The Seljuk Turks

They represent the new Islamic power replacing the Ghaznawids in Khurasan and the Islamic east and supplying Islam with new blood that helped in its steadfastness and victory and spread to the Byzantine lands. Prior to their arrival the Abbasid Caliphate was unable to safeguard its borders because of its conflict with the Fatimid caliphate in Cairo. The Byzantine state took this opportunity to attack the Islamic borders adjacent to it and to penetrate northern Syria and Al Jazira. Fortunately, the new Turkish power came in time to rescue the Abbasid Caliphate from imminent collapse when in 463 A.H. (1071 A.D.). Sultan Alp Arslan, leader of the Seljuk armies, scored a decisive victory over the Byzantine emperor Romanos Diogenes and took him a prisoner in the battle of Manzikert on the upper Euphrates, to the north of Lake Van near Armenia. It is reported that Tughrel, the Sultan of the Seljuks, wrote to the Abbasid Caliph Al Ka'em Bi Amri-Allah expressing his allegiance and re-affirming his wish to raise the banner of Islam and to exalt the word of Allah by spreading Islam westward.

The Abbasid Caliph endorsed him in 432 A.H./1040 A.D. as a Sultan on the Seljuks, thus giving the young Seljuk state legitimacy and evoked its religious zeal in fighting the Byzantines and restoring the lands they had previously occupied in Armenia and Anatolia. This battle gave the Seljuks a great reputation as defenders of Islam and proselytizes. As a result, the Seljuks spread Islam in Asia Minor. Alp Arslan sent his cousin Suleiman Qatalmesh to Anatolia and settled his men there, thus establishing the state of the Seljuks of Rum. Since then, Islam spread in Asia Minor which is known to now as the Islamic Anatolian lands.

The Seljuks also introduced some Persian and Turkish customs brought from the east that were unknown to the Umayyids, Abbasids and Fatimids. For instance, they used the "Galish" the horse tail (banner) as a banner in front of the army. Later on the Galish was used to mean the army vanguard.

Another example is carrying the Ghashiya of the Sultan on public occasions as an emblem of the Sultanate. The Ghashiya was a leather saddle with gold embroidery to be carried in the presence of the Sultan. This custom was introduced into Egypt and Syria by Saladin and his successors and remained in later times as a symbol of loyalty to the Sultan.

The Seljuks also introduced the religious schooling system to motivate Muslims for holy war or Jihad and to counter sectarianism. An example was the Nizamiya school founded by the Seljuk minister Nizam-al Mulks in Baghdad. Nur-al-Din Zangi in Syria and Saladin in Egypt followed suit. However, it is to be noticed that religious schools also existed in Alexandria late in the Fatimid rule prior to Saladin. The first school of this kind was called " Al Hafizia" founded by Radwan Ibn Al -Walkhshi, Minister for the Caliph Al -Hafiz the Fatimid (533 A.H.). Abu Al - Taher Ibn 'Awf of the Maliki was selected as the teacher for this school. His tutor was Ibi Bakr al- Tartoushi who wrote: "Seraj al-Muluk" and "Al -Hawadith Wal Bed'a".

Ten years later in 544 A.H. Al Adel Ali Ibn Al -Sellar, a minister for the Fatimid Caliph Al Zafer, built another religious school in Alexandria and selected Abu Al - Tahir Ahmad Al -Salafi, author of "Travel Dictionary M'ujam Al-Safar", of the Shafi'i as teacher. It is safe to say that the Ayyubids were behind the building of schools in Egypt and Syria imitating the Seljuk policy.

The Seljuks followed the tradition of their ancestors the Samanids by increasing the number of Turkish mamluks, providing them at an early age with military and Islamic education, for employment later on in the army and in the administration. This system was explained by the Seljuk minister Nizam al-Mulk Al - Tusi in his book "Siyassa Namah" to guide Seljuk rulers. Thus, the Seljuk state was marked by military organisation. Most of its territories in Persia, and Syria were divided into military estates ruled by mamluks in return for their military services during war. The high ranking mamluks were called "Atabegs" deriving from 'father' and 'prince' and were originally guardians or tutors of the Seljuk princes. Later on the title was an honorary one granted to senior officers to mean, army commander or sultan's deputy.

The Atabegs were appointed originally as educators to the minor children of the Seljuks, and were given estates in return for their services; they quickly gained power and influence through these estates. One of the most famous Atabegs early in the 6th Hijra century (12th century A.D.) was Amir Imad al-Din Zangi, founder of Mosul and Aleppo Atabegs, son of Qassim al-Oawla Ak Sungur, who started his life as a mamluk for Sultan Malikshah Al -Seljuki. Through Zangi and his son Nur al-Din Mahmud emerged leaders like Najm al-Din Ayyub and his son Saladin who was influenced by the Seljuk systems and who introduced them to Egypt and Syria. Such systems remained during the Ayyubids and during the Turkish Mamluks where this Islamic educational military system crystallized, enabling it to check the Mongol invasion in the east and to expel the crusaders from Egypt and Syria in the west. Al Qalqashandi gives an account in his book: Subh El A 'asha (vol. 4, p.6) saying:

"The Mamluk Sultanate in Egypt worked hard to use the best of the preceding state, and refined it to become better organized than other states, giving its king pride over all others".

Truth and Narrative: The Untimely Thoughts of 'Ayn al-Qudat
al-Hamadhdni
By HAMID DABASHI. Richmond: Curzon. 1999. Pp. xxi, 671. Price HB
£65.00. 0-70071-002-7.
On the night of 6-7 Jumada II 525/5-6 May 1131, Abu al-Ma'ali 'Abd
Allah ibn Muhammad al-MiyanajI al-HamadhanT, known as 'Ayn al-Qudat,
was seized, tortured, and put to death. His contemporary 'Imad al-Dln
al-Isbahan! numbered him among the victims of the vizier Abu al-Qasim
DargazTnl; Sufi hagiography has made him a martyr in the style of Hallaj.
Both political and religious factors contributed to his untimely and tragic
death at the age of 33; but the circumstances surrounding his death remain
obscure, and this book does little to clarify them. The author's style is so
repetitive, jargon-ridden and argumentative as to be virtually unreadable;
and the publishers have evidently seen fit to employ neither copy-editors nor
proof-readers who might have weeded out the repetitions, inconsistencies,
mistakes in grammar and usage, and misprints which mar every page.
I cannot deal here with Dabashi's treatment of 'Ayn al-Qudat's 'narratives',
except to question whether any of his writings can truly be called that.
The approach, as a whole, is highly subjective. Tellingly, what drew the
author to 'Ayn al-Qudat was his repeated use of 'first personal pronouns';
his 'almost arrogant, decidedly self-confident voice ... which is so rare, so
extraordinary in "Persian" and "Islamic" intellectual history', made Dabashi
'suspicious of all such categorical imperatives as "Persian" or "Islamic" ' (586).
Such suspicions are not ungrounded; but it is not true that 'after nearly two
Downloaded from http://jis.oxfordjournals.org at Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia on April 21, 2010
BOOK REVIEWS 373
hundred years of recorded "Islamic Studies", not a single alternative
approach has even been noted or suggested to the dominant positivist
discourse of Orientalism' (39). Numerous studies have challenged this
'discourse'; but these are ignored in favour of Orientalist-bashing, attacks
on 'militant Islam' (Orientalism's 'mirror image', as both seek 'to tell the
rest of the world what "Islam" is' [2-3]), and on 'academic Sufis' and that
'bizarre combination of mystically minded crypto-converts and politically
bankrupt Muslim apologists' whose 'totalizing metanarrative [of Sufism]
... has succeeded, as it is rooted in the positivism of the Orientalist discourse'
(10). These nebulous entities (precise examples are thin on the
ground) provide the windmills against which Dabashi proceeds to tilt.
But if 'Islam', 'Sufism', 'Persian (or Islamic) mysticism' and so on are
'essentialist', 'academic' or 'Orientalist' constructs, Dabashi nevertheless
buys into them to support his argument for 'Ayn al-Qudat's 'subversiveness'.
He accepts without question the image of the Seljuqs as SunnI zealots;
the view that all Islamic institutions were fixed at an early date (cf. I l l ,
230); and the notion that Sufism was 'institutionalized' (complete with
'orders') by the early sixth/twelfth century (cf. 524, 592, 601; but see also
560, where he speaks of 'emerging Sufism'). In short, he accepts the
traditional (and by now largely discredited) view of 'Islamic orthodoxy'
supported by the 'ulatna' and the ruling establishment. (His relegation of
the Isma'llls to the status of heretics and terrorists discounts their real
importance in the religious and cultural—not to mention political—life of
the period.) And yet, as he acknowledges, this was an age when " 'Islams"
were being yet again invented and challenged' (109)—not only by 'political
forces', but by thinking Muslims. However, in order to demonstrate 'Ayn
al-Qudat's 'subversiveness', he must first posit an 'Islamic orthodoxy' to be
subverted.
The linguistic vehicle of 'Islamic orthodoxy' is, apparently, the Arabic
language. 'Ayn al-Qudat (like other writers of his time) wrote in both
Arabic and Persian; and it might be argued that choice of language was
related to intended audience. But despite the fact that Persian had been used
for poetry and prose for over two centuries, Dabashi considers it 'marginal'
—'remissive, transgressive ... non-canonical, prohibited, superseded,
defeated, relegated to the margin of the Sacred Arabic' (551), 'always
tangential to the central patriarchy of Arabic' (557); and 'Ayn al-Qudat's
choice of his 'maternal language' is 'the supreme symbolic of subverting the
juridical order of his paternal Arabic' (556).
But 'Ayn al-Qudat's Persian 'is a peculiar Persian ... full of Qur'anic and
Hadlth phrases in Arabic ... [His] construction of this Persian/Arabic ...
a language of his own making, links his subversive imagination to the most
sacrosanct ancestral authority of his history' (598, emphasis added). 'Ayn
al-Qudat was hardly unique in employing this 'peculiar Persian'; it was used
by his contemporary Ahmad Ghazzall (the connection between whose
Savanih and 'Ayn al-Qudat's own writings is ignored, despite the close
association between the two scholars), and even earlier, in 'Abd Allah
Downloaded from http://jis.oxfordjournals.org at Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia on April 21, 2010
374 BOOK REVIEWS
Ansari's Mundjdt. And it is difficult to view either Abu Hamid Ghazzall's
Kimiyd-yi sa'ddat (an abbreviated Persian version of his Arabic Ihya'
'uliim al-din), or Nizam al-Mulk's Siyar al-muluk—both heavily larded
with quotations from Qu'ran and Hadlth—as 'subversive'.
Turning to literature (specifically, poetry), Dabashi argues that 'the
Persian Sufis of the Seljuq period,' having been 'effectively checked and
balanced by the jurists and their legal/political power ... took full
advantage of an entirely different opportunity': poetry, which 'became
subservient to the variable causes of Sufism and almost forgot that it had an
independent claim on reality . . . . When Persian poetry began to propagate
and celebrate the answers that Sufism, as a body of established and evolving
doctrines, had independently reached outside poetry, it robbed itself of its
own possible and potential access to its own answers' (128-9, emphases
added). The real influence of Sufism on poetry begins only in the late sixth/
twelfth century, with 'Attar in particular. Dabashi mentions one prominent
earlier poet: Sana'I, 'a court poet of exceptional gifts' who, after a 'spiritual
conversion', put these gifts 'at the disposal of religious ideas' (129). The
'conversion' myth was propagated by later writers such as Dawlatshah; and
while it is true that Sana'I, having failed to secure court patronage, turned
to writing religious poetry (for religious patrons), his 'secular' output is
equally abundant. (Dabashi also discusses, at some length, the quatrains
attributed to, and the legends concerning, such figures as Abu Sa'ld Abu
al-Khayr, Baba Tahir HamadhanI, and 'Umar Khayyam; on this subject I can
only comment that both the attributions and the legends are highly suspect.)
Dabashi's understanding of the development of Persian literature is, at
best, shaky, and contains many factual errors. For example: the attribution
of the Tarjumdn al-baldgha to Farrukhl (151) has long been disproven
(RaduyanI was its author); Mas'ud-i Sa'd-i Salman was not 'a fellow
HamadhanI' (152)—pace the ever-unreliable Dawlatshah—but was born in
Lahore; NizamI Ganjavl did not write Vis u Rdmln for the Seljuq sultan
Mahmud (529 n. 39), or for anyone else (it was written in the mid-fifth/
eleventh century by Fakhr al-Dln GurganI). Equally shaky is Dabashi's
handling of the historical sources for the period in which 'Ayn al-Qudat
lived, and especially for the reign of Mahmud ibn Muhammad ibn
Malikshah (511-25/1118-31), for which he relies heavily on such later
writers as Rashld al-Dln Tablb, NakhjavanI, Hamd Allah Qazvlni, and
Nasir al-Dln Munshl Kirmanl. Najm al-Dln Qumml's (not QumI) account
of the vizier Dargazlnl is considered reliable 'because he wrote ... some
sixty years after [Dargazlnl's] death' (486); contemporary sources, such as
Anushlrvan ibn Khalid (Mahmud's sometime vizier) and 'Imad al-Dln are
under-utilized. One might also suggest that such western authors as Ibn
al-Qalanisi and Ibn al-Athir are not the most reliable for earlier events in
Persian Iraq.
Errors of fact abound, especially (but not only) as concerns the pre-Seljuq
period and, in particular, the Ghaznavids. The Ghaznavids had not 'ruled
over eastern Iran since 366/1186' (sic; read 977) (111); while Sabuktigln
Downloaded from http://jis.oxfordjournals.org at Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia on April 21, 2010
BOOK REVIEWS 375
ruled in Ghazna from 366, the Ghaznavids supplanted the Samanids only
around 387/997. Sultan Muhammad's regnal dates are incorrect (131).
Both the Ghaznavids and the Seljuqs are termed 'newly converted foreign
powers' (477); while this may be (partially) true of the Seljuqs, the
Ghaznavids were neither 'newly converted' nor 'foreign', but were products
of the Samanid system and were, until the Samanids' collapse, their vassals.
There were no Ghaznavids in Khurasan in 1097 (517).
Dabashi's discussion of Nizam al-Mulk also relies heavily on later historians
and on the legends that grew up around this personage. Rashld
al-Dln is the first to state that Malikshah dismissed his vizier in favour of
Taj al-Mulk (cf. 480 and elsewhere); earlier writers note only that his
power was seriously diminished due to the machinations of Taj al-Mulk
and Malikshah's wife Turkan (not Tarkan) Khatun. The Siyar al-muliik
(Siyasatnama) is often invoked as illustrating social and political conditions
under the Seljuqs; for example, Dabashi asserts that perhaps its 'most
striking aspect' is its demonstration of 'the status consciousness of Turkish
tribal warlords who depended on Persian theories and practices of kingship
as a crucial instrument of their legitimacy' (487-88). Nizam al-Mulk
complains that under the Turks the proper hierarchy has been upset,
no-one knows his place, Turks call themselves by titles appropriate to Tajiks,
and so on.
Eager to demonstrate Nizam al-Mulk's support for Sufism, Dabashi cites
(not quite accurately) an account in the Asrar al-tawhid (mid-sixth/twelfth
century) concerning his reverence for Abu Sa'ld Abu al-Khayr as evidence
of 'the historical dimensions of the Sufi institutional power in this period'
(see 124-6). The account is one of several in the Asrar geared towards
demonstrating that the vizier owed his greatness to the Shaykh. (Ibn
Funduq, writing around the same time, states that it was his grandfather's
admonition to Nizam al-Mulk to renounce aspiration to high estate and
'unnatural' desires that made him a firm adherent of the SharT'a. Medieval
writers had their own agendas.)
A sense of historical perspective is notably lacking (although Dabashi
does attempt to sort out the 'political'—read 'power'—struggles of which
'Ayn al-Qudat may have been a victim). Thus for example, noting the disturbances
produced by the Crusades in the west (in Toledo [!], Mahdiyya
[North Africa], Sicily, Syria and so on), Dabashi states that 'the capture of
Aleppo in 421/1128 marks 'the most significant event in ['Ayn al-Qudat's]
lifetime' (518-19). Significant for whom? The Crusades were of supreme
irrelevance to most eastern writers, and receive barely a mention in the
histories.
Errors of fact, lack of perspective: this book abounds in them. But its
greatest defect is its incessant repetition. Accounts and episodes are repeated
time and time again. Chapter 2 virtually repeats most of Chapter 1. Passages
from 'Ayn al-Qudat's writings are quoted and re-quoted. Birth, death,
and regnal dates are repeated almost every time the individual in question
is mentioned (e.g., on pages 69-70 Sanjar's dates appear twice). Such
Downloaded from http://jis.oxfordjournals.org at Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia on April 21, 2010
376 BOOK REVIEWS
repetitions could have been weeded out, if not by the author, then by an
assiduous copy-editor, as could the frequent errors and inconsistencies in
transcription, dating, usage, grammar, and so on, of which what follows is
only a brief sample.
Errors in transcription: Sulghurid for Salghurid; Ablls for Iblls (299);
al-Hirawi for al-HarawI (i.e., from Herat). Inconsistencies in transcription:
DargazInl/al-DaragazInl (99); Shehab (140)/Shihab (141); Slyavush/Siyawash
(245), Sayavash/Slyawash (305-6); Seljuqs/Seljuqids (e.g. 484-5; see also
509, for Seljuq/Saljuqid/Seljuqid on the same page). Errors in dates:
Averroes' birth date, 520/1126, was not 'the year of 'Ayn al-Qudat's death'
(140; 'Ayn al-Qudat was executed in 525/1131).
Errors in vocabulary, usage, and grammar: 'decidedly' for 'decisively'
(133); 'visage' for 'vision' (188); 'abruptive' for 'abrupt' (201); 'axle' for
'axis' (262); 'flock(s)' for 'lock(s)' (of hair; 290, 520); 'tell' for 'say' (390);
'trifle' for 'trivialV'trifling' (408); 'withdraws' for 'draws' (439); 'unrightful'
(sic) for 'unlawful' (508); 'everything else ... were' (241); 'contemplate
upon' (332); 'much [for many] important things,' 'much [for very] childish'
(349, 350); 'prohibited against' (431); 'seeked' for 'sought' (491); 'in Tigris'
for 'on the Tigris' (491); 'instigated with' (492); 'laid siege on' (590); 'these
apocryphal story' (551). Misprints: al-BurdawI for al-Bundarl (103 n. 1);
Daftari for Daftary (156-7, nn. 57-9, 68); 'escatology' for 'eschatology'
(223); awrat for surat (261; one hopes this is a misprint!); 'guest' for 'quest'
(389); and countless others. Many of the translations are questionable; the
Index is hopeless; the Bibliography is a mess. ('Ayn al-Qudat's writings are
listed under both ""Ayn al-Qudat al-Hamadhanl'" [652; complete with
quotation marks!] and 'al-Hamadhani, 'Ayn al-Qudat Abu al-Ma'all 'Abd
Allah ibn Muhammad ibn 'All al-Miyanaji (known as 'Ayn al-Qudat)'
[656]. And why, for example, is Shawql Dayf listed as 'Dayf, Duktur
Shawql' [654]?)
'Ayn al-Qudat deserves better. (And why does the author express
scepticism as to whether he was or was not a 'practicing judge'? see e.g. 9.)
He deserves better than the ritualistic invocation of Weber, Durkheim,
Derrida, Foucault, and a whole panoply of others, in such jargon-ridden
statements as:' "All human knowledge," we have known since Max Scheler,
"insofar as man is a 'member' of a society in general, is not empirical but
'a priori' knowledge." The a priority [sic] condition of that knowledge is
the dialogical result of the subjectivity of an " I " encountering the essentializing
objectivity of a selected "We"' (25). He deserves better than to
be a pawn in a game of 'us and them', of 'we', 'the Orientals' ('Us, the
interpreted' [32]), versus 'them', the 'interpreters'. This book reveals less
about the complexities of 'Ayn al-Qudat's life, or of his writings, than it
does about the complexes of its author.
Julie Scott Meisami
Oriental Institute, Oxford
Downloaded from http://jis.oxfordjournals.org at Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia on April 21, 2010

integrity(Islamweb.net)

There are two concepts in Islam that, among others, define our understanding of integrity; its meaning and method of attainment. These are purity and wholeness. We find that the Islamic definition of integrity resembles the scientific and natural interpretations of the word more than the philosophical or theoretical understanding; insofar that it refers less to the consistency with which human behavior is aligned to a given moral or ethical dogma, and more to the extent to which human behavior is brought into agreement with intrinsic human nature.

Purity:

The Islamic understanding of purity, unarguably, bases itself on the concept of the fitrah (natural disposition of the human being). Prophet Muhammad sallallaahu alayhi wa sallam, (may Allaah exalt his mention) referring to this natural state of the human being, said: "Every new-born child is born in a state of fitrah. Then his parents make him a Jew, a Christian or a Magian, just as an animal is born intact. Do you observe any among them that are maimed (at birth)?" [Ahmad].

All creatures, then, including human beings, are born in a state of innate purity; any subsequent defilement of that natural condition results from a variety of social influences and manipulations. It is significant that in the above hadeeth, the impurity that develops, or that is to a degree inflicted, is likened to an actual injury or deformity -- it is a disfiguration of the natural state of the human being.

Integrity in Islam refers to the restoration and maintenance of that natural and primal state of purity. Allaah says (what means): "Set your face to the deen (religion of Islam) in sincerity which is Allaah's fitrah upon which He created mankind. There is no changing in the creation of Allaah. That is the right deen but most people know not." [Quran 30:30]. When we talk of integrity, we generally refer (at least in part) to the realization of that nature which is literally integral to our being; of being true to our intrinsic qualities and character.

Wholeness:

It is fair to say that completeness is a theme of Islam. Prophet Muhammad sallallaahu alayhi wa sallam, frequently employed metaphors to explain the message with which he was sent, that invoked imagery of incomplete or unfinished things being brought to completion. For instance, he, sallallaahu alayhi wa sallam, said: "My likeness and the likeness of the Prophets before me is the likeness of a person who built a house and made it complete and beautiful, except the place of a brick in a corner. So people began to go around it and wonder at it and say, "Why has not this brick been placed?" He said, "I am that brick and I am the last of the Prophets". [Muslim]. The imagery of cohesion here reinforces the words of Allaah Almighty, in the Noble Quran announcing the final perfection of His Revelation to mankind, (what means): "This day I have perfected My favor upon you and have chosen for you Islam as your religion." [Quran 5:3]

Similarly, this aspect of wholeness is emphasized in varying contexts; regarding, for example the singularity of the entire Muslim Ummah (Nation) as one body, and so on. This emphasis on holistic consistency enlightens the second component of integrity in Islam.

Maintaining the purity of the fitrah becomes a complex and challenging process as we age, and our duties, relationships, psychological and emotional development become more sophisticated and varied. We must take care to ensure that the intricate self of adulthood does not become partially or wholly alienated from the natural, simpler purity present in childhood. This requires a comprehensive alignment of all areas of life; private and public behavior, social relationships, habits, disciplines etc, with a system based upon the fitrah . That is, the quintessential purity of the fitrah must be realized in the totality of one's being through adherence to the detailed guidance of Islam.

Rather than a simple adherence to a particular ethical and moral code, as mentioned, integrity in Islam indicates the fullest manifestation of human essence. The wholeness is achieved by bringing human attributes and faculties in agreement with human function and purpose. In the same way that we would refer to a perfectly shaped, smooth, circular wheel as having integrity, so Muslim integrity has to do with the extent to which the individual is actualizing in totality his or her attributes and capabilities, in accordance with the purpose for which he or she has been endowed with them: the worship of Allah.

Integrity in Islam has to do with the consistency of the individual with his or her innate purpose; the totality of the individual's life being kept in alignment with their intrinsic function. It is not merely the dogmatism of adherence to a relatively arbitrary code of conduct and behavior, but the preservation of the individual's purity and authenticity. Whereas the philosophical definition of integrity would take violation of a given code of ethics as what invalidates one's integrity; in Islam, the violation of integrity constitutes an alienation from one's nature with drastic and profound consequences that ultimately invalidate one's very life.

* The Dilemma of Government in Islamic Persia: The "Siyāsat-nāma" of Niẓām al-Mulk
* A. K. S. Lambton
* Iran, Vol. 22, (1984), pp. 55-66
(article consists of 12 pages)
* Published by: British Institute of Persian Studies
* Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4299736

Nizam al-Mulk’s Book of Government; or, Rules for Kings (Siyasat nameh) is a treatise on kingship and a model for governance, written in 1091 in response to a request by the Seljuk ruler Malik-Shah that his ministers produce books on government and its administration in the face of various troubles facing the nation. Nizam al-Mulk, wazir (vizier) to the Seljuk sultans, incorporated traditional Persian and Islamic modes of thought into his treatise, which became a classic of the genre known as the “Mirrors for Princes”—so called because the intent was that rulers should look into these books and see reflected in them the way in which to rule. Nizam al-Mulk’s Book of Government, addressing politics and religion and the dangers facing the nation in some fifty chapters and giving practical and ethical advice for the conduct of the ruler, was given official sanction and established distinctly Persian forms of government and administration that endured for centuries. The excerpts chosen for inclusion here take up subjects varying from the role of spies and informants to the conduct of ambassadors to the payment of soldiers and the apportionment of government posts.
Nizam al-Mulk's Book of Government; or, Rules for Kings
[Chapter X: Concerning Intelligence Agents and Reporters and Their Importance in Administering the Affairs of the Country]

It is the king’s duty to enquire into the condition of his peasantry and army, both far and near, and to know more or less how things are. If he does not do this he is at fault and people will charge him with negligence, laziness and tyranny, saying, “Either the king knows about the oppression and extortion going on in the country, or he does not know. If he knows and does nothing to prevent it and remedy it, that is because he is an oppressor like the rest and acquiesces in their oppression; and if he does not know then he is negligent and ignorant.” Neither of these imputations is desirable. Inevitably therefore he must have postmasters; and in every age in the time of ignorance and of Islam, kings have had postmasters, through whom they have learnt everything that goes on, good and bad. For instance, if anybody wrongly took so much as a chicken or a bag of straw from another—and that five hundred farsangs away—the king would know about it and have the offender punished, so that others knew that the king was vigilant. In every place they appointed informers and so far checked the activities of oppressors that men enjoyed security and justice for the pursuit of trade and cultivation. But this is a delicate business involving some unpleasantness, it must be entrusted to the hands and tongues and pens of men who are completely above suspicion and without self-interest, for the weal or woe of the country depends on them. They must be directly responsible to the king and not to anyone else; and they must receive their monthly salaries regularly from the treasury so that they may do their work without any worries. In this way the king will know of every event that takes place and will be able to give his orders as appropriate, meting out unexpected reward, punishment or commendation to the persons concerned. When a king is like this, men are always eager to be obedient, fearing the king’s displeasure, and nobody can possibly have the audacity to disobey the king or plot any mischief. Thus the employment of intelligence agents and reporters contributes to the justice, vigilance and prudence of the king, and to the prosperity of the country. …
[Chapter XIII: On Sending Spies and Using Them for the Good of the Country and the People]

Spies must constantly go out to the limits of the kingdom in the guise of merchants, travellers, sufis, pedlars (of medicines), and mendicants, and bring back reports of everything they hear, so that no matters of any kind remain concealed, and if anything [untoward] happens it can in due course be remedied. In the past it has often happened that governors, assignees, officers, and army-commanders have planned rebellion and resistance, and plotted mischief against the king; but spies forestalled them and informed the king, who was thus enabled to set out immediately with all speed and, coming upon them unawares, to strike them down and frustrate their plans; and if any foreign king or army was preparing to attack the country, the spies informed the king, and he took action and repelled them. Likewise they brought news, whether good or bad, about the condition of the peasants, and the king gave the matter his attention, as did Adud ad Daula on one occasion. …
[Chapter XVII: Concerning Boon-Companions and Intimates of the King and the Conduct of Their Affairs]

A king cannot do without suitable boon-companions with whom he can enjoy complete freedom and intimacy. The constant society of nobles [such as] margraves and generals tends to diminish the king’s majesty and dignity because they become too arrogant. As a general rule people who are employed in any official capacity should not be admitted as boon-companions, nor should those who are accepted for companionship be appointed to any public office, because by virtue of the liberty they enjoy in the king’s company they will indulge in high-handed practices and oppress the people. Officers should always be in a state of fear of the king, while boon-companions need to be familiar. If an officer is familiar he tends to oppress the peasantry; but if a boon-companion is not familiar the king will not find any pleasure or relaxation in his company. Boon-companions should have a fixed time for their appearance; after the king has given audience and the nobles have retired, then comes the time for their turn.

There are several advantages in having boon-companions: firstly, they are company for the king; secondly, since they are with him day and night, they are in the position of bodyguards, and if any danger (we take refuge with Allah!) should appear, they will not hesitate to shield the king from it with their own bodies; and thirdly, the king can say thousands of different things, frivolous and serious, to his boon-companions which would not be suitable for the ears of his wazir or other nobles, for they are his officials and functionaries; and fourthly, all sorts of sundry tidings can be heard from boon-companions, for through their freedom they can report on matters, good and bad, whether drunk or sober; and in this there is advantage and benefit.

A boon-companion should be well-bred, accomplished, and of cheerful face. He should have pure faith, be able to keep secrets, and wear good clothes. He must possess an ample fund of stories and strange tales both amusing and serious, and be able to tell them well. He must always be a good talker and a pleasant partner; he should know how to play backgammon and chess, and if he can play a musical instrument and use a weapon, so much the better. He must always agree with the king, and whatever the king says or does, he must exclaim, “Bravo!” and “Well done!” He should not be didactic with “Do this” and “Don’t do that,” for it will displease the king and lead to dislike. Where pleasure and entertainment are concerned, as in feasting, drinking, hunting, polo and wrestling—in all matters like these it is right that the king should consult with his boon-companions, for they are there for this purpose. On the other hand, in everything to do with the country and its cultivation, the military and the peasantry, warfare, raids, punishment, gifts, stores and travels, it is better that he should take counsel with the ministers and nobles of the state and with experienced elders, for they are more skilled in these subjects. In this way matters will take their proper course. …
[Chapter XXI: On Ambassadors and Their Treatment]

When ambassadors come from foreign countries, nobody is aware of their movements until they actually arrive at the city gates; nobody gives any information [that they are coming] and nobody makes any preparation for them; and they will surely attribute this to our negligence and indifference. So officers at the frontiers must be told that whenever anyone approaches their stations, they should at once despatch a rider and find out who it is who is coming, how many men there are with him, mounted and unmounted, how much baggage and equipment he has, and what is his business. A trustworthy person must be appointed to accompany them and conduct them to the nearest big city; there he will hand them over to another agent who will likewise go with them to the next city (and district), and so on until they reach the court. Whenever they arrive at a place where there is cultivation, it must be a standing order that officers, tax-collectors and assignees should give them hospitality and entertain them well so that they depart satisfied. When they return, the same procedure is to be followed. Whatever treatment is given to an ambassador, whether good or bad, it is as if it were done to the very king who sent him; and kings have always shewn the greatest respect to one another and treated envoys well, for by this their own dignity has been enhanced. And if at any time there has been disagreement or enmity between kings, and if ambassadors have still come and gone as occasion requires, and discharged their missions according to their instructions, never have they been molested or treated with less than usual courtesy. Such a thing would be disgraceful, as God (to Him be power and glory) says [in the Quran 24.53], “The messenger has only to convey the message plainly.”

It should also be realized that when kings send ambassadors to one another their purpose is not merely the message or the letter which they communicate openly, but secretly they have a hundred other points and objects in view. In fact they want to know about the state of roads, mountain passes, rivers and grazing grounds, to see whether an army can pass or not; where fodder is available and where not; who are the officers in every place; what is the size of that king’s army and how well it is armed and equipped; what is the standard of his table and his company; what is the organization and etiquette of his court and audience hall; does he play polo and hunt; what are his qualities and manners, his designs and intentions, his appearance and bearing; is he cruel or just, old or young; is his country flourishing or decaying; are his troops contented or not; are the peasants rich or poor; is he avaricious or generous; is he alert or negligent in affairs; is his wazir competent or the reverse, of good faith and high principles or of impure faith and bad principles; are his generals experienced and battle-tried or not; are his boon-companions polite and worthy; what are his likes and dislikes; in his cups is he jovial and good-natured or not; is he strict in religious matters and does he shew magnanimity and mercy, or is he careless; does he incline more to jesting or to gravity; and does he prefer boys or women. So that, if at any time they want to win over that king, or oppose his designs or criticize his faults, being informed of all his affairs they can think out their plan of campaign, and being aware of all the circumstances, they can take effective action, as happened to your humble servant in the time of The Martyr Sultan Alp Arslan (may Allah sanctify his soul). …
[Chapter XXIII: On Settling the Dues of All the Army]

The troops must receive their pay regularly. Those who are assignees of course have their salaries to hand independently as assigned; but in the case of pages who are not fit for holding fiefs, money for their pay must be made available. When the amount required has been worked out according to the number of troops, the money should be put into a special fund until the whole sum is in hand, and it must always be paid to them at the proper time. Alternatively the king may summon the men before him twice a year, and command that they be paid, not in such a way that the task be delegated to the treasury and they receive their money from there without seeing the king; rather the king should with his own hands put it into their hands (and skirts), for this increases their feelings of affection and attachment, so that they will strive more eagerly and steadfastly to perform their duties in war and peace. …
[Chapter XLI: On Not Giving Two Appointments to One Man; on Giving Posts to the Unemployed and Not Leaving Them Destitute; on Giving Appointments to Men of Orthodox Faith and Good Birth, and Not Employing Men of Perverse Sects and Evil Doctrine, Keeping the Latter at a Distance]

Enlightened monarchs and clever ministers have never in any age given two appointments to one man or one appointment to two men, with the result that their affairs were always conducted with efficiency and lustre. When two appointments are given to one man, one of the tasks is always inefficiently and faultily performed; and in fact you will usually find that the man who has two functions fails in both of them, and is constantly suffering censure and uneasiness on account of his shortcomings. And further, whenever two men are given a single post each transfers [his responsibility] to the other and the work remains forever undone. On this point there is a proverb which runs, “The house with two mistresses remains unswept; with two masters it falls to ruins.” One of the two thinks to himself, “If I take pains to do the work expediently, and take care not to let anything go wrong, our master will think that this is due to the capability and skill of my partner, not to my own diligent and patient efforts.” The other one has the same idea and thinks, “Why should I take trouble for nothing when it will go without praise or thanks? Whatever efforts and exertions I make, my master will suppose that my partner has done it.” Actually there will be constant confusion in the work, and if the manager says, “What is the cause of this inefficiency?” each man will say that it is the other’s fault. But when you go to the root of the matter and think intelligently, it is not the fault of either of them. It is the fault of the man who gave one appointment to two persons. And whenever a single officer is given two posts by the divan it is a sign of the incompetence of the wazir and the negligence of the king. Today there are men, utterly incapable, who hold ten posts, and if another appointment were to turn up, they would spend their efforts and money to get it; and nobody would consider whether such people are worthy of the post, whether they have any ability, whether they understand secretaryship, administration, and business dealings, and whether they can fulfill the numerous tasks which they have already accepted. And all the time there are capable, earnest, deserving, trustworthy, and experienced men left unemployed, sitting idle in their homes; and no one has the interest or judgment to enquire why one unknown, incapable, base-born fellow should occupy so many appointments, while there are well-known, noble, trusted, and experienced men who have no work at all, and are left deprived and excluded, particularly men to whom this dynasty is greatly indebted for their satisfactory and meritorious services. This is all the more extraordinary because in all previous ages a public appointment was given to a man who was pure alike in religion and in origin; and if he was averse and refused to accept it, they used compulsion and force to make him take the responsibility. So naturally the revenue was not misappropriated, the peasants were unmolested, assignees enjoyed a good reputation and a safe existence, while the king lived a life of mental and bodily ease and tranquillity. But nowadays all distinction has vanished; and if a Jew administers the affairs of Turks or does any other work for Turks, it is permitted; and it is the same for Christians, Zoroastrians and Qarmatis. Everywhere indifference is predominant; there is no zeal for religion, no concern for the revenue, no pity for the peasants. The dynasty has reached its perfection; your humble servant is afraid of the evil eye and knows not where this state of affairs will lead.
by Timothy May.