Duties of the Government

By: Dr. Muhammad Masjid-Jame‘i
The second factor was the concept of government in old times. Contrary to what it is today, i.e. the government provides services, in the past it firstly provided security. Presently, the government is expected to provide services while in the past it was required to provide and guarantee security, internally and externally. This expectation was exactly affected by the expectation of the ancestors from the government and arose from the conditions of those times. In their view, the government was a system to protect the people’s property, lives and family and its first duty was to deal with such affairs rather than, for example, providing such services as health, treatment, education, culture and healthy recreation or similar services. The modern-day developments changed the concept of the duties of the government, to consider provision of security as one of its duties rather than the most important one.
However, in the past, especially in the Islamic east, which lacked political stability and continuity, the situation was not this way. In those days, everything and all the values ended in security. What was important was for the government to provide such security. This would be the greatest gift that a government could give to its citizens. However, if the issue is looked at not through today’s view but according to the conditions in the past, the concern of the great Sunni jurisprudents and theologians in this respect will be understood, to the effect that everything can be obtained in the light of such security, from religious rites and orders to the protection of the people’s property, lives and family. In their view, the government both protected the religion and the people. Therefore, it had to provide for their good in this world and in the afterworld.
Sunni scholars in general, who have written about imamate and caliphate, or have dealt with the same, considered the first and the most important duty of the government to be providing security. Even some of them chose this duty as a definition, from a cautious Sufi-type individual like Ghazali50 to a strict fanatic like Ibn Taymiyyah51 and from a political scholar and politician like Mawardi52 to a thoughtful intellectual like Ibn Khaldun.53 All of them lived in conditions that made them sensitive to such concerns, which was natural.
You would ask why the story did not end up so with Shi‘ites, i.e. why the great Shi‘ite theologians and jurisprudents were not so sensitive about security and the protection of security while they also lived in the old times and closely witnessed the events and developments. One has to say in response that their concern about security and protecting the lives and blood and reputation of the Muslims was and is not at all less than that of the Sunni clerics. However, that they did not forget about justice despite such sensitivity and this principle was not overshadowed by security and their thoughts and beliefs were due to the practice of the imams and the special decrees that they had accepted, i.e. there was a special reason for this and, if it had not been there, like the Sunni clerics and under the influence of the conditions in the past and the expediency for protecting security and peace, they would have thought the same way.
Finally, the third factor would arise from the historical realities and necessities. Throughout the history of Islam, other than in certain periods, it was the Sunnis who had the power and were responsible for protecting the society and its borders. Shi‘ites, i.e. the Twelver Shi‘ites, were a small minority community and rarely had such a responsibility. Accordingly, it was natural that the Sunni political thought would be more strongly and more deeply influenced than the Shi‘ite political thought by questions concerning the administration and protection of the society and guarding its internal and external security and providing the means for it. Their jurisprudence and theology flourished and expanded at a time when they inherited centuries of experience in statesmanship and protecting the foreign borders. However, the Shi‘ite jurisprudence and theology had not undergone such experiences when they were developing. The latter was based more on theoretical principles and foundations rather than on realities and practical necessities.
Islam was in constant conflict with fierce malicious domestic and foreign enemies. Such conflicts never stopped and are still going on. Basically, the geographical situation of the Muslim World from the very beginning was so that it exposed it to constant relentless attacks. The most important of these dangers came from the east, where the yellow race from Central Asia threatened the Muslim territory from the very early days. These threats continued long after the Mongol attack. The other attack was from the west, where the Christians and the Crusaders were, and continued to the early times of the present century in military form and still goes on in a different form.54

Vastness of the Muslim World
The vastness of the Muslim World and the various groups, cultures, races, nations and religions therein were yet another problem. No religion had so much variety within its territory and no religion has been able to create so much harmony, coherence and unity. This provided an appropriate ground for understanding Islam in different ways and, as a result, for creation of an unlimited number of sects and a great deal of religious, cultural and sociopolitical tensions. Consequently, from the very beginning of its appearance, this religion was in conflict with foreign aggressors on the one hand, and with the internal insurgents on the other. Because of its vastness, anyone could convert to it and, naturally, it had a great potential for widely different interpretations and justifications. Any of these two could easily benefit from the internal groups who had different thoughts and generally fought, killed and plundered each other in order to create tension and insecurity or at least contribute thereto.
It would be appropriate here to quote part of the views of Ibn Abi’l-Hadid, as quoted by Muhammad Abu Zuhrah, about the causes of sectarianism in Iraq, which is an example of Muslim sectarianism throughout history, and why it was so, “Iraq was home to all Islamic sects because it was the point where all ancient civilizations met. There, one could find the sciences of the Iranians and those of the Chaldeans and the remains of the cultures and civilizations of these nations, merged with Greek philosophy and Indian thoughts, while all of them had been mixed with Islamic thoughts.
Therefore, this land became the birthplace and growing center for various Islamic sects. Ibn Abi’l-Hadid thus explains why different sects were formed in Iraq, “Concerning the difference of this people with the Arabs of the Prophet’s (S) time, I have found out that all of these are from Iraq and reside in Kufah. The Iraqi nature is so that it constantly fosters the believers of various sects and new religions. The people of this land have insight and are interested in discussions and contemplating different issues while they have views and beliefs similar to objectors to religions. People like Mani, Disan, Mazdak and the like were from among them, who appeared at the time of the Sassanid kings. The Hijazi nature and thought are not like this.”55
The words of Ibn Abi’l-Hadid were true about Iraq as well as about many other places. The same causes that created various sects in Iraq or at least contributed to their growth and development existed in the other Islamic lands as well. It was the destiny that this religion extend to lands that were the cradles of ancient cultures and civilizations.
In such circumstances, one can expect that they [the Sunnis] would not think about anything other than security and power that can bring it about. The history of Islam is full of such problems. Apart from all the foreign dangers, one of which was the Mongol invasion that destroyed the Islamic east, Islam was throughout its history involved in constant malicious conflict with Christianity in the western front. If there were intervals in the meanwhile, it was for refreshing the forces rather than for stopping the conflicts permanently. Christianity and the medieval church considered Islam to be a usurping enemy, one that had invaded part of its territory and had risen against its authenticity and truth. Although Muslims followed their teachings to consider Christians as People of the Book, the fact is that the Christians, other than in the present century when they recognized Islam as a religion, considered Muslims as unbelievers56 that had to be destroyed.

Threat of Christian Powers
An example of Ha’iri’s account of the Christians’ view of Muslims, quoting from Sanders, “You could hardly find a Christian with honesty in the period of belief that would consider the Prophet (S) impartially as his religion, in his view, was an infidel caricature of the Christian’s own religion and its followers—from the first to the seventh century, when the Muslims took Syria from the Byzantine government—had destroyed Christianity in its birthplace where it had grown.”57
Then, he adds, “Thus, the Christian World, i.e. Europe, looked at Islam and, therefore, they always considered the Prophet of Islam and his religion and followers as enemies and cursed at them, so much so that Pike, in a book that he wrote about the Prophet’s life, admits that Muhammad is one of the great men that has been subject to accusations more than any other famous man.”58
As we said, the Christians’ hostility never stopped. They were the permanent organized ideological enemies of Muslims. Their attacks were contrary to that of the eastern invaders, who were general idolaters and whose attacks were for slaughter and plundering and for finding pastures and occupying developed and residential lands. The latter would finally merge into the Muslim society by converting to Islam while the Christians’ attacks were preplanned and ideological. Not only would they not accept Islam, they were also seeking to Christianize the Muslims. The purpose of the eastern invaders was slaughter and destruction while the western invaders sought to destroy Islam and the centrality of Islam.
“To the leadership of the Roman Catholic Church and the European governments, the fall of Granada did not just mean the defeat of Abu ‘Abdullah, the last Muslim ruler of the Granadan Nasiris, against the united forces of Ferdinand and Isabella. It also meant an unforgettable victory for the Christian World against Islam and, as Sanders puts it, the Granada event was ‘an uncompleted partial avenge by Christianity’ against Islam. Europe, which was constantly worried about and feared the unity of the Muslims and the material and spiritual progresses of the Muslim World—which had extended after the Muslims took control of Constantinople—celebrated the fall of Granada and expressed much happiness for the defeat of the Muslims while, as Bartold writes, the fall of Granada was ‘like a bomb exploding in the Muslim World’, making all the Muslims mourn on it. The leaders of the Roman Catholic Church arranged feasts, dances and celebrations in Rome and the Vatican for the event.
In his book Jam-Sultan, a French writer writes that, after the news of the Granada fall spread, the Vatican and the other places in Rome were lit for celebrations, there were plays and horseracing and bullfighting competitions for consecutive days. In one of the plays, two people dressed as Ferdinand and Isabella, while another man playing the role of Abu ‘Abdullah, the defeated Muslim ruler, was chained and fell to their feet. The people were joyous for the king and queen of Spain, who had finally been united to defeat the Islamic rulers of Granada after years of being defeated by them.
Among the first-hand spectators or audience, there was the same Jam, the brother of Bayazid II, the Ottoman Sultan, who was held by the Pope’s government in order to make the Ottoman sultan behave himself. According to the French writer, more than anything else the prince disliked the chaining play of Abu ‘Abdullah and throwing him at the feet of Ferdinand and Isabella. It seems that the Vatican Catholic leaders held such plays, feasts and celebrations to show that the Muslims were in bad conditions and were disunited, especially in the presence and with the awareness of Jam Sultan, who contemplated having the crown of the greatest Islamic government of that time. They thus sought to quench their sense of avenge and:
1) Say to the Christian World that, despite the past, Islam was now powerless against the West and Christianity had overcome Islam.
2) Severely break the spirit of the Muslims and Muslim rulers, especially the Ottoman kings who claimed to conquer the world.”59

Power and Security
In such conditions, it was natural that the thoughts and sensitivity to security and power be directed towards the creater and protector of security rather than to justice or the practice of justice. What mattered here was merely having power and splendor because these would frighten the enemies and protect the centrality and borders of Islam. Therefore, everything would have to be put at the service of making the ruler as powerful and splendid as possible. This is the duty of all and it is a religious and Islamic duty because, in their view, defending Islam was so intermingled with defending the ruler that it was not possible to defend the religion without defending the ruler. To them, it was not important who he was and what he did and how far he was committed to the religious precepts and Islamic justice. What was important was that he symbolized Islam and everybody had to be at his service and obey him in order to consolidate his position as much as possible because it is the power and splendor of this symbol that silences the enemies, frightens the aliens and establishes security.60
This is well explained by Ibn Hanbal where he is accounting for the religious necessity of obeying the rulers, “It is obligatory to obey the rulers and commander of the faithful, be he a good or bad person. It is necessary to obey the one who has become the caliph and the people gather to express their allegiance and also the one who has gained domination over the people with the power of the sword and by force and is known as caliph and commander of the faithful. Jihad by the side of the emirs, whether they are good or bad, is acceptable untill the Day of Resurrection.
The decisions they make like the distribution of spoils and tributes and on punishments is acceptable. No one should be sarcastic towards them or stand up against them. It is allowed and rewarded if you pay them alms, whether they are good or bad. Standing behind them for prayer and behind any other person who is qualified is acceptable and one who refuses to do this is a heretic and a violator of the tradition of the ancestors. One who does not believe that standing behind good or bad emirs to say the Friday communal prayer is accepted, has not understood the true virtues of the Friday communal prayer.
The tradition is that two units of prayer have to be said with them and you have to believe that this prayer is complete and should not doubt it. One who disobeys an imam of the Muslims whom the people have accepted and whose caliphate the people have accepted, whether with satisfaction or with force or reluctance, has broken the customs of the Muslims and opposed the Prophet’s tradition and, if he dies, it is as if he has died in the pre-Islamic ignorance period.”61
The Muslims in the past centuries lived under such conditions and this was true especially in the first centuries of Islam when the seed of Sunni jurisprudential and theological structure and thoughts was planted. These foundations developed in the light of such conditions and necessities. Indeed, this was approved by the experiences of the subsequent centuries. Hajjaj ibn Yusuf says, “The sultan’s weakness is more damaging than his oppression because his weakness affects everybody whereas his oppression affects a certain group.”62 This indicates the true spirit of that time and the mentality and sensitivity of the people of that time. It was an example for later times and the emirs advised their children about them.
In those times, it was possible to make one of the two choices, either accepting anarchy, insecurity and foreign threats or submitting to the oppression of the ruler and his deviation from the right path of Islam and Islamic justice. In such conditions, naturally all the people would choose the latter.

Ghazali’s Theory
As Ghazali sought to prove the religious rather than the rational necessity of imamate, he says things that are a clear expression of the problems that were mentioned and of the necessities arising therefrom, “…And as to the second introduction: It is that the world affairs and the security of the souls and of property is not provided, unless under a powerful obeyed sultan. The best reason for this is when a sultan or caliph dies, that if he is not immediately substituted by another obeyed king, there will be anarchy, murder, plunder and drought everywhere. The beasts will die and the industries will be stopped. The powerful will steal and plunder and no one will have rest so as to worship or seek knowledge, if he survives the situation, and most people will be killed.
Therefore, it has been said that the religion and the sultan are together. The religion is the foundation and the sultan is its guard. What has no foundation will be destroyed and what had no guard will be ruined. In brief, any reasonable person will notice that the people will be destroyed if they are left to themselves, because of their class difference and conflicting views, and there being no powerful obeyed person to gather them together.
This disease has no cure other than a powerful sultan to maintain the worldly system, and the maintenance of the worldly system is necessary for establishing a religious system, and the religious system is necessary for the otherworldly salvation, which is what the prophets meant. Therefore, the necessity of having an imam is an inevitable religious necessity. Understand this very well.”63
It is interesting that the well-known theologian, Qadi ‘Abdu’r-Rahman bin Ahmad Ayji mentions the same point. As the second reason for the necessity of appointing an imam, he mentions preventing probable damage. Explaining this, he says, “With a relative certainty, we know that the shari‘ah legislator, while legislating the religious rites on the days of feast and Fridays, meant to provide for benefits for the people in this world or in the afterworld. These benefits will not be attained other than by having an imam appointed according to the shari‘ah so as to be referred to in what relates to him because the people, with their differing views and their conflicts, rarely submit to each other.
This would result in fights and perhaps the death of all. This has been shown by experience and also by disturbances that happen in the interval between the death of a sultan and the appointment of another individual because, if this appointment is delayed, the daily life will be stopped and everyone will take a sword to protect his life and property. This will result in the destruction of the religion and of all the Muslims.”64
We quoted the above in full because of its importance in the entire discussion. However, despite all this, the big problem was that the second choice, i.e. submitting to an oppressor despite his deviation from the right path of Islam and from the Islamic justice, which was due to necessity, resulted in the establishment of a tyrannical sociopsychological structure among them and formed the foundations of their thoughts accordingly in all respects. This temporary necessity had a lasting effect, which continued to the present day and aroused a great deal of protests by the youth and the intellectuals of the new generation.”65

Preserving the System
All of these factors finally constituted the thought of preserving the system and the need to do so. The question was to preserve the system. This had the first priority. The other factors were either in its employment or had a peripheral or secondary importance. Such a way of thinking would certainly nip any objection in the bud on grounds of justice, either by claiming to return to the Prophet’s (S) tradition or by claiming to confront heresy. From this point of view, the question is not what the truth is and what the falsehood is. The principle is that all people have to serve to protect and preserve it and to consolidate and reinforce it as much as possible. Anything other than this would be violating the customs of the Muslims and prohibited, and persistence on that would be deemed as rejection of the religion. Accordingly, the greatest protest that one could have would be an objection in one’s heart and a personal one, i.e. one must not accept a ruler’s heresy by heart, yet objecting to it would be violating the customs of the Muslims and one has to avoid doing so. One’s duty is, at the ultimate point, a denial by heart not in action or practice. The following story explains this very well.
One day, the jurisprudents of Baghdad went to Ibn Hanbal and said to him, “This person—they meant Wathiq, the ‘Abbasid caliphate, who, like Ma’mun and Mu‘tasim, promoted the issue of the creation of the Qur’an—has corrupted the people’s beliefs and does not stop on this. It is necessary to do something.” They meant to get a fatwa for rising against the caliph. However, he said in response, “Your duty is to deny in your hearts. You have to deny him in your heart but are not allowed to rise against him or oppose him.”66
Ibn Hanbal did not say this because he sought comfort or he was conservative. He champions the period of hardship, to be later known as the Days of Hardship. He is one of the most prominent opponents of the thought of the creation of the Qur’an and insisted so much on this that he was defamed and beaten for it. In Mu‘tasim’s period, he was lashed nearly to death. He was not afraid or did not seek personal comfort. He really thought so and recommended that too.67
However, the question why he thinks so returns to his jurisprudential and theological foundations, as were mentioned. He believed that even if the imamate and caliphate is attained by force and sword, one is not allowed to oppose it thereafter. When the ruling system and the protection of the ruling system are made a principle, the person who takes it and the qualifications he has to have are overshadowed thereby. The principle is solidity and power rather than conforming the religious precepts or justice. It is this principle that makes it legal and necessary to be obeyed rather than its characteristics. Because of this, even a caliph that believes in the creation of the Qur’an and promotes this has to be obeyed because they believed that the negative results and consequences of opposing the ruling system are far more than the positive results that may result in ‘calling to goodness’ or ‘prohibiting the evil’ in words and in practice. Therefore, one must not do it. Although this is a true saying, if its limits are not defined and it is considered to be true in any circumstances, it would provide the best ground for the rule of oppression and deviation from the religion and justice, as this happened.68
It was exactly on this basis that he said they should not make any objection to Wathiq or take any action against him. It was again based on this he did not call Mu‘tasim, the powerful and strict and at the same time uninformed and unlearned ‘Abbasid caliph, by any title other than caliph and the Commander of the Faithful, even when he underwent the severest forms of torture.69
These were the most important factors that formed the mentality of the senior Sunni clerics regarding security and protecting the ruling system, from among of which the third factor was the most effective and critical. This was one of the major differences between Shi‘ites and Sunnis. One of the most important reasons why Shi‘ah has been criticized and even blamed throughout history has been this last factor. They constantly said and say that Shi‘ah, with what they did, has broken the Muslim unity and created differences and disputes. Some even criticize Imam Husayn with this same reason and explicitly ask why he stood against the consensus of the Muslims.70
Here the problem is not whether this criticism of theirs is right or not, i.e. whether Imam broke the Muslim unity or whether there was another issue. What is important is that this criticism is the product of their intellectual and doctrinal system. Commitment to such a system will necessarily take one to such views as they have adopted. The critics of the Imam thought so and those that did not say anything, were under the influence of the special sayings regarding the Imam, which were also cited by great Sunni sayings scholars. That is to say, from among the prohibition of breaking the Muslim unity, which was a natural and logical result of their intellectual, ideological and jurisprudential system, and the sayings that were cited as to the high position of the Imam, they resorted to the sayings. Their silence and probably admiration was due to this rather than due to the agreement of the ‘Ashura uprising with their jurisprudential and theological foundations—here we are talking about the true independent Sunni scholars rather than the ones who were affiliates of tyrants and would give up their religion in order to justify the purposes and actions of those in power. These would say anything even at the price of insulting a person like Imam Husayn.

Ibn Qayyim’s Theory
It would be better here to cite the theory of one of the greatest Sunni scholars, Ibn Qayyim. In his most important and serious book A‘lam al-Muwaqqi‘in, he has a full chapter on “Change and difference of fatwa depending on change of time, place, conditions, intentions and results”, in which he provides a detailed account on that “The shari‘ah has been constructed for the people’s benefits in the worldly and the otherworldly affairs.”
Then, he provides the degrees of prohibiting the evil and its conditions, saying on the latter, “The Prophet necessitated prohibiting the evil so that what God and his Prophet like will prevail. Then, if prohibition of the evil involves another evil which is disliked by God and his Prophet, it will not be allowed, although that evil is not liked by God and He will punish those who commit it. It is like prohibiting the sultan or the governor from evil by rising up against him, as this will be the basis for any disturbance and evil to the end of time. The Prophet’s Companions asked him about fighting emirs who delay saying prayers on time, and if they should fight them. He said, ‘No, not as long as they say it.’
‘One who sees something from his emir that he dislikes, he has to be patient regarding it and must not refuse to obey him.’ One who contemplates small and big damages that occurred to Islam will see that it has been due to non-commitment to this principle and impatience on the evil. They sought to eliminate an evil but were entangled in a bigger evil, which was the result of their action. The Prophet saw the greatest of evils in Mecca but he could not change them. When God opened Mecca to him and made it the home of Islam, he began changing the Ka‘bah and made it the way Abraham had built as the Qurayshis could not bear it since they had just converted to Islam and left paganism. Therefore, the Prophet did not let the Muslims stand up against the emirs and prohibit the evil in practice as a great disturbance would arise out of it.”71
37. Wasa’il ash-Shi‘ah, vol. 5, p. 372, saying 9.
38. This is an example of the religius alienation of the Umayyad caliphs and agents, “Tariq was a governor for some Umayyad caliphs. I saw him ask for food, which he ate on the Prophet’s (S) rostrum. There was a bone in his food that contained marrow. He hit it on the wood around the rostrum to take out the marrow.” ‘Uyun al-Akhbar, vol. 2, p. 46. When the governor of Medina behaves like this, what can one expect from the governors of the other regions?
39. This participation not only meant recognizing the caliph or the ruler, it also means recognizing all that related to him. For example, see the suggestion of the governor of Medina to Sa‘id ibn Musayyib in Waffiyat al-A‘yan, vol. 2, p. 117.
40. Al-Musannif, vol. 2, no. 148.
41. As-Siyasah ash-Shar‘iyyah, p. 42.
42. An example of this materialistic and profit-seeking attempt in the name of the religion can be found in the actions of the chancellor of the Sultan Sulayman Qanuni, Lutfi Pasha, who tried to promote the former’s position to imamte or caliphate. In his book, Khulas al-Ummah fi Ma‘rifah al-A’immah, he names Sulayman with such titles as ‘imam of the time’, ‘God’s Prophet’s substitute’, ‘defender of Islam’, ‘powerful supporter of God’s religion’, ‘sultan of Muslims’, ‘bridler of the infidels’, ‘just prayer leader’, ‘establisher of the shari‘ah laws’, ‘one with a characteristic of divine blessing and happiness and whom God accompanies with His infinite attention’.
All of this indicates how the religion could be used for strengthening a worldly position. Majalleh-ye Daneshkadeh-ye Adabiyat wa ‘Ulum-e Insani (Journal of the Faculty of Literature and Humanities), Mashhad University, serial no. 257-8, pp. 7-8.
43. Al-Islam bayn al-‘Ulama’ wa’l-Hakimun, pp. 133-8.
44. Al-Mahalli, vol. 4, p. 214.
45. Fiqh as-Sunnah, vol. 1, pp. 209-10.
46. Al-Mahalli, vol. 4, p. 214.
47. Wasa’il ash-Shi‘ah, vol. 5, p. 383, saying 9.
This point is emphasized in Mustadrak Wasa’il ash-Shi‘ah, vol. 6, p. 456, and Al-‘Awasim min al-Qawasim, vol. 3, pp. 242-4, which elaborately cite Sunni documents.
48. Min al-‘Aqidah ila’th-Thawrah, vol. 1, p. 26.
49. Hashim Ma‘ruf al-Husayni; Intifadat ash-Shi‘ah ‘ibar at-Tarikh, pp. 108-9, cited from ‘Ali al-Wardi, Wu‘‘az as-Salatin, well explains the reasons for the stability and survival of Shi‘ism despite many other religions; see 109-10.
50. For example, see Kanz al-‘Ummal, vol. 7, pp. 591-7.
51. Al-Iqtisad fi’l-I‘tiqad, pp. 197-206; ibid., Fatihah al-‘Ulum, p. 11.
52. As-Siyasah ash-Shar‘iyyah, p. 23.
53. Mawardi, Adab ad-Dunya’ wa’d-Din, p. 115.
54. Ibn Khaldun, Introduction, p. 180.
55. Concerning the historical rivalry of Muslims and Christians and its reflections in their religious understanding of each other and its continuation to the present, see the critique of The Satanic Verses and especially The Legacy of Islam, pp. 9-62. To find out about the perception of the Christians about continuation of this historical tension and their critical attitude towards the Muslim perception in this regard, see Yayambar wa Fer‘un (the Phrophet and Pharaoh), pp. 185-202, Islam dar Jahan-e Mu‘asir (Islam in the Contemporary World), pp. 106-20.
56. Muhammad Abu Zuhrah, Al-Imam Zayd, pp. 108-9.
57. As Christians, at least in the past, did not recognize Islam, they considered Muslims as infidels and, naturally, the latter lacked any right, religious or nonreligious, in their territory. A Christian turned Muslim from Andalusia, thus writes in his books, “One of the Muslims of the city of Nabunia had to hide his Muslim beliefs in order to protect his life and to be able to continue his life in his homeland. He became a pastor and called himself Nicola Martil.” Majalleh-ye Daneshkadeh-ye Adabiyat wa ‘Ulum-e Insani (Journal of the Faculty of Literature and Humanities, Mashhad University), serial no. 57-8, p. 9.
Although Christianity did not recognize Islam as a religion at least until after the 2nd Christian Assembly in mid-60’s of the present century, it still has some very hostile criticisms. For example, see Joseph Craft’s articles in Washington Post, 19 May 1981, entitled, “Who Wanted to Assassinate the Pope?”, and also The Conciliar and Post-Consiliar Documents, pp. 738-42, Diya’uddin Sardar, Islamic Futures, John Loffin, The Dagger of Islam. To find out about the causes of this hostility, see Daniel, Islam and the West: The Making of an Image, pp. 1-14.
58. The same journal, no. 56, p. 753.
59. Ibid., p. 753.
60. The same journal, nos. 57-8, pp. 10-11.
61. The fact is that the caliph’s or sultan’s ability to create domestic security and especially to protect the borders was so important in the past that many Sunni clerics were made to support him as a religious duty because, to them, this ability and splendor means the strength and splendor of Islam and of Muslims and the best deterrent against the foreigners and infidels against the Muslim territory.
The individual position of Harun ar-Rashid, both in his time and in the following periods, despite all his oppressiveness and corruptuion, some of which is reflected in the One Thousand and One Nights stories, was mainly for the same reason. To many Sunni clerics, he symbolized power, grandeur and splendor of Muslims, and was therefore respected and popular. He was one who could stand powerfully against the Roman Emperor and make the latter obey him. The following is an example.
In 187 A.H., the Roman Empire wrote him a letter and canceled the peace treaty between them. Ths treaty had been made by the previous emperor, who was actually a woman. The Roman Emperor wrote, “In the previous treaty, which was due to weakness and stupidity of my predecessor, you were given properties which you have to return upon receiving the letter or have to prepare yourself for war. When Harun read the letter, he got so angry that no one dared to look at his face let alone talk to him.
He asked for a scribe to write overleaf the letter, “In the Name of God, the Beneficient, the Merciful. From Harun ar-Rashid to Nacnur, the Roman Dog! O’ you the son of an infidel woman, I read your letter. The response to that is what you will see not what you will hear.” The same day, he rushed towards Rome, defeated the Emperor in a fierce battle and specified a tribute for him to pay. Tarikh al-Khulafa’, p. 288. Concerning his good characteristics and even virtues, which indicate an example of the great clerics’ perception of him, see ibid., pp. 283-97.
It has also been cited that, “One day, he was reading the Qur’an. He got to the verse, ‘Is the Egyption land not mine? Are these streams not flowing under my feet? Do you not see?’ He said, ‘Curse on this mean person who claims to be a god because of having Egpyt’s kingdom. I give the Egyption kindom to the one who is the most inferior of my servants.’ He then asked for Khasib, who was his bathman and appointed him as the governor of Egypt. He ordered a charter to be written for that and dispatched him to Egypt. Khasib ran that state and was proud of it…” Ighrad aa-Siyasah fi I‘rad ar-Riyasah, p. 320. Interestingly, the author of this book considers this as Harun’s magnanimity. This way of thinking has a long history and was deeply influential.
62. Al-A’immah al-Arba‘ah, vol. 4, p. 119.
63. Ighrad as-Siyasah fi I‘rad ar-Riyasah, p. 285.
64. Al-Iqtisad fi’l-I‘tiqad, pp. 198-9.
65. Al-Mawaqif fi ‘Ilm al-Kalam, pp. 396-7.
66. For example, see the explicit critiques of Mustafa Shukri in Payambar wa Fir‘un (The Prophet and the Pharaoh), pp. 87-90 and, still better, see the more scholarly and principal critiques of Hasan Hanafi in the introduction to Min al-‘Aqidah ila’th-Thawrah, vol. 1, especially pp. 20-32.
67. Abu Ya‘la, Al-Ahkam as-Sultaniyyah, p. 21; Al-Khilafah wa’l-Imamah, p. 300.
68. Concerning the Days of Hardship [Ayyam al-Mihnah] and the hard conditions that Ibn Hanbal and his fellow-theologians underwent, see Al-A’immah al-Arba‘ah, 4, pp. 140-80, Al-Khilafah wa’l-Imamah, pp. 300-9, and still better, the readable chapter ‘Clerics and the Pains they Suffered from the Rulers’ in Al-Islam bayn al-‘Ulama’ wa’l-Hakimun, pp. 129-214, and Manaqib al-Imam Ahmad Ibn Hanbal by Ibn al-Jawzi, pp. 397-420.
69. If the preservation of the system, in fact the ruling system, is the only criteria for judging the good and corrupt things, deviation from the religion and justice with that excuse may go so far as to result in disrespecting the Prophet’s daughter, “Fatimah’s house was violated. She was disrespected in order for the ruling Islamic system to be preserved, for the caliphate not to be dispersed, to prevent some Muslims from disobeying the caliph and to disrupt the Muslims’ unity.” Ibn Abi’l-Hadid, The Description, 20, p. 16… Other examples can be found in the following pages of this book. Concerning the criticism of the caliphs who believed in creating the Qur’an, see Al-‘Awasim min al-Qawasim, pp. 249-51.
70. Al-Khilafah wa’l-Imamah, p. 301.
71. Yazid and the corrupt clerics of his court and the descendants of the two in later periods accused Imam Husayn and his companions of having ‘desterted the religion and risen up to oppose the imam and caliph. Therefore, they had to be fought against and eliminated.’ See Tarikh Tabari (Tabari’s History), p. 342.