Maḥmūd Shaltūt and Islamic Modernism

212 Pages·1993·0.892 MB·English

by  Kate Zebiri

Title Pages
Maḥmūd Shalt=ut and Islamic Modernism
Kate Zebiri
Print publication date: 1993
Print ISBN-13: 9780198263302
Published to Oxford Scholarship Online: October 2011
DOI: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198263302.001.0001
Title Pages
(p.i) Maḥmūd Shaltūt and Islamic Modernism
(p.ii) (p.iii) Maḥmūd Shaltūt and Islamic Modernism
(p.iv) This book has been printed digitally and produced in a standard
specification in order to ensure its continuing availability
Great Clarendon Street, Oxford OX2 6DP
Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford.
It furthers the University’s objective of excellence in research,
scholarship,
and education by publishing worldwide in
Oxford New York
Auckland Bangkok Buenos Aires Cape Town Chennai
Dar es Salaam Delhi Hong Kong Istanbul Karachi Kolkata
Kuala Lumpur Madrid Melbourne Mexico City Mumbai Nairobi
São Paulo Shanghai Singapore Taipei Tokyo Toronto
with an associated company in Berlin
Oxford is a registered trade mark of Oxford University Press
in the UK and in certain other countries
Published in the United States
by Oxford University Press Inc., New York
Page 1 of 2
Title Pages
© Kate Zebiri 1993
The moral rights of the author have been asserted
Database right Oxford University Press (maker)
Reprinted 2002
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced,
stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any
means,
without the prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press,
or as expressly permitted by law, or under terms agreed with the
appropriate
reprographics rights organization. Enquiries concerning
reproduction
outside the scope of the above should be sent to the Rights
Department,
Oxford University Press, at the address above
You must not circulate this book in any other binding or cover
and you must impose this same condition on any acquirer
ISBN 0-19-826330-9
Page 2 of 2
Preface
Maḥmūd Shalt=ut and Islamic Modernism
Kate Zebiri
Print publication date: 1993
Print ISBN-13: 9780198263302
Published to Oxford Scholarship Online: October 2011
DOI: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198263302.001.0001
(p.v) Preface
WHILE there has been a plethora of works on the recent Islamic ‘resurgence’,
there has been relatively little analysis of exactly what it is that is resurgent.
Since Maḥmūd Shaltūt wrote up until the early 1960s, and his work has
continued to be republished and distributed up to the present, this study should
help to shed some light, if not on the causes of that phenomenon (for that is the
task of the sociologist), then on some of the ontological and epistemological
assumptions underlying modern Islamic thought and consciousness. Shaltūt was,
by virtue of his position and popularity, both separate from and yet part of the
larger Muslim community. He was a prominent Muslim leader, distinguished by
his scholarly accomplishments, yet at the same time he was in harmony with the
majority of educated practising Sunnī Muslims in many of his opinions and
sentiments.
Shaltūt’s multifarious roles as teacher, reformer, preacher, jurist, muftī and
Qur’ānic commentator provide an opportunity to explore various dimensions of
Islam as seen from within. Chapter 3 describes, through Shaltūt’s eyes,
something approximating to an Islamic ‘world view’, and depicts some of the
intellectual and emotional tensions experienced by large numbers of Muslims
today, while Chapter 4 illustrates the conscious attempt of Islamic thinkers to
meet specific challenges in the modern age. Chapters 5 and 6 focus on Shaltūt’s
contribution to different aspects of Islamic legal thought: the scholarly, theory-
based discipline of fiqh, and the more practical dispensation of religious
guidance through the medium of fatwās. Chapters 7 and 8, as well as analysing
Shaltūt’s own contribution to tafsīr, explore modern developments within that
discipline generally.
Page 1 of 2
Preface
This study is primarily textually and theoretically based; however, the
introductory chapter on Shaltūt’s life and reform work attempts to place him in a
socio-political and historical perspective, and in later sections where specific
social and legal issues are (p.vi) touched on it has often seemed relevant to
refer to social realities in Egypt and the Muslim world generally. Indeed, many of
Shaltūt’s writings are clearly influenced by (and seek to influence) his socio-
cultural environment. While giving due weight to this consideration, I make no
apology for the fact that Shaltūt is studied here primarily as a religious thinker.
Much of the groundwork for the present study was done between 1985 and
1988, in the course of a Ph.D. thesis which was submitted to the University of
London. I owe a debt of gratitude to Dr Muhammad Abdel Haleem of the School
of Oriental and African Studies for his patient supervision of that thesis, and
moral support throughout. I would also like to thank the British Academy for
providing the financial support which made that research possible. I am grateful
to the editor of the Oxford Journal of Islamic Studies for allowing me to publish
excerpts from my article on Shaltūt which appeared in July 1991, and the editor
of the Maghreb Review for allowing me to publish, with some modifications, my
article on Shaltūt’s fatwās which appeared in Volume 16 (1991), Nos. 1 and 2.
For the benefit of the non-Arabist, a glossary of Arabic terms used can be found
at the end of the text. All terms (with the exception of a few very basic ones) are
translated in the text at their first mention.
K.Z.
Page 2 of 2
Note on Transliteration and Qur’ānic Translation
Maḥmūd Shalt=ut and Islamic Modernism
Kate Zebiri
Print publication date: 1993
Print ISBN-13: 9780198263302
Published to Oxford Scholarship Online: October 2011
DOI: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198263302.001.0001
(p.viii) Note on Transliteration and Qur’ānic
Translation
THE system of Arabic transliteration followed here is the same as that in the
International Journal of Middle Eastern Studies; aw and ay are preferred over au
and ai for the diphthongs.
Most of the Qur’ānic translations are my own, but they are sometimes based on
those of N. J. Dawood or Marmaduke Pickthall.
Page 1 of 1
Abbreviations
Maḥmūd Shalt=ut and Islamic Modernism
Kate Zebiri
Print publication date: 1993
Print ISBN-13: 9780198263302
Published to Oxford Scholarship Online: October 2011
DOI: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198263302.001.0001
Abbreviations
BSOAS
Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies
EI2
Encyclopaedia of Islam, New Edition
IJMES
International Journal of Middle Eastern Studies
JRAS
Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society
MEA
Middle Eastern Affairs
MEJ
Middle East Journal
MIDEO
Mélanges de l’Institut Dominicain d’Etudes Orientales du Caire
REI
Revue des Etudes Islamiques
Page 1 of 1
Introduction
Maḥmūd Shalt=ut and Islamic Modernism
Kate Zebiri
Print publication date: 1993
Print ISBN-13: 9780198263302
Published to Oxford Scholarship Online: October 2011
DOI: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198263302.001.0001
Introduction
KATE ZEBIRI
DOI:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198263302.003.0001
Abstract and Keywords
This introductory chapter explains the coverage of this book, which is about the
contribution of Egyptian Islamic scholar Shaykh Maḥmūd Shaltūt to Islamic
modernism. Shaltūt's vision of Islam is universalistic and he always sought to
address contemporary problems from within an Islamic framework and to make
the fruits of the Islamic tradition accessible to ordinary Muslims. He was also
involved in reform issues and was one of the pioneers of the movement for the
conciliation between the schools of law.
Keywords:   Maḥmūd Shaltūt, Islamic modernism, Islam, Islamic traditions, Muslims, religious reform
FOR the last five years of his life, Shaykh Maḥmūd Shaltūt held the highest
religious office in Sunnī Islam: that of Shaykh al-Azhar (Rector of the Azhar).1
Although this distinction has undoubtedly enhanced the significance and
popularity of his work, his contribution to modern Islamic scholarship, in
particular his work on Islamic law and Qur’ānic exegesis, also stands on its own
merits. It is my hope that this work will help to fill a lacuna within modern
Islamic studies, since no single ῾ālim (traditional Islamic scholar) of this century,
with the obvious exception of Muhammad ῾Abduh,2 has hitherto attracted much
attention, and quite apart from the value of following up his legacy among the
religious scholars, the generally held view that there has been no thinker from
this class worthy of more than passing mention requires reassessment.
Page 1 of 10
Introduction
There are a number of studies which concern themselves with the role of the
῾ulamā’ (Islamic scholars) in society this century, usually focusing on their social
and religious influence in a given country, for example, Egypt, Saudi Arabia,
Pakistan, and of course Iran.3 However, there are very few works which provide
an analysis of the Islamic thought of ῾ulamā’ either individually or collectively.4
On Shaltūt himself, the secondary sources are few and far between; indeed, I
have found nothing substantial in Arabic at all. In European scholarship he
features mainly in works on reform of the Azhar, most notably Wolf-Dieter
Lemke’s Maḥmūd Šaltūt (1893–1963) und die Reform der Azhar.5 He is given
brief mention in the works of Crecelius, Eccel, and Lazarus-Yafeh, and short
selections from his works have been translated into European languages.6 His
name most commonly occurs in connection with issues which are considered
socially or politically relevant, such as (in addition to Azhar reform) socialism or
birth-control, while his substantial contribution to religious scholarship or
Islamic thought per se is neglected.
When one considers the reasons for this lacuna as regards the (p.2) thought of
the ῾ulamā’ many possible causes come to mind. The most obvious is that on the
whole, it has been thought that any original, creative thinking is far more likely
to come from outside the ranks of the ῾ulamā’ Consequently, there have been
numerous studies on the ‘liberal intellectuals’ of the earlier twentieth century
such as Ṭāhā Ḥusayn, Muḥammad Ḥusayn Haykal, Aḥmad Amīn, and others,7
while other studies have focused on radical Islamic activists such as Sayyid Quṭb
or Abu’l A῾la Mawdudi, less for the quality or significance of their intellectual
thought than for the impact they had on their social and political environment.8
Leaving aside the exceptional case of the Shī῾ī ῾ulamā’ of Iran, the general
decline in the status of the ῾ulamā’ which has occurred particularly in this
century is undeniable, and the causes are not hard to identify. Since Muḥammad
‘Alī initiated the painful process of modernization in Egypt in the early
nineteenth century, simultaneously undermining the economic independence of
the ῾ulamā’ and founding modern institutions which aimed to bypass rather than
supplant the traditional religious institutions (a process which has been
paralleled in other Muslim countries), their sphere of influence has progressively
dwindled.9 Their reaction to the threatening external forces of modernization
has typically been a dual response of ‘opposition and withdrawal’.10 Ill-equipped
to confront the forces of modernity or engage in any meaningful debate on the
issues at stake, their overriding concern was to preserve their own autonomy.
Their opposition to the modernizing policies of successive Governments was
political and pragmatic rather than ideological, arising from the threat to their
own status and interests rather than from opposition to modernization per se.11
Page 2 of 10
Introduction
More recently the ῾ulamā’ have found themselves under attack from all sides;
while on the one hand the secularizing elites continue to accuse the ῾ulamā’ of
being reactionary and medievalist, on the other hand the radical Islamists pour
scorn on their failure to provide decisive leadership for the Muslim masses, and
their subservience to the ruling authorities.12 Modernists and fundamentalists
alike assert that there is no ‘priesthood’ in Islam, and challenge the ‘ulamā’’s
monopoly on interpreting Islam. Under the pressures of modernity, the ῾ulamā’
have been unable to maintain their traditional stance of ambivalence towards
temporal authority: that of seeking to remain aloof from the vicissitudes of
politics while still influencing the major social institutions.13 Instead, (p.3) even
in Saudi Arabia, where the ῾ulamā’ enjoy a privileged status as the guardians of
the Wahhābī-based ideology, they have increasingly come under the bureaucratic
control of the Government. In Egypt, the course of events since the Free
Officers’ revolution of 1952 has resulted in an even greater degree of
subservience. The processes by which Jamāl ‘Abd al-Nāṣir sought to ‘nationalize’
Islam will be described in Chapter 2; the significant development to be noted
here is the fact that instead of seeking explicitly to further the process of
secularization or marginalize Islamic institutions, the State now sought to
assume direct responsibility for the reinterpretation of Islam. In this enterprise
the ῾ulamā’ were expected to follow rather than lead, and many were in fact
prepared to write in praise of ‘Islamic socialism’, etc.14
In the light of the foregoing, it may appear that the ῾ulamā’ have an increasingly
small contribution to make to contemporary Muslim society. However, this would
be to deny the importance of traditional Islam for the vast majority of the
Muslim population and, by implication, their continuing respect for its
traditional guardians, the ῾ulamā’.15 In many areas they still enjoy a popular
legitimacy envied by rulers. They continue to act as ‘culture brokers’ in their
various roles of preachers, muftīs, teachers, and spiritual mentors generally.16
Page 3 of 10
Introduction
Notwithstanding the fact that the ῾ulamā’ are no longer the only socially
recognized carriers of religious learning, and notwithstanding changing
attitudes to knowledge and a new ‘intellectual technology’,17 there is still a
widespread feeling that it is only the ῾ulamā’ who can preserve the vital link with
the past. The cultural dichotomy which has plagued Muslim societies in this
century, and which has been both the cause and the effect of a dichotomy in
educational and legal institutions, has resulted in a shortage of the kind of
people who, it is generally recognized, are needed to reformulate aspects of the
Islamic tradition in response to the complex challenges of the modern age: those
who have both a thorough grounding in the content of the traditional religious
learning, and an extensive knowledge of the modern world.18 In the absence of
such a class, the ῾ulamā’ continue to be the sole custodians of the undoubtedly
rich heritage of traditional Islam; as Gibb commented in 1945: ‘The future of
Islam rests where it has rested in the past—on the insight of the orthodox
leaders and their capacity to resolve the new tensions as they arise by a positive
(p.4) doctrine which will face and master the forces making for
disintegration.’19 Enayat points out that
the procedure by which a thinker has arrived at an idea should be given as
much weight as the idea itself. It is not enough to extol a writer for his
brave new ideas without first ascertaining the extent to which his credal,
epistemological and methodological premises have ensured the continuity
of Islamic thought. Otherwise, one is apt to allow fascination with novelty
to keep oneself from differentiating what is germane from what is
extraneous to Islamic culture.20
Despite recent vicissitudes in its fortunes, the Azhar has maintained its position
as the oldest and most prestigious centre of Islamic learning, and is still
regarded as the main centre of religious and spiritual leadership for Sunnī
Muslims. Although its autonomy was severely undermined by the 1961 Reform
Law (to be discussed in Chapter 2), the decline in its status domestically was
offset by a higher profile abroad. Successive Governments have been keen to
make use of the Azhar’s prestige and promote its role internationally; it now
hosts many pan-Islamic conferences, and continues to receive international
student missions and to send representatives abroad. Its Fatwā Commission,
inaugurated in 1935, answers the queries of Muslims from all over the Islamic
world.21 Crecelius commented in 1966 that in spite of the redistribution of some
of his functions and powers in the 1961 law,
the position of al-Azhar’s Shaykh as the pre-eminent religious scholar in
Egypt, his important ceremonial functions and the special aura
surrounding his person were all retained. As the head of this venerable
1000 year old institution the Shaykh al-Azhar today enjoys a dignity and
importance unmatched by any Sunnī ‘ālim in the world of Islam.22
Page 4 of 10