Hossam Badrawi Official Website
Between tradition and modernity
Dr. Hossam Badrawi
My friend, the scholar and the educated, initiated me to express his point of view in the debate that took place between the Sheikh of Al-Azhar Al-Sharif and the President of Cairo University, saying:
Refuting the hadiths of the Prophet and Islamic jurisprudence now with their authenticity and their falsity is of no benefit, because “that’s how we don’t go back.” As for the harm, it is that when people question prophetic hadiths or religious jurisprudence, regardless of whether it is true or false, it may affect their belief, and it may transfer The matter is for the Qur’an itself later.. What is the point of knowing now that Al-Bukhari was right or wrong? The words of the president of the university make us seem as if we are all “living, sleeping and waking up, eating and drinking on Islamic heritage and jurisprudence.. Where is that???” Well, I wish we were really working with heritage!!!!!
She replied:
I agree with you that there is no future without the present and the past. It is agreed that we do not develop a heritage, because by definition it cannot be developed, otherwise it would not be a heritage. It exists, we take from it what we take and leave from it what we leave.
So the issue is not in the heritage, but in the future, which is based on reason and thought and its conformity to modernity.
My real issue is that heritage is influential in human values, and we need to document and define these values and research how to include them in the digital life of our youth.
My issue is to use some heritage to justify the mistakes of the present, and build an emotional future for our children and youth that depends on it, and this includes many examples, such as calling only for the benefit of Muslims and considering three quarters of humanity as infidels and fuel for hell, and the jurisprudence of jihad to impose the religion on the principle of Islamic conquests in the early days of Islam, or hearing and obedience For the prince and the lack of discussion, and much of the heritage of men’s treatment of women and the principles of upbringing that no longer favor beatings or enjoying bloodshed… and other things that we sometimes take from the heritage and focus on.
.. As for the debate that took place between the Sheikh of Al-Azhar and the president of the university, it is no secret to you that there is more politics in it than religion and science, and note the position of the media towards the Sheikh of Al-Azhar on the evening of the same day.
Now to the topic back.
I see that the noble Sheikh of Al-Azhar is a jurist, scholar, reader, and respected, rather he is of good conscience..Some have public stances against the imam, and some have a balance of affection and deep respect with him and him, and I am one of them, for their former friendship and fellowship. And knowing the capacity of his chest and his mind. Let us be positive and put the debate that took place between him and the president of Cairo University for discussion without personalization or prejudice.
The points that I see worthy of discussion in the words of the imam, commenting on the president of the university, are not religious, but rational and intellectual.
for example:
1- What is the definition of heritage?
2- Is there a difference between the Islamic conquests and the Crusades, which is what the imam was proud of in his speech?
3- Was the condition of the Muslims before the French campaign satisfactory, as the imam’s words suggest?
4- Is the model of the Umayyad and Abbasid caliphs with all their oppression, cruelty and tyranny in the name of religion what we are looking for now and in the future?
5- The idea that the truth for the people of every religion is absolute, otherwise they would not be worthy of their religion, so does that close the door of ijtihad to the multiplicity of interpretations that might change what we believed to be constants?
6- What corrupts what?!!!!..Does politics corrupt religion, or does using religion in politics corrupt both?
7- What do we grow, and what do we leave behind from the heritage in the first place?
I assure that Muslims are fighting over what they do not agree on in the first place.
So let’s move the dialogue to another level that builds and does not argue in a past that we basically only work in on issues of blasphemy, murder, and violation of women’s rights in form and content, and it is used politically in all cases.
For example, if the heritage of the Islamic conquests continues, then he supports the idea of imposing the Islamic religion on the defeated and declaring that or paying a tax or tribute as non-Muslims. The meaning here is completely different from the concept of citizenship. This is what the Salafists and Daesh demand. Is pride in this heritage as it is true, or do we have to clarify the views on it that have changed with the change of time?
my friend said:
When the doctor decides to prescribe a medicinal treatment, he has calculated the benefits and harms of this drug before prescribing it to his patient.. If the benefits prevail, he will prescribe it.. and if the harms prevail, he will refrain from prescribing it.. Oh God, if there is no other solution.. In our case, he discussed the flaws of our heritage. Religion has absolutely no benefit and its harms are endless..and we are never obligated to it..so why do we do it?!
Just as we are looking at the disadvantages of chloramphenicol now, after 20 years of stopping its use.. it is useless at all.. people have limited culture, Dr. Hossam and Nfsh doubting our ancestors unnecessarily real.
I said with a smile:
Agree with you, unless some of us insist on using chloramphenicol to treat disease just because the predecessor used it, and ignored its harm and the existence of safer means for humanity!!!!
We return to the definition, because without it we are discussing what is not agreed upon in the first place. Perhaps we must differentiate between the types of heritage. Folk heritage, for example, is what is transmitted from customs, traditions, sciences, literature, arts and the like from one generation to the next. We say: “human heritage”, “literary heritage”, “folk heritage”, and it includes all arts and folk traditions such as poetry, singing, music, popular beliefs, stories and tales And proverbs that are carried out on the common tongues of the people, the customs of marriage and various occasions, and the inherited methods of performance, shapes, dances, games and skills that they include.
But, what do we mean by religious heritage?? What religious heritage do we defend, want to develop, or attack? Perhaps we should be more clear and precise.
An educated friend intervened, saying:
My friend, the tradition that attackers and defenders alike speak of is an eclectic aspect of tradition and a political game. As for people’s wrong habits and traditions, which are also based on crude, ignorant, and negatively affecting male eclecticism in the general trend, they let them wreak havoc until nausea, and they brought us out a flood of scum, claiming that this is the interpretation of the signs of God.
They have left the core of all the revealed religions, the Sunnahs, the commandments sent, and the signs of the universe around us. And they left the general rules of Sharia
Which organizes the present of any civilized nation at the present time and which is influential based on the concept of humanity that the human conscience has instilled thousands of years ago in the world and in Egypt in particular.
This obsession with the mere metaphysical memorization of this many verses and hadiths that were developed from a Salafi point of view is called moderation, and it is a biased and extremist reality – as is the case now – we will only reap from it a crime against future generations to pile up above their predecessors at the bottom of the slope of civilized backwardness.
Here, Dr. Amani Fouad intervened in an article published by her, as if she was sharing the dialogue with us, saying:
The dialogue that took place between the President of Cairo University and the Sheikh of Al-Azhar yesterday reveals an old conflict that has been renewed since the beginning of the Renaissance era, whose lights have receded several times, and its failures have been repeated with the undermining of every initiative undertaken by the Enlightenment movement.
This dialogue foretells of two opposite approaches to thinking, from which we must choose our path. One who values the critical mind, capable of questioning and discussing the inheritance and not accepting it, that is not daunted by a break with everything that proves its incompatibility with the requirements of the modern era, its sciences and human rights in it, able to present the vision that trusts that contemporary man can after all the sciences and theories available to him The knowledge and accumulation of experiences and lessons of history is to create the thought of his moment and organize its needs, as well as appreciating the provisions that are compatible with it.. and an approach that chooses to sanctify heritage and establish it and stop and hinder the mind.
Which one do we choose?!!!
