Treatises on the art of governance (“mirrors for princes”) form one of the branches of the Adab al-mulūk (“manner(s) or custom(s) of kings”) that were immensely popular in medieval Islam. “Royalty is a pedagogy”,1 hence the importance of this literary genre in many cultural universes.2 In the Latin West, these texts are intended to convey the ideal image of the good prince and are often designated by the generic term speculum regis or speculum principum. Islam draws on the notion of “counsels for kings” (naṣīḥat al-mulūk) or “ways (or conduct) of kings” (siyar al-mulūk).3 Yet the idea remains the same: this literature has an ethical and moral function. The pertinence of this connection is attested by Yūsuf Khāṣṣ Ḥājib, author of a mirror for princes entitled “Wisdom of Royal Glory” (Kutadgu bilig).4 Composed in Kashgar in 1069, this text was written in the Turkic language of the stelae,5 which had been erected on the banks of the Orkhon River in Mongolia from the 8th century.6 Yūsuf Khāṣṣ Ḥājib thus writes: “A loyal man may serve one as a mirror: by regarding him one may straighten one’s habits and character”.7
Mirrors for princes were highly popular in the Iranian world. This moral literature of Persian expression takes the form of collections of advice (Persian, andarz, pand; Arab, naṣīḥa) or a “testament” (wasiyya) transmitted from father to son or from an older person to a younger one.8 Yet this literary genre can also be expressed as a treatise, which, along with describing the conduct of the ideal prince, develops a theory of good governance.9 This most often involves three aspects: the issue of personal ethics, the management of the household, and the governance of subjects. All mirrors for princes stress the moral qualities to which a sovereign should aspire; all use proverbs, aphorisms, and anecdotes to illustrate the words of the author; and all draw on written authorities, whether religious or not. Princely advice literature developed in Iran well before the arrival of Islam, and it is evident that in many cases, the Persian tradition of mirrors for princes is indebted to this pre-Islamic heritage expressed in the wisdom literature of the Sassanid period.
The majority of these ancient wisdom books were transmitted in Arabic and Persian during the Islamic period. Muslim historians also spread the concept of Sassanid royalty by providing rulers with models of conduct drawn from ancient history. Claude Cahen wrote in 1977: “In this respect, history is a variant of these mirrors for princes from the Persian tradition, which, reciprocally, borrowed materials from it”.10 Indeed, the chroniclers inserted real mirrors for princes into their writings. In relation to such a sovereign, they detailed the qualities required to be a good prince, or on the contrary, the flaws disqualifying him from the exercise of the royal function. The influence of this ethical
As may be expected, the authors of mirrors for princes all belong to the learned class. Princes themselves, chancellery employees, philosophers, religious scholars, and Sufis composed texts of varying lengths in this literary genre. The works predating the 13th century have attracted much scholarly attention compared to the later texts, with the most important being edited, often translated, and annotated. Nevertheless, the notable treatise of Naṣīr al-Dīn al-Tūsī (d. 1274) entitled “Ethics dedicated to Nāṣirī” (Akhlāq-i Nāṣirī)12 has been the subject of very few studies, despite being the model for numerous later texts.13 Some treatises written in the post-Mongol period have been studied by scholars, but many only possess a single manuscript, thus attesting to their limited circulation with a few exceptions.14 For Louise Marlow, this lack of interest in mirrors for princes composed after the 13th century is probably due to the fact that the political ideas expressed therein and the anecdotes used to illustrate the authors’ words are mere commonplaces borrowed from earlier works. Indeed, these texts include scarce information on their period of composition.15
Three types of texts may be distinguished. Firstly, mirrors for princes composed by religious scholars present the manner of governance based on a formulation that is closely related to the founding principles of Islam. They express a political ideal founded on the Quranic verses connected with political thought, the “deeds and sayings” (hadiths) of the Prophet Muḥammad, the practices of the early Islamic community, and the interpretation of the ancient sources in light of later political developments. These interpretations are reinforced by the dogma of the “divine guidance” of the community by the caliph
After presenting the features of the princely advice literature from the Sassanid period in light of its considerable influence over the following centuries, I will examine a few mirrors for princes composed in medieval Iran and considered milestones in this school of thought. I will then show how, depending on the historical circumstances, the political thought of mirrors for princes evolved in relation to the much-debated issue of the relation between the power of the caliph and that of the sultan who became the true leader of the Muslim community from 11th century onwards.
2 The Tradition of Ancient Persia
2.1 The Wisdom Books of the Sassanid Tradition
In the majority of wisdom books from the Sassanid period, it is said that every king should be advised by a wise figure, most often his minister. These texts were transmitted in Arabic between the 9th and 11th centuries and then in Persian, notably in the “Book of kings” (Shāh-nāmah), the great versified epic completed by Firdawsī in 1010. This tradition is dominated by two sovereigns recognized for their ability to govern well. Firstly, Khusraw Anūshīrvān (r. 531–579) established administrative measures in his kingdom, which contributed to the renown of his justice in the later tradition. In the justice of the
2.2 The Sassanid Conception of Royalty
In Sassanid Persia, the king ruled by divine law. The gift that accompanies God’s granting of royalty is royal glory (farr-i īzadī). Religion and royalty are thus interlinked. Al-Masʿūdī, an Arabic chronicler from the 10th century, is the author of a work entitled “The Prairies of Gold” (Murūj al-dhahab). He attributes the following words to the founder of the Sassanid dynasty: “Religion and royalty are twin sisters; one cannot exist without the other. Religion is the foundation of royalty, and royalty is the protector of religion”.21 In the Sassanid empire, the royal institution is thus guaranteed by its divine origin. The union between religion and royalty is constitutive of society, which is divided into four classes: men of religion, men of the sword, men of the quill, and men of affairs.22 As the founder of order and the source of prosperity, the good king must reprimand disorder, even by blood; he must ensure that everyone stays in the place assigned by the social order. This Sassanid conception of royalty is easily adapted to the medieval Persian theory of government.
Firdawsī included the notion of royal glory (farr-i īzadī) in his “Book of kings” (Shāh-nāmah). In this major text of Persian culture, the elect of God is split into two categories: prophets whose mission is to lead men to Him and
The Shāh-nāmah provided the authors of mirrors for princes with a collection of exempla to illustrate the various types of good governance. They dotted their texts with citations and maxims attributed to the great figures of ancient Persia. The Muslim tradition, which accorded great importance to the hadiths of the Prophet Muḥammad, was used to supplement the words of the ancients. However, while the authors of mirrors for princes could adapt the words of ancient Persian sages to the historical circumstances of their time, they were forced to respect the exact formulation of the Prophet’s words according to the criteria chosen by religious scholars for the written recording of hadiths.
3 A Few Milestones in the Tradition of Persian Mirrors for Princes
3.1 Beginnings
The first medieval theories of governmental ethics in the Iranian world figure in works composed in Arabic from the 8th century.25 Ibn al-Muqaffaʿ (d. 757) converted to Islam and spent his career in the service of the chancellery of the Abbasid caliph al-Manṣūr (r. 754–775).26 He made a substantial contribution to the genesis of the literature of Adab al-mulūk. Ibn al-Muqaffaʿ not only translated
The “Book of the Crown” (Kitāb al-Tāj), known under the title of Kitāb al-Tāj fī akhlāq al-mulūk and traditionally attributed to Jāḥiẓ (d. 868), was penned, rather, by Muḥammad al-Thaʿlabī (d. 864).29 The Kitāb al-Tāj predominantly comprises materials relating to the Sassanid court and anecdotes reiterated in later texts. The author explains that the sovereign governs by divine delegation. The justice of the prince involves ensuring each individual’s status in society. Here again, the Sassanid theory of royalty is clearly attested. Yet this text also conveys the idea of the shepherd-king and his flock, or in other words, his subjects. This comparison emerges in the hadiths of the Prophet Muḥammad who said: “The imam in charge of people is their shepherd, and every shepherd is responsible for the flock he has under his command”.30 The idea of the shepherd-king and his flock is adopted by the authors of mirrors for princes who were influenced by Sufism, but it is also found in the short treatises on governmental ethics inserted into diverse historical sources.31
3.2 Major Works of the Persian Tradition (10th to 12th Centuries)
The most famous mirrors for princes of the Persian tradition were composed by authors from different intellectual circles between the 10th and 12th centuries. The oldest test is the Naṣīḥat al-mulūk of Pseudo-Mā;wardī. This Arabic mirror, preserved in a single manuscript, was long attributed to Abū l-Ḥasan
The Qābūs-nāmah (ca. 1082) was composed by Kāy Kāʿūs b. Isfandyār, the second-to-last prince of the Ziyarid dynasty of Gīlān, for his son Gīlān-Shāh. The text was written on the eve of the dynasty’s overthrow by the Seljuqs.34 The Qābūs-nāmah is often considered to be the first Persian mirror for princes. In the text, however, Kāy Kāʿūs gives little emphasis to the princely function and the theory of power. His preoccupations lie elsewhere: advising his son so that he will act as a moral man in relation to God, his family, and others. He explains the rules to respect in society and lists the professions that an honorable man can exercise, depending on the vicissitudes of history. The Qābūs-nāmah was a major source of inspiration for later Persian moral literature.35
The famous Seljuq vizier Niẓām al-Mulk (d. 1092) is the author of “The Book of Conduct Observed by Princes” (Siyar al-mulūk).36 Niẓām al-Mulk lived in a period marked by the beginning of the political disintegration of the Abbasid caliphate. As the vizier of the Seljuqs, Niẓām al-Mulk played an important role in the new division of power between the caliph and the sultan by introducing new administrative practices.37 His authority under Alp Arslan
In 1086, the sultan Malik-Shāh (r. 1073–1092) asked his minister to prepare a manual of good governance, which included the qualities necessary for kings to rule with justice and maintain political stability.40 This work is essentially composed of maxims and anecdotes that serve to illustrate the author’s statements about the exercise of power and morality. The ideal models used as examples are taken from the Shāh-nāmah, but he also mentions the sovereigns who brought glory to the Iranian dynasties by establishing their political autonomy in relation to the caliph: the Samanids (819–1005), Buyids (932–1062), and Saffarids (967–1221). After the Prophet Muḥammad, the Turkic sultan Maḥmūd of Ghazna (r. 998–1030) is the most cited figure. In the Muslim tradition, he is presented as a soldier of faith (al-ghāzī) in the image of the Prophet, because he extended the frontiers of Islam to India where Persian culture then spread.
The history of the Siyar al-mulūk is linked to the political career of its author. The work was composed in two phases of his life.41 He initially wrote the first thirty-nine chapters between 1086 and 1091. Probably towards the end of 1091, just prior to his deposition as vizier and subsequent execution, Niẓām al-Mulk revised the text: “Because of the constant anxiety that was in his mind on account of the enemies of this dynasty he added another eleven chapters”.42
Niẓām al-Mulk writes: “In each century, the Almighty chooses among His people a man whom He adorns with all the royal virtues (…); He entrusts him with the affairs of this world, the care of His servants’ rest; (…) so that his subjects, living under the protective refuge provided by his justice, may enjoy complete security”.43 According to Niẓām al-Mulk, religion and royalty are interdependent and inseparable. The absence of one irreversibly leads to
The term siyāsa is of prime importance in the political advice literature. In medieval times, it held a very precise meaning. The word siyāsa is mentioned in a short mirror for princes composed in the first half of the 12th century by Ẓahīrī al-Samarquandī, the head of the chancellery of a Qara Khitai sovereign in Central Asia, a dynasty originating from Northern China. He writes: “The exercise of power (pādishāhī) has two distinct parts: the hierarchization of men (riyāsa) and the exercise of justice by coercion (siyāsa)”.44 In the Sindbād-nāmah, another text dedicated to the same sovereign, Ẓahīrī al-Samarqandī writes in the introduction that the book contains “the basis of the rules of government (riyāsa) and the establishment of the principles of power (siyāsa), which is the auxiliary of religion”.45 The emphasis placed on the hierarchization of men and the usage of coercive force to apply the principles of religion indicates that Ẓahīrī al-Samarqandī sought to combine the Sassanid conception of royalty with Islam.
Chapters forty to fifty of the Siyar al-mulūk were compiled after Niẓām al-Mulk had fallen into disgrace. He addresses a message to Malik-Shāh to warn him about the consequences of poor governance. He implicitly accuses him of being incapable of preventing the rise of corruption (fasād), sedition (fitna), and disorder (āshūb), terms that have a strong moral and religious connotation. Niẓām al-Mulk criticizes the Seljuq regime by detailing all the misdemeanors that took place at this time, notably because of the fratricidal rivalries between blood princes.46 Despite these trying circumstances, the sultan’s vizier never once authorizes his subjects to revolt, since the choice of whoever exercises power is a divine prerogative. After describing the misery of this period, Niẓām al-Mulk declares: “God will raise a just and able prince and bestow intelligence upon him to put everything back in its place”.47
The Naṣīḥat al-mulūk of Abū Ḥāmid al-Ghazālī (d. 1111) is another important work from this period,49 originating from quite a different milieu. Its author was an eminent theologian, jurist, and mystic whose highly original thought was influential in Iran and beyond. He came from Khorasan in eastern Iran, where numerous religious movements were developing at the time. At the request of Niẓām al-Mulk, al-Ghazālī came to Baghdad to teach in a religious school (al-madrasa al-niẓāmiyya) founded in the Abbasid capital by the vizier of the Seljuqs.50
Charles-Henri de Fouchécour traces the textual history of the Naṣīḥat al-mulūk.51 In reality, it is composed of two distinct parts. While the authenticity of the first section is certain, the same cannot be said for the second, which is essentially a compilation of anecdotes, advice, and maxims borrowed from early writings. The two sections of the Naṣīḥat al-mulūk were translated into Arabic as a coherent whole in the 12th century52 and were thus considered to be the authentic work of al-Ghazālī. However, a manuscript tradition takes the first section of the Naṣīḥat al-mulūk as an independent composition.53 The issue of the authenticity of the second section arises when studying the history
The first section of the Naṣīḥat al-mulūk is based on another work of al-Ghazālī, “The Alchemy of happiness” (Kīmiyā-yi saʿādat), a Persian adaptation of one of his most famous works in Arabic, “The Revival of the Religious Sciences” (Iḥyāʾ ʿulūm al-dīn). This Arabic version did not feature a mirror for princes, but to adapt the text to a Persian context with dominant ethical and moral preoccupations, al-Ghazālī included a short ethical treatise in “The Alchemy of happiness”, which served as the basis for the composition of the Naṣīḥat al-mulūk.55 This text may be considered to be a mirror for princes of Sufi tone, in which al-Ghazālī expounds his reflections on the faith, world, and death. The author’s intent is the moral order. In his manner of governance in this world, the prince therefore plays out his eternal salvation or damnation in the hereafter.56 He should exercise power according to the sharia but through the intermediary of the ulemas, who become his advisors in this new system, unlike that of Niẓām al-Mulk. Here, the religious scholar replaces the wise advisor of the Sassanid king. In the Naṣīḥat al-mulūk, the good prince is the “pious and virtuous caliph” epitomized by the caliph ʿUmar b. ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz (r. 717–720).57 In this first section of the Naṣīḥat al-mulūk, the prince upholds his position by exercising justice through the application of the sharia.58
The second section of the Naṣīḥat al-mulūk or “Pseudo-Ghazālī” is divided into seven chapters. The first is of an unusual length, since it constitutes almost half of the book. The other chapters focus on the offices of vizier and secretary, the notion of royal virtue, the true purpose of the prince, the leading figures of the state, moral maxims, the words of sages, and women.59
It is difficult to accept that this second section of the Naṣīḥat al-mulūk was penned by al-Ghazālī, as it would attest to the author’s return to the Sassanid theory of the royal function. Indeed, in the first section strongly marked by Islam, al-Ghazālī gives an unprecedented place to the ulemas compared to the earlier mirrors for princes. The author of the second section undoubtedly sought to incorporate al-Ghazālī’s composition into the Iranian tradition and “Persianize”, as it were, his thought on the art of governance.
Until the late 12th century, Persian mirrors for princes, with the exception of the authentic Naṣīḥat al-mulūk of al-Ghazālī, remain faithful to the Sassanid tradition of government wrapped in Islamic guise: the power of divine inspiration, the maintenance of order by coercive force, and the importance accorded to the prince’s advisors. The Persian mirrors for princes thus emphasize the virtues, qualities, and duties of the ideal sovereign. Let us now examine how political theory evolved in Islam in accordance with historical events. Drawing on the mirrors for princes presented above, I will endeavor to contextualize the theories of governmental ethics that emerged with the Sunni theories.
3.3 Evolution of Political Thought between the 11th and 14th Centuries
All Islamic political theories stem from the assumption that the government is founded on a contract between God and the Muslim community. Justice (dār al-ʿadl) is considered to reign in the Muslim empire (dār al-islām), because the prescriptions of the Quran are observed there. According to the Quranic revelation, only the leader of the community, the caliph (or imām), who is endowed with specific qualities, is capable of enforcing the sharia. The foundation of the
The first author to put forward a true theory of government, known as the theory of the imāma, was al-Māwardī (d. 1058) in his “Principles of government” (Ahkām al-sulṭāniyya).63 This treatise was accepted by Sunni scholars as a “canonical” text. According to the theory of the imāma, the caliph should be of Quraysh origin like the Prophet Muḥammad, an adult male, without physical and mental handicap, and courageous so as to lead the holy war or jihad. The caliph should also be endowed with the virtue of justice (ʿadāla), that is, a state of impeccable moral and religious perfection. His first function is to judge the acts of his subjects. Yet to assume this fundamental role, he should possess knowledge of the scriptures, which is indispensable for interpreting the sharia. At the time of al-Māwardī’s writing, a number of independent powers and rebel groups existed in the dār al-islām. The very existence of the caliphate was thus on the verge of becoming a fiction. In his Ahkām al-sulṭāniyya, al-Māwardī attempts to define an ideal Islamic government in which perpetual peace reigns between the members of the universal umma. However, the gap between theory and practice is already quite evident.
At the time of al-Ghazālī, the fiction of al-Māwardī’s theory was even more apparent. Baghdad had fallen into the hands of the Seljuq Turks, although they were Muslims. Several religious scholars thus claimed that the imāma no longer served any purpose in these new political circumstances. Al-Ghazālī rejected this vision: in his view, if the imāma disappeared, the Muslim community would no longer exist. According to the theory developed several decades earlier by al-Māwardī, in the absence of imāms, the community’s religious functions as attested by the existence of the umma are suspended: Friday prayer, pilgrimage to Mecca, collection of alms (zakāt), holy war
A new phase in the evolution of the theory of power in Islam took place in 1258, when the Mongols captured Baghdad and abolished the Abbasid caliphate.66 The eastern Muslim empire, the heart of which lay in the Iranian world, fell into the hands of a non-Muslim power. After the 13th century, mirrors for princes and treatises on governmental ethics were still composed in the Iranian cultural area, although lengthy texts no longer emerged. The Akhlāq-i Nāṣirī of Naṣīr al-Dīn al-Ṭūsī marks the transition into a new period in the tradition of political advice literature.67 Influenced by Greek philosophy, Naṣīr al-Dīn al-Ṭūsī draws on concepts inherited from Aristotle, such as the notion of the king as the “wise ruler of the world”.68 As in the Sunni theories, he stresses that every good prince should be assisted by God, since this is proof of his legitimacy.
The stance that was eventually adopted after the fall of the Abbasid caliphate is summarized in the words of Badr al-Dīn b. Jamāʿa (d. 1333), a famous qadi of Damascus and contemporary of Ibn Taymiyya.74 He declared: “The sovereign has the right to govern until a stronger one seizes power and governs in his place. Any government, even if there are reasons to criticize it, is better than a power vacuum; it is therefore necessary to choose the lesser of two evils”.75 The wars opposing Muslims during the first centuries of Islam continued to have a profound effect until the end of the Middle Ages. The fear of political and social chaos considerably influenced the authors of government treatises and mirrors for princes, leading to significant conservatism in the dogmatic political thought of Islam.
4 Summary and Conclusion
Two principal movements emerge from the political advice literature in the Iranian world, barring the more minority or lesser known movements originating from the philosophical and Sufi schools. These visions of governance, one closer to ancient Persian wisdom and the other formulated according to Islamic norms, give rise to four questions in guise of a conclusion. In this tradition of princely ethics, how is the prince’s exercise of justice conceived? What attitude should be adopted towards a sovereign who does not respect religious law or is even tyrannical towards his subjects? What is the importance given to the advisors of the sovereign? And, finally, what were the repercussions of the historical evolution of the Iranian world – and more broadly, the Muslim East – on the conception of power in medieval Islam?
The works that have been presented and discussed here are dogmatic texts that express an ideal that is rarely attained in reality. The concept of justice did not have the same significance for the authors of the Sassanid and Islamic traditions. In the former case, the justice of the prince is linked to his wisdom and,
In the Islamic formulation of the theory of government, based on a well-known Qurʾanic verse, any rebellion against a sovereign who does not respect the sharia was prohibited. Indeed, throughout the Middle Ages, the authors of government treatises dreaded the idea of political, religious, and social chaos. It was therefore necessary to obey the man chosen by God to lead his people.
In the above discussion, the major role played by the king’s wise advisor has been brought to light. In the Shāh-nāmah, Firdawsī develops his reflection on royal wisdom through the model couple formed by Khusraw Anūshīrvān and his minister Buzurgmihr, the two central figures of the “Book of Kings”. When this founding text of Iranian identity was composed, Iran had already been part of the Muslim empire for more than five centuries. However, Persian Islam inherited the Sassanid theme of the king advised by wise men. Is Niẓām al-Mulk not the model of the wise vizier as the advisor of a Turkic sultan? This is what transpires in his Siyar al-mulūk, as well as in many historical examples. The idea of the prince’s sage vizier is also adopted in the Pseudo-Ghazālī. In a similar vein, al-Ghazālī, widely recognized for his attachment to Islam, retained the Sassanid role of the king’s advisor in his theory of power, elaborated in the Naṣīḥat al-mulūk. Though a fervent Sunni, al-Ghazālī nevertheless remained attached to this tradition of ancient Persia. In his text, the sultan is advised by ulemas rather than sages who give their moral support to the Turkic sultan’s choice of caliph. The Seljuq sultans at this time incontestably had the political authority and military strength to protect the subjects of the kingdom. Yet the entire framework introduced by al-Ghazālī is merely a fiction that seeks to provide a response to the new political situation: the de facto submission of the caliphate power to the Seljuq sultanate.
Translated by Victoria Grace
Bibliography
Primary Sources
Al-Māwardī. De l’éthique du prince et du gouvernement de l’état, trad. de l’arabe par Makram Abbès et précédé d’un Essai sur les arts de gouverner en Islam (Paris, 2015).
The book of Government or Rulers for Kings. The Siyâsat-nâma or Siyar al-Mulûk of Nizâm al-Mulk, trans. H. Darke (London, 1960).
Yûsuf Khâss Hâjib, Wisdom of Royal Glory (Kutadgu Bilig). A Turko-Islamic Mirror for Princes, trans. with an introduction and notes by R. Dankoff (Chicago, 1983).
Ghazâlî’s Book of Counsel for Kings (Nasîhat al-mulûk), trans. F.R.C. Bagley (London, 1964).
Henri Laoust, Le traité de droit public d’Ibn Taymîya. Traduction annotée de la siyâsa sharʿîya (Beirut, 1948).
Qurʾan, ed.
Secondary Sources
Aigle, Denise, “The Mongol Invasions of Bilâd al-Shâm by Ghâzân Khân and Ibn Taymiyya’s three ‘Anti-Mongo’ Fatwas”, in Mamluk Studies Review 11/2 (2007), pp. 1–31.
Aigle, Denise, “Legitimizing a Low-Born, Regicide Monarch: The Case of the Mamluk Sultan Baybars and the Ilkhans In the Thirteenth Century”, in Representing Power In Ancient Inner Asia: Legitimacy, Transmission And The Sacred, eds. Isabelle Charleux, Grégory Delaplace, Roberte Hamayon and Scott Pearce (Bellingham, 2010), pp. 61–94.
Bagley, Frank Ronald Charles, “Introduction”, in Ghazâlî’s Book of Counsel for Kings (Nasîhat al-mulûk), trans. F.R.C. Bagley (London, 1964), pp. ix–lxxiv.
Blair, Sheila, “The epigraphic program of the tomb of Uljaytu at Sultaniyya: meaning in Mongol architecture”, in Islamic Art 2 (1987), pp. 43–96.
Borrut, Antoine, Entre mémoire et pouvoir. L’espace syrien sous les derniers Omeyyades et les premiers Abbassides (v. 72–193/692–809) (Leiden, 2011).
Bosworth, Cliford E., “On the Chronology of the Ziyârides in Gurgân and Tabaristân”, in Der Islam 40/1 (1965), pp. 25–34.
Bosworth, Cliford E., “Kay Kâʿûs b. Iskandar”, in Encyclopédie de l’Islam, 2nd ed., vol. 4, pp. 847–848.
Bosworth, Cliford E., “An Early Arabic Mirror for Princes: Tâhir Dhû l-Yamînain’s Epistle to his Son ʿAbdallâh (206/821)”, in Journal of the Near Eastern Studies 29 (1970), pp. 25–41.
Bosworth, Cliford E., “Saldjûkides”, in Encyclopédie de l’Islam, 2nd ed., vol. 8, pp. 936–959.
Brockelmann, Carl, “Al-Mâwardî”, in Encylopédie de l’Islam, 2nd ed., vol. 6, pp. 859–860.
Busse, Heribert, “Fürstenspiegel und Fürstenethik”, in Bustan 9/1 (1968), pp. 12–19.
Cahen, Claude, “Notes sur l’historiographie dans la communauté musulmane idéale”, in Revue des études islamiques 13 (1977), pp. 81–88.
Caiozzo, Anna, Le roi glorieux. Les imaginaires de la royauté d’après les enluminures du Shāh Nāma de Firdawsī aux époques timourides et turkmène (Paris, 2018).
Crone, Patricia, “Did al-Gazâlî Write a Mirror for Princes? On the Authorship of the Nasîhat al-mulûk”, in Jerusalem Studies in Arabic and Islam 10 (1987), pp. 167–191.
Crone, Patricia, God’s Rule: Government and Islam (New York, 2004).
Forster, Regula and Neguin Yavari (eds.), Global Medieval Mirrors for Princes Reconsidered (Boston, 2015).
Dankoff, Robert, “Introduction”, in Yûsuf Khâss Hâjib, Wisdom of Royal Glory (Kutadgu Bilig). A Turko-Islamic Mirror for Princes, trans. R. Dankoff (Chicago, 1983), pp. 4–8.
Dankoff, Robert, “Inner Asia Wisdom Traditions in the Pre-Mongol Period”, in Journal of the American Oriental Society 101 (1981), pp. 25–41.
Fouchécour, Charles-Henri, Moralia. Les notions morales dans la littérature persane du IIIe–IXe au VIIe–XIIIe siècle (Paris, 1986).
Gabrieli, Francesco, “Ibn al-Mukaffaʾ”, in Encyclopédie de l’Islam, 2nd ed., vol. 3, pp. 907–909.
Gutas, Dimitri, “Ethische Schriften im Islam”, in Orientaliches Mittelalter, ed. W. Heinrichs (Wiesbaden, 1990), pp. 346–365.
Gutas, Dimitri, “Classical Arabic Wisdom Literature: Nature and Scope”, in Journal of the American Oriental Society 101 (1981), pp. 49–86.
Hillenbrand, Carole, “Islamic Orthodoxy or Realpolitik? Al-Ghazâlî’s Views on Government”, in Iran 26 (1988), pp. 88–94.
Jambet, Christian, “Idéal politique et politique idéale selon Nasîr al-Dîn Tûsî”, in Nasîr al-Dîn Tûsî. Philosophe et savant du XIIIe siècle, eds. N. Pourjavady and Z. Vesel (Teheran, 1997), pp. 31–57.
Kofler, Hans, “Handbuch des Islamischen Staats – und Verwaltungsrechtes von Badr-al-Dîn Ibn Gamâʿah”, in Islamica 6/4 (1934), pp. 349–414; 7/1 (1935), pp. 1–64; Schlussheft (1938), pp. 18–129.
Lambton, Ann K.S., “Changing Concepts of Justice and Injustice from the 5th/11th Century to the 8th/14th Century in Persia”, in Studia Islamica (1988), pp. 45–60.
Lambton, Ann K.S., “Islamic Political Thought”, in The Legacy of Islam, eds. J. Schacht and C.E. Bosworth (Oxford, 1974), pp. 404–424. Reimpr. in Theory and Practice in Medieval Persian Government (London, 1980).
Lambton, Ann K.S., “Islamic Society in Persia”, in An Inaugural Lecture. School of Oriental and African Studies (London, 1954), pp. 3–32. Reimpr. in Theory and Practice in Medieval Persian Government (London, 1980).
Lambton, Ann K.S., “Justice in the Medieval Persian Theory of Kingship”, in Studia Islamica 17 (1962), pp. 91–119. Reimpr. in Theory and Practice in Medieval Persian Government (London, 1980).
Lambton, Ann K.S., “The Theory of Kingship in the Nasîhat ul-mulûk of Ghazâlî”, in Islamic Quarterly 1 (1954), pp. 47–55.
Lambton, Ann K.S., Continuity and Change in Medieval Persia (Albany, NY, 1988).
Lambton, Ann K.S., “Islamic Mirrors for Princes”, in La Persia nel medioevo (Rome, 1971), pp. 419–442. Repr. in Theory and Practice in Medieval Persian Government (London, 1980).
Lambton, Ann K.S., “The Dilemma of Government in Islamic Persia: The Siyâsat-Nâma of Nizâm al-Mulk”, in Iran 22 (1984), pp. 55–66.
Lambton, Ann K.S., State and Government in Medieval Islam (London, 1981).
Laoust, Henri, Essai sur les doctrines sociales et politique de Takî al-Dîn Ibn Taymîya (Cairo, 1939).
Laoust, Henri, “Ibn Taymiyya”, in Encyclopédie de l’Islam, 2nd ed., vol. 3, pp. 976–979.
Laoust, Henri, “L’action et la pensée politique d’al-Mâwardî”, in Revue des études islamiques 36 (1958), pp. 11–92.
Laoust, Henri, La politique de Ghazālī (Paris, 1970).
Laoust, Henri, Le traité de droit public d’Ibn Taymîya. Traduction annotée de la siyâsa sharʿîya (Beirut, 1948).
Leder, Stefan, “Aspekte arabischer und persischer Fürstenspiegel: Legitimation, Fürstenethik, politischer Vernunft”, in Specula principum, ed. Angela de Benedictis (Frankfurt, 1999), pp. 21–50.
Marlow, Louise, “A Samanid work of counsel and commentary: The Naṣīḥat al-mulūk of Pseudo-Mā;wardī”, in Iran: Journal of the British Institute of Persian Studies 45 (2007), pp. 181–192.
Marlow, Louise, “Adab al-mulūk”, in Encyclopedia of Mediterranean Humanism, ed. Houari Touati (Spring 2014). URL: https://www.encyclopedie-humanisme.com/?Adab-al-Mul%C5%ABk.
Marlow, Louise, “Advice and Advice Literature”, in Encyclopaedia Islamica, 3rd ed., online edition.
Marlow, Louise, Counsel for Kings. Wisdom and Politics in Tenth-Century Iran. The Naṣiḥat al-Mulūk of Pseudo-Māwardī, 2 vols. (Edinburgh, 2016).
Marlow, Louise, “Kings, Prophets and the Ulamâʾ in Medieval Islamic Advice Literature”, in Studia Islamica 81 (1955), pp. 101–120.
Marlow, Louise, “The Way of Viziers and the Lamp of Commanders (Minhâj al-wuzarrâʾ wa-sirâj al-umarâʾ) of Ahmad al-Isfahbadhî and the Literary and Political Culture of Early Fourteenth-Century Iran”, in Writers and Rulers. Perspectives on Their Relationship from Abbasid to Safavid Times, eds. B. Gruendler and L. Marlow (Wiesbaden, 2004), pp. 169–192.
Meisami, Julie S., “Le Shâh-nâme as Mirror for Princes. A Study in Reception”, in Pand-o sokhan, eds. Ch. Balaÿ, Cl. Kappler and Z. Vesel (Teheran, 1995), pp. 265–273.
Meisami, Julie S., Persian Historiography to the End of the Twelfth Century (Edinburgh, 1999).
Mélikian-Chirvani, Assadullah S., “Conscience du passé et résistance culturelle dans l’Iran mongol”, in L’Iran face à la domination mongole, ed. D. Aigle (Teheran, 1995), pp. 135–177.
Mélikian-Chirvani, Assadullah S., “Le Livre des Rois, Miroir du destin”, in Studia Iranica 17 (1988), pp. 7–46.
Nazim, Muḥammad, “The Pand-Nâmah of Sebuktegîn”, in Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society (1933), pp. 605–628.
Pellat, Charles, Ibn al-Mukaffaʿ- mort vers 140/757 - « conseilleur » du Calife (Paris, 1976).
Richter, Gustav, Studien sur Geschichte der älteren arabischen Fürstenspiegel (Leipzig, 1932).
Rosenthal, Erwin I.J., Political Thought in Medieval Islam (Cambridge, 1985).
Salibi, Kamal S., “Ibn Jamâʿa”, in Encyclopédie de l’Islam, 2nd ed., vol. 3, pp. 771–772.
Schoeler, Gregor, “Verfasser und Titel des Jâhiz zugeschrieben sof. Kitâb al-Tâj”, in Zeitschrift der deutschen mörgenländischen Gesellschaft 130 (1980), pp. 217–115.
Simidchieva, Marta, “Kingship and Legitimacy in Nizâm al-Mulk’s Siyâsatnâma, Fifth/Eleventh Century”, in Writers and rulers. Perspectives on Their Relationship from Abbasid to Safavid Times, eds. B. Gruendler and L. Marlow (Wiesbaden, 2004), pp. 97–131.
Simidchieva, Marta, “Siyâsatnâme revisited: the question of authenticity”, in Proceeding of the Second European Conference of Iranian Studies Held in Bamberg, 30th Septembre to 4th October 1991, by the Societas Iranologica Europae, eds. B. Fragner, G. Gnoli, R. Haag-Higuchi, M. Maggi and P. Orsatti (Rome, 1995), pp. 657–674.
Subtelny, Maria, Le monde est un jardin. Aspect de l’histoire culturelle de l’Iran médiéval. (Studia Iranica) Cahier 28 (Paris, 2002).
Tardy, Jean, “Traduction d’Adab al-Kabîr d’Ibn al-Muqaffaʿ”, in Annales islamologiques 27 (1993), pp. 181–223.
Watt, Wiliam Montgomery, “al-Ghazâlî”, in Encyclopédie de l’Islam, 2nd ed., vol. 2, pp. 1062–1066.
Yavari, Neguin, Advice for the Sultan. Prophetic Voices and Secular Politics in Medieval Islam (Oxford, 2014).
Yavari, Neguin, “Neẓām al-Molk”, in Encyclopaedia Iranica (online, 2015).
Yavari, Neguin, “Siar al-Molu”, in Encyclopaedia Iranica (online, 2015).
Yavari, Neguin, The Future of Iran’s Past: Nizam al-Mulk Remembered (London, 2018).
This expression is used by Christian Jambet, “Idéal politique et politique idéale selon Nasîr al-Dîn Tûsî”, in Nasîr al-Dîn Tûsî. Philosophe et savant du XIIIe siècle, eds. N. Pourjavady and Z. Vesel (Teheran, 1997), p. 52.
On the cultural aspect of mirrors for princes beyond the Islamic world, see Robert Dankoff, “Introduction”, in Yûsuf Khâss Hâjib, Wisdom of Royal Glory (Kutadgu Bilig). A Turko-Islamic Mirror for Princes, trans. with an introduction and notes R. Dankoff (Chicago/London, 1983), pp. 4–8; Global Medieval Mirrors for Princes Reconsidered.
See Louise Marlow, “Advice and Advice Literature”, in Encyclopaedia Islamica, 3rd ed., pp. 34–58; “Adab al-mulūk”.
The term qut means royal charisma and bilig wisdom, hence the title of this work, which became a monument of Turkic literature in the 11th century.
Here, I utilise the term “Turkic” to avoid ambiguity with the word “Turkish” in reference to the language spoken in Turkey in contrast to the different Turkish languages of medieval Central Asia.
These stelae, erected in the cradle of the ancient Turkic khanates, describe the divine origin of the khans, their wisdom, and the glory of their great ancestors.
Yūsuf Khāṣṣ Ḥājib, Wisdom of Royal Glory (Kutadgu bilig), p. 222. The Qarakhanid Turks converted to Islam in the mid-10th century. The book is dedicated to the prince Tavghach Bughra Khan; see Robert Dankoff, “Inner Asia Wisdom Traditions in the Pre-Mongol Period”, in Journal of the American Oriental Society 101 (1981), pp. 25–41.
Cliford E. Bosworth, “An Early Arabic Mirror for Princes: Tâhir Dhû l-Yamînain’s Epistle to his Son ʿAbdallâh (206/821)”, in Journal of the Near Eastern Studies 29 (1970), pp. 25–41; Muḥammad, Nazim, “The Pand-Nâmah of Sebuktegîn”, in Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society (1933), pp. 605–628.
For an overview of Mirrors for Princes, see Heribert Busse, “Fürstenspiegel und Fürstenethik”, in Bustan 9/1 (1968), pp. 12–19; Ann K.S. Lambton, “Islamic Mirrors for Princes”, in La Persia nel medioevo (Rome, 1971), pp. 419–442; Dimitri Gutas, “Ethische Schriften im Islam”, in Orientaliches Mittelalter, ed. W. Heinrichs (Wiesbaden, 1990), pp. 346–365; Stefan Leder, “Aspekte arabischer und persischer Fürstenspiegel: Legitimation, Fürstenethik, politischer Vernunft”, in Specula principum, ed. A. de Benedictis (Frankfurt, 1999), pp. 21–50; Neguin Yavari, Advice for the Sultan. Prophetic Voices and Secular Politics in Medieval Islam (Oxford, 2014).
Claude Cahen, “Notes sur l’historiographie dans la communauté musulmane idéale”, in Revue des études islamiques 13 (1977), p. 82.
This is the case of the inscriptions preserved on diverse monuments in Iran. See Sheila Blair, “The epigraphic program of the tomb of Uljaytu at Sultaniyya: meaning in Mongol architecture”, in Islamic Art 2 (1987), pp. 43–96.
This work, completed in 1235, is dedicated to its patron, a dignitary of Qūhistān.
On this text, see Charles-Henri Fouchécour, Moralia. Les notions morales dans la littérature persane du IIIe–IXe au VIIe/XIIIe siècle (Paris, 1986), pp. 444–447; Jambet, “Idéal politique et politique idéale”; Maria Subtelny, Le monde est un jardin. Aspect de l’histoire culturelle de l’Iran médiéval (Studia Iranica) Cahier 28 (Paris, 2002), p. 57.
For example, the treatise of Jalāl al-Dīn al-Dawānī entitled Akhlāq-i Jalālī (written between 1467 and 1477) and the famous Akhlāq-i Muhsinī composed in Herat by Husayn Wāʿiẓ al-Kāshifī (d. 1504–1505); see Subtelny, Le monde est un jardin, pp. 60–65.
Louise Marlow, “The Way of Viziers and the Lamp of Commanders (Minhâj al-wuzarrâʾ wa-sirâj al-umarâʾ) of Ahmad al-Isfahbadhî and the Literary and Political Culture of Early Fourteenth-Century Iran”, in Writers and Rulers. Perspectives on Their Relationship from Abbasid to Safavid Times, eds. B. Gruendler and L. Marlow (Wiesbaden, 2004), p. 171.
See below.
Jambet, “Idéal politique et politique”, p. 45; see also Ann K.S. Lambton, “Islamic Political Thought”, in The Legacy of Islam, eds. J. Schacht and C.E. Bosworth (Oxford, 1974), 404–424. Reimpr. in Theory and Practice in Medieval Persian Government (London, 1980), p. 404.
Moralia, p. 56.
Moralia, p. 84.
On this Persian wisdom literature, refer to Moralia; see Khusraw Anūshīrvān, pp. 38–58; Buzurgmihr, pp. 58–67; Ardashīr, pp. 84–100.
Ann K.S. Lambton, “Justice in the Medieval Persian Theory of Kingship”, in Studia Islamica 17 (1962), p. 96.
On the structure of Iranian society in the Islamic period, see Ann K.S. Lambton, “Islamic Society in Persia”, in An Inaugural Lecture. School of Oriental and African Studies (London, 1954), pp. 3–32; Continuity and Change in Medieval Persia, pp. 221–246.
Moralia, p. 397.
Julie S. Meisami, “Le Shâh-nâme as Mirror for Princes. A Study in Reception”, in Pand-o sokhan, eds. Ch. Balaÿ, Cl. Kappler and Z. Vesel (Teheran, 1995), pp. 265–273. See also Assadullah S. Mélikian-Chirvani, “Conscience du passé et résistance culturelle dans l’Iran mongol”, in L’Iran face à la domination mongole, ed. D. Aigle (Teheran, 1995), pp. 135–177; Assadullah S. Mélikian-Chirvani, “Le Livre des Rois, Miroir du destin”, in Studia Iranica 17 (1988), pp. 7–46. On the importance of the Shāh-nāmah in iconography, see the recent work of Anna Caiozzo, Le roi glorieux. Les imaginaires de la royauté d’après les enluminures du Shāh Nāma de Firdawsī aux époques timourides et turkmène (Paris, 2018).
On Arabic mirrors for princes, see Gustav Richter, Studien sur Geschichte der älteren arabischen Fürstenspiegel (Leipzig, 1932); Dimitri Gutas, “Classical Arabic Wisdom Literature: Nature and Scope”, in Journal of the American Oriental Society 101 (1981), pp. 49–86.
Francesco Gabrieli, “Ibn al-Mukaffaʿ”, in Encyclopédie de l’Islam, 2nd ed., vol. 3, pp. 907–909.
This text is presented by Erwin I.J. Rosenthal, Political Thought in Medieval Islam (Cambridge, 1985), pp. 69–74; Ann K.S. Lambton, State and Government in Medieval Islam (London, 1981), p. 54; Marlow, “Advice and Advice Literature”, pp. 38–39: “Adab al-mulūk”, online.
Lambton, “Justice in the Medieval Persian”, p. 98; “Islamic Political Thought”, pp. 408–409.
See Gregor Schoeler, “Verfasser und Titel des Jâhiz zugeschrieben sof. Kitâb al-Tâj”, in Zeitschrift der deutschen mörgenländischen Gesellschaft 130 (1980), pp. 217–215.
These words of the Prophet Muḥammad are found in the main collections of hadiths.
On these treatises, see Ann K.S. Lambton, “Changing Concepts of Justice and Injustice from the 5th/11th Century to the 8th/14th Century in Persia”, in Studia Islamica (1988), pp. 45–60.
Louise Marlow, “A Samanid work of counsel and commentary: The Naṣīḥat al-mulūk of Pseudo-Mā;wardī”, in Iran: Journal of the British Institute of Persian Studies 45 (2007), pp. 181–192, as well as her contribution in this volume. She translated and commented the text in Counsel for Kings: Wisdom and Politics in Tenth-Century Iran.
Marlow, “A Samanid Work of Counsel and Commentary”, pp. 182–183.
Cliford E. Bosworth, “Kay Kâʿûs b. Iskandar”, in Encyclopédie de l’Islam, 2nd ed., vol. 4, pp. 847–848.
Moralia, pp. 179–222.
This mirror for princes is also known under the title of Siyāsat-nāmah; see the discussion on the title in Moralia, p. 384. English Translation: The Book of Government or Rulers for Kings. On this text, see the analyses of Marta Simidchieva, “Kingship and Legitimacy in Nizâm al-Mulk’s Siyâsatnâma, Fifth/Eleventh Century”, in Writers and rulers. Perspectives on Their Relationship from Abbasid to Safavid Times, eds. B. Gruendler and L. Marlow (Wiesbaden, 2004), pp. 97–131; cf. also Moralia, pp. 381–389.
On the role of Niẓām al-Mulk in the Seljuq administration, see Cliford E. Bosworth, “Saldjûkides”, in Encyclopédie de l’Islam, 2nd ed., vol. 8, p. 941; Julie S. Meisami, Persian Historiography to the End of the Twelfth Century (Edinburgh, 1999), p. 271, n. 9.
Simidchieva, “Kingship and Legitimacy in Niẓām al-Mulk’s Siyāsatnāma”, p. 98.
Neguin Yavari, The Future of Iran’s Past: Nizam al-Mulk Remembered (London, 2018), chap. 3–5.
N. Yavari recently worked on Niẓām al-Mulk and the Siyar al-mulūk; see the entries “Neẓām al-Molk” and “Siar al-Moluk”; Advice for the Sultan, pp. 18–23; The Future of Iran’s Past.
The first part is constituted of thirty-nine chapters; see Simidchieva, “Kingship and Legitimacy in Niẓām al-Mulk’s Siyāsatnāma”, p. 99. On the stages of its composition, see idem, “Siyāsat-nāme Revisited: The Question of Authenticity”, pp. 657–674.
Yavari, Advice for the Sultan, p. 29.
The book of Government or Rulers for Kings. The Siyâsat-nâma or Siyar al-Mulûk of Nizâm al-Mulk, trans. H. Darke (London, 1960), p. 9.
Moralia, p. 401.
Moralia, p. 421.
The Book of Government, p. 143.
The Book of Government, p. 143.
The Book of Government, p. 13.
The English translation of the text is entitled Ghazâlî’s Book of Counsel for Kings.
On al-Ghazālī, see Frank R. Charles Bagley, “Introduction”, in Ghazâlî’s Book of Counsel for Kings (Nasîhat al-mulûk), trans. F.R.C. Bagley (London, 1964), pp. IX–LXXIV; Wiliam Montgomery Watt, “al-Ghazâlî”, in Encyclopédie de l’Islam, 2nd ed., vol. 2, pp. 1062–1066.
Moralia, pp. 389–390.
The two sections of the Naṣīḥat al-mulūk were translated under the title of al-Tibr al-masbūk fī naṣīḥat al-mulūk. The work is dedicated to the Atabek of Mosul, Alp Qutlugh (d. 595/1199). See Moralia, p. 391, n. 104.
Cf. the oldest known manuscript dated to 1309; Moralia, p. 391, n. 105.
For Ann K.S. Lambton, the two sections of the Naṣīḥat al-mulūk were penned by al-Ghazālī; see “The Theory of Kingship in the Nasîhat ul-mulûk of Ghazâlî”, in Islamic Quarterly 1 (1954), pp. 47–55. On the incorrect attribution of the text to al-Ghazālī, see Patricia Crone, “Did al-Gazâlî Write a Mirror for Princes? On the Authorship of the Nasîhat al-mulûk”, in Jerusalem Studies in Arabic and Islam 10 (1987), pp. 167–191; Carole Hillenbrand, “Islamic Orthodoxy or Realpolitik? Al-Ghazâlî’s Views on Government”, in Iran 26 (1988), pp. 88–94.
Moralia, p. 389.
Moralia, p. 359.
See Antoine Borrut, Entre mémoire et pouvoir. L’espace syrien sous les derniers Omeyyades et les premiers Abbassides (v. 72–193/692–809) ( Leiden, 2011), pp. 283–320.
Moralia, pp. 395–396.
Moralia, p. 396.
Moralia, p. 401.
Moralia, p. 401.
Quran, 4:59.
Carl Brockelmann, “Al-Mâwardî”, in Encylopédie de l’Islam, 2nd ed., vol. 6, pp. 859–860; Rosenthal, Political Thought in Medieval Islam, pp. 27–37; Henri Laoust, “L’action et la pensée politique d’al-Mâwardî”, in Revue des études islamiques 36 (1958), pp. 11–92. Al-Māwardī is also the author of other treatises, one of the most important being the Tashīl al-naẓar wa-taʿjīl al-ẓafar, recently translated and commented by Makram Abbès, Al-Māwardī. De l’éthique du prince et du gouvernement de l’état (Paris, 2015)
Patricia Crone, God’s Rule: Government and Islam (New York, 2004), p. 242.
On this aspect of his work, see Henri Laoust, La politique de Ghazālī (Paris, 1970).
The Abbasid caliphate was restored in Cairo by the Mamluk sultan Baybars (r. 1260–1277) for the purpose of political legitimacy. However, devoid of political power, the new caliph held only a symbolic function.
Subtelny, Le monde est un jardin, p. 59. A few short treatises on governmental ethics were also integrated in the historical chronicles; see Marlow, “The Way of Viziers and the Lamp of Commanders” (cf. note 15), especially the summary table, p. 193.
Jambet, “Idéal politique et politique idéale selon Naṣīr al-Dīn Ṭūsī”, p. 41.
At this time, the Mongol sovereigns of Iran converted to Islam, so fighting them posed a legal problem. On this issue and the role played by Ibn Taymiyya, see Denise Aigle, “The Mongol Invasions of Bilâd al-Shâm by Ghâzân Khân and Ibn Taymiyya’s three ‘Anti-Mongo’ Fatwas”, in Mamluk Studies Review 11/2 (2007), pp. 1–31.
In light of the abundant literature on Ibn Taymiyya, refer to the work of Henri Laoust, Essai sur les doctrines sociales et politique de Takî al-Dîn Ibn Taymîya (Cairo, 1939). On his political thought, see Lambton, State and Government in Medieval Islam, pp. 143–151.
Henri Laoust, Le traité de droit public d’Ibn Taymîya (Beirut, 1948).
Lambton, State and Government in Medieval Islam, p. 144.
Lambton, State and Government in Medieval Islam, p. 145.
Kamal S. Salibi, “Ibn Jamâʿa”, in Encyclopédie de l’Islam, 2nd ed., vol. 3, pp. 771–772; Lambton, State and Government in Medieval Islam, pp. 138–143. Ibn Jamāʿa is the author of a government treatise entitled Taḥrīr al-ahkām fī tadbīr ahl al-islām, which is quite similar to that of al-Māwardī. It was edited and translated by Hans Kofler, “Handbuch des Islamischen Staats – und Verwaltungsrechtes von Badr-al-Dîn Ibn Gamâʿah”, in Islamica 6/4 (1934), pp. 349–414; 7/1 (1935), pp. 1–64; Schlussheft (1938), pp. 18–129.
Citation taken from Lambton, “Islam Political Thought”, p. 415.
I am aware of the somewhat anachronistic usage of these terms.
Jambet, “Idéal politique et politique idéale selon Naṣīr al-Dīn Ṭūsī”, p. 52.
Subtelny, Le monde est un jardin, p. 59.
Denise Aigle, “Legitimizing a Low-Born, Regicide Monarch: The Case of the Mamluk Sultan Baybars and the Ilkhans in the Thirteenth Century”, in Representing Power in Ancient Inner Asia: Legitimacy, Transmission and the Sacred, eds. I. Charleux, G. Delaplace, R. Hamayon and S. Pearce (Bellingham, 2010), chap. 2, pp. 61–94.