‘ALI – Hybrid Learning

SHARIATI, ALI

Batoota — Wed, 02 Aug 2017 13:27:53 +0000

SHARIATI, ALI ( 23 November 1933 – 18 June 1977), one of the most important social thinkers of twentieth-century Iran. Shari`ati’s ideas are distinguished more by their practical impact than their intellectual content. In this regard, he can be compared in stature with Jamal al-Din alAfghani (1838 or 1839-1897) or the Egyptian writer and activist Sayyid Qutb (19o6-1966).
Life. Born in the village of Mazinan, near the town of Sabzavar, on the edge of the Dasht-i Kavir desert in Khurasan province of northeastern Iran, Sharicati’s worldview was influenced by his rural upbringing, as the title of his most revealing work, Kavir, indicates. He came from a well-known family whose paternal line included clergymen active in the religious circles of Mashhad, the burial site of the eighth imam, `Ali alRida (d. 818).
Unfortunately, much of Shari ati’s life remains obscure. Since his death, annual commemoration volumes have been published in Iran providing data about him, but these are incomplete, contradictory, and hagiographical, making it difficult to sort truth from legend. Outside Iran, scholars have contributed significantly to our understanding of his words and deeds, but these, too, have not settled all the questions that have been raised about this unique figure. We still do not have an authoritative intellectual biography of Shari`ati.
Shari’atu’s grandfather, Akhund Hakim, was a respected `slim whose fame apparently had extended beyond Iran to Bukhara and Najaf. He had spent some time at Tehran’s Sipah Salar mosque but soon returned to his native district, declining the shah’s posts and honors. Akhund Hakim’s brother, `Adil Nishabu ri, had also earned a reputation as a scholar in the religious sciences.
Sharl’ati’s own father, Muhammad Tag! Shari’ati, was of the same ilk, but he was also a modernist who had lost patience with the traditional perspectives of the `ulama’ which he saw to be suffused with abstract scholasticism. The father was a reformer who desired to apply new methods to the study of religion. He possessed a large and comprehensive library that `Al! Shari`ati fondly remembered, regarding it metaphorically as the spring from which he nourished his mind and soul. Shari`ati’s father not only taught students of the religious sciences in Mashhad (next to that of Qom, the country’s most important center for religious studies), but he was the founder of the city’s Kanfin-i Nashr-i Haqayiq-i Islami (Society for the Propagation of Islamic Verities). This institution was a lay organization dedicated to the revival of Islam as a religion of social obligation and commitment.
Little is known of Shari`ati’s early years. He went to government (as opposed to seminary) schools in Mashhad but also took lessons from his father. On graduating from secondary school, apparently in 1949, Shari’ati enrolled in a two-year program at Mashhad’s Teachers Training College (Danishsaray-i Tarbiyat-i Mu`allim).
He seems to have begun teaching at the age of eighteen or nineteen (1951-1952), probably in one of the government village schools near Mashhad. Both he and his father were involved in pro-National Front rallies held by the Mashhad branch of the National Resistance Movement (Nahzat-i Mugavamat-i Mill!) after the royalist coup d’etat in August 1953 that overthrew the government of Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh (Muhammad Musaddiq). The movement was founded by Mehdi Bazargan and the social-activist clergyman Sayyid Mahmud Talegani (Taliqani). [See the biographies of Bazargan and Tdleqdni. ]
Shari`ati was arrested in September 1957 for his role in one such demonstration, and he was jailed at Tehran’s Qizil Qal`ah prison until May 1958. He is also said to have affiliated himself with a political movement known as the Movement of Socialist Believers in God (Junbish-i Khudaparastan-i Susiyalist). Apparently, he had entered Mashhad University for the B.A. degree in 1956 and married that same year.
Shari`ati was therefore about twenty-seven at the time he received his degree, with honors, in French and Persian literature in 1960. He forthwith left for Paris, stipend in hand, to study at the Sorbonne. Since he later frequently alluded to the French Orientalist Louis Massignon, the sociologist Georges Gurevich, the historian Jacques Berque, and the philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre, many of his supporters believed that he had been formally trained in philosophy and social sciences. However, his doctoral dissertation was a translation of and introduction to a medieval book, The Notables of Balkh (Faza’il-i Balkh). If, therefore, he had received such training, it was not reflected in his research.
During these years abroad, he actively participated in the antishah student movement and came to know Ibrahim Yazdi, Sadiq Qutbzadah, Abol-Hasan Bani Sadr (Abfi al-Hasan Ban! Sadr), and Mustata Chamran, all of whom became principals in Iran’s early postrevolutionary government. During the 1962 Wiesbaden (Germany) Congress of the National Front in Europe, Shari’ati was elected editor of the organization’s newly established newspaper, Iran-i dzdd (Free Iran). He also contributed articles to the Algerian revolutionary resistance newspaper, Al-mujahid. Accordingly, he became familiar with the ideas of Third World liberation thinkers, such as Franz Fanon (d. 1961), Aime Cdsaire, and Amilcar Cabral (d. 1973).
Sharicat! returned to Iran in 1964 and was immediately arrested at the Turkish-Iranian frontier and jailed for six months for his political activities in France. After his release, he went back to Mashhad and briefly taught in a regional secondary school before securing an obscure post as an instructor in humanities at Mashhad University’s Faculty of Agriculture. Shortly thereafter, he transferred to the Faculty of Arts. Shari`ati’s lectures attracted students from outside the university as well and soon became so popular that the government engineered his dismissal. However, he continued to receive invitations to lecture from university student organizations on campuses in various cities.
Meanwhile, in Tehran, a group of religious reformers had established the Husayniyah-yi Irshad in 1965. This religious institution, like the Kanun-i Nashr-i Haqayiq-i Islam! of Mashhad, granted no degrees but instead sponsored lectures, discussions, seminars, and publications on religious subjects. Shari’ati joined the Husayniyah-yi Irshad in 1967 and not long after became its most popular instructor. For six years, his lectures were packed with students eager to hear a new interpretation of Islam and its role in society. His activities angered the orthodox clergy, who saw in him an untutored agitator who was undermining respect for the seminary and its teachers. However, the younger generation was enthralled by his innovative approach, so much in contrast to what they believed was the traditional clergy’s antediluvian methods, scholastic pedantry, and purely pietistic concerns. He sought to apply Islam to the requirements of the age, to make it relevant, in keeping with the hadith (saying attributed to the Prophet): “If it is a matter of religion, then have recourse to me, but if it is a matter of your world, you know better [than I do].” This hadith has frequently been interpreted to mean that scripture requires adaptation to changing historical circumstances in certain realms of human endeavor, such as politics.
Because of pervasive censorship, Shari’ati had to couch his discussions in elliptical language. One of the leading intellectuals of the Iranian Revolution of 1979, Ayatollah Murtaza Mutahhari (d. 1979), remarked that he and Shari’ati’s other colleagues at the Husayniyah-yi Irshad believed that his talks were too overtly political in content and feared a government crackdown. By mid1973, the regime had indeed come to regard Shari`ati as a dangerous radical, and Shari’ati was again arrested and jailed, his father joining him for part of the time. Shari’ati was released on 20 March 1975 only because of the intervention of the Algerian government. The Iranian press then published his essay Marxism and Other Western Fallacies: A Critique of Marxism from the Perspective of Islam without his permission in a transparent attempt to suggest that Shari`ai had sold out to the shah and was collaborating with the regime-an effort that failed abysmally.
Under virtual house arrest for about two years, Shari’ati was finally allowed to go abroad in spring 1977. His plans were to meet his wife and family in Europe and then to proceed to the United States, where his son, Ihsan, was a student. However, the government prevented his family’s departure, and Sharicati, who had already flown to Brussels, went to England to stay with his brother pending developments. On i9 June 1977 his body was discovered at his brother’s house in southern England. The official ruling was death from a heart attack, but many believe that he had been assassinated by the shah’s secret police.
Shari`ati’s body was transferred to Iranian authorities in London, and the Iranian government sought to persuade his wife to go claim the body and return it for burial at state expense. However, she refused to participate in this blatant attempt to exploit Shari’ati’s death for the shah’s own propaganda purposes, and Shari’ati was buried in Damascus near the tomb of Zaynab, the Prophet’s granddaughter and sister of the third imam, Husayn ibn `Al! (d. 68o). Officiating at the funeral was Musa al-Sadr, leader of the Lebanese Shicah.
Thought. Shari`ati was less a disciplined scholar than a social and political activist. By the time of his final arrest, he had given over two hundred lectures at the Husayniyah-yi Irshad, many of which had been prepared for publication and sold thousands of copies in several printings. His early works include Maktab-i vasatah (The Middle School of Thought), which he wrote while in the Teachers’ Training College and which upheld Islam as the virtuous path between capitalism and communism, and Tarikh-i takamul-i falsafah (The History of the Perfection of Philosophy), written in 1955. He was also deeply impressed by the biography Abu Dharr al-Ghifari by Jawdah al-Sahhar, whose protagonist, Abu Dharr (d. 657), symbolized Muslim resistance to injustice. In fact, Shari’ati’s admirers affixed the sobriquet “Abu Dharr-i Zaman” (The Abu Dharr of Our Times) to his name after his death.
As a thinker, Shari’ari exhibited a paradoxical sensibility. He was an intensely private thinker engaged in a lifetime search for truth through a mystical, intuitive understanding of the world and God’s role in the scheme of things. Yet he took very public stands to promote a collectivist revolutionary course of action to bring about social justice and freedom for the downtrodden. The hallmark of his thought was his conviction that religion must be transformed from a purely private set of ethical injunctions into a revolutionary program to change the world. In this respect, he greatly resembled Ayatollah Ruhollah al-Musavi Khomeini (1902-1989), who repeatedly rejected the idea that Islam was merely a matter of arcane rules and rituals pertaining to such technical problems as ablution, menstruation, parturition, diet, and the like. [See the biography of Khomeini.]
Shanati was always looking for what was fresh and original in Islam and had little patience with traditional formulas and modes of thinking. The system of thought that he constructed was not parsimonious or logically rigorous. He was in too much of a hurry to be able to work out an elaborate, internally consistent social theory. His primary purpose was to exhort people to action in the mold of Imam Husayn, who, Shari`ati believed, had consciously sacrificed his life on behalf of the political and social liberation of his followers. In this view of Imam Husayn, Shari`ati scandalized the traditional religious establishment, which felt that he had converted their revered imam into a vulgar powerseeker and crude ideologist.
In calling for liberation through a reinterpretation of the faith, Shari`ati clearly rejected the fashionable Western revolutionary view that religion was the “opiate of the masses.” Religion, in Shari`ati’s perspective, lends itself to ideological commitment for the emancipation of the individual believer from oppression. In this respect, he shares much in common with the contemporary Egyptian philosopher Hasan Hanafi. The project of both thinkers is to undertake a fresh reading of Islamic scripture in order to reconstruct Islam’s concepts into a modern, autochthonous, and progressive ideology of mobilization to enfranchise and empower the masses. [See the biography of Hanafi.]
Shari ati’s detractors, mainly scripturalists with an ahistorical view of the sacred texts, felt that he had diffused and distilled the Qur’an and sunnah into a mere vulgate, with debasing appeals to “enlightened thinkers” to overturn the existing social arrangements for the sake of an anthropocentric “new order.” This view, however, ascribing to Shari`ari no more than a merely instrumental approach to the faith, falls to the ground in light of the role he ascribed to religious belief in the total life of the individual. Shari-`ati never invoked the metaphor of the individual engaged in a saga of epic struggle inevitably ending in his triumph over the forces of evil.
There might be a residual basis for the scripturalists’ concerns, however, because Shari`ati did invoke a central theme of the humanistic, Enlightenment tradition: the individual’s enormous potential for living a life of emancipation, harmony, and well-being through the exercise of right reason. For all of Shari`ati’s ecstatic paeans to Allah’s majesty and love, his system did seem to imply the vision of those who believed in history’s progressive march toward the liberation of mankind from the evils of superstition, obscurantism, and mystification. His scheme did at least imply the possibility that human reason was uniquely capable of achieving mankind’s emancipation and enfranchisement. Shari`ati critics blamed him for opening the door to the emergence of a human community that would vanquish the forces of evil through dedication to its own confraternity. Even if this community submitted itself to Allah, Shari`ati’s critics implied, such submission was suspect because it appeared to be contingent rather than categorical. Whether Shari`ati’s critics are right in suspecting that in Shari`ati’s worldview Allah’s role appears to be reduced to merely providing comfort from personal doubts, one thing is clear: Shari`ati was, perhaps more than anything else, concerned about human injustice and the need to act to eliminate it.
Shari`ati evinced a profound revulsion against injustice, which he viewed both as a symptom and, more important, as an integral consequence of a failed human emancipation. He dedicated his life to fighting injustice.
How can shi’is so devoted to the cause of Imams `Ali ibn Abi Talib (d. 661) and Husayn, acquiesce in injustice, Shari’ati demanded. Rulers have oppressed the faithful, often in the name of Shiism itself. But the traditional clergy must share the blame, because they have for centuries encouraged stoic acceptance of despotism, some for opportunistic reasons, others in the expectation that the Hidden Imam would one day return to purge all the accumulated wrongs visited on the righteous. In this refusal to wait passively for the redeemer, Shari`ati once again had much in common with Ayatollah Khomeini. Nonetheless, Khomeini was not an admirer of Shari’ati and doubtless shared his fellow mujtahids’ views that Shari`ati was an ignorant hothead who made gratuitous attacks on the Shi`i clergy.
Although a controversial figure, almost all agree that Shari`ati’s was an urgent voice. Despite the prevalence of Shi`i symbols, his cause was humanity in general, especially the masses of the Third World. He believed that Western imperialism wished to transform the masses into slaves. Islam was, in his view, the answer to both Marxism and capitalism. Some of the key concepts in Shari`ati’s writings and speeches were shahadat (martyrdom); intizar (anticipation of the return of the Hidden Imam); zulm (oppression of the Imam’s justice); jihad i’tiraz (protest); ijtihad (independent judgment in adducing a rule of law); rawshanfikran (enlightened thinkers); tarikh ([the movement of] history); mas’uliyat (responsibility); and `adalat ([social] justice).
From Marxism, Shari`ati borrowed the notion of dialectical conflict and appropriated the term jabr-i tarikh (historical determinism). But he preferred Hegel’s primacy of contradictions among ideas along the path to an Absolute Truth to Marx’s insistence on the precedence of material contradictions and class conflict. From Western liberal thought, Shari`ati adopted the Enlightenment’s stress on reason as the corrective for the maladies of society. From all, he seems to have gained an appreciation of the dangers that institutionalized religion can pose.
In this connection, Shari”ati believed that ijtihad is the purview not merely of the experts but of every individual. All persons have the responsibility to exercise ijtihad on substantive, nontechnical matters. He likened the emulation of putative experts-the mujtahids-in regard to such basic problems as authority, justice, mobilization, and participation to abdication of individual choice and will. We can see, then, the manifest influence of existentialist and Marxist philosophy on
Sharfati. From the former, he adopted the notion that the individual must take responsibility for his or her actions. And from Marx’s mediation of the Prometheus legend, Shari’ati absorbed the humanistic admonition that religion can be made to serve despots, that the eternal verities represented by religion must be determined by individuals appropriating true knowledge from those seeking to monopolize it for non- or even antihumanistic ends.
It is difficult to summarize Shari’ati’s overall contributions. Although his ideas have suffered eclipse in official circles in the aftermath of the revolution that he struggled so hard to effect, he has left a legacy that Iranians will not easily forget and which will no doubt continue to be invoked.
[See also Iran; Shi’i Islam, article on Modern Shi’i Thought.]
BIBLIOGRAPHY
For a comprehensive listing of Shari`ati’s works, see Yann Richard, Abstracta Iranica (supplement to Studia Iranica), vols. 1-2 (Leuven, Belgium, 1978-1979). For critical evaluations, see the following: Abrahamian, Ervand. “`Ali Shari`ati: Ideologue of the Iranian Revo lution.” Middle East Research and Information Project Report, no. 102 (January 1982): 24-28. Depicts Shari`ati as a cosmopolitan thinker seeking to synthesize socialism and Shiism and applying revolutionary theories of Third World revolution.
Ahmadi, Hamid, ed. Shari ati dar jahan (Shari`ati in the World). Tehran, 1365/1986. Series of essays on Shari’ati’s life and thought. Akhavi, Shahrough. “Shariati’s Social Thought.” In Religion and Politics in Iran, edited by Nikki R. Keddie, pp. 125-144. New Haven, 1983. Examination of the ontology, epistemology, philosophy of history, and political theory of Shari’ati’s thought.
Algar, Hamid. “Islam bih `Unvan-i Yak Idiyuluzhi” (Islam as an Ideology). In Shari’ ati dar,jahan, edited by Hamid Ahmadi. Publication of a lecture given at the Muslim Institute in London, focusing on the importance of ideology in Shari`ati’s outlook.
Bayat, Mangol. “Shi’ism in Contemporary Iranian Politics: The Case of Ali Shari’ati.” In Towards a Modern Iran, edited by Elie Kedourie and Sylvia G. Haim, pp. 155-168. London, 198o. Views Shari’ati as an “embourgeoise modernist” reflecting the identity crisis of modern intellectuals.
Dabashi, Hamid. “Ali Shari’ati: The Islamic Ideologue Par Excellence.” In Theology of Discontent, pp. 102-146. New York, 1993. Extended study of Shari`ati’s ideas, stressing his moral vision as a politically engaged “prophet.”
Hanson, Brad. “The `Westoxication’ of Iran: Depictions and Reactions of Behrangi, Al-e Ahmad, and Shari’ati.” International journal of Middle East Studies 15.1 (1983): 1-23. Examines Shari`ati’s antiWestern polemics.
Hermansen, Marcia K. “Fatimeh as a Role Model in the Works of Ali Shari’ati.” In Women and Revolution in Iran, edited by Guity Nashat, pp. 87-96. Boulder, 1983. Examines Shari’ati’s ideal type of She! woman as faithful, aware, and engaged, and critiques asutopian his lack of concern for women’s institutions and organizations to implement their goals.
`Irfani, Surush. “‘Ali Shar’ati, Teacher of Revolution.” In Revolutionary Islam in Iran. London, 1983. Stresses the revolutionary nature of Shari`ati’s message.
Malushkov, V. G., and K. A. Khromova. Poiski Putef Reformatsii v Islame Opyt Irana (The Search for the Path of Reform in Iran’s Experience). Moscow, 1991. Contains several chapters analyzing Share ati’s life and thought.
Sachedina, A. A. “Shariati: Ideologue of the Iranian Revolution.” In Voices of Resurgent Islam, edited by John L. Esposito, pp. i91214. New York and Oxford, 1983. Argues that Shari`ati was above all the founder of a discipline of “Islamology”-the study of how Islam may be applied to contemporary social problems in the search for solutions.
Shari`ati, `All. On the Sociology of Islam. Translated by Hamid Algar. Berkeley, 1979. Contains useful information on Shari`ati’s life and excerpts from his important work, Isldmshindsf.
SHAHROUGH AKHAVI

HUSAYN IBN ‘ALI

Batoota — Fri, 04 Apr 2014 17:32:54 +0000

HUSAYN IBN ‘ALI (c.1853-1931), amir and sharif ofMeccaand leader of the Arab revolt against the Ottomans in World War I. Husayn, of the `Awn branch of the Hashemite family, was appointed to the emirate by Sultan `Abdulhamid II in 19o8. Husayn and his son, `Abd Allah (Abdullah), engineered the appointment, portraying the former as loyal to the sultan and opposed to the Committee for Union and Progress, which had proposed `Ali Haydar of the Zayd branch of the Hashemites as its candidate.
Husayn supported the Ottomans when he attacked `Abd al-`Aziz ibn `Abd al-Rahman Al Sa`ud of Najd (1910) and the Idrisi of `Asir (1911), but such operations dovetailed with his efforts to prevent those leaders from encroaching on tribes whose loyalty he claimed. However, attempts by the vali (Ar., wali; Ottoman governor) to extend his control over the vilayet (Ar., wilayah; Ottoman administrative district) of Hejaz (the district containingMecca) and the threatened extension of the Hejaz railway fromMedinatoMecca, moved Husayn to seek help. In 1914, `Abd Allah met Lord Kitchener inCairo, asking for British support should the Ottomans attempt to remove Husayn.Kitchenerdemurred, since the Ottomans had yet to enter World War I. Husayn had coveted the emirate of Hejaz for himself and his progeny, but when the Ottomans entered the war in October,Britainsought Hashemite assistance by enticing Husayn with promises of future glory. Kitchener cabled `Abd Allah: “It may be that an Arab of true race will assume the Khalifate at Mecca or Medina, and so good may come by the help of God out of all the evil that is now occurring.” These comments, although ambiguous, were heady words for Husayn, and he must have swelled with expectation. In subsequent negotiations withBritain,Londontried unsuccessfully to downplay the caliphal notion. Nevertheless,Britainlet him believe that he would obtain large areas of Arab territory, includingSyria,Palestine, andIraq, to rule. It was on this basis, along with substantial financial assistance, that Husayn loosed the Arab Revolt against theOttoman Empirein June 1916.
Husayn presented the revolt as more Islamic than Arab, and demonstrated this by the application of shari’ah (the divine law) inHejaz. But he contended that, although the revolt was inspired by Islam, the Arabs were best qualified to lead it.
Husayn never received the support he hoped for from the Arab and Muslim world. Many Arabs later saw in him an accessory to British and French imperialism. Indian Muslims never forgave him for revolting against the caliph, and they castigated him for his abuse of pilgrims.
Husayn’s rule in Hejaz lasted until the fall ofMeccato Ibn Sa’ud in 1924, and it was plagued by financial problems exacerbated by the reduction and eventual suppression of his British subsidy. Husayn’s preoccupation with what he saw as British perfidy inSyria,Iraq, andPalestine, his inability to form the tribal confederacy necessary to confront Ibn saud, his cruel method of government, and his alienation of the Hejazi merchant class led to his downfall. Proclaiming himself caliph in March 1924 earned him only ridicule. As Ibn saud bore down onHejaz, the British left Husayn hanging. Neither of his sons, who ruled in Transjordan andIraq, gave him shelter, and he died a broken man inAmmanin 1931, after spending most of his exile in the distinctly non-Arab country ofCyprus.
[See also Arab Nationalism.]
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Baker, Randall. King Husain and theKingdomofHejaz.CambridgeandNew York, 1979. The only published study to date of Husayn, concentrating on his relations with the British.
Dawn, C. Ernest. From Ottomanism to Arabism.Urbana,Ill., 1973. Contains several excellent essays on the origins and ideology of the Arab revolt.
Kedourie, Elie. In the Anglo-Arab Labyrinth: The McMahon-Husayn Correspondence and Its Interpretations.London,1976. The most thorough study of the Husayn-McMahon negotiations and their historical and bureaucratic contexts.
Kostiner, Joseph. “The Hashemite `Tribal Confederacy’ of the Arab Revolt, 1916-1917.” In National and International Politics in theMiddle East: Essays in Honour of Elie Kedourie, edited by Edward Ingram, pp. 126-143.London, 1986. Excellent introduction to the sociopolitical context inArabiaduring the Arab revolt.
Ochsenwald, William. Religion, Society, and the State inArabia: The Hijaz under Ottoman Rule, 1840-1908.Columbus,Ohio, 1984. The best study to date of the Hejazi society, politics, and economy inherited by Husayn from the Ottomans.
JOSHUA TEITELBAUM

HUSAYN IBN ‘ALI

Batoota — Fri, 04 Apr 2014 17:21:48 +0000

HUSAYN IBN ‘ALI (626-68o), the third Shi’i imam, son of `All ibn Abi Talib and grandson of the prophet Muhammad. As Muhammad had no male heirs, Husayn and his elder brother Hasan are believed to have continued the Prophet’s line through his daughter Fatimah and his cousin `Ali. Hagiographical tradition abounds with tales of love and affection of the Prophet for his two grandsons.
`Ali was assassinated in 661 after a short and turbulent caliphate and was succeeded by his elder son, Hasan. But Hasan soon abdicated as he realized the disunity and fickleness of his followers and the superiority of Mu’awiyah’s well-organized forces.
Husayn reluctantly accepted his brother’s compromise and refused to pay allegiance to Mu’awiyah. However, during Mu’awiyah’s long reign (661-68o), Husayn honored his brother’s agreement with the Umayyad caliph. Among the stipulations of this agreement was that after Mu’awiyah’s death his successor would be either chosen through shura (consultation) or that-according to Shi’i reports-the caliphate would revert to one of the two sons of `Ali.
Hasan died in 671 and Mu’awiyah appointed his own son Yazid as his successor. Yazid is reputed to have been a lewd character given to drinking and other illicit pleasures. Many, particularly in the Hejaz andIraq, opposed Yazid’s appointment, and a small number of notables, including Husayn, withheld their allegiance. Wishing to assert his authority and quell opposition at any cost, Yazid in 68o ordered his governor inMedinato take everyone’s oath of allegiance and execute anyone who refused.
Husayn leftMedina(Madinah) secretly and sought protection in the sanctuary ofMecca(Makkah). There, he received numerous letters from the Shi’ah of Kufa inviting him to lead them in an insurrection against Yazid. Husayn sent his cousin Muslim ibn `Aqil to Kufa to investigate the situation. Muslim sent word that support for Husayn was strong and that he should hasten to Kufa without delay.
Apprised of these developments, Yazid dismissed the governor of Kufa and extended the authority of `Ubayd Allah ibn Ziyad, the governor ofBasra, to include Kufa. Ibn Ziyad was a shrewd and ruthless politician. By means of threats and bribes he quickly contained the uprising and sent a small detachment to prevent Husayn from reaching Kufa. He captured Muslim and had him executed with some of his close supporters.
Husayn now set out forIraqwith his women and children and a small band of followers. Learning of Muslim’s fate along the way, he released his relatives and followers from all obligations and advised them to go. Many did, and he was left with a small group of loyal supporters and family members. He was intercepted by a small detachment and diverted away from Kufa to a spot calledKarbalaon the banks of theEuphrates.
An army of about four thousand men was then assembled to confront Husayn and his band of seventy-odd followers. The army was headed by `Umar ibn Sa’d ibn Abi Waqqas, the son of a respected companion of the Prophet. Ibn Ziyad also made sure that some of Husayn’s Kufic supporters were conscripted.
Husayn arrived atKarbalaon the second of Muharram. After a week of fruitless negotiations between Husayn and `Umar ibn Sa’d, Ibn Ziyad sent an alternative leader called Shamir ibn Dhi al-Jawshan with instructions to execute the reluctant `Umar ibn Sa’d should he refuse to carry out his orders. Husayn, Ibn Ziyad ordered, should either surrender and be brought to him as a war-captive or be killed in battle. For some days, Husayn and his followers were denied water from theEuphratesin order to force them to surrender.
On the morning of io Muharram AH 61/68o CE, the battle began. Greatly outnumbered, Husayn and his followers were annihilated by the early afternoon. One by one, Husayn witnessed his own children and other relatives fall. Even an infant whom he held in his arms was slain. Finally, after a brave fight, Husayn himself fell. On orders from Ibn Ziyad, Husayn’s corpse was trampled by horses and his head and those of his followers were paraded in Kufa as a warning to others.
Few personalities in Muslim history have exerted as great and enduring an influence on Islamic thought and piety as Imam Husayn. For Sunni, and particularly Sufi piety, Husayn is the revered grandson of the Prophet and member of his household (ahl al-bayt). Husayn’s shrine-mosque in Cairois a living symbol of Sunni devotion to the martyred imam.
Husayn’s revolt against Umayyad rule inspired not only religious Muslims, but also secular socialists. A powerful portrayal of Husayn the revolutionary was made by the socialist Egyptian writer `Abd al-Rahman al-Sharqawi in his two-part play, “Husayn the Revolutionary” and “Husayn the Martyr.”
Although these ideas are also shared by many educated Shi’is Husayn occupies a central place in Twelver ShM faith and piety. Pilgrimage (ziyarah), actual or ritualistic, to his tomb is second in importance to the hajj pilgrimage. Moreover, the `Ashura’ and other ta`ziyah (passion play) celebrations have given the Shi’i community an ethos of suffering and martyrdom distinguishing it sharply from the rest of the Muslim community.
The meaning and significance of the revolution, struggle, and martyrdom of Imam Husayn continues to grow with changing times and political circumstances of Muslim society. He has become a symbol of political resistance for many Muslims, regardless of their ideological persuasion or walk of life. For Shi`i Muslims Husayn is also a symbol of eschatological hope, as the expected Mahdi (messiah) will finally avenge his blood and vindicate him and all those who have suffered wrong at the hands of tyrannical rulers.
Since the middle ages special mosque annexes appropriately called husayniyahs have served as centers for the memorial observances of the sufferings and martyrdom of Husayn and his family and the social and political lessons that can be learned from this tragedy. It was in such centers inBeirutand southLebanonthat the first Shi’i resistance movements were born. It was also in the Husayniyah-yi Irshad that the ideas of `All Shari ati kindled the final spark of theIran’s Islamic Revolution. Indications are that the example of Husayn will continue to inspire Muslim resistance and religious fervor for a long time to come.
[See also Husaytuyah; Ithna `Asharlyah;Karbala; Shi`i Islam, historical overview article; Ta`ziyah; and the biography of `Ali ibn Abi Talib.]
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Ahmad, Fazl. Husain: The Great Martyr.Lahore, 1969. Useful source for a concise presentation of pious Shi i views of martyrdom. Alsarat. The Imam Husayn. Vol. 12. Edited by the Muhammadi Trust ofGreat BritainandNorthern Ireland.London, 1986. Collection of papers presented at the Imam Husayn Conference from a variety of Shi’i and Sunni scholars representing both traditional and modern views of Husayn’s personality and martyrdom.
Ayoub, Mahmoud M. Redemptive Suffering in Islam: A Study of the Devotional Aspects of `Ashfera’ in Twelver Shi’ ism.The Hague, 1978. Offers a useful discussion of the development of the `Ashura’ celebrations and their place in Shill popular piety and culture.
Mufid, Muhammad ibn Muhammad al-. Kitab al-Irshdd: The Book of Guidance. Translated byI.K. A. Howard.Elmhurst,N.Y., 1981. Classic work presenting a generally balanced account of Husayn’s life and martyrdom, by a respected tenth-century Shi’i scholar. See part 2, chapter 2, “Imam al-Husayn Ibn `All” (pp. 296-379).
Naqvi, `Ali Naqi. The Martyraom ofKarbala. Translated by S. Ali Akhtar.Karachi, 1984. Controversial and very important work representing the views of a noted Indian Shi i scholar.
Shams al-Din, Muhammad Mahdi. The Rising of Husayn: Its Impact on the Consciousness of Muslim Society. Translated byI.K. A. Howard.London, 1985. Stimulating study of the influence of Husayn’s revolution on the social and political consciousness of Muslim society, by a contemporary Lebanese Shi`i scholar.
Tabari, Muhammad ibn Jarir al-. The History of al-Tabari, vol. 19, The Caliphate of Yazid b. Mu`awiyah. Translated byI.K. A. Howard.Albany,N.Y., 1990. The earliest account by an authoritative classical historian, based on the oldest sources.
Taleqani, Mahmud, et al. Jihad and Shahadat: Struggle and Martyrdom in Islam.Houston, 1986. See especially chapters 5-8 in the book by `Ali Shari’ati.
MARMOUD M. AYOUB

‘ABD AL-RAZIQ, ‘ALI

Batoota — Fri, 05 Oct 2012 18:09:59 +0000

‘ABD AL-RAZIQ, ‘ALI (1888-1966), Egyptian shari’ah (divine law) judge, controversial intellectual, and author of Al-Islam wa-usul al-hukm:Bathft al-khilafah wa-al-hukumah ft al-Islam (Islam and the Bases of Political Authority: A Study of the Caliphate and Government in Islam). Published in Cairo in 1925, `Abd alRaziq’s book challenged the notion that Islam legislated a specific type of political authority or, for that matter, that it legitimated any form of government at all. In addition to creating a constitutional crisis inEgypt, `Abd al-Raziq’s ideas generated violent controversy throughout the Muslim world. The Egyptian Higher Council of `Ulama’ brought `Abd al-Raziq to trial and expelled him from both their ranks and his position as a shari`ah judge.
‘Ali `Abd al-Raziq was a member of a famous and powerful landowning family from the village of Abu Girg(Jirj) inal-Minya Province. A graduate of al-Azhar and Oxford universities, he rose to the position of judge in the al-Mansura shari `ah court. In addition to writing Islam and the Bases of Political Authority, `Abd al-Raziq edited a study of the life and work of his brother, a rector of al-Azhar, entitled Min athar Mustafa `Abd alRdziq (From the Legacy of Mustafa `Abd al-Raziq, Cairo, 1957) and Al-ijma` ft al-shari`ah al-Islamiyah (Consensus in Islamic Law, Cairo, 1947)
Along with Taha Husayn’s 1926 volume, Fi al-shi’r al -jahili (On Jahiliyah Poetry), `Abd al-Raziq’s work was seen by the `ulama’ and many Muslims as presenting a fundamental challenge to Islam’s legitimacy as a religion. The specific event that precipitated `Abd alRaziq’s study and gave it such significance was the abolition of the caliphate by the Turkish government of Mustafa Kemal Ataturk in 1924. Following World War I, many Muslims felt particularly vulnerable to increased colonial penetration by Western powers, such as Great Britain and France, with the fall of the Ottoman Empire. In their minds, the abolition of the caliphate was a prominent symbol that underlined their political weakness.
What angered many Muslims was `Abd al-Raziq’s assertion that the prophet Muhammad was sent by God only to preach a spiritual message and not to exercise political authority. Although Muhammad did establish al-ummah al-islamiyah (an Islamic community), he never mentioned or promulgated a specific form of government. For `Abd al-Raziq, the unity of the Islamic community did not constitute a unitary Islamic state. “The Prophet’s leadership . . . was religious and came as a result of his Message and nothing else. His Message ended with his death as did his leadership role” (`Abd al-Raziq, 1925, P. 90).
`Abd al-Raziq’s thesis that the Islamic ummah is purely spiritual and bears no relation to politics or forms of government effectively separated religion and politics in Islam. Furthermore, it denied that the caliphate was an integral and necessary part of Islam or that it maintained any special religious status. Rather than part of Islamic law, the caliphate was to `Abd al-Raziq simply a matter of custom.
To many Muslim thinkers, these arguments were anathema, as they seemed to undermine the very essence of Islam. Since such thinkers viewed a key part of Muhammad’s prophetic mission as implementing a system of laws, Islam was political by definition. In denying the Prophet’s political role, `Abd al-Raziq implicitly called for a redefinition of Muhammad’s prophetic mission and, by extension, the very nature of Islam.
From one perspective, Islam and the Bases of Political Authority can be seen as part of the Islamic reform movement that began inEgyptduring the nineteenth century. Most strongly influenced by Shaykh Muhammad `Abduh (1849-1905), this movement sought to revitalize Islam by emphasizing the role of human reason and by seeking to reconcile Islamic and Western notions of science and social organization. For many reformers and disciples of `Abduh, such as `Abd al-Raziq, reason, not revelation, determined the form of government that rules a particular community.
The overt dispute over `Abd al-Raziq’s book was cast in theological terms, but political considerations also motivated its publication. As were many other nativeborn landowning families, the `Abd al-Raziq family was closely associated with the Hizb Ahrar al-Dusturiyin (Liberal Constitutional Party), which, in turn, was the successor to the secularly oriented and antimonarchical Hizb al-Ummah (People’s Party) founded in 1907. With Turkey’s abolition of the caliphate, a number of Arab leaders, including King Fu’ad of Egypt, indicated a desire to wrest the title for themselves. Many Liberal Constitutionalists opposed such a move.
A number of factors point to the political dimensions of Islam and the Bases of Political Authority. Certainly `Abd al-Raziq himself was aware that even many of his supporters believed that he had exaggerated his arguments. This raises the distinct possibility that he purposely overstated his case for political reasons. It also seems highly doubtful that the Misr Printing Company, a Bank Misr company under the tight control of Muhammad Tal’at Harb, a devout Muslim, would have published a text consciously intended to undermine Islam. Without denying the sincerity of his arguments, it seems highly plausible that `Abd al-Raziq’s treatise was intended less as a major contribution to Islamic thought than as an effort to deny King Fu’ad the ability to appropriate the title of caliph.
Without detracting from its intellectual stature, ‘Abd al-Raziq’s book should also be seen as part of a patchwork of efforts by reformist elements within an increasingly assertive native-born Egyptian bourgeoisie to bring about significant changes in Egypt’s political and cultural identity. This stratum sought to assert its power against the monarchy and its supporters among the `ulama’. `Abd al-Raziq’s treatise, however, did not represent an overt conspiracy among the Liberal Constitutionalists and their wealthy supporters, as many within the party opposed it. Rather, `Abd al-Raziq’s work was one of many thrusts and parries by members of the indigenous bourgeoisie intended to circumscribe the powers of the king. The Egyptian bourgeoisie sought to hasten the transformation of Egypt’s cultural identity from one that had been dominated by a Turco-Egyptian elite and an emphasis on Pan-Islamism to one that was dominated by an Egyptian- and, to a lesser extent, Arab-centered nationalism.
On yet another level, the fierce opposition to `Abd al-Raziq’s book reflected the pervasive fear among many social strata of further fragmentation of both the Muslim world and Egyptian society. For many Muslims, the book represented another effort by the West (in this instance at the hands of a westernized Muslim) to fragment the Muslim world, so as to facilitate its subjugation to colonialism, by undermining Islam’s traditional value structure from within. The fact that Islam and the Bases of Political Authority continues to stimulate debate indicates the extent to which the issues that `All `Abd al-Raziq raised in 1925 still dominate Islamic discourse today.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
`Abd al-Raziq, `Ali. Al-Islam wa-usul al-hukm: Bath ft al-khildfah waal-hukumah ft al-Islam. Cairo, 1925.
`Alim, Mahmud Amin al-. “Thawrah fikriyah … wa-lakin: Hadith ma’a sahib Al-Islam wa-usul al-hukm” (An Intellectual Revolution . . . with Qualifications: A Conversation with the Author of Islam and the Bases of Political Authority). Al-musawwar 2191 (7 October 1966): 32-33. Interview with `Abd al-Raziq shortly before his death that highlights the inspirational effect of his work on the secular Left inEgyptin its struggle against the Islamist movement both within and outside the country.
Berque, Jacques. Egypt: Imperialism and Revolution. New York, 1972. Insightful commentary on some of the sociopolitical motivations behind the publication of Al-Islam wa-usul al-hukm.
Binder, Leonard. Islamic Liberalism: A Critique of Development Ideologies. Chicago, 1988. Chapter 4 contains a comprehensive analysis of `Abd al-Raziq’s arguments and the major criticisms of them.
Haqqi, Mamduh. Al-Islam wa-usul al-hukm: Bath ft al-khildfah waal-hukumah ft al-Islam: Naqd wa-ta`liq. Beirut, 1966. Contemporary critique of `Abd al-Raziq that argues for his faulty grasp of Islamic doctrine and corruption by the West.
Hourani, Albert. Arab Thought in the Liberal Age, 1798-1939. London, 1962. Offers an excellent summary of the main arguments of Al-Islam wa-usul al-hukm and its relationship to `Abduh and the Islamic reform movement in Egypt (pp. 183-192).
Husayn, Muhammad al-Khidr. Naqd kitab al-Islam wa-usul al-hukm. Cairo, n. d. One of the main critiques of `Abd al-Raziq’s work by a contemporary.
`Imarah, Muhammad. Al-Islam wa-usul al-hukm li-`Ali `Abd al-Raziq. Beirut, 1972. Classic critique of `Abd al-Raziq’s work that faults the author for a lack of understanding of Islamic history and for having fallen under the influence of Western liberalism.
ERIC DAVIS