Mohamed Khosht - محمد الخشت

In the Name of God, The Merciful, The Compassionate

nitially, let me extend my warm greetings to the Grand Imam Sheikh Ahmed Eltayeb, Sheikh Alazhar for this important conference, which I regard as a significant turning point in the vision of Alazhar. In this conference, Alazhar’s mission is open to include other institutions in the process of renovation. It is not as some claim that Alazhar monopolizes the renewal of the religious discourse. So here we find secular scientific institutions like Cairo University and California University.

The fact is our vision might be different because from my point of view the renewal of the religious discourse is not possible since this religious discourse is old. It emerged at the time of the holy text when God said, “Today, I have completed your religion for you” (5: 3). Here, religion is complete, and the circle of the religious text is complete. What follows is human effort, be this in the science of the fundamentals of jurisprudence, the science of jurisprudence, interpretation, Prophetic traditions, or other sciences. All these are human efforts that are respected, and we honour their contributions. They all remain human efforts that can be right or wrong. Whoever does not acknowledge that human effort is prone to be right or wrong claims to be infallible. And you do know how the followers of Sunna would judge whoever associated infallibility with anyone but Prophet Muhammad.

Therefore, the renewal of the old religious discourse is not possible because this discourse was established in an era that is different from ours. They had completely different conditions and challenges, most of which prevailed during the era of fitna, that involved secession, strife and schism. We continue to suffer from this since the murder of Uthman Ibn Affan until now.

Let me add that establishing a new religious discourse in accordance with the language of this era and the methodology of the humanities and social sciences is not possible without the development of the religious mind. How can we have a new religious discourse when we still think in the old way? This is the lesson we must learn by following the Prophets and the traditions of philosophers and reformists.

The heritage is extremely important, but we have to go beyond the heritage in order to establish a new heritage with new concepts and methodologies. I love my father’s old house, but I would not like to live in it. I respect our old heritage, but I would like to create a new heritage together with other scholars. As our worthy ancestors said, we are men and they are men. Therefore, the development of the religious mind is vital in accordance with modern scientific methods. No new religious mind can be formed without changing the way of thinking and the renovation of the science of the fundamentals of religion. Renovation should not only include the science of shari’a (laws derived from the Qur’an or prophetic traditions) alone, but the science of the fundamentals of religion as well. We are still the captives of the Asharites, Mutazilites and others. When we want to renovate, we lean towards a group rather than the other. At times we summon the so called enlightened to be among the mutazila (those who retire), although the Mutazilites constitute part of the old tradition. It is not true that the Mutazilites believed in political and social freedom because they believed in metaphysical freedom. When they were in power, they did what they did with Imam Ahmed Ibn Hanbal and others who opposed them. I am not only calling for going beyond the Mutazilite, but beyond the Ashari creed as well, because the Ashari creed and others are based on one source only for the prophetic tradition. Yes, traditions based on one source can be correct, but, as the scholars have said, they can be hypothetical.

How can we rely in matters

faith on what is hypothetical although faith should be based on what is definitive?

Beliefs must be based on what is definitive and absolute. Most of the Ashari creed and others that are based on traditions that rely on a single source. These can perhaps be applicable in some rules of shari’a, but the modern scholars of the prophetic tradition argue that they are hypothetical. I do not think anyone in this hall would disagree that one source traditions are not conclusive.

Therefore, we must renew the science of the fundamentals of religion by going back to the pure sources, that is to say, the Holy Qur’an and the prophetic traditions that are reliable.

Renewal necessitates changing the way of thinking and the way the world perceives us. Changing the perception of the world must be based on a new modern vision about the Holy Qur’an, being a sacred book that is appropriate for all eras and times.

Yesterday, we listened to the Grand Imam who stressed the difference between constant/absolute and variable/relative rules. Let me refer to the distinction between the fundamental and the allegorical. What is allegorical was not introduced randomly, but they are in the Qur’an because this is a book that is relevant for all times and places. Here, let me move to a very important point, namely multiple truths: is all the Holy Qur’an expressly indicative? Or does the Holy Qur’an include what is ambiguous? And whether the expressly indicative is more or the ambiguous? What is ambiguous is definitely more.

The question is: is this random? No, because the Qur’an is a book for all times and places, and parts must be ambiguous with multiple connotations. Thus, what is right can be varied, not only one. This is what Prophet Muhammad emphasized in the incident of alasr (afternoon) prayer when two groups were going to Bani Qurayza: He acknowledged the validity of what both groups have done and focused on the main issue. Both groups understood what he did, did not argue and did not ignore the focal goal. They focused on this goal first and postponed the argumentative issue. This is the difference between them and us.

At present, religious studies are static and rely on copying. You do know what dissertations are like: they start with biographies, history, definitions of terms and linguistic definitions and all these are clichés that are based on copying. There is no critical analysis, scientific analysis or the use of the methodologies of the humanities and social sciences, but the recovery of old battles.
We still live in the era of the civil strife of Uthman, peace be upon him. If we reflect on all the battles of ISIS, we will realize that they are similar to the battles of the past. This is because we have not been able to start a new era.

Now, we call for the development of religious studies, not reviving religious studies. Reviving religious studies means using all the old sciences with all what they entail. I swear by the one God, that if Imam Alshafaie returns, he will introduce a new jurisprudence. If Abou Hanifa returns, he will introduce a new jurisprudence as well.

During the life of Alshafaie, they did not have two jurisprudences but three. When he was in Makka, he had a position. When he went to Iraq, he had a different position. When he came to Egypt, he had a different jurisprudence. There are those who regard Ibn Hanbal as strict. I am talking to scientists who know him well. They know most of the jurisprudence issues in the resource books by Imam Ahmed Ibn Hanbal, like Al-Moughni by Ibn Qudama that has three points of view concerning one issue. Where did we come up with the one single point of view, the one correct answer and the single truth? This was the position of our old Imams. If I am calling for establishing new sciences, this does not mean that I am underestimating our ancestors. I am calling for following their path not their methodology. There is a difference the methodology and doctrine. If they thought like us

hey would not have produced sciences like the ones they produced. In fact, Prophet Muhammad’s message PBUH was associated with condemning those who came before him when they said, “we will follow they ways of our fathers” (2:170). Is this aya for one specific era? Or for all eras? For all eras.

It is, therefore, necessary also to go out of the vicious circle to other circles pertaining to the humanities and social sciences. In the process of renewal, there are other circles, and this is the case with other Prophets PBUT. We all know what Prophet Ibrahim, Muhammad and Eissa (Jesus) PBUT did. They all faced different cultures. Prophet Moses did not receive the wahi (divine revelation) except after leaving Egypt and living with the people of Medyan for eight or ten years. The wahi does not come randomly, but the wahi came to those who value the reasons of the revelation.

Consequently, encountering other circles of knowledge is extremely important. One stone does not produce a spark. This is why I applaud the Grand Imam for opening the door of different points of view and endeavours by institutions other than those of the prominent Alazhar. Personally, I was brought up to respect and revere Alazhar, but was also brought up to the possibility of having a different vision and possibly different judgments. But Alazhar has supremacy and authority and no one can underestimate the impressive efforts of Alazhar in the renaissance of our country.

I regard myself as one of the studious students of Imam Shaltout who is really an innovator. He took Islam back to its initial simplicity. When I was young, I read Al-Moughni by Ibn Qudama and did not find in Imam Shaltout the depth, strength and complexity in those other books. When I grew up, I realized that he was right. Since Islam was established, it was based on simplicity. If we would like to know the simplicity of Islam, we should go to the Qur’an and Muwatta Malik. The Muwatta is a book that follows God’s book because it is the closest in drawing upon the teachings of Prophet Muhammad. In it you will detect the simplicity of the rules, the absence of intricacy and complexity that confuses the people.

Renewal is not refining, summarizing, selecting or explaining, but it is producing a new structure with new concepts and semantics. It is not simply choosing a book, revising and summarizing, but we are calling for the inevitability and importance of interdisciplinary studies. We should not regard the sciences of religion as islands that are isolated, because jurisprudence, the basics of jurisprudence, interpretation, and the Prophet’s traditions are isolated islands.

We are now in the era of interdisciplinary studies and the islands must be linked to one another and bridges must be built between the different fields of knowledge. In academic institutions, we will not be able to come up with a new religious discourse unless we change our methodologies and the epistemological basis of religious studies. There are many methodological and epistemological errors; there is confusion between what is sacred and what is human. The result is many and big problems in determining the shari’a. There is the old science of interpretation that is based on the one correct answer, whereas the Qur’an is open to varied and different interpretations that can possibly be correct and applicable.

There must be new studies that rid us of the dominance of the Ashari doctrine. These will introduce a new vision to the world. These will rid us from confusing Islam with what is socially inherited, which does not distinguish between the expressly indicative and the ambiguous. We also must distinguish between the traditions of Prophet Muhamad that have only one source and those that have many [and are binding]. The different levels of right and wrong in the traditions are varied and I have discussed them in my book The Keys to the Science of the Traditions of Prophet Muhammad published in 1986.

One of the most important

sues that needs attention is to be open to the study of modern humanities. The science of jurisprudence must make use of the modern studies in law. In order to be specific rather than rhetorical, let me give a simple example. In modern legal theories, there is a theory known as parallel legal systems. If there is a rule that we followed by applying a certain procedure, path and style, once we decide to break the rule, we must follow the same path and the same steps. This is what I would like to say concerning the documentation of divorce cases. If we agree that in the modern world, bearing in mind the changes and benefits, marriage originates through documentation, then according to the theory of parallel legal systems, divorce requires documentation as well. Here I am not referring to proof but to the fact that it is convened. Scholars in the field of law and shari’a understand what I say. In this era, we are experiencing many changes like lack of conscientiousness, and men play around with women, and the loss of rights.

Allow me a short digression. Being the president of a university, every week I sign many documents concerning the provisions of alimony, because the rate of divorce is high. These cases concern those who have not managed to solve their problems. The wife resorts to court to receive the alimony for herself and her children. Being the president of the university, I get the court order in order to sign it for its implementation. This means we are in such times during which a father who divorces his wife is unwilling to pay the alimony for his children and the divorced woman has to resort to court. What if he divorces her verbally rather that officially, or divorces her without informing her? What should happen in such cases? There must be only one way to prove and convene the divorce.

I know that his Eminence the Grand Imam will graciously accept what I say. No one owns the absolute truth. The one who owns the absolute truth is the One God, and no one, but God Almighty.

Because there isn’t enough time to fully explain what I want, allow me with respect and honour, to give the Grand Imam a copy of my book Towards Instituting a New Religious Age which argues the need to go back to the pure sources of the Qur’an and traditions of Prophet Muhammad. Peace be upon you.