Bensalem Himmich - The Polymath

Ibn al-Nu‘man realized that he would have to say something, particularly since the judges as a group were obviously on the point of elevating the level of blame and rebuke to yet higher levels.

“Calm down, I beg you, esteemed judges, please calm down! I am already aware of the facts you are telling me. There is nothing I can do about it. But as a way of calming your fears, I will go beyond my authority and tell you things you either don’t know or are ignoring. The kind of politics that follows the dictates of canon law and acts on its precedents only ever existed in the earliest days of Islam and in certain other brief periods. Secular politics, which is the most prevalent and forceful, is powered by the rites of conquest, control, and transferred interests. If you need the most complete treatment that sheds light on this subject, then ask your very own scholar, the historian Ibn Khaldun, about it. Now, in order to convey to you the import of my statement about the current situation, let me say — God support you all — that during the Great Khan Timur’s campaigns, he has only ever operated on the basis of the conduct of great conquerors from the past. He will therefore give safe-conduct documents and sign agreements when temporary necessity requires that he do so; he will annul all such agreements and treaties whenever his own interests and those of his army so demand. If it is your view that, regarding what has happened in Damascus, the restraining factor of religion finds itself in a sorry state of decline, then it needs to be said that the reason for such a situation is that the logic of conquest and power has so determined. Such logic, gentlemen, requires that you be both aware of its existence and understand its import. You can then deal with politics as they actually are and not as they should be. You need to examine the subject not according to some idealized version that may exist inside your minds and dreams, but rather by reference to the nature of civilized society and the material elements in everything. Isn’t that the case, Ibn Khaldun?”

‘Abd al-Rahman felt extremely awkward, standing there between this very astute translator and his colleague judges. However, faced with such a difficult situation, he quickly decided to take the latter’s side.

“Ibn al-Nu‘man,” he said, “the depiction of what is reprehensible is not in and of itself reprehensible. Talk about the nature of secular politics does not necessarily imply that as a consequence one should advocate them. Within the context of what you have termed ‘the logic of conquest and power,’ weakness in the restraining factor of religious devotion cannot serve as a pretext in any argument against such restraint. The blame rather attaches to the politicians of the country concerned and to people who allow themselves to succumb to ephemeral worldly desire and pleasures. But, for heaven’s sake, let’s stop indulging in the kind of discussion that in no way matches the gravity of the current situation and the outrages that people are suffering. Instead, why don’t you talk to us about something we all consider outrageous and incomprehensible? If the Great Khan has achieved the conquest of Damascus, as he has done previously with other Syrian cities, then what possible logical reason can there be for breaking the agreement he reached? And how can anyone justify the outrages being committed against unarmed Muslims?”

Ibn al-Nu‘man hesitated for a moment, then rubbed his neck. “If I am to respond to your comments, great scholar,” he said, “it implies that this meeting of ours must remain absolutely confidential. Failing that, we’ll all be dead. That’s my absolute condition, gentlemen, if am to suggest to you that the kinds of things you and I are witnessing are just a part of the evil deeds perpetrated by Timur. As far as this khan-conqueror is concerned, actions such as those you are now witnessing have to be evaluated according to their utility with two purpose in mind. The first is that there’s a secret pact between Timur and his colossal army, one that binds soldiers to him by ties of loyalty and victory in battle. In exchange he gives them a completely free hand when it comes to the money and property of conquered peoples. The second is that the khan never embarks on campaigns simply by fighting battles but by using rumors and tricks as well — especially by spreading terrifying stories. Timur’s earthquakes and outrages have but one goal, to weaken enemies before he ever engages with them. Believe me, in the case of Damascus — with the exception of its citadel — he has ordered his soldiers to show restraint in their assaults on civilians.”

The Hanbali judge, Shams al-Din, stood up. “Ibn al-Nu‘man.” he said, “everything you’ve just said is contrary to both canon law and logic. In any case, you can inform the Great Khan that we intend to curse him in mosques and homes and entrust his fate to God the One, the Powerful.”

“My dear Judge,” Ibn al-Nu‘man replied, “such are your threats that I pity you and fear for your life and that of your colleagues. I certainly have no intention of translating it for the Great Khan. Fear God for your own sakes and show some forbearance.”

The judges left the office and palace as quickly as possible. ‘Abd al-Rahman stayed behind, anxious for some information about his friend, Burhan al-Din ibn Muflih.

“Your colleague Ibn Muflih’s words really annoyed Timur,” Ibn al-Nu‘man replied. “He defied his troops and then refused to pay the full amount of tax. The khan ordered him kept in preventive detention in a safe place. But have no fear. He’s in no danger as long as I’m with him. Now do you understand why I agreed with Shah Malik’s opinion about not letting the judges have an audience with Timur?”

‘Abd al-Rahman now headed for the Umawi mosque to see for himself exactly what had been destroyed. Inside people were putting out the last of the fires and removing the piles of ashes and refuse from the damaged cloisters and arcades. They all looked stunned, and their constant movement did nothing to hide their feelings. Once in a while one of them would ask out loud, “How can anyone who sets God’s own houses on fire face his God?”

The historian sat down for a moment to contemplate the idea of Timur on the Day of Judgment. He envisaged him stating that he had not deliberately set fire to the Umawi mosque. It was just that the people who started the fire had no idea where it would end. ‘Abd al-Rahman stood in a corner of the great mosque where strands of smoke were still drifting from time to time and prayed for a long time. He then returned to his house.

How to escape Timur’s clutches? The question kept preying on ‘Abd al-Rahman’s mind; a tricky theoretical issue, since experience had long since taught him that only an absolute miracle could liberate anyone who becomes part of Timur’s coterie. It was a habit of the khan to take scholars and trained professionals with him on his campaigns so he could use them in his favorite cities. He would also bring religious scholars along to enliven his councils and soirees with their learned discussion and banter. For his part, ‘Abd al-Rahman, who had only joined Sultan Faraj’s trip to Damascus with some reluctance, was now of an age when he no longer looked forward to the excitement of long journeys, even if it involved a journey all the way to Samarqand amid enormous pomp and respect. His exclusive and only desire was to return to Cairo so he could spend time with his family, friends, and books. But how could he express such a desire to Timur and get him to appreciate how strong his feelings really were?

He realized that a direct approach would not work; indeed it might well work to the disadvantage of both his own person and his goal. The only hope lay in a more indirect approach and some type of circumlocution, using all the devices of figurative language, simile, and allusion. Combined with all the necessary linguistic safeguards and rhetorical flourishes such methods might achieve the desired effect.