Reasons for the decline of the Arabs
Many of the factors we have mentioned as reasons for the Arabs’ greatness can be used to explain their decline. It is sufficient to look at the important factor of time to know that the most beneficial traits of individuals and nations at one time can produce the worst results at another, and that moral or mental preparedness, which is a factor of success at one time, will inevitably be a factor of frustration and failure at a later time.
I have previously shown how the Arabs’ instincts for war and quarrel, which were useful during the period of their conquests, soon became harmful after their conquests had ended and the field was empty of enemies to fight them. This is because, after the Arabs had completed their conquests, their inherent tendency towards division began to appear, and their state began to fragment until it fell, as happened to them in Spain and Sicily, which they lost due to their internal divisions in particular, and from which the Christians expelled them because of their constant rivalry in them.
The political and social systems of the Arabs, which we have mentioned as being among the causes of their rapid progress, may also be considered among the factors of their decline. The explanation of this is that the Arabs were not able to conquer the world until they submitted to the new Sharia brought by Muhammad and united their scattered word under its banner, which alone could have united the scattered forces in the Arabian Peninsula. The firm yoke of this Sharia remained good as long as the systems of the Prophet remained suitable to the needs of his nation. When the modification of these systems became an inevitable blow, due to the innovations of Arab civilization, the yoke of tradition was so heavy that it could not be moved.
Figure 2-4: Tunisian merchant (from photographs)
The systems of the Qur’an, which had been the address of the needs of the Arabs in the time of Muhammad, were no longer so after a few centuries. Since the Qur’an was simultaneously a religious, civil, and political constitution, and was unchangeable due to its divine source, its basic provisions could not be modified.
The results of the differences became clear, in particular, after the star of the Arab Sultan began to wane, and the religious reaction that aimed, in the name of renewing Islam, to stop Islam at the outward meaning of the Qur’an began to recur, even though the Muslims in the eras of the caliphs of Baghdad and Cordoba knew very well how to modify their teachings according to the needs of the nations that accepted them.
The danger of the inability to make a major change is evident – in particular – in the Arab political systems that require that the reins of the state be held by a single guardian who gathers in his hand all military, religious and civil powers. These systems, even if they alone help to establish a great state easily, are considered the least suitable systems for its survival. The great absolute states in which all powers are in the grip of one man, even if they have a great ability to…
Conquest does not advance unless it has great men at its head, because if it lacks them, everything collapses at once.
One of the results of the poor political system of the Arabs was the division that afflicted their state. That is, the governors of the countries, who were appointed by the caliphs to manage their affairs, and who enjoyed the same military, religious and civil powers as the caliphs, did not hesitate to seek independence. This independence was easy for them because they did not see any authority equal to their authority. The success of some of them led to the temptation of others, so the most important states of the state were soon transformed into independent mini-states.
This division had both harmful and beneficial results. As for its harmful results, it weakened the Arabs’ military power, and as for its beneficial results, it paved the way for the advancement of civilization. The truth is that Egypt and Andalusia would not have achieved the progress and prosperity they did had they not separated from the greater state, and that nothing would have happened to them, had they remained parts of that state, except the fate of the Ottoman states, whose governors were constantly isolated and who devoted their only concern to quickly getting rich from them, since they saw no benefit for themselves in their advancement.
Yes, the progress of some of these independent states was great, but their end was like the end of the ancient states, which relied on the number and value of soldiers for their military power, instead of relying on some important military tool as is the case now, and which would collapse at the first foreign raid.
Then, the civilization that refines natures and educates the mind does not develop military qualities, and it prepares the downfall of great nations in this way, because nations whose sons are destitute desire to change their condition, and threaten the civilized, lazy nations that are somewhat prosperous, and thus most ancient civilizations fell, and this is what happened to the Romans, and this is what happened to the Arabs as well, and if the Turks, the Mongols and other nations that defeated the Arabs in the era of their civilization had attacked the followers of the Prophet during the days when these people established their state, and formed a nation that was patient in the face of hardships, accustomed to the hardship of life, and not luxurious, they would have suffered loss. We also mention among the reasons for the decline of the Arabs: the differences between the races that were subject to their authority. The impact of this reason is evident in two different, ominous ways: the first is the intermingling that resulted from the various races’ confrontation, and the resulting competition between them. The second is the rapid corruption of the blood of the victors that resulted from the prolific breeding.
