With a new head chosen, Moataz-Bellah Abdel-Fattah* asks if Sunni Islam's foremost religious institution, Al-Azhar, can regain its lustre Three major challenges confront the man at the helm of Al-Azhar. One is about dependence and independence. Al-Azhar's grand imam has to decide whether he is working for the Egyptian government, and therefore has to toe its line, or whether he is independent to a degree from the government and can offer Sharia law opinions that may differ from official policy. The second is about the local and international aspects of the job. The grand imam may see himself as chief of an international organisation with responsibilities transcending Egypt's borders, or he may cater to the needs of Egyptian Muslims alone. The third is about tradition and modernity. The grand imam may choose to update Al-Azhar's curricula, renew its religious discourse, and modernise its propagation methods. Or he may not. The 46th Al-Azhar grand imam, Sheikh Ahmad Al-Tayyeb, is to head an institution that is shackled to an unfortunate extent. He knows this well, as one can tell from his remark that "Al-Azhar's role has receded of late." In the 15 years Al-Tayyeb's predecessor, Sheikh Mohammad Sayyed Tantawi, spent at Al-Azhar's helm, he turned Al-Azhar into a local organisation that is faithful to the official line and that is behind the times in terms of propagation methods. As Satellite stations and Internet sites grew increasingly active at issuing fatwas, Al-Azhar's influence was waning. Al-Tayyeb needs to follow a policy in which Al-Azhar is somewhat independent from the state and involved in Muslim affairs outside Egypt's borders. Modernising the institution's discourse and media relations would also be beneficial. In recent years, Al-Azhar seemed as if it were more royal than the king when it came to toeing the government's line. Former Grand Imam Tantawi once voiced impatience with the government's tolerance of the opposition and the press. In October 2007, Tantawi stated that journalists spreading rumours concerning the health of President Mubarak should be flogged, for they were as sinful as men accusing innocent women of adultery. Interestingly, Tantawi had nothing to say about those who tortured citizens and imprisoned them illegally. He had nothing to say about those who forged elections. And it didn't bother him that some people in this country imported bad food and carcinogenic fertilisers. Just as Tantawi sided with the government, Burma had Buddhist monks marching in the streets to demand democracy. And Tantawi wasn't the only pro-government voiced in Al-Azhar. During his term in office, 25 members of the Azhar- affiliated Islamic Research Council concluded that the government had every right to build "within its territories any installations and dams needed to safeguard its safety, borders, and rights." The statement was meant to support the government's decision to build a steel barrier on the borders with Gaza. The steel barrier was strongly criticised by the country's political opposition. Al-Azhar's tendency to toe the government's line predates Tantawi. Years ago, Al-Azhar supported Al-Sadat's decision to make peace with Israel, citing the Hudaybiya peace made by the Prophet Mohammad with non-Muslim tribes. This was a turnabout for Egypt's top religious establishment. Under Abdel Nasser, Al-Azhar banned all Muslims from making peace with a country occupying Muslim land. Al-Azhar doesn't need to comply with the country's official policy. Under its 1961 modernisation law of 1961, the grand imam has the right to act independently from the government. Actually, the president of the republic has no right to dismiss the grand imam. This law was quite revolutionary, for under the monarchy the king had the right to dismiss Al-Azhar's grand imam. Oddly enough, Al-Azhar tended to act more independently in monarchical times than in republican times. Take this incident for example. King Farouk once suspended Grand Imam Abdel Maguid Selim from his post for one year. This was because Selim criticised cuts in Al-Azhar's budget, saying, "[the government is] economising here, but wasting money elsewhere." The remark was interpreted as an implicit criticism of the royal family's expenses. Even after the 1952 Revolution, Sheikh Hasan Mamoun once refused to pass an edict considering socialism an Islamic doctrine. He said that Islam is above all ideologies, although it may approve on occasion of their ideals and methods. I wonder if the new grand imam will distance himself from the National Democratic Party's Policies Committee. He has already denied any intention to resign from the NDP, saying that he would only do so if asked by the president. If anything, this is a sign that Al-Tayyeb wants to stay on the government's good side. Al-Tayyeb may have found it easy to change from European to conventional Islamic attire, but taking an independent course from that of the government is a much harder task. How about the international duties of Al-Azhar? Throughout its history, Al-Azhar has been involved in Muslim issues beyond the country's borders. Let us recall here the statements issued by former Grand Imam Abdel Halim Mahmoud concerning Lebanon and the Philippines. Abdel Halim also advised non-Arab Muslims to learn Arabic in order to better perform their rites. Tantawi was less emphatic about the institution's international obligations. In Tantawi's time, the chief of Al-Azhar Fatwa Committee once issued a decision saying that Muslims should fight the Americans if the latter invaded Iraq. Tantawi, eager to protect the government from embarrassment, dismissed the fatwa chief in February 2003 without giving reasons for the move. In August 2003, Tantawi suspended another fatwa chief after the latter issued an edict banning Muslims from dealing with Iraq's Interim Governing Council. The grand imam said then that Al-Azhar shouldn't interfere in other countries' domestic affairs. The above two examples contradict a remark Tantawi made in a meeting with then French Foreign Minister Nikolas Sarkozy in December 2003. Tantawi said that the French government was right to issue a law banning headscarves in schools and government buildings, especially that the decision applied to Muslims as well as non-Muslims. Al-Tayyeb will have to decide whether Al-Azhar should keep its nose out of the domestic affairs of other nations, or is still entitled to speak to Sunni Muslims wherever they are. Then there is the question of modernity. Al-Azhar needs to update its religious discourse and modernise its means of communication. It needs to catch up with websites and satellite stations that are now issuing fatwas much faster than Al-Azhar ever did. For the past few years, Al-Azhar has been slow in reacting to religious questions, and its answers -- coming belatedly as they were -- lacked inspiration. Take for example the case of the face veil, or niqab. Tantawi's position was that the niqab was a custom rather than a religious duty. Although the Islamic Research Council supported the grand imam in this position, public opinion seemed to disagree, and Al-Azhar failed to act as a leader on the matter. The new grand imam needs to act with prudence and firmness regarding Al-Azhar's curricula and fatwa organisations. And he needs to reconsider Al-Azhar's discourse to Sunni Muslims in Egypt and abroad. If Al-Tayyeb succeeds in handling the above challenges, Al-Azhar may regain the ground it lost in recent years. Otherwise, Egypt may lose one of its primary sources of leverage over Arabs and Muslims. * The writer is an expert on Middle Eastern politics and Islamic studies and a professor of political science at Central Michigan University.
