Divine right
Does anyone out there still believe in the "divine right" of kings? It used to be, a few hundred years ago, the article of faith upon which the civilization of the Western world depended. Then along came free thinkers, and skeptics and scientists and nonconfomrists, who questioned the ridiculous idea that Kings were appointed by almighty God himself to rule over others. Once this basic article of faith was undermined, monarchies were overthrown left and right, and France, the US, Russia and many others became republics. Now there are some remaining monarchies, Britain, Thailand, Holland, Sweden, Spain, quite a few, but they are constitutional manarchies, and the power of the Kings is severely curtailed.
I use this example to compare to the status of the views of various religions towards "divine right to rule." In Christianity there was always the notion of "render unto Caesar that which is Caesers and unto God that which is Gods." In other words, the separation between the secular and the "divine" was clearly delineated. Judaism, although originally a monarchical culture, followed Christianity, and when the Jewish State was refounded in modern times, it was as a Republic.
Of course, the point I am getting to is, what is the attitude of Islam towards the question of divine right. Actually it's quite complex. I suppose one could say that fundamentally Muslims believe that God has a divine right to rule. In other words, everything in and of the State must be determined by God's laws. In a sense there is no separation between the secular and the divine, or in effect there is no secular domain. When the Muslims divide the world into the "Harb al Islam" and the "Harb al Dar" they don't only mean the division of the world into the regions of Islam and other religions, b ut into the region of Islam and the regions where anything secular or pagan, as well as other infidel religions, are practised. So by definition Islam excludes the secular and asserts the divine right to rule.
However, there is also a strong tendency to oppose rulers who Muslims think are not carrying out God's wishes on earth. For example, the Shia believe that the Caliphs of Sunni Islam, apart from the first few "rightly guided Caliphs," were illegal and immoral. This includes the majority of the Turksih Caliphs who ruled the Arab world from Istanbul for over 500 years.
Also, many devout Muslims believe that the rulers of the Arab States, particularly those who are not devout enough and not guided by Islam alone, are unworthy to rule, and should be overthrown. This is not a belief based on more democracy or human rights but on the concept of the divine right of God's laws to rule. This is why the Islamists, those who are prepared to murder innocent people in the pursuit of God's rule on earth, are the new purveyors of "divine right." Beware of them and any who support them.
I use this example to compare to the status of the views of various religions towards "divine right to rule." In Christianity there was always the notion of "render unto Caesar that which is Caesers and unto God that which is Gods." In other words, the separation between the secular and the "divine" was clearly delineated. Judaism, although originally a monarchical culture, followed Christianity, and when the Jewish State was refounded in modern times, it was as a Republic.
Of course, the point I am getting to is, what is the attitude of Islam towards the question of divine right. Actually it's quite complex. I suppose one could say that fundamentally Muslims believe that God has a divine right to rule. In other words, everything in and of the State must be determined by God's laws. In a sense there is no separation between the secular and the divine, or in effect there is no secular domain. When the Muslims divide the world into the "Harb al Islam" and the "Harb al Dar" they don't only mean the division of the world into the regions of Islam and other religions, b ut into the region of Islam and the regions where anything secular or pagan, as well as other infidel religions, are practised. So by definition Islam excludes the secular and asserts the divine right to rule.
However, there is also a strong tendency to oppose rulers who Muslims think are not carrying out God's wishes on earth. For example, the Shia believe that the Caliphs of Sunni Islam, apart from the first few "rightly guided Caliphs," were illegal and immoral. This includes the majority of the Turksih Caliphs who ruled the Arab world from Istanbul for over 500 years.
Also, many devout Muslims believe that the rulers of the Arab States, particularly those who are not devout enough and not guided by Islam alone, are unworthy to rule, and should be overthrown. This is not a belief based on more democracy or human rights but on the concept of the divine right of God's laws to rule. This is why the Islamists, those who are prepared to murder innocent people in the pursuit of God's rule on earth, are the new purveyors of "divine right." Beware of them and any who support them.
posted by Jack Cohen at 7:31 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home