Quranic Foundations And Structure Of Muslim Society
B. CONCEPT OF RELIGIOUS LEADERSHIP
This problem has a vital bearing on human life; because it is related to the relationship with God, on the one hand, and to the character of society, on the other. A religion which endorses the institution of priesthood,[1] establishes what might be termed as ‘spiritual feudalism’, dividing the society into two distinct classes of religious ‘masters’ and religious ‘serfs’, and opening the road to the exploitation of the masses by the ‘privileged few’. Besides that, it creates a barrier between the human beings and God through the creation of a class of canonised professionals who become the sole agents for selling the blessings of God, including forgiveness of sins and salvation in the Hereafter. The history of Religion is replete with all this and the attendant evils, wherein humanity has been exploited spiritually, morally and materially—and, wherever possible, even politically, through the establishment of theocracy in the form of government by the priests.[2]
What a tremendous amount of misery the institution of priesthood can cause, even in its administrative aspect, to the prestige of religion itself, emerges clearly in the ecclesiastical history of mankind. For instance, just to refer to one brief period of Christian history, Will Durant observes in his The Age of Faith (New York 1950; pp. 538-540):
“… In 897 Pope Stephen VI had the corpse of Pope Formosus (891-6) exhumed, dressed it in purple robes, and tried before an Ecclesiastic Council on the charge of violating certain Church Laws; the corpse was condemned, stripped, mutilated, and plunged into the Tiber. In the same year a political revolution in Rome overthrew Stephen, who was strangled in jail. For several years thereafter the papal chair was filled by bribery, murder, or the favour of women of high rank and low morality. For half a century the family of Theophylect, a chief official of the papal palaces, made and un-made popes at will. His daughter Marozia secured the election of her lover as Pope Sergius III (804-11), his wife Theodora procured the election of Pope John X (914-28). John has been accused of being Theodora’s paramour, but on inadequate evidence … Marozia after having enjoyed a succession of lovers married Guido, Duke of Tuscany I; they conspired to unseat John; they had his brother Peter killed before his face; the Pope was thrown into prison and died there a few months later from causes unknown. In 931 Marozia raised to the papacy John XI (931-5) commonly reputed to be her bastard son by Sergius. In 932 her son Alberic imprisoned John in the Castle of Saint Angelo, but allowed him to exercise from jail the spiritual function of the papacy. For twenty-two years Alberic ruled Rome as the dictatorial head of a ‘Roman Republic’. At his death he bequeathed his power to his son Octavian, and made the clergy and people promise to choose Octavian pope when Agapetus II should die. It was done as he ordered; in 955 Marozia’s grandson become John XII, and distinguished his pontificate by orgies of debauchery in the Lateran palace.”
“Otto I of Germany, crowned Emperor by John XII, in 962, learned the degradation of the papacy at first hand. In 963, with the support of the Transalpine clergy, Otto returned to Rome, and summoned John to trial before an ecclesiastical council. Cardinals charged that John had taken bribes for consecrating bishops, had made a boy of ten a bishop, had committed adultery with his father’s concubine and incest with his father’s widow and her niece, and had made the papal palace a very brothel. John refused to attend the council or to answer the charges; instead he went out hunting. The council deposed him and unanimously chose Otto’s candidate, a layman, as Pope Leo VII (963-5). After Otto had returned to Germany, John seized and mutilated the leaders of the Imperial party in Rome, and had himself restored by an obedient council to the papacy (964). When John died (964) the Romans elected Benedict V, ignoring Leo. Otto came down from Germany, deposed Benedict, and restored Leo, who thereupon officially recognized the right of Otto and his Imperial successors to veto the election of any future Pope. On Leo’s death Otto secured the election of John XIII (965-72). Benedict VI (973-74) was imprisoned and strangled by a Roman noble, Bonifazio Francone, who made himself Pope for a month, then fled to Constantinople with as much papal treasure as he could carry. Nine years later, he returned, killed Pope John XIV (983-4), again appropriated the papal office, and died peaceably in bed (985). The Roman Republic again raised its head, assumed authority, and chose Crescentius as consul. Otto III descended upon Rome with an irresistible army, and a commission from the German prelates to end the chaos by making his Chaplain Pope Gregory V (966-9). The young Emperor put down the Republic, pardoned Crescentius, and went back to Germany. Crescentius at once re-established the Republic, and deposed Gregory (997). Gregory excommunicated him, but Crescentius laughed, and arranged the election of John XVI as Pope. Otto returned, deposed John, gouged out his eyes, cut off his tongue and nose, and paraded him through the streets of Rome on an ass, with his face to the tail. Crescentius and twelve Republican leaders were beheaded, and their bodies were hung from the battlements of Saint Angelo (998). Gregory resumed the papacy, and died, probably of poison, in 999…
“… The counts of Tusculum, in league with the German Emperors, bought bishops and sold the papacy with hardly an effort at concealment. Their nominee Benedict VIII (1012-24) was a man of vigor and intelligence, but Benedict IX (1032-45), made pope at the age of twelve, led so shameful and riotous a life that the people rose and drove him out of Rome. Through Tusculan aid he was restored: but tiring of the papacy he sold it to Gregory VI (1045-6) for one (or two) thousand pounds of gold. Gregory astonished Rome by being almost a model pope … The Tusculan house … made Benedict IX pope again, while a third faction set up Sylvester III. The Italian clergy appealed to the Emperor Henry III to end this disgrace; he came to Sutri, near Rome, and convened an ecclesiastical council; it imprisoned Sylvester, accepted Benedict’s resignation, and deposed Gregory for admittedly buying the papacy. Henry persuaded the council that only a foreign pope, protected by the emperor, could terminate the debasement of the Church.”
The Holy Qur’an sounds the death-knell to the institution of priesthood, establishing what might be aptly termed as ‘spiritual democracy’. All human beings possess equal human dignity as their birthright (17:70) and enjoy the right of access to God equally, because He is equally the God of all (1:1). And because He is nearer to every human being than his jugular vein (50:16), no one needs any priest or priestess in his dealings with Him. He is Himself the Bestower of all Blessings on whomsoever He considers worthy; He Himself judges and forgives the sins of whomsoever He seems deserving; to Him belongs the Absolute Sovereignty and His contact with everyone is direct and constant;—hence, the very notion of a priest or a priestess is regarded by the Qur’an as absurd.[3] God’s unambiguous proclamation runs through the holy book: “Call on Me; I will answer your (Prayer) …” (40:60).
Congregational Prayer does necessitate a leader of the congregation. But this necessity has been fulfilled by Islam, not through the appointment of canonised priests, but on the democratic principle that anyone who is highest in learning and piety among a congregation at the time of congregational prayer should lead the congregation.
Not only is every Muslim man and woman his or her own priest or priestess, the transmission of the light of Divine Message is also the obligation of every Muslim, being the collective obligation of the entire Islamic Community (3:110). Of course, the Holy Qur’an has projected the concept of specialised workers who should form the spearhead for the fulfilment of that collective obligation (3:104). But, they too have been conceived basically as ‘Inviters to the Good’ and not as priests.
The religious leadership that emerges thus in the Islamic Community is that of ‘teachers’ and ‘guides’ and not of ‘priests’. Every Muslim, without any considerations of colour, race, tribe, family, sex, and worldly status, can aspire—in fact, should aspire—for acquiring that status. The qualification he has to acquire for that purpose consists of sound knowledge of Divine Guidance, sound wisdom and sound spiritual and moral personality, as emphasised in connection with the Holy Prophet’s Mission (62:2). In short, he should be a miniature representatiue of the Holy Prophet’s Personality, and as such should be a spiritually-morally-and-intellectually-illumined person. Whoever acquires this qualification will earn the respect and love of the fellow-Muslims, and even of the fair-minded human beings in general. Therein lies his leadership, which is obviously attained through the democratic process of hard-earned merit. As such, he becomes not only a teacher (mu‘allim) but also a guide (murshid), capable of helping the people not only intellectually but also spiritually,—assisting them in emerging from spiritual darkness into the Light Divine (14:1), himself acting through the Light bestowed on him by God (6:122).
No other category of religious leadership emerges in the Qur’anic Guidance. Those who possess only scholastic information, and are scholars of Islam in that sense, and do not fulfil the above-mentioned qualifications, are not entitled to religious leadership. Rather, they have been denounced by the Qur’an (61:2-3), even as the Jewish religious leaders of yore have been denounced: “The similitude of those who were charged with the (obligations of the) Mosaic Law, but who subsequently failed in (personally acting according to) those (obligations), is that of a donkey which carries huge tomes (but understands them not) … (62:5). At best, the scholastics can function only as formal transmitters of the information they possess, and nothing more.[4]
In the end, it is essential to note that no religious leader, not even the Super-Leader, i.e., the Holy Prophet Muhammad (Peace be on him!), can function in any way as the substitute for God or as a sub-deity. Also, no religious leader, however great, can possess any absolute authority over the Muslims, because absolute authority resides, among human beings, only in the person of the Holy Prophet, who alone is the absolute Leader of the Muslims for all time, and no one else; so that there is no room in Islam for the creation of sects around personalities.
It is urgent for the Muslim world to pay due heed to the Qur’anic Warning: “And be not among those who join gods with Allaah,—those who split up their religion and become (mere) sects,—each party rejoicing in that which is with itself!” (30:31-32)—while the prestige of Islam suffers damage after damage and the millat as a whole courts defeat after defeat!!!
[1] Giving due weight to the basic characteristics that underlie the varied roles played by the institution of priesthood in human history, among the civilised and the uncivilised communities, the concept of the priest as it emerges in its full stature and form is that he is basically a consecrated person, established in an exalted social status in comparison with the lay adherents of a religion—a status acquired on the basis of canonisation either through some ritual or through descent from some particular clan or caste, possessing an unchallengable authority in religious matters, enjoying in the beliefs of the people such powers or privileged position as to be capable of obtaining from the deity the fulfilment of what he may put forward on behalf of anyone, and therefore the unavoidable instrument of the lay-folk for employment in their dealings with the deity. (For a historical discussion, see: The Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics, vol. 10; art.: ‘Priest, Priesthood’).
[2] Speaking of the Jewish
institution of priesthood, H. Hirschfeld writes: “According to the Levitical
code, the Hebrew priest is born, not made … In order to safeguard the purity of
lineage for future generations, the Biblical laws regulating Priestly marriages
were not only strictly enforced, but also strengthened in various directions…
These restrictive regulations, added to ancestral pride, gradually converted
the priestly class into an exalted theocracy which, from the nature of public
affairs, at the same time formed the social aristocracy. The priestly family of
the Hasmonaeans acquired royal dignity. Later the high priest was the president
of the Sanhedrin. Thus power, both spiritual and temporal, and wealth
accumulated in some priestly families.” (The Encyclopoedia of Religion and
Ethics, vol. 10, pp. 322, 323).
[3] Says D.B. Macdonald: “God, Himself, the One, reveals Himself to man through prophets and otherwise, and man, in prayer, can come directly to God. This is Muhammad’s great glory. The individual soul and its God are face to face.” (Religious Attitude and Life in Islam, p. 38).
[4] As matters stand in the Muslim world today, it is the decline of religious leadership from the Islamic standard in a serious measure that constitutes a major cause of its inability with regard to its emergence from the abyss into which it has been descending since some time. The remedy for the situation is obvious!
to be continued . . . . .
Quranic Foundation & Structure Of Muslim Society In The End Times
