Islam has faced civilisational catastrophe twice. Once at the hands of the Mongols in the 13th century and the next at the hands of the Europeans in the 19th century. The first time it responded by becoming more open. The second time it responded by becoming more closed. The difference came not from the scale of the defeat but in what the conqueror said while conquering.
Islam originated as the Arab empire nearly 1,400 years ago. A group of nomadic tribes were united by a single ideology that argued that the one true god had chosen his final messenger from amongst them. If they followed this final messenger, a trader from Mecca, victory would be theirs. True enough, the tribal coalition went on to overthrow the mighty Persian empire and push back the Byzantine Roman empire. Internal power struggles followed. Assassinations led to creation of factions: the Sunnis of Arabia, the Shias of Mesopotamia. The Caliphate moved from Mecca in Arabia to Damascus in Syria to Baghdad in Mesopotamia where a fabulous city was built 1,200 years ago. This was the fabled city of the Arabian Nights that outshone Rome.
Then the Mongols sacked Baghdad 800 years ago. They extinguished the Caliphate. They offered no civilisational argument. They were pagan conquerors without a doctrine of cultural superiority, and within two generations many of them had converted to Islam, become patrons of Sufi shrines, and developed syncretic court cultures that blended Buddhist cosmologies of universal sovereignty with Islamic theology.
Jonathan Brack’s work on sacred kingship in Mongol Iran shows how Muslim scholars adapted productively to this new dispensation. They drew on Buddhist Tantric ideas, on Ibn Arabi’s metaphysics, on Sufi ideas of divine presence, on a philosophical pluralism capacious enough to accommodate a Mongol Khan as a legitimate sovereign. The Mongols destroyed the political centre but left the civilisational infrastructure intact, and eventually enriched it.
The result was Sufism as a mass phenomenon. An Islam that spread across Central and South Asia not through armies but through the dargah, the silsila, the saint whose barakat crossed every boundary of caste, faith, and community. This gave rise to the gunpowder empires, spearheaded by Turks: the Ottomans of Turkey and the Mughals of India, with the Safavids of Persia, in between.
Elverskog’s work on the Buddhist-Islamic encounter on the Silk Road shows how this expansion was genuinely generative: the Chishti order that shaped North Indian Islam was partly the product of an encounter with Buddhist ideas of compassionate presence and non-hierarchical transmission of wisdom. The trauma of Baghdad was metabolised into openness.
The trauma of colonialism was metabolised into its opposite.
The colonial conquest of the Muslim world happened slowly. Napoleon in Egypt in 18th century, the British in India through the 19th century, and the dismantling of the Ottoman empire in the 20th. This was not merely a political defeat. It was accompanied by an explanation. The conqueror explained the conquest as the natural consequence of Muslim civilisational failure: too irrational, too superstitious, too attached to saints and shrines and the accumulated irrationality of a thousand years of drift from the pure original faith. The Mongols had said nothing. The British had a theory. And that theory lodged itself in the Muslim mind like a splinter that could not be removed.
The reformist response that followed the colonial defeat was structurally the same across regions. From Shah Waliullah in 18th-century Delhi to the Deobandis in the 19th-century to the Wahhabis in Arabia and the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt in the 20th. The argument was identical: Muslims had been defeated because they had strayed from the pure original Islam of the Prophet. The shrine, the saint, the jinn, the music of the qawwal were diagnosed as the corruption that had caused the fall. The cure was return to the text, purged of everything the colonial critic had identified as primitive.
This was not a recovery of original Islam. It was a modern construction that internalised the colonial gaze even while resisting colonial power. The reformists accepted the epistemological framework of their conquerors, that the shrine was superstition, that the saint was an interpolation, that the jinn was embarrassing. So the new leaders set about building an Islam that could pass muster before a rationalist tribunal. They rebuilt Islamic civilisation successfully, from below, through madrasa and print and voluntary organisation rather than through court and empire. But they rebuilt it by amputating the very pluralism that had made it humanly habitable.
What makes the contrast so sharp is the question of victimhood. The Muslim world after Baghdad did not see itself as the victim of a superior civilisation. It saw itself as the victim of a catastrophe that was terrible, inexplicable, but not evidence of inherent inadequacy. It could mourn and then expand. But the Muslim world after colonialism was handed a narrative of inherent inadequacy dressed as analysis, and the most powerful response, masked as reformism, was radical Islam.
Both were responses to loss. Only one was also a response to humiliation. The Mongol catastrophe produced grief without shame. The colonial catastrophe produced grief compounded by shame. Shame, unlike grief, does not heal through openness. It heals through purification.
Posts on X: @devduttmyth