Philosophy and Government in Middle Eastern Political Thought: 757-1406 A.D.

Dissertation Abstract

Keywords: Medieval Middle Eastern Political Thought, History of Political Thought, Language and Politics.

Jennifer A. London

While scholars in the history of political thought have traced ideas from ancient Greece and Rome to contemporary democracies, there are parts of the globe that they have neglected. In the discipline of political science, there is but one systematic study of the history of Middle Eastern political thought. Many such studies do exist, however, in the field of Middle Eastern history. These systematic studies, however, suffer on two counts: They are unfamiliar to political theorists who would find interest in their contents; and the books selected for such studies may not represent the actual scope of what has constituted political theory in Middle Eastern contexts. The trouble is, for Middle Eastern historians and political theorists alike, how do we define political theory? Is it the study of a set of texts that elucidate an author’s views on political and ethical subjects (e.g., how to govern, how to treat citizens, etc.) explicitly? Or is it the study of what it means to use language to express one’s self politically in the first place (e.g., how to describe what authority, legitimacy and sovereignty are, and how and where scholars did so)? While political theorists debate these questions, they do not discuss the history of Middle Eastern political thought in general. Scholars of Middle Eastern history, on the contrary, discuss Middle Eastern history, but they take works of political theory to be the ones that address traditional themes in the history of political thought (e.g., authority, legitimacy and sovereignty) explicitly. In general, they do not consider works that do not describe political matters (e.g., poetry, literature etc.) to represent works of political theory. In my dissertation, I emphasize the need for a systematic study of the history of Middle Eastern thought that calls into question how people in theocracies expressed themselves politically, in order to encourage both historians and political theorists to assess critically the methodology by which we understand the history of Middle Eastern political thought. I focus on a common rhetorical practice that authors in different medieval Middle Eastern contexts used to engage in different types of political expression. In particular, this dissertation focuses on a single rhetorical practice that five different Middle Eastern scholars used, but I hope that this will be a first step toward broadening Western understanding of the history of political thought.

Medieval Middle Eastern scholars Ibn al-Muqaffa‘ (757/36), al-Fārābī (950/338), Kay Ka‘ūs (c.1086/479), NiÛam al-Mulk (1092/485), and Ibn Khaldūn (1406/808) had something in common. (For each person mentioned in this project, I write the year of their death in the western calendar followed by that year in the Islamic calendar.) Though their voices emerged from vastly different historical and geographical circumstances, they were all able to express their perspectives on political subjects (such as how rulers ought to think, act and organize society) by interpreting stories, philosophies and sayings from contexts that preceded their own. In certain instances, these authors spoke in their own narrative voices. However, in this project I focus on instances where these scholars presented the works of others. I do so, to interpret the sorts of political action that the presentation of ancient works made possible for these speakers. In this dissertation, the term “speaking through the voice of another” refers to the rhetorical technique of interpreting and re-articulating a story, philosophy or saying to effect political action. I suggest, however, that the particular kind of work (e.g., literary, philosophical, etc.) that each scholar used may have allowed him to achieve a particular type of political action. I therefore look at three different kinds of texts (fables [adab], philosophy [falsafa], and wisdom literature [Îikma]) to observe what forms of political action were enabled by their interpretation and redeployment.

First, I observe that Ibn al-Muqaffa‘ was able to articulate his genuine views on how princes ought to behave and order society through his translation of fables from middle Persian (Pahlavi) into Arabic. I suggest that these translations allowed Ibn al-Muqaffa‘ to speak frankly with elites at the ‘Abbasid court (750-1258/132-758) and to introduce Persian political ideals in his own environment. Second, I present al-Fārābī, who interpreted philosophical works of Plato and Aristotle from Greek into Arabic, rendering their contents suitable for an Islamic context. I focus on the final chapter of his work Views of the Inhabitants of the Perfect State (Mabādi’ ārā’ ahl al-madinīnat al-fāÃilah), in which al-Fārābī doesn’t invoke Plato and Aristotle explicitly, and yet he draws on their arguments to make an argument relevant to his contemporaries. Third, I address a single saying that Kay Ka‘ūs, NiÛam al-Mulk, and Ibn Khaldūn included in their works. This saying, known as “the circle of justice,” is attributed to the Greek philosopher Aristotle (322 BC) and to the ancient Persian king Ardashīr (241 CE). It is found in works of wisdom literature (or Êikma), collections of saying about politics and ethics from ancient Indian, Greek, Persian and Pre-Islamic contexts. I suggest that invoking this saying enabled these speakers to legitimize their political agendas, rendering them familiar and consistent with a timeless image of justice. I argue also that the recitation of this saying connects these speakers with important conversations on justice from earlier cultural traditions (e.g., ancient Greek and Persian) that are integral to our study of the history of medieval Middle Eastern political thought.

By focusing on these five authors, I not only recover chapters in the history of Middle Eastern political thought but also take the opportunity to address some core questions concerning the role of language in politics, namely: What sorts of political authority does the re-articulation of ancient works confer to contemporary authors? Why does the presentation of some types of works (e.g., fables) help mediate power dynamics between authors and readers in contemporary contexts, while the invocation of other kinds of works (e.g., certain sayings from wisdom literature) enhances the social gulf between community members? Is there a relationship between the type of speech an author introduces and how hierarchical or egalitarian his relation to his readers will become? How does the answer to the last question inform our understanding of the relation between an author’s use of language and his or her agency to construct a particular social ethos? Are the social dynamics between the respective authors and their listeners affected by the type of speech an author uses, or are such dynamics unchanged by an author’s translation? Such questions can help us get at the power of language as an instrument to construct or dissolve political communities. In this dissertation, I integrate two sets of concerns: how authors embrace new sorts of political action by interpreting and re-articulating particular kinds of texts; and how the reception of these texts represents a particular sort of political relationship between the translator, his reading public and the wider public he presents in his writing. To address both sets of these concerns, I discuss how the introduction of particular types of works engenders new political relations between discrete private individuals and public spheres.

In this dissertation, I focus on particular issues of language and politics to trace a new methodology for thinking about the history of Middle Eastern political thought. I hope that by focusing on rhetorical practices that distinct scholars used, I offer a new way of comparing scholars in different contexts, one that attends to commonalities that speakers share and the diverse forms of political action that arise from the use of common rhetorical practices.