The Reliance Of Sedentary People On Laws Destroys Their Fortitude And Power Of Resistance

This is because not everyone is master of his own affairs. Their leaders are few.

As a rule, man must by necessity be dominated by someone else.

Self-reliance eventually becomes a natural quality to the people if:

• their leaders are kind and just
• the people are not oppressed by their laws and restrictions
• the people are guided by the courage or cowardice in themselves.

They become satisfied with the absence of any restraining power.

If, however, the domination with its laws is one of brute force and intimidation, then that domination:

• breaks their fortitude and
• deprives them of their power of resistance
  • This is a result of the inertness that develops in the souls of the oppressed, as we shall explain.

Umar forbade Sa’d (b. Abi Waqqas) to exercise such arbitrary power when Zuhrah b. Hawiyah took the spoils of al-Jalinus.

• The value of the spoils was 75,000 gold pieces.

Zuhrah had followed al-Jalinus on the day of al-Qadisiyah, killed him, and taken his spoils.

Sa’d took them away from him and said:

He wrote to Umar and asked him for permission (to confiscate the spoils).

But Umar replied:

Thus, Umar confirmed (Zuhrah) in possession of the spoils.

When laws are enforced through punishment, they completely destroy fortitude. This is because punishments against the defenseless generate humiliation that breaks their fortitude.

When laws are intended to serve the purposes of education and instruction and are applied from childhood onwards, they have to some degree the same effect. This is because people grow up in fear and docility. Consequently. they do not rely on their own fortitude.

This is why greater fortitude is found among the savage Arab Bedouins than among people who are subject to laws.

Those who rely on laws and are dominated by them from the very beginning of their education in the crafts, sciences, and religious matters, are thereby deprived of much of their own fortitude.

They can scarcely defend themselves at all against hostile acts.

• This is the case with students, whose occupation it is to study and to learn from teachers and religious leaders.
• They constantly apply themselves to education in very dignified gatherings.

The men around Muhammad observed the religious laws. Yet they did not experience any reduction of their fortitude. Instead, they had the greatest possible fortitude.

When the Muslims got their religion from Muhammad, the restraining influence came from themselves.

• This was a result of the encouragement and discouragement he gave them in the Qur’an.
• It was not a result of technical instruction or scientific education.

Their fortitude remained unabated. It was not corroded by education or authority.

Umar said:

Umar wanted everyone to restrain himself.

• He was sure that Muhammad knew best what is good for mankind.

The influence of religion, then, decreased among men. They came to use restraining laws.

The religious law became a branch of learning and a craft to be acquired through instruction and education. People turned to sedentary life and assumed the character trait of submissiveness to law. This led to a decrease in their fortitude.

Thus, governmental and educational laws destroy fortitude because their restraining influence is something that comes from outside.

The religious laws, on the other hand, do not destroy fortitude, because their restraining influence is something inherent.

Therefore, governmental and educational laws influence sedentary people, in that they weaken their souls and diminish their stamina, because they have to suffer (their authority) both as children and as adults.

The Bedouins, on the other hand, are not in the same position, because they live far away from the laws of government, instruction, and education.

This is why Abu Muhammad b. Abi Zayd wrote:

Ibn Abi Zayd reported this remark on the authority of Judge Shurayh.

Certain scholars argued in favor of hurting students by referring to the threefold choking mentioned in the tradition concerned with the beginning of revelation.

This, however, is a weak argument. The tradition about the choking is not suitable proof, because it has nothing to do with ordinary instruction.