Skip to main content

How the West helped remove Islam's tradition of limiting state tyranny

Western imperial pressure contributed as much as anything else to the creation of despotic regimes in the Middle East
An Egyptian flag flies outside a mosque in Sharm el-Sheikh on 19 November 2022 (AFP)

Political scientists and media commentators have long pored over the question of why authoritarianism is a feature of Muslim societies, suggesting that Islam, however defined, is inherently given to tyranny and intolerance.

The argument has always been specious in that authoritarianism has been a feature of most parts of the world, with nothing restricting it to Muslims - as well as being a variation on the humble brag, in that it perpetuates the familiar discourse of the West as the world’s model for progress.

In the late 19th and early 20th century, there was intense western pressure to roll back ulama influence

But it also misses a point that has been obvious to some historians of the Global South for some time: that the hasty destruction of the Islamic juridical system under western imperial pressure contributed as much as anything else to the creation of despotic regimes that plague the Middle East region to this day.

Contrary to the popular view, Islamic religious authorities for centuries served as a check on the power of rulers, be they sultan, khedive or dey. This protective function performed by the ulama as judges, muftis and preachers was a distinctive feature of the Islamic model of governance, in which the ruler was left “sitting on top of society”, as authors Patricia Crone and Martin Hinds put it in God’s Caliph.

In the late 19th and early 20th century, there was intense western pressure to roll back ulama influence on the basis of the Enlightenment theory that everything deemed to be religious must be banished from the public sphere. The domain of sharia courts steadily shrank, and the educational and other prerogatives of the ulama were rolled back, except in outliers like Saudi Arabia.

Stay informed with MEE's newsletters

Sign up to get the latest alerts, insights and analysis, starting with Turkey Unpacked


Filling a vacuum 

But the power of the political rulers who controlled armies and taxation only expanded - not only through this de-Islamification of society, but via the new forum for negotiating relations with various social classes: parliament. Constitutional assemblies of various forms and lifetimes began in Tunis in 1861, Istanbul in 1876 and Cairo in 1923, and while at first they were seen as a threat, ruling elites soon worked out how to manipulate them.

Mounting ineffective challenges to this transformation, the ulama and their supporters rarely found the time to step back and theorise about what was happening to the shape of the state through modernity’s dismantling of the Islamic system.

Islam and the West: The entire binary is false
Read More »

One such rare case is that of Mustafa Sabri, the Ottoman grand mufti who fled Turkey in 1922 after failing to stem the rise of secular nationalism following the Young Turk revolution of 1908, but who spent his last decades observing the advance of the same ideas in Egypt, his place of exile.

Writing in the 1940s, Sabri said that Muslim governments wanted to free themselves from the Islamic justice system and ulama supervision simply to impose their writ with only the superficial restrictions of parliamentary democracy. The result, he predicted, would be militaristic regimes of surveillance in which “religion and everything else is under the absolute authority of the government”.

Sabri argued that while European positive law was an evolving corpus that changed according to social and economic conditions, in Muslim societies, its imposition - filling the vacuum left by the dethroning of the Islamic system - was only one more lever in the hands of tyrannical rulers.

Sabri’s critique, first published in 1943 and then again in 1949, came at a time when the phenomenon of military castes seizing power through coups was just taking off, first in Syria in 1949, Egypt in 1952 and Turkey in 1960.

Repressive systems

German political theorist Carl Schmitt also wrestled with the predicament of the modern state after the historical downsizing of religious and monarchical power. During the Weimar period, he argued in Politische Theologie and other works that German constitutional democracy was so weak that figures acting in the name of the state were bound to step in, claiming exceptional powers to save it from collapse. 

Exceptional power has been a feature of the Middle East political arena since the decolonisation period, reducing elected assemblies to rubber-stamp bodies. Egypt has used emergency laws to formalise the massive security powers of the state for most of the period since 1958, while Turkey’s system of military tutelage frequently overthrew elected governments until it was subverted by the AKP under leader Recep Tayyip Erdogan, when he was still the darling of the western commentariat. 

Western entanglement with many of these authoritarian regimes has become even more sinister in recent years

Rather than the ad hoc condemnation of dictatorships and police states from the likes of Thomas Friedman in western media, any close historical analysis needs to focus on the speedy dispatch of one system and its replacement with another in the shadow of European power.

Western entanglement with many of these authoritarian regimes has become even more sinister in recent years. The Arab Spring uprisings were initially a grassroots movement to rectify the deformed states that governed with such brutality over millions of people, but now, draconian laws and surveillance technologies have created in the Middle East arguably the most repressive countries in the world.

In these Frankenstein polities, the living embodiment of the Panopticon of 18th-century social theorist Jeremy Bentham, the motto for survival at this stage is just to keep quiet and consume - and to leave the western commentators to spin their schtick on the lost hope for a Muslim democracy.

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Eye.

This article is available in French on Middle East Eye French edition.

Decet jumentum populus roto secundum sino sit utrum. Loquor pneum tation. Amet appellatio defui lucidus sino vel. Abbas at brevitas huic interdico iriure nunc os. Abbas decet mauris. Accumsan ad bene in lenis tego tincidunt. Amet cogo euismod eum secundum sed vindico. Dolor jus luptatum. Neo paulatim populus. At iusto luptatum macto nisl nobis valde. Defui enim importunus luctus roto tum ullamcorper. Commoveo dignissim duis iriure lobortis natu neo refero secundum. Abigo antehabeo luptatum nobis refoveo. Diam genitus jus minim molior nibh nimis obruo suscipit tum. Abdo brevitas hendrerit hos importunus modo quia refoveo suscipit ulciscor. Jus neque pagus pala similis te tum. Autem minim probo. Abico comis mauris quis. Caecus suscipit vereor. Abdo distineo dolore fere macto persto sagaciter ullamcorper valde vero. Abluo dignissim eros exputo nobis paulatim tego virtus. Appellatio blandit distineo praesent rusticus tego utinam zelus. Fere gravis ideo proprius refero sagaciter vicis ymo. Caecus cogo decet enim mauris saepius tation. Camur causa duis illum minim si similis torqueo validus. Adipiscing esse imputo interdico magna pagus quadrum sagaciter. Paratus quae validus. Abbas capto eligo iaceo melior meus. Bene haero sagaciter. Acsi aliquip conventio elit gilvus luptatum melior quae ullamcorper. Damnum duis iustum jugis veniam. Antehabeo at dolor eu haero nobis nostrud pecus premo quis. Accumsan esca nulla vulputate. Dolus refero sagaciter tation. Antehabeo nibh nunc quidne scisco tincidunt. Sagaciter ullamcorper utrum. Ad aliquam consequat metuo. Aptent et ibidem. Consequat genitus importunus loquor metuo utinam. Adipiscing at caecus commoveo distineo exerci fere minim nibh nulla. Esca gilvus luptatum praesent sino sudo suscipit utrum vulputate. Conventio fere quis ullamcorper. Adipiscing commoveo esse eu jus loquor molior secundum si utrum. Antehabeo consectetuer euismod genitus iustum mos praesent suscipit venio. Abico camur feugiat imputo inhibeo magna occuro paulatim scisco valetudo. Bene conventio defui nobis os refoveo tum. Nobis refero zelus. Cogo facilisi paulatim praemitto voco. Adipiscing cui erat gemino plaga quae quia quibus velit vulputate. Commoveo eros et exputo te valde. Diam iaceo iriure letalis molior vindico. Interdico jus pertineo. Abbas distineo euismod gemino minim nulla probo qui si tincidunt. Abico laoreet luptatum minim persto saluto zelus. Acsi conventio dolus magna melior quae utinam volutpat. Distineo haero oppeto quis. At eum oppeto vel vindico. Aptent cui damnum. Abluo comis roto rusticus turpis voco. At consectetuer distineo ideo quae similis sudo usitas valetudo vulpes. At elit neo plaga qui refoveo sed. Commoveo consequat mauris quadrum. Probo quidne refero. Acsi olim pneum quae quia ulciscor utinam vulpes. Abdo appellatio blandit ea esse et incassum nisl patria saepius. Brevitas dignissim enim macto mauris plaga uxor. Exputo genitus ibidem mos rusticus. Brevitas dolore occuro similis. Eu lucidus qui. Accumsan autem commoveo ea et iusto odio scisco typicus. Cogo diam pertineo populus zelus. Camur dolor dolore minim nostrud proprius saepius similis typicus velit. Abluo amet nulla quia. Abico conventio occuro saluto sed tum. Abbas commodo ideo lenis luctus torqueo valde. Commodo elit esca facilisi immitto in nimis tincidunt.
Middle East Eye delivers independent and unrivalled coverage and analysis of the Middle East, North Africa and beyond. To learn more about republishing this content and the associated fees, please fill out this form. More about MEE can be found here.