ABSTRACT
At first sight it might seem that uncentralized political systems, lacking any single focus of power, would be more likely to lie open to the influence of external cultural forces and innovations-whether in response to Islam or to other new stimulithan politically centralized states shielded from penetration by a tightly woven structure of government and administration. From a different standpoint, however, it might be argued with equal cogency, as indeed it has often been assumed, that centralized states with a single authority to mediate the impact of foreign cultural influence, would be in a better position to accept and apply novel ideas and practices. This latter presumption would seem all the more plausible in the present context in view of the elaborate character of Islamic Law as a theocratic system, originating in urban conditions, and particularly appropriate to the needs and requirements of centralized administration. Certainly, in uncentralized societies it would be difficult to envisage the ready comprehension and general application of the Shari'a as a legal system, without the introduction of radical and farreaching modifications. This, in turn, would suggest that centralized polities would assimilate the legal ordinances of Islam more readily, and with less dislocation, than traditional societies without chiefs and centralized authority. At the very least, therefore, we should expect to find different patterns of accommodation in the two contrasting types of political system.
