Short Analytical
Excurses of the
Muslim Political
Thinkers, Political Institutions
And the
Political Thought
(Part – II)
In the
compilation of his treatise, Rosenthal himself has recognized the serious
omissions, both in relation to his inability to follow the line of research,
conducted by Strothman and in his expressed difficulty for the correct and definitive
evaluation of the works of the Muslim thinkers. This requires a deep and
concentrative knowledge. No doubt it is difficult, but no scholar should dare
to violate the responsibilities inherent in the knowledge Systems of truth and
their requisite methodology.
The
book is to be read carefully and it is incumbent on the part of the teachers to
get themselves acquainted with the deliberate mistakes and misrepresentations
made by the author. Paradoxically enough it is intended that the author wanted
to show the difficulties towards the compilation of an authentic books because
of the reasons enunciated by him in his introduction, wherein he has given us
to understand that his work is to be taken as an authority.
Following
the path of the American and the McGill scholars in Islamology, the author has
attempted to shake off the belief of the Muslims and their deep rooted allegiance
to the Prophet, by alluding to the theory of prophecy as evolved by Al-Farabi
and developed by Avicenna. It is to be noted that the scholars of the American continent
assert that Avicenna has rejected the institution of Prophecy—a charge hardly
valid and not confirmed either by his contemporaries or the Muslim scholars of
the following centuries.
It is
more than a fallacy to assume that the Muslim thinkers of great authencity and
repute, just because of their scholarship either in Greek or Roman system of
knowledge were to be designed as the bearers of Platonic legacy. It is yet to
be proved that from Farabi to Dawwani the Muslim thinkers followed the Platonic
pattern. All of them categorically rejected the anomalous contradictions and
dichotomies involved in the thought— patterns of Plato and other Greek and Roman
thinkers.‘ Indeed to accept dischotomy was contrary to the cultural mentality
and milieu of the Muslims. It was neither in conformity with their personal
trends, nor with their belief systems and axiology—the Tawheed.
As a
matter of fact, as recognized by Rosenthal himself, theft is a steady and
constant evolution with usual rhythms and pauses from the theological juristic,
by way of the politico-historical, to the scientific realistic approach in
Islam, Not only in politics but in all systems of knowledge, including social
and spiritual sciences, there is a progress with usual fluctuations and
periodicities. It would be kept in mind that theology is not an exclusive
subject. It is an interdependent part of other systems of knowledge and culture
and cannot be separated from either of them. Theology has not only wielded its
influence in the formation and development of the juristic system of knowledge
but it is equally influential and weighty in the structural and functional
development of political science, economics and sociology. In short, it is
cordially related to all the peripheries of knowledge systems which fall under
the classification of humanities or spiritual sciences. Rosenthal is suspicious
whether this can be established because of his assumption that the documentary
evidence is not available. It is a recognized fact that the validity of this
claim is discovered in the historical evidence. The statement of the author is
self-contradictory. He says that “students and experts in fiqh, among the
writers on politics, other than jurists, are naturally aware of the existence
of the acknowledged interpretation of constitutional law, the more so since
they as Muslims are themselves guided in their thinking and investigations into
politics by the Shariah”.
The comments
on Ibn Baja (Avenpace) are full of contradictions. Philosophy and Politics were
not united by Ibn Baja on the basis of the derived by him through a critical
study of Plato and Aristotle. The unity between the two was the result of his
firm belief in the Unity of God. Under this idealistic culture mentality,
nothing to say of lbn Baja. even a common Muslim cannot tolerate any dualism,
which is tantamount to Shirk a hineous sin in Islam.
The
unity in thought—systems of knowledge, of culture, nature and truth is an
inevitable corollary of the cultural mentality of philosophy and idealism of
the Muslims, when it is recognized that drastic changes and corrections were
made in the Platonic thought. How is it possible to show the impact of Plato’s
political philosophy on the formation and development of Muslim philosophy and
politics. It is nothing but another contradiction followed by the author.
Impact is only possible when there is total agreement at all levels. Any doubt as
to the validity of a statement, or any feeling that something to be corrected,
makes the possibility of impact remote. In the enthusiasm to prove his thesis, the
author has attempted to compare two opposite phenomena, which according to
simple logic is not permissible. For example, the concept of slavery has
nothing to do with Plato’s concept of the third class category of citizens. The
idea of slavery does not convey the same hatred, degeneration and derogation as
involved in the very concept and enunciations of third class citizens by Plato.
The Falasifa (or philosophers) were equally conscious says Rosenthal of the
gulf between their superior intellectual power and the mobility of the masses
to rise beyond persuasion and
imagination, to the exclusion of real intellectual understanding (Intro
p. 4). The refutation of his thesis of
impact is not only to be seen in the above quotation, but in the comment given
below:-
“But,
as Muslims, the Falasifa accepted the masses as their equal in faith, albeit a
naive, unquestioning even an unintelligent faith, and they shared with them, as
far as we know, the observances of Muslim ritual . . . .” (Intro. p. 4).
How
prejudicial and antagonistic the author is, can be seen by his most ugly
remarks in relation to the Muslim faith. Nothing to say of Muslims, even from
the point of view of academic demean our such unmannerly, uncouth, sophisticated
and fabricated remarks cannot be tolerated.
We
were unfortunately put into suspicion about the historical origin of Hadirh. To
assert this the orientalists point out that the compilation of Hadirh came very
late~after a lapse of centurion. These fabricated research findings have been
repudiated by Dr. Hameedullah and other Muslim scholars. New fabricated charges
have been imposed by E.J.J. Rosenthal. He states that Islam is like a vast
mansion containing many rooms, not all of which are interconnected (p. 4). The
second charge which is similar to the one relating to Hudith is that Muslim
theology and law developed long after Muhammad and that of his immediate
successors. (p. 7).
The first
statement is primarily meant to prove the heterogeneity of the Islamic culture
and belief system in general. The author wishes to destroy “Tawheed” and
establish Trinity, which is nothing but a heterogeneity. This is not a new
charge indeed. It comes from the beginning of the Islam.
As to
the development of Muslim theology and law, we can trace their history from the
very time of the Prophet himself. Undoubtedly Muslim Theology and law attained
the systematic and synthetic position during the time of Omar. This
systematization and taxonomal orientation went on continuously for centuries
together. Not only the four renowned schools, but as many as 120 schools played
the role of further synthesis and systematization of the two subjects,
combining various specialties and disciplines and giving them the status of the
systems of knowledge. In this way to meet the requirements of an idealistic
state of Islam, ground was laid for the configurational growth of
idealistically integrated systems of knowledge like theology, law,
jurisprudence, constitution, political, science, sociology, etc. These are the
unique contributions of the Muslims—unique, because they are based on the
Shariah; and again, as approved by Rosenthal, this very Sharia}: forms the
axiom of the ideal constitution of the ideal state of Islam.
In the
entire analysis of distortion and misrepresentation, at least one thing is
worth recognition. It is a lesson for the Muslims and a challenge to Muslim
scholars. It is very frankly recognized by Rosenthal that the Western translation
is a misnomer and misrepresentation of the Arabic terms in all their
dimensions. It is again very openly recognized by him that the Arabic terms are
substituted with the Western translation, not only to distort the true picture
of Islam but also to give them a Christian connotation. Let us quote the
original words at the conclusion of his Introduction. The opposite of dunya is
akhira (the world to come) . . . . . It is unfortunate that we must use Western
terms to ‘translate the Arabic ones, for in so doing we distort their original
meaning and give them Christian connotation . . . . ." (Intro. p.8)
Post a Comment