POST-FORMATIVE
DEVELOPMENTS IN ISLAM
Extremism to Pacifism
It took time, however, for the absolutely pacifistic
attitudes to harden.
At the time of the downfall of the Umayyad and the
establishment of the 'Abbasids, the state of affairs was naturally still very
liquid. Ibn al-Muqafa' (second quarter of the second century) complains that
Muslims largely suffer from political extremism, one party contending that the
political authority must be upset if it disobeys God or, rather, if it seeks to
implement what constitutes disobedience to God, while the other party contends
that the political authority must be placed by definition, as it were, beyond
criticism, Ibn al-Muqafa' roundly dismisses the second group. With the first
group he agrees that:
"there is no obedience (to the ruler) in disobedience
of God," but he pointedly asks, if anybody is to be obeyed in
righteousness, including the political authority, and if everybody is to be
disobeyed, including the political authority, in what is deemed to be not
righteousness, then what is the difference between the. Political authority and
non-authority? How can, therefore, any political authority, worthy of the name,
survive ?
Ibn al-Muqafa', therefore, suggests that while the dictum
itself is correct, it is used as a camouflage for sedition and rebellion and,
further, that whatever any particular group thinks to be the correct
interpretation of the obedience or disobedience to God, it seeks to impose it
on others by attempting to seize the political machinery.
It is to be remarked that Ibn al-Muqafa', while stating the
view of both political extremes, does not refer to any Hadith or even alleged
Hadith, either on the side of rebellions or absolute pacifism. And, indeed, no
such Hadith is contained either in the Muwatta of Malik or the Athar of Abu
Yusuf two eminent men of the second century. Ibn al-Muqafa certainly assumes
that the state stands under the moral norms of Islam, but he insists that, in
judging whether a particular state is so conforming or not, all contending
groups must exercise that robust, healthy and constructive common sense which
Islam did so much to inculcate and that, above all, the integrity of the
Community and the stability of the state must never be lost sight of. We do not
deny that pacifist Hadith was there: indeed, our analysis of the political
Hadith in the last chapter has clearly
shown that this Hadith was proved by Kharijism. What we are saying is that
neither Ibn al-Muqafa' nor Malik nor yet Abu Yusuf makes any reference to such
Hadith.
But the collectors of Hadith during the third Century
zealously collected pacifist Hadith and, at the political level, pacifism
henceforward is permanently erected into the dogmatic structure of Islam. A
Muslim, from now on, does not possess the right of political resistance—that is
to say, not only actually, but even
formally and theoretically. Many students of Muslim political history and
theory—both Westerners and Muslim Modernists—have postulated an increasing
influence on Islam of old Iranian ideas of kingship, where kings were regarded
as sacred and inviolate. This story does not seem true. It is true that the
political authority was vested with a quasi-inviolate character and later also expressions
like "the shadow of God" are used, even by the orthodox—e.g., by Ibn
Taymiyah. But when the orthodoxy
contends that "even an unjust ruler ought to be obeyed" and that:
"the Sultan is the shadow of
God," we get the apparently strange result that "even an unjust ruler
is the shadow of God".
Since by no stretch of imagination can this extreme
construction be literally attributed to orthodoxy—least of all to a man like
Ibn Taymiyah, the only meaning we can attach to the phrase "shadow of
God" is that of a rallying point and a guarantee for security. And when we
look at the earlier insistence of the orthodoxy, couched in Hadith form, to keep to the majority of the Muslims and
their political authority," the meaning becomes absolutely clear. No
metaphysical implications, therefore, of the Old Iranian or other equivalent
doctrine of ruler ship may be read into this dictum.
However, a closer reflection will reveal that a total
conformism and pacifism, no matter through what noble purpose motivated, is
completely self-defeating, for it inculcates political passivity and
indifference and, subsequently, a fatal sense of suspicion against the
government. And this is exactly what happened in Islam. If the maintenance of
the solidarity of the Community was an overall objective.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Humanity, Religion, Culture, Science, Peace
http://AftabKhan-net.page.tl
http://PeaceForumNet.blogspot.com
http://PeaceForumNet.blogspot.com
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *...
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
