On the Islamic clerisy and analogies with Christianity

Aziz Poonawalla and Razib (1, 2) have exchanged their views on the Sunni-Shi'a/Catholic-Protestant analogy, which is often trumpeted in many newspaper articles.

The common description is of the "individual" worship of the Sunni with God, much like Protestant sects in general, and of the heirarchical clergy in Catholicism being a reflection of Shi'ism. As with all analogies, there are bound to be severe limitations. But, in this case, the analogy is not a very good fit; and in this I agree with Razib (though, maybe, we need not "dump" the analogy completely).

The failures of this analogy are mainly due to the nature, as I understand it, of Protestantism in general vis-a-vis Sunnism and also Shi'ism, as well as Catholicism in relation to the both.

If we consider classical Sunnism, which is still the major sectarian division, we must take into account the importance of the schools of law and theology which most Sunnis adhere to. Indeed, we have to admit that classical Sunnism accepts no other schools or methodologies at this present time, though in history it might have done so. The overwhelming, if not unanimous, concensus is that 'orthodoxy' is considered as adherence to one of the four schools of law, and to one of the theological 'schools'. Stepping outside of these will take one outside the fold of Sunnism (though not neccassrily Islam). Adherence to authority, even over tradition, might resemble, somewhat, Catholic practice. In this respect, classical Sunnism does indeed 'centralise' authority and places it squarley with the `ulema. The emphasis by Luther on reading and understanding (i.e. interpreting) the text for oneself -- the 'lay preisthood' -- does not exist within Sunnism, as rightly pointed out by Razib, insofar as the 'laity' are concerned. That the average Muslim is asked to take sufficient steps to learn the fundamental tenents of his faith (from a recognised religious authority), and incorporate them into his everyday life must be taken into account. At the level of popular, or folk, religion, the cults and miracles of saints is common to both Sunnism and Catholicism.

But here any analogy with Catholicism breaks down, and we might now say that the classical Sunni tradition forged its own unique position in religious history. For, whereas the Church and the clergy rose to form a power to rival the state, in Sunnism, the `ulema developed their tradition outside the state apparatus. There has existed no institution in Sunnite history which can be said to analogous to the Church, and certainly no position even remotely resembling that of the Pope. The establishments of learning, the colleges of law (and other Islamic disciplines), were not centres of power, but centres of authority and tradition to safeguard orthodoxy and disseminate religion. Certainly, the state (the dynastic powers) recognised the need to take the vast majority of the community with them in order to, at the very least, provide a gloss of moral and, more importantly, legal justification to sustain their power; this meant at the very minimum nominal allegiance to the faith of the religious community. And though a symbiotic relationship did develop between the `ulema and the state ("unity and community" were deemed far more important than holding a corrupt and tyrannical ruler to account), being seen to serve the state was viewed with suspicion by most of the early `ulema, for fear of abusing religion for power; this view is even held by many of the later scholars, notably al-Ghazali. There are a variety of historical factors we might consider for this development and attitude, but we need not concern ourselves with these here.

It is in the latter years, when Sunni schools of law crystallised into distinct "corporate bodies", where we might even begin to suggest of a more hierarchical regime. Yet even here, safeguarding of religious law from the state was deemed of the utmost important; especially by those schools in states where their own madhhab did not enjoy state sponsorship, or were marginalised by the state (which, at all times, had sole right to execute the law). Indeed, even when, under the Ottomans, Islamic law began to take steps toward codification, and there were, what we might call, establishment `ulema who actively supported the state, direct rule by the Islamic clerisy -- the `ulema in this instance -- was totally unheard of. Charismatic (even in the Weberian sense) personalities within the `ulema have certainly existed, who might be said to play the role assigned to a pope; but this would, in my opinion, do violence to Islamic history and practice. The role of Shaykh al-Islam was never powerful enough to serve as an analogy to the pope, for temporal power lay with the Caliph. But the 'religious' nature of Caliphal role had long been consigned to one of simply prestige.

The Taliban from this point of view, as "religious students" who claimed to rule Afghanistan, must be considered an abberation of the very tradition they claimed to be upholding. Saudi Arabia, contrary to popular opinion, is not run by an "Islamic clergy", but is a kingdom ruled by a dynastic power. That ibn Abdul Wahhab went seeking a 'political' power for his message, shows how far "political Islam" is from the religious tradition they seek to defend. It must also question our understanding of the religion-state dichotomy which is the main area where 'Islamists' champion their cause. It is interesting to note that, on the Indian subcontinent, one of the founders of the Jamat-e-Islami party left over a dispute regarding the nature of religious scholars (who are viewed as religious leaders). Amin Ahsan Islahi was uncomfortable with the idea that a religious party, insofar as it was providing religious guidance to the community, should enter the political game and seek power. He regarded this as an abuse of religion and left, leaving Maududi without a highly skilled religious thinker.

Modern Sunnism, which we may define as those movements that sought to overcome the authority of the classical schools, bear the closest resemblance to Protestant insistance on teaching the layman. Salafism, after its metamorphosis from a utilitarian theology to one advocating a "return" to a "pristine" Islam of history, insists on the seeking of (religious) knowledge for every Muslim from the primary sources (the Qur'an and the ahadith collections). This opens up the possibility of individual interepretation; but Salafism relies on the 'right' reading of the text from the earliest generations, bypassing the intermediate stages of Islamic history as useful guides at best, or distortions at worst. The Indian Ahl-e-Hadith are a close equivalent: my local mosque is Jamiat Ahl-e-Hadith and hadith are taught to every 'layman' after the evening prayers, with little or no commentary (a brief explanation is provided in Urdu or English; those who know Arabic are deemed worthy enough to grasp the main point of the narrative). Though this represents Protestanism in certain aspects, it must not be forgotten that even in these two movements, the recognition of authority is a must; not just in the person of the Prophet (p) -- for Jesus (p) is the recognised authority figure for even the most liberal Protestant -- but in the acceptance of the earliest generation of Muslims (collectivity referred to as 'the Companions') who determined the "correct" interpretation of religion (this is most visible in the insistance on 'authentic' ahadith with the correct 'chains of transmission'). Unless the agreements of these early generations are subsumed under the primary sources of religion, the analogy with Protestanism must be considered exhausted at this point. That Salafism claims for itself the title of 'orthodox' is a point to consider.

Shi'ism, on the other hand, is legitimist. So any relationship with Protestanism does not get off the ground, for the latter is a "reform" movement, creating a distinct sect. Shi'ism is, being legitimist, reforming nothing: it is asserting its right as the "true" and "correct" tradition within Islam. Any analogy with Catholicism might bear greater coherence, but there are still certain problems. For one, there is still no institution which bears any resemblance to the Church, despite the oft-invoked "hierarchy" of the Shi'a imams; though, the rulings of a Shi'a imam are given more weighting by the Shi'a laity than their Sunni counterparts, who have a wider variety of opinions to choose from. As far as I know, Khomeini's vilayet-e-faqih (which loosely translates to "rule by clergy") was even opposed by Shi'a clerics of Najaf, let alone the other sub-sects within the Shi'a tradition. Shi'ism, much like Sunnism, also developed a politically quietist attitude within its religious leaders, though for different reasons: it was in no position to challange the status quo.

The final point that Razib makes is that we should "dump" this analogy. Sceptical though I am of this oft-invoked analogy, I don't believe we need go that far. If Muslims can understand the history of Christian sects a lot better than we do now, maybe better analogies can be drawn. We may ask the same of Christians to appreciate the varied history of Islam. These analogies can help us, bearing in mind their limitations, to understand and translate an intellectual tradition for those outside, and probably even for those within, the community.

Comments

[Luke Lea]

Hi! I got pointed over here from razib's site, and this is my first-time visit.

Let me just say that I am a non-Moslim of Christian descent (though both of my parents were free thinkers), and will freely admit that I knew almost nothing about the Moslim religion before 9/11. (However, I did make the effort to read the Koran in translation a couple of years before that -- and could barely make head or tails out of it, except that it seemed, in comparison with the Jewish and Christian sacred literature, more a-historical, now-centered in outlook.) Anyway, since 9/11 I've read about 50 books on the subject, from a variety of different points of view, and have some sense now -- perhaps a distorted one -- of what the religion is all about. So, if you don't mind, I'd like to ask some questions, realizing that the range of opinion among believers (of Islam I presume, no less than Christianity and Judaism)is vast. So, one question for starters: How reliable is Daniel Pipes's early book The Path of God, particularly his take on the hadiths and the general impracticality of applying Sharia in any real functioning society, past as well as present? (Please try to forget about all Pipes's current polemicism if possible.) Also, is it true that the political and religious authorities in Islamic countries have had a kind of live and let live arrangement: with the ruling elite more or less telling the imams to stay out of politics and we'll leave you alone, and the imams saying to them to show at least a pretense of orthodoxy and we'll leave you alone? I know this is a ridiculous simplification, but it's a place to start.

[Aziz]

It;s not possible to divorce Pipe's political opinions from his analyses on Islam.

[haroon]

"live and let live" is simple pragmatism. re: pipes, i would say: islamic law recognizes a spiritual component, and that spiritual discipline brings a person to more honesty, rightness and correctness, for it reduces our whims, our negative desires and focuses our mind. because pipes has no such component to his thought, it is questionable from an orthodox point of view. from a mainstream point of view, how can someone rabidly opposed to islam be considered a fair judge of it?

[Thebit]

I've never read anything by Daniel Pipes, give or take the odd article. So excuse me for not commenting on his book. Further, I am not sure what "the hadiths and the general impracticality of applying Sharia in any real functioning society, past as well as present" even means.

The other point, on the "live and let live" approach is a fair opinion; if we were to try and look for "historical causes", the early Muslim community did suffer from civil wars. Perhaps this developed a more politically quietist ethos in the `ulema? I think this argument has good weight. Even still, many individual Muslim scholars did speak out against rulers (off the top of my head, an example which comes to mind is the cheif jurist at the time of the Mamlukes).

But if you're looking for some sort of 'legal' opinion which carries weight with Muslims, I would suggest finding a Muslim scholar qualified to give such opinions.