The fall of Egypt’s symbol of progressive Islam
Joining itself with an authoritarian regime caused harm to the millennium-long history of al-Azhar U
By Osama Diab Published 07 April 2011 17:25
"[Egypt] didn't change the basic tenets of Islam, but its cultural weight gave Islam a new voice, one it didn't have back in Arabia. Egypt embraced an Islam that was moderate, tolerant and non-extremist." With these words, Naguib Mahfouz, winner of the 1988 Nobel Prize in Literature, gave his last statement about Islam, after decades of being on the death lists of extremist Islamist groups and an assassination attempt in 1994.
The moderate Islam that Mahfouz was referring to had a protector and a promoter: al-Azhar University. Throughout its long and proud history, al-Azhar had remained unrivalled as the prime centre of Islamic teaching, attracting millions of Muslim students from all over the world to its campus in Cairo. Many of the most notable liberal reformists in Egypt's history, especially in the 19th century, were Azhar graduates. Tolerance and not getting too involved with state affairs have been central to its teaching for centuries.
The father of Islamic modernism, Rifa'a al-Tahtawi, a 19th-century scholar and an Azhar graduate, saw no contradiction between Islamic thought and ideologies drawn from the European Age of Enlightenment. He studied in France and, on his return to Egypt, he worked at modernising the country, calling for liberal reform in the Muslim world.
Mohamed Abduh followed in al-Tahtawi's footsteps, urging open dialogue with European civilisation and the reformation of Islamic thought, arguing that Muslims can't rely on medieval interpretations of religious texts. He also argued for the secularisation of Muslim countries. Both scholars spoke European languages fluently and wrote positively about their experiences in Europe.
My fatwa against yours
However, it seems that slowly this progressive form of Islam is being replaced with a more radical Salafist ideology, one that blatantly calls for a return to the practices of the first three generations of Muslims, who lived more than 1,400 years. Salafi Islam is considered Muslim orthodoxy at its strictest, and is influenced by the teachings of Muhammad ibn Abdel Wahab, an 18th-century Muslim theologian whose radical ideas still shape how the Saud family runs its kingdom today. Evidently Al-Azhar in Egypt is falling prey to ideologies funded and encouraged from across the Red Sea in Saudi Arabia.
Speaking to al-Youm al-Sabei newspaper, Mahmoud Ashour, the former deputy of al-Azhar, said that the Salafist ideology has infiltrated the university. He blamed the phenomenon on young Egyptians' feeling that society is unjust and their refusal to believe what they are told without experiencing reform on the ground, the paper reported.
A few months ago, in reaction to news of the rising influence of Salafi ideology within the walls of the university, the president of Tajikistan recalled 134 students he had sent to study at al-Azhar.
The clash between the two credos, Salafism and moderate Islam, reached its peak in 2009 when Mohamed Sayed Tantawi, a former sheikh of Azhar, called for a ban on the niqab – the full face veil – inside schools. The growing popularity of the niqab is a manifestation of the growing ascendancy of Salafi ideas among young Egyptians. Protests and sit-ins held by face-veiled students broke out, not just at al-Azhar, but at many other universities across the nation, all protesting against the cleric's declaration.
Another collision took place when the Azhar Scholar Front (ASF), which was dissolved in 1999 after rejecting some of the fatwas issued by Tantawi, restarted its activities unofficially from Kuwait in 2007. The ASF is now considered attractive for those who split from al-Azhar due to opposing views, and usually adopts more radical positions, such as the ASF's call a few months ago for an economic boycott of all Egyptian Christians as a riposte to an alleged kidnap by churchmen of a Coptic woman who had converted to Islam. Declarations of conflicting fatwas and heated exchanges have been common since the ASF was informally re-established.
But another reason why many have turned their back on al-Azhar's ideology and fallen prey to more radical views is al-Azhar's close association with the former president Hosni Mubarak and his increasingly disfavoured authoritarian regime, which many think has impoverished Egyptians.
The appointment of the sheikh of al-Azhar, the highest Sunni Muslim authority in the world, was the gift of Egyptian leaders by presidential decree. The sheikhs were usually loyal to the presidential palace and hardly ever issued fatwas that would go against the regime's will or policy.
Chief whip of journalists
Tantawi was also notorious for his tailored fatwas to "Islamically" back up some of the regime's actions, such as supporting the building of an underground wall on the border with Gaza and prohibiting anti-government street protests.
He also famously called for the "whipping" of journalists who publish false reports, after the appearance of a 2007 article by Ibrahim Eissa, a former editor of al-Dostour newspaper, questioning Mubarak's health and the future of the presidency in Egypt.
What's more, the recently appointed new sheikh of al-Azhar, Ahmed al-Tayeb, was a member of the policy committee in what used to be the ruling National Democratic Party. The policy committee division of the NDP was led by Gamal Mubarak, the president's son.
This kind of co-operation with Mubarak's regime is what made al-Azhar lose credibility. Paradoxically, it also made it easy for other, more radical Islamic groups, which were usually in conflict with the unpopular regime, to "infiltrate" the influential university.
At this critical phase, Egypt needs al-Azhar as a defence wall against extremist ideologies, to promote a culture of peace, progression, citizenship and dialogue with the west, and to thwart a rising Salafi influence that incites nothing but regression, hate and violence, clashing with and discriminating against the other. Egypt and the entire Muslim world, now more than ever, are in desperate need of enlightened scholars such as al-Tahtawi and Abduh to move it forward to modernity, instead of attempting to take us back to a 7th-century culture.
Osama Diab is an Egyptian-British journalist and blogger.
Latest tweets
More from New Statesman
- Online writers:
- Steven Baxter
- Rowenna Davis
- David Allen Green
- Mehdi Hasan
- Nelson Jones
- Gavin Kelly
- Helen Lewis
- Laurie Penny
- The V Spot
- Alex Hern
- Martha Gill
- Alan White
- Samira Shackle
- Alex Andreou
- Nicky Woolf in America
- Bim Adewunmi
- Glosswitch
- Kate Mossman on pop
- Ryan Gilbey on Film
- Martin Robbins
- Rafael Behr
- Eleanor Margolis
- Tools and services:
- Polls
- Predictions
- Archive
- Magazine
- PDF edition
- RSS feeds
- Advertising
- Subscribe
- Special supplements
- Stockists




















13 comments
The women who follow those scholars of their own free will, myself included, simply because they obey the Quran and Sunnah, are not extremists or oppressed, but are pious people who want to attain paradise. But I've seen, nuns, Amish Christians, Ultra orthodox Jews, and many other people on earth ridiculed by fools for their choice of dress, so why stop now?! http://www.greeneurope.org/
I think we are all forgetting that the Burka is very much a garment that is not limited just to islam- in fact it was commondress in much of the east prior to the rise of Islam, used mainly for rich women- furthermore we must be careful in our use of the term opression; after all, can we not suggest that some western conventions carried out by ladies (including make up, somewhat decadent clothes) that can arguably be said to be social constructs devised by the media for the attention of males, is also not a form of opression ?
If liberalisation means allowing females to have the freedom to tap into their individual nature and express themselves as individuals, then surely such a ban,regardless of how uncomfortable, works to defeat that very purpose.
The niqab has nothing to do with salafi or wahabi or whatever-you-want-to-call-it Islam! There are major respectable Muslim scholars who interpret the command for modest dress in the Quran and the prophet's sunnah to include the face and hands. The women who follow those scholars of their own free will, myself included, simply because they obey the Quran and Sunnah, are not extremists or oppressed, but are pious people who want to attain paradise. But I've seen, nuns, Amish Christians, Ultra orthodox Jews, and many other people on earth ridiculed by fools for their choice of dress, so why stop now?!
This is a terrible scaremongering article I would expect in one of the more conservative websites not the New Statesman. Has it ever researched Salafi Islam to call it repressive and extreme? Has it ever researched what the leading Salafi authorities in Egypt have ever said?
This article made out the Salafi authorities to be anti-Mubarak but it was the opposite. When the protests were going on, Salafis from across Saudi to Egypt all came together to ask Egyptians to remain patient (i.e. do not protest) fearing the violence and bloodshed which you accuse Salafis of inciting.
As I said, shoddy research by the author, working on stereotypes and here say rather than doing real research.
WSJ
I am sorry you don't think very highly of me or my article, but please allow me to explain myself. Salafi groups have a long history of clashing with the Mubarak regime especially in the 90s when militant groups carried out a large number of terrorist attacks and assassinations. Due to the crackdown on them from the Mubarak regime, many of them left the country to Afghanistan, Chechnya and even some western countries, and the ones who remained in Egypt were either locked in prison or had to call a truce with the regime. Therefore, the only salafi voices heard during the revolution were those who struck a deal with the regime, hence, asking the protesters to be patient.
Moosa Ali, I don't know where I said that banning the niqab is progressive Islam. I actually have no idea how this article was reduced to this one paragraph about the niqab that wasn't even judging it in any way.
This is the worst article I've ever read in the New Statesman. Clearly not all bloggers are of the same calibre. Did you publish this just because he' Egyptian? To 'ban' the niqab is progressive/moderate islam? Foolish Egyptians have a tendency to blame all their woes on salafism. Abduh/Ridah were confused Egyptians and their scholarship found to have fallen short in the face of vigorous scrutiny.
Lucky I didn't subscribe to the NS; anymore of this sort of trash and it would just be a clear waste of money
Egyptians will be rueing the day should the Muslim Brotherhood ever get into power.
The French have done the right thing in banning 'face covering' in public places. The rest of the World should follow suit. Only by universal condemnation of 'face covering' can all women be liberated and take their rightful place in society.
I've always loathed the niqab but would always fall short of supporting a ban because I've always believed (and still do) in individual freedom and I'm generally against banning things per se (if only for the practical reason that these things are often easier to ban than police). But like the poster above I'm coming round to the view that a ban mighnt not be a bad thing. We hear this nonsense about woman's modesty but it's no accident that the increased wearing of the full face veil is coupled with the insidious rise in radicalisation across the Muslim world (and to try and pretend it's got nothing to do with radicalisation is nonsense - you can bet those face covering probably have less than progressive views on feminism and sexual minorities). Liberal societies can't deal in absolutes (that's one of the things that makes them liberal) and sometimes you have to bend the rules to protect a free society. One example is Germany which is a liberal democracy but bans fascist parties in its constitution for obvious historical reasons. The niqab is now becoming like the swastika as a symbol of hatred for liberal democracy.
I seriously wonder if 'Arabic' nations are fully capable of democracy as we know it? Their art is limited by not being able to depict the human form. Much melodic western music seems beyond them, [the Koreans, Japanese and Chinese, enjoy-'the classics'.
The idea of a free thinking, western woman seems beyond them--[I used to celebrate the freedom of my late wife]. And ust why is it that so many of them need the 'west' to feed them?
Only by universal condemnation of 'face covering' can all women be liberated and take their rightful place in society
So basically, ANY woman that covers herself, or doesnt want men drooling over her, is oppressed and not being a ful citizen
that has to be the most ignorant thing I've ever heard!
How offensive and patronising to all Muslim women
why do all Weterners like tothink that all Muslim women r oppressed and forced to veil themselves
have u spoken to any Muslim women?
No
I dont think u hve
go and do ur reserch first before u strt mkaing sweeping statements that are inaccurate and extremely patronising
The niqab is now becoming like the swastika as a symbol of hatred for liberal democracy.
What a stupid thing to say, im not even going to waste my time on that
this post had nothing to do with women, and yet you've ignored everything else mentioned inthis article to talk about those 'poor Muslim women'
Hova
Could not have put it better myself, thank u
Just because a woman covers herself up does not oppress her! Islam preaches that women should dress modestly and there is nothing wrong with that. I think the world needs to understand salafi Islam, otherwiseknown as wahabi islamand get their heads around why this ideology is becoming so prevalent in this day and age. Why in such a liberal Islamic country as Egypt is there such strong feeling for salami Islam??