People

You know, when muslims decide on a way to behave,

it is always based on their understanding of muslim history,

and that group memory is fractured,

constantly dividing,

people arguing with each other,

and with some arguments still unreconciled after nearly 1500 years.

When looking at the history of the muslim peoples, individuals and movements,

we are largely reliant on what was written at the time.

The wide variety of opinions is clear from what was written,

and add to that all the opinions that didn't get written about.

They say that history is written by the victors,

and so when we look back over history

we must see its stories in that light.

History was written by people living in a cultural context,

part of the society in which they wrote,

and for whom they were usually writing.

So they wrote of the victors,

warriors, kings, and occasionally queens,

the stories of people who have managed to impose their rule over others,

the victors in wars between people wanting power,

riches and possession,

ownership of place and goods and people,

the power to liberate or enslave.

But the warrior is rarely the ruler,

as there are lots of warriors

but only one ruler

to whom they give allegiance,

and from the death of the Messenger

there has always been disagreement amongst muslims

with regard to who it was

to whom they were prepared to show allegiance.

But in the face of physical force,

demanding allegiance or punishment and slavery,

clearly most humans would consider the first alternative to be preferable,

and follow the direction of their new ruler.

But running through history,

alongside these earthly, material wars

there are also wars between ideas,

understandings of truth and falsehood,

wars fought in the words of scholars

and words of artists.

Word artists would write poetry and stories relatable to their time and place,

which then carry an impression of that time and place across the years.

And in the words of scholars

examining creation through the sciences

medicine and chemistry and astronomy and mathematics,

and religious scholars discussing inner and outer meaning,

there were always disagreements

and arguments back and forth as to the nature of truth.

When Abu Hanifa and Jafar al-Sadiq were discussing legal issues

they were surrounded by a wide variety of different opinions,

and age old controversies

around the writings of Al-Ghazzali and Ibn 'Arabi

continue until today.

Freedom to disagree is a part of the human condition,

but those who wish to express that disagreement,

out loud or in writing,

always know that if they do so

they risk the displeasure of the victor,

the wrath of the warrior,

the holder of earthly power.

Many well-known religious scholars were imprisoned,

and some died for their refusal to change their voiced opinions.

The noteworthy nature of which suggests

that there were many thousands who found that actually,

in the circumstances,

their opinions could quite quickly and easily be changed.

Physical threat does seem to have that effect.

So wars of conquest can change ways of thinking,

change whole populations' understanding of the world,

even making what was once unacceptable mandatory.

For this reason it is good for us to know

just what it is that we believe,

what we are prepared to die rather than deny.

That is our Shahada.