Geneology of political crises in early Islam

Geneology of political crises in early Islam

Hatim Gazali, Contributor/Yogyakarta

The Crisis of Muslim History: Roots of Political Crisis in Muslim
History

Mahmoud M. Ayoub

Mizan

262 pp

In the course of Indonesian history, the political relationship
between Islam and the state has not always been one of harmony.

This relationship has even shown a tendency to antagonism,
apart from being one that is fraught with mutual suspicion. One
of the reasons for this disharmony is a fundamental difference in
an understanding about Islam.

For one group, Islam is the national foundation because it is
holistic in nature and also because it is the chosen faith of the
majority of Indonesians. This group understands the holistic
nature of Islam organically, in the sense that legally and
formally, Islam must be present in every aspect of their lives.

Meanwhile, to the other group, it is Pancasila -- the five-
point national ideology -- that must be the foundation of the
state, in view of the pluralistic nature of the Indonesian social
construct. This group believes that Islam is indeed holistic in
nature but, to them, making it the national foundation shows a
lack of wisdom in viewing the pluralism of the social, cultural
and religious aspects of the Indonesian people. This group tends
to interpret the holistic nature of Islam substantially, in the
sense that Islam need not be built into a legal and formal
system, but still, its substance and essence must be present in
every aspect of life.

The root of this debate is the understanding of Islam and
politics -- or the state. Some people place religion and politics
as a single unit while to others, these must be viewed as
separate elements. The focus of this debate is whether Prophet
Muhammad actually established a foundation for political Islam or
whether he only established religious principles without any
intention of building an Islamic state.

This debate is an ongoing one, even today, and its import is
such that it requires further discussion. Ayoub's The Crisis of
Muslim History gives a fresh interpretation of the political
history of Islam during the period of Muhammad and khulafa' al-
rasyidin -- the four leaders who followed Muhammad.

According to Ayoub, when the prophet died, he did not leave a
a model or an apparatus of political order as a legacy for
Muslims. His legacy was only the Koran and Sunna, both of which
serve as the main references on how to set up the socio-political
order of an Islamic community.

Historians usually view past events, particularly Islamic
history, from a peripheral and central perspective.

In Crisis, Ayoub, a professor of Comparative Religious Studies
at Temple University in the United States, analyses the history
of Muslims from a central stance.

From a peripheral viewpoint, the history of Islam is focused
on individuals or small social groups spread across a vast
territory and are not well integrated. They spoke different
tongues and developed into a mixed legacy of social, cultural and
religious traditions. This history of Islam as viewed from "the
edge" provides an explanation about non-Arabic Muslims;
therefore, "the edge" or peripheral perspective cannot lend
geographical significance.

Meanwhile, a central perspective provides a narration of the
history of Islam starting with the lives of the Arabs -- or
Middle Eastern communities -- the history of Muhammad and
khulafa' al-rasyidin. The direction of this historical
perspective tends to be Arabic-oriented or overly Middle Eastern-
oriented; it is obviously politically oriented. History books
that analyze Islamic history from this perspective are numerous,
including Crisis.

The history of Muslims, which is marked with many changes and
ups-and-downs, actually did not start until the demise of Prophet
Muhammad. This period was marked with a series of political and
religious experiments to build an actual Islamic territory (Dar
el-Islam) upon the foundations that the prophet himself had laid.
These historical Muslims, who were still unstable and developing,
began with the emergence of four khulafa' al-rasyidin, whose
deeds and conduct are the focus of this book.

Crisis offers a fresh interpretation of the most crucial
period in the history of Islam. Through an extensive study of
primary library sources, both from the Sunni and Shiite sects,
the author attempts to unravel and interpret important events,
key figures and structural conditions that served as the backdrop
for various events that eventually led to a leadership crisis and
the schism among Muslims into its two great Islamic schools.

Ayoub highlights two things as important characteristics of
the history of Muslims, particularly as regards khulafa' al-
rasyidin: First, an institutional crisis combined with a
succession crisis -- the transition of power in every leadership
of the chalifat, or caliph; and second, a crisis in the process
of succession in connection with the syura -- an advisory council
-- the implementation of which was a failure.

Ayoub studies these two political crises in the early period
of Islamic administration in light of the stories as told by the
Prophet's friends.

He carefully and intelligently uses and examines sources of
early Islamic history to obtain and reveal historical reliable
and academically accountable facts.

A close reading of the book will reveal that the author offers
an interpretation from the center-out: Ayoub describes in great
detail the history of Islam in its infancy, particularly in the
post-Prophet Muhammad period. He focuses his discussion on a
brief critical review and study of the political, social and
religious crises in the period of khulafa' al-rasyidin, namely
Abu Bakar al-Shiddiq, Umar bin Khattah, Ustman and Ali.

The reviewer is a researcher at the Community for Religion and
Social Engineering (CRSE), Yogyakarta.