Seville, Spain: In 1086, the last sovereign King of Andalusia “Al-Mu'tamid” made a call for help. He needed support in his battle against the King of Leon and Castile Alfonso VI. The support came from Morocco by devotees of a fundamentalist sect known as the Almoravids (Al-Morabiton), a Berber dynasty that emerged from the western Saharan desert. Devout and disciplined Muslims, the Almoravids were not just equipped with swords, but with zealous belief in Islamic orthodox doctrine. They managed to conquer al-Andalus ending Al-Mu'tamid's rule and sent him to exile. Bullying in the name of Islam Almoravids recipe to salvage al-Andalus was a rigid and rigorous Islamic rule. They imposed their version of Sharia (they were followers of the strict al-Maliki school of thought). Noticeably, they had no clear strategy on how to run the country other than fighting the infidels. They despised the opulent culture of their predecessors; smashed artifacts and sculptures, Jews and Christians were subjected to harsher tax and intolerant treatment. The church of Granada was destroyed in 1099. True, they initially prevailed, but their policy earned them many enemies from outside and from within. Their fall was almost inevitable. When it comes to what went wrong, many opt for a superficial, oversimplified explanation, “the decadent, corrupted leaders and the evil infidels.” This is far from being accurate. If it was that simple, then why did the Moors fail to recreate the glory of the empire in Morocco, following their expulsion from Spain? Islamic history was always nonlinear; instead, it evolved in a series of incomplete circles. It invariably started with a period of enlightenment and liberalism, which descended into weakness, followed by oppressive rule. Later, it would crumble by a new power that interrupted the circle and started a new one. Radical Islam may win wars but always fails to achieve peace. Everyone pines for the glorious al-Andalus, from Fairuz the legendary Lebanese diva to Osama bin Laden the leader of al-Qaeda; they all yearned for the good old days. However, their perception of what was good is far from identical. Despite the different narrative, there are some similarities between Almoravids and many of the current Islamic groups who have emerged onto the political scene and will inevitably cash in on the emerging democracy in many Arab countries. First, both started as opposition movements who are articulate about what they are against but not clear about what they stand for with a collective detest of what they perceived as dangerous innovation. Second, both had charismatic fiery leaders, preachers who knew how to win the hearts and minds of their audience, very similar to Yusuof ibn Tashfin the leader of Almoravids. And third, they shared a sheer antagonism to liberalism and a common belief that lack of implementation of Sharia‘s rule is the root of all problems. Fourth, they accused their predecessors of treason and submitting to Christian powers. The battle for the Soul of Islam The recent Arab revolts reignited the old battle between two Islamic schools of thoughts. The traditional school -which is not monolithic – but divided into various shades of strict puritan beliefs – and the liberal rational school. This war of ideas is as old as Islam itself, al-Andalus had its share when Caliph el-Mansour burned the books of the rationalist thinker Averroes. They were torn between reason and dogma impeded linear Islamic progression and contributed to the failure of many Islamic dynasties. The basic Qur'anic rule “there is no compulsion in religion” is a fundamental aspect of Liberal Islam. It was respected in the early Moorish rule but dismissed in later periods. Non-Muslims enjoyed relative freedom and were allowed to work as public servants and promoted according to their performances. The poet Wallada bint al-Mustakfi opened a literary hall in Córdoba, mixed with men, and did not adhere to the traditional Islamic dress code. In a twist of fate, Wallada died the same day the Almoravids entered Cordoba. There was clear distinction between the rights of the individuals and the rights of the society. In their quest to win loyalties of their new subjects, the early Moorish rulers had instinctively realized the difference between sins and crimes and that coercion would be counter-productive. Instead, they focused on creating a strong, advanced social and political system. Though they changed their vocabulary to include terms like democracy and civil states, most of the current Islamic movements have been insubstantial on the question of liberty, a core issue at the heart of the crisis within the Muslim world. Many analysts has expressed concerns that the mild rhetoric expressed by parties such as al-Nahda in Tunisia and the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt is not reflected by the behavior of its cadres on the street. The silent growth of Salafist parties in both countries – who recently turned to more aggressive confrontational rhetoric – has contributed to an increasingly polarized atmosphere and raise the level of uncertainty among the public. In reality, the absence of any recent precedent, the performance of any elected Islamic party will only be judged in retrospect. Words before the ballot box may differ than actions following elections. Only then, we can judge whether they are enlightened leaders or zealous Moravids. ** Mahmoud is a political blogger and member of Chatham House in London. You can follow her on twitter @Nervana_ BM
