An ethical solution to the problem of legal indeterminacy: sharīʿa scholarship atEgypt's al‐Azhar

Abstract

This article explores the importance of ethical discipline in resolving the ambiguities characteristic of legal interpretation. Drawing on ethnographic fieldwork among religious scholars at Egypt's al‐Azhar, I demonstrate that traditional Muslim educational techniques are structured with the aim of imparting a particular set of dispositions (modelled on those of the Prophet) by enjoining meticulous and constant imitation of the Prophet's personal habits (sunna). By transforming themselves into living replicas of the Prophet, jurists believe that they acquire the ability to mirror his textual interpretations.

Sharia

“…Islamic scholars who work as judges in sharia courts can find themselves caught between this ethos of pedagogy and their duty to apply the impersonal rules of legal bureaucracy (Clarke 2012). Ideas of virtue and its cultivation also inflect the processes of Islamic legal scholarship and interpretation, where it is thought that a virtuous scholar is more able to interpret God's law correctly than a less virtuous one (Nakissa 2014).…”

Analyzing Al-Azhar’s Role in Egyptian Politics

“…For decades, or even a century, traditional studycircles (halaqat) did not convene at Al-Azhar, but the government gave permission to revive teaching inside Al-Azhar mosque, in spite of its unofficial degrees granted to the enrolled audience. These study-circles attracted a large number of students in efforts to augment social awareness and compete with the mounting role of Islamic movements, Salafis and Muslim Brothers mainly (Nakissa, 2014). This moved many scholars to commend such measures by the state.…”

“…However, the official role of Al-Azhar was subordinated to the government since scholars, 'ulama', were issuing fatwa to legitimate whatever the current policy was. These numerous attitudes put the scholars in contradiction with Islamists who most frequently accused the scholars of being part and parcel of the regime, which even created more differences among the scholars (Nakissa, 2014).…”