Chapter two presents the views of the prominent Sunni scholar ʿAbd al-Malik al-Juwaynī (d. 478/1085) in his Succour of Nations Amidst the Confusion of Darkness (Ghiyāth al-umam fī iltiyāth al-ẓulam). If early Sunni theologians conceived of the imamate in theological terms that strictly adhered to precedence, while later jurists understood the office in pragmatic and legal terms, then al-Juwaynī was a representative of the latter approach. Unlike many of his predecessors, al-Juwaynī came to terms with the termination of the ideal early caliphate. He endeavoured to provide a political theory that accommodated rulers who met the minimum requirements of Islamic law. A key thesis of al-Juwaynī is that jurists are essential to the governing process and that without them, a state would fail, thus, he posits the ruler’s consultation of jurists as a key source of his legitimacy. Furthermore, al-Juwaynī rejects the claim that a legitimate ruler must possess many of the ideal qualities associated with the early caliphs in Islamic history.

One of the most enduring sources of conflict among Muslims is the question of who or what represents legitimate power and authority after the Prophet Muhammad. This introduction briefly examines the diverse answers that key representatives of the classical Islamic tradition offered to this controversial question. A concise overview of early Islamic political history is followed by a survey of Islamic thought on the subject of authority in the formative (seventh-ninth centuries) and classical periods (ninth-thirteenth centuries). This introduction presents the views of six major theological schools of the classical period: Ashʿarism (representative of Sunnism), Muʿtazilism, Ibadism, Twelver Shiʿism, Ismaʿilism, and Zaydism. Finally, this chapter discusses the classical Arabic texts that appear in English translation in this anthology as well as their respective themes, authors, and historical contexts.

Chapter one presents the views of the Sunni scholar Muḥammad b. al-Ḥasan b. Fūrak (d. 406/1015) in his Précis of the Doctrines of Abū ’l-Ḥasan al-Ashʿarī (Mujarrad maqālāt Abī ’l-Ḥasan al-Ashʿarī). In this work, Ibn Fūrak discusses the teachings of the famous Sunni theologian, Abū ’l-Ḥasan al-Ashʿarī (d. 324/935−6), and quotes him directly from writings that are not extant. The Précis provides a brief overview of traditional Sunni views on the imamate. Ibn Fūrak and al-Ashʿarī interpret the history of succession after the Prophet Muhammad in a way that is charitable to the Companions and downplays the conflicts among them. This approach reflects the Sunni view of the first four caliphs as individuals who possessed all of the requisite qualities of an ideal ruler.

Chapter five presents the views of the prominent Muʿtazili scholar Rukn al-Dīn Ibn al-Malāḥimī (d. 536/1141) in his Book of Excellence on the Fundamental Principles of Religion (Kitāb al-Fāʾiq fī uṣūl al-dīn). The Book of Excellence, which is extant in full, is a summary of his larger work, a comprehensive theological summa entitled The Reliable Book on the Fundamental Principles of Religion (al-Muʿtamad fī uṣūl al-dīn), of which only parts survive. The Book of Excellence is an important source for contemporary researchers since it is one of the last available texts from the Sunni Muʿtazili tradition, which disappeared by the end of the classical period in the seventh/thirteenth century. Ibn al-Malāḥimī’s chapter on the imamate, in particular, represents this tradition’s views up until the sixth/twelfth century. It justifies the Muslim community’s right to select its own leaders and affirms the legitimacy of the first four caliphs. Ibn al-Malāḥimī also defends ʿAli’s character against accusations of wrongdoing, while refuting Imami doctrines about his designation (naṣṣ) and infallibility.

Millions of “secular Muslims” would become “practicing Muslims” if there existed a variant of Islam compatible with their values, for instance one that would broaden women’s rights and adapt rites to the rhythms of modern life. If no liberal variant has emerged, the reason is not that Islam is monolithic. As with other religions, it admits diverse interpretations. Yet over fourteen centuries, variations in interpretation have produced just one major schism: the Sunni–Shii split of 661. This is puzzling because Christianity, the other monotheism with over a billion adherents, sees schisms frequently. If the collective action necessary for a liberal schism has not materialized, a basic reason lies in obstacles to conducting honest discussions on what Islam represents. Liberal Muslims are intrinsically opposed to settling conflicts through violence, which handicaps them vis-à-vis groups prepared to charge them with physically punishable religious offenses. Easily victimized, they cannot fight back as effectively. Thus, apostasy and blasphemy rules, the two most lethal weapons of Islamic illiberalism, reproduce the fears that allow their preservation. To avoid personal trouble, liberal Muslims, atheists, non-Muslim believers, and assorted other dissenters all avoid repudiating the notion that apostasy and blasphemy are acts that require temporal punishment.

The examples of political advice contained in this anthology, written across terrain that stretched from Egypt to Central Asia, date from the first half of the tenth century to the first half of the twelfth century (roughly, the Islamic Early Middle Period). The mirror-writers were both formed by and responded to the conditions in which they lived. This second chapter presents an overview of political and intellectual developments in western Asia in the Early Middle Period. It begins with a general, thematic discussion of the processes of historical change taking place in the region in the tenth to twelfth centuries, and proceeds to offer a narrative history of the major polities of the period (Samanids, Karakhanids, Buyids, Ghaznavids, Seljuks, Fatimids). It locates each mirror and mirror-writer within their specific contexts and points to interconnections among them across this historical-geographical canvas.

Chapter 5 examines the writings of the highly influential Sunnī scholar Ibn Taymiyya (d. 728/1328), and those of some of his detractors, who accused him of advocating anti-ʿAlid doctrines. Ibn Taymiyya discussed his views of ʿAlī and anti-ʿAlids in his multivolume anti-Shīʿī work Minhāj al-sunna al-nabawiyya. He provides comprehensive arguments and many proofs in favor of anti-ʿAlid doctrines while claiming to be a Muslim who respected ʿAlī. His anti-ʿAlid and anti-Shīʿī claims illuminate the tension that some Sunnīs (and their predecessors such as al-Jāḥiẓ) faced in opposing Shīʿism while simultaneously rejecting anti-ʿAlid sentiments.

The concluding chapter reconsiders certain important assumptions about anti-ʿAlid sentiment; namely, that it was limited to the early Umayyads andKhawārij, and that it played no role in shaping Sunnī theology. Instead, this literary excavation reveals strong indications of an enduring legacy that continued to shape medieval and contemporary Sunnī views about ʿAlī. This chapter also discusses the methods that Sunnīs used to transform ʿAlī from a villainous character to a righteous one. It compares canonical ḥadīth with parallel recensions in other works to argue that Sunnī writers actively engaged in the process of rehabilitating ʿAlī by censoring, reinterpreting, and emending texts that portrayed him negatively and by circulating counterclaims that exalted him. Scholars also selectively appropriated anti-ʿAlid reports to modulate ʿAlī’s image. They tempered the pro-ʿAlid (and Shīʿī) portrayal of ʿAlī as an impeccable saint through reports which portrayed him as sinful or frequently mistaken. On the whole, we can consider Sunnī efforts to construct an image of ʿAlī that differed from both Shīʿī and anti-ʿAlid views to have been successful.

This chapter introduces the themes and tensions related to historiography on Islam’s fourth caliph, ʿAlī. Anti-ʿAlids (nawāṣib) were Muslims who disliked ʿAlī and his descendants, while ʿAlī's partisans, pro-ʿAlids and Shīʿīs, exalted him and developed doctrines about the nature of his authority. All of these early Muslims transmitted reports about ʿAlī's character, which resulted in portrayals that were diverse and contradictory. Sunnī and Shīʿī writers sifted through such reports not only to construct an image of ʿAlī that they considered authentic, but also to validate their own communal identities and conceptions of religion.