Document Type : Research Paper
Authors
1 PhD student, Department of History, Alzahra University, Tehran, Iran.
2 Associate Professor, Department of History, Alzahra University, Tehran, Iran.
Abstract
The problem
From the very beginning of their entry into the political arena of the Islamic world, the Seljuks resorted to various tools to legitimize their political power and consolidate their rule. Gaining the approval of the Abbasid Caliphs was one of the primary and most significant of these instruments, which can be considered the core element of the Caliphate-centered legitimacy model. Toghrul, much like his Buyid predecessor, 'Adud al-Dawla al-Daylami, appeared before the Caliph in the Dar al-Khilafa of Baghdad unarmed and prostrated himself on the ground before him. It appears that during the era of Toghrul’s rule and in the early years of Seljuk ascendancy, they were not in a position to conceive a new definition for their relationship with the Caliphate. Therefore, Toghrul, by modeling himself on the conduct of 'Adud al-Dawla al-Daylami and repeating the ceremonial presentation before the Abbasid Caliph, imitated the same legitimization system established by the Buyid Amirs.
During the reigns of Alp Arslan and Malik-Shah, while maintaining this tool of legitimacy, the Seljuq Sultans, influenced by the thoughts of Khwaja Nizam al-Mulk, the Vizier, and Imam Muhammad al-Ghazali, moved toward another tool for acquiring legitimacy. Khwaja Nizam al-Mulk, in his Siyasatnama, attributes the happiness of both worlds to a monarchy that possesses divine Farrah (Royal Glory). Al-Ghazali, in his Nasihat al-Muluk (Advice to Kings), introduced the Sultan as the shadow of God on Earth.
This trend persisted until the era of Sultan Sanjar (511–552 AH). However, during this time, the relationship between the Caliphate and the Sultanate entered a new phase, for which the letters and decrees of Sultan Sanjar—preserved in the Munsha’at Leningrad and later in the book Utbat al-Kataba—serve as the best documentation.
Background
Regarding the issue of legitimacy in the Seljuq state, numerous studies and researches have been conducted, with scholars examining it from various angles. Lambton, in the seventh chapter of her book State and Government in Islam, investigates the relationship between the Sultanate and the Caliphate in Sunni thought by reviewing the views of Imam al-Haramayn al-Juwayni and especially Imam Muhammad al-Ghazali. The late Dr. Seyyed Javad Tabataba’i, in his works, discussed the issue of the legitimacy of the Seljuq state and its connection to the Abbasid Caliphate based on the concept of Iranshahr (Iranian-world concept) and the role of Khwaja Nizam al-Mulk. Omid Safi, in his book Politics/Knowledge in the Islamic World, examined legitimacy in the Seljuq period based on Foucault’s and Althusser’s theories, emphasizing the convergence of epistemology and ideology and underscoring the role of scientific and religious institutions in legitimization. Taghi Azad Armaki and Maryam Kamali, in their article “Political Legitimacy and Power Structure in the Government of the Seljuks,” addressed the legitimacy of the Seljuks from the beginning until the end of Malik-Shah’s reign, examining it based on Max Weber’s theory of legitimacy.
As is evident, none of the cited studies have explored the Seljuq legitimacy model from the perspective of Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) theory. Amidst this, there are a limited number of works that analyze historical letters based on Fairclough’s model. Among these, one can mention the Master’s thesis titled “Critical Discourse Analysis of the Translation of the Letter of Imam Ali (AS) to Malik al-Ashtar,” written by Masihollah Nemati, and the Ph.D. dissertation titled “Stylistic Analysis of Imam Ghazali’s Letters with a Critical Discourse Analysis Approach,” conducted by Maryam Darpar at Ferdowsi University of Mashhad in 2011, which was recently published as a book. The significance of these theses lies in their direct application of CDA to the level of letters, which is also the subject of the current research. Although the above studies are not directly related to the topic of the present article, they have nevertheless provided useful theoretical and framework information for the authors of this paper.
Method
Critical Discourse Analysis theory, known as “CDA” in specialized discourse analysis texts, was founded by the English linguist and researcher Norman Fairclough in 1989, based on the theories of Michel Foucault. Fairclough, in his book Critical Discourse Analysis, mentions three essential and primary characteristics for “CDA,” which are: Relational, Dialectical, and Trans-disciplinary. Accordingly, his three-tiered model of critical analysis consists of:
1)Description: The first level of Fairclough’s critical discourse production is the description level, which examines the formalistic and superficial characteristics of the text. He describes these apparent features in three domains: Vocabulary, Grammar, and Textual Structure. At this level, every word is chosen with specific objectives; therefore, one of the initial steps in the critical analysis of texts is the recognition and identification of words and phrases that carry a specific semantic load.
2)Interpretation: This focuses on the relationship between the text and its interaction with existing or prior discourses in society—specifically, which existing or prior discourses the author has utilized to produce their discourse and text, and conversely, how the researcher employs these discourses to interpret the existing text. In other words, the researcher seeks to answer the following questions: Who created the text? Who is the audience? Who is involved? And what relationships exist?
3)Explanation: The third and final stage of critical analysis is explanation, where the interactions and the rationale behind the discourse production are examined in relation to social conditions. At this stage, the discourse is analyzed as part of a social process: What social conditions led to the emergence of this discourse? And is the existing discourse seeking to maintain or change the structures?
The purpose of the research: The subject of discourse analysis can also be framed historically. Since discourse analysis views everything from the perspective of language and narration, considering the world as nothing more than text and narrative, historical narratives, texts, and letters can be examined and analyzed within this theoretical framework. It appears that among the numerous discourse analysis theories, Norman Fairclough’s Critical Discourse Analysis can be one of the best frameworks for historical investigations. One of the most authoritative historical letters is the letter of Sultan Sanjar Seljuq to the Vizier al-Mustarshid Billah al-Abbasi. Given these explanations, the research question is: From the perspective of Fairclough’s Critical Discourse Analysis, what transformation in the discourse of legitimacy for the Seljuq state is indicated by Sultan Sanjar’s letter to the Abbasid Caliph?
Findings and Conclusions
In the analysis of this letter based on Fairclough’s CDA, the following results were obtained: At the description level and in terms of vocabulary, Sultan Sanjar, by highlighting his own Sultanate-centered discourse and marginalizing the Caliphate-centered discourse, defines the source of legitimacy for his role as inheritance, personal entitlement, and divine. At the interpretation level, Sultan Sanjar is influenced by the new view of the Sultanate propagated by al-Ghazali, which posits the Seljuq Sultan as the shadow of God on Earth. Finally, at the explanation level, within the context of the social events and historical transformations of that period, it can be argued that the confrontation between Sultan Sanjar and al-Mustarshid al-Abbasi compelled Sultan Sanjar to replace the dominant Caliphate-centered discourse with his own Sultanate-centered discourse.
Keywords
- Critical Discourse
- Fairclough
- Caliphate-Centered Discourse
- Sultanate-Centered Discourse
- Sultan Sanjar
- Al-Mustarshid al-Abbasi
Main Subjects
)