Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Is Islam Easy To Understadn or Not - JIS Article
Is Islam Easy To Understadn or Not - JIS Article
Is Islam Easy To Understadn or Not - JIS Article
doi:10.1093/jis/etu081
Addressing its audience in the north Indian lingua franca of Urdu, the
eighteenth-century Ahl-e Hadis manifesto Taqwiyat al-;m:n explains
that, to comprehend the Quran and Hadith does not require much
learning, for the Prophet was sent to show the straight path to the
unwise.1 In India and Pakistan, this short treatise has been widely read
in a variety of circles since it was penned almost two hundred years ago.
First distributed in cheap printings and now available online, it remains
one of the most accessible religious texts to lay Muslims in South Asia.2
Written by the famous Indian Muslim scholar Sh:h Ism:6;l al-Shah;d
(d. 1831), it condemns as heretical activities such as the visitation of
saints graves. It also challenges directly the station of the ulema, the
majority of whom had long defended such practices.
Today, in response to controversial fatwas or the misguided actions
of extremist groups, Muslim ulema and laity alike often blame
insufficiently educated pseudo-scholars for twisting the true teachings
of the Qur8:n and the Prophet. Violence and backwardness, it is held, are
the predictable results of calls like that of Sh:h Ism:6;l, which declare that
the interpretive tradition of the ulema can be dispensed with and Islams
scriptures interpreted directly. Mainstream Sunni ulema often level this
1
INTRODUCTION
118
j o na t h a n a . c . b ro w n
Salafism and the moniker Salafi are controversial and problematic but also
unavoidable. As Henri Lauzie`re has demonstrated, they are often used
anachronistically, eliding individuals and movements from the fourteenth century
to the present with gross inaccuracy. An actual coherent, self-identifying Salafi
movement did not emerge until the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries.
The very stubborn ubiquity of the terms, however, recognizes crucial
commonalities and continuities. The prominent themes associated with
Salafismrejection of rigid adherence to a madhhab, rejection of popular and/
or theosophical Sufism, and rejection of speculative theologyeach have ancient
roots in Islamic thought. The earliest instance of these streams combining,
however, comes with the Damascus circle of Ibn Taymiyya (d. 1328), Shams
al-D;n al-Dhahab; (d. 1348) and others (and perhaps since the career of 6Izz
al-D;n Ibn 6Abd al-Sal:m [d. 1262]). Since the fourteenth century, the iconoclastic
strain they inaugurated has been a powerful engine in Islamic discourse,
expressing strong criticism either of the stagnation of scholarly institutions and
religious practices postdating the early Muslim generations or of those
institutions and practices themselves. This iconoclastic strain characterized the
revival and reform movements of the eighteenth century and has crystallized in
the modern Salafi movement. In an attempt to balance these important
intellectual continuities with the duty to avoid anachronism, this article will
use the term proto-Salafi to refer to elements or representatives of the
iconoclastic strain before the twentieth century; Henri Lauzie`re, The
Construction of Salafiyya: Reconsidering Salafism from the Perspective of
Conceptual History, International Journal of Middle East Studies, 42 (2010):
36989.
4
See, for example, Ris:lat al-tawA;d (ed. Ab< al-Easan 6Al; al-Nadw;;
Lucknow: Muassasat al-4aA:fa, 2010), 75, 7778, 1467.
119
120
j o na t h a n a . c . b ro w n
See Jonathan A. C. Brown, Scholars and Charlatans on the BaghdadKhurasan Circuit from the Ninth to the Eleventh Centuries in Paul M. Cobb
(ed.), The Lineaments of Islam (Leiden: Brill, 2012), 8596.
6
See Abdullah Al-Arian, Answering the Call: Popular Islamic Activism in
Sadats Egypt (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014).
7
From al-Kaw:kib;s Umm al-qur: and Fab:8i6 al-istibd:d respectively;
MuAammad 6Am:ra, ed., 6Abd al-RaAm:n al-Kaw:kib;: al-A6m:l al-k:mila
(Cairo: D:r al-Shur<q, 2nd edn., 2009), 206, 347.
121
See, for example, Emily Wax, The Mufti In the Chat Room: Islamic Legal
Advisers Are Just a Click Away from Ancient Customs, The Washington Post,
31 July 1999 (C01); Asra Nomani, Wafa Sultan, Time Magazine World, 30
April 2006, http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1187385,00.
html (last accessed 10 October 2011); Distinctions tab at https://www.
irshadmanji.com/About-Irshad (last accessed 5 July 2012); The Online
Ummah, Economist, 18 August 2012 (http://www.economist.com/node/
21560541 (last accessed 24 August 2012); Tarek El-Ariss, The Making of an
Expert: The Case of Irshad Manji, Muslim World, 97/1 (2007): 93110.
Interestingly, the late Syrian 6:lim MuAammad Sa6;d Rama@:n al-B<3; argues that
the British colonial administration had promoted liberal, pro-ijtih:d Muslim
scholars (presumably he means MuAammad 6Abduh) to leadership positions in
Egypt, and these scholars subsequently issued rulings allowing bank interest and
de-emphasizing the importance of the Aij:b: al-B<3;, al-L:madhhabiyya: akh3ar
bid6a tuhaddidu al-shar;6a al-isl:miyya (Damascus: D:r al-F:r:b; and Cairo: D:r
al-BaB:8ir, new edn., 1431/2010), 112.
9
See, for example, 6Al; Jum6a, Marja6iyyat al-Azhar, al-MiBr; al-Yawm,
28 July 2011, http://m.almasryalyoum.com/node/481048 (last accessed 17
August 2012); AAmad al-Fayyib, Al-Azhar tarfu@u tajr;dih: 6an mak:natih:
al-marja6iyya wa-lan yataAawwala il: madrasa ta6l;miyya, al-MiBr; al-Yawm, 10
May 2012, http://today.almasryalyoum.com/article2.aspx?ArticleID=338157
(last accessed 17 August 2012).
122
j o na t h a n a . c . b ro w n
123
124
j o na t h a n a . c . b ro w n
15
125
17
follow the ignorant.17 Early leading Sunni scholars interpreted the Aad;th
Seeking knowledge is a requirement for every Muslim as meaning that
no one could undertake an action without seeking out a scholar to
determine its ruling under the Shar;6a.18
The specialization and technicalization of the ulema increased with the
Sunni embrace of speculative theology (kal:m) and gnostic Sufism
(ma6rifa or 6irf:n) in the tenth and eleventh centuries. Proposing his own
map of Islams intellectual history, the influential tenth-century Sufi Ab<
F:lib al-Makk; (d. 996) explains how following one madhhab, and
madhhabs in general, emerged as both symptoms of and solutions to the
dilution of Islams early spiritual dynamism and purity. Much like the
setting down of sacred knowledge in books, this began after the second
and third generation of Muslims. The earliest jurists (fuqah:8) would not
engage in taql;d of any of their teachers but rather would become
independent scholarly pillars in their own right. Increasingly, however,
those who did not reach this level chose to do taql;d of the madhhab of a
more senior figure. This fractioning of authority fit within al-Makk;s
Sufi perspective on the hierarchy of Islamic sciences, in which the true
science of the heart ranked supreme: the layperson (6:mm;) followed the
jurist/scholar (6:lim), and the exoteric jurist (6:lim 6um<m) followed the
Sufi elite (6:lim khuB<B).19
Theology and mysticism both required an intensive education and
developed highly particular jargons that set their practitioners apart.
Speculative theology was justified primarily as a duty required of the
ulema for the protection of the masses. Al-Ghaz:l; (d. 1111)
characterized kal:m scholars as guardians of the masses, shielding
them from heresy.20 A leading Sunni scholar like the Makkan Ibn Eajar
al-Haytam; (d. 1566) thus insisted that qualified scholars provide
figurative interpretations for Qur8:nic verses that described God in
126
j o na t h a n a . c . b ro w n
21
127
26
6Izz al-D;n Ibn 6Abd al-Sal:m, Kit:b al-Fat:w:, ed. 6Abd al-RaAm:n 6Abd
al-Fatt:A (Beirut: D:r al-Ma6rifa, n.d.), 69.
27
This opinion also came from the Egyptian scholar AAmad b. 6Is: al-Qaly<b;
(d. 1290); T:j al-D;n al-Subk;, Fabaq:t al-sh:fi6iyya al-kubr: (ed. 6Abd al-Fatt:A
MuAammad al-Ealw and MaAm<d MuAammad al-Fan:A;; Cairo: Hajar, 2nd
edn., 11 vols., 1413/1992), viii. 24.
28
Fa-humu adillatun: wa-man yuhd: bi-ghayrihimi yu@all; Ibn al-Jawz;, alMuntaCam f; t:r;kh al-mul<k wa-l-umam (eds. MuAammad 6Abd al-Q:dir 6A3:
and MuB3af: 6Abd al-Q:dir 6A3:; Beirut: D:r al-Kutub al-6Ilmiyya, 1992), xviii. 32.
29
al-Subk;, Fabaq:t, viii. 231.
30
4:liA al-Full:n;, Iq:C himam <l; al-abB:r li-l-iqtid:8 bi-sayyid al-muh:jir;n
wa-l-anB:r (Beirut: D:r al-Ma6rifa, 1978), 54.
128
j o na t h a n a . c . b ro w n
31
129
34
130
j o na t h a n a . c . b ro w n
contrasted with the Maghreb, where all scholars and laity would have been
M:lik; by default due to the schools monopoly there; Zarr<q, Qaw:6id, 30.
37
al-Nawaw;, 2d:b al-fatw: wa-l-muft; wa-l-mustaft; (ed. Bass:m 6Abd
al-Wahh:b al-J:b;; Damascus: D:r al-Fikr, 1988), 77.
38
Ibn 6Abd al-Sal:m, Fat:w:, 170.
39
al-Saqq:f, MukhtaBar al-faw:8id al-makkiyya, 91.
40
Michael Chamberlain, Knowledge and Social Practice in Medieval
Damascus, 11901350 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994), 104
5. See also MuAammad b. 6Al; al-Shawk:n;, al-Qawl al-muf;d f; adillat al-ijtih:d
wal-taql;d in al-Ras:8il al-fiqhiyya (ed. AAmad Far;d al-Maz;d;; Beirut: D:r
al-Kutub al-6Ilmiyya, 2005), 46.
41
Ibn Taymiyya, Ris:la f; 6ilm al-b:3in wa-l-C:hir in Majm<6at al-ras:8il
al-mun;riyya (Beirut: n.p., 4 vols. in 2, n.d.), iii. 249; idem, Majm<6at al-fat:w:
(eds. Sayyid Eusayn al-6Af:n; and Khayr; Sa6;d; Cairo: al-Maktaba
al-Tawf;qiyya, 35 vols., n.d.), xiii. 132 ff.
42
Ibn Taymiyya, Ris:la, 246.
131
43
Ibn Ab; al-6Izz al-Eanaf;, SharA al-6Aq;da al-FaA:wiyya, ed. MuAammad
N:Bir al-D;n al-Alb:n; (Amman: al-D:r al-Isl:m;, 1998), 96.
44
Ibn Qud:ma al-Maqdis;, Dhamm al-ta8w;l, in Ras:8il d;niyya salafiyya (ed.
Zakariyy: 6Al; Y<suf; Cairo: Ma3ba6at al-Im:m, n.d.), 87; idem, TaAr;m al-naCar
f; kutub ahl al-kal:m (ed. and transl. George Makdisi: Centre of Speculative
Theology; London: Luzac, 1962), 32.
45
Ibn Taymiyya, Majm<6at al-fat:w:, xxxii. 2056, 212.
46
Shams al-D;n al-Dhahab;, Siyar a6l:m al-nubal:8 (eds. Shu6ayb al-Arn:8<3
et al.; Beirut: Mu8assasat al-Ris:la, 11th edn., 25 vols., 141619/19968),
xiv. 491.
132
j o na t h a n a . c . b ro w n
pro-taql;d opponents that the madhhabs had not existed during the
heyday of early Muslim glory.47
The tension between the requirement to follow one of the four
madhhabs and the right of a Muslim scholar to approach legal rulings
afresh entered a new and more intense phase with the unprecedented
movements of revival and reform in the eighteenth century. Movements
like that started by MuAammad Ibn 6Abd al-Wahh:b (d. 1792) in Arabia,
the scholarship of MuAammad b. Ism:6;l al-Am;r al-4an6:n; (d. 1768) in
Yemen and that of Sh:h Wal; All:h al-Dihlaw; (d. 1762) in India were,
in part, reactions to the excessive institutional control of the madhhabs
in the late medieval period.48
Reacting against this, many revivalist ulema argued that scholars
should never allow any attachment to a school of law to take precedence
over a direct connection to the Qur8:n and Aad;ths, to which they urged
Muslims to return and study as the early Muslims had studied them.
These reformists rejected taql;d as it was defined in the late medieval
period (taking the ruling of another without knowing his evidence) and
as it had mutated in late medieval scholarly culture (the stubborn
adherence to the position of the madhhab even if compelling evidence
from the Qur8:n or Aad;ths existed to the contrary). Doing so, these
revivalists argued, was to fall into the same error for which the Qur8:n
had so vehemently criticized Christians and Jews: They took their rabbis
and monks as lords apart from God . . . (Q. 9. 31).49
133
50
from the constraint of taql;d. If Muslims studied the Qur8:n and Aad;ths
directly without the intermediary of the madhhab interpretive traditions
they would certainly fall into error, just as 6Izzat 6A3iyya did with his
breast feeding fatw:. Madhhab proponents cited sayings attributed
to early Muslim scholars like the eighth century Egyptian 6Abdull:h
Ibn Wahb (d. 812) that Aad;ths are misguidance except to the ulema
(al-Aad;th mu@ill ill: li-l-6ulam:).50 A Muslim cannot simply come
across Aad;ths or Qur8:nic verses and act on them. One must know all
the Aad;ths associated with a certain legal issue, know all the Qur8:nic
verses, and understand how the principles of legal theory place these
pieces of evidence in the proper relationship with one another. Only a
jurist fully trained according to the methodology of a madhhab possessed
this expertise.
It was at this point, in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, that
empowering the Muslim laity entered into the taql;d/ijtih:d debate.
Proto-Salafi revivalists responded to their opponents insistence that only
those trained within the madhhabs could understand Islamic law by
pointing out that the early Muslim community had lacked formal
scholarly training and had no madhhabs at all. And yet these pious
forebears had achieved an unsurpassed understanding of Islam. The
revivalists rejected the claim that Muslims should never act on Aad;ths
without first fitting them into the framework of Islamic legal derivation,
including ascertaining whether the Aad;th had been abrogated by a later
ruling from the Prophet and whether or not it was a general command
that had been later specified. The proto-Salafi scholar of Madina Ab<
l-Easan al-Sind; (d. 1773) argued that, just as the first generation of
Muslims acted on Aad;ths they heard from the Prophet without
possessing some formal legal education, so the Muslim masses could
act according to Aad;ths that they read or came across. If it turned out
that a particular Aad;th had in fact been abrogated or further specified,
then the Muslim who acted on it would be excused by God for his or her
mistake.51 It was preposterous to say that only ulema trained within the
madhhabs can understand Islamic law, continued al-Sind;. God and His
Prophet had tailored the message of Islam to illiterate, pagan Arabs
unbelievers far less knowledgeable and pious than most Muslims of
134
j o na t h a n a . c . b ro w n
135
the Madrasas in Modern South Asia, Bulletin of the School of Oriental and
African Studies, 62/1 (1999): 6081.
55
Sh:h Ism:6;l al-Shah;d, Taqwiyat al-;m:n, 367. (Emphasis added.)
136
j o na t h a n a . c . b ro w n
56
Al-Sind; was a scholar and follower of the Eanaf; school, but he broke
with specific rulings of the madhhab when he concluded that it had not
interpreted the sources of Islamic law properly. The best-known case
was the Eanaf; schools rejection of raising ones hands before and
after bowing in prayer, which contradicted numerous sound Aad;ths.56
Al-Sind;s approach explains why he made the argument that Muslims
could stand once again in the place of the Companions, in an era before
madhhabs, and act on the Aad;ths they found. Put simply, it was the only
way to surmount his opponents argument for exclusive loyalty to a
madhhab. Staunch Eanaf;s, as well as advocates of other madhhabs,
argued that their schools founding generations had already digested and
analysed all the relevant scriptural evidence on issues like raising ones
hands in prayer, including what seemed to be contradictory evidence.57
It was now incumbent upon Muslims to follow in these well-laid paths
instead of chaotically reengaging with the texts of the Qur8:n and
Sunna. Only by demoting the authority of the madhhabs bearers and
reinvigorating the engagement with the Qur8:n and Sunna that
characterized the pre-madhhab era could revivalists like al-Sind; and
his contemporary Sh:h Wal; All:h justify reconsidering a madhhabs
position on the basis of direct readings of scripture.
That the proto-Salafi argument for empowering the lay Muslim
against the authority of madhhabs was meant as a polemical parry and
not a coherent prescription is clear in the writings of Sh:h Wal; All:h,
who was the progenitor of proto-Salafi thought in South Asia. He
fervently called upon Muslim scholars to return to the Qur8:n and
Aad;ths instead of blindly following the locally dominant Eanaf;
madhhab. Yet he warned other Indian scholars who, like himself, had
realized that Aad;ths disproved some Eanaf; positions not to roil public
opinion by raising their hands in public prayer. This would only cause
public strife (fitna) for the masses (6aw:mm) in the region.58 When it
came to the masses of Indian Muslims, in fact, Sh:h Wal; All:h urged
137
59
Wajaba 6alayhi an yuqallida madhhab Ab; Ean;fa wa yaArumu 6alayhi an
yakhruja min madhhabihi li-annahu A;na8idhin yakhla6u ribqat al-shar;6a wayabq: sudan muhmalan; Sh:h Wal; All:h, al-InB:f f; bay:n asb:b al-ikhtil:f (ed.
6Abd al-Fatt:A Ab< Ghudda; Beirut: D:r al-Naf:8is, 1983), 79.
60
Ibid, 107.
61
al-4an6:n;, Irsh:d, 72, 81; idem, Subul al-sal:m sharA Bul<gh al-mar:m min
jam6 adillat al-aAk:m (ed. MuAammad 6Abd a-RaAm:n al-Mar6ashl;; Beirut: D:r
IAy:8 al-Tur:th al-6Arab;, 4 vols., [1997] 1426/2005), iv. 158.
62
al-Shawk:n;, al-Qawl al-muf;d, 42.
63
Ibid, 48.
138
j o na t h a n a . c . b ro w n
64
N<r Easan Kh:n, al-Far;qa al-muthl: f; l-irsh:d il: tark al-taql;d wa-ittib:6
m: huwa awl: (ed. Ab< 6Abd al-RaAm:n Sa6;d Mi6sh:sha; Beirut: D:r Ibn Eazm,
1421/2000), 66.
65
al-Full:n;, Iq:C; AAmad Sh:kir, Jamharat maq:l:t al-6all:ma al-shaykh
AAmad MuAammad Sh:kir, ed. 6Abd al-RaAm:n bin 6Abd al-6Az;z bin Eamm:d
al-6Aql; Giza: D:r al-Riy:@, 2 vols., 1426/2005), ii. 2556 (originally published
in al-Man:r, 31/3 [1930]). See also Basheer M. Nafi, The Teacher of Ibn 6Abd
al-Wahh:b: MuAammad Eay:t al-Sind; and the Revival of the ABA:b al-Aad;ths
Methodology, Islamic Law and Society, 13/2 (2006): 20841, at 2256.
66
Ibn Taymiyya, Majm<6at al-fat:w:, xi. 151.
67
Badr al-D;n al-Ba6l;, MukhtaBar al-Fat:w: al-miBriyya (ed. 6Abd al-Maj;d
Sal;m; Beirut: D:r al-Kutub al-6Ilmiyya, n.d.), 61.
68
al-Dhahab;, Siyar, xviii. 191.
Easan Kh:n (d. 1890), who had championed al-Shawk:n;s and Ibn
Taymiyyas works in India. He explains that the masses occupy a space
between taql;d and ijtih:d, namely asking a qualified scholar what the
ruling on a subject was and insisting that he provide evidence for that
stance.64
Such nuanced and qualified attitudes towards taql;d are often omitted
in later Salafi polemics that draw on authorities like al-Sind; and
al-Shawk:n;. Citations of Ab< l-Easan al-Sind;s argument for acting on
Aad;ths without advanced training in a madhhab, which appear
frequently in later Salafi tracts against taql;d, leave out his qualification
that this applies only to those who have some sort of suitability
(ahliyya) for this task. Anyone else, al-Sind; affirms, must obey the
Qur8:nic command traditionally understood to legitimize the ulema:
Ask the people of heedfulness if you do not know (Q. 16. 43).65
Indeed, even at the epicentre of the iconoclastic, proto-Salafi trend
in the fourteenth century, the egalitarian perspective on species of
knowledge and the challenge to the institutional rigidity of madhhabs
was never a call to erase hierarchies of learning. Ibn Taymiyya rejected
the notion of restricting taql;d only to the four established schools of law,
not the idea of following a scholar or madhhab in general.66 It was
proper for a Muslim to look to more than one scholar or school for
guidance, but those who refused to follow any of the four schools had
gone astray. The truth, he explained, does not fall outside of those
four for the generality of the Shar;6a.67 Although al-Dhahab; did allow
limited ijtih:d (ijtih:d muqayyad) (i.e., choosing which position of the
early great im:ms best conformed with revealed evidence) to those who
had studied fiqh and uB<l thoroughly, he allowed no ijtih:d to minor,
everyday scholars.68 He understood well that an interpretive hierarchy
was needed. In his biography of a famous scholar of Seville named Ibn
al-Kamm:d (d. 12356), al-Dhahab; praised him as a scholar in the path
139
69
al-Dhahab;, Tadhkirat al-Auff:C (ed. Zakariyy: 6Umayr:t; Beirut: D:r
al-Kutub al-6Ilmiyya, 1419/1998), iv. 168.
70
Ibn Qud:ma, Dhamm al-ta8w;l, 88.
71
al-Alb:n;, 2d:b al-zif:f f; al-sunna al-mu3ahhara (Beirut: al-Maktab
al-Isl:m;, revised edn., 1409/1989), 150 ff. For such criticisms of al-Alb:n;, see
6Abdall:h b. al-4idd;q al-Ghum:r;, Itq:n al-Ban6a f; taAq;q ma6n: al-bid6a (Cairo:
Maktabat al-Q:hira, 1426/2005), 55; al-Qara@:w;, al-Fat:w: al-sh:dhdha,
623. Al-Qara@:w; praises al-Alb:n; as a Aad;th scholar but says that in his fiqh
he has a c:hir; inclination, since he acts more on particular (juz8;) texts and does
not heed the general objectives of the Shar;6a (al-maq:Bid al-kulliyya).
72
MuAammad N:Bir al-D;n al-Alb:n;, al-Tafs;r II, lecture from www.
islamway.com/?iw_s=Scholar&iw_a=lessons&scholar_id=47
(last
accessed
28 May 2004).
of the Salaf who would recite Aad;ths to vast audiences in the mosque.
But in unpacking the legal and theological implications of the Aad;ths
before the assembled masses, Ibn al-Kamm:d erred. He would bring up
scholarly disagreements that were not suitable for the setting.69
Similarly, the traditionalist theology advocated by Ibn Qud:ma,
Ibn Taymiyya and Salafis since them might seem to obviate a class
of scholarly interpreters. Ibn Qud:ma had prohibited scholastic,
figurative interpretation of Qur8:nic verses or Aad;ths concerning
Gods attributes. But this did not mean that the ulema were unnecessary.
Ibn Qud:ma explained that the layperson (6:mm;), if he had any
confusion about the meaning of these texts, should follow (taql;d) the
ulemas understanding.70
In the twentieth century, we again see that the substance of Salafi
arguments against taql;d belie any rhetoric of empowering the masses.
Leading twentieth-century Salafis make it clear that even the Salafi
school of thought acknowledges that there is and should be a body
of expert scholars who understand the sources of Islamic law and its
derivation. Interestingly, perhaps to distinguish themselves from the
preponderance of Sunni scholars and the madhhab traditions, Salafis
tend to employ terms like the People of Knowledge (ahl al-6ilm) instead
of the usual moniker of ulema when referring to qualified scholars.
The most influential Salafi scholar of the late twentieth century, the
Syrian/Albanian MuAammad N:Bir al-D;n al-Alb:n; (d. 1999), was
frequently lambasted by the mainstream Sunni ulema for his derivations
of rulings from Aad;ths without an understanding of legal theoryhence,
they claimed, his anomalous legal rulings like prohibiting women from
wearing gold jewelry.71 But al-Alb:n; himself urged the masses of the
Muslims to seek out the People of Knowledge on issues such as
authenticating Aad;ths.72 He explained that the first step a person
ignorant of the Aad;th sciences should take to tell authentic Aad;ths from
140
j o na t h a n a . c . b ro w n
73
6IB:m M<s:
al-Maktaba
al-Mann:n
wa-l-ghar;b
inauthentic was to ask a scholar, for indeed this matter is like one who
does not know fiqh rulings: if he is one of the People of Knowledge of the
Qur8:n and the Sunna he refers to those two sources, and otherwise he
asks the ulema.73 In another fatw:, al-Alb:n; criticizes those madhhab
loyalists who forbid following the Qur8:n and the Prophets precedent
on the basis that the masses (6:mma) cannot understand them, and they
require them to do taql;d.74 Yet al-Alb:n; says just a few pages later
that, in terms of knowledge, Muslims are divided into two parts, the
expert (qism 6:lim) and non-expert (qism ghayr 6:lim). He affirms that
those who are not experts must consult and defer to the People of
Knowledge.75 In another lesson given by al-Alb:n;, he condemns those
who are not among the People of Knowledge giving fatw:s and
commands students evaluating the authenticity of Aad;ths not to
announce their conclusions publicly until they have practised and had
their results approved by members of the ulema.76
One of al-Alb:n;s most famous and influential students, the Yemeni
Salafi Muqbil bin H:d; al-W:di6; (d. 2001) was once asked how to seek
6ilm by American Muslims, who were particularly eager to know what
tapes and books the shaykh would suggest. Al-W:di6; skipped the
questions and advised the young Americans to travel to study with ulema
like al-Alb:n; and the Saudi muft; 6Abd al-6Az;z Bin B:z (d. 1999) or,
if this was not possible, to correspond with them by letter or telephone.
If this was also impossible, these Muslims should seek out qualified
local ulema rather than lapsing into autodidactism.77
The Salafi scene in Egypt traces its intellectual roots to Saudi Arabia in
the 1970s and 80s and to international scholars like al-Alb:n;. Although
they certainly emphasize the central importance of ijtih:d, call for
abandoning any legal or doctrinal position that does not rest on evidence
from the Qur8:n or Sunna, and reject taql;d, Egypts Salafi scholars also
uphold a firm hierarchy of knowledge. MuAammad Ism:6;l Muqaddam,
an Egyptian who studied in Saudi Arabia before becoming the most
senior Salafi shaykh in the movements stronghold of Alexandria, devotes
a long discussion to the importance of aspiring scholars studying at the
141
78
MuAammad Ism:6;l Muqaddam, Eurmat ahl al-6ilm (Alexandria: D:r
al-Khulaf:8 al-R:shid;n, 1430/2009), 33645.
79
Y:sir Burh:m;, al-Minna sharA i6tiq:d ahl al-sunna (Alexandria: D:r
al-Khulaf: al-R:shid;n, 2nd edn., 1426/2006), 4678.
80
See, for example, ShiA:ta 4aqr, Qaw:6id siy:siyya f; l-sunan wa-l-bida6
yanbagh; ma6rifatuh: (Alexandria: D:r al-Khulaf:8 al-R:shid;n, 1432/2011), 48.
81
AAmad Far;d, al-Salafiyya: qaw:6id wa-uB<l (Alexandria: D:r al-Khulaf:8
al-R:shid;n, 1432/2011), 335.
82
MuAammad Yusr; Ibr:h;m, M;th:q al-ift:8 al-mu6:Bir (Cairo: D:r al-Yusr,
7th edn., 2011), 67.
142
j o na t h a n a . c . b ro w n
83
143
theology from the Qur8:n and Sunna, and there are the masses who
are not.86 Indeed, as quoted here by al-B<3;, al-Khujand;s words seem
quite extreme:
Whoever clings chauvinistically to any one [source] other than the Messenger
of God (may Gods peace and blessings be upon him), and believes that this
persons word is the correct stance that must be followed apart from all other
im:ms, he is ignorant and astray, nay perhaps even an unbeliever (k:fir) . . . .87
86
144
j o na t h a n a . c . b ro w n
CONCLUSION
The ulemas monopoly over interpreting Islamic law and dogma has been
threatened in the modern period. In great part this has come at the hands
of lay Muslim intellectuals, who have both pointed out the political and
scholarly failings of the ulema class and offered themselves as alternative
voices of authority. The traditional ulema have responded to these
overwhelmingly liberal and often secularizing intellectual reformers by
invoking the example of Salafi barbarism, which is reviled by both lay
intellectuals and mainstream ulema alike. Citing the supposed anticlericalism endemic in Salafism, mainstream ulema point to the dangers of
leaving Islams scriptures unguarded and unmediated. Indeed, Sh:h
Ism:6il al-Shah;d, al-Sind;, al-Khujand;, al-Alb:n; and others, have all
stated very explicitly that Islam is not difficult to understand and that
everyday Muslims can absorb its teachings with the immediacy of the
early Muslim forefathers. But is this really a call for the democratization
of interpretation, regardless of the deluge of interpretive chaos that
would follow? Do these scholars really hold that Islam needs no
guardian class?
What I hope this article has demonstrated is that this egalitarian strain
in Salafism is not a clear and consistent position. Rather, it is the product
of a discourse tradition that holds claims of formalized hermeneutic
authority in great suspicion while simultaneously acknowledging the
need for the control it provides. All the above proto-Salafi and Salafi
scholars have consistently maintained that the masses of the Muslims are
unqualified to approach the scriptural sources of Islam in any authoritative way. Moreover, like their mainstream Sunni opponents, Salafis
have affirmed that the layperson has no legal school. His school is
whatever a qualified local scholar says it is.
To understand statements like that of Sh:h Ism:6;l al-Shah;d, that to
comprehend the Quran and Aad;ths does not require much learning, we
must remember that they arose as a rhetorical parry in the enduring
debate between the iconoclastic, proto-Salafi school of thought in Sunni
Islam and the Sunni mainstream. For proto-Salafi and Salafi polemicists,
arguing that ordinary Muslims stood directly before Islams scriptures
just as the Companions had was a move essential to undermining the
rigid authority of the madhhabs, which underpinned the ritual and legal
practices rejected by Salafis. Arguing that the Muslim masses were
innately competent and needed no guardian class to understand their
religion was the most effective means to neutralize the appeals to
authority made by mainstream Sunni scholars, even if all ulema, even
Salafi ones, knew this claim was false.