Who Was the "Educated Persian?"

Since the Papal Brouhaha erupted I have been very interested in identifying the "Educated Persian" with whom Manuel II Palaiologos carried on his famous religious debates. The answer is fascinating.

First, it is important to note that the political relationship between the deteriorating Byzantine empire and the rising Ottoman empire was an extremely complex one, but suffice it to say that Manuel was very much the underdog. In fact, he (the Emperor of all the Romans) was an acknowledged vassal of the Turkish sultan.

According to an article by Wilhelm Baum of the University of Graz in Austria, Manuel's debates took place under the auspices of the sultan:

After his enthronement in March 1391 Manuel II still had to perform military service for the sultan in Asia Minor from June 1391 to January 1392 as a vassal of the Turks. As part of it he not only had had (in late 1390) to support the sultan against various Turkish emirates, but as an especial humiliation he had to aid his mortal enemy with the conquest of Philadelphia, the last Byzantine hold-out in Asia Minor, but now in May 1391 he was summoned again to Anatolia and took part in a campaign on the Black Sea coast until Mid-January1392. The emperor, who on the coins still bore the title King and Autokrator, was as a vassal of course subject to the sultan's orders on campaign -- the sultan who amused himself at banquets, while the emperor discussed Islam with the Kadi. From October to December of 1391 the emperor enjoyed the hospitality of the Muderris (=Kadi) at Ankara. A Muslim born to Christian parents acted as interpreter between the emperor and the Kadi.

So this is the "Educated Persian," the Kadi or Qadi:

a judge ruling in accordance with the sharia, Islamic religious law. Because Islam makes no distinction between religious and secular domains, qadis traditionally have jurisdiction over all legal matters involving Muslims. The judgment of a qadi must be based on ijma, the prevailing consensus of the ulema, Islamic scholars.

Manuel's conversations about Islam therefore took place with an expert in Sharia law in the presence of the sultan. It was Manuel who was in a position of subordination to his Muslim overlords and was at the time a guest of the Qadi.

How interesting indeed, that in the old days of Muslim ascendency, no one offered to cut off the head of the questioning infidel, although they could easily have done so. Instead, his gracious hosts encouraged him to speak his mind and amused themselves by answering his objections and correcting his misconceptions, as they understood them.

The behavior of the Qadi and his Sultan, in my opinion, should be celebrated as one of the high points of Muslim civilization. Has that civilization declined so much in the intervening centuries, that the way debates are settled is now by vitriol and violence instead of by reasoned and dignified discourse?

Comments

[Brian]

Hey I just stumbled into A great blog, this is my kind of place.
See you soon, Brian

[gail]

Thanks Brian. You are most welcome here!

[Miriam]

I am so glad to know all that--it puts everything in a different light.

[gail]

I was astonished when I found out what the context of the discussions was.

[JWebb]

Thank you, Gail. Context is everything.

[Nishizono]

shukran, gail.
fascinating.

[Eric Blair]

The behavior of the Sultan and the Qadi is easily explainable within the context of their fuedal relationship. At that point, being the Byzantine Emperor was akin to being a very minor princeling, and for the Sultan, the Emperor could say what he wanted as long as he did his service competently. The Emperor knew he was effectively powerless, and so did they, not to mention that the conversation would have been effectively limited to whoever was present, (and probably not in the presence of the Sultan).

The Sultan was perfectly agreeable to settling things by violence. Review the history of the Ottoman Empire, particularly the politics within the palace. Murdering all your brothers to secure the sultanate isn't exactly dignified discourse.

[gail]

The power politics of the era were brutal everywhere. They didn't "debate" things like power-sharing and succession, etc. The point I was making was that Islam could at that time be criticized without a hysterical or irrational response. I did point out Manuel's vassallage. His feudal relationship to the Sultan makes his ability to criticize Islam all the more interesting since he could so easily have been quashed.

[gail]

Also whether the sultan was present in the room or not isn't the point. He was present in the campaign and would have been fully aware of what was going on. I think your notion of vassallage is somewhat crudely overdrawn. An emperor could be a vassal to a sultan but still be an emperor and treated as one within the context of social relationships if not power politics. To do anything less would have been to dilute the nature of authority all up and down the feudal line.

[Bravo Romeo Delta]

Gail,

In respect to any potential regret you might feel over the post, don't despair. The process of debate and engagement is messy and will, from time to time, be populated by a few who go haring off into the distance with what they want your words to mean.

In passing, I am not entirely comfortable with the contention that this episode marks a relative high point for Islam, insofar as the fact that Manuel wasn't killed speaks more to the fact that Islam was busy expanding by the sword through external conquest. Today, the process of violent conquest has simply been replaced by violent suppression. So, I'm not certain that it was better, only different.

BRD

[gail]

I think it does represent a high point for Islam within the context of the customs of the time, which were remarkably brutal on all fronts.

[Bravo Romeo Delta]

Fair point. All in all, this whole debate has been the occasion for much consideration.

[gail]

I appreciate your considered response to it. I fear that I'm doing more harm than good when my material gets treated frivolously.

[Baraka]

Greetings of peace,

Thank you for presenting the context and for your interesting reflections.

Warmly,
Baraka

[gail]

Aleikum Salaam, Baraka!

[Abu Sahajj]

Has that civilization declined so much in the intervening centuries, that the way debates are settled is now by vitriol and violence instead of by reasoned and dignified discourse?

Gail,

It is an interesting question, however, fallacious. You must first clarify the context in which you use the term "civilization".

Are you referring to the decline of intellectual and cultural developments in human society or the culture of Muslims in society? This point is very important and is worthy of mention because it serves to clarify your point.

If it is the overall culture of intellectuals in society, I will agree that there is much to be desired in terms of intellectual and not strategic function in politics.

However, if by "civilization" you mean the overall culture of Muslims as a society then it must be noted that the current society of Muslims has only a fragmented relationship to the former Ottoman Empire.

In fact it is safe to say that the Muslim Ummah is in many ways disenfranchised and disjointed due to the dismatling of the Khalifa.

[gail]

I don't think a question can be fallacious, because it can always be answered either yes or no -- it was intended to open discussion, not to close it -- and I appreciate the distinctions you've made. I agree with your assessment of an overall deficit in intellectual discourse. I also agree that Muslim culture cannot be pigeonholed; it is quite diverse. I was referring specifically to the self-appointed Muslim cultural spokesmen who respond to criticism with intimidation rather than reasoned rebuttal. I think these sorts of people are pushing themselves to the fore in the public consciousness and I would very much like to see the self-confident, scholarly, judicious voices to be heard instead.