Enter the Abbasids (Part 2)

 

Iraq in 2004, in a CIA political map
A 2004 CIA (public domain) political map of Iraq. Baghdad is located near the center of the modern nation.

 

Proceeding with my manuscript on Islam for Mormons, including some further comments on the shari‘a :

 

With the dependence of the Abbasids on eastern or Persian support, and with physical movement in the direction of Iran, it is not surprising that the Abbasid caliph, surrounded by pomp, came eventually to be a model Sassanid-style king, very much in the style of the old Persian absolute monarchy. He was a benevolent despot, generally, but a despot nonetheless. And he was a far cry from the old Arab shaykh, or the early caliphs. Equality and egalitarian ideals were implicit in Islam, as well as in the Arab tradition, and these were completely ignored by the Abbasid caliph. But he did meet some of the demands of those who, in opposition to the Umayyads, had supported the Abbasid revolution. Taxes, for instance, were made considerably more fair. And there was no more delegating them out to rapacious “tax-farmers” who, like the publicans during New Testament times, kept any money they extorted from the popu­lation beyond the revenue quota they turned over to the govern­ment. Furthermore, strong central authority could defend the weak against oppression. The new regime made no distinction between mawali (new) Muslims and old Arab Muslims. In clear distinction to their predecessors, who had run the empire to benefit themselves and their followers in Syria, no province was preferred by the Abbasids over another province. Absolute monarchy, by its very nature, aids in breaking down distinctions, and this was certainly true of the Abbasids. The caliph was far above all his subjects, who were all equally nothing before him. All alike were subject to the caliph’s absolute power.

The more pious Muslims continued to find themselves in oppo­sition to the regime, usually silently but occasionally (and briefly) in the open. Prominent among these were the intellectuals or think­ers who came to be known collectively as ulama. It will be recalled that the Arabic word ulama means “learned (ones)” and that the main focus of their learning was Islamic law (shariah) and jurispru­dence. But they were devoted, as well, to Arabic grammar (for better understanding of the precise meaning of the Qur’an, especially now that so many nonnative speakers of the language were embracing Islam) and to certain kinds of history.

The emphasis of the ulama on history and law set the tone of Islam from that time forward. Islam has been, like Judaism, a reli­gion that emphasizes orthopraxis, right behavior, more than it con­centrates on orthodoxy, or right belief. Like Judaism, it has been far less interested in theological speculation than is mainstream Chris­tianity In this respect, it seems to me that Islam and Judaism have remained true to what we might loosely call their “Semitic charac­ter.” Christianity, on the other hand, has departed from that charac­ter to a certain degree. In his classic Hibbert lectures of 1888, the Oxford scholar Edwin Hatch argued, with reference to the history of the early Church, that “the change in the centre of gravity from conduct to belief is coincident with the transference of Christianity from a Semitic to a Greek soil.”[1]

It is impossible for any one, whether he be a student of history or no, to fail to notice a difference of both form and content between the Sermon on the Mount and the Nicene Creed. The Sermon on the Mount is the promulgation of a new law of con­duct; it assumes beliefs rather than formulates them; the theo­logical conceptions which underlie it belong to the ethical rather than the speculative side of theology; metaphysics are wholly absent. The Nicene Creed is a statement partly of historical facts and partly of dogmatic inferences; the metaphysical terms which it contains would probably have been unintelligible to the first disciples; ethics have no place in it. The one belongs to a world of Syrian peasants, the other to a world of Greek philoso­phers. The contrast is patent… [T]he question why an ethical sermon stood in the forefront of the teaching of Jesus Christ, and a metaphysical creed in the forefront of the Christianity of the fourth century, is a problem which claims investigation.[2]

 

[1] Hatch, The Influence of Greek Ideas on Christianity (New York: Harper and Row, 1957), 2.

[2] Hatch, The Influence of Greek Ideas on Christianity, 1.

 

Posted from Oceanside, California

 

 

 

 

 

 

"gemli: "All atheists have only one fundamental claim in common: they do not believe that ..."

Jacques and Raïssa Maritain
"So, are you generally inclined to reject eyewitness testimony?"

Jacques and Raïssa Maritain
"I'm slightly embarrassed to admit that when I saw your "Flat counterfactual nonsense" line, I ..."

Jacques and Raïssa Maritain
""...unless such claims are mundane and in common experience"HA! We've finally broken a small piece ..."

Jacques and Raïssa Maritain

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment