Fitnah of Anti-Clericalism

 

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

اللهم صلى على سيدنا ومولانا محمد وبارك وسلم وصلى عليه

لا حول ولا قوة الا بالله

لا اله الا الله محمد رسول الله

Islamic Perspective on Clericalism

The phenomenon of clericalism reached its extreme manifestation in the Roman Catholic Church. The Church’s clergy is rigidly hierarchical and organized, with the Pope at the top, under whom are the Cardinals, Archbishops, Bishops, Priests and Deacons. The seat of the Roman Church is of course Rome, and now specifically the Vatican. During the late medieval period the Church was at its height of power and pomp. Its clergy was a wealthy, landowning class, and exerted considerable political authority in Europe and all of Christendom, such that even the Christian kings, rulers, knights, nobility and lay aristocracy were to a degree subservient to them, for the Pope had the authority to excommunicate kings, an authority he utilized if a king would threaten the political or economic interests of the Church. The situation was somewhat similar during the time of the Prophet Muhammad’s صلى الله عليه وسلم advent. The clergy and bishops of the various Christian Churches in Europe and the Near East wielded considerable power in secular affairs, that is, they had economic and political interests and surrounded Caesar in his court. Likewise, in Iran, the Zoroastrian clergy or priesthood was a wealthy and powerful aristocracy. The appearance of a humble Prophet in Arabia was a mighty challenge to the clergy of these false religions, including to their political and economic interests. Allah Most High says:

اِتَّخَذُوۡۤا اَحۡبَارَہُمۡ وَرُہۡبَانَہُمۡ اَرۡبَابًا مِّنۡ دُوۡنِ اللّٰہِ وَالۡمَسِیۡحَ ابۡنَ مَرۡیَمَ

They have taken their learned scholars and monks as lords beside Allah, and [they have taken as lord beside Allah] the Messiah, Son of Mary

(Juz 10, Surah 9, Ayah 31)

یٰۤاَیُّہَا الَّذِیۡنَ اٰمَنُوۡۤا اِنَّ کَثِیۡرًا مِّنَ الۡاَحۡبَارِ وَالرُّہۡبَانِ لَیَاۡکُلُوۡنَ اَمۡوَالَ النَّاسِ بِالۡبَاطِلِ وَیَصُدُّوۡنَ عَنۡ سَبِیۡلِ اللّٰہِ ؕ وَالَّذِیۡنَ یَکۡنِزُوۡنَ الذَّہَبَ وَالۡفِضَّۃَ وَلَا یُنۡفِقُوۡنَہَا فِیۡ سَبِیۡلِ اللّٰہِ ۙ فَبَشِّرۡہُمۡ بِعَذَابٍ اَلِیۡمٍ

O you who believe! Surely, many of the learned scholars and monks devour the wealth of the people by false means and turn [people] away from the Way of Allah. And those who hoard gold and silver and spend it not in the Way of Allah – give to them the tidings of a painful punishment

(Juz 10, Surah 9, Ayah 34)

These holy and blessed passages in the Quran repudiate the evil of clericalism in its most corrupt manifestation. However, from this it should not be concluded that there is no concept of clergy as such in Islam. In these passages occurs the term Ahbâr which is the plural of Hibr , and it refers to the learned divines or scholars of the Religion. Sayyidina Abd Allah bin Abbas رضى الله عنهما a learned companion and relative of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم was dubbed the حبر الامة ‘Hibr of the Ummah’. Likewise, among the Tabi’in, sayyidina Abi Ishaq Ka’b bin Man’i al-Himyari رضى الله عنه was titled الاحبار meaning he was so knowledgable of the Torah, especially its esoteric meaning, that his title was plural of hibr (religious scholar) though he was an individual. The holy Quran enjoins the creation of a learned class of religious scholars:

فَلَوۡلَا نَفَرَ مِنۡ کُلِّ فِرۡقَۃٍ مِّنۡہُمۡ طَآئِفَۃٌ لِّیَتَفَقَّہُوۡا فِی الدِّیۡنِ

Why, then, does not a party from every section of them go forth that they may become well versed in Religion

(Juz 11, Surah 9, Ayah 122)

*Incidentally, this Ayah demonstrates that the term firqah ‘sect’ or ‘section’ does not always have a negative connotation in Islam, contrary to the laughable claim of the so-called non-denominational ‘Muslim-only’ movements that have risen in modern times.

The institution of Ulama, the learned religious scholars, is also sanctioned and praised in the holy Quran:

اِنَّمَا یَخۡشَی اللّٰہَ مِنۡ عِبَادِہِ الۡعُلَمٰٓؤُا

(Juz 22, Surah 35, Ayah 28)

Anti-clericalism, an extreme reaction to the excesses of the Church, was most prominently manifested in the French Revolution. Islam is therefore the middle path and moderate approach between the two extremes of excessive clericalism and anti-clericalism. The Roman Catholic Church, especially in the Middle Ages, is an example of the former, while the French Revolution and thereafter the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia were examples of the latter. Now restricting to the world of Islam, the anti-clerical tendency was prominently manifested in Kemalist Turkey while excessive clericalism can be seen in what came about due to the Iranian Revolution of 1979. Khomeini’s theory of Wilâyat al-Faqîh ‘government of the Islamic jurist’ is certainly a blueprint for excessive clericalism, the kind which is similar to what is found in the Roman Catholic Church and condemned in the passages of the Quran already cited. Today, much of the class of Shi’ah Mullas in Iran, who are politically empowered and enjoy a position of authority in that country, are extremely corrupt and have major economic interests, including the so-called ‘Supreme Leader’ Ali Khamanei, who is Khomeini’s successor and has been ruling Iran since 1989. On the other hand, Kemal ‘Atatürk’ was a persecutor of the Religion, comparable to the likes of Nero and Diocletian. Before him, Muhammad Ali Pasha, the 19^th century Ottoman governor of Egypt, exhibited excessive anti-clerical tendencies, in his project to ‘modernize’ Egypt. He actively sought to minimize the influence and limit the independence of the Ulama and the Sufi orders, a legacy that was inherited and continues among most of the Arab States today. The tendency of anti-clericalism is also ideologically expressed in folk poetry of the Muslim East (particularly Persia and India) where the term Mulla has become a derisive label. Some of the Sufis, especially the antinomians (who are in reality pseudo-Sufis), introduced this harmful narrative which has taken hold of the minds of many ordinary Muslims. It directly fed into the propoganda of the Marxist and Leftist trends that achieved a space for themselves in much of the Muslim world. Likewise, certain radical and dissenting religious movements among the Muslims, such as the Ahmadiyyah (Qadiyani) movement, the Hadith-rejecters (so-called ‘Quranists’) and others, have strong anti-clerical tendencies and an anti-clerical narrative, as clericalism is associated with the traditional Sunni orthodoxy that they dissent from. This is especially true in the colonial and post-colonial age where the influence of the Ulama has increased in certain parts of the Sunni Muslim world, especially the Indian subcontinent, due to the vacuum left behind with the fall of the great Muslim empires and dynasties. The anti-clerical tendency has a milder manifestation among the rejecters of Taqlîd; such as the Modernist school of Aligarh (founded by Sir Sayyid Ahmad Khan), a rigid section of the so-called Ahl al-Hadith movement, and Muslim freethinkers in general. It also has a mild manifestation among the so-called political ‘Islamist’ groups, like the Muslim Brotherhood founded in Egypt and the Jama’ati Islami of Mawdudi that is active in the Indian subcontinent. The political ‘Islamist’ trends, because they were founded by laypersons (although the term ‘laity’ isn’t exactly appropriate in the Islamic context), meaning individuals who were not from among the learned, traditional Ulama, was never fully embraced by the latter, and in fact at times and places even actively opposed by them. In India, the traditionalist and conservative Ulama of Deoband strongly opposed Mawdudi and his ideology. But in modern day Pakistan, the Ulama of Deoband have formed political parties to represent their interests, which are active in electoral politics, and often form electoral alliances of convenience with the non-clerical Jama’ati Islami. Due to this realpolitik both sides have toned down the polemical rhetoric against each other.

In the history of Prophesy (Nubuwwah) the manifestation of excessive clericalism which reached a point where it openly opposed an actual Prophet of God, can be seen during the prophetic ministry of Jesus Christ عليه السلام. The Gospels speak at length of how the Pharisees, Sadducees, Soferim (Scribes), and teachers of the Law in general, were the most outspoken opponents of Jesus Christ عليه السلام to the extent that the Sanhedrin itself, a wholly clerical institution in Judaism, condemned him (though it is mentioned that a minority of individuals within the Sanhedrin were sympathetic to Jesus). In the holy Quran it says:

فَلَمَّاۤ اَحَسَّ عِیۡسٰی مِنۡہُمُ الۡکُفۡرَ

So when Jesus sensed from them unbelief

(Part 3, Surah 3, Ayah 52)

Although this verse is referring to the unbelief of the Children of Israel in general, history bears witness that it was the clerical class of the Jews, the Pharisees, who spearheaded this reaction of unbelief and rejection toward Jesus Christ عليه السلام and the general masses of the nation followed their direction in committing this unbelief. The wording of this Ayah is significant in that it uses the verb ‘he sensed’ or ‘he perceived’ for Jesus عليه السلام. It may be that he was able to sense their unbelief due to their outward reception of his prophetic message, implying that that reaction was not initially categorical and blatant rejection, or that he was able to sense that unbelief within their hearts and minds by means of kashf or a divinely inspired unveiling of the reality of hidden and unseen matters which the Prophets definitively experience, and which the Saints and even ordinary Believers of this Ummah also experience though not with the same clarity and definitiveness of Prophets. In the history of this Ummah, there were also sections of the so-called Ulama, especially the clerical establishment that had the ear of the Sultan, who opposed and even persecuted the great Mujaddids, Saints, mystics and sages of this Ummah. This is especially true of those Mujaddids and Imams who appeared from within the great Sunni Hanbali tradition, beginning with Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal رحمة الله عليه himself, but also Ibn Taymiyah and Muhammad bin Abd al-Wahhab. In fact, each of the Four Imams of Fiqh, including Imam al-A’zam Abi Hanifah رحمة الله عليه had to suffer some degree of persecution by the government of their day due to the influence of the clerical establishment that had the ear of the Sultan. In various Ahadith, the Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم warned about the evil Ulama, misguiding Imams, and those who are close to the Rulers, particularly the Qurra (professional Quran-reciters):

‌إِنَّ ‌أَكْثَرَ ‌مُنَافِقِي ‌أُمَّتِي ‌قُرَّاؤُهَا

Verily, most of the hypocrites in my Ummah are its Quran-reciters

(Musnad Ahmad)

The field of Qira’ah has been mastered by the Quran-reciters of Egypt. In modern times, these Qurra tend to be close to and under the control of the State and the Government. The Ulama of Al-Azhar University are known for their modernist and even liberal tendencies, and their passing of fatawa or legal opinions due to fear of the State and not fear of Allah. These Qurra and so-called Ulama have a specific uniform and appearance; they are often clean shaven, itself a sin that opposes the Prophetic Sunnah, and wear a specific turban style that has no tail (they wrap a white cloth around a red fez). Tellingly, the Roman Catholic Church in it’s desire to find an equivalent establishment among the Muslims with which they may enter into dialogue and cooperation, primarily reach out to and have developed a working relationship with the senior Ulama of Al-Azhar University.

In conclusion, I say that Islam values and is protected by the institution of the conservative Sunni Ulama. This blessed category of Ulama who teach and protect the Religion are characterized by having the correct aqidah (creed) especially strict monotheism, personal piety, other-worldliness, distance and independence from the corrupt rulers, humility, and being outspoken against evils that are afflicting modern society. They also embrace those Mujaddids (Reformers) and Saints who rise, from time to time, within the Ummah to call it to rectification and purification, rather than opposing them in the way of the corrupt clerical establishment. Today, the anti-clerical strain is still strong and even spreading within the Ummah. The anti-clerical narrative of the Leftists is particularly dangerous and must be intellectually repudiated from the pulpits and every other legitimate platform by men of belief and conviction.