In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

c h a p t e r o n e “The Scholars Are Heirs of the Prophets” Why doesn’t a company from every party among them (the believers) go forth that they may apply themselves to obtain an understanding of religion so that they may warn their people upon their return so that they may be cautious? (Qur£an 9:122) S ince time immemorial, diverse groups have wielded authority in the name of religion. These groups have espoused primitive or archaic religions and even founded religions.1 The manifestation of religious authority in societies has taken different forms, ranging from traditional, scriptural, and charismatic to ecclesiastic and imperial forms. In this chapter, I propose to examine the role of authority in shaping and molding leadership and other related institutional structures in the classical period of Islam. Initially, I will discuss the type of authority dominant in preIslamic Arabia and examine how Muhammad’s prophetic movement impinged on the prevalent structures. The chapter will also focus on the nature, vicissitudes , and transformations that the Prophet’s charismatic movement had on the established social institutions and the different modes of authority that emerged after his death. More specifically, I will focus on the struggle for authority that ensued between various groups that claimed to be the heirs of the Prophet in the post-Muhammadan era. I intend to discuss the notion of religious authority and its role in shaping leadership within the Muslim community within the framework of the model constructed by Max Weber (1862–1920) on charismatic authority. In his exposition of the types of authoritative domination, Weber conceptualized a tripartite 2 The Heirs of the Prophet typology of the modes of authority: rational-legal, traditional, and charismatic . In the rational-legal case, authority rests in the legality of patterns of normative rules. Obedience is, in this case, owed to those exercising the authority of office by virtue of the formal legality of their commands and within the scope of authority of the office. Their authority is derived from their holding official positions whose power is based on and circumscribed by the law. It was this form of authority that was most prevalent in the time of Weber. He says, “The most common form of legitimacy is the belief in legality, i.e., the compliance with enactments which are formally correct and which have been imposed by an accustomed procedure.”2 The second form of authority that Weber postulated was the authority of tradition. This mode of authority rests on beliefs in the legitimacy of standardized and sanctified practices from time immemorial. Authority is predicated on the sanctity of ancient traditions and is bound to precedents and norms transmitted from erstwhile figures. Traditional authority further stipulates that obedience be given to those persons who occupy the traditionally sanctioned position of authority and whose roles and functions are defined by traditional norms.3 Opposition to those exercising leadership within the community is construed as a challenge to the authority of transmitted traditions and even to a “sacred past.” Unlike the rational-legal mode of authority, the obligation to obedience here is not based on the impersonal order, but is a matter of personal loyalty within the area of accustomed obligations. For Weber, the sacredness of traditions is the oldest and most universally held form of authority.4 As I discuss below, it was this mode of authority (allegiance to tribes and clans based on traditional authority) that was widely prevalent in pre-Islamic Arabia. The authority of normative traditions was exemplified by the Meccan aristocracy that claimed authority based on descent from illustrious ancestors and their normative praxis. The third mode of authority that Weber postulated is what he called authority based on personal charisma. The etymology of the word “charisma” lies in the name of the Greek goddess Charis, who personified grace, beauty, purity, and altruism.5 Weber defines charisma (gift of grace) as “A certain quality of an individual personality by virtue of which he is set apart from ordinary men and treated as endowed with supernatural, superhuman, or at least specifically exceptional qualities.”6 According to Weber, these qualities are often regarded as originating from the divine. It is primarily this form of authority with which I will be concerned in this book. In contrast to the two types of authority previously described, charismatic authority originates from outside of rather than within prevailing institutional [3.137.172...

Share