Making sense of the letter's argument

Without the title generously provided by the editor of this collection, a reader would be hard pressed to come up with a short characterization of the text's message. Burying it under pages of subsidiary arguments and justifications, the author mentions the reason for writing the letter, i.e. the nomination of the caliph's sons as his successors, only at the very end.

   The only safe assumption about this rather confused letter seems to be that it is geared towards providing a justification for that nomination and reasons for the addressee, the community, to pay allegiance to al-Hakam and 'Uthmán ibn al-Walíd. The division of the text into subsidiary texts and textual chunks proposed above cannot be but provisional given the erratic composition of the letter and the less than straightforward sequence of arguments.

   Keeping this disclaimer in mind, my reading of the letter suggests the following argumentative structure: The bulk of the text is made up of three 'strands of argument': an account of Islamic history in text 1, taken up again in text 5 with in the author's description of the present, i.e. the reign of al-Walíd. Texts 2 through 4 provide an extended apology of the caliphal office: in text 2, it is situated at the centre of the divine Heilsplan; in texts 2 and 3, the author develops the concept of tá'a (obedience) and argues that the original duty of obedience towards God and later the prophet has devolved upon the caliphate. In text 4, the idea of an 'ahd (covenant) between God and the believers is introduced and likewise transposed onto the caliphate: the author reserves for the caliph the function of an intermediary between both sides.

   At the end of text 4, the reader has been treated to several parallel arguments serving but one purpose: to convince him of the necessity and soundness of caliphal authority. In a last step, the general justification of authority tied to the office is then transferred onto the current ruler, al-Walíd. With his claims to exert power on behalf of the community successfully proven, the author at last acquaints his audience with the true purpose of the letter, namely to secure the allegiance of the community to al-Walíd's heirs. After this barrage of theological and legal arguments on behalf of caliphal authority, resistance is truly futile.

Semiotic aspects

Text type and argumentative structure
On the basis of my reading of the letter presented above, it should be obvious that the letter suffers from the author's determination to make too many points at once. His apparent objective (sorting out the caliphal succession) is relegated to the sidelines by his insistence on al-Walíd's legitimacy, tortuously argued on a number of different and largely unconnected grounds. Heilsgeschichte, tá'a and 'ahd in themselves seem to be perfectly legitimate motifs to use in the debate, they are nevertheless not sufficiently connected to provide the author with a unitary and cogent argument. His digressions on tá'a and 'ahd in particular remain isolated and in the end leave the impression of a disjointed, ineffectual attempt.

   How does the overall confusion of the letter make itself felt on the level of particular texts? To assess the role individual texts play in the failure of the author's comprehensive argument, I'd like to take a closer look at texts 1 and 3.

   As a narration of historical events, text 1 conforms exceptionally closely to the text type of narrative exposition, the non-evaluative presentation of events in chronological order. Each of the chunks (1.1. - 1.5.) introduces a new event and is clearly demarcated by particles and conjunctions signalling chronological progress:

1.1. [...] fa-inna lláha gh...] khtára l-Islám
1.2. thumma stafá [...] rusulan
1.3. hattá ntahat karámatu lláhi fí nubúwatihí ilá Muhammad
1.4. hattá kána man ajábahú min ummatihí
1.5. thumma stakhlafa khulafá'ahú 'alá minháji nubúwatihí

Each chunk in turn includes additional qualifications. They include common blessing formulae, e.g. in chunk 1.1.:

inna lláha tabárakat asmá'uhú, wa-jalla thaná'uhú, wa-ta'álá dhikruhú

they elaborate on the consequences of particular events, e.g. in chunk 1.2.:

wa-ba'athahum bihí wa-amarahum bihí, wa-kána baynahum wa-bayna man madá mina l-umami, wa-khalá mina l-qurúni qarnan fa-qarnan, yad'úna ilá llatí hiya ahsanu, wa-yahdúna ilá sirátin mustaqímin

they give reasons for an event, e.g. in section 1.3.1.:

'alá híni durúsin mina l-'ilmi, wa-'aman mina n-nási, wa-tashtítin mina l-hudá, wa-tafarruqin mina s-subuli, wa-tumúsin min a'lámi l-'haqq

Several chunks display a decidedly argumentative slant, e.g. 1.5.: after the death of the prophet, the caliphal office was instituted

li-infádhi hukmihí, wa-iqámati sunnatihí wa-hudúdihí, wa-l-akhdhi bi-fará'idahú wa-huqúqihí ta'yídan bihí li-l-Islámi, wa-tashdídan bihim li-'uráhu, wa-taqwiyatan bihim li-quwa hablihí, wa-daf'an bihí 'an harímihí, wa-'adlan bihim bayna 'ibádihí, wa-isláhan bihim li-biládihí

This list of reasons is closed by a Qur'ánic quote that serves both as a conclusion of the preceding argument for the institution of the caliphate and as the decisive piece of scriptural evidence. It rounds off this particular argument and provides a starting point for the discussion of the caliphate in the following text.

   In terms of coherence and cohesion, text 1 'performs' remarkably well: it is lucidly structured and sticks to a strictly chronological order of events; successive episodes are demarcated by appropriate surface markers (in this case particles and conjunctions) and easily distinguished from any amplification the author cares to add. Moreover, the last chunk already contains important elements of his justification of caliphal power, thus ensuring a smooth transition to the main body of the relevant arguments in text 2.

   Apart from the consistent use of particles and conjunctions to structure the text and demarcate succeeding chunks and sections, another conspicuous feature of the text and, as will be seen below, the whole letter is the author's employment of parallelisms. While not part of the 'main action' in text 1, they figure prominently in the events' 'qualifications'. Two particularly prominent examples should suffice to illustrate this point.

   In section 1.3.1., the letter portrays the situation before the advent of Islam in these terms:

'alá hín
   - durúsin mina l-'ilm
   - wa-'aman mina n-nás
   - wa-tashtítin mina l-hudá
   - wa-tafarruqin mina s-subul
   - wa-tumúsin min a'lámi l-'haqq

and proceeds to characterize the consequences of Muhammad's prophetic mission in section 1.3.2. and 1.3.3. as follows:

fa-abána lláhu bihí l-hudá
   - wa-kashafa bihí l-'amá
   - wa-stanqadha bihí mina d-dalálati wa-r-radá
   - wa-anhaja bihí d-dína
   - wa-ja'alahú rahmatan li-l-'álamína
   - wa-khatama bihí wahyahú
   - wa-jama'a lahú má akrama bihí l-anbiyáha qablahú
   - wa-qaffá bihí 'alá áthárihim

In the first case, five verbal nouns, all of them taking the preposition min, pivot around the adverbial phrase 'alá hín. In the second, less clear-cut case, the subject Alláh connects eight parallel verbal clauses with six of them containing the prepositional object bihí [sc. Muhammad]. This is not mere playing with words. After painting the situation in the most drastic terms - probably with the intention of reminding the audience of the political conditions currently prevailing in the realm of Islam -, the author vividly describes the equally drastic change for the better God brought about through Muhammad. In contemporary terms, he tries to inspire loyalty to al-Walíd, whose reign (as the khalífa not only of the prophet, but God himself) will provide the same relief to the community. In short: just wait a little more, al-Walíd will sort out this mess. And the change will be as momentous as that wrought by the prophet.

   With all this argumentative clarity and rhetoric subtlety, one wonders at which point the letter as a whole fails. Perhaps text 3 provides some insight.

   At the beginning of text 3, the reader is already familiar with the concept of tá'a. After its introduction in the context of caliphal authority, the author sets out to supply a more general account of tá'a and its importance. Further arguments for his emphasis on tá'a are unnecessary, they have already been given in the second chunk of text 2. The remaining task is thus to further elaborate the concept and to pinpoint its position in the divine Heilsplan. Accordingly, the author dispenses with further argumentation and delivers a straightforward conceptual exposition. Section 3.1.1. lists the functions of tá'a, employing the familiar device of parallelism:

bi-t-tá'ati llatí
   - yahfazu lláhu bihá haqqahú
   - wa-yumdí bihá amrahú
   - wa-yunkilu bihá 'an ma'ásíhi
   - wa-yúqifu 'an mahárimahú
   - wa-yadhubbu 'an hurumátihí

The longer the list, the more important its fronting element. To drive his point home, the author now contrasts in section 3.1.2.f the rewards to be enjoyed by 'obedient' believers with the consequences of disobedience and the punishment God has in stock for evildoers:

fa-man akhadha bi-hazzihí minhá
   - kána li-lláhi walíyan
   - wa-li-amrihí mutí'an
   - wa-li-rushdihí musíban
   - wa-li-'ájili l-khayri wa-ájilihí makhsúsan wa-man tarakahá [...]
   - adá'a nasíbahú
   - wa-'asá rabbahú
   - wa-khasira dunyáhu wa-ákhiratahú
   - wa-kána mimman
      - ghalabat 'alayhi sh-shiqwatu
      - wa-stahwadhat 'alayhi l-umúru l-gháwiyatu llatí
         - túridu ahlahá afza'a mashári'a
         - wa-taqúduhum ilá sharri l-masári'a

While not particularly noteworthy in isolation, pairings such as those above take on some significance when included in such an intricate web of recurrent parallelisms. In the above case, it should be noted that the entire sequence of parallel constructions is bound together by the recurrence of the pronominal reference -há referring back to at-tá'a in section 3.1.1.

   Tá'a is immediately repeated at the beginning of chunk 3.2. - to front an enumeration of no less than seven predicates:

wa-t-tá'atu
   - ra'su hádhá l-amri
   - wa-dhurwatuhú
   - wa-sanámuhú
   - wa-dhimámuhú
   - wa-malákuhú
   - wa-'ismatuhú
   - wa-qiwámuhú

Again, the number of additions reflects the importance of the subject. And again, the respective fate of the obedient and the disobedient are sharply contrasted in the remainder of section 3.2.1. - not surprisingly with a flood of parallelisms.

   Sections 3.2.2. and 3.2.3. abruptly change the tone of the debate. Halfway into his letter, the author switches from exposition to exhortation, from relative detachment to a higher degree of involvement with his audience by directly addressing the listener. The connecting fa- at the beginning of the section suggests that the subsequent appeals are intended as the logical conclusion to the previous remarks: the believer is urged to exercise obedience because obedience fulfils an important function in the divine order of things and because compliance or the lack of it entail certain rewards and punishments. Interlocking parallel clauses underline the sense of urgency with which the appeal is charged:

fa-
   - lzamú tá'ata lláhi fí-má
      - 'arákum
      - wa-nálakum
      - wa-alamma bikum mina l-umúri
   - wa-násihúhá
   - wa-stawthiqú 'alayhá
   - wa-sári'ú ilayhá
   - wa-khálisúhá
   - wa-btaghú l-qurbata ilá lláhi bihá

   As if this was not enough, the following section recounts and sums up the carrots- and sticks-argument the reader should by now be thoroughly acquainted with, dotted with another liberal dose of parallel constructions.

   On the face of it, text 3 seems to be equally effective in making the author's point. Chunk 1.3. expands the concept of tá'a and its role for the believer, section 3.2.1. then caps the discussion with a summary of the main points. This conceptual exposition of salient aspects of tá'a provides the premise of the overall argument of text 3, i.e. the advantages of obedience for the community. As in text 1, the constituent parts of the through-argument are clearly demarcated by fa-, their function in the text becomes readily apparent: section 3.1.1. serves as scene-setter introducing the argument's topic, sections 3.1.2. and 3.1.3. supply evidence, section 3.2.1. sums it up, leading to the conclusion in section 3.2.2., which is again followed by a recap of the evidence in section 3.2.3.

   Still, the text does not strike the reader as particularly effective. Notwithstanding a reordering of texts and sections which could bring out the argumentative structure more clearly (and I have some doubts that my own structuring of the letter represents the best possible way of doing it), there are a few deficiencies that at least partially explain the impression. Firstly, the whole slew of 'evidence' the author marshals in text 3 boils down to a single reason: if obedient, you will be rewarded. If not, brace yourself. This point is belaboured over and over again, reformulated, recast from several perspectives and couched in different terms. Secondly, the repetitiveness of the content is mirrored and exacerbated by the repetitiveness of the style. With so little to show in terms of argument, monotonous parallelisms can only aggravate the perception of emptiness and poverty. Thirdly, the sudden change of subject between texts 3 and 4 disrupts the organic development of the letter and leaves the reader/listener wondering as to the relevance and respective importance of the opinions expressed in both texts for the message of the letter.

Communicative aspects

Tenor
Throughout the letter, the writer tries to portray the position of himself in relation to his audience as one of authority and superior knowledge. Detached, authoritative, sometimes patronizingly lecturing exposition of events and concepts dominate, complemented by short stretches of direct audience address. These passages, apparently reduced to the bare minimum, consist of either appeals formulated as demands and orders such as

fa-lzamú tá'ata lláhi fí-má 'arákum wa-nálakum wa-alamma bikum mina l-umúri, wa-násihúhá, wa-stawthiqú 'alayhá, wa-sári'ú ilayhá, wa-khálisúhá, wa-btaghú l-qurbata ilá lláhi bihá

and

fa-báyi'ú li-l-łakami bni amíri l-mu'minína bi-smi lláhi wa-barakatihí, wa-li-akhíhi min ba'dihí 'alá s-sam'i wa-t-tá'ati, wa-htasibú fí dhálika ahsana má kána lláhu yuríkum wa-yublíkum wa-yu'awwidukum wa-yu'arrifukum

or they 'remind' listeners of 'facts' that, in the opinion of the author at least, should be perfectly obvious, such as:

fa-innakum qad ra'aytum mawáqi'a qadá'i lláhi li-ahlihá fí i'lá'ihí íyáhum, wa-iflájihí hujjatahum, wa-daf'ihí bátila man háddahum wa-náwa'ahum wa-sámáhum, wa-aráda itfá'a núri lláhi lladhí ma'ahum, wa-khubbirtum ma'a dhálika má yusíru ilayhi ahlu l-ma'siyati mina t-tawbíkhi lahum

or

fa-huwa l-amru lladhí stabta'tumúhu wa-stasra'tum ilayhi, wa-hamidtumu lláha 'alá imdá'ihí íyáhú wa-qadá'ihí lakum, wa-ahdathtum fíhi shukran, wa-ra'aytumúhu lakum hazzan

Note the prevalence of parallelisms intended to lend the text a lofty air and to suppress dissent through relentless repetition and variation of salient points. Neither the imperative forms nor the apparent audience-involvement through direct address express any true involvement: they only serve to position the listener on the receiving end of the author-audience relationship. His role is restricted to passive reception of either orders or instruction, debate is unwelcome and in the end unnecessary in view of the pose of authority the author attempts to strike. A high degree of formality and the sermonizing attitude evident throughout the letter only add to the impression of detachment and distance between author and audience. In short: I caliph, you listen.

Mode
Most of the devices employed to establish power relations between author and audience point to the use of the letter as blueprint for public proclamations. Argumentative deficits can be easily glossed over and apparent literary weaknesses such as the repetitiveness of the letter's content and the conspicuous reliance on parallelisms achieve their objective only in oral communication - formal and textual repetition may make for a boring read, but they are much more effective in hammering in the message of the letter than involved arguments and logical subtleties.

   Unfortunately, we are not in a position to gauge the audience response to the letter resp. proclamation. Perhaps contemporary listeners were alert enough to perceive the lack of confidence hidden behind an inordinate amount of formal flimflam. Perhaps they resented the overbearing and patronizing lecturing visible throughout the letter. But this suspicion of course cannot be more than an extrapolation of today's literary and rhetoric tastes; more comparative work is necessary to fill that gap.

Field
In spite of the seeming desire of the author to persuade his audience by appealing to reason and portraying the issue at hand, i.e. the caliphal succession, as open to debate, the tone of the letter quickly dispels any such notion. The arguments themselves have a contrived and artificial air, they are repetitive and their effect relies partly on rhetorical factors and partly on the acceptance by the audience of the author's account of the Islamic Heilsgeschichte.

   Any didactic intent is belied by the fact that a fair number of so-called 'reasons' are merely reminders of factors the listeners are supposed to already know:

ya'rifuhú [sc. the necessity of gratitude towards God] dhawú l-albábi wa-n-níyáti, l-murayyi'úna min a'málihim fí l-'awáqibi, wa-l-'árifúna manára manáhija r-rushdi

fa-huwa [sc. the succession as envisaged by al-Walíd] l-amru lladhí stabta'tumúhu wa-stasra'tum ilayhi, wa-hamidtumu lláha 'alá imdá'ihí íyáhú wa-qadá'ihí lakum, wa-ahdathtum fíhi shukran, wa-ra'aytumúhu lakum hazzan tastabqúnahú

   In fact, the letter only notifies the community of an administrative decision without any intention of arguing it. The rhetorical pirouettes indicate the weakness of the regime, unable to openly proclaim its policies from a position of authority and power; to discourage opposition, the appearance of soliciting the community's approval has to be kept up.

Pragmatic aspects

Most of the relevant points have already been covered above. Summing up the 'pragmatic content' of the letter, it seems obvious that the author wants first and foremost to elicit the community's approval for his political plan. Supporting and partly obscuring this main pragmatic thrust are subsidiary pragmatic considerations such as his desire to bolster his authority and to manipulate his image.

Some (more) notes on content

The letter, written to foster the loyalty of the community towards al-Walíd, to inform the believers of his plans regarding his succession and to request their consent to them, formulates an extensive apology of the institution of the caliphate. By invoking the theological and legal foundations of the institution, al-Walíd claims the authority of the office for his own person and attempts to portray any dissent to the nomination of his sons as his successors as violations against the obedience towards the caliphate and God incumbent on every believer.

   Al-Walíd's interpretation of the caliphal authority rests on a highly tendentious reading of the Islamic Heilsgeschichte that situates the caliph at the end of a succession of messengers culminating with Muhammad. The most striking feature of al-Walíd's account is his use of the two key terms of tá'a (obedience) and 'ahd (covenant). After his historico-theological account of Islam in text 1, texts 2 and 3 introduce and elaborate tá'a, first tying the caliphate to the divine Heilsplan and then transferring the initial duty of obedience towards God onto the caliphal office and ultimately onto himself.

   In texts 4 and 5, al-Walíd deals with the concept of 'covenant', a term that seems to denote first of all the 'deal' between God and the believers whereby God offers guidance and benevolence to his community in exchange for their belief in and loyalty to Islam. Citing the caliphal office as manifestation of God's favours, he proceeds to insert the caliph into the two-way relation between God and the Islamic community constituted by the 'ahd as both an intercessor between community and God and as a mediating instance that administers the 'ahd on behalf of the believers and acts as God's earthly delegate bestowing divine favours on the community and offering guidance in religious and worldly matters. This step in his argument, a step on which his subsequent claims rest and without which his whole apology of his authority cannot come off the ground, seems strangely ad hoc and artificial. The gist of the argument runs as follows: God guides the community on the best possible path:

thumma inná lláha [...] hadá l-ummata li-afdali l-umúri,

he then posits the caliphate as part of the divine favours enjoyed by the community and describes it as the divinely ordained religio-political order:

wa-dhakhara n-ni'mata 'alayhá [sc. al-umma] fí dunyáhá, ba'da khiláfatihí llatí ja'alahá lahum nizáman, wa-li-amrihim qiwáman

suddenly, the 'ahd is introduced (the first appearance of that concept in the letter) and the caliphs become the keepers of it and the dispensers of the divine guidance envisaged as 'God's side' of the deal.

wa-huwa l-'ahdu lladhí alhama lláhu khulafá'ahú tawkídahú, wa-n-nazra li-l-muslimína fí jasími amrihim fíhí

   The argument apparently only works if one accepts the establishment of the caliphate as an instance of divine guidance li-afdali l-umúr. That still does not explain sufficiently why the caliph has to occupy the middle ground between believers and God, mediating between both to uphold a contract that rests less on the authority of the caliph to enforce it than on an exercise of free will on the part of the believers to enter into it. With a less than elegant sleight of hand, the author has unilaterally decreed the pivotal role of the caliph in the relation between God and the community, effectively postulating the very point he is trying to make, i.e. his right to power. Interestingly enough, he refrains from re-quoting a well-worn piece of scriptural evidence he had already adduced in text 2 to support his case:

wa-qála 'azza dhikruhú: “wa-idh qála rabbuka li-l-malá'ikati inní já'ilun fí l-ardi khalífatan” [Qur. 2/30]

As is the case with his argument mentioned above, his conclusions on the issue of tá'a sound less than convincing: his desire to tie caliphate and obedience together no matter what leads him again to postulate rather than to argue his point:

   fa-bi-l-khiláfati abqá lláhu man abqá fí l-ardi min 'ibádihí, wa-ilayhá sayyarahú, wa-bi-tá'ati man walláhu íyáhá sa'ida man ulhimahá wa-nasarahá

Why not mention subsequent verses of the second súra, especially v.34? Using his scriptural resources to the full might have made the author's job considerably easier.

   Having resolved the trickiest part of his argument by fiat, al-Walíd assumes the mantle of a faithful guardian of the 'ahd and lists his services on behalf of the community. With only a third of his letter to come, he at last reveals his intentions, i.e. to secure the caliphal succession and to keep the office in the hands of his branch of the ruling family. Using the term 'ahd here to denote succession, the author cleverly attempts to impress upon his audience the equivalence of the more general 'ahd he invoked before and the 'double 'ahd' he wants to institute with his letter. A purely administrative concern, a matter of power politics inside the ruling dynasty, becomes elevated to an affair impinging on the spiritual welfare of the entire community. Not only that, it appears to be an extension of the duties of the caliph as keeper of the 'ahd between God and believers: nominating his sons as his successors, al-Walíd purports to secure the bonds between heaven and earth and to maintain the flow of divine bounty. In a time of intense factional strife and insecurity fostered by the disintegration of state power, he might even have a point here. Conversely, dissenters can be cast as enemies of the community and threatened with the wrath of God (pointing again to the impotence of a regime unable to deal with its opposition).

   The impression left by the letter is one of weakness: a weak ruler attempting to prop up his authority by pushing forward his sons (apparently unable to make it on their own without paternal protection) on the basis of a lame and partly preposterous argument. The very verbosity of the letter indicates a high level of insecurity only barely masked by the feeble attempts of al-Walíd to place himself in the august company of prophets and preceding caliphs. Political realities were too much out of sync with the image of himself cultivated by al-Walíd in this letter to placate his audience. In the end, neither of his objectives were achieved: after less than two years, al-Walíd was out of office. And his sons never made it into it.