In Religion and Power in Morocco, Henry Munson attempts to analyze the evolution of the role of Islam in the political sphere of Moroccan society. Primarily, Munson utilizes ancient Moroccan mythical stories of “saintly scholars” to explain the changing nature of political Islam in Morocco. Throughout his book, Munson critiques Geertz’s Islam Observed, describing the political issues Geertz successfully identifies, such as his discussion of the ideologization of religion, while also explaining how much of Geertz’s research fails to correctly characterize the relationship between Islam and power in Morocco. Munson focuses his research around the historical series of clashes that embodied the “righteous man of God” who was brave enough to defy an unjust sultan governing the people of Morocco, reaching as far back as the conflict between al-Hasan al-Yusi and Mulay Isma’il in the 17th century to the fundamentalists challenging King Hassan II as recently as the late 20th century. Thus, Munson uses these different examples to lay down a framework for discussing the history of political conflicts within Moroccan society.
Utilizing the work of Geertz, Moroccan folk stories, and his own researched fieldwork, Munson creates a narrative revolving around the continuous struggle between righteous ulama (religious scholars) and the authoritarian sultans that controlled Moroccan society. Munson begins by stating sultans were considered the “deputy [shadow] of god”, (Munson, 38). He then highlights the distinction between just and unjust sultans, where unjust sultans were seen as purposefully defying God’s laws and instead treating their subjects unfairly and harshly. Munson uses Moroccan folk tales and his own research to identify a continuous trend in Moroccan history. As a sultan begins to disrespect divine laws, the majority of the ulama support him. Then, one “righteous man of God” begins to defy the sultan, calling for him to change the nature of his government back to one that adheres to the laws of governing found in the Qur’an. However, if the sultan refuses, Munson brings up numerous examples of righteous men who started a rebellion against their sultan in order to ensure their ruler is replaced by a just one.
To emphasize his point, Munson brings up the confrontation between al-Yusi and Mulay Isma’il. Munson writes that Geertz explains this conflict as one revolving around inherited and obtained baraka; however, Munson disagrees with Geertz and discredits his research by noting that al-Yusi possessed both inherited and obtained baraka, while Mulay Isma’il only possessed inherited. Munson also discredits Geertz’s research by writing, “Geertz ignored the religious significance of baraka and reduces it to personality traits,” (Munson, 6). Thus, when Isma’il continued to act unjustly as a ruler, it was in al-Yusi’s ability to defy the sultan and ensure that he was replaced by a sultan who would correctly act as a “shadow of God”.
Munson regularly critiques the work of Geertz throughout his book in order to successfully emphasize the importance of his own research. One important distinction between his own work and Geertz’s is Geertz’s failure to analyze primary documents found in Moroccan society. He writes that Geertz’s refusal to analyze local documents and instead focus only on historical evidence written in English taints his entire research. Without studying local historical stories and essays, Munson argues that it is impossible to correctly characterize the nature of Islam in Morocco’s political history. Geertz also purposefully ignores religion’s involvement in the use of governmental force and fear tactics, which Munson argues are two factors which are absolutely necessary in order to understand the religious aspects associated with power. Thus, Munson critically analyzes Geertz’ failure to include these important components, explaining that Geertz’s analysis of kingship in Morocco is distorted by his academic mistakes.
As I read Religion and Power in Morocco, Munson’s style of research was both intriguing and confusing. His methodology successfully incorporated specific accounts of confrontations between religious scholars and men of power to explain the general nature of these conflicts across Moroccan history. He conveys this usage in his conclusion “one finds the myth of the righteous man of God who defies an unjust sultan in the historical texts of the past as well as the folktales of the present,” (184). This is Munson’s main distinction from other academic writers: he utilizes the work of both intellectual historians and the folktales told by ordinary common citizens.
However, his academic style of writing failed to entirely engage me as a reader. By seamlessly pulling quotes from Geertz, his own research, and Moroccan folk tales without explanation, he added to the confusion associated with an already challenging topic. Munson himself says he “I have leapt back and forth between event structure in a manner ostensibly similar to Geertz’s ‘dialectical tacking between the most local of local detail and the most global of global structure’”, (Munson, 180). While this strategy conveyed a convincing argument supported by evidence of different categories, it came across as an overwhelming amount of information.
While Munson writes that he “tried to avoid generalization divorced from what real people do as well as the description of events severed from the structures that shaped them,” (Munson, 180), he focuses the entirety of his book’s argument around the usage of individual myths and stories to the application of a general theme across Moroccan history. Thus, his attempt to avoid generalization fails as the focus of his research revolves around two main timelines in Moroccan history: the conflicts between al-Yusi and Isma’il and between the fundamentalists and Hassan II.
Thus, Munson successfully incorporates the usage of primary texts and historical documents to create a general idea of the evolution of Islam in association with political power. However, he does so through a complex and confusing window that fails to engage any reader who is not an entirely academic scholar. So, his book fails to reach out to the average reader and instead can only be understood by other scholars of similar nature to himself. I would only recommend this book to people who are aware of this challenge and who already have experience studying this region’s deep and complex political history.
Leave a Reply