Islamic Education and Development of

Educational Traditions and Institutions

Yahia Baiza

Contents
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
Islam and the Tradition of Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
Institutions and Traditions of Elementary Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
Institutions and Traditions of Higher Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
Higher Education Curriculum: An Inclusive and Interdisciplinary System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89
Taṣawwūf and Its Educational Institutions and Traditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91
The Modern Period . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95

Abstract
Muslim countries have a rich history of intellectual traditions and educational
institutions, which have evolved over the course of 1400 years. Like every other
intellectual tradition, educational traditions and institutions in the Muslim coun-
tries have also been subject to change and a fluctuating trend of emergence and
development, and regression and decline. Although there is an increasing interest
in Islam in general and in Muslim education in particular, there is still a significant
shortage of academic and analytical historical research on Muslim educational
traditions and institutions. This chapter explores and analyses how Muslim
educational traditions and institutions emerged in the classical period, evolved
over the course of history, and have been handed down to the present time.

Keywords
Islamic education · Ismā‘īlī · madrasah · kuttāb · Deobandi · ṣūfī

Y. Baiza (*)
Department of Academic Research and Publications, The Institute of Ismaili Studies, London, UK
e-mail: ybaiza@iis.ac.uk

# Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018 77

H. Daun, R. Arjmand (eds.), Handbook of Islamic Education, International Handbooks
of Religion and Education 7, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-64683-1_7
78 Y. Baiza

Introduction

This chapter approaches the theme of this investigation from historical and educa-
tional perspectives. It is important to highlight this approach at the outset of this
chapter, because there are often narrow and exclusionist views to any aspect of the
study of Islam and Muslim communities, including the historicity and development
of education, and educational traditions and institutions in the Muslim countries.
This narrow and exclusionist approach is often influenced by what one would
categorize, at least for the sake of argument here, as sectarian and ideological
perspectives. By contrast, this chapter adopts a pluralist and minority-inclusive
approach. In advocating such an approach, this chapter aims to present an inclusive
and analytical account of the historicity of educational institutions and traditions in
the Muslim world. Thereby, this chapter opens a space for oft-marginalized and
excluded voices, such as those of the Shī‘ah, particularly its Ismā‘īlī, and ṣūfī
traditions as well as the voices of intellectual figures from Khurāsān, namely the
Barmak family from the northern Balkh province of modern-day Afghanistan.

Islam and the Tradition of Education

The tradition of learning and education in Islam goes back to the Qur’ān and the
Prophet Muḥammad and his manner of living (sunnah) which is studied through the
Prophet’s sayings (ḥadī th). The Qur’ān and ḥadī th constitute two primary vehicles
of knowledge and education for Muslim communities and make the seeking of
knowledge, learning, and education a religious obligation and a central part of belief.
Muslims believe that Allāh is the absolute source of knowledge and recognize the
divine revelations, which were first revealed to Adam, as the beginning of all human
knowledge. In sūrah two, al-Baqarah (the Cow), the Qur’ān (II: 31) says that, “And
He [Allāh] taught Adam all the names, then presented them to the angels, then he
said: tell Me the names of these, if you are truthful.” Muslims believe that the
concepts of knowledge and education, in the form of reading, writing, and teaching,
are present in the Qur’ān from the very first verses revealed to the Prophet Muḥam-
mad. Through the first five verses of sūrah 96, al-ʿAlaq (the Clot), God sends His
first message to Muḥammad, who does not hold the office of the Prophet yet, and
tells him to:

Read in the name of your Lord who created. He created man from a clot. Read for your Lord
is most generous. He teaches by the pen. He teaches man what he did not know. (XCVI:1–5)

Before analyzing the above five verses, it is worth highlighting that the Qur’ānic
sūrahs are not arranged chronologically but by their sizes, except for Sūrah al-Ḥamd,
which belongs to the category of short sūrahs and serves as the opening sūrah of the
Qur’ān. Therefore, Sūrah al-Baqarah because of its length is arranged as the second,
and Sūrah al-‘Alaq, which the very first revealed sūrah but because of its short
length, is arranged among the short sūrahs. Hence, teaching, pen, knowing, and
Islamic Education and Development of Educational Traditions and. . . 79

reading constitute the central theme of the above-quoted verses. The quoted verses
from the two sūrahs (al-Baqarah and al-‘Alaq) also portray God as the absolute
master of knowledge (ʿālim), and the divine revelations as the only medium through
which God has mediated and transmitted His knowledge to mankind. These verses
also, albeit indirectly, present prophets as the primary teachers of divine knowledge
to the mankind. Moreover, the Qur’ān also instructs the Prophet to pray to God for
more knowledge, “And say: My Lord! Increase me in knowledge” (XX: 114). The
Qur’ānic notion of knowledge and education is discernible in various verses and
their interpretation. Based on these Qur’ānic observations, Muslims believe that the
concepts of knowledge and education, i.e., reading, writing, and teaching, are
present in the Qur’ān, particularly from the very first verses that were revealed to
the Prophet Muḥammad.
The Prophet Muḥammad translated the divine guidance on knowledge and
education through his speeches and actions. He encouraged the pursuit of knowledge
and demonstrated his appreciation of teaching and learning through his sayings
(ḥadī th) and sunnah. There are numerous ḥadīths that encourage the pursuit of
knowledge and education. Two such sayings attributed to the Prophet read “seek
knowledge, even as far away as China” and “it is an obligation for every Muslim to
seek knowledge.” These are some of the typical statements how the Prophet viewed
knowledge and education and encouraged Muslims to expand their horizon of
knowledge and education by exploring and learning from other nations, cultures
and civilizations. Although doubts are attached to the authenticity of some ḥadī th,
this is not a matter of concern here. Rather what is important is that, as Jonathan
Berkey (1992, p. 3) states, the import of the verses reflects a principle, generally held
in the Muslim world and a common theme of early Muslim literature, which the
pursuit of knowledge was an activity always worthy of approbation and encourage-
ment. Also, from the Muslim perspectives, what matters is that the Prophet not only
enjoined the pursuit of knowledge and education in theory but in practice also. In his
al-Kāmil, Abū al-Abbās Muḥammad ibn Yazīd al-Mubarrad (known as al-Mubarrad,
d. 284/898) narrates that after the Battle of Badr in 2/624, the Prophet set free literate
Meccan captives on condition that each would teach ten Muslims how to read and
write (al-Mubarrad 1892, p. 171). The account of al-Mubarrad demonstrates the
practical aspect of how the Prophet valued education as well as suggesting that
literacy among the Muslim community of Medina at the time of the Prophet must
have been very low and that oral instruction and memorization must have been the
main medium for the transmission and preservation of knowledge.
The Prophet himself served as a divine messenger as well as a teacher and guide.
The primary site where the Prophet delivered his instructional sessions was his
mosque, known as “Masjid Rasūl Allāh” (the Mosque of the Messenger of Allāh),
in Medina (in present-day Saudi Arabia). It is very likely that people turned primarily
to the Prophet to learn the meaning of the Qur’ānic verses and to receive instruction
on religious rituals and obligations, matters concerning the emerging Muslim com-
munity and state in Medina as well as a variety of other information. It is in fact due
to the Qur’ānic concept of knowledge and education and the Prophet’s role as the
first teacher and guide of the Muslim community that love for knowledge and
80 Y. Baiza

learning, as Netton (1996: vii) states, became a leitmotiv of Islam from its early days.
Consequently, as Muslims built upon this spirit of love for knowledge and education,
they were able to create many centers of civilization and to develop thought in
diverse fields of knowledge. By the fifth century, mosques, madrasahs, and other
institutions of learning taught both the religious and natural sciences of the time
(Grunebaum 1970, pp. 506–507; Hillenbrand 1986, p. 1130; Arkoun 2006, p. 180),
and handicraft (ḥiraf) for the masses (Arkoun 2006, pp. 181–182). The latter
represented modern-day apprenticeship and vocational education at that time. As
will be discussed below, the mosque served as the cornerstone of education and
brought about a new spirit in the pursuit of knowledge.

Institutions and Traditions of Elementary Education

Two key factors appear to have triggered a massive expansion of educational

institutions across the Muslim world: The Qur’ān and the Prophet’s tradition and
the expansion of Muslim conquests. The former factor has already been discussed,
particularly how the Qur’ān and the Prophet Muḥammad emphasized the pursuit of
knowledge and education. On the latter, the expansion of the Arab conquests
required the development of a new political, administrative, and financial system,
for which an army of educated people were needed.
The early education in the Arabian Peninsula appears to have been very simple and
basic. Apart from learning the Qur’ān, it included reading and writing, moral tales,
heroic stories, and proverbs. An early non-Qur’ān educational curriculum, attributed
to the second caliph, ʿUmar ibn al-Khaṭṭāb (caliphate: 12–23/634–44), recommended
the teaching of good poetry, proverbs, swimming, and horsemanship. The proposed
curriculum demonstrates two important points. Firstly, it indicates some of the basic
needs that the territorial expansion of Muslim caliphate brought about. The need for
horsemanship and swimming appears to have been felt during the Muslim conquest
and engagement in various wars across and beyond the Arabian Peninsula. There are
also numerous ḥadī ths, attributed to the Prophet, in praise of horse and horsemanship.
Reportedly, the Prophet recommended “horsemanship” and “lancing.” Apparently,
encouraging Muslims to learn these two qualities reflects the need of fighting skills
that was felt during the Prophet’s lifetime. In his al-‘Iqd al-Farīd, Ibn ʿAbd Rabbīh
(d. 328/940) dedicates a short section on the virtues of horses ( faḍāʾil al-khayl), where
he narrates numerous ḥadī ths (Ibn ʿAbd Rabbih 1983, pp. 134–135) and (Ibn ʿAbd
Rabbih 2006, p. 109). Undoubtedly, the Prophet’s praise for horsemanship had also
influenced the Muslim leaders to include such qualities as part of an elementary
educational program. However, it is also worth noting that the teaching and learning
of swimming and horsemanship required access to river or sufficient water and horses,
both of which were not adequately available all over the Muslim countries, particu-
larly for children and youths at their early stage of learning.
Secondly, ‘Umar b. al-Khaṭṭāb’s proposed curriculum also reflected some key
aspects of the Arab culture and tradition, particularly the Arabs’ love and admiration
for poetry, moral tales, heroic stories, and proverbs. These themes consisted of
Islamic Education and Development of Educational Traditions and. . . 81

important parts of education as well as moral and ethical attitude at all levels. In his
Murūj al-Dhahab wa Maʿādin al-Jawhar, al-Masʿūdī (d. 346/957) notes of
Muʿāwīyah’s moral behavior and attitudes. He states that Muʿāwīyah used to
spend a third of the night with those closest to him, such as his special attendants,
distinguished ministers, and confident members of the court and would discuss the
narratives of Arab and non-Arab kingdoms, their political affairs, warfare, and the
rulers’ behavior and conduct towards their subjects (al-Masʿūdī 2005, p. 32). This
type of gathering, which took place in a private residence or in that of the caliph,
typifies Arab culture and their people’s love for poetry, moral tales, and heroic
actions. It is also worth noting a gathering of this ilk gave the palace an informal
educational character. As shall be discussed later, palaces became indeed places of
intellectual discussion and attracted scholars of different fields.
An organized form of elementary educational institutions started under the
Umayyad caliphs. These institutions provided primary-level education and were
known by many different terms, as kuttāb (pl. katātī b, elementary school) and
maktab (pl. makātib, elementary school), zāwiyah (pl. zawāyā, corner), ḥalqah
(pl. ḥalaqāt, circle), and majlis (pl. majālis, sessions by sitting on the ground). In
the early period of Islam, these terms were often used interchangeably. However,
gradually, the terms kuttāb and maktab came to be exclusively applied for elemen-
tary education, whereas the other terms also included educational sessions and
traditions for advanced studies.
Historically, it has been recorded that the institutions of the kuttāb and maktab
arose during the Umayyad era (661–750) and became widespread in the early Abbasid
(750–1258) times (Landau 1986, p. 567). In discussing educational institutions in the
Abbasid caliphate, Ahmad Amin states that the kuttāb was an educational institution
for children. He refers to two types of kuttābs: one was dedicated to the teaching of
principles of reading and writing and the Qur’ān, while the other type was fully
committed to the teaching of language and all other related components, including
grammar (1998, p. 50) (Also see, Shalabi 1979, pp. 17–18; Hitti 1996, p. 178). Despite
this duality, kuttāb and maktab were often associated with the education of the Qur’ān.
The kuttāb curriculum was simple and often managed and taught by a single teacher.
Therefore, it could easily take place anywhere in mosques, private houses, houses of
learned men, libraries, and palaces. The curriculum of the Qur’ān-oriented kuttābs
included correct recitation, reading and understanding of the Qur’ānic verses, which
would then culminate in the memorization of as many verses and sūrahs (chapters) as
possible. Apparently, as Jurjī Zaydān (1993, p. 625) states in his History of Islamic
Civilization, the first Qur’ān lesson consisted of the correct reading of the verses.
Those kuttābs that pursued a non-Qur’ān route mainly taught children reading,
writing, penmanship, language and grammar, poetry, and mathematics. Some
teachers, as Amin states, would teach without charging a fee (ibid.: 50). Apparently,
this generosity, which reflected a spirit of pious endowment of time and knowledge,
was also important in increasing young children’s access to kuttāb, particularly for
those from poor financial background. Similarly, building a sabī l-kuttāb, i.e., a public
water point, during the Mamlūk and the latter Ottoman periods in Cairo, was viewed a
pious act (The term sabīl (pl. subul) literally means ‘way, road, and path’. It acquired
82 Y. Baiza

the specific meaning of drinking fountain, public supply of water as a charitable act in
the later Islamic times (Bosworth 1995, p. 678), particularly after the twelfth century).
Caroline Williams, for instance, states that the sabī l-kuttāb combined public drinking
fountains, or troughs, with Qur’ānic schools and was a favorite civic charity (Williams
2002, p. 15). Doris Behrens-Abouseif (1989, p. 16) further adds that the sabī l could
also be attached to mosques and madrasahs. Primarily, it was a place where the thirsty
passer-by could get a drink of water. She states that it was not common to all Muslim
cities. In the cities where it was founded, such as Fez, Cairo, and Istanbul, the sabī l did
predate the twelfth century (Behrens-Abouseif 1995, p. 679). It is true that the sabī l-
kuttāb, with its impressive architectural designs, was unique in the streets of these
three cities, and the concept of offering free public water was certainly a widespread
tradition. As Behrens-Abouseif states, it was common in the Roman and Byzantine
cities (ibid.: 679). Offering free public drinking water, as Williams says, was viewed as
a great civic charity, and similarly offering free education to young children in the
kuttāb, particularly at a time when fewer teachers and educational places were
available, must also have been viewed as an act of great piety.
One of the key questions is that why the early kuttābs separated the Qur’ān and
non-Qur’ān education. This separation and approach to elementary education was
based on a number of reasons. First, certain kuttāb teachers lacked sufficient
knowledge of the Qur’ān. Apparently, they were afraid of making mistakes in
teaching the Qur’ān, for which they had a great religious devotion and personal
respect. Therefore, they preferred to teach non-Qur’ān subjects. Secondly, copies of
the Qur’ān were not available in great quantity, and not every household and every
teacher possessed a personal copy. This was another key reason why some teachers,
even if they wished, could not teach the Qur’ān. Thirdly, not all kuttāb teachers were
Muslims. There were also Jews, Christians, and other non-Muslim teachers. These
teachers for obvious reasons not only refrained from teaching the Qur’ān, but they
also ran their kuttābs outside mosques.
Finally, two travelers Ibn Jubayr (d. 613/1217) and Ibn Baṭūṭah, (d. 778/1377),
share an identical reason as to why kuttābs were divided between Qur’ān and non-
Qur’ān education. In their Riḥlahs (travelogues), both authors give the following
reason why the Qur’ān- and non-Qur’ān-oriented kuttābs were separated from one
another. In discussing the state of elementary education in al-Jāmiʿ al-Mukarram in
Damascus, Ibn Jubayr states that children’s education included memorization of the
Qur’ān, writing, poetry, and similar subjects. He then adds that teachers were
teaching reading and writing through poetry and other non-Qur’ānic texts. The
reason for this approach was that teachers and pupils would have to write verses
of the Qur’ān and then delete and re-write them, but the deletion of Qur’ānic verses
was seen inappropriate. In addition, teachers often feared that pupils, due to their
mischievous nature, would not treat the Qur’ānnic verses with due respect. Ibn
Baṭūṭah offers a similar reason. In his account of teachers in al-Jāmiʿ al-Mukarram
in Damascus, he states that because teachers did not want the Qur’ānic verses to be
deleted, and as children might forget to treat the written texts with due respect, they
preferred to teach the Qur’ān orally and reading and writing through poetry and other
non- Qur’ānic texts. He further adds that in order to avoid any confusion in the mind
Islamic Education and Development of Educational Traditions and. . . 83

of children, the sessions or teaching ḥalqahs of the Qur’ān were separated from the
ḥalqahs of reading and writing, particularly when they were taught inside a great
mosque. Ibn Jubayr views this separation as a sound tradition because teachers of the
Qur’ān and teachers of reading and writing could thus fully dedicate themselves to
their subjects and offer students their full and best efforts (Jubayr 1907, p. 245; Ibn
Baṭūṭah 1997, pp. 314–315).

Institutions and Traditions of Higher Education

Higher education in the classical period of Islam is often connected with the concept of
madrasah. The rise of madrasahs gave an organized shape and structure to education
and provided a new avenue and organizational system for higher education. Students
from kuttābs and maktabs made their way to madrasahs, where they began to pursue
their advanced studies in an organized and structured way. From the structural point of
view, madrasahs are usually attached to a mosque, preferably to a Friday or jāmiʿ
mosque, and offer accommodation and classes in the form of a lodging complex
(khān) next to the mosque, enabling students to have classes in the lodge and attend
prayers in the adjacent mosque. This new combination of masjid-khān complex gave
birth to a formal boarding school that came to be known as the madrasah.
Despite the rise of madrasahs, the mosque continued to preserve its position as the
mother institution, particularly for education. In the early history of madrasah education,
the distinction between madrasah and mosque was not as clear as it is today, because of
physical proximity of lodges to mosque and the educational character of both places.
Therefore, it is important to highlight at the outset of this section that higher education
was not exclusively confined within the parameters of madrasah buildings. The mosque
remained one of the primary centers of higher and advanced studies in various disci-
plines during the first five centuries of Islam. It was customary for scholars to sit on the
ground of grand mosques and to be encircled by students. This type of study circles on
the floor of the mosque were known as majlis, ḥalqah, and zāwiyah.
Educationally, mosques were used as meeting places where people gathered
around scholars, listened to their lectures, read books with them, and gained
knowledge. Some of the greatest scholars of Islam received their education and
taught their students in mosques. All four founders of the Sunnī Muslim schools of
law – the Imāms Abū Ḥanīfah, Malik, Shāfiʿī, and Ibn Ḥanbal – not only gained
their immense knowledge, but also taught their disciples, in mosques by sitting in
an educational ḥalqah and majlis inside congregation mosques. Under the auspices
of these scholars, students learnt and debated various fields of study, such as the
Arabic language and grammar, ḥadī th, fiqh, history, and other disciplines of the
time. Zaydān states that as the number both of students and fields of study
increased, with each ḥalqah coming to be known by the name of the master who
was leading and teaching a specific set of subjects (Zaydān 1993, p. 625). Thus,
while a congregation mosque might serve as a grand madrasah, there were also
many smaller madrasahs or educational centers whose teaching was that of their
leading masters.
84 Y. Baiza

The Shī‘ah Imāms, Muḥammad al-Bāqir (d. 125/743) and his son Jaʿfar al-Ṣādiq
(d. 148/765), were known for the depth and breadth of their knowledge. Imām Jaʿfar
al-Ṣādiq was famous for his vast circle of disciples. Dwight M. Donaldson compares
al-Ṣādiq’s educational circle or forum, which was held in his garden, to that of the
Socratic school (Donaldson 1933, p. 132), and apparently referring to the quality of
intellectual thinking and debates that took place in al-Ṣādiq’s educational circle. One
could assume that the teaching and learning methods in the time of al-Ṣādiq and the
centuries to come were based on a simple principle of the master’s lecture and
instruction, and learners taking notes, followed by group discussions. Such group
discussions were in the form of a dialogue, in which ideas and concepts were
explored, questioned, and discussed. Such dialogues were the intellectual spirit of
early Muslim education and important for the advancement and expansion of the
horizons of knowledge. It is also important to note that during al-Ṣādiq’s time,
students were not followers of a specific school of jurisprudence, as these schools
had not been founded yet. Scholars were respected for their knowledge, rather than
being perceived as law-givers and law-makers. This spirit of the pursuit of knowl-
edge and education was the primary motivation for students from various parts to the
Muslim world to gather around well-known scholars of the time.
Educational circles and majālis were primarily meant to inspire and broaden the
horizons of students’ knowledge, instead of controlling their views and minds. This
was true for al-Ṣādiq’s Socratic forum. The number and outstanding quality of
al-Ṣādiq’s disciples are evidence to this claim. On the authority of Ikhtiyār Maʿrifat
al-Rijāl (known as Rijāl al-Kashī) of Muḥammad b. ʿUmar b. ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz Kashī,
Shaybī states that in the mosque of Kūfah alone there were around 900 scholars, who
studied under al-Ṣādiq (1974, p. 181). Some famous and respected scholars had even
greater numbers of students, but al-Ṣādiq must have had one of the largest educational
circles. According to historical reports, his famous disciples included Abū Ḥanīfah
(d. 150/767), Wāṣil b. ‘Aṭāʾ (d. 130/748), Malik b. Anas (d. 179/795), Jābir b. Ḥayyān
(d. 199/815), and Muslim b. Ḥajjāj (d. 261/875), who became great personalities and
scholars of their time (Shaybī 1974, p. 181; Donaldson 1933, p. 132). These and many
other of his disciples took important intellectual and scholarly roles in Muslim
communities. Despite the fact that Abū Ḥanīfah disagreed with al-Ṣādiq on certain
issues, he respected him as his master and the greatest scholar of his time. In his
Tadhkirat al-Ḥuffāẓ, Abū ʿAbd Allāh Shams al-Dīn Muḥammad al-Dhahabī (d. 748/
1348) quotes Abū Ḥanīfah, saying that “I have not seen a scholar more knowledgeable
than Jaʿfar b. Muḥammad” (al-Dahabī 1954, p. 166). Abū Ḥanīfah’s disagreement
with, and respect for, al-Ṣādiq demonstrate the intellectual depth and spirit of the early
period of Islam. The true masters were interested in expanding their students’ horizon
of knowledge rather than controlling their mind and narrowing their vision of religion,
knowledge and education. Abū Ḥanīfah became an authority on fiqh in Kūfah and the
founder of Sunnī Ḥanafī schools of fiqh. Joseph Schacht states that after the death of
Ḥammād b. Abī Sulaymān (d. 120), Abū Ḥanīfah became the foremost point of
reference for the Kūfan school of fiqh. Following the established tradition of imparting
knowledge and education in and through mosques, Abū Ḥanīfah used to lecture at the
congregational mosque in Kūfah (Schacht 1986, p. 123). Similarly, Mālik b. Anas
Islamic Education and Development of Educational Traditions and. . . 85

founded the Sunnī Mālikī school of jurisprudence, and Wāṣil b. Āṭāʾ became the
founded of what later became the Mu‘atazilī rational school of thought. Thus, it
became customary for students in the early period of Islam to pursue their higher
education in their desired field of study under famous scholars, who used to sit and
teach in congregational mosques.
Historically, a major shift in the development of organized higher education and
research centers started under the Abbasid caliphate. It is worth highlighting that two
personalities of Khurāsān deserve special credit in facilitating the intellectual shift.
The first figure is Abū Muslim Khurāsānī (b. 102/723) (for further details, see Baiza
2014) (Ghubar 1957, p. 64). He led the anti-Umayyad revolt and prepared the
ground for the rise of the Abbasids to the Muslim caliphate (132–656/750–1258).
The second personality is Khālid ibn Barmak (90–165/709–782) and the Barmak
family members. Abū Muslim appointed Khālid ibn Barmak commander in his
army. The latter marched towards Kūfah, where he defeated the Umayyads and
released Abū al-‘Abbās ‘Abd Allāh ibn Muḥammad al-Saffāḥ from his hiding place
and helped him to become the new caliph. This encounter highly increased Khālid
ibn Barmak’s personal value in the eyes of the first Abbasid caliph, al-Saffāḥ
(caliphate: 132–36/750–54). Consequently, the Barmaks became the most trusted
and popular family in the Abbasid caliphate.
The Barmak family came from Balkh and played a leading role in advancing
scientific and literary knowledge in the Abbasid caliphate. The Barmaks, since the
pre-Islamic era, were an influential intellectual and religious family in Balkh, a city
known for being the cradle of ancient civilizations, including Zoroastrianism and
Buddhism. The name and fame of the city was also known to the Muslim leaders in
the early period of Islam. In his Faḍāʾil-i Balkh (written in 610/1214), Wāʿiẓ Balkhī
narrates a saying attributed to the fourth caliph of Islam, ʿAlī ibn Abī Ṭālib, in
which he praises the city, saying that “blessed is the weather, water and plants of
Balkh, where scholars and knowledge are so intermingled with one another like a
pomegranate with its seeds” (Wāʿiẓ Balkhī 1971, p. 14). The quoted saying of ʿAlī
ibn Abī Ṭālib not only describes the name and fame of the city of Balkh, but it also
describes the intellectual milieu and context in which the Barmak family lived. The
family’s name, Barmak, is derived from the Sanskrit word parmak (or pramukha),
meaning “superior chief and leader.” Apparently, the Barmaks served in the temple
of Naw Bahār, near Balkh. Again, the name of the temple stems from Sanskrit
Nava Vihāra meaning “new monastery.” It is very likely that the family earned its
name “Barmak,” an altered version of parmak (or pramukha), from serving as
“superior chiefs” in a Buddhist monastery in Balkh (Barthold and Sourdel 1986,
p. 1033). Hence, the surname Barmak not only indicates the concerned family’s
social and religious position, but also suggests that, as head of Buddhist monas-
teries, they were an important source of knowledge and education. At the time
when Khālid ibn Barmak entered the Abbasid caliphate, the Arabs did not have a
highly advanced educational and scientific tradition. It was the Barmaks who
brought a new educational and scientific culture to the Abbasid caliphate.
The Barmak family encouraged the Abbasid caliphs and the educated class of
native Arabs to engage in translation works, which then allowed them to make
86 Y. Baiza

original contributions to various fields of knowledge. The Barmaks’ first three

generations, namely from Khālid to Yaḥyā and Yaḥyā’s four sons, (Faḍl, Jaʿfar,
Muḥammad and Mūsā), led the development of administrative and intellectual
affairs of the Abbasid caliphate. Khālid Barmak himself acted as the leading advisor
to al-Saffāḥ and his successor Abū Jaʿfar ʿAbd Allāh al-Manṣūr (caliphate: 136–7/
754–75). When al-Manṣūr founded the city of Baghdad in 145/762, Khālid Barmak
laid the architectural foundation for the city and advised the caliph how to build the
new Dār al-khilāfah (the caliphal palace) (al-Ṭabarī 1996, pp 4871, 4916). Equally,
Harūn al-Rashīd (caliphate: 169–193/786–809) appointed Yaḥyā son of Khālid ibn
Barmak as his vizier. Yaḥyā encouraged the Abbasid caliphs to promote knowledge
and translate scientific works from Hindi, Persian-Dari, and other languages into
Arabic and to establish schools and promote various fields of knowledge. Yaḥyā
himself is believed to have written a book on astronomy and translated a book of
medicine from Hindi into Arabic. Yaḥyā’s son, Mūsā, was also engaged in transla-
tion works (Ghubar 1957, pp. 87–88). Harūn al-Rashīd’s Bayt al-Ḥikmah (House of
Wisdom) or Khazānat al-Ḥikmah (Treasury of Wisdom) and Dār al-Tarjumah
(House of Translation), which reached the height of their fame under al-Maʾmūn’s
rule and became famous for the translation of books from Hindi, Persian-Dari,
Greek, and Syriac into Arabic, were very much the result of the Barmaks’ intellec-
tual and educational leadership.
The translation initiatives not only raised awareness about educational and
scientific achievements in other civilizations, but also initiated fresh scientific and
experimental research. As an example, Zaydān (1993) states that al-Ma’mūn, after
becoming aware of Ptolemy’s astronomical works, ordered the building of observa-
tories on Mount Qasyūn in Damascus and Shammāsiyah in Baghdad in 214/829.
Although al-Ma’mūn’s observatories were left incomplete after the caliph himself
died in 218/833 (616–17), his observatories left behind a scientific tradition, which
was then advanced by the Fāṭimīds in Egypt and by mathematicians in Khurāsān.
However, in response to their services and contributions to knowledge, education
and strengthening the Abbasids’ political, administrative, intellectual, and social
foundation, Harūn al-Rashīd followed the example of his ancestor, al-Manṣūr, who
killed the founder of the Abbasid caliphate, Abū Muslim Khurāsānī. Harūn killed
Yaḥyā’s son, Jaʿfar in 187/803, and put Yaḥyā and his another son, Faḍl, in prison.
Yaḥyā and Faḍl died in Harūn’s prison in 190/806 and 192/808 respectively (Ghubar
1957, p. 90). Following this family tradition, Harūn’s son, al-Maʾmūn (caliphate:
198–218/813–833), treacherously murdered his vizier, al-Faḍl ibn Sahl al-Sarakhsī,
who helped him to establish his empire in Khurāsān and then defeat his brother
al-Amīn in Baghdad (Ghubar 1957, vol. 3, pp. 94–95) (al-Ṭabarī 1996, pp. 4655,
4676, 4678, 4691, 4700–4701, 4706–4707). However, despite the Abbasids’ cam-
paign against Abū Muslim Khurāsānī, the Barmak family, and other Khurāsānian
leaders, the Barmaks’ intellectual and educational legacies survived for centuries.
Over the course of two centuries, many new centers of civilization began to
flourish all over the Muslim world, from Granada and Cordoba in Andalusia of
Spain to Nīshāpūr, Herāt, Ghaznī, Balkh, and Bukhārā in Khurāsān. As already
stated, mosques and caliphs continued to play an important role in Muslim
Islamic Education and Development of Educational Traditions and. . . 87

education. The prominent early mosques, which became important intellectual

centers, include al-Zaytūnah in Tunis, Tunisia (founded in 731), al-Qarawīyyīn in
Fes, Morocco (founded in 859), and al-Azhar in Cairo, Egypt (founded by the
Fāṭimīd caliphate in 970). Among all mosques of the early period of Islam, as
Zaydān states, al-Azhar was the most famous mosque, and as an educational center,
it was the absolute best. He further adds that al-Azhar became a popular destination
for students, pursuing various fields of education, from many different Muslim
countries (1993, p. 625). The Fāṭimīds also founded other educational institutions,
namely Dār al-ʿIlm (House of Knowledge) and the institution of daʿwah, built by the
sixth Fāṭimīd Caliph-Imām al-Ḥākim bi Amr Allāh (caliphate: 386–411/996–1021).
The latter primarily advanced the Ismā‘īlī religious mission.
The Fāṭimīds’ tradition of learning was not limited to their official educational
institutions. They also used to hold two types of educational traditions: public
lectures and sermons (khuṭbahs) for all and special lectures for Ismā‘īlī converts,
known as majālis al-ḥikmah (wisdom sessions). The general lectures or sermons
were usually given in Friday Mosques inside and outside Cairo, whereas the wisdom
sessions, also known as the daʿwah sessions, could take place anywhere, from a
private meeting between a dāʿī and his disciple in an informal place to the caliph’s
palace. It was the caliph himself, but more often one of his dāʿī s (summoners),
mainly his chief dāʿī (dāʿī al-duʿāt) and jurist, who used to hold regular majālis in
the al-Azhar mosque and other Friday mosques outside Cairo. These gathering could
take place up to twice a week, every Monday and Thursday, and high ranking
officials and dignitaries were among the regular attendees (Bearman et al. 1986,
p. 1032) (Madelung 1986, p. 1032). In his Akhbār Miṣr fī Sanatayn 414–415,
al-Musabbiḥī (d. 420/1029) states that it was either the Fāṭimīd Caliph-Imām himself
or his chief justice who used to deliver the sermons and lectures after the Friday
prayers. The al-Azhar and al-Ḥākīm (also known as al-Anwār) mosques were the
most popular congregational mosques in Cairo (al-Musabbiḥī 1980, p. 180–183).
The best-known of such public lectures are those of Imām-Caliph al-Musṭanṣir bi
Allāh’s chief dāʿī , al-Mu’ayyad fī al-Dīn Shīrāzī (d. 470/1077), whose public
lectures were collected under the title Majālis Muʾayyadiyyah. The work contains
800 lectures which al-Muʾayyad delivered over the course of 20 years, from
450/1058 until he died in 470/1077, in various congregation mosques and in the
Dār al-ʿIlm of the Imām-Caliph al-Ḥākim bi Amr Allāh.
It was a tradition among the Ismā‘īlī dāʿīs to present each lecture to the Imām
before reading it to the public. The Imām would read it and make corrections if
needed before ratifying it. Since the Imām corrected and authorized each lecture, the
dāʿīs often regarded their lectures as their Imām’s words, rather than attributing it to
themselves (Shīrāzī 1950, p. 7). Apparently, this humble attitude towards the imām
was one of the primary reasons why the author of al-Majālis al-Musṭanṣiriyyah
avoided mentioning his own name as the author of the lectures (Although, in his
Ismaili Literature: A Bibliographical Survey, Wladimir Ivanow attributes al-Majālis
al-Musṭanṣiriyyah to al-Muʾayyad (1963, pp. 46–47), it now appears as a fairly
accepted view that the book is the work of another Fāṭimīd dāʿī , ʿAbd al-Ḥākim
b. Wahb al-Malījī. It was Samuel Miklos Stern who first attributed the book to
88 Y. Baiza

al-Malījī, and this was then confirmed by Wilfred Madelung (1986, p. 1031) and
Farhad Daftary (2005, p. 129–130). There are also other collections of lectures,
namely al-Majālis wa al-Musāyarāt and Taʾwī l al-Daʿāʾīm al-Islām of al-Qāḍī
al-Nuʿmān, Majālis Sayyidinā Ḥātim Ḥamī dī, Majālis al-Nūsh wa al-Bayān of
ʿAlī b. Muḥammad b. Walīd, and an anonymous work entitled Majālis ʿĀshūrī yah.
The last work was apparently delivered on the occasion of ʿĀshūrā (the tenth of
Muḥarram), when Shī‘ah Muslims commemorate the martyrdom of Ḥusayn ibn ʿAlī
ibn Abī Ṭālib (d. 61/681). These lectures, whether delivered for the general public or
for Ismā‘īlī audience alone, covered a wide range of themes and were primarily intended
to educate, raise awareness among, and share knowledge with, the targeted audience.
Generally, the Fāṭimīd caliphs had a very high esteem for knowledge and
education and paid significant attention to the development of educational and
scientific disciplines and institutions. In describing the city of Cairo and the Fāṭimīd
caliphs, al-Maqrīzī (d. 845/1441) provides good details about the city, its important
buildings, and developments. He also describes one of the Fāṭimīds’ important
educational and scientific research centers, known as the Dār al-ʿIlm (House of
Knowledge), which served as an academy of sciences. In his Kitāb al-Mawāʿiẓ wa
al-Iʿtibār bi-Dhikr al-Khiṭaṭ wa al-Athār, al-Maqrīzī states that the Fāṭimīd caliph
al-Ḥākim bi-Amr Allāh (caliphate: 386–412/996–1021) built the Dār al-ʿIlm in the
vicinity of the Western Palace and inaugurated it on 10 Jumādā al-Ākhir
395 (30 March 1005). The new research center, Dār al-ʿIlm, attracted scholars
from a wide range of disciplines, such as the Qur’ān, ḥadī th, astronomy, philosophy,
philology, jurisprudence, and medicine. The caliph provided scholars with books,
pens, ink, inkstands, writing reeds, papers, and other needed facilities (al-Maqrīzī
1987, pp. 458–459). Al-Maqrīzī’s description of the Dār al-ʿIlm research center
suggests that the Fāṭimīd caliph aimed at providing scholars with a truly effective
and well-equipped library and made sure that the library, librarians, scholars, and
visitors built a very cordial and comfortable relationship so that the best cutting-edge
knowledge of the time could be produced and disseminated. The Dār al-ʿIlm did not
survive the course of history, but al-Azhar survived and evolved into a well-
structured university. In the eyes of many Muslim and non-Muslim historians,
al-Azhar is one of the oldest universities in the world. Today, al-Azhar serves as
one of the most prestigious educational centers, particularly in Islamic studies, in the
Sunnī Muslim world.
The Fāṭimīds’ educational endeavors became a source of inspiration as well
rivalry for the Seljuk vizier, Niẓām al-Mulk (d. 485/1092), in establishing numerous
madrasahs in Iraq, Persia, and Khurāsān. He founded the first madrasah in Baghdad
in 457/1065, named after Niẓām al-Mulk himself. It is worth highlighting that there
had already been a tradition of madrasahs in Khurāsān, before Niẓām al-Mulk was
born. In discussing educational and scientific institutions during the Abassid period,
Tāj al-Dīn ‘Abd al-Wahhāb ibn ‘Alī ibn ‘Abd al-Kāfī al-Subkī (d. 771/1369) states
in his Ṭabaqāt al-Shāfiʿīyah al-Kubrā that there had already been madrasahs in
Khurāsān long before the establishment of Niẓāmiyah Madrasahs. He names the
madrasahs of al-Bayhaqīyyah and al-Sa‘dīyyah in Nīshāpūr, which were built by
Sulṭān Maḥmūd Ghaznawī’s brother, al-Amīr Naṣr b. Sabuktagīn (Al-Subkī 1964,
Islamic Education and Development of Educational Traditions and. . . 89

p. 49). However, Niẓām al-Mulk undoubtedly played a major role in expanding and
structuring the chain of madrasahs in Khurāsān and Iraq. Apart from being a learned
man and appreciating the value of education and the spread of knowledge, his
encounter with the Fāṭimīd Ismā‘īlī daʿwa school, which was successfully spreading
throughout the Muslim world, was another major element for Niẓām al-Mulk’s
establishing of madrasahs.
The positive outcome of this educational and theological rivalry was the spread of
many madrasahs that were fully funded by the Seljuk state, and it provided an
inspiration for other statesmen to establish their madrasahs, to build and equip
libraries, and to provide financial support for teachers, students, and scholarly
research. Zaydān lists a number of madrasahs which were inspired by Niẓām
al-Mulk’s Niẓāmiyahs, such as Nūr al-Dīn Zangī’s (d. 577/1181) madrasahs in
Syria, and Ṣalāḥ al-Dīn al-Ayyūbī’s (d. 589/1193) madrasahs in Egypt. This trend
was then followed by Ṣalāḥ al-Dīn’s successors as well as by the Ottoman Turks and
Ṣafavīds in Iran. Orhan (rule: 726–61/1326–60), the second Ottoman caliph and
successor of his father, Osman I (rule: 698–726/1299–1326), established the first
Ottoman madrasah. Other Ottoman caliphs, particularly Sultan Sülaymān I (d. 973/
1566), followed this tradition and founded eight madrasahs (Zaydān 1993, p. 629).
Similarly the Ṣafavīds (906–1134/1501–1722) in Iran established madrasahs which
primarily promoted the Shī‘ah Ithnā ʿAsh’arī creed. However, by this time,
madrasahs had already lost their spirit of creative thinking and the culture of
exhaustive research. As Zawabiti (1980:, p.98–99) suggests, the Ṣafavīd madrasahs
were more sectarian than genuine institutions of educational research. The author-
ities closed the Ḥanafī, Mālikī, and Shāfī‘ī madrasahs and opened new madrasahs
that promoted the Shī‘ah Ithnā ʿAsharī view of Islam. Such trends of politicization
silenced the early dynamism of madrasah education in Iran However, the rise and
spread of madrasahs during the fourth/tenth and fifth/eleventh centuries were
undoubtedly a major step forward. Higher education became more structured and
organized, and caliphs and statesmen became personally engaged in the affairs of
education by providing funding for teachers and students.

Higher Education Curriculum: An Inclusive and Interdisciplinary

System

Generally, higher education in the mediaeval period was open to different fields of
study. In order to see the range of different subjects and their relationship with one
another, one needs only to look at the classification of knowledge of early Muslim
scholars. From numerous classifications, that of al-Fārābī (d. 338/950) and Ibn
Khaldūn (d. 808/1406) are briefly analyzed and discussed here. Al-Fārābī presents
his classification of sciences in his famous work, Iḥsāʾ al-ʿUlūm (Enumeration of the
Sciences), whereas Ibn Khaldūn discusses his classification of sciences in his
al-Muqaddimah (Prolegomena).
Al-Fārābī follows the Aristotelian model, which divides sciences into different
classes and subclasses. This model not only determines and explains the contents
90 Y. Baiza

and relationship of sciences with one another, but it also defines their nature,
function, and characteristics as far as possible. However, al-Fārābī differs from
Aristotle on one important point. Aristotle divides sciences into two overarching
theoretical and practical categories, whereas al-Fārābī views these categories as two
dimensions of individual sciences, rather than overarching categories. As an example, he
states that the science of counting, the science of geometry, and the science of music all
contain both theoretical and practical parts (al-Fārābī 1994, p. 49–51 and 60–61). From
al-Fārābī’s perspective, the division of sciences into theoretical and practical categories
neither adequately nor comprehensively describes their quality, characteristics, and
functions. In his Enumeration, al-Fārābī classifies the body of generally accepted
sciences available to him into five main classes of (1) ʿilm al-lisān (science of language),
(2) ʿilm al-manṭiq (science of logic), (3) ʿilm al-taʿlī m (science of mathematics) , (4) ʿilm
al-tabī ʿī wa ʿilm al-ilāhī (sciences of nature and metaphysics), and (5) ʿilm al-madanī
(also called political science or political philosophy, and is the ancient science of politics,
i.e., Plato’s Republic and Aristotle’s Politics) wa ʿilm al-fiqh wa ʿilm al-kalām (political
science and the sciences of jurisprudence and theology) (al-Fārābī, 1994: 17-92). He
then divides these five classes into further sub- and sub-sub-classes, and demonstrates
their relationships and distinctions. While al-Fārābī’s political science follows the
ancient Greek political philosophy, which includes debates on the characteristics of
rulers and the type of rule, the way cities have to be managed and the affairs of nations
should be governed, the inclusion of the sciences of jurisprudence ( fiqh) and dialectical
theology (kalām) were quite modern in his time. The Greek political philosophy was
concerned with temporal life, whereas jurisprudence and dialectical theology gave a
prominent religious feature to al-Fārābī’s political philosophy.
Ibn Khaldūn approaches the classification of sciences from a broader civiliza-
tional perspective. His classification methodology, however, bears close resem-
blance to that of al-Fārābī. In his al-Muqaddimah, Ibn Khaldūn presents a
classification of those sciences that were taught in educational institution of his
time. He divides sciences into two categories of natural sciences (ʿulūm ṭabī ʿiyyah),
also called rational sciences (ʿulūm ʿaqliyyah) or the sciences of wisdom and
philosophy (al-‘ulūm al-ḥikmī yah al-falsafī yah), and religious sciences, also
known as the transmitted sciences (al-‘ulūm al-naqlī yyah). He further adds that
the class of natural sciences refers to those sciences that man learns them through the
use of intellect and thought ( fikr), observation and senses. Then, he divides this class
of sciences into four categories of: logic, physics, metaphysics, and the study of
measurements (geometry, arithmetic, music, and astronomy) (Ibn-Khaldūn 2005,
vol. 2, p. 358, and vol. 3, pp. 71–75) and presents a detailed discussion on each of
these sciences and their subclasses.
In Ibn Khaldūn’s classification of sciences, there is a sharp distinction between
the rational and the transmitted sciences. Regarding the class of transmitted sciences,
he states that they could be learned only from those who created and established
them (Barazangi 1995; Ibn-Khaldūn 2005, vol. 2, p. 358). Above this class of
sciences stand the Qur’ān and the sunnah of the Prophet Muḥammad. The major
subclasses of the sciences of the Qur’ān and the sunnah include the Arabic language,
the sciences of hadī th, exegetics, recitation, jurisprudence, and theology. Each of
Islamic Education and Development of Educational Traditions and. . . 91

these sciences entails subclasses, such as uṣūl al-fiqh for jurisprudence, and the
science of rijāl (narrators) for hadīth. The science of language also includes several
subclasses, such as grammar, rhetoric, and literature. From Ibn Khaldūn’s viewpoint,
all branches of transmitted sciences are rooted in the divine revelation (Ibn-Khaldūn
2005, vol. 2, pp. 359–376).
What is important to note in al-Fārābī’s and Ibn Khaldūn’s classification of sciences
is that they do not divide sciences into individual categories. They show how the
different sciences and their branches are inter-related. From an educational viewpoint,
their models of classification offer an interdisciplinary curriculum and approach to
sciences. On the importance and relationship between these sciences, Mohammad
Arkoun states that the Muslim scholars of the mediaeval era were aware of the
importance of the rational sciences and kept developing them. While the religious
sciences had theological primacy, the rational sciences had methodological priority
(Arkoun 2006, pp. 181–182). He also adds that in addition to the religious and rational
sciences, the madrasah education system also included handicraft (ḥiraf), an essen-
tially practical subject and the third important element in the classification of sciences
of the medieval period. It also catered for the needs of the masses (ibid.).
A final point in this discussion of institutions and traditions of higher education is the
tradition of graduation and teaching permits. Permission to teach was based upon the
successful completion of a course of study. Individual masters, or if the course of study
was part of a larger madrasah curriculum, and madrasah authorities examined indi-
vidual students on their knowledge, before granting them the teaching license (ijāzah).
In the classical period, there were various forms of ijāzah. Initially, these were issued to
transmit hadī th primarily. Later on, separate licenses were issued for legal opinion
(al-ijāzah li al-iftāʾ) and the teaching of law (al-ijāzah li al-tadrīs) or a combined
license for both (ijāzah li al-tadrī is wa al-iftāʾ) (Makdisi 1981, p. 270). Its equivalent in
modern-day institutions of higher education would be graduate and postgraduate
achievements, such as the bachelor’s, master’s, and doctoral degrees. (For details see
Chapter ▶ “Ijāzah: Methods of Authorization and Assessment in Islamic Education”)

Tasawwūf and Its Educational Institutions and Traditions

˙
In parallel to the educational traditions and institutions discussed above, the school of
taṣawwūf also developed its own educational institutions and traditions. The term
taṣawwūf means Sufism, a ṣūfī way of life, or Islamic mysticism. By now, it has
generally been accepted that the term is originated from the Arabic ṣūf, meaning wool.
Therefore, a member of this mystical school is called ṣūfī , meaning woolen or the one
who wears wool (Massingon 2000, p. 313). Its Persian equivalent is pashmī nah pūsh.
Over time, the term also acquired other meanings, such as darwī sh and faqī r (poor),
and zāhid (ascetic), which reflect the ṣūfīs’ simple and God-fearing lifestyle.
The ṣūfī educational tradition focuses on the inner and hermeneutic meaning, and
esoteric and spiritual dimension, of the divine scripture. In contrast to traditionalists
and jurists, who pursue a textual approach to the divine revelations, particularly
through understanding the external meaning of the divine scripture and the
92 Y. Baiza

implementation of the sharī ʿah, the ṣūfī paths seek reunion with the realm of the
divine presence through understanding the inner and esoteric meaning of the divine
scripture and, above all, through spiritual contemplation and illumination. Concep-
tually, the ṣūfīs are close to the Shī‘ah Islam, particularly to its Ismā‘īlī interpreta-
tion, which believes that the divine scripture has both exoteric and esoteric aspects.
However, other than this conceptual approach to the divine scripture, the ṣūfī and
Ismā‘īlī traditions differ from one another in many ways. The Ismā‘īlīs have
developed an organized and systematic system of thought, particularly in relation
to the esoteric dimension of the divine scripture. The Ismā‘īlīs maintain a balance
between the exoteric and esoteric aspects of the divine scripture. The latter is
explored and understood by way of taʾwīl (hermeneutic interpretation). In ṣūfī
educational tradition, the primary methodological approach to exploring and dis-
covering a glimpse of the divine presence is based on a love relationship between the
seeker and the divine reality. This love relationship is exercised through dhikr
(remembrance) of God, silent spiritual contemplation in khalwah (seclusion), sing-
ing and listening to devotional poetries (for more detail, see Massingon-[B.Radtke]
2000, pp. 313–317) in praise of God, the Prophet Muḥammad and his companions,
particularly in praise of the fourth caliph of Islam, and the Prophet’s cousin and
son-in-law, ‘Ali ibn Abī Ṭālib. For each ṭarīqah there is a ṣūfī master, who, as
Karamustafa (2007 p. 262) states, takes personal interest in the spiritual development
of his (in some cases, her) disciples (murīds). The shaykh is perceived to be the
spiritual director and the physician of heart and soul. Each ṭarīqah represents a path
of God, and as there are many ṭarīqahs, there are many paths of God. The number of
paths of God could even be multiplied by the number of human population, i.e., each
person is potentially a path of, or could have his/her way of reaching, God. This is the
most common characteristic feature of all ṣūfī educational and intellectual traditions.
In the ṣūfī educational tradition, attaining a glimpse of the divine presence is the
ultimate goal. In the ṣūfī tradition, fanā’ fī Allāh (annihilation of the self in God) is
the first stage of attaining a glimpse of the divine reality. The highest stage is baqā’ bi
Allāh (life in the union of God). In the latter stage, the seeker of divine union lives in
the eternal presence of God. While some traces of personal self-consciousness might
still exist at the stage of fanā’ fī Allāh, this may no longer be present in baqā’ bi
Allāh, where the seeker totally identifies himself with the divine reality. In the fanā’
fī Allāh phase, the seeker finds himself in the divine presence, whereas in the baqā’
bi Allāh stage, the divine is revealed in the soul of the seeker. This is, however, very
different from the belief in divine incarnation. The seeker of the divine reality
remains a divine worshipper. In the words of Muḥammad Iqbāl (d. 1938), it is the
stage when the subject (the seeker of divine reality) transcends, encompasses, and
momentarily suppresses his private personality – an experience which leads him to
form a single unanalyzable unity with the object (the divine reality), where the
ordinary distinction of subject and object does not exist (Iqbal 1958, p. 19). It is the
highest stage of submission to God. In other words, there is nothing personal about
the seeker himself. It is all from and about the divine presence. Such an educational
approach to the divine reality, however, does not have a space in the traditionalist
school of thought.
Islamic Education and Development of Educational Traditions and. . . 93

It is this difference between the ṣūfī and the traditionalist schools of thought that led
the latter to condemn and suppress the former. Perhaps the earliest prominent victim of
this difference goes back to the era of the Abbasid caliph, al-Muqtadir (caliphate:
295–320/908–32), who executed Ḥusayn b. Manṣūr al-Ḥallāj in 922. The Abbasid
jurists and traditionalist could not understand and tolerate al-Ḥallāj’s Gnostic thought
and words, particularly when he reportedly cried, “I am the Truth” (anā al-Ḥaqq).
From ṣūfī educational perspective, al-Ḥallāj had reached the stage of baqā’ bi Allāh,
where he identified himself with the absolute Truth. Therefore, he called himself the
Truth. Almost all great ṣūfī sheykhs (masters) remember al-Ḥallāj with great respect
and reverence. It suffices to quote a phrase from a great Persian poet, Shams al-Dīn
Muḥammad Hāfiẓ Shīrāzī (d. 791/1389), who states that the only fault, if any,
al-Ḥallāj had, it was “divulging the secrets” (asrār huwaydā mī kard). The term
asrār (secrets) in ṣūfī tradition refers to a very personal experience of the divine
presence, be it in the level of fanā’ fī Allāh or baqā’ bi Allāh.
The ṣūfī s, like the Ismā‘īlīs, have often been marginalized from the mainstream
interpretations. It was only through the work of al-Ghazālī, who turned to Sufism,
and his Revival of the Religious Sciences (Iḥyāʾ ʿUlūm al-Dī n) that gradually opened
a space and acceptance for ṣūfī tradition in Sunnī Islam. However, by the time of
al-Ghazālī, the official line of Sunnī tradition, which had been influenced by the
Abbasid caliphs, namely al-Mutwakkil (caliphate: 232–46/847–61), al-Qādir bi
Allāh (caliphate: 380–422/991–1031) and al-Muqtadir (caliphate: 295–320/
908–32), had vehemently become hostile towards the ṣūfī s, Shī‘ahs, particularly
its Ismā‘īlī tradition, the Mu‘atazilīte and all other rationalist and philosophical
schools of thought. These developments have undoubtedly influenced al-Ghazālī
and the ṣūfī traditions in the Sunnī milieu. The ṣūfī institutions include zāwī yah,
ribāṭ, khānqah (khāniqah and khānga), jamāʿat khānih, dargāh, and takī yah khānah
(tekkeh). These places, which are indeed different names for similar purposes, offer
ṣūfīs not only accommodation, a place of worship (ʿibādah), retreat (khalwah), and
dhikr, but they also serve as a school, where ṣūfī masters (pī rs) or their deputies
(khalī fahs) meet with, and impart their spiritual wisdom and knowledge to, their
disciples and followers (sāliks). Each ṣūfī ṭarīqah follows its own chain (silsilah) of
masters or spiritual guides (murshids). Unlike madrasahs and mosques, which serve
as public institutions, admission to ṭarīqahs and the above-mentioned ṣūfī places of
worship and education is strictly restricted to those willing to take the oath of
allegiance (bayʿah) – a tradition that has a long history – among other schools – in
the Ismā‘īlī institution of daʿwah.

The Modern Period

The era of European colonialism brought unprecedented changes to the Muslim

traditions and institutions of learning. The nineteenth-century utilitarian concept of
education, strongly influenced by the dynamic of the industrial revolution, led Euro-
pean authorities to view the traditional Muslim educational institutions and traditions
as devoid of any useful outcome for students and society as a whole. Some of the early
94 Y. Baiza

European orientalists even went on to attack the Arabs and Islam as a religion and
commented that the Arabs lacked a tradition of, and Islam was inherently opposed to,
rational thought, philosophy and the natural sciences. Typically, one of such early and
notable attacks on the Arabs and Islam came from Ernest Renan (1823–1892), a
French orientalist and a historian of religion, who was a loyal supporter of scientific
reason and rationalism. He viewed religion in general and Islam in particular as a set of
beliefs that are void of reason and rationalism. Equally, he described believing
Muslims, particularly the Arabs, as a group of people who not only lacked a scientific
mind-set, but also believed in superstition and dogmatism (Renan 1883, pp. 2–3 and 11).
(For more discussion, see chapter ▶ “The Learned Class (‘Ulamā’) and Education,”
by this author in the present volume.) Such perceptions not only strengthened the
negative view of Islam and the Arabs, but also demonstrated the arrogance displayed
by orientalists in the mold of Renan and their lack of understanding of the historicity
of Muslim educational institutions and traditions.
The European attack and pressure on Muslim educational institutions and tradi-
tions of learning divided Muslim scholars into two camps. Nonconservative ʿulamāʾ
argued for adopting the European model of education as the second best alternative
until new home-grown creative and dynamic systems of education could be devel-
oped across the Muslim countries. As an example, pioneers of this line of thinking in
India and in Egypt were Sir Syed Ahmed Khan (d. 1898) and Sayyid Jamāl al-Dīn
al-Afghānī (d. 1897). Sir Syed established the Aligarh College in India based on the
British educational system. In contrast, the conservative class of ʿulamāʾ rejected
modern European political, economic, and cultural institutions. Instead, they argued
for a return to the early period of Islam. Consequently, they initiated a regressive
trend, which further complicated the declining status of education. In Egypt, the
Salafists, and in India, the Deobandis were two prominent movements that
established their own educational institutions, where they primarily taught the
traditional curriculum. However, despite their resistance, they could not escape the
influence of the European education system. At least, in terms of their management,
administrative system, examination, and awarding of degrees, the Deobandis, for
example, preferred the European instead to the mediaeval Muslim tradition. Despite
changes in the modern period, the educational institutions and traditions of the
earlier classical period have survived down to the present day, particularly in the
form of mosque education for children and madrasahs for advanced studies, albeit in
a noncreative and much more diminished form.

Conclusion

This chapter has discussed the emergence and historical evolution of educational
institutions and traditions in the Muslim world. It has explored and analyzed how
different Muslim educational institutions and traditions at elementary and higher
levels emerged and evolved over the course of history and survived until the
current date.
Islamic Education and Development of Educational Traditions and. . . 95

One of the key institutions, where a lasting educational tradition has developed, is
the mosque. This chapter has explored and analyzed how the tradition and institution
of mosque education provided children and advanced learners a solid educational
platform. It has traced this institution and tradition from its early beginning, during
the Prophet’s lifetime, to the development of more advanced and sophisticated forms
of education in later periods. Although elementary schooling and higher education
have gradually became more structured and organized in the forms of the kuttāb and
madrasah, respectively, the mosque has retained both its position as the mother
institution and its intellectual and educational character throughout the history.
On elementary education, this chapter has analyzed and discussed how and why
two distinct forms of educational traditions, Qur’ān and non-Qur’ān education,
emerged in the early period of Islam. The non-Qur’ān schools were held separately
from the Qur’ān schools. It also discussed the curriculum and structure of elementary
education, which was simple and largely based on the decision of individual teachers.
Muslim higher educational institutions and traditions enjoyed a remarkable devel-
opment in the mediaeval period. Caliphs and statesmen paid attention to the develop-
ment of the rational or natural as well as the religious sciences. The curricula of higher
educational institutions and traditions were flexible, inclusive, and intellectually open
to the different fields of study, which flourished inside and outside mosques and
madrasahs. The spirit of open dialogue and debate was very important for the advance-
ment and expansion of the horizon of knowledge. It was this spirit of the pursuit and
dissemination of knowledge and education that attracted students from various parts of
the Muslim world and eventually led to the flourishing of many centers of civilization,
from Cordoba and Granada in Spain to Balkh and Bukhārā in Khurāsān.
The educational institutions and traditions of the earlier classical period have
survived to the present day. Mosques and madrasahs provide education for children
and advanced learners, but in a much more diminished form. Currently, there is a
dilemma between reforming the traditional educational institutions and traditions on
the one hand and preserving them unchanged on the other.
Finally, this chapter has investigated the subject of this study from broader
historical and educational perspectives and applied a pluralist and minority-inclusive
approach. This approach has opened a space for marginalized voices, namely the
Shī‘ah, particularly the Ismā‘īlī and ṣūfī tradition, which are normally absent from
mainstream interpretations. In addition, this approach has also brought to light the
contributions of the Barmakīs to the development of educational institutions and
traditions in the early Abbasid period. The history and presence of these marginal-
ized voices have often been ignored and rarely appreciated in mainstream
interpretations.

References
Arkoun, M. (2006). Islam: to reform or to subvert? (Updated ed. ed.). London: Saqi.
Azad, A. (2013). Sacred landscapes in medieval Afghanistan: Revisiting the Faḍā’il-i Balkh.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
96 Y. Baiza

Baiza, Y. (2014). The Hazaras of Afghanistan and their Shi‘a Ooientation: An analytical historical
survey. Journal of Shi'a Islamic Studies, 7(2), 151–171.
Barazangi, N. H. (1995). Religious education. In J. L. Esposito (Ed.), The Oxford encyclopedia of
the modern Islamic world (Vol. 2, pp. 406–428). New York: Oxford University Press.
Barthold, W., & Sourdel, D. (1986). al-Baramika. In P. J. Bearman, T. Bianquis, E. Bosworth, E. v.
Donzel, & W. Heinrichs (Eds.), The encyclopaedia of Islam (CD-ROM ed., pp. 1033–1035).
Leiden: Brill.
Bearman, P. J., Bianquis, T., Bosworth, E., van Donzel, E., & Heinrichs, W. (1986). Madjlis. In P. J.
Bearman, T. Bianquis, E. Bosworth, E. van Donzel, & W. Heinrichs (Eds.), The Encyclopaedia
of Islam (Vol. 5). Leiden: Brill.
Behrens-Abouseif, D. (1989). Islamic architecture in Cairo: An introduction. Cairo: The American
University in Cairo.
Behrens-Abouseif, D. (1995). Sabīl: 2. As an achitectural term. In P. J. Bearman, T. Bianquis, E.
Bosworth, E. van Donzel, & W. Heinrichs (Eds.), The encyclopaedia of Islam (CD-ROM ed., p.
679). Leiden: Brill.
Berkey, J. P. (1992). The transmission of knowledge in medieval Cairo: a social history of Islamic
education. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Bosworth, C. E. (1995). Sabīl: 1. As a religious concept. In P. J. Bearman, T. Bianquis, E. Bosworth,
E. van Donzel, & W. Heinrichs (Eds.), The encyclopaedia of Islam (CD-ROM ed., p. 679).
Leiden: Brill.
Bosworth, C. E. (2012). K̲h̲urāsān. In P. Bearman, T. Bianquis, C. E. Bosworth, E. van Donzel, &
W. P. Heinrichs (Eds.), Encyclopaedia of Islam.
Daftary, F. (2005). Ismailis in medieval Muslim societies. London: I. B. Tauris.
al-Dahabī, A. ʿ. A. (1954). Tadhkirat al-ḥifāẓ (Vol. 1). Beirut: Dār al-Kutub al-ʿIlmiyya.
al-Fārābī. (1981). Fusul tachtamil ala jamir ma yudhtarr ila ma’rifatihi man arada al-churu’fi
sina’at al-mantiq, manusc. Tehran: Tehran University Press.
al-Fārābī. (1994). Iḥsā’ al-‘Ulūm (A. B. Mulhim Ed.). Beirut: Dar wa Maktabah al-Hilal.
Donaldson, D. M. (1933). The Shi'ite Religion: A history of Islam in Persia and Irak. London:
Luzac and Company.
Ghubar, M. G. M. (1957). Ẓuhūr wa Nufūdh Islām wa ʿArab dar Afghanistān, az 22 ta 205 Hijrī. In
M. G. M. Ghobar (Ed.), Tarī kh-e Afghanistān (Vol. 3, pp. 1–112). Kabul: Maṭbaʿa Dawlatī.
Grunebaum, G. E. (1970). The sources of Islamic civilization. In P. M. Holt, A. K. S. Lambton, & B.
Lewis (Eds.), The Cambridge history of Islam (Vol. 2B). Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Hillenbrand, R. (1986). Madrasa. In P. J. Bearman, T. Bianquis, E. Bosworth, E. van Donzel, & W.
Heinrichs (Eds.), The Encyclopaedia of Islam (Vol. v). Leiden: Brill.
Hitti, P. K. (1996). The Arabs: A short history. Washington, DC: Regnery.
Ibn ʿAbd Rabbih. (1983). al-‘Iqd al-Farīd (M. M. Qamiḥa Ed., Vol. 1). Beirut: Dār al-Kutb al-
ʿIlmiyy.
Ibn ʿAbd Rabbih. (2006). al-‘Iqd al-Farīd (I. J. Boulatta, Trans., Vol. 1). Reading: Garnet
Publishing.
Ibn Baṭūṭah. (1997). Riḥlah. Rabāṭ: Akadimiyyat al-Mamlakah al-Maghribiyyah.
Ibn-Khaldūn. (2005). Muqaddimah. Casablanca: Dār al-Bayḍāʾ.
Iqbal, M. (1958). The reconstruction of religious thought in Islam. Lahore: Shaikh.
Jubayr, I. (1907). Riḥla. Dār Ṣāadir: Beirut.
Karamustafa, A. K. (2007). What is Ṣūfīsm. In V. J. Cornell (Ed.), Voices of Islam (pp. 249–269).
Westport: Praeger.
Landau, J. M. (1986). “Kuttab”, in: EI2 (Vol. V). Leiden: E. J. Brill.
Madelung, W. (1986). Madjlis: 2. In Isma‘ili usage. In P. J. Bearman, T. Bianquis, E. Bosworth, E.
van Donzel, & W. Heinrichs (Eds.), The Encyclopaedia of Islam (Vol. 5, pp. 1033). Leiden:
Brill.
Makdisi, G. (1981). The rise of colleges: institutions of learning in Islam and the West. Edinburgh:
Edinburgh University Press.
Islamic Education and Development of Educational Traditions and. . . 97

al-Maqrīzī. (1987). Kitāb al-mawāʿiẓ wa al-Iʿtibār bi-dhikr al-khiṭaṭ wa al-athār (Vol. 1). Cairo:
Mataba‘at al-Thaqāfa al-Dīnīyya.
Massingon, L. (2000). Taṣawwuf: Early development in the Arabic and Persian lands. In P.
Bearman, T. Bianquis, C. E. Bosworth, E. van Donzel, & W. P. Heinrichs (Eds.), Encyclopaedia
of Islam (pp. 313–317). Brill: Leiden.
al-Masʿūdī, A. a.-Ḥ. b. A. (2005). Murūj al-dhahab wa maʿādin al-jawhar (Vol. 3). Beirut: Al-
Maktabah Al-Asriyyah.
al-Mubarrad. (1892). al-Kāmī l (W. Wright Ed., Vol. 1). Leipzig: G. Kreysing.
al-Musabbiḥī. (1980). Akhbār Miṣr fi sanatayn 414–415 (W. G. Milward Ed.). Cairo: al-Hayʾa al-
Miṣriyya al-ʿĀmma li’l-Kitāb.
Netton, I. R. (1996). Seek knowledge: thought and travel in the house of Islam. Richmond: Curzon
Press.
Renan, E. (1883). Islam and Science: A Lecture. Paris: La Sorbonne. 29 March 1883. English trans. S.
P. Ragep with the assistance of F. Wallis. Retrieved from https://www.mcgill.ca/islamicstudies/
sites/mcgill.ca.islamicstudies/
Schacht, J. (1986). Abu Hanifa al-Nu‘man. In P. J. Bearman, T. Bianquis, E. Bosworth, E. van
Donzel, W. Heinrichs (Eds.), Encyclopaedia of Islam (Vol. 1). Leiden: Brill.
Shalabi, A. (1979). History of Muslim education. Beirut: Dar al-Kashshaf.
Shaybī, K. M. (1974). Hambastagī miyān-e taṣawwūf wa tashayyu. Tehran: Dānishgāh Tehran.
Shīrāzī, al-Mu’ayyad fī al-Dīn (1950). al-Majalis al-Musṭanṣiriyyah (M. K. Ḥusayn Ed.). Cairo:
Dār al-Fikr al-ʿArabī.
Al-Subkī, T. (1964). Tabaqat al-Shafi‘iyah al-kubra (Vol. 3). Beirut: Dar Al Kotob Al-Ilmiyyah.
al-Ṭabarī, M. b. J. (1996). Tarī kh-e Ṭabarī (A. a.-Q. Payendah, Trans., Vol. II). Tehran: Asatir.
al-Talbi, A. (1993). Al-Farabi. Prospects: The Quarterly Review of Comparative Education, XXIII
(1/2), 353–372.
Wāʿiẓ Balkhī, A. B. (1971). Fadāʾil-e Balkh (A. H. Balkhī, Trans., A. H. Balkhī Ed.). Tehran:
Intishārāt-e Bunyad-e Farhang-e Irān.
Williams, C. (2002). Islamic monuments in Cairo: The practical guide. Cairo: The American
University in Cairo.
Zawabiti, M. (1980). Pzhūhesh dar niẓām-i talabagī . Tehran: Bangāh-e Tarjumah wa Nashr-e
Kitāb.
Zaydān, J. (1993). History of Islamic civilization (Tarīkh-e tamadun-e Islāmī) (A. Jawāhir-Kalām,
Trans.). Tehran: Amīr Kabīr.