| |
|
Mohammed’s rule was humble, open, noted scholar says |
|
|
|
Tuesday, 01 May 2007 |
The Archangel Gabriel appears to Mohammed in this 1314 depiction of the origins of Islam. Though many Muslims believe it is a sacrilege to depict the prophet, this belief did not become predominant in Islam until the 16th century and many medieval examples of art showing the Muslim founder still exist. Near Eastern studies scholar Michael Cook discussed the political style of Mohammed, who was both a religious and a political leader, at UNC Asheville’s Mountain Suites on April 5.
The prophet Mohammed, who founded the Muslim religion, was a leader who rarely delegated authority, yet maintained a sense of humility and simplicity that allowed for much accessibility, noted historian Michael Cook told a group of about 70 people April 5 at UNC Asheville’s Mountain Suites.
Cook is the Cleveland E. Dodge Professor of Near Eastern Studies at Princeton University. He is the author of “The Koran: A Very Short Introduction” and “Commanding Right and Forbidding Wrong in Islamic Thought.”
He described the scenario a visitor to Mohammed’s mosque in Medina might have encountered while trying to petition the ruler for help.
“The first thing you do is park your camel — it would be bad form to ride your camel into the mosque,” Cook joked.
| Michael Cook
|
At the doors of the mosque, there would be no gatekeepers, he noted. “There’s absolutely no control of who goes into the mosque — you just go in.”
Upon entering the mosque, a visitor would encounter circles of men seated and if the person was not acquainted with Mohammed, he would have to ask someone who the prophet was, Cook said.
This is “important because it wasn’t obvious who Mohammed was,” Cook added. Unlike a typical king of the time period, Mohammed — who was a political, as well as religious, leader — would not be sitting in a designated place on a throne.
Rather, he would be seated on the floor, “looking pretty much like all his followers — indistinguishable,” Cook added.
“This is a very simple, humble, informal, unrestricted form of access.”
Furthermore, Mohammed’s rule was marked by a lack of clear hierarchies, he said.
Cook contrasted this with biblical accounts of the political style of Moses.
The Hebrew king, Cook recounted, sat at a throne and, at least in the early part of his rule, answered the petitions of anyone who came to him personally.
However, that changed after a visit from Jethro, Moses’ father-in-law.
According to Cook’s retelling of the story, Jethro, after observing Moses’ court, told him, “What you’re doing is no good — you’re just not doing it right. One man can’t administer the affairs of all these people in detail. You have to delegate.”
Moses heeded this advice and established a highly structured system of delegation whereby trusted administrators confronted the problems of his subjects, with only the most difficult problems making their way to the king, Cook said.
Mohammed, however, took a different approach, he noted. In Mohammed’s kingdom, there were no permanent authorities — only the occasional delegation structure that “appears but then it disappears,” he said.
These temporary delegations “arise from the fact that he’s making war on the enemies of his community,” Cook elaborated.
During the 10 years that Mohammed ruled in Medina and waged war on Mecca, he often personally commanded the battles. About 65 such campaigns were fought during that time, of which Mohammed led nearly half.
The rest of the time, while he remained in Medina to administer his kingdom, Mohammed appointed generals.
But what is remarkable about this was his choices of commanders, Cook said.
“You’d think that once you’d found someone with a real talent for military leadership, that you’d use that person again and again.”
However, for the most part, Mohammed did not do this. During the 38 campaigns in which Mohammed did not participate, only seven commanders served more than once.
There was one notable example — Zayd ibn Haritha, who led several campaigns.
“What’s important is that he isn’t important,” Cook said of the man.
Zayd came from humble beginnings. He was a former slave who was owned by one of Mohammed’s wives.
The prophet developed a fondness for Zayd, and even adopted him until he later claimed to have a revelation from Allah telling him that adoption must be banned by Islam, Cook noted.
When Mohammed did go into battle, he again applied this principle of rotating leaders to run his kingdom in Medina. Despite the constant threats to his leadership that were exacerbated by his absence, Mohammed rarely designated anyone powerful, important or militarily strong to maintain his kingdom.
The one person who most often was left in charge was a blind man named Ibn Umm Maktum.
Beyond his handicap, Maktum was not well-respected for other reasons. The presence of the term “Umm” in his name meant that he was the “son of his mother,” a dubious distinction in a patriarchal society in which “men are typically considered the ‘sons of their fathers,’” Cook said. “On the whole, in a patriarchal society, it’s a bad start to be named after your mother.”
One story from the Koran tells of how Maktum attempted to speak to Mohammed about a concern and the prophet “brushed him off,” Cook told the audience. Though Mohammed was later chastised by Allah for his behavior in the story, it indicates that “it’s natural to give him the brush-off.”
Nonetheless, Maktum was the person most often selected to rule in Mohammed’s absence, probably because the prophet had observed that the blind man was good at leading the prayers, Cook said.
“I think it’s very easy to see where this is going,” he added. “Mohammed, unlike Moses, is not a delegater. He’s someone who likes to keep all the threads in his own hands.”
He never, for instance, placed someone of great power in a leadership position, Cook said. He speculated that this may have been due to a lack of trust or because Mohammed feared that “they wouldn’t behave in a politically prudent fashion” and by acting in their own interests, powerful leaders could upset the kingdom’s delicate political balance.
Mohammed, Cook noted, was “the kind of person we would call a micromanager.”
Furthermore, creating a political hierarchy would have limited the sense of accessibility that Mohammed sought to create.
The professor then turned the lecture to a comparison of Mohammed’s political style and the political skills of Jesus and Buddha.
Though not political rulers themselves, these two religious founders both “have some close connections to kingship,” Cook said.
Buddha was a prince who would have become a king had he not “dropped out and become an ascetic — much to the despair of his family,” Cook said.
However, traces of his regal ancestry can be discerned in his language, such as his self-proclaimed role as a “king of the law.”
Jesus was not a king, but he was descended from King David, Cook said, as is indicated in the beginning of the Gospel of Matthew, which narrates Jesus’ genealogy.
Furthermore, Jesus is often referred to as a king, both in the Bible and in later writings and music. Handel’s “Messiah,” Cook noted, calls Jesus the “King of kings and lord of lords ... And he shall reign for ever and ever.”
Both Buddha and Jesus had to make astute political decisions during their lives. Buddha was once approached by a notoriously brutal king about plans to eradicate a community of peasants who had formed a small republic that the king saw as a threat.
This placed Buddha in a precarious position. If he urged mercy, he “could have been killed himself,” Cook noted. “Or he’s going to look like a political coward.”
Instead, Buddha outlined the principles that the peasants had based their government on and told the king that as long as they adhered to those principles, they would not be likely to threaten his rule.
One of Jesus’ most politically astute moments came when he was asked by a group of Pharisees whether it was lawful to pay taxes to Rome. Had he said yes, he would have been seen as a collaborator, but if he had said no, he could have been charged with treason, Cook said.
Cleverly, Jesus pointed out the picture of Caesar on a coin and said, “If it’s Caesar’s coin, give it to Caesar,” according to Cook’s retelling of the story.
However, these political judgment calls were “the calls that subjects make, not the calls that rulers make,” Cook noted. Mohammed, on the other hand, acted as a king.
“If you are looking for a role model as a ruler, Mohammed is a possible role model in the way that Buddha and Jesus are not,” Cook concluded.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
