Al-Azhar Awakening

With Islamists winning the majority of People’s Assembly seats, some observers are looking to Al-Azhar to mediate the debate between political Islam and a civil state. The role of mediator seems to be coming naturally to the institution of late. Like many educational institutions in the country, Al-Azhar suffered greatly under the former regime, which often used the institute to serve its own interest. During and since the revolution, individual Azharis have joined the protest ranks, standing out in their long cloaks and red emma (the red cap wrapped with a band of white cloth). In recent clashes, the sheikhs have often tried to act as a buffer of peace to stem ongoing violence. Outside of the protests, the institution has weighed in on current events with a number of official statements, some directly from Sheikh Al-Azhar Ahmed Mohamed El-Tayeb, on the state of the country and advising on how it should move forward. One way forward, some say, is for the institution to regain its independence. “The former regime managed to infiltrate everything and destroy it,” says Abdu El-Sueisy, one of several Al-Azhar graduates who formed the Azhariyun Bila Hodood (Azharis Without Borders) movement in late 2011 to restore Al-Azhar’s position as the main source of reference for Islam, not only in the country but at the international level. The young activist, who graduated a few years ago, asked that his real name not be used for fear that police might start identifying and arresting members, resulting in the movement dying out. El-Sueisy recalls that during the Mubarak era, the state handpicked Sheikh Al-Azhar to be a puppet for the government and issue fatwas (juristic rulings based on Islamic law) that would benefit the regime. “Our goal is to have the full independence of Al-Azhar from the state so that the Azhari scholar can speak freely without the state’s influence,” says El-Sueisy. “When a person is free, no one can defeat them.” The late Sheikh Al-Azhar Mohamed Sayed Tantawi, many have alleged, was one such government figurehead. (Tantawi served as Egypt’s mufti from 1986 to 1996 and Sheikh Al-Azhar from 1996 until he passed away in 2010. ) Detractors believe Tantawi’s main job was to serve the regime, and that he did so by neglecting his Islamic leadership role and focusing mostly on political issues in which he would side with the government. In 2007, when news reports regarding Mubarak’s health circulated the Egyptian press, Sheikh Tantawi allegedly claimed that buying the newspapers would be considered a sin and that the journalists who contributed to these reports should be punished with 80 lashes. “It created a negative effect on people’s perception of Al-Azhar,” says El-Sueisy. “How could the Sheikh Al-Azhar say something like that?” NEW BEGINNINGS Some may argue that a new era began sweeping across Al-Azhar even before the revolution. Following the death of Tantawi, then-Prime Minister Ahmed Nazif appointed Sheikh Ahmed El-Tayeb as Sheikh Al-Azhar. El-Tayeb seemed to appease on every level. On the one hand, he is a respected religious scholar who has studied with Al-Azhar since the age of 10; on the other, El-Tayeb is known for his open-mindedness as a professor of Islamic theology and philosophy, as well as his openness to the Western world, having lived and studied in France. As Sheikh Al-Azhar, El-Tayeb seemed to not want to interfere directly with political decisions, refusing, for example, to take a stance on Egypt’s border fence with Gaza following his appointment in 2010. With the onset of the revolution, El-Tayeb’s non-political positions seemed to change. As several Al-Azhar clerics took to the streets to join the protests, they were neither condemned nor officially supported by Al-Azhar. But during the 18 days of national uprising, El-Tayeb called for an end to the protests and the bloodshed, while the Grand Mufti of Egypt Sheikh Ali Gomaa called upon Egyptians not to participate in the Friday prayer at mosques on January 28. The statements led Al-Azhar’s official spokesman, Mohamed Rifaa El-Tahtawi, to submit his resignation to join the protests. After Mubarak’s ouster, El-Tayeb came out with statements in support of the people and their ongoing struggle. At a February 16 press conference, less than a week after Mubarak stepped down, El-Tayeb declared, “We have supported the demands of the youth from day one, but we kept a distance from both sides in fear of more bloodshed or the disintegration of the country.” He also called for the speedy transition to a civil government and for the banning of physical torture by authorities. The sheikh added, “Al-Azhar is a 1,000-year-old institution that is responsible for Muslims all over the world and isn’t a tool in anyone’s hands. [It] decides its stances based on what it sees as right and will remain above governments and revolutions.” Perhaps the more important statement issued by El-Tayeb that day was that he believed the Sheikh Al-Azhar should be elected by a council of Islamic scholars from then on, rather than being handpicked by the government. According to Mahmoud Abdel Gawad, the diplomatic adviser to the Sheikh Al-Azhar, this, among other changes, will be taking place soon. “Al-Azhar has a much bigger role now than before,” says Abdel Gawad. In order to take on that role, Abdel Gawad says, there will be modifications to Law 103 of 1961, which gave the president the right to appoint Al-Azhar’s top sheikh. On January 18, 2011, the Cabinet approved a draft law which states that the Sheikh Al-Azhar be appointed by the Senior Scholars Authority. According to the proposed law, council members will identify the top three candidates, and the new sheikh will be picked via a lottery. Abdel Gawad says,“The new law that will be approved soon will ensure the independence of Al-Azhar [allowing it to] regain its position as the only source responsible for issuing fatwas and deciding on any matters related to religion.” At press time, the law was on standby until the first post-revolution Parliament convenes for the first time on January 23. The diplomatic adviser says that he has noticed an increasing interest from world leaders on Al-Azhar’s positions about the current events in Egypt. “Before, there used to be interactions [between Al-Azhar] and other countries but not as consistent as nowadays,” Abdel Gawad says. “We have received invitations to visit Sudan, England, Finland, Niger, and Bahrain. And any ambassador or minister of foreign affairs who visits Egypt, passes by Al-Azhar to meet with the Grand Sheikh.” APOLITICAL INTERVENTION? On January 8, Al-Azhar released a Document of Basic Freedoms, which El-Tayeb announced should be the governing principles for the new constitution. The document outlines a set of freedoms — such as the freedom of worship, expression, scientific research and artistic expression — to serve as the core of social unity. The Basic Freedoms document is not Al-Azhar’s first attempt to provide guidance in the post-revolution period. In June of last year, Al-Azhar released what came to be known as the ‘Al-Azhar Document,’ a set of guiding principles agreed upon by prominent religious scholars and intellectuals. Meant to lead Egypt through its transitional phase, this document affirmed that “Al-Azhar supports establishing a modern and democratic state,” and “the commitment to freedom of thoughts and opinions with respect to women and children’s rights.” It called upon Egyptians to “avoid labeling people as believers or traitors, making use of religion to disunite citizens and pit them against each other and considering acts of instigating religious discrimination, sectarianism and/or racism as crimes against the state.” The document was welcomed by the country’s liberals, who oppose the rise of political Islamic parties such as the Muslim Brotherhood’s Freedom and Justice Party (FJP) and the Salafi-founded Al-Nour party. According to a Carnegie Endowment’s research paper titled, “Post Revolutionary Al-Azhar,” by Nathan J. Brown, the Al-Azhar document was purely political. “The leadership of Al-Azhar probably felt politically exposed in the post-revolutionary environment and uncertain of either its reputation among the revolutionaries or its support within its own ranks,” wrote Brown. “On the liberal side, there was clear interest in buttressing Al-Azhar not for its own sake but as a means of strengthening a religious counterweight to Islamist movements. “Seen this way, the Al-Azhar document represents not only a laudable search for common ground but also a measure of a political bargain: In return for its endorsement of liberal principles, Al-Azhar received a clear statement of support for its own independence,” continues Brown, referring to the last two clauses of the document in which Al-Azhar reaffirms its independence and considers itself as the main authority of reference on all Islamic affairs. However, the institute itself views these initiatives differently. “Al-Azhar is trying to clarify moderation in religion by means that are acceptable to most people,” explains Abdel Gawad. “Al-Azhar is attempting to unite everyone and do what is best for the country, while noting, however, that it is not a political institute but rather an educational one.” As an educational institute, Al-Azhar recently met with leading political figures such as Prime Minister Kamal Al-Ganzouri, the Muslim Brotherhood’s Supreme Guide Mohamed Badie, presidential hopeful Amr Moussa and leaders of political parties for a National Dialogue Conference. In the conference, which ended on January 10, El-Tayeb called for a national commitment to continue the path of the January 25 Revolution, an end to military trials and the release of all political prisoners. He also called upon the military to return to its role outside the political sphere, urging a timely transition of power to a civil state. On January 21, the Supreme Council of Armed Forces (SCAF) ordered the release of 1,959 prisoners who were convicted by military court. Azharis Without Borders’ El-Sueisy believes that Al-Azhar has a far greater influence than people realize. “Al-Azhar is the only institution that can pressure the SCAF into fulfilling the demands of the revolution. It’s the only institution that everyone can unite behind, and it can mobilize a lot of people,” he says. “No matter what the Salafis say or the other Islamists say, Al-Azhar is the only trusted Islamic institute.” ON POLITICAL ISLAM The role — or, some would say, interference — of religion in state affairs has become a central theme in much of today’s political discourse. With Islamist parties and candidates posting overwhelming gains in the first Post-Mubarak parliamentary elections, the country remains divided between those who approve of religion intertwining with politics and those who call for a separation between religion and state. Some are looking to Al-Azhar to create a balance between political Islam and a democratic state. “The presence of Salafis and Ikhwan in Parliament is not a bad thing, but the bad thing is that they get there through the martyrs who sacrificed their lives,” says El-Sueisy. “We don’t refuse the concept of political Islam, or the Islamic religion ruling the country, on the contrary, we hope it happens, but what kind of Islam will rule?” The activist believes that the Salafis are not wrong in their original, core principles, but the sheikhs who speak for them often tarnish the reputation of their belief. On the other hand, the Muslim Brotherhood, El-Sueisy adds, have taken a purely political route and forgotten about religion. “We disagree with them politically, not religiously,” says El-Sueisy. The Muslim Brotherhood have a long history with Al-Azhar; in fact, the group’s founder Hassan El-Banna was a graduate of Al-Azhar himself. The university still attracts significant numbers of Brotherhood members, and in 2006, a group of Brotherhood-affiliated students dressed in militia outfits held a martial demonstration on Al-Azhar’s campus. El-Tayeb, who was the head of the university at the time, condemned the act and compared it to the behavior of groups such as Hamas and Jihad. Still, as Carnegie’s Brown writes, the Muslim Brotherhood stand behind the independence of Al-Azhar despite the common belief that they are on opposite sides of the spectrum when it comes to governing Islam. “The idea of empowering an expert and independent voice on questions of religious teachings (and especially on Islamic law) has long resonated deeply with the Brotherhood,” said Brown. “In no way does the Brotherhood subscribe to the view that a revived Al-Azhar would obviate the need for its own role in society.” Al-Azhar’s stance on the Muslim Brotherhood and other political Islam groups remains fairly neutral. “We neither support nor condemn them but there is a common understanding,” says Abdel Gawad. “Al-Azhar does not play a political role, nor does it support any political group or participate in politics.” While Al-Azhar officials maintain the institute’s apolitical position, Al-Azhar’s new role remains vaguely defined. Sheikh Mahmoud Ashour, former deputy head of Al-Azhar and current member of the Islamic Research Center, believes that Al-Azhar’s role should not change but should rather be restored to its original purpose. “Al-Azhar should regain its original position among the people as the main religious reference for Egypt first and foremost and for the whole world as well,” says Ashour. “Even if Islamists rise to power or if they don’t, the role of Al-Azhar should not change. Right now, Al-Azhar should be responsible for creating unity and agreement in the country so that we all advance together as a nation.” El-Sueisy believes Al-Azhar should take on a more revolutionary role. “As an institute, Al-Azhar has a great influence over Egypt,” he says. “If Al-Azhar is mobilized today, it will move the rest of the Arab countries. We want to be the countries that influence the rest of the world.”