Of Men, Bandits and Sultans

I have so many things to talk about Kings. Latter-day common sentiment tends to take a reductionist apprehension that is devoid of nuance and reality. The consensus is that war is bad and so is Kingship. The way forward is Democracy; the panacea to all our governance woes. And the handful of Monarchists, barely audible in their petite protests, talk banally of moral relativism. As if there is no categorical imperative behind a Sultanate.

Thus presentism has reduced a Sultan to a bandit, both kills people to achieve their purpose. Both exerts themselves unto others. Both financially exploits others, either by theft and robbery or by imposing taxes. Similar to how some cancel the blessed Anbiyaʼ ﵇ for their ownership of slaves or speak ill of the Beloved ﷺ for marrying the mother of the believers ʿĀʾishah ﵂ at a very young age.

Get through this surface level understanding and dig deeper not only to see the differences between amputation resulted from felony to that from surgical operation but also to appreciate the refinements of the same surgical procedure performed by surgeons of different skills and caliber.

But sometimes it is hard to draw a line between a hero and a villain. For the line differentiating them is very thin. As the sayings go, there is a thin line between ingenuity and madness, a Prophet and a Madman. Indeed divine claimants can be found among certain Kings who in reality are literal mass murderers.

The difference between a schizophrenic and a prophet lies not in their actions but in the motives that drives them. Often for criminals there is either no motive or the motive ends with the action or the motive is driven by sudden obscure impulses. As opposed to great men whose motives transcend their actions.

For Ibrahim ﵇ the motive lies not in the slaughtering of his own son but in the total submission to Allah ﷻ and  having complete trust that his fatherly love can never excel the love of his son's creator. Because Allah's ﷻ love for his creation is much greater than the creation's love for itself. Thus the creation's well being depends on the complete submission in its creator and having total trust that every divine commandment is ordained for the creation's own good.

For Satan it was his impulses of pride that he is better than Adam ﵇. And he was partially true because fire indeed burns earth. What he failed to see is there could be many other ways Allah ﷻ might have created Adam better. That the subject's honor lies in following the hukm at the first instant and not in it's rational inquiry.

For a pervert the end goal is temporary lust germinated from a corrupted nature that is known even to his acquaintances. For Prophet Muhammad ﷺ it is about fulfilling the prophecy so that the divine message can be carried in ways that otherwise would have been impossible.

For a brigand its about to survive, to carry themselves day to day, to ensure their daily necessities: food, clothe, and other feral need. For a King's army its about establishing a new order, its about progression, its to create a new horizon, to look forward not merely to the next day but to the uncounted glorious days to come. Destruction is there in both cases but for the latter construction comes afterwards and is the primary driving force.

It is self-doubt that differentiates a  schizophrenic from a Prophet. For a schizophrenic has lost control over his mind and thus cannot tell delusions from real vision. While a Prophet was never accused of being a madman in a literal sense.

That the Prophet Muhmmad ﷺ said, 'Cover me! Cover me! I fear for myself', after his communion with Gabriel ﵇ is a clear proof of his mental clarity even in time of great stress. He knew it is not normal to have vision of the angels.

Others assuring him ﷺ of the facticity of his communion is not because of his doubt in the message but because of his ﷺ humility to be considered worthy enough to carry the message. This is not only beyond the capacity of people with mental illness but of little men with great ego.

Great leadership gets the inspiration from within. Its an inner drive to take responsibilities and do things in some certain ways. Sometimes it is hard to provide rationale for their line of thinking. It just seems to be right. So the King makes it happen. Imagine if they had waited for the ballot boxes to be filled and for the ensuing endless intellectual debates to come to a conclusion at everyone else's ease. It does not work like that.

But not every inspiration is the same. For the likes of Genghis Khan and Khālid ibn al-Walīd ﵁, although comparable in their worldly achievements i.e., both undefeated world conquerors, are worlds apart in their motive.

Khan drew fulfillment in the annihilation of his opponents and in the humiliation of their remnants:

The real greatest pleasure of men is to repress rebels and defeat enemies, to exterminate them and grab everything they have; to see their married women crying, to ride on their steeds with smooth backs, to treat their beautiful queens and concubines as pajamas and pillows, to stare and kiss their rose-colored faces and to suck their sweet lips of nipple-colored.

His proclamation of being sent as God's wrath is not just inhuman its outright Satanic.

Khālid ﵁, however, would find his fulfillment in being merely a God's soldier; to steadfastly and irresistibly oppose the tawāghīt, those who impede God's message:

Submit to Islam and be safe. Or agree to the payment of the Jizya (tax), and you and your people will be under our protection, else you will have only yourself to blame for the consequences, for I bring the men who desire death as ardently as you desire life.

Thus unlike bandits great Men always had novel aspirations. In case of Marcus Aurelius it is to bring the barbarians under the banner of civilization, for the Ottoman Sultans it is to bring about the Nizam-e-Alam i.e., World Order, for the founding fathers of the United States it is to ideate self-governance.

But above all they exhibited signs of humanity. How even as the most powerful they were not beyond the struggle of the daily life. How equally frustrating it is, even as world conquerors, to discipline their children:

In fact it is this joy to relate to a Sultan as an ordinary man that found me watching various clips from Muhteşem Yüzyıl, even though I'm aware of its historical incorrectness. But I can live with historical appropriation in a fictional novel or movie. For me its more about the story line, its about the ability to relate to the woes of the characters, to share their happiness, to be invigorated by their vision and most importantly its about the amusement of living various lives that otherwise could not be put together into a single one!

So when Suleiman showed signs of frustration disciplining Mustafa:

I saw his fatherly instincts to protect his children. It was exemplary of him to clearly point out the dangers of showing weakness in character as a ruler. For the subordinates' compassion in exhibiting a King's weakness is more about exploiting this weakness to their own benefit.

His admission of his own weakness towards his children and his frustration over its abuse by them is not something foreign to the ordinary family dynamics. The eye roll of Suleiman on the mention of Mustafa's passion for Mihrunnisa is not an indication of his indifference to this great matter, for he himself was known a Muhibbi, but an admission of his own failure to fall for this trite excuse.

But again Kings are no ordinary fathers. It might devastate them finding their children gone astray:

Yet a great Sultan has the strength to uphold himself as a Sultan before everything else and not cower by fatherly compassion:

Of course a good father handles murky situations delicately and offers advice that matters. As Suleiman advised Mustafa saying:

Her şerde bir hayır, Her hayırda bir şer vardir

He is accepting and forgiving:

But draws clear boundaries and provide unmistakable warnings:

Then when everything else fails:

The Sultan has nothing left but to uphold justice:

For if he did not, his legitimacy as a just ruler is gone, so is gone the kingly order. Then its only a matter of time for downward spiraling to chaos and fasād to spread out everywhere. This is a very central point in understanding Muslim Sultanates. Historically these sultanates had theological underpinnings and claimed divine representation. They were built upon the concept of Sultan being the viceroy of God on earth. The legitimacy of the Sultan depended on how well he establishes justice on earth.

Suleiman's lamentation and wailing for his lost son makes his strength to uphold justice even more profound. It is easy to talk high and mighty at others' cost, only those that can do it at the cost of themselves stand out. And that marks the greatest of Sultans.

This is suggestive of how the Kings could also be the victims of their own game. Kingship is not about worry-free enjoyment, rampant lust and free food. The throne is not a rosy bed either. In fact imperial people are most limited in freedom. Because they have to set up examples of following the rule of law foremost.

It is no wonder that Suleiman was known to be the Kānūnī Sultan i.e, the Lawgiver. He was not alone in that however. Aurangzeb ʿĀlamgīr, the most prominent ruler among the Mughals, is known for Fatawa 'Alamgiri, an encyclopedic compilation of the Islamic laws and first of its kind in the subcontinent.

And for me, the most unnerving fact is that at the end of the day, a King is all by himself. Perhaps for a God loving King, its him and his creator. And no one else. While everyone rips the benefit of a Sultan's hard work and sacrifices, no one is there to own up their mistakes:

In a sense its justified as the glory belongs to the Sultan so should the condemnation despite his innocence:

Now if I were to mention a single quality that sets apart the greatest of all conquerors I would say it is the ability to conquer the self:

Lastly, it would be an injustice to not mention Halit Ergenç. The way he remains mostly expressionless during the acting, makes his little facial changes impactful. At times he acted merely through his eyes:

And then his deep voice, the poems he recites, exudes a grounded, determined manly spirit that is rare in our time. I got the chance to listen to its Urdu dubbing and the Pakistani voice actor did a spectacular job as well. It has also been dubbed in Bengali and I had the mistake to click on one of the clips and the clucking I heard coming out from the great Sultan, almost made me run around like a headless chicken in panic.

As a finishing note, perhaps somewhat unrelated, I wan't to say something about the camaraderie between the Sultan and his Vizier. I think it truly depicts the immaterial relationship that can be formed between men. In my understanding this same kind of relationship will be almost impossible between a man and a woman. A man's need from a woman is not the same as that from another man: