The Long History Of Legal Codes

What was going on elsewhere in the world at the time?  Let’s survey the Middle Ages and see how things progressed in the ensuing centuries.

By 742, a 35-volume Chinese political treatise was written by Liu Zhi (son of the renown Chinese historian, Liu Zhi-ji): the “Zheng-dian”.  Pursuant to garnering further acumen in municipal affairs, this corpus would be updated by Du You–eventually yielding the 200-volume “Tong-dian” later in the 8th century.

Meanwhile, in the Byzantine Empire, the (Macedonian) “Basilika” [Royal Laws] were enacted in Constantinople c. 892.  These updated and revised the Justinian Code, and even served as the precursor to the “Hexa-Biblos” of modern (democratic) Greece.

Let’s see what was transpiring within Dar al-Islam during the Middle Ages.  As it turns out, it was during this period that the largest regime of slave-trade ever to exist emerged: that of the Barbary pirates across the Mediterranean Sea.  Both European “white” people (mostly Andalusians) and African “black” people (Maghrebi Jews and Berbers, as well as sub-Saharans) were enslaved on a massive scale, the likes of which the world had never seen before; and has not seen since.  Muslim slave-traders even sold slaves as far away as China, where there was a booming market for dark-skinned East Africans. {21}

The industry of chattel slavery in Dar al-Islam persisted century after century after century, largely under the aegis of the Ottoman Empire.  This makes sense, as piracy had a legacy dating back to Mohammed himself.  The practice of seizing booty by raiding peaceful caravans / communities even had a name: “ghazw”.  Consequently, such pillaging was sacralized (that is: perceived as a holy deed).  Looting (“anfal”) was a sacred duty–something to be done as a rite of passage; and in the service of god.  It comes as no surprise, then, that the title of the Koran’s eight Surah is “Al-Anfal” (the booty seized during pillaging campaigns).  The persistent institutionalization of slavery within Dar al-Islam cannot be attributed to the fact that Muslim rulers were not reading their Korans closely enough.

The systematic use of slaves in the Muslim world was only briefly interrupted in the late 9th century, pursuant to the “Zanj” (a pejorative term for African blacks) rebellion, waged against the Abbasid rulers.  During this massive slave uprising (which started in 869), between .5 and 2.5 million people were killed–mostly plantation slaves.  After almost fifteen years of fighting, the rebellion was finally quashed.  Long after that temporary setback, the lucrative Barbary slave trade resumed, and continued to thrive.

And so it went: Piracy proceeded apace in Dar al-Islam–replete with relentless pillaging campaigns.  Indeed, the so-called “razzia” raids were modeled on the aforementioned Mohammedan precedent of “ghazw”.  Recall that in the Koran, slaves [“abd”] are referred to as “ma malakat aymanukum” [that which your right hand possesses].  People–especially women–were considered one of the primary spoils of war (read: property).

In point of contrast: During the 8th and 9th centuries, even as they practiced slavery, the Vikings were notably progressive when it came to women’s rights.  Women could own / inherit property; and could even operate their own businesses.  Moreover, women were esteemed every bit as much as men on the battlefield–as attested by the renown of the shield-maidens.  (For more on female military icons, see part two of my series on The History Of Female Empowerment.)

In the Muslim world, there were a few marginal developments in the realm of political theory. {12}  The first occurred in the 10th century, when Al-Farabi composed “Fusul al-Madani” [Aphorisms of the Statesman].  Then, in the 11th century, Seljuk vizier, Abu Ali Hasan ibn Ali of Tus (a.k.a. “Nizam al-Mulk”) composed the “Siyaset-nameh” [Book of Governance], which was–in essence–advice for rulers (which primarily made use of a selection of historical precedents).  Both of these were effectively guidebooks for wielding power (along the lines of Machiavelli’s “The Prince”)–hardly milestones in the evolution of systems of government. {13}

Meanwhile, in Andalusia c. 1066, a Muslim mob stormed the royal palace in Granada and crucified the vizier because he was Jewish.  They then proceeded to massacre most of the city’s Jewish population.  This was religious persecution centuries before the Catholic Church’s Inquisition.

And what of the non-Muslim world at this time?  Moveable type was invented in China in the 1040’s, which opened up a whole new realm of possibilities when it came to the dissemination of information.  The most notable political development was the “Russkaya Pravda”, which was established in Kieven Rus c. 1017 at the behest of prince Yaroslav of Novgorod (a.k.a. “Yaroslav the Wise”).  That was just prior to his promotion to Grand Prince of the Kievan Rus.  The aim was to outline what counted for Truth / Justice, especially as it concerned property rights.  Unfortunately, the legal charter did a poor job effecting socio-economic equality.  Happily, an emendation (known as the “Sudebnik”) was made in 1497…which took some measures to eliminate feudalism.

That brings us to the Renaissance.

As already mentioned, the Venetian Republic broke new ground during the Late Middle Ages.  In the 1170’s, the Ducal Council and the Quarantia were formed.  And in 1229, the Consiglio (of the Pregadi) was established.  The legislative machinery consisted of:

• An executive cabinet of ministers: the Collegio
• A body that checked the power of the “doge”: the Signoria
• A senate in charge of writing / passing legislation: the Pregadi
• A large body of ombudsman: the Maggior Consiglio
• A demos, involving a democratic process in which all citizens partook: the Arengo

In 1180, Poland established a “sejm” [parliament] in Lodz.

Starting c. 1200, Genghis Khan founded the greatest Empire the world had ever seen; whereupon he established the “Yehe Zasag” [alt. “Yassa”] code of laws.  Per the Yassa, religious freedom was normalized, torture was abolished, and slavery was forbidden.  Thus the selling and trading of women was outlawed; while women’s rights were championed.  Women managed estates and even governed municipalities for many years at a time; especially while their husbands were serving in the military.

In addition, the Mongols eliminated feudalism, replacing it with a socio-political system based on individual merit.  Economically, they eschewed highly-concentrated wealth in favor of distributed wealth.  They also enacted tax-exemption for all doctors and teachers.  Indeed, Genghis Khan saw medicine and education as public goods.  (He even created the first international postal system.)  The Mongols were against aristocracy AND against poverty.  In other words, they championed socio-economic justice.  And at a time when most rulers considered themselves above the law, Genghis insisted laws should hold the khan as accountable as the most lowly shepherd.  For we were all fellow humans under the Eternal Blue Sky (“Tengri”). 

Serfdom was not the only socio-economic injustice that was eradicated.  Other than dismantling feudalism, the Mongol regime also dismantled nepotism (that is: the old arrangements whereby serfs were beholden to a privileged aristocracy, in a caste system determined by birthright).  Due to the policy of religious freedom throughout the Mongol Empire, all religious institutions were tax exempt (in addition to educational institutions and medical facilities). {14}

And so it went that the Mongols established the first cosmopolitan empire.  Their term for comrade was “nokar”, which transcended ethnic affiliation.  (I explore their political system at length in my essay: “The Universality Of Morality”.)  The Mongols made pluralism normal.  Indeed, they inaugurated the largest program of cultural transference in history, embracing all religions and cultures they encountered.  (In fact, the only thing that made them imperialistic was their rapacious territorial hegemony–replete with demands that conquered peoples pledge loyalty to the new leader.)  The Mongols–far more civilized than Europeans at the time–ushered in an unprecedented rise in trans-continental communication, trade, and cultural exchange.

In 1215, the Magna Carta inaugurated near-universal enfranchisement in England–thereby laying the juridical groundwork for modern democracy.  Most notably, it established the jurisprudential tenet of due process (“habeas corpus”)…echoing the precedent established by the Roman “Law of the Twelve Tables” almost nineteen centuries earlier.

The world’s first parliament–in the modern sense–was elected fifty years later (in 1265).  It is worth noting, though, that the Icelandic “Gragas” (Grey Goose Laws) established a commonwealth c. 1254, whereby the aforementioned “t[h]ing” was revived.

Constitutional republicanism (government-by-consensus) also emerged in Poland during the 13th century.  Throughout the 14th and 15th centuries, the “veche” [assembly predicated on popular representation] became the primary way to govern municipalities throughout Slavic lands–especially in Poland and Russia.

In 1324, Marsilius of Padua would be the first Christian to buck precedent, and call for–if not the separation of church and state–the subordination of the church to a secular State (which should, in turn, be held accountable to the People).

In 1486, Giovanni Pico of Mirandola composed “De Hominis Dignitate” [On the Dignity of Man], a clarion call for independent thinking that would later be echoed by Francis Bacon, David Hume, and Immanuel Kant during the Enlightenment.  Also in the 15th century, Matteo di Marco Palmieri of Florence composed “Della Vita Civile” [On Civic Life], an adjuration for humanism as a matter of public policy.

To suppose the insights proffered by the fabled Mohammedan document in 7th-century Medina were somehow superior to these humanist works is to indulge in a flight of fancy.

In 1493, Poland established one of the earliest modern legislative bodies to represent a commonwealth: the “Sejm”.  This practice spread throughout the Slavic lands during the High Renaissance.  The aforementioned “Sudebnik” was a system of Russian laws instituted by Grand Prince, Ivan III Vasilyevich of Moscow (a.k.a. “Ivan the Great”) in 1497.  That legal code was later updated by tsar Ivan IV in 1550, whereupon it eliminated many of the socio-economic privileges that had theretofore been accorded to the aristocracy.  The new charter also afforded the general populace the right to participate in the election of representatives in municipal (local) government.  It even gave peasants a means of emancipating themselves from their feudal lords.  Meanwhile, the opprobrious practice of enslavement known as “kholop” was drastically mitigated.

In the early 16th century, Spanish thinker, Francisco de Vitoria of Burgos pioneered “just war theory” and spearheaded the idea of international law [“ius inter-gentes”].  He promoted the inherent human dignity of all people (esp. indigenous populations of colonized countries); and he posited what he dubbed “ius gentium” [the rights of peoples].  In 1528, his “De Potestate Civili” broke new ground in DOMESTIC civil law–known as “ius intra-gentes”.  The Jesuit scholar, Francisco Suarez of Granada made further headway.  (As with Francisco de Vitoria, he was affiliated with the University at Salamanca.)

In 1581, the Dutch Declaration Of Independence [“Plakkaat van Verlatinghe”] created a new Republic.  The main grievance was a foreign king violating the natural rights of his subjects.  The declaration demanded sovereignty based on the will of the polis.  It do so by highlighting the importance of liberty; and–in doing so–made the case for a Netherlandish self-government.  (All this should sound familiar.)

Meanwhile, the Dutch humanist, Desiderius Erasmus of Rotterdam outlined the responsibility of a ruler to the People, and provided commentary on public affairs that promoted the commonweal.  He was cautiously critical of the Catholic Church, and encouraged the study of thinkers from Classical Antiquity.  By the end of the 16th century, English thinker, Hugo Grotius had further adumbrated a vision for human rights.

And what of the policy of helping the poor (one of the few redeeming features of the Sunnah)?  On this front, ground was broken in England.  In 1597, the “Act For The Relief Of The Poor” provided the first comprehensive State-run system for poor relief since Ashoka the Great almost nineteen centuries earlier.  This soon led to the (Elizabethan) “Poor Law” of 1601, which would endure for 233 years.  (That law is not to be confused with its successor, the “Poor Laws” of 1834, which were exploitative and counter-productive.)  One can be quite certain that this salubrious development did not occur because Queen Elizabeth had read 2:215, 17:26, 76:8, and 90:16 in the Koran (the verses enjoining one to help the needy).  Alas, the institution of alms houses–common across Europe–was rarely found in the Muslim world.

Felicitously, that estimable public program would be enhanced by Thomas Gilbert’s “Relief of the Poor” Act of 1782…which brings us to the significant progress made during the Enlightenment.