For me, the concept of a separation between “church and state” was always one of particular interest. As an American Muslim, I was raised on the idea of Islam being more than a religion. It is a way of life. There are rules governing every aspect of life found in Qur’an or Hadith-all the dos and don’ts. Thus, I was under the impression that in the “Muslim World,” there was no distinct separation between “church” or religion and politics, or law in general. After class, I felt like my previous impression was false. I believe that there is definitely some overlap between the church and state but some do try to create separate spheres. Michael Cooperson presents the biographies of four very distinct, but interesting men who had opinions on “who” should be in power and “why.” The diverse ideas and opinions of these four men are fairly representative of ninth century Baghdad. However, it seems that there are two striking categories of views in regards to who should be in charge and the reason why should he be in charge.
One of these notable men is known as the caliph al-Ma’mun. Al-Ma’mun was the seventh caliphate of the Abbasid Dynasty. There was much argument over who should be the ruler after the Prophet Muhammad’s death. Al-Ma’mun and the Abbasids descended from the Prophet’s uncle al-Abbas. So it would make sense that al-Ma’mun believed that whoever assumed power should be of the Abbasid Dynasty. This person was “both imamate and caliphate” which Al-Ma’mun used interchangeably. Specifically, Al-Ma’mun believed that he was the “imam al huda,” or rightly guided leader. This sentiment was reflected in his actions toward his half brother that he competed for leadership and whom he refused to follow. Al-Ma’mun believed that God choses the leader for the community to follow and who leads the community in an upright manner. Al-Ma’mun’s view of ruler reflects more of my initial impressions of the religion existing with govern ship and law. “Al-Ma’mun’s claim to military, administrative, and fiscal independence was very provocative.”
Continuing with the notion that Al-Ma’mun was such an interesting figure is the naming of an Alid to succeed him. This sparks many questions. As previously mentioned, it seemed as if Al-Ma’mun believed that the ruler should be of Abbasid dynasty. However, if he named an Alid as successor, this prerequisite is null and void in a sense. He seems more focused on the good of the community, which makes sense as he is the rightly guided imam by God. “He finds no one more virtuous, scrupulous and learned than the Alid Ali b. Musa.” It also could be that he regarded both dynasties as members of the Prophet’s family. Al-Ma’mun’s view is one that is respectable as a ruler in today’s time. He seems to care about the community as his primary concern regardless of the traditional arguments concerning who should rule-Abbasid vs. Alid. It’s bigger than that. Al-Ma’mun appointed Ali al-Rida to succeed him, however he was never given the opportunity to clearly exercise his political views. However, it seems he would follow the footsteps of Al-Ma’mun in regards to his leadership-combining both religion and state. No separation.
While many believed that Al-Ma’mun wanted the good for the community, his view that he was the only one who could interpret Qur’an and he was the “end all be all” of Islamic matters and any other matter, upset all Proto Sunnis. This included Ibn Al Hanbal and Bishri al Hafi who refuted Al-Ma’mun’s view. Ibn al Hanbal was a Hadith scholar therefore he deemed Al-Ma’mun to have no grounds in this doctrine. He was very well versed in Hadith and did not appreciate Al-Ma’mun and his governance of state and religion. These two men believed that religion and state should be less looped and that the ruler should handle matters of the state and leave the religious aspects to the ulama and imamate. Al-Ma’mun seemed to have sparked this reaction from these two men. Al Bishri went to the extreme in his position to seclude himself from society, later becoming known as the Renunciant. Regardless of the fact that Ibn al Hanbal and Bishri had their differences, they both believed that state and religion should have separation.
These four men are very interesting and their stories are insightful. The two different sides of “state-religion” together vs. “state and religion” separate divided these four men in some way. Individually they have their differences as well but in regards to who should rule and why they were not that different. They are representative of the events of ninth century Baghdad and the infusion of ideas that presented themselves.
No comments:
Post a Comment