Looking forward to see your blog (appears inactive at the moment).

I saw two films recently that set thoughts racing in my head: Lord of War and Syriana.

Although only films, they did effectively espouse the unrelenting and corrupt nature of those who seek wealth and power through the arms/oil industry. How easily an honest man can turn into a monster by the very whim of pleasures that are ethereal.

I suspect power corrupts to some extent, but also that the corrupt are more likely to seek power in the first place.

George: If there is an article you wish to write regarding many of the issues you have raised, I’d be more than happy to publish it on the blog. Then the comment feedback would hopefully raise an interesting discussion.

Yes, the Khalif in question was Umar ibn Abd al-’Aziz not Umar bin Khattab (ra). Who came straight after Suleiman II, who as far I understand was a man who did not deal lightly with his political opponents. Umar ibn Abd al-’Aziz was by many (muslim & non-muslims) recognised as the ‘fifth’ of the Khulafaa ar-Rashiduun. His reign although short, was characterised by prosperity, sincerity and justice, at a time when he could have easily done as he pleased (strength of the state – absolute power.

It comes down to the point where I fundamentally disagree with you. Even if all the riches of the world were available to him, a person who has a strong level of Iman(belief) and Taqwa (God-consciousness), would not barter the hereafter for this life.

This may sound idealistic, as if the position is only available for a angel. But I find examples abound within my daily life of meeting Muslims who share immense responsibilites.

Thanks for the comment on ‘Pat’s 700′ post, enlightening stuff, you really should start your own blog

Afs M is away for a week or so, he will come back and reply to your comment (s). By the way, Umar ibn Abul Aziz is a different Khalif from the rd one and more famous Umar ibn Al Khattab, who was a companion of the Prophet (saw).

Yes – I suspect that Umar didn’t have much opportunity to be corrupt because of the stress involved in controlling a new and rather poor Islamic state facing very powerful enemies.

Same reason why we don’t hear of Prussian kings living in luxury while the country fell to pieces…

I’m currently reading Veblen’s The Theory of the Leisure Class. An interesting read, if not a bit dry. Its a very withering satire on modern Capitalism. What catches my attention is his description of class evolution. Its remarkably accurate, and he presents it as an irrefutable description of all societies. Yes true, for Europe but not for many other nations, especially not for early Islamic societies. This comes back to the discussion at hand. You have made certain assumptions, but maybe they have been based on a set of specific realites (like Veblen with Europe).

So re: first assumption (trying to read your mind).

Do you think that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts, absolutely [sic]? Is this a definite fact? Because if it is; then this would always be the case for the Khalifs. Then what of examples of people of who have near absolute power, yet they epitomise the antonym of corruption e.g. Umar ibn Abd Al-’Aziz.

Sorry mate, just tired, if your still around, tell me i don’t make sense.

Were they peninsular Arabs though? The lands affected by the pre-Islamic tyranny I mentioned include many lands presently considered Arab, such as Egypt, Palestine, Syria and Iraq…

Ottoman-Osmani-Usmani-Uthmani — from the 3rd Caliph Uthman (ra). Like Ibn Abbass is to the Abbasids.

I was going to write a long comment, but I had to stop and think carefully.

I don’t entirely agree with your point, but maybe thats because I’m unclear as to what you’re saying. Why would ruling over an easily appeased and subjegated population lead to the rise of tyranny?

The early tyrants like al-Hajjaj/Waleeds/Yazids (2,3&4) were from a period when the primary population were still Arabs.

I see two distinctions. 1) The tyranny of the rulers and 2) The tyranny of the system.

No 1. is what has been observed within Islamic history, but has generally been confined to the ruling and educated classes (i.e. those who can oppose).

No.2 was rarely an occurance in early Islamic history (although more after 19thC). Since the very objective of Jihad is to remove the barriers that prevent the spread of Islam. As such a tyrannical and oppressive rule would never been sincerly accepted by the populaces so quickly (as it did).

Sorry, bit rushed.

Ottoman-Osmani-Usmani-Uthmani — from the 3rd Caliph Uthman (ra). Like Ibn Abbass is to the Abbasids.

I was going to write a long comment, but I had to stop and think carefully.

I don’t entirely agree with your point, but maybe thats because I’m unclear as to what you’re saying. Why would ruling over an easily appeased and subjegated population lead to the rise of tyranny?

The early tyrants like al-Hajjaj/Waleeds/Yazids (2,3&4) were from a period when the primary population were still Arabs.

I see two distinctions. 1) The tyranny of the rulers and 2) The tyranny of the system.

No 1. is what has been observed within Islamic history, but has generally been confined to the ruling and educated classes (i.e. those who can oppose).

No.2 was rarely an occurance in early Islamic history (although more after 19thC). Since the very objective of Jihad is to remove the barriers that prevent the spread of Islam. As such a tyrannical and oppressive rule would never been sincerly accepted by the populaces so quickly (as it did).

Sorry, bit rushed.