“So then, the vague glimmerings of explanations for it all do exist, but the question still remains with us as to how to escape from the bottleneck of history as it continues to operate against us. I can recall, for example, that Ibn ‘Arafa, someone utterly loathed and detested, once sent a messenger to convey some advice to me face to face: ‘You’re looking for a solution all over the place, when it’s closer than your own nose.’ What this Tunisian sage implied by the word ‘solution’ was a look into the past, the era of the Rightly-Guided Caliphs. At this point, I have to pause so that I can point out some of the errors committed by extremists and lay to rest other remarks made by people who have only succeeded in confusing the issue. I broached this topic in the Introduction to History, but no one read it carefully enough or took sufficient notice.
“The course of history demands of us that we make a clear distinction between the pure form of Islam, the foundational model on the one hand, and the current and normal sectarian Islam on the other. The former was a full-scale historical whirlwind, one that shattered the laws of nature and the rules of empirical history. Its power was derived essentially from the doctrine of the truth and the inimitable qualities of the Qur’an. However, that kind of Islam did not last for more than four decades. It was followed by the Umawi dynasty, and with that, the restraining factor of religion disappeared to be replaced by another kind of Islam, one divided and fragmented, with its own firmly established practices, dominated by conflicts between sects, parties, and separate community interests. Didn’t the Prophet himself (upon him be peace) state: ‘After me the caliphate will last for thirty years. Then it will turn into a rapacious monarchy’?
“While noting this dire split within the fabric of Islam, I will nevertheless refrain from laying the blame on the people responsible. Instead of dreaming about a return of the impossible — a pure, early form of Islam — I will endeavor to come to grips with a reality that can hardly be denied, and to comprehend a process of change dictated by the logic of historical methodology. Thus, when I am confronted by the knotty and sensitive issue of the caliphate, I prefer to adopt a more legalistic tack, examining each choice from the viewpoint of the degree of truth it contains. Behind it all, I see emotion and desire as being two vital forces operating in the clash of politics and history.
“In brief, and as I suggested earlier, ‘The incipient religion of Islam dissipated once its miracles had disappeared and the Companions of the Prophet who had witnessed them had all died. That special quality that the early religion possessed changed bit by bit. As the miracles vanished, the system of governance reverted to its former status.’
“In making such a statement I am relying purely on the realities of the situation. To remove any ambiguity on the matter, I will clarify things by noting that on questions of belief, the religion of the Islamic community is still the orthodox version of Islam. On questions of personal status, inheritance, and endowments, the law is also based on the same religious foundation. However, in these spheres and others it is individual interpretation that controls the decision-making process. That is in accord with the principles of necessity and the public interest of the times, operating along the lines laid out for us by the pioneer figure in Islamic jurisprudence, Abu Hanifa al-Nu‘man, my own personal imam. This is what he has to say about our predecessors: ‘They are men and so are we. They made their own decisions, and so we should act in exactly the same way.’ A fine statement indeed, and the essence of wisdom and good sense!
“Now, when it comes to those obscurantist legal authorities who strive to outsmart us or other obsessive manipulators who insist on arguing with us, proclaiming for all the world to hear that the solution to the problem is right in front of our noses, we have every right to stand in opposition to their opinions, and for three reasons. Firstly, every single Islamic government — Arabs, Persians, Turks, Berbers, Mamluks, and Mongols — has claimed to be protecting the basic essence of Islam and to being directed by its guiding light. Even so, such claims have utterly failed to prevent a mounting sequence of crises and errors. Secondly, true Islam has only come to grief when it has found itself tossed back and forth within the corridors of power or as part of professionalized politics. It is there that we find the clash of wills, desires, and lusts, all working in opposition to each other. It was that very clash that led to the murder of all the Rightly-Guided Caliphs of the earliest days of Islam, with the exception of the very first one, Abu Bakr, who died in his own bed. Thirdly, the fire of pure Islam can only be kept burning among the people themselves. They are the ones who need to make full use of its dicta in order to remonstrate with those authority figures who make decisions and maintain control over the chancery, the army, and the treasury. They will have to rely on its strength when it comes to arousing people’s consciences and reinforcing humanity’s awareness of the Islamic religion’s values and truths.
“Politics, Hammu, is a matter of trust and delegation; there is no way of avoiding the processes of accountability and explanation. No one has the right to utilize political methods solely for the purpose of converting the recorder into some kind of authority figure or else in the name of some notion of divine succession. If that were the case, then history would find itself confronted only with accounts of authority and political power, something that is completely contrary to the laws of tradition and reason. That’s how I look at our current era. Our Lord, You know that which we hide and that which we proclaim.
“I wonder, have I managed to discuss this sensitive topic with sufficient clarity and detail? It’s certainly one where people regularly toss brickbats at each other and accuse each other of heresy. On this particular topic there’s more to be said. .
The Night at the End of Jumada al-Akhira
Right at the beginning of this session, al-Hihi suddenly came to realize that ‘Abd al-Rahman was a particularly cerebral being, someone who was continually thinking and debating with himself. His brain cells were permanently busy, a process of engagement that only sleep could interrupt. For that very reason, al-Hihi decided to try to steer the conversation toward lighter topics — life’s trivialities and minor issues, things that would not require so much thought and concentration. Actually, he had a question on the tip of his tongue about the quest for change in history, something that he was proposing to attribute falsely to his wife, Umm al-Banin. But the whole plan had to remain poised in the air, because he found himself greeted by the following words from his interlocutor:
“Well, Hammu, I suspect that what I had to say earlier about the lessons of history and the processes of change did not satisfy your thirst. Isn’t that so? With your dear, innocent wife’s comments as corroboration, you may well comment that, since history seems to be a corpus in which the lessons of the past neither illuminate matters nor play a useful or significant role, then what is the function of variables and transformations in different periods and phases? By God, that is a very tricky question, one that has preoccupied my mind for a very long time. It’s one that I cannot put aside, and neither the passage of time nor the course of events can offer me any help in resolving it.”