September 10, First Sawyer Seminar: Ahmed El Shamsy, “Orthodoxy and Deviance in Premodern Muslim Societies”

Here are my relatively disorganized notes from Professor El Shamsy’s talk, which was intended to compliment, not overlap, his article that we read, “The social construction of orthodoxy”:

-how did Muslims reconcile and sustain heterodox and mutually irreconcilably (and contradictory) systems both within Islam and between Muslims and non-Muslims?

-inherently paradoxical: fusing the universalist truth claims of Islam with multiculturalism

-on practical level, the premodern Islamic state is ‘compartmentalized’ system

-“Constitution of Medina”: post-622; first document attempting to reconcile multiculturalism; stress on mutual solidarity (between Medinese Jews and new Muslim community); could have formed precedent but didn’t, as the system broke down

-Abu Bakr- told fighters to spare non Muslim peoples; said “let them bring tribute”

-poll tax (jizya) was cornerstone of relations between Muslims rulers and non-Muslim ruled

-freedom for communal self rule = the main characteristic of Muslim rule

-extended to Zoroastrians and Hindus (not just dhimmi)

-Arab conquerors = ethnically homogeneous; result of Umar”s order for garrison towns

-second phase, post 750: introspection, the “phase of optimism”

-optimism that all questions/disputes could be settled

-but in 9th/10th centuries, multiplication of problems because of no central authority weakened this sense of optimism

-third phase: “phase of maturity”- pragmatic acceptance of difference

-many cities had representatives of all four schools (Shafi’i, Hanbali, Zahiri, and Jariri) of jurisprudence, thus 4 different legal systems

-heterodox thinkers sought refuge in schools, took cover behind their school

-Sufism = another category with accepted realm of belief and practice

-Why did extreme multiculturalism characterize Islam?

-very diverse area: crossroads of Asia, Europe, Africa

-1890s, Heinrich von Treitschke: “enslavement” was driving force behind multiculturalism; Ottomans willing to let minorities control own affairs because they were infidels

-men are equal due to shared rationality

-but in phase of maturity this universalist approach was abandoned, but replaced now with relativism but divine revelation

-unnatural does not equal impermissable

-Why demise?

-adoption of nation-state model

-based on vision of nation as single organism with common law for all; precludes notion of compartmentalized communities within Muslim state

Discussion:

-von Treitschke: Ottoman Empire was “accumulation of national fragments welded together by force”

-“universalization of ethical expectations”

-before nation-state system, these expectations were different by sect, class, etc.

-parallel sides of life that are radically different

-universalism =/= uniformity

-multiculturalism is not dead in nation-states, but there is single core of ideals which didn’t exist in Islamic premodern societies

-issue of space and sovereignty in premodern vs modern (ie nation-state)

-orthodoxy is claim, not objective fact