Last Update 21:51
The identity of Al-Azhar and its doctrine
Recent proposals to amend Article 2 of Egypt's constitution – giving Al-Azhar the final say in defining Islamic Law – has rekindled debate over the venerable Al-Azhar's role vis-à-vis state and society
Ibrahim El-Houdaiby , Wednesday 25 Jul 2012
Share/Bookmark
Views: 2374

The proposed amendments to Article 2 of the constitution – giving Al-Azhar the final say in defining Islamic Law (Sharia) – is of critical importance, not only because it limits Islamic knowledge to Al-Azhar, but also because it transfers the debate over the institution of Al-Azhar to the issue of identity.

Assigning an institution with the task of interpreting Sharia is unusual in Islam, where, traditionally, knowledge was not seen to be linked to any specific institution or religious hierarchy, but to scholastic aptitude that the nation has accepted throughout its history.

The institution of Al-Azhar became important because of its countless scholars who met these criteria, and rigorous teaching methods that produced competent students. Al-Azhar, therefore, became distinguished for its doctrine more than the institution, and the mosque not the university, because, since the beginning, its teachings were received and accepted by the nation.

This is key to understanding the battle over Al-Azhar, which will rage even more once it becomes a tool that every side is trying to control to impose its respective religious views. Al-Azhar University was afflicted by the same weaknesses and disintegration that affected all universities over the past decades. Its original curriculum merged with outside approaches that were less authentic, disciplined and profound, which created a foothold for all currents in Al-Azhar.

An 'Al-Azhar University' graduate with a degree in Sharia no longer necessarily belongs to Al-Azhar school, which 'the Mosque' established years ago, allowing each current – which had Al-Azhar graduates among its ranks – to claim that they were the institution's legitimate heirs. Thus, everyone accepted the 'authority of Al-Azhar' because this doctrine – in the absence of historical scrutiny – is evidence of a variety of identities.

The legitimate Al-Azhar was not Al-Azhar of the 20th Century that was under the control of the state, but the independent institution of learning that thrived long before, teaching Sharia transmitted through substantiated motoon (textbooks), shorouh (textbooks with annotations of a scholar from a different generation), and hawashi (annotated textbooks with further detailed notes of a scholar from a different generation).  

Its scholars belonged to the doctrinal beliefs of Al-Ashari and Al-Matreedi, the four Imams of jurisprudence, and the seven schools of Sufism, which established balanced identities, balancing doctrinal, belief and behavioural choices, and school, place and familial affiliations.

It is Al-Azhar whose scholars stood up to the French Expedition and British occupation; against oppressive rulers; the Azhar of Sheikh El-Biguri, who was famous for his firm position against Abbas Helmi; and Sheikh El-Dardeer, who led strikes by students, sheikhs and merchants to protest levies; Sheikh El-Bishri, who fought for the independence of Al-Azhar; Sheikh El-Kharashi, whom Egyptians sought out to resolve their problems; and El-Attar, El-Nawawi, El-Sharqawi, Aleesh and other Azhar sheikhs and senior scholars who upheld its traditional doctrine.

It is no exception that Al-Azhar fell under the control of the state and deteriorated in the 20th Century, like all other universities and government institutions whose academic standards disintegrated. It was stripped of its source of independence, namely the endowments that had provided the financial independence and necessary resources that distinguished it in the realm of academia, and Sufi orders that were independent and provided Al-Azhar with societal support that protected it against the wrath of sultans (according to the celebrated Description de l'Égypte, all Egyptian Muslims were members of Sufi orders during the French Expedition).

The institution’s subjugation to the state was enforced by Law 103 of 1961 that allowed the state to interfere in the affairs of Al-Azhar and converted the institution into a state-owned university.

The disintegration of Al-Azhar at the end of the 19th Century was gradual: Dar Al-Ulum was established to strip it of its educational role; Dar Al-Iftaa was created to strip it of its religious edict responsibilities; and the School of Sharia Justice eliminated its judicial role. This left it only with the role of adviser and guide, and once endowments were also removed and the independence of Sufi orders curtailed, it also lost much of its traditional prestige.

Meanwhile, Al-Azhar opened its doors to diminished authenticity and discipline (and more money and publicity), which was established by Sheikh Mohamed Abdu who decided to ignore Al-Azhar’s academic heritage and created a school that accommodated input from the outside, rather than upholding tradition, and a bias towards the imported at the expense of heritage.

He was followed by some Azharites of the 20th Century – such as Sheikh El-Maraghi and Sheikh Tantawi – under whose tenure the institution lost all touch with its intellectual origins and scholastic heritage. This severed all ties with the Azhar of the 19th Century, and made it very fragile in confronting inbound currents, including by Al-Azhar alumni.

Over the past decades, the state’s control over Al-Azhar made it a tool to justify its methods of governance, in a way that put the institution into conflict with Islamists. It evolved from a religious authority to an opponent in their eyes, and thus they sought knowledge elsewhere. This contributed – along with other social and economic factors – in creating social grassroots for religious currents that are alien to Egypt’s character. Some of them found space to manoeuvre in the fragmented Al-Azhar, and from there launched into wider social realms that redefined Al-Azhar and its doctrine in the minds of many.

Against this background, amending Article 2 of the Constitution to the proposed text is another threat to Al-Azhar’s academic and cultural identity. It means that the influence of Sharia in legislation that Islamist currents built up in their private institutions will come to naught, and in order for these currents to make their doctrinal ambitions successful, their only option is to take control of Al-Azhar.

This is not impossible to do, due to the fragmented state of the institution and departure from its heritage, as well as the fact that many Azhar alumni and faculty openly declare in university lectures their rejection of the doctrine that the institution was established upon, and endorse outside doctrines. This would mean that changing Al-Azhar is nothing more than what its leaders will say after becoming free to express their opinions, liberated from the institution's methodical, philosophical and doctrinal legacy.

The Al-Azhar's current leadership is required to revive the institution based on the foundation of its inherited doctrine, but this will not be possible without real freedom that liberates Al-Azhar from the financial, administrative and ideological authority of the state. It will also take relentless reform to reverse what was corrupted in all aspects of the scholastic structure, and an intellectual effort to reconnect the institution with its scholastic reality and vital issues. This in addition to institutional reform based on a combination of academic discipline and administrative efficiency.

This is a task that seems, for the time being, beyond the capacity of the Azhar Institution and all its components. The required reform of Al-Azhar is not merely procedural that ends at institutional development, but is also intellectual that restores Al-Azhar to the academic discipline it was founded upon, and doctrine based on precision and accumulative knowledge.

This would redefine its role, remove it from partisan competition, and once more restore it as an active player – based on intellectual foundations – in the worlds of academia, public guidance and scientific research. The intellectual part of this task relies on efforts by Al-Azhar’s disciples, who genuinely belong to its school of thought, and enabling the efforts of religious currents that are keen on building academic and scientific institutions based on respect for knowledge and honouring its figures.





Short link:

 

Email
 
Name
 
Comment's Title
 
Comment
Ahram Online welcomes readers' comments on all issues covered by the site, along with any criticisms and/or corrections. Readers are asked to limit their feedback to a maximum of 4000 characters (roughly 200 words). All comments/criticisms will, however, be subject to the following code
  • We will not publish comments which contain rude or abusive language, libelous statements, slander and personal attacks against any person/s.
  • We will not publish comments which contain racist remarks or any kind of racial or religious incitement against any group of people, in Egypt or outside it.
  • We welcome criticism of our reports and articles but we will not publish personal attacks, slander or fabrications directed against our reporters and contributing writers.
  • We reserve the right to correct, when at all possible, obvious errors in spelling and grammar. However, due to time and staffing constraints such corrections will not be made across the board or on a regular basis.
3



Arabi
27-07-2012 05:39am
0-
0+
Azhar was controlled by state long before Nasser
Thr writer forgot to mention how the state of Salah Eldin Al-Ayoubi shut down the Azhar & inforced by law their religious sect into schools of Sharia As a matter of fact, it's not true that in Islam State does not control mainstream religiouse aspects & teachings; maybe this true theoretically according to Quran but if Historey is any tool to test this fact, this is not true… Muslim khalifs ever since Mowaitte used to enforce their religious views onto scholars, Imams & the people, Ibn Hanbal Crisis 'so to speak' was severely led by the state crowned by Al Mamon in the creation of the Quran Question, Emam Abu Hanifa died in his jail, Mohammed Ali of Egypt in the early 19th century was in full control of Al Azhar… If the sixties of the last century were in any way, shap, or form delving in Al Azhar matters, that was for its best interest; for the first time Al Azhar was teaching scientifically based curriculums, modern sciences side by side with Sharia sciences … In addition, the st
Email
 
Name
 
Comment's Title
 
Comment
khanalikhan
28-07-2012 02:02pm
0-
0+
distortion of al-Azhar's history
The writer is ether grossly unaware, or is hiding the facts that al-Azhar was founded by Jowhar as-Saqali (the Sicilian General of the Fatemid Caliphs) as a centre of learning for Ismaili Shi'ite doctrine, which purpose it served for over two centuries, until the Kurdish general, Salahoddin Ayyoubi, after overthrowing the Fatemids, imposed his own Sunni beliefs on al-Azhar, which has ever since served the interests of the rulers and the states -- except for some rare occasions.
2



Ahmed M Ibrahim
26-07-2012 09:33am
1-
0+
Al Azhar
Al Azhar stands for the entire Islamic nation, not just Egypt. For the glory of Islam, Al Azhar should be kept away from the evil influence of fanaticism and maintained as an autonomous body of intellectual and academic integrity befitting the legacy of Egypt and the Islamic World.
Email
 
Name
 
Comment's Title
 
Comment
1



sawsan mostafa ali
26-07-2012 04:13am
1-
44+
MY OPINION
1- AL AZHAR HAS THE FINAL SAY IN OUR RELIGIOUS MATTERS. 2- AL AZHAR HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE INSTITUTION- THIS IS MY OPINION AND THE OPINION OF AL AZHAR TOO. 3- EKHWAN AND SALVIS WANT TO PUT THESE WORDS IN THE INSTITUTION AS THEY PLAN TO CHASE THE CHAIR OF ( SHEIKH AL AZHAR ) AND( THE MUFTI)- SO THEY CAN IN THE FUTURE EXPLAIN (SHARIA) AS THEY WANT IT TO BE AND FOR THEIR OWN BENEFITS. 4- ALL THE CIVILIAN POWERS IN EGYPT MUST STAND FIRMLY IN FRONT OF EKHWAN AND SALAVIS NOT TO PUT SUCH A PHRASE IN THE NEW INSTITUTION.
Email
 
Name
 
Comment's Title
 
Comment
Sawsan Mostafa Ali
26-07-2012 05:03pm
0-
1+
correcting an error
very sorry I meant constitution of course and not institution.

© 2010 Ahram Online. Advertising