Illustration by Abro

After the integration of Persian culture into Muslim society, the Abbasid Revolution brought to light the difference in the concept of a historical or a religious past. When the capital was shifted from Damascus to the newly built Baghdad in 762AD, it distanced the caliphate from the land of Arabia and brought it closer to Persia.

The Persian bureaucrats who contributed to the success of the Abbasid rule transformed the caliphs on the model of the Sassanid emperors. They introduced Persian ceremonies and festivals such as Nauroze (the spring festival), and Mehar Jan (the autumn festival), which were celebrated with fervour and gaiety. The Abbasid caliphs became influenced by the Persian past and their link with Islamic tradition weakened. Instead of adopting the simple traditions of the ‘Rightly Guided’ Caliphs (Khulafa-i-Rashideen), they emulated the grandeur and glory of the Persian rulers. The ulema were employed as state servants who fulfilled royal commands and wishes through their interpretation of religious teachings. In this way the caliphs became absolute rulers.

This model continued with successive ruling dynasties such as the Buwahids, the Ziyarid, the Tahirits, the Safarids, the Samanids, the Ghaznavids and the Seljuks. They revived ancient Persian traditions that the people of Central Asia were accustomed to so that the glorious past could be reconstructed.

Books such as Qabusnama by Keikavus (ca.1050-1087), Siyasatnama by Nizamul Mulk Tusi (d. 1092) and Nasihatul Maluk by Ghazali (d.1111) emerged as a new genre of literature known as “Mirrors for Princes”. These books provided instances and stories from Persian literature based on political ideas that gave guidance and advice to the rulers for the welfare of their subjects.

History shows that empires flourish and people prosper when religion plays zero role in statecraft

In India, the Sultans of Delhi emulated the traditions of their predecessors. Balban (r.1266-1287) traced his lineage to the legendary Persian king Afrasiab. They did not implement the Sharia or the Islamic legal system, but formulated their own rules and regulations to administer state affairs. Once Allaudin Khilji (r. 1296-1316) inquired from Qazi Mughis whether it was lawful to spend from the state treasury (Bait-ul-Mal) for his personal needs. The Qazi’s response was that according to the Islamic law it was illegal to do so. Since the reply did not suit the Khilji’s agenda, he decided to call the Qazi an illiterate person who knew nothing about the Sharia.

In his book Fatawa-i-Jahandari, Ziauddin Barani (1285-1357) justified the rulers building palaces, maintaining a luxurious lifestyle and the splendour of their court on the basis that rules and regulations for government and the Sharia were two different entities and that religion and politics should remain separate from each other. Therefore, throughout the Sultanate period (1206-1526), the rulers controlled the ulema and avoided the implementation of the Sharia. They adopted the policies according to the needs of the time and never tried to convert people by force or persuasion.

When the Mughals conquered and began to rule India, instead of linking themselves to the defeated Persian rulers, they preferred to trace their ancestry to Genghis Khan, the Mongol leader because they felt a pride and glory in being associated with Genghis Khan after the Mongol invasion of Central Asia and Iran. Eventually, matrimonial alliances followed between the Taimurid family and the dynasty of Genghis Khan.

The Mughals did not take legal guidance from the Islamic past but invoked the Tora-i-Chingizi or the de facto laws of the Mongol leader from time to time according to their needs. They did not patronise missionary groups aiming to convert people to Islam. On the other hand, according to Harbans Mukhia, author of Mughals of India, Jahangir (d.1605-1627) forbade any conversion unless sanctioned by the ruler.

For the Abbasids or the rulers of Central Asia and India, the Islamic past held no charm and fascination. The Persian past, on the other hand, enhanced the status of the rulers and their splendid courts by the practice of Persian rituals and ceremonies. Similarly, they paid lip service to Islamic teachings and never fully implemented the Sharia. They constituted their own rules and regulations to deal with the administration and did not adopt the policy of religious extremism and persecution of their non-Muslim subjects. This could only be done by keeping religion and politics separate and by not permitting the ulema to exercise power and interfere in the affairs of the state.

It was a kind of secularism observed by the Muslim rulers for their subjects including those who belonged to different religions and sects. As a result, peace and religious harmony continued in the society and was disturbed only occasionally when a ruler deviated from it, almost inevitably creating disorder and anarchy. It is evident from history that as long as the state remains aloof from religion, it plays an impartial role in society.

Published in Dawn, Sunday Magazine, May 17th, 2015

On a mobile phone? Get the Dawn Mobile App: Apple Store | Google Play