I must say that I am rather surprised when the brouhaha emanating from a piece in Harakah (16-30 April) by Dr Farish A Noor entitled, Memikirkan semula pendekatan PAS petered out so quickly. I managed to access the article on the Internet recently and wondered how the PAS-fuss could come about from a reasoned piece of writing.

The first time I heard a PAS ulama speak was during reformasi. I went to the Gombak markas in 1998-99 when the NGO community was exploring alliances with political parties. I heard the late Fadzil Noor there.

The last time I enjoyed a parade with majority of PAS members without the Federal Reserve Unit or the Light Strike Force beating us to a retreat, was on nomination day of independent candidate Zaitun Kasim. Zaitun, a human rights activist, ran for the Selayang parliamentary seat in 1999 under a DAP ticket. I was tickled by the chant, 'Keluar Barisan masuk bulatan'. That was a historical reformasi year where a vote for DAP is a vote for 'new politics' mooted by the Barisan Alternatif.

The night before the US bombed Iraq allegedly to bring freedom and democracy to its people, a van load of PAS supporters pulled up in the blinding evening rain, gave salaam and nonchalantly lifted my car, whose front wheel was caught in an uncovered manhole in Jalan U-Thant. It took me by surprise. A police patrol car had earlier went by twice. The police did not even venture to inquire if any assistance was needed. We proceeded to a candlelight peace vigil at the Iraq embassy at Jalan Tun Razak, where I think Hatta Ramli of PAS led a congregational prayer.

My anecdotal experiences have left me a memory of some pretty decent people from PAS. Thus the absence of what could have been a useful engagement, on the partnership of ulama and intellectuals in political leadership in PAS was terribly disappointing.

I sincerely hope the ulama response was not typical. Perhaps the recent emasculation of PAS at the polls (although it attracted an increase of 0.9% of the popular vote), may be the main reason for the reaction of the ulama to 'kill' the debate.

Schizophrenia

For sometime now, I have been told by friends and colleagues, (non-Muslim community leaders and newspaper editors among them) of how they have found PAS top-brass ulama, or even Umno ulama for that matter, enlightening or their views 'surprisingly' liberal.

I am always curious as to why the ulama in general appear open on a one-to-one basis but not at-large. I have surmised that this peculiar state of affairs probably has to do with the filtering or control of information to the allegedly 'dhaif' (weak) masses.

Fathi Aris Omar, in his column dated May 17 Ruang Awam: Kemelut puak Islam, said that the story of Rayhana's sexual liberties is a historical fact acknowledged by some of the ulama here. However, these ulama remained silent when Farish A Noor was attacked for making this fact, common knowledge.

From some of the letters to malaysiakini, the recent ulama backlash could be traced to that one disclosure. Surely one can be excused for thinking that the ulama who have been responsible for withholding information or capitalising on the situation for reasons best known to themselves, as suffering from some kind of 'religious schizophrenia'.

We might not even understand why is there such a fuss about a 'clergy class' in the first place. Why bother? Traveling back several centuries may help shed some light.

Historical Islam will confirm that the ulama have always maintained a place in the socio-political structure of Muslim societies. The rise of the ulama as a class separate from the ruler-caliphs in Sunni Islam, came about during the middle of the 10th century Arab-Muslim empire. (The Prophet died in 632AD).

The period of the Umayyad and Abbasid dynasties (7th-8th century), saw the transferring of control from the ruler-caliphs to generals, administrators, governors and local provincial landlords.

Religious 'communities' developed independently of the states or empires that ruled them. The ulama regulated local communal life by serving as judges, administrators, teachers and religious advisers. They were organised according to religious affiliation into Sunni schools of law, Shiite sects or Sufi tariqas.

Religious activity became independent of the actual authority of the rulers. Though the ruler-caliphs headed the community, neither the office of the caliph nor the caliph held the authority from which Muslim religious conceptions and practices were derived. The Qur'an stood apart from the authority of the caliph and was available to every believer.

Ulama as repository of religious teachings

The emergence in the 8th century of distinct legal 'schools' was of importance, each of which is considered a repository of authoritative religious teachings. The essential activity of these groupings was to study and comment upon the Qur'an and hadith and to evolve the law.

In due course, schools oppose the authority of the caliphs in matters of law. The ruling regimes were reportedly only allowed ijma (consensus) of the ulama or the ijtihad (independent reasoning) of the ulama. This was so, because the early legal schools denied the caliphs after the Rashidun (companions to the Prophet), any authority in interpretation. According to some views, even if the ruler is a mujtahid (a person who exercises ijtihad), capable of generating de novo law, he is bound by the well-established principles and rules of law.

You know where this is leading There was eventually a showdown between the rulers (umara) and the ulama as to which authority was responsible for 'commanding the good and forbidding evil'. This spans centuries you understand, and there is only so much space in this column.

Ibn al-Muqaffa's (a translator and scribe to Abbasid Caliph al-Mansur d.775) has interesting notes in his Risala fi al-Sahaba, a treatise of advice on government about authority and obedience which gives us an idea of the fierce debates around this struggle for power, whatever you may want to think about righteousness and piety.

Al-Muqaffa wrote that obedience is not due to the ruler who is disobedient to God, but this does not cancel the obligation of obedience in general. In other words, a sacrilegous command is not binding, but it does not dissolve the authority of the ruler. He drew hair-splitting arguments between political and religious obedience.

These issues remain unresolved. A later day jurist, Ibn Qayyim (d. 1350) of the Hanbali school for example, wrote that the rulers are obeyed only to the extent that their commands are consistent with the religious sciences.

His treatise on authority and obedience is summed up thus: The ulama has a duty to obey the Prophet; the rulers have a duty to obey the ulama; the laity (meaning "us" the amma and ghawgha - commoners and riff-raff), must obey both rulers and ulama because both protect and uphold Islam. I do not have information at the moment, on his views when the umara and ulama are not in sync.

Limiting the powers of rulers

Depending on what and who you read, and whether you like it or not, there were reported incidents of civil disobedience in the struggle for power in an unsettled political situation. Arrests, incarceration, condemnation, executions and the like were not uncommon. Ruler-caliphs tend to get the upper hand in this.

It is reported that Ahmad ibn Hanbal (d. 855), the last of the founding jurists of the Sunni school did not oppose the Abbasid dawla (political authority) over the state. He himself underwent state interrogations and reportedly led a demonstration against the regime's policies. In what was seen as a carefully nuanced opinion, Ahmad Hanbal opined that it was the duty of the ulama to "revive and preserve" the law, but it is the duty of all Muslims to command good and forbid evil, even if the caliphs do not do so.

Some historians claim that this opinion of Hanbal seeks to circumscribe the authority of the caliphs in religious matters. Traditional Muslim scholars would still maintain the power of the ulama in 'reviving and preserving' the rule of (Syariah) law in a Syariah polity.

I subscribe to another reading. The 10th century developments probably mark the beginning of limiting the powers of the state and the development of the rule of law. Limiting the power of the state is not the sole responsibility of the ulama. It lies also with the people, citizens of a nation-state, intellectuals and the laity. This is of course not the language of that time.

Perhaps if one can conclude with just a point to be considered by our Muslim scholars: intellectuals and ulama, it is the crisis of authority facing Muslims today. The ulama were outclassed by reformer-intellectuals in the post-caliphate years. Traditional Muslim "religious sciences" were replaced by modern subjects. The decline of sufism left a spiritual vacuum.

The power that comes with financial independence of autonomous religious institutions and Muslim scholars came under state control or merely confiscated. Ulama were assimilated into government bureaucracy. To some, this is a constructive move, to others, this created distrust of their independence.

Further, printing, a technological revolution which transformed European society in the 15th century made its impact in the second half of the 19th century in the Muslim world. Today, we have multiple types of media and the cyberspace.

The personal links between ulama and disciple faced competition from writers, editors and publishers. Anthropologists, lawyers, political scientists, economists and a host of professionals compete with the ulama in disseminating information and knowledge. There are growing trends in democratisation. Information, specialisation and professionalisation are reinforced by universities, multinational corporations, private voluntary organisations and the like.

The Muslim laity so-called is no longer dhaif in wordly affairs of state and what their faith means to them. There is no way to rebuild the religious authority of the ulama on old foundations.

Notes

Farish A Noor in his book, Embedded Islam discusses the ulama-intellectual partnership in PAS. Seyyed Valli Reza Nasr in Islamic Leviathan: Islam and the Making of State Power, inter alia writes of the ulama in the various (BN) government institutions. The book, Between the State and Islam (2001) edited by Charles E Butterworth et al is quite comprehensive on issues raised as well. Check Amazon.com for details.

See also: Richard W Bulliet, The Crisis Within Islam. Policy (2002-03) Vol 18 no 4 at p 34

Ira M Ladipus, The separation of State and Religion in the Development of Early Islamic Society. Int. J. Middle East Stud. 6 (1975) at p 363.