Colonialism and Islamic Law 159a linear arrangement of power: from the powerful to the powerless (Devereux
and Loeb 1943). However, when an existing culture was lost or uprooted by a
successor culture (deculturation), it was often replaced by a new culture (neocul-
turation) stemming from a process of transculturation. In the latter scenario, the
changes were non-linear and unpredictable. Transculturation aptly applies to
what happened to Muslim laws in the colonies. Despite the attempts to eliminate
or replace Muslim laws in the colonies, the upshot was that new Muslim legal
cultures came into existence. And, as many as the colonisers resisted the laws
of the colonised, they were forced to countenance native law even to the point
of having to accommodate it in the bureaucracies of the colonial metropoles in
legislative activities and appeals processes.
Counterpoints
It goes without saying that the economic ventures in the colonies were meant to
consolidate the nation state in the European metropoles. Ironically, with these
enterprises the colonial powers were, in Dirks’s words (1992: 4), also ‘bringing
both colonialism and culture back home’. One way that colonialism came back
home to the metropoles was that the British legal and political systems both had
to accommodate Muslim law, often called Muhammadan law. Special Privy
Council deliberations in Britain were set aside for appeals from India. British
lawyers and administrators received specialised legal training in Muslim law; the
bureaucracy had to make adjustments, apart from making available translations
of Muslim legal texts into English. And, in India, British judges were forced to
employ Muslim experts as assessors in courts.
In the self-fashioning of the colonies, what were perceived to be centres
and margins were constantly shifting entities. Let us take the case of Egypt.
Compared to France and England, Egypt as a colony in the Mediterranean
was a peripheral country. But often colonies served as counterpoints to other
regional colonial domains. In other words, the ‘peripheries’ were actually
turned into ‘centres’ with respect to other ‘margins’ (Coronil 1995: p. xiv). Note
how both the French and the British colonial regimes styled Egypt as the centre
of the Middle East (Maghraoui 2006: 74–86). Delhi became the centre serving
the regions of Malaya and the African East Coast, while Cairo played the same
role for parts of the Middle East region. Both Egypt and India as colonies, and
hence as peripheries to Europe, were central in the way they each shaped legal
and military developments in other parts of the colonial world.
The colonial encounter also forged new cognitive categories and structured
sentiments and emotions that can no longer be attributed to any single cause
or cultural effect. Edward Said convincingly showed that our existence in the
modern world provoked deeply transformative effects marked by what he called
counterpoint or the contrapuntal: ‘No one today is purely one thing’ (Said 1994:
407). The outcome of imperialism, Said continued, was that it ‘consolidated