Skip to content
Home » Commanding Right and Forbidding Wrong In Islamic Thought pdf download

Commanding Right and Forbidding Wrong In Islamic Thought pdf download

COMMANDING RIGHT AND FORBIDDING WRONG IN ISLAMIC THOUGHT
Book Title Commanding Right And Forbidding Wrong In Islamic Thought
Book AuthorMichael Cook
Total Pages721
Book Views

Loading

LanguageEnglish
Book DownloadPDF Direct Download Link
Get HardcoverClick for Hard Similar Copy from Amazon

Commanding Right and Forbidding Wrong In Islamic Thought

Michael Cook – Princeton University

COMMANDING RIGHT AND FORBIDDING WRONG IN ISLAMIC THOUGHT

What kind of duty do we have to try to stop other people from doing wrong? The question is intelligible in just about any culture, but few of them seek to answer it in a rigorous fashion.

The most striking exception is found in the Islamic tradition, where ‘commanding right and forbidding wrong’ is a central moral tenet already mentioned in the Koran.

As a historian of Islam whose research has ranged widely over space and time, Michael Cook is well placed to interpret this complex yet fascinating subject.

His book, which represents the first sustained attempt to map the history of Islamic reflection on this obligation, covers the origins of Muslim thinking about ‘forbidding wrong’, the relevant doctrinal developments over the centuries in all the major Islamic sects and schools, and its significance in Sunnı¯ and Shıite thought today.

In this way, the book contributes to the understanding of contemporary Islamic politics and ideology and raises fundamental questions for the comparative study of ethics.

THE GOLDSMITH OF MARW

In the year 131/748f. the rebellion which was to overthrow the Umayyad dynasty had already been launched. The ‘Abb¯asid army was advancing on Iraq, while the architect of the revolution, Abu¯ Muslim (d. 137/755), remained in Marw, effectively ruling Khur¯as¯an. The exercise of his power was nevertheless challenged – if only morally – by a local goldsmith (·s¯a’igh), one Abu¯ Ish· ¯aq Ibr¯ah¯ım ibn Maymu¯n.1 This goldsmith went into the presence of Abu¯ Muslim and addressed him in these words: ‘I see

nothing more meritorious I can undertake in God’s behalf than to wage holy war against you. Since I lack the strength to do it with my hand, I will do it with my tongue. But God will see me, and in Him I hate you.’ Abu¯ Muslim killed him.2 Centuries later, his tomb was still known and visited in the ‘inner city’ of Marw We do not need to concern ourselves with the origins or historicity of this story.4

It suffices that Abu¯ Muslim killed the goldsmith, or had him killed,5 and that it was the religio-political stance of the goldsmith that brought this upon him.6 Nor need we concern ourselves with Abu¯ Muslim’s side of the story, except to note that a certain irritation on his tangible – this was, we are told, the third such visit he had received from

¯ım ibn Maymu¯ n as he

appears in our sources is, however, worth some attention. A man of Marw,7 he was, in the first instance, a child of Islam.8 When asked his descent, his reply was that his mother had been a client of the tribe of Hamd¯an, and his father a Persian;9  

he himself was a client (mawl¯a) of God and His Prophet.10 He was also that familiar figure of the sociology of religion, a craftsman of uncompromising piety and integrity.11

He would throw his hammer behind him when he heard the call to prayer.12 While in Iraq he was too scrupulous to eat the food which Abu¯ H· an¯ıfa (d. 150/767f.) offered him without first questioning him about it, and even then he was not always satisfied with Abu¯ H· an¯ıfa’s replies.13 His politics were of a piece with this. His temperament was not receptive to counsels of prudence, as his discussions with Abu¯ H· an¯ıfa will shortly underline.

Indeed, his death was a little short of a verbal suicide mission – in one account he appeared before Abu¯ Muslim already dressed and perfumed for his own funeral.14 The goldsmith was a man of principle, in life as in death, and it is his principles that concern us here.

The principle that informed his last act, in the eyes of posterity and perhaps his own, was the duty of commanding right and forbidding wrong.15

The goldsmith was known as a devotee of commanding right,16 and it was one of the topics he had brought up in his discussions with Abu¯

Han¯ıfa.17 More specifically, we can see him in death as having lived up to a Prophetic tradition which states: ‘The finest form of holy war (jih¯ad) is speaking out (kalimat h· aqq) in the presence of an unjust ruler (sul·t¯an j¯a’ir), and getting killed for it (yuqtal ‘alayh¯a).’ This tradition is attested in a variety of forms, usually without the final reference to the death of the speaker, in the canonical and other collections.18 t transmitted by our goldsmith – complete with the reference to the speaker’s death – from Abu¯ H· an¯ıfa.19 A variant version likewise transmitted to the

goldsmith by Abu¯ H· an¯ıfa makes explicit the link between this form of holy

war and the principle of forbidding wrong, and one source relates this to his death.20

As mentioned, the goldsmith had discussed this duty with Abu¯ H· an¯ıfa.21 They had agreed that it was a divinely imposed duty (far¯ıd· a min All¯ah). The goldsmith then gave to this theoretical discussion an alarmingly practical twist: he proposed then and there that in pursuance of this duty he should give his allegiance (bay’a) to Abu¯ H· an¯ıfa – in other words, that they should embark on a rebellion. The latter, as might be expected, would have nothing to do with this proposal. He did not deny that the goldsmith had called upon him to carry out a duty he owed to God (h· aqq min h· uqu¯q All¯ah). But he counseled prudence. One man acting on his own would merely get himself killed, and achieve nothing for others; the right leader, with a sufficient following of good men, might be able to achieve something.22

During subsequent visits, the goldsmith kept returning to this question, and Abu¯ H· an¯ıfa would repeat his view that this duty (unlike others) was not one that a man could undertake alone. Anyone who did so would be throwing his own blood away and asking to be killed.

Indeed, it was to be feared that he would become an accomplice in his own death. The effect of his action would be to dishearten others. So one should wait; God is wise and knows what we do not know.23 In due course the news of

the goldsmith’s death reached Abu¯ H· an¯ıfa. He was beside himself with grief, but he was not surprised.

Abu¯ H· an¯ıfa, to judge from his relations with the goldsmith, was not a political activist. His cautious attitude to the political implications of for- bidding wrong finds expression in rather similar terms in an apparently early H· anaf¯ı text.24 This work begins with a doctrinal statement of which forbidding wrong is the second article.25

Then, at a later point, Abu¯ H· an¯ıfa is confronted with the question: ‘How do you regard someone who commands right and forbids wrong, acquires a following on this basis, and rebels against the community (jam¯a’a)? Do you approve of this?’ He answers that he does not.

But why, when God and His Prophet have imposed on us the duty of forbidding wrong?

He concedes that this is true enough, but counters that in the event the good such rebels can achieve will be outweighed by the evil they bring about.26 The objection he makes here is more far-reaching than that with which he deflected the dangerous proposal of the goldsmith: it is not just that setting the world to rights is not a one-man job; it is not even to be undertaken by many. The imputation of such quietism to Abu¯ Han¯ıfa may or may not be historically accurate.27

To read more about the Commanding Right And Forbidding Wrong In Islamic Thought book Click the download button below to get it for free

Report broken link
Support this Website

Click here to join our Telegram group for new Books

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *