Nizam al-Mulk's and Aristotle's Yelp Reviews of Salah ad-Din
Salah ad-Din is known in the western world for his resistance against the Crusades of the Frankish empire, admired by medieval Christians for his upright and moral character in spite of the fact that he was not a Christian himself. In the Muslim world, however, he is not only an example of the ideal non-Christian, but an example of the ideal king. When Salah ad-Din’s kingship is compared point-by-point to Nizam al-Mulk’s The Book of Government or Rules for Kings, he lacks for nothing that is demanded from a great ruler, whether that be divine favor, piety, generosity, or availability to his people. However, while he also fulfills some standards set in the west — specifically, by the Secretum Secretorum attributed to Aristotle— he does not fulfill them all: in fact, according to the Secretum Secretorum, the traits that made Salah ad-Din a perfect king in the east are his downfall.
The first trait of an admirable king, at least according to the eastern dogma, is the possession of God’s favor. According to al-Mulk, kings are chosen by God: “God (be He exalted) chooses one member of the human race and [...] entrusts him with the interests of the world and the well-being of His servants” (9). Thus, Salah ad-Din is shown to have the blessing of God in The History of Saladin. When in the midst of a campaign he falls prey to a rash of boils all over his body, he says that “when [he] rides, the pain goes away, until [he] dismounts,” a phenomenon his biographer Ibn Shaddad says is “divine solicitude” (30). Further, Salah ad-Din is demonstrated to be extremely pious: “His creed was good and he was much mindful of God Almighty [...] he was extremely assiduous in the performance of prayer communally” (18). The accounts of his piety demonstrate the strength of his faith, and offer further proof that he is favored by God because of his devotion.
Salah ad-Din also fulfills the expectation that a ruler is fair to his subjects as fellow creatures under God. Al-Mulk presents the standard that the king must rule over a kingdom “which is blessed by its people” — in essence, the king must treat his subjects well, or answer to their poor treatment in the time of the resurrection (12-13). Salah ad-Din does so, arguably beyond the scope of what is required — even “in times of shortage he would be generous, just as he would in easy circumstances,” and always his gifts were “beyond what any petitioner hoped for,” as recorded by ibn Shaddad (25).
The final topic from al-Mulk that will be addressed here is the matter of the king’s availability to his subjects. According to the Book of Government, “it is absolutely necessary that on two days in the week the king should sit for the redress of wrongs [...] to give justice and to listen to the words of his subjects with his own ears, without any intermediary” (13). Salah ad-Din perfectly fulfills this exacting standard. According to ibn Shaddad, “each Monday and Thursday he used to sit to dispense justice in public session [...] the door would be open to litigants so that everyone, great and small, senile women and old men, might have access to him” (22-3). In this way, he makes himself directly available to his people, just as al-Mulk says he ought to.
The Secretum Secretorum was written not concerning Salah ad-Din, but Alexander the Great. It provides the point of view of a western philosopher, subject to Greek ideals. Still, Pseudo-Aristotle’s conditions set in his Secretum Secretorum agree with al-Mulk on some topics, and one of them is in keeping with the faith: “Only (by true faith) will he [the ruler] be pleasing to God, blessed be He, and make himself beloved of His servants” (120-1). Again, Salah ad-Din was extremely devout, routinely praying even in ill health: according to ibn Shaddad, “If he fell ill, he would summon the imam on his own and force himself to stand and pray in company” (18). Here, it is clear that Salah ad-Din even falls in line with a western standard, as the two kingly codes, so to speak, align in their messages.
However, while the author of the Secretum and al-Mulk agree in some ways, their opinions diverge more often than not. The Secretum author regards excess generosity as untenable and foolish: “He who gives should only give as much as is necessary [...] Whatever goes beyond this liberality [...] becomes wastefulness. Therefore anyone who gives more than is required is not praised” (117). Ibn Shaddad specifically mentions that Salah ad-Din always exceeded expectations when petitioned for gifts: “His gifts were beyond what any petitioner hope for [...] He would give and be generous beyond measure” (25-6). While this is taken as a virtue by his subjects, it is mentioned that “the officials of the Royal Chest used to hide a certain amount of money from him, as a precaution in case some crisis surprised them, because they knew that, if he learnt of it, he would spend it” (25).
Last, the Secretum author advises that it is “beseeming that [the king] should not show himself to [his subjects] but at a distance, and then in royal apparel, and in parade and military display, and on one of the great festival days, and only once a year” (121). This is markedly different from Salah ad-Din’s behavior. According to ibn Shaddad, he engaged with his people so closely that “his cushion was sometimes trodden on when people crowded in on him to present petitions” (34).
The western and eastern worlds view Salah ad-Din differently, whether as an ideal king or as merely the best that a non-Christian could be. While the criteria of a king do not directly relate to the latter, it is possible that these views are somewhat influenced by them: what is valued by al-Mulk may not be valued by Pseudo-Aristotle, and these two points of view can be used as substitutes for the west and east at large — so while Salah ad-Din’s generosity and humanity are boons in the east, they are his banes in the west.
The first trait of an admirable king, at least according to the eastern dogma, is the possession of God’s favor. According to al-Mulk, kings are chosen by God: “God (be He exalted) chooses one member of the human race and [...] entrusts him with the interests of the world and the well-being of His servants” (9). Thus, Salah ad-Din is shown to have the blessing of God in The History of Saladin. When in the midst of a campaign he falls prey to a rash of boils all over his body, he says that “when [he] rides, the pain goes away, until [he] dismounts,” a phenomenon his biographer Ibn Shaddad says is “divine solicitude” (30). Further, Salah ad-Din is demonstrated to be extremely pious: “His creed was good and he was much mindful of God Almighty [...] he was extremely assiduous in the performance of prayer communally” (18). The accounts of his piety demonstrate the strength of his faith, and offer further proof that he is favored by God because of his devotion.
Salah ad-Din also fulfills the expectation that a ruler is fair to his subjects as fellow creatures under God. Al-Mulk presents the standard that the king must rule over a kingdom “which is blessed by its people” — in essence, the king must treat his subjects well, or answer to their poor treatment in the time of the resurrection (12-13). Salah ad-Din does so, arguably beyond the scope of what is required — even “in times of shortage he would be generous, just as he would in easy circumstances,” and always his gifts were “beyond what any petitioner hoped for,” as recorded by ibn Shaddad (25).
The final topic from al-Mulk that will be addressed here is the matter of the king’s availability to his subjects. According to the Book of Government, “it is absolutely necessary that on two days in the week the king should sit for the redress of wrongs [...] to give justice and to listen to the words of his subjects with his own ears, without any intermediary” (13). Salah ad-Din perfectly fulfills this exacting standard. According to ibn Shaddad, “each Monday and Thursday he used to sit to dispense justice in public session [...] the door would be open to litigants so that everyone, great and small, senile women and old men, might have access to him” (22-3). In this way, he makes himself directly available to his people, just as al-Mulk says he ought to.
The Secretum Secretorum was written not concerning Salah ad-Din, but Alexander the Great. It provides the point of view of a western philosopher, subject to Greek ideals. Still, Pseudo-Aristotle’s conditions set in his Secretum Secretorum agree with al-Mulk on some topics, and one of them is in keeping with the faith: “Only (by true faith) will he [the ruler] be pleasing to God, blessed be He, and make himself beloved of His servants” (120-1). Again, Salah ad-Din was extremely devout, routinely praying even in ill health: according to ibn Shaddad, “If he fell ill, he would summon the imam on his own and force himself to stand and pray in company” (18). Here, it is clear that Salah ad-Din even falls in line with a western standard, as the two kingly codes, so to speak, align in their messages.
However, while the author of the Secretum and al-Mulk agree in some ways, their opinions diverge more often than not. The Secretum author regards excess generosity as untenable and foolish: “He who gives should only give as much as is necessary [...] Whatever goes beyond this liberality [...] becomes wastefulness. Therefore anyone who gives more than is required is not praised” (117). Ibn Shaddad specifically mentions that Salah ad-Din always exceeded expectations when petitioned for gifts: “His gifts were beyond what any petitioner hope for [...] He would give and be generous beyond measure” (25-6). While this is taken as a virtue by his subjects, it is mentioned that “the officials of the Royal Chest used to hide a certain amount of money from him, as a precaution in case some crisis surprised them, because they knew that, if he learnt of it, he would spend it” (25).
Last, the Secretum author advises that it is “beseeming that [the king] should not show himself to [his subjects] but at a distance, and then in royal apparel, and in parade and military display, and on one of the great festival days, and only once a year” (121). This is markedly different from Salah ad-Din’s behavior. According to ibn Shaddad, he engaged with his people so closely that “his cushion was sometimes trodden on when people crowded in on him to present petitions” (34).
The western and eastern worlds view Salah ad-Din differently, whether as an ideal king or as merely the best that a non-Christian could be. While the criteria of a king do not directly relate to the latter, it is possible that these views are somewhat influenced by them: what is valued by al-Mulk may not be valued by Pseudo-Aristotle, and these two points of view can be used as substitutes for the west and east at large — so while Salah ad-Din’s generosity and humanity are boons in the east, they are his banes in the west.
The observations here are well-taken. It's worth noting, however, that the "Secretum Secretorum" only purports to be by Aristotle; it was, in fact, written by an Arab or Persian author, and thus emerged from a milieu and ideological framework not so different from that occupied by Nizam al-Mulk or ibn Shaddad. How might this fact change your framing of the differences between the texts as a product of "East-West" tension or cultural disparity?
ReplyDelete