Egyptians’ contact with the Western world began with culture, thought and politics since the end of the 18th century and the beginning of the 19th century, and the Egyptian state was influenced by Western culture at the level of laws and legislations, but Sharia – especially in the criminal aspect – remained officially and theoretically present in laws and courts until the year 1883 AD, when the civil courts were established. Then, after the defeat of the Urabi revolution and the sheikhs supporting him, England occupied Egypt, and civil courts were established, which dispossessed the Sharia courts of a large part of their jurisdiction.
And here specifically, the borders began to be officially suspended in the courts, but we did not find a violent reaction by the sheikhs of Al-Azhar at that time, whether they were inside or outside the official institution. The absence of reaction indicates what we will confirm later, that the practical hindrance had begun gradually before the establishment of the civil courts for a while (the sizing of the Sharia courts began since 1848 CE), or because the jurists of that period believed that these reforms were in the context of the attempts to strengthen the Sharia system within The broad framework of reform, according to Azza Hussein.
Rashid Rida and Hakmiah
But the paradox is that we later found strong opposition to this type of courts and laws by some contemporaries of Sheikh Rashid Rida, and they even disbelieved the judges working in those courts. So Sheikh Rashid Rida (died 1354 AH / 1935 CE) clashed with them in a different position, when he said: Today we see many religious believers believe that civil court judges who rule by law as infidels have taken the apparent meaning of the Almighty saying:
“And whoever does not judge by what God has revealed, those are the disbelievers.”
The ruling requires that the judge ruling by law be atoning for the princes, sultans and lawmakers.
Then he objects to that statement and refutes it by saying, “As for the apparent meaning of the verse, no one of the famous scholars of jurisprudence said it, but no one said it at all. One of the Muslims, even the Kharijites. “
Mr. Rashid Rida did not stop at that, but permitted working with the British government in India and ruling by the rulings of its judicial institutions. At the end of his answer to a question directed to him about the ruling on working with the English, he says:
It seems – despite all of this – that the acceptance of a Muslim to work in the English government in India, and likewise it is in its meaning, and his ruling by its law is a license that falls under the rule of committing the lesser of two evils, if not a determination intended to preserve the interest of Muslims.
It seems that people of his time were forbidden to deal with the British or work in their government, and he responded with that.
Sharia, according to Rashid Rida, is not limited to the application of the hudud, nor does it include the inclusion of the religion itself, as he says – after mentioning a number of sayings in it – “and the liberation of saying that Sharia is a name for practical rulings and it is more specific than the word religion, but rather it is included in the name of religion in terms of the factor. With it, God Almighty condemns his deeds, submits to him, and turns to him, seeking his pleasure and reward with his permission. This definition is juridical and scientific, and is not fluid or reductive, as many Islamic activists later went to.
However, we found explicit opposition from one of Sheikh Rashid’s students, Sheikh Ahmed Shaker (1892-1958 AD), a Sharia judge who was greatly affected by the establishment of the civil courts. Therefore, some of his contemporaries accused him of opposing these courts because of their tyranny over the influence of the Sharia courts and thus limiting the influence of their judges.
Shaker and disable the canon
And if Mr. Rashid Rida did not declare those who disbelieved in the civil courts and their judges at that early time, we see that statement explicitly, according to his student Sheikh Ahmed Shaker.
Firstly, he says about the impermissibility of adopting European laws: that it is not permissible to work with them in Muslim countries, even when Islamic legislation is approved, because whoever placed them when they were put in place did not look at their approval or contravention of Islam, but rather looked at their agreement with the laws of Europe or its principles and rules, and making it the original Who is due to him, he is a sinner who apostates this
Then he makes contemporary Western laws such as the law of the “Tatar bastion”, and perhaps even had precedence in describing society as ignorance, before Sayyid Qutb (1906-1966 AD). Rather, it is a fantasy and an illusion, like some of what we have borrowed from the absurdities of Europe in imagination and representation, and Egyptians do not live in a legitimate society in which the rulings of religion are applied.
Shaker believes that disbelief has spread in Muslim countries, so he says:
We want to fight modern paganism and modern polytheism
Which spread in our countries, and in most of the countries of Islam.
He goes early on not to excuse ignorance, saying, “Whoever has presented any law or any opinion on ruling by the Book of God and the Sunnah of His Messenger, he is an infidel who must be fought, until he returns to the rule of God and His Messenger, so that only him will be judged in a little or a lot. The religion of Islam necessarily, no one is excused for his ignorance, regardless of his level of knowledge or ignorance. Here, Shakir emerged as one of the theorists of modern jihadism, before Sayyid Qutb theorized it. Many people ignore Shakir’s role in contemporary Albanian and jihadist currents, but we claim that he is central to his statements, especially when he is agreed upon by Salafism, whether it is scientific Salafism or jihadism, and many jihadists celebrate it as a scientific reference for them.
Shaker and constitutional change
However, Shaker differs in the methods of change, and believes that the constitutional state is inevitable, as it is a necessity of the times, but he does not believe in it in principle, that is, as a strategic choice, but rather believes in it as a tactical and pragmatic option, so that the stalled Sharia can be applied. In his eyes. Shakir’s approach differed from the jihadists who came after him in a fundamental part, so the change was attributed to political participation and peaceful progression, not by violence and force, and he says:
And I declared to the jurists that we will work peacefully to reach the verdict without them if they refused to heed this true call.
And he believed that the only way is – according to his saying – “the peaceful constitutional way; to spread our call to the nation, to struggle in it and to speak out in it, and to speak out about it, then to approach you in the election, and to refer to it to the nation. “.
From his saying this, one can read his stance that strongly rejects the assassination of Al-Nuqrashi Pasha (1888-1948 AD).
As for his position on the distant enemy, it is similar – to a large extent – to that of the contemporary jihadists, and they must be killed everywhere, as he says, “Every Muslim in any part of the earth must fight them – that is, the British – and kill them wherever they are, whether they are civilians or military.” They are all enemies, and all of them are fighter fighter …! As for cooperation with the British in any kind of cooperation, less or more, it is unbridled apostasy and open disbelief … and it is self-evident that there is no need for any statement or evidence that the French in this sense is the same as the English for every Muslim. The face of the earth, their hostility to Muslims and their unbridled nervousness in working to eradicate Islam and the war against Islam weakens the nervousness of the English. “
These words, even if they were understood in the context of the British and French occupation of the Islamic countries at the time; However, his statement is explicit in confronting them outside the borders of the occupied countries.
Shakir’s sayings remained confined to books and the hadith lesson, and may have little influence on some of those who engage in hadith, not the same as the influence of Al-Albani – later – on them, and the reason for this is that Sheikh Shakir did not establish a group of students and active actors who apply his thought and spread his doctrine, and he also did not practice political action in its meaning. The general public, and only the scientific lesson that is not reflected in the political and social scene is not publicized by the opposition’s voice.
So there were roots for Hakimiyya before al-Mawdudi and Qutb, other than those who made its revival at the hands of Qutb and al-Mawdudi or even Abd al-Qadir al-Awda, but we almost claim that the argument of al-Hakimiyya has not died since the Kharijites invented it, as Shahrastani (died 548 AH / 1153 CE) states in al-Malal.
In sum, the fundamentalist, jurisprudential and rationalistic nafs emerged strongly with Mr. Rashid Rida in dealing with the issue of governance, in contrast to his student Sheikh Ahmed Shaker, who is affiliated with the Ahl al-Hadith school.