[Scholars & politics (1)]
Wise men’s test with politics
by Ekrem Dumanlı

To answer this question accurately we need to roughly focus on politics, more precisely on the perspective towards politics. If you perceive politics as a contemporary topic and engagement in politics as a mundane struggle for gains, then obviously the answer is quite clear: The ulema do not patronize politics and do not take part in power struggles that can be considered trivial compared to matters related to the hereafter. It’s unimaginable for men of knowledge to attribute great value to the acquisition of authority such as titles and positions. Becoming involved in competition over positions and titles not only jeopardizes their credibility but also misdirects them in terms of their wisdom (irfan) and goodness (ihsan), which are complementary dimensions of knowledge and open windows to the other world.

But, despite the finding above, some ulema who have filled major spiritual voids dealt with politics (and more precisely with state administration) throughout history. But their interest in politics does not really correspond to the variations of interests that exist today. To be more frank, the political activity of some great Muslim scholars that have left significant marks on our civilization and culture always depends on a specific benchmark and horizon. That horizon concerns the social reflections of political developments 10 years, 20 years and even 100 years into the future. That over-the-horizon perspective may have taken some people by surprise at first, but the purpose and benefit in their assessments -- which were perceived as an intervention in the decision-making mechanism -- have become clearer over time.

For example, İmam-ı Rabbani, Shaykh Ahmad al-Faruqi al-Sirhindi, is known as the “reviver of the second millennium.” There is consensus in the Muslim world that he was a mujaddid, someone who appears at the turn of the century of the Islamic calendar to revive Islam. The most apparent aspect of his basic thinking was mysticism (tasawwuf) -- in other words, it was otherworldly. For this reason, İmam-ı Rabbani’s main focus was without a doubt closely related to the deep spiritual connection of the believers.

However, İmam-ı Rabbani was concerned about state policies at the time as well. He was aware of the great risks of Akbar Shah’s idea of combining religions and forming a new religion. Even if he did not deal with politics directly, he dealt with the outcome of politics and showed concern. That is why he opposed Akbar Shah’s policies and issued harsh criticisms. While making these criticisms, he was careful not to give way to armed struggle, to maintain a position that fortified his doctrines and to confirm his peaceful discourse with the divine book because of the nature of the method he chose.

The great mujaddid re-interpreted the reality of faith (iman) within the scope of a religious order (tariqah) and Islamic law (Shariah) and also tried to prevent the blockage of the Ahl al-Sunnah, the people of the way of the Prophet Muhammad, by educating people. Eventually, even Akbar Shah’s son and heir, Cihangir, became a student of İmam-ı Rabbani. Even though state ministers (viziers) inculcated the notion that İmam-ı Rabbani was a threat to the state administration and even managed to have him jailed, his great service was eventually understood over time. That is because the great mujaddid’s struggle was not a simple fight to attain power. It was a display of benevolence that concerned the future of not only the Muslim world but of all of humanity.

The style of a religious scholar’s relationship with politics

The unique position of İmam-ı Azam -- Imam Abu Hanifa, the founder of the Hanefi school of law -- reveals how the ulema and politicians collide and clash on a twisted road. İmam-ı Azam was not a politician. He did not have a desire to be part of state administration. He earned tremendous respect for his competency in the area of Islamic jurisprudence, his asceticism (zuhd), piety (taqwa) and legal verdicts (fatwa). However İmam-ı Azam was aware of the wrong policies that the government was enforcing.

While he did live with the ecstasy of his profession and disposition, and he raised students and carried the solid foundations of Islamic belief and worship to future generations, he also gave lessons to the structure that claimed to be an Islamic state in a fashion that comprised passive resistance to its incorrect inferences (ta’wil), interpretations (tafsir) and practices. This situation turned him into a “dissident” in the eyes of the administration. İmam-ı Azam’s method did not entail any violence. In fact, it wasn’t even really direct opposition. But because he did not have an attitude that legitimized the administration at the time, it suggested that he had his own stance.

İmam-ı Azam rejected offers to head the Ministry of Justice and the Treasury and that had serious consequences for him. He rejected any position that was offered to him by the state despite being tortured and sent to prison. His refusal meant he did not want to be involved in the daily cycle of politics and also gave him the opportunity to audit the design of the administration as an external force. It was a correct approach. He refused to be a figure of daily politics whilst exhibiting a stance that did not legitimize incorrect policies.

It is obvious that İmam-ı Azam’s stance during the Umayyad and Abbasid period was circumstantial because he did not recommend the same challenging path that he chose for himself to his students as well. So the great scholar followed a policy that was above politics. He won support for his path through the language of his mannerisms and created a new channel for politics. In the path he followed, there were no contemporary distractions and there was no ambition to obtain power. However, there was a view of politics (of state administration in the general sense) and there was a tone, a style and approach against it.

First and foremost, one needs to decide on the type of relationship he or she would like to have with politics. That is because one can end up being crushed under politics or be lost in its cycles. Then there is another form of politics. That type of politics is above politics. Directing it requires foresight, wisdom and prudence. Real men of wisdom did not get lost in politics. They made rational and wise recommendations from the realm of social change to administrations, taking into account the expected consequences of politics. As a result, they did not engage in slander-based political scuffles nor did they take part in “I know everything” ego contests. It has always been difficult to understand this sensitive path. Recklessly uttered remarks such as “If you’re so interested in politics, then just form your own party” suggest two things: 1) Who are you to interfere in what we, the leaders, are doing? and 2) How much power do you think you have? Step up and let us put you in your place.

The social and historical counterpart of politics above politics

This arrogant stance shows that the stance of the ulema towards state administration has been misunderstood, for had it been known, it would have been understood that the politics above politics has a social and historical counterpart as well and there would have been a quest to benefit from these scholars, who stayed out of contemporary fights but kept an eye on the ups and downs of politics. Those scholars kept an entire empire standing. The ulema not only transferred religious knowledge to the sultans, they were also the voice of the public conscience, the quintessence of common sense, the stronghold of contemplation and, most importantly, the source of marriage between power and wisdom. Today’s secular mentality did not understand those periods nor did it understand that common sense arose with the collective conscience. With a separatist instinct, it demanded choosing between “politics” and “reclusion” and did not realize that it was separating two important dynamics from one another.

Based on the two examples above, we can say that the ulema did not use politics in the contemporary sense and that the examples need to be evaluated within the scope of another era’s criteria. It’s best if we discuss the view of Bediüzzaman Said Nursi, one of the greatest Islamic thinkers of our era, regarding politics in our next article. I suspect he will be a more elucidating example.