The True Character of Royal Authority

20. Those who gain power over the ruler do not share with him in the special title that goes with royal authority

This is because the first men to achieve royal and governmental authority at the beginning of the dynasty do so with the help of the group feeling of their people and with the help of their own group feeling which causes their people to follow (them) until they and their people have definitely adopted the coloring of royal authority and superiority.

The coloring, then, continues to exist. Through it, the identity and persistence of the dynasty are assured. Now, the person who gains superiority (over the ruler) may have a share in the group feeling that belongs to the tribe which has obtained royal authority or to its clients and followers.

However, his group feeling still is comprised by, and subordinate to, the group feeling of the family of the ruler. He cannot (take on) the coloring of royal authority.

Thus, in gaining control, he does not plan to appropriate royal authority for himself openly, but only to appropriate its fruits, that is, the exercise of administrative, executive, and all other power. 183

He gives the people of the dynasty the impression that he merely acts for the ruler and executes the latter’s decisions from behind the curtain. He carefully refrains from using the attributes, emblems, or titles of royal authority. He avoids throwing any suspicion upon himself in this respect, even though he exercises full control.

For, in his exercise of full control, he takes cover behind the curtain the ruler and his ancestors had set up to protect themselves from their own tribe when the dynasty came into being. He disguises his exercise of control under the form of acting as the ruler’s representative.

Should he undertake to adopt (any of the royal prerogatives), the people who represent the group feeling and tribe of the ruler would resent it 184 and contrive to appropriate (the royal prerogatives) for themselves, to his exclusion. He has no definite coloring to (make him appear suited for the royal prerogatives) or cause others to submit to him and obey him. (Any attempt by him to appropriate the royal prerogatives) would, thus, instantly precipitate his doom.

Something of the sort happened to ‘Abd-ar-Rahman b. al-Manslir b. Abi Amir.

He aspired to share the title of caliph with Hisham and his house. He was not satisfied with control of the executive power and the resulting forms (of honor) with which his father and brother had been satisfied. He sought to be entrusted with the caliphate by his caliph, Hisham. The Marwanids (Umayyads) and the other Qurashites were furious to see him do that. They took the oath of allegiance to a cousin of the caliph Hisham, Muhammad (b. Hisham) b. ‘Abd-al-Jabbir b. an-Nasir, and revolted against (the party of Ibn Abi ‘Amir).

That caused the ruin of the ‘Amirid dynasty and the destruction of their caliph (Hisham) al-Mu’ayyad. In (al-Mu’ayyad’s) place, someone else from among the leaders of the dynasty was chosen, (and his house remained in power) down to the end of the dynasty and the dissolution of their pattern of royal authority.

21. The true character and different kinds of royal authority

Royal authority is an institution that is natural to mankind because humans need social organization and cooperation for obtaining their food and necessities of life.

When they have organized, necessity requires that they deal with each other and (thus) satisfy (their) needs. Each one will stretch out his hand for whatever he needs and (try simply to) take it, 188 since injustice and aggressiveness are in the animal nature. The others, in turn, will try to prevent him from taking it, motivated by wrathfulness 189 and spite and the strong human reaction when (one’s own property is menaced). This causes dissension. (Dissension) leads to hostilities, and hostilities lead to trouble and bloodshed and loss of life, which (in turn) lead to the destruction of the (human) species. Now, (the human species) is one of the things the Creator has especially (told us) too preserve.

People, thus, cannot persist in a state of anarchy and without a ruler who keeps them apart. Therefore, they need a person to restrain them. He is their ruler.

He must be a forceful ruler, as required by human nature. He should actually exercise authority.

Group feeling is absolutely necessary in this, because aggressive and defensive enterprises can succeed only with the help of group feeling. A royal authority of this kind is a noble institution, toward which all claims are directed, and (one) that needs to be defended.

Group feelings differ. Each group feeling exercises its own authority and superiority over the people and family adhering to it. Not every group feeling has royal authority.

Royal authority, in reality, belongs only to those who dominate subjects, collect taxes, send out (military) expeditions, 191 protect the frontier regions, and have no one over them who is stronger than they. This is generally accepted as the real meaning of royal authority.

There are people whose group feeling falls short of accomplishing (one or another of these things which constitute) part of (real royal authority), such as protecting the frontier regions, or collecting taxes, or sending out (military) expeditions.

Such royal authority is defective and not royal authority in the real meaning of the term. This was the case with many of the Berber rulers of the Aghlabid dynasty in al-Qayrawan, and with the non-Arab (Persian) rulers at the beginning of the ‘Abbasid dynasty.

Then, there are people whose group feeling is not strong enough to gain control over all the other group feelings or to stop everyone, so that there exists an authority superior to theirs. Their royal authority is also defective, and not royal authority in the real meaning of the term.

It is exercised by provincial amirs and regional chieftains who are all under one dynasty. This situation is often found in farflung dynasties. There are rulers of provincial and remote regions who rule their own people but also obey the central power of the dynasty.

Such was the relationship of the Sinhajah with the ‘Ubaydid(-Fatimids); of the Zanatah with the (Spanish) Umayyads at one time and with the ‘Ubaydid(-Fatimids)at another; of the non-Arab (Persian) rulers with the ‘Abbasids; of the Berber amirs and rulers with the European Christians (in the Maghrib) prior to Islam; and of the rulers of the (old) Persian successor states with Alexander and his Greeks.