WE Muslims proudly refer to our heritage but Islamic heritage is, like any other heritage, very complex in nature. Is it a religious heritage, cultural or a civilisational heritage? It should be noted that heritage could be traditional as well as rational.

We hardly specify what we mean by Islamic heritage. While traditional heritage has its own importance, and is as much part of Islamic history, we hardly emphasise our rational heritage. The Quran lays great emphasis on reason (aql) and knowledge (ilm), but in our traditional inheritance reason has been used more as rationalising what is dogmatic than as an instrument of critically examining the given issues at hand.

Our traditional ulema developed ilm al-kalam to defend traditions and dogmas. And, in like manner, knowledge was sought to be confined to that of traditional beliefs what is generally referred to as deen.

Imam Ashari was the leader of those who demolished what was rational, and today our beliefs are mostly based on Imam Ashari's formulations. There was a heated debate between the traditionalist Ashaira and the rationalist Mutazila in the early years of Islam. What survived was the Ashaira's heritage; the Mutazila's became history. The debate between the Ashaira and Mutazila is an interesting part of our history, and a valuable part of Islamic heritage.

Various philosophical debates started right from the early periods of Islam. As a result, sects like Jabriya and Qadriya also came into existence. During the early Umayyad period, a fierce debate raged as to whether a human being was free to decide his destiny or whether the latter was predetermined. It acquired a political hue.

Those who believed that man was not a free agent were by and large supporters of the Umayyads. The implication was that the Umayyads' rule was predestined by Allah and must be accepted as such; human beings could not do anything about it. Those who believed that man was a free agent were the opponents of Umayyad rule. They argued that Umayyad rule was not predestined by Allah, and could be overturned. Allah cannot predestine rule by oppressors. It is interesting to note that Imam Hasan Basri, a great alim and opponent of the Umayyad rule, sided with those who believed that a human being was a free agent. He quoted from the writings of Imam Hasan — grandson of the Prophet (PBUH) — to reinforce his position.

Again, during the Abbasid period another controversy erupted. It too became politicised. The controversy was about the createdness (makhluq) or uncreatedness (ghayr makhluq) of the Quran. The Abbasids sided with the Mutazila on this question, who believed in the createdness of the Quran.

The Mutazila were the supporters of the Abbasids and hence the Abbasids took the side of the createdness of the Quran in that debate. The Abbasids had come to power by overthrowing the Umayyads. Those traditionalists who, now, were politically neutral, opposed the Mutazila doctrine, and were persecuted by the Abbasids. Anyone who opposed the doctrine of the createdness of the Quran was considered the opponent of the Abbasids.

Thus, it was the traditionalists who were persecuted in the early history of Islam by the rationalists when the latter rose to power. It was only during the time of the Abbasid caliph Mutasim that the doctrine of the createdness of the Quran was abandoned officially. Even the great Imam Abu Hanifa, who was opposed to the Umayyads, was lashed by the Abbasid caliph for refusing to subscribe to the doctrine of the createdness of the Quran.

The lesson is that a regime should never politically endorse or enforce a certain doctrine — traditional or rational — by use of force. The people should be left to believe what they want to believe. It is not for nothing that the Quran pronounces that there cannot be any compulsion in matters of deen. Yet, neither the traditionalists nor the rationalists historically honoured this Quranic doctrine in practice.

It is important to note that many intellectuals during 19th-century British colonial rule were influenced by the Mutazila rationalism, and they tried to understand the Quran under this influence. Even Sir Syed, a modernist who tried to spread modern education among Muslims in the late 19th century, wrote his Quranic commentary under the influence of the Mutazila, as rationalism again acquired central importance.

There is a sharp contrast between the Umayyad and the Abbasid period. The former supported all traditional positions which resulted in stagnation and the latter supported rational positions which resulted in an era of Islamic enlightenment. The Abbasid regime saw great intellectual achievements and even Europe, which was then passing through the dark ages, learnt much from this rational Islamic heritage.

The Bait al-Hikma (house of wisdom) which the Abbasids established in Baghdad became the centre of new knowledge. H.G. Wells in his Short History of the World described Arabs as the foster fathers of knowledge and philosophy. Europe would not have discovered Greek heritage but for this house of wisdom. It is certainly a lasting contribution of the Arabs to human heritage as a whole.

The writer is an Islamic scholar who heads the Centre for Study of Society & Secularism, Mumbai.