I like these sorts of big picture books and look forward to reading this one. But I have questions.
The most basic, obvious question is to what extent this is a book about the Ottoman Empire, to what extent the Middle East, and to what extent Muslim societies?
If the first, it’s a curious fact that Ottoman imperial power reached its apogee at the same time that imperial legitimacy was least reliant on Islam or shari’a. Think of Ebu Su’ud and Suleiman’s attempt to displace (however marginally) the religio-judicial apparatus.
Imperial legitimacy in the 16-17 centuries was primarily about justice and public order. To be sure, these were not “secular” concepts, but nor were they simply a product of the clerical class.
sup.org/books/title/?i…
sup.org/books/title/?i…
Unless the argument isn’t really about legitimacy per se, but rather about the autonomy and leverage enjoyed by religious actors? That kind of Hallaq-ian story has always made me suspicious.
Though to be honest, I’m not sure how you would measure “reliance on religious legitimacy”. I’m curious to see how Rubin does it. Counting the number of qadis, muftis, or ulama won’t do it, for obvious reasons.
But suppose that the theory is correct and the relative decline of the MENA is due to the Ottoman imperial bargain with religious legitimators. The problem is that that basic bargain was struck all over the place. Isn’t it just a form of the Sunni Compromise?
If that’s right, then we’re talking about a 9th century political decision that more or less every Sunni ruler has adopted. So then how do we explain contemporary differences between, say, Indonesia and Morocco?
This is obviously all spitballing based on some tweets and a few blog posts, so I’m probably wildly off base here. Definitely going to read the book, but I need some big time convincing!
