Decisive Treatise:Averroes:Prescribed Fatwas Of Islamic Law

It's important we be God of every world because God is God.

In the first 10 pages of the Decisive Treatise, puts forward several arguments to demonstrate the necessary harmony between religion and philosophy (or rational knowledge). In light of your reading give answers to the followings questions.

I. Give two of the arguments through which Averroes tries to establish this harmonious relationship. How do you think this establishes a solid ground for rationalizing religion and hence overcoming the gap, often assumed between religion as a revealed system of dogma and science and philosophy as product of human rationality on the other hand?
 

   *That the Law calls for ‘the consideration of existing things’ by means of intellect and for pursuing cognizance of them by means of it is ‘evident’… (pg 2, line 4), (While perusing pg 2 line 5 of the Arabic portion of the Decisive Treatise I noticed the word ‘mathala’ but wasn’t sure if it was ‘mashala’ as I was unable to distinguish whether the middle letter was a ‘sheen’ or a ‘tha’, providing that the middle letter was a ‘tha’ and the word was indeed ‘mathala’ ‘mim’,  ‘th’ and ‘lam’ I realized that I’ve seen this word in the verse of ‘light’ in which the variant ‘mathalu’ is present, denoted by the harukat dhumma/pesh diacritical mark above the lam. I’ve also seen the word in Surah Baqara, Ayah 26: “Allah is not ashamed to set forth the parable of a mosquito or anything bigger than it. Those who believe they know that it is the truth from their Lord. But those who disbelieve say, “What did Allah intend from this ‘example’ ‘Mathala’/mim-th-lam)?” This ayah of the Quran and innumerable ayahs like them are from which Averroes draws.  The Quran being a preeminent cornerstone of Islamic Law, Averroes establishes a syllogistic process of rationalizing the idea of reflection (philosophy) as obligatory, petitioning to his fellow jurist via Decisive Treatise that Allah has made it both implicit and explicit to consider creation. In the Quran Allah asks the human being to consider the creation of camels (pg 2, line 18); and also further prompts the human being to consider the creation of ‘Earth’ (Ard/Arabic portion of text) and the heavens (Samaau);  and how it has been ‘raised up’(kayfa-rafiat) (page.2, line19).  Averroes’ syllogistic reasoning asks, should not these commands from Allah in the Quran lead to syllogistic juridical reflection upon the law, just as we are commanded to reflect upon God’s creation? “The Jurist has only a syllogism based upon supposition, whereas the one who is cognizant has a syllogism based on certainty (Page 9, Line 21). Averroes’ legal mind is absolutely sound in this regard further explaining that the nature of inference is to draw out the unknown from that which is known (Page 2, Line 25).

     Law is based on ‘a priori’ or ‘posterior truths’ and legal principles such as a cognizance of God represent the basis of Averroes’ syllogistic procession of thinking, holding to the idea that the prescribed laws of Islam urge an ‘a priori’ cognizance of God and a further awareness that all things exist through Him by means of demonstrations (Page 3, Line 4). The Quran does not rehearse ayahs (signs) to the human being as if the human being is ignorant. (Page 3 Line 24):’ …to infer from the command to reflect upon the beings the obligation to become cognizant of intellectual syllogistic reasoning and it’s kinds.’ in the human being an implicit syllogistic responsibility to infer into existence of posterior truths, self evident truths and empirical truths are inherent, e.g., though the Quran specifically mentions ‘Camel’, this is not in any way to suggest that Allah wants human beings to solely consider camels, instead the reader of the Quran is assumed to be inferring that God wants man to consider the entire animal kingdom (Zoology). Nor should the human being exclusively consider the Earth but all planets that the naked eye or the human being’s technological eye (Hubble telescope etc.) can detect to establish sciences like Astronomy (Page 5, Line 21).

     The mention of Allah as ‘Rabil Alamin’ (Lord of all Worlds and or all ‘existing systems of knowledge’) is proof that the human being should seek closeness to his Lord by way of investigating all worlds hence to contemplate the nature of the universe, and/or multi-verse as suggested by ideas like M-theory.

     Averroes proves, using his syllogistic style of reasoning that philosophy is not only obligatory as evidenced by certain ayahs in the Quran but that the human being is further obligated to uncover the ideals of all societies  predating the religion of Islam by using their corpus of knowledge as a tool (page 4 line 27).  Ultimately, knowledge is a cumulative effort, forever growing and proceeding forward as the result of every human idea stemming from religion to philosophy; to every Earth science in to the study of the invisibility of the quantum realm which incidentally correlates directly with one of the first words in Surah Al-Baqarah which is ‘Ghyb’ (unseen’). A syllogistic argument could be made that if a Muslim believes in the ‘unseen’ should not he/she then explore it? Not that Averroes asked this question directly or knew specifically of the subject of quantum mechanics but the legal provisions for such endeavors are valid by way of his argumentation.  The first 10 pages of Decisive Treatise are partly epistemic, not in that Averroes is asking what is knowledge, but instead how the human being acquires ‘ilm’ (knowledge).

       To what extent do you think Averroes's position echoes the call of Muhammad to renew religion? In this same vein, what does this say about the relation between the sacred and the secular from the Islamic perspective? If rational knowledge as Averroes seems to be arguing is essentially the ultimate interpretation of religion, to what extent does this overcome the relation between sacred revealed knowledge and secular, rationally attained knowledge? From a different perspective, to what extent could this reconciliation of religion and rationality completely dilute any specificity or sanctity of religion? In other words would not this simply subordinate religion to science and philosophy?

      Averroes’ is making a case that the Quran urges man to seek knowledge, in making such a case his ideas reflect Muhammad’s call that Islam be a religion that is ever renewing itself with progressive ideas.     

       Sacred and secular ideas conflict and are in a state of communicative gridlock with one another. Averroes’ rational argument does not overcome the gap or separation between the two diametrically opposed ideologies, not because Averroes was not rational in his reasoning but because his ideas are positioned and set against a very conservative ulama, vigilante against the Shaitan (Satan), the Shaiteen (devils), fitna (confusion) and potential sources of bidda (heretical innovation).  On page five line five Averroes mentions, “…if there is anything not correct in it ‘we’ will alert people to it.”  ‘We’, means those who are trained in Islamic reasoning and law who’d be researching these canonical works from various past non-Muslim societies. I’m sure Averroes’ naysayers who themselves were trained in Islamic law and subjects such as Qiyas cited Ayahs like Surah 2, Ayah 59: ‘But those who were unjust changed it for a saying other than that which had been spoken to them, so We sent upon those who were unjust a pestilence from heaven, because they transgressed.”, easily, countering Averroes’ syllogistic reasoning with syllogistic logic of their own. The idea that this climate of liberal ‘reflection’ Averroes is attempting to bring forward could potentially lead to gross transgression of the Law as well as his clash with the Hanblite literalist (Page 10 Line 11) of his era are nothing in comparison to the conflicting thesis of sacred ideas and the diametrically opposed anti-thesis of secular ideas, least of all a hope of deriving a tolerant synthesis given the cynical tone of modernism toward Islamic fundamentalism present day, and or even ‘moderate’ positions in Islam.

     Averroes mentions throughout the ‘Decisive Treatise’ of a cognizance of ‘God’ and that the religious are ever mindful of God goes contrary to secular thinking which is a thought process that excludes God as a sound premise to initiate a productive meaningful discourse or dialogue of any sort. Secular thought does however demonstrate mild tolerance for religion or the ‘sacred’, usually making provisions for God and faith politically positioned as constitutional freedoms expressing no compulsion to necessarily believe or disbelieve and thus ‘Right’ of faith becomes a legal article of indifference toward God. This social indifference on behalf of the secular world does its best at minimum to respect the ‘sacred’, conversely an Islamic view holds less tolerance for secular values. To my last sentence belongs a crucial qualification: embracing the secular community without having the secular stench of that which has been labeled ‘haram’ (forbidden) on one’s garments is much more difficult than enacting a constitutional provision. The rate of the exchange of values and the willingness to be tolerant is grossly disproportionate and consequently Muhammad’s call to renew Islam fails in the face of modernity; and those Muslims who do adjust to the secular reality run the risk of falling into what in Islamic jurisprudence would be classified in many cases as kuf or disbelief. 

   Finally, I don’t think it is a question of religion’s sanctity being diluted or somehow made subordinate to science or philosophy. The concept of ‘subornation’ or ‘elevation’ of one- above-the other only reinforces a hierarchical paradigm pervasive in both secular ideas and religious ideas alike. That, “I am somehow better than you because I am an Islamic cleric and you’re a kafir (disbeliever)”, or “I work at C.E.R.N and I can’t believe ‘you people’ still believe in this idea that a ‘God’ is really keeping score” are both harsh and cynical in tone and rich in arrogance-an arrogance ironically at the root of Iblis’ refusal to make sajud to Adam in the Quran. The physical body is a working whole as science, philosophy and religion should be, each part should move in concert. Let my lips (religion) curse my thumb (philosophy) if my thumb desires to pluck out my eye (science) is anatomical insanity.

Peace 

Emblem

The Unconscious Root Of A Movafucka

The Unconscious Root Of A Movafucka

     I won’t attempt to pass off the following writing as an absolute truth. I will however express a deeply held personal belief that relates to reality and how all movafuckuz relate to reality at their root.  Conscious awareness is a temporary hot air bubble on the surface of a seething pot of boiling unconscious water. The unconscious is the heat below the surface that causes this volcanic like eruption we have come to know as reality. Every single conscious event in reality is perceived via our own individuated awareness which has been projected from a subsurface dynamic traditionally deemed the collective unconscious. What we know as ‘sleep’ is a state in which our present state of awareness ceases to filter the information from the daily reality in which we dwell. Whatever the pillars are that are holding consciousness up it is these pillars of cognition that enable us to process multiple sequences within our waking experience. We drift off into this state of sleep as if this state of ‘unconsciousness’ is a state that somehow beckons the portion of our consciousness that is anchored to reality. Why would an awareness based on a state of wakefulness need to close down in nightly intervals? Is it for the sole purpose of resting the body or does consciousness need to take refuge in some native existential state of origin?

     This writing is not intended to act as a discourse or study of sleeping, instead it takes the position that reality as a whole is a symbolic state, in which all things mean something. This writing is a brief declaration of symbolism’s underlying connection to reality. Language and Mathematics initially come to mind when the mention of symbolism finds itself a topic of discussion. Language allows human beings to communicate with each other, sounds molded into words that act as vessels carrying meaning with the intention of being received and understood. In the vessels of words meanings are present-meanings agreed upon by both the transmitter and the receiver. The cipher is deciphered when an encoded transmission is decoded to produce a state of comprehension in the communicant receiving the message from the transmitting communicant. All of the above is an example of what God and Earth define ‘Knowledge, Wisdom and Understanding to be.   

     “When Yacob was six years old while ‘playing’…” In a state of play, the seriousness with which the conscious mind engages reality is relaxed, and thus entrenches itself in a broader state having greater freedom-freedom of imagination, and a more powerful freedom of expression.  In this state of play and lesser restriction this playful expression yields the definitive purpose in the form of a determined idea-an idea in which we are all born with. The ‘mathology’ of Yacob represents a determined idea regarding an individual’s entire life purpose revealing itself in a child while that child is in an innocent state of play. This is hinting to the possibility that either something more profound is happening than play-or that our psychological perceptions enjoy creating interesting conspiratorial plots. As human beings we need theme, order, purpose, and reason proving rationalism is a unique part of our species. As human beings we designate meaning, we make life mean something. A dog pisses on a fire plug with no consideration of the purpose of the fire plug. As humans we know that the fire-plug facilitates the acquisition of water in the event of a fire in an urban setting. Dogs don’t create intricate plans that indicate higher intelligence. The level of the conceptual reality of human beings indicates theme and deliberation in our intellectual process. The ability to act on a multitude of levels is a distinct part of human intelligence. This intelligence runs consistent through the conscious and the unconscious.

Why call it the unconscious?

      Maybe the prefix ‘un’ is not completely accurate, it does however indicate that there is more to ‘Self’ and ‘human awareness’ that act in an abstract way in order to approximate both the idea of position, and directionality of consciousness, i.e., ‘sub’, an ‘un’. ‘Subconscious’ is consciousness below a waking state of awareness. ‘Sub’ and ‘Un’ as they relate to the general notion of ‘unconsciousness’ abstractly refers to a vast part of consciousness yet to be discovered, mapped and fully explained or understood. When I’ve used terminology like the ‘Black Mind’ it has been with the expressed purpose to relate a subjective quasi religious notion of the ‘divine’. ‘Unconscious’ efficiently ushers forth the point I am attempting to make in its relationship to psychology and conscious behaviors on an appropriate landscape that better describes social symbolism.

       From the moment the physical reality was set into motion by way of an initial force of causation, events appear to fall in order like dominoes, and as we look back on these past events as a a path of fallen dominoes, a question begs to be asked: Could past events appear to be anything else than a well laid path of fallen dominoes?  As humans we find and analyze available patterns. This innate inclination has uncovered whole systems and branches of mathematics that quantify the empirical and behaviors in the natural world.  Language and mathematics: both inbuilt sciences of human biology construct definition of purpose to events that could just as easily be chaotic, random arrangements-as random as grains of sand.  Yet we give each grain of sand meaning in retrospect; we give it meaning in the present; and we give it meaning as we move forward into the future. Gods call this path Zig Zag Zig. This path in history according to what we know is the result of a prescribed law or an essential pre-written law in human nature. Incidentally, within the corpus of 120 the word ‘predicted’ is used, implying that all of us have been predicted as if the dates of our birth and expiration are written like chapters in a book in which the author’s pen has spilt ink from a fifth dimension on to the page of our four dimensional reality.   

What is this ink?

      The Human genome project undertaken by the U.S. Department of Energy in conjunction with France, Germany, China, Japan and others have identified approximately 25,000 genes and determined the sequence of 3 billion chemical based pairs. This genetic ink causes you to be, and in your ‘beingness’ you have emerged from a pair of 23 chromosomes each from your mother and father all being born to the 46 chromosomes that define where you physically begin and where you physically end in this dimensionality of length, width, height and time/space.

The Horny Hankerings That Led To A Divine Nut

   Your father had been trying to get at your mom, he wanted to fuck, and your mom said to herself, “I think I’m going to give dude some pussy.” Pops got up in those guts and released five hundred million to potentially billions of sperm cells depending on how virile he was. This explosion literally thrust you into a hostile womb of sperm on sperm violence-a war in which you fought to get to the next level of existence. Pops could have easily jacked you off into a sock, or a tissue or he could have decided to fuck that next bitch down the street who lets men cum in her mouth, but instead, on that night he kicked it with your ma dukes.  She was fertile, and an egg was present. You won, and you made it to the egg.  Nigga you hit the Mega Billions Vaginal lottery, and pushed into the realm of life. 

     Could another sperm cell have won that race to get to Ma Duke’s egg? The prescribed law of Islam is a Rreality that fell like dominoes set up prior to the original nut being bust, indicating that no other sperm cell could have won that Mega Billions Vaginal Lottery. You were predicted! Once I was watching ‘Through The Wormhole’ and Morgan Freeman was building on Sub-Atomic particles and how in one experiment scientist were shooting sub-atomic particles through solid objects, and in one case they demonstrated that the particles borrowed energy from a future state in order to successfully make it through the object. The experiment spoke to the fact that the future exists now. If the day of your birth and death are predicted prior to conception and act as a prescribed statute of Islamic law, and hold an over-riding determined idea that seemingly lay underneath general consciousness then the three syllables of ‘Zig Zag Zig’ represent a three dimensional path that has been previously paved and ultimately preset for you to be here now. We each are a portion of universal consciousness that is reading and processing the symbols, signs and emblems that act as indicators of reality and more so than are brains merely learning-our individuated consciousness is contributing data to the entire bank and store of the undifferentiated collective consciousness pervasive in the entire Universe and/or multi-verse.

Peace

Emblem

     

       

Distinctions Between Scholarly Writing, And Just Being An Emblematic Smart Ass

Distinctions Between Scholarly Writing, And Just Being An Emblematic Smart Ass

“Roar! Movafucka, I am the Movafuckin’ Emblematic One. I will break your movafuckin’ eye socket with a right hook quicker than Pacquiao could, flow through the Quran like a nigga was born in Mecca Arabia, and write with a freshness that unsettles those who may have a problem with a nigga. Yes! Yes! Bravo-‘Bra-mova-fuck-in-O’ to me’! Since the inception of this blog I think I’ve maintained a rather consistent voice-a voice strangely cocky, somewhat abrasive and yet at the same time humble, refined and collegial. Generally in the ink that I’ve spilt a mural of Bronx-like graffiti art emerges, carrying in its colors an ever prevailing egalitarian spirit.

    On those occasions that I go off on my God tangent I very rarely if ever express a Mystery God complex. A nigga is True and Living with my feet so far down to Earth that a movafucka has bunions. Maybe at times I may go a little too hard at those goodie two shoe pussy type Gods who nauseatingly ‘Will Smithenize’ the Culture-a Culture that at one time was known for whoopin’ yo’ ass for misquoting a degree. I suppose such behavior would constitute as poor citizenship and a lack of civilization nowadays. Allah is one reality that manifest in a multitude of forms, it has taken me a while to both accept and realize that I am no gate-keeper of forms, nor do I represent a standard etched in stone as it pertains to how ‘Self Styled’ wisdom should be made manifest in I-God Culture.  I have no right whatsoever to deny those few pussy niggaz amongst us the right to make knowledge born, not everyone was born to fight as if a pit set lose by Vick. Softer voices must also be heard. Taking lessons from the ‘softer types’, I realize that a path of the least resistance must at times be traveled, continuing to mature I seek a path with less fare-ones, and though I’m proud of my ability to be comfortable squared-up and to both bark and bite when need be, I’ve learned to pick my spots with the forethought of one before moving a chess piece. Speaking of spots, a Ph.D. recently punched me in the face, academically of course and no, it wasn’t Dr. Supreme Understanding Allah, it was my professor for my class: Islam And The Modern World. He hit me with what I think was the hardest academic punch of my life, a punch that didn’t knock me out but instead woke me the fuck up, and let me know that I was indeed in a boxing ring of sorts. While on all fours, I clumsily tried to pick up my mouth- piece like Tyson in the Douglas fight.   

This is how he ‘Mayweathered’ me in front of the entire class:

“Thank you for your lengthy response. However, I am afraid it is totally irrelevant. The main point of these discussion questions is to make you think about the readings assigned and deal with them critically. So kindly stick to the content of the readings from now onwards.

Now let me comment on your response. You chose a specific narrative of a specific incident of debate between a Muslim and a Christian theologian. Hundreds of these debates exist in the medieval period particularly during the flourishing of Islamic Civilization particularly under the early Abbasid rule in Baghdad. This attests to a very progressive spirit of intellectual and academic freedom which was never paralleled in medieval Europe during the dark ages. There were debates about the unity of God in Islam and Judaism versus the concept of Trinity in Christianity among many figures in theologians in Baghdad and later the great Andalusian philosopher Averroes made a long critique of it in his Grand Commentary on Aristotle's Metaphysics. As for the positions taken in the debate you mentioned they are highly reductive of how medieval Muslim theologians proved the prophecy of Prophet Muhammad. If you are interested in such debates please email me or come and see me in my office and I will happily direct you to sources on these debates and also happily discuss them with you if you are interested. I specialize in Philosophy so this is at the core of my interests. However, as I explained above, you have to stick to the text in choosing your examples to allow your colleagues to participate and engage with you on a common ground.

As for the second question, I agree with you that all religions have a transcendent dimension to them but the presence of a belief in transcendent notions does not necessarily contradict rationalism. Muslim as well as Christian thinkers found many ways to ground their metaphysical systems even the belief in Angels on rational basis. Take the attempts of Averroes and al-Ghazali in Islam or Aquinas or late Kant in Christianity.

Your claim  about al-Khwarizmi, which is also completely irrelevant to the subject matter of the question, is contradicted by his own statements in his original works which I am not sure you read or not let alone in their original language if you want to have a proper scholarly position. As we will see when we get to Islam and Science, Muslims were the first to develop the experimental method vis-a-vis Aristotelian biological naturalism that tended to conflate theology with physics. This was partly due to the call to think and reason that is most recurrent in the Qur'an. Hence, I would say yes it is true that al-Khawarizmi is a genius in his own right but the methods and the nature of his scientific discourse was definitely colored by the Islamic worldview. Mozart of whom I am a great fan by the way is a product of 18th century European enlightenment. Enlightenment and particularly German Enlightenment is my other specialization in Philosophy by the way. There is no question that he was an artistic genius in his own right but if you look at Mozart's music especially the rupture in his tempos versus Hayden before him or the romantics after him you will find that he articulated a specific worldview that was inspired by a rational and moral reconstruction of science and metaphysics that all Enlightenment thinkers were intent on in response to the medieval world and its theology.”

I find the last comment utterly unacceptable morally, intellectually and academically. We will discuss Islam and Politics later in the semester. If you want to make comments about Islam or Muslim scholars you have to be specific, that is tell me whom you are talking about and what they were talking about. Uttering generous claims and charges is by no means acceptable in this class nor is conducive to the spirit of learning”

When I first received his response the first thing I thought was to come back at ‘em, Instead I sat back, reflected and thought it would be best to not allow my ego out of the cage, and he was right, I didn’t come out of the reading he had assigned, instead I came off the top of my Power Hill Five Percent dome, sassed around in the writing with that off the cuff smart ass blogging type of wit and he let it be  known that that type of shit won’t fly in his class.  He flexed his academic ego as well as his credentials. Instead of loading up and firing back with academic bullets of my own it’s best I learn to take a punch. I’m going to study the things that I found interesting in his critique of my writing, namely, Aristotelian Biological Naturalism; Al Khawarizmi’s alleged contradiction in the original Arabic text; undertake a study of ‘Averroes’. He quoted Al-Ghazzali and just so happened that I’m presently reading a work of Al-Ghazzalli entitled: ‘Tahafut Al-Falasifah. So yeah, no barking or biting back, instead I’ll absorb and learn from criticism. The following is my latest submission, and unlike before it reflects the reading, it is succinct, and to the point. No sense in beefing when I have an opportunity to be made better. Feel me! And Yo, on the real God learns and learns and learns, mostly about Him Self!

___________________________________________________ ___________________________

 The verse of light: Yusuf Ali: Allah is the Light of the heavens and the earth. The Parable of His Light is as if there were a Niche and within it a Lamp: the Lamp enclosed in Glass: the glass as it were a brilliant star: Lit from a blessed Tree, an Olive, neither of the east nor of the west, whose oil is well-nigh luminous, though fire scarce touched it: Light upon Light! Allah doth guide whom He will to His Light: Allah doth set forth Parables (symbols) for men: and Allah doth know all things.

“1:The verse of light is considered one of the key verses in the Qur’an that determines the relation between the human being and God. The degrees of the manifestation of God are often understood as a metaphor referring to the levels of consciousness different people may hold and experience of divine nature. To what extent do you think this is in line with the first verses that were revealed to Muhammad and the emphasis they lay on reading and seeking knowledge?

I think the passage refers to various levels of faith in human beings, generally those who have no faith; those who have faith, and those who have strong faith. The portion of the verse of light that says, “God citeth symbols /parables for men”, relates directly to Muhammad’s command to read.  While in the act of reading an individual cognitively processes symbols.  Muhammad’s command to, “’Read’ in the name of thy Lord who created-created thee from a clot; Read and your lord is Most Honorable. Who taught man to write with a pen, and taught man what he knew not” these ayahs of surah Iqra correlate with the ayah of light, affirming that the human being grows closer to God’s light via earnest educational pursuit.

    2:What do you think of Prophet Muhammad’s statement regarding the renewal of Islam on page 330? We often think of any religion as a system of dogma that is, a well-defined canon of convictions and maxims. So what do you think this call for renewing reflect about the nature of Islam as a religion and its humanistic nature, that is, the way it is connected with the historical consciousness and understanding of those who embrace it rather than being a fixed corpus to which its followers are expected to subscribe and accept as it is.

From what I’ve gathered from the reading, it appears that Muhammad prophesied the coming of future Muslims who will have a high level of’ spiritual eminence’ and their spiritual eminence will provide the insights necessary to renew the religion of Islam in a responsible way,  not deviating from its historical context, nor the foundational teachings of Muhammad or the Quran. ‘Renewal’ indicates that a progressive spiritual understanding in Islam avails itself to Muslims, preventing Islam from becoming arcane and dogmatic. As a humanistic force Islam provides ‘right guidance’ for humanity. Muhammad said, “Islam began as a stranger and will become once more a stranger.” and promised that God would not abandon them and that a caliphat will be appointed every hundred years to lead the community in this process of ‘renewal’.   

   3:The speech Abu Bakr gave after being chosen as the first successor of the prophet is often taken as one of the earliest discourses on Islamic political thought. What do you think are the main theses Abu Bakr’s advances? What do you think these theses imply for the relation between religious belief and political power in Islamic thought?

 Abu Bakr’s acceptance speech demonstrates humility, accepting the authority bestowed upon him he humbly recognizes that he is not the best amongst them. He declares, “…if I am wrong, set me right.” letting his new constituency know that he is not exempt from their reproof. Further, his speech implies that he will make himself available to the community to listen to their concerns and their suggestions as they pertain to the common good. “The strong amongst you shall be weak until I have wrestled from them the rights of others.” This statement speaks to his preparedness to fight for the rights of those who may have been socially disadvantaged during this time. Abu Bakr’s tone reflects Islam in the light of a religion championing the interest of the weak and poor within the community. His acceptance speech advances the thesis that social benevolence and political power in Islam are interwoven and essentially inextricable with one another. Ultimately, Abu Bakr asks to be obeyed, providing that he himself follows the example of Muhammad and maintains a devotion to God.”

Peace,

Emblem

Top of Form