Askia Muhammad I · Politics
The <em>Replies</em> of the jurist al-Maghili to the questions Askia put to him - on who is a true Muslim, when war against a nominally Muslim ruler is lawful, and what a just sovereign owes his people - the closest surviving window into the political-religious thought of Askia’s court.
Askia Muhammad left no treatises, no memoirs, no writings of his own - which makes one document unusually precious. After his pilgrimage, he brought to his court the North African jurist Muhammad al-Maghili and put to him a series of pointed questions about how to rule a mixed empire according to Islamic law. Al-Maghili wrote out his answers, and they survive as the Replies of al-Maghili to the Questions of Askia al-Hajj Muhammad. Because the text preserves the questions as well as the answers, it is the closest thing we have to Askia’s own recorded concerns - a rare window into what actually troubled and interested the mind of a ruler who otherwise speaks to us only through the deeds recorded by others. When we read the questions, we are as near as history lets us come to hearing Askia think.
The question at the heart of the Replies arose directly from the reality of Askia’s empire. Many of his subjects professed Islam - they prayed, they fasted, they called themselves Muslims - yet they also kept the older religious practices of their peoples: the veneration of idols, trees, and stones, the rites of ancestors, the customs of their fathers. Were such people true believers, or were they unbelievers wearing the name of Islam? The mainstream Sunni view was cautious and generous: sin and error do not by themselves expel a person from the faith; one who professes Islam is presumed a Muslim. Al-Maghili took a harder line. To mix the worship of God with the worship of idols, he held, is not a lesser sin within Islam but a contradiction of it - a form of unbelief dressed in Muslim clothing. The question sounds theological, but its edge was intensely political, because on the answer hung the status of much of the empire’s population and the legitimacy of Askia’s war against his predecessors.
The most politically charged of al-Maghili’s answers concerned the legitimacy of Askia’s own rise. Askia had overthrown a sitting ruler; the deposition needed a justification stronger than success. Al-Maghili supplied it. If a ruler is not a true Muslim - if he upholds unbelief, oppresses the faithful, and persecutes the learned, as Askia charged of the Sonni line - then he is not a legitimate imam to whom obedience is owed, and rising against him to establish the true religion is not the sin of rebellion but the duty of jihad. In effect, al-Maghili articulated a doctrine of justified revolution within the Islamic state: under the right conditions, Muslims may lawfully depose a Muslim government. This was the legal charter of the Askia regime - the transformation, by a jurist’s pen, of a military coup into a sanctified act of religious reform. Alongside it, al-Maghili laid out the positive obligations of the just ruler who replaces the tyrant, so that the doctrine was not merely a license to seize power but a standard the new ruler must then meet.
This is the opening of the lesson. The rest — the dialogue, the primary source, and the recall — is in the app.
You learned that the Replies of al-Maghili preserve Askia’s own recorded questions and a jurist’s answers on legitimate rule, jihad against nominal Muslims, and who counts as a true believer - including al-Maghili’s hard line that mixing Islam with paganism can amount to unbelief, which retroactively justified Askia’s…
Leads to Muhammad al-Maghili.
Begin this lesson →epoché — a humanities education that remembers you.