doctrinal machinery was always there; it just happened to lay dormant at different times and places.)

In the midst of sporadic cosmopolitan headway in the Muslim world, the fact remains: Once Muslims conquered Iberia (in the 8th century), they governed it in accordance with Islamic law. Blasphemy and apostasy were both capital offenses; and anyone found guilty of either was promptly executed. This was consistent throughout the reigns of the emirs of Cordoba: from Abd ar-Rahman I–through Hisham I and Al-Hakam I–to Abd ar-Rahman II and his son, Muhammad I (and then HIS son, Al-Mundhir).

Islamic Apologists rhapsodize about this reputed “heyday” of Islam. This “Golden Age” was–apologists like to aver–a resplendent epoch of ubiquitous amity and bounteous good will. Yet…while we can be certain that MoM would have enthusiastically applauded the razing of Jewish / Christian / Hindu / Buddhist temples, we cannot be so sure he would have so eagerly endorsed such bouts of cosmopolitanism–transient as they may have been. {11}

Barring isolated cases during this halcyon era (primarily in Baghdad, Mesopotamia, and in the urban centers of Andalusia), the Muslim world was anti-pluralistic much of the time…in keeping with MoM’s approach. Recall that MoM had proclaimed: “Let there not be two religions in Arabia.”

Fast-forward to the 16th century. In the Far East, the Mughal Empire under Akbar the Great was a notable divergence from the odious Mohammedan legacy. Akbar, it turns out, was a cosmopolitan who (mostly) eschewed the notion of “sharia” (law based explicitly on sacred doctrine) in favor of civil rights. Tellingly, his favorite wife was HINDU; and he bequeathed his throne to his HINDU son. To say that the Sahabah would not have approved of this is an understatement.

In the Mughal court, serious discourse was conducted in PERSIAN–that is: in the native language of most of the great thinkers of the “Golden Age”. As it turned out, “Akbar the Great” was “great” insofar as he DEPARTED FROM Mohammedan precedent. We can celebrate him because he WASN’T a Salafi. {20}

During the 16th and 17th centuries in India, the Qutb Shahi dynasty (especially the last: Abul Hasan, a.k.a. “Tana Shah”) was notably tolerant. The Qutb Shahis–who were Shiites–embraced non-Muslim equality; and so abolished the onerous “jizya” levied on non-Muslims (as a mafia-style “protection” tax). They embraced Hindu pedagogy, and even adopted Telugu as the court language. {21}

As for the Middle East, the region has never been so united as it was in the Ottoman Era. Yet it was during that era that the so-called “Golden Age” is Islam DETERIORATED. Al-Azhar University in Cairo (now Sunni Islam’s flagship institution, even though it was founded by Shiites) fell into intellectual destitution, reflecting the state of the rest of the Muslim world. To this day, the institution remains a breeding-ground for Salafist academics.

There were ephemeral bouts of intellectual activity after the “Golden Age”. Tellingly, it was in LIBERALIZED (read: secularized) realms that such glimmerings occurred. In all the times / places in which Muslims lived peaceably side-by-side with people of other Faiths, we mustn’t attribute it to doctrinal fidelity (lest we conflate “in spite of” with “because of”). There were over-riding geo-political reasons (at the macro level) and social reasons (at the local level) for why people of alternate Faiths–intermittently–opted to get along with each other. This was more-so than ever under the Ottoman Empire, where places like Damascus, Beirut, Smyrna, and Jerusalem were relatively pluralistic. As is often the case, humanity trumped piety in these salutary instances.

Such felicitous eventualities cannot be traced to strict adherence to the Sunnah. It was insofar as the Sunnah was DISREGARDED that such harmony was viable. In the event that Dar al-Islam and Dar al-Kufr lived side by side without conflict, we find that there was a kind of “holding pattern” in place. That is to say: A provisional domain of homeostasis (sometimes referred to as “Dar al-Ahd”) was maintained until such time that “harab” (waging war against non-Muslims) was deemed appropriate…at which time “Dar al-Ahd” was promptly rendered “Dar al-Harb” [domain of war]; and religious zealotry once again spurred antagonisms.

There are parallels to this outside of the Ummah. The same was the case with the instances of inter-Faith comity in Christendom (i.e. within the dominion of the Roman Catholic Church): sporadic and provisional. Torquemada was not an aberration within this context; his draconian program was EMBLEMATIC. During the (patently theocratic) “Holy Roman Empire”, tolerance and diplomacy was the exception to Vatican policy. The same is the case with the Judeo-fascist regime that presides over the modern-day nation-State of “Israel”: effectively a theocratic ethno-State with colonialist designs.

In the event that religionists wax cosmopolitan, stringent parochialism is no more to thank than strict vegetarianism is to thank when pescetarians opt to eat the meat of fish.

The verging-eradication of Zoroastrianism throughout Persia / Bactria attests to the fact that tolerance was not the default position for Islamic regimes over the centuries. In the Far East (in regions where Islamic dominion was established), Hinduism and Buddhism fared poorly for the same reason: Islamic hegemony. The consequences of such hegemony were dire EVERYWHERE. The tragic eventualities we’ve surveyed were not indicative of burgeoning altruism. Throughout the Middle Ages, cosmopolitanism within Dar al-Islam was a rather “hit and miss” affair. Any salubrious instances were enabled by a few extraordinary people.

Rights accorded to “dhimmis” were touch and go, to put it mildly. There was never a mandate for pluralism that emerged from within “sharia”; so when it DID occur, it was tentative…and only because someone with authority (e.g. Ottoman Sultan Suleyman; Mughal Emperor Akbar) took the initiative of his own accord–usually at the protestations of the ulema. Such desultory Progressivism can be attributed to the audacity of the occasional heterodox figurehead…who did not feel obliged to stringently hew to the Sunnah. {7}

Reviewing the above figures, a continuum is hard not to notice. Amidst all the historical developments in the Muslim world, a palpable Salafi strain persisted over the centuries. There was a baton that began with MoM, and continued to be passed from one generation to the next–with sporadic (fortuitous) interruptions. Salafism’s beginnings coincide with the earliest days of the Faith. To only pay attention to the intermittent bouts of harmony, then, is to gloss over MoM’s primary legacy.

And so now we see: The claim that Saudi-style “Wahhabism” or Taliban-style “Deobandism” or Daesh-style tyranny were the first occurrence of Islamic theocracy in the Muslim world betrays an egregious ignorance of the history of Islam…which, to reiterate, is not the same as “Islamic history”. Far from contortions of the original version of the creed, they were reiterations.