Azhari Reformist Mahmud Shaltut

 

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

الحمد لله رب العلمين

الصلاة والسلام عليك يا سيدى يا رسول الله

In the Name of Allāh, the Rahmān, the Merciful

Al-Azhar University in Egypt is often but falsely dubbed the most prestigious institution of Sunni Islamic learning. However, al-Azhar is hardly an independent seminary but rather a plaything in the hands of the Egyptian government since the time of the Khedive Muhammad Alī (1769-1849). In 1961, during the rule of Gamal Abdel Nasser (1918-1970), al-Azhar University was placed under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Awqāf. Its “Grand Shaikh” would now be appointed by the President. One of the worst rectors of al-Azhar University around this time was Mahmūd Shaltūt (1893-1963).

He issued a fatwā in 1958 validating the so-called Ja’farī madhhab, which led to the introduction of Ja’farī fiqh into the curriculum of al-Azhar. This Shaltūt was highly influenced by the modernist and reformist Muhammad Abduh (1849-1905). He was also an influence upon the Shaikh of the Ikhwān-al-Muslimīn (Muslim Brotherhood), Yūsuf al-Qaradāwī (1926-2022). Now the chain of the modernist, reformist trend in Egypt and the broader Arab world has been laid bare. This is hardly an orthodox Sunnī institution. It continues to produce “scholars” and “imāms” who are dedicated to the modernist and reformist project. Returning to Shaltūt: “Occasionally Shaltūt’s desire to minimize the harām by implementing the principle of yusr (ease, or lack of hardship) leads him to issue an opinion which seems to contradict a recognized hadīth. This is the case when he argues that men whose work entails loading and unloading wine do not come under the prophetic curse which embraces all who deal with wine, including the one who carries it. These men, argues Shaltūt, do not intend to abet anyone in sin, but are simply doing it to earn their living. This is a rather surprising inversion of the well-known Islamic precept that one should earn one’s living by legitimate means.” (Zebiri, Kate. Shaykh Mahmūd Shaltūt: Between Tradition and Modernity. Journal of Islamic Studies, 1991, vol.2, no.2, p.215)

Another of Shaltūt’s problematic views is concerning the definition of a kāfir: “Shaltūt further maintains that even those who have no religion cannot be labelled ‘kāfir’ unless they have had the message of Islām presented to them in a sympathetic and clearly understandable manner, i.e. unless they have actively turned away from guidance. As long as they refrain from harming Islām or the Muslims, non-Muslims can be considered ‘brothers in humanity’, all working together for the general good and each propagating his own religion non-aggressively.” (ibid, p.216)

Ribā or usury, euphemistically named “interest”, is strictly forbidden in the Sharī’ah, for Allāh سبحانه وتعالى says:

یٰۤاَیُّہَا الَّذِیۡنَ اٰمَنُوا اتَّقُوا اللّٰہَ وَذَرُوۡا مَا بَقِیَ مِنَ الرِّبٰۤوا اِنۡ کُنۡتُمۡ مُّؤۡمِنِیۡنَ

فَاِنۡ لَّمۡ تَفۡعَلُوۡا فَاۡذَنُوۡا بِحَرۡبٍ مِّنَ اللّٰہِ وَرَسُوۡلِہٖ

O you who believe! Fear Allāh and relinquish what remains of interest, if you are believers.

But if you do not, then beware of war from Allāh and His Apostle!

(Sūrah 2, Āyah 278 & 279)

A sincere Islamic scholar and muftī is therefore characterized by zeal for the divine prohibition on usury, whereas the liberal reformists like Mahmūd Shaltūt can be easily identified by their laxity in this regard. The liberal reformists like Shaltūt seek to please the governments and the bankers by validating ribā: “in one of his fatāwā he states that the one who borrows on interest out of necessity does not share in the guilt of the usurious transaction, since he is in effect constrained to do so, and is thus covered by the Qur’ānic pronouncement: ‘God has made plain to you what is forbidden, except when you are constrained’ (6: 119). The way in which he goes on to reason that this can apply to nations as well as individuals, enumerating the various essential heads of expenditure such as agriculture, defence, trade, and industry, indicates that it is principally the interests of the national economy that he has in mind. This represents a departure from his former objection to the use of the principle ‘necessity makes forbidden things permissible’ to justify usurious transactions.” (Zebiri, Kate. Shaykh Mahmūd Shaltūt: Between Tradition and Modernity. Journal of Islamic Studies, 1991, vol.2, no.2, p.222)

In order to satisfy the Qādiyānī or so-called “Ahmadiyyah” heresy, Shaltūt wrote an article suggesting that the Messiah Jesus عليه السلام has died and that it is not essential for a Muslim to believe that Jesus عليه السلام was bodily raised alive to Heaven, and neither shall Jesus عليه السلام return to this world in the End Times:

لما كان هناك مبرر للقول بأن عيسى حي لم يمت

There is no justification for saying that Jesus is alive and did not die

انه ليس في القرآن الكريم ولا فى السنة المطهرة مستند يصلح لتكوين عقيدة يطمئن إليها القلب بان عيسى رفع بجسمه إلى السماء وانه حى الى الآن فيها وانه سينزل منها آخر الزمان إلى الأرض

ان من انكر ان عيسى قد رفع بجسمه إلى السماء وانه فيها حى إلى الآن وانه سينزل منها آخر الزمان فانه لا يكون بذلك منكرا لما ثبت بدليل قطعى فلا يخرج عن اسلامه وايمانه ولا ينبغى ان يحكم عليه بالردة

There is no evidence in the Qurān al-Karīm or the pure Sunnah that can be used to form a belief that reassures the heart, that Jesus was raised bodily to heaven, that he is still alive there, and that he will descend from it to earth at the end of time. Whoever denies that Jesus was raised bodily to heaven, that he is still alive there, and that he will descend from it at the end of time, is not thereby denying what has been proven by definitive evidence. He does not depart from his Islām and faith, and he should not be judged an apostate (Majallat al-Risālah, Cairo, 11 May 1942, v.10, no.452, pp.515, 517)