sayyid ai-qimni and hans kung: a comparative study …
TRANSCRIPT
SAYYID AI-QIMNI AND HANS KUNG:
A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF
RELIGIOUS POWER STRUCTURE AND RESISTANCE
IN SUNNI ISLAM IN EGYPT
AND CATHOLIC CHRISTIANITY IN EUROPE
A Thesis
Submitted to the Faculty of Graduate Studies and Research
In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements
For the Degree of
Master of Arts
In Religious Studies
University of Regina
by
Abdel Rahman Abd Alia Ahmed
Regina, Saskatchewan
March, 2009
Copyright 2009 A. A. Ahmed
1*1 Library and Archives Canada
Published Heritage Branch
395 Wellington Street OttawaONK1A0N4 Canada
Bibliotheque et Archives Canada
Direction du Patrimoine de I'edition
395, rue Wellington OttawaONK1A0N4 Canada
Your file Votre reference ISBN: 978-0-494-55032-8 Our file Notre r&fe'rence ISBN: 978-0-494-55032-8
NOTICE: AVIS:
The author has granted a nonexclusive license allowing Library and Archives Canada to reproduce, publish, archive, preserve, conserve, communicate to the public by telecommunication or on the Internet, loan, distribute and sell theses worldwide, for commercial or noncommercial purposes, in microform, paper, electronic and/or any other formats.
L'auteur a accorde une licence non exclusive permettant a la Bibliotheque et Archives Canada de reproduire, publier, archiver, sauvegarder, conserver, transmettre au public par telecommunication ou par I'lntemet, preter, distribuer et vendre des theses partout dans le monde, a des fins commerciales ou autres, sur support microforme, papier, electronique et/ou autres formats.
The author retains copyright ownership and moral rights in this thesis. Neither the thesis nor substantial extracts from it may be printed or otherwise reproduced without the author's permission.
L'auteur conserve la propriete du droit d'auteur et des droits moraux qui protege cette these. Ni la these ni des extraits substantiels de celle-ci ne doivent etre imprimes ou autrement reproduits sans son autorisation.
In compliance with the Canadian Privacy Act some supporting forms may have been removed from this thesis.
Conformement a la loi canadienne sur la protection de la vie privee, quelques formulaires secondaires ont ete enleves de cette these.
While these forms may be included in the document page count, their removal does not represent any loss of content from the thesis.
Bien que ces formulaires aient inclus dans la pagination, il n'y aura aucun contenu manquant.
B*B
Canada
UNIVERSITY OF REGINA
FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES AND RESEARCH
SUPERVISORY AND EXAMINING COMMITTEE
Abdel Rahman Abd Alia Ahmed, candidate for the degree of Master of Arts in Religious Studies, has presented a thesis titled Sayyid Ai-Qimni and Hans Kiing: A Comparative Study of Religious Power Structure and Resistance in Sunni Islam in Egypt and Catholic Christianity in Europe, in an oral examination held on November 12, 2008. The following committee members have found the thesis acceptable in form and content, and that the candidate demonstrated satisfactory knowledge of the subject material.
External Examiner: Dr. Ian Germani, Department of History
Supervisor: Dr. Franz Volker Greifenhagen, Department of Religious Studies, Luther College
Committee Member: Dr. Brian Hillis, Department of Religious Studies, Luther College
Chair of Defense: Dr. Nilgun Onder, Department of Political Science
Abstract
This thesis compares the religious power structure and the resistance to it
of Sunni Islam in Egypt with the religious power structure and the resistance to it
of Catholic Christianity in Europe, using the conceptual framework of discourse
analysis. Al-Azhar Al-Sharif University in Cairo, and its branch, the Islamic
Research Centre (IRC), represent the religious power structure of the established
religious authority in Egypt, whereas the Egyptian liberal thinker, Sayyid
Mahmoud Al-Qimni, represents the resistance. The Roman Curia of the Vatican
and its Holy office (the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith [CDF])
represent the religious power structure of the established Catholic religious
authority in Europe, while the Swiss Catholic theologian, Hans Kung, acts as the
resistance.
A religion typically includes a power structure - a certain establishment or
group which claims to represent the official authority of that religion and to
possess and safeguard traditional interpretations of its religious texts. Those
interpretations are considered final and beyond correction or critique; to
challenge them is to challenge the religious power structure itself, which is built
upon and draws its authority from them. Nevertheless, thinkers arise who
question or challenge those traditional interpretations and introduce new readings
or interpretations; by doing so they run into serious troubles with the power
structure. This thesis examines two cases to show that the religious authorities
behave in the same manner when they are challenged by new interpretations.
The first case concerns the new readings of early Islamic history presented by
Sayyid Mahmoud al-Qimni. The second case concerns the new enquiry into
papal authority presented by Hans Kung.
These cases demonstrate that:
1- New readings of religious traditions reveal serious problems with
the doctrines upon which the religious power structures are built.
2- Religious power structures behave in the same manner when they
are challenged by new readings or interpretations; that is, they
condemn and reject these new interpretations, not because they
have proven them wrong or deleterious to the religious faith, but
primarily in order to maintain their control.
11
Acknowledgements
First of all, I would like to acknowledge and thank my supervisor, Dr. Franz
Volker Greifenhagen for his steady and continuous academic support,
encouragement, and patience. This thesis would not be possible without his
guidance, assistance, and support. I would also like to thank Dr. Bryan Hillis for
his constructive revisions and comments on the thesis. Dr. Bryan Hillis made an
important contribution to the writing of this thesis.
I would also like to acknowledge the assistance of other professors
especially Dr. Peter Bisson, Dr. Leona Anderson, and Dr. Darlene Juschka. I
would also like to thank all the professors and staff members who assisted me
during my undergraduate studies, especially Professor Brenda Anderson and Dr.
Arthur Krentz. Finally, I would like to acknowledge the support of the Department
of Religious Studies and the Department of Philosophy at the University of
Regina.
i n
Dedication
This thesis is dedicated, with love, to my sweet wife,
Ruhana Ahmed
And my beloved Children
Rachel
Joshua
Rhema
&
Laila
IV
Table of Contents
Abstract i
Acknowledgements iii
Dedication iv
Table of Contents v
Chapter One: Introduction and Method 1
Chapter Two: Religious Power Structure in Egypt and the Vatican 11
The Religious Power Structure in Egypt 11
Al-Azhar Al-Sharif University 13
The Islamic Research Academy (IRA) 14
The Islamists 15
Liberal Muslim Thinkers 17
The Case of Nasr Hamid Abu Zayd 18
The Religious Power Structure of the Vatican 21
The Roman Catholic Church and the Papal State 21
The Challenge of the Reformation 22
The Holy Office and the CDF 23
Conclusion 23
Chapter Three: A Case Study of Resistance in Egypt 25
Al-Qimni's Re-evaluation of Early Islamic History 25
Al-Qimni's Al-Hizb Al-Hashmi 27
Pre-lslamic Origins 27 v
The Prophet Muhammad 30
Al-Qimni's Hurub Dawlat Al-Rasul 33
The Establishment of the Islamic State 33
Muhammad and the Jewish tribes of Arabia 35
Repeated Attempts at Invading the Byzantine Empire 40
The Occupation of Makka 42
Al-Qimni's Rab Al-Zaman and Bin Ladin ... Shukran! 44
Caliph Abu Bakr Al-Siddiq 45
Caliph Uthman Ibn 'Affan 47
Abrogation 49
Confiscation of the book, Rab Al-Zaman and the Trial of al-Qimni— 50
Charges against the Book 51
The decision of the Court 53
Al-Qimni's Recants and Returns 54
Conclusion 55
Chapter Four: A Case Study of Resistance in Europe 60
Kung's Program of Reforming the Roman Catholic Church 61
Kiing's Early Writings 63
Hans Kung and Karl Barth 63
Kung's The Church (1967) 67
Kung and the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith 70
Kung's Infallible? An Inquiry (1970) 71
The Definition of Infallibility by Vatican I 72 vi
Kung's understanding of the Infallibility of the Church 74
The Holy Office's reaction to Kung's Infallible? An Inquiry 76
Kung 's Writings of 1979 78
Conclusion 81
Chapter Five: Conclusion 86
Al-Qimni's Resistance and the "Establishment's" Reaction 86
Kung's Critique of the Roman Catholic Church 91
Similarities & Differences 93
Similarities 93
Differences 96
Contrast between al-Qimni's Critique and Kung's Critique 97
Bibliography 102
V l l
Chapter One: Introduction and Method
This thesis compares the religious power structure and the resistance to it
of Sunni Islam in Egypt with the religious power structure and the resistance to it
of Catholic Christianity in Europe. In this regard, Al-Azhar Al-Sharif University,
and its branch the Islamic Research Centre (IRC), represent the religious power
structure of the established religious authority in Egypt, whereas the Egyptian
liberal thinker, Sayyid Al-Qimni, represents the resistance. The Roman Curia1 of
the Vatican and its Holy office (the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith
[CDF]) represent the religious power structure of the established Catholic
religious authority in Europe, while the Swiss Catholic theologian, Hans Kung,
acts as the resistance.
The method used in this thesis to compare these two instances, is
discourse analysis. Margaret Wetberell, Stephanie Taylor, and Simeon J. Yates
describe discourse analysis generally as "the study of talk and texts. It is a set of
methods and theories for investigating language in use and language in social
contexts" (Wetberell, Taylor, Yates 2001: i). According to Jean Carabine,
discourse consists more specifically "of groups of related statements which
cohere in some way to produce both meanings and effects in the real world, i.e.,
the idea of discourse as having force, as being productive" (Wetberell, Taylor,
Yates : 268). Based on Michael Foucault's work, Carabine further describes
1 The Roman Curia is the administrative apparatus of the Holy See. It coordinates and provides the necessary central organization for the correct functioning of the Roman Catholic Church and the achievement of its goals. The Holy See refers to the central government of the Roman Catholic Church, headed by the Bishop of Rome, commonly called the Pope.
1
discourses as "productive in that they have power outcomes or effects. They
define and establish what is 'truth' at particular moments" (Ibid.). Foucault also
offers a narrow, or a more precise, definition of the term "discourse". According to
him, "A discourse is a set of sanctioned statements which have some institutional
force, which means that they have a profound influence on the way that
individuals act and think" (quoted in Mills, 1997: 62). "It is in discourse," argues
Foucault, "that power and knowledge are joined together" (quoted in Wetberell,
Taylor, Yates 2001:280).
If a discourse, as Foucault says, "is a set of sanctioned statements which
have some institutional force," then every statement that has not been approved
by an authentic institution or power structure, whether religious, or political, will
be rejected and condemned; in fact, such other statements become unthinkable.
Therefore, for Foucault, "discourse causes a narrowing of one's field of vision, to
exclude a wide range of phenomena from being considered as real or as worthy
of attention, or as even existing" (Mills: 51).
While the dominant discourse of a society establishes what can be said
and thought, "social phenomena are never finished or total. Meaning can never
be ultimately fixed, and this opens up the way for constant social struggles about
definitions of society and identity, with resulting social effects" (Philips &
Jorgensen 2002: 24). Among the various authority structures in society, religious
power structure uses discourse to fix meanings, "but this aim is never completely
successful as the possibilities of meaning that the discourse displaces to the field
of discursivity always threaten to destabilize the fixity of meaning" (Ibid: 29). New
2
counter-discourses produced by potential resistance to the hegemony of a
dominant discourse "challenge the existing discourses by fixing [new] meaning in
particular [new] ways" (Ibid). The new counter-discourses or meanings
themselves are not finished or total. Therefore, "there is always other meaning
potential which, when actualized in specific articulations, may challenge and
transform the structure of the discourse" (Ibid).
In almost every religion a certain establishment or group claims to
represent the official authority of that religion. This official authority is the power
structure and as such stands as the guardian of that faith. It claims to be the only
authority that can approve or disapprove of what is written or said regarding that
religion. In its possession are many traditional interpretations of its religious texts
and out of these interpretations its main doctrines are created. These
interpretations and doctrines constitute normative and authoritative discourses in
which power and knowledge combine together and produce effects on society.
These discourses are considered final and as such cannot be corrected or
criticized. To challenge them is to challenge the religious power structure itself,
which is built and draws its authority from them. The challenge would be
considered so serious that in most cases the religious power structure will define
the challenges as heresy or apostasy. Sometimes the religious power structure
allows room for some reformation. However, this reformation is accepted and
approved by the religious power structure only as long as it is not posing a threat
to its existence.
3
Religious discourses are particularly difficult to challenge or resist because
they are usually believed to be divine in some way or the other. Therefore,
challenging them will be understood by the religious power structure to be heresy
or apostasy. For this reason, the conflict between the religious power structure
and the resistance to it occurs whenever a new meaning or interpretation is
offered and is understood by the religious authorities as a direct challenge to
divine articulations. To challenge those meanings fixed by the religious power
structure is to challenge God himself.
Religious power structures operate on the assumption that the discourse
they produce is fixed because it is divinely revealed or inspired, and hence is
complete and final. They do not accept the fact that discourses, as human
productions, are contingent and changing: "discourses are incomplete structures
in the same undecidable terrain that never quite become completely structured"
(Ibid: 29). Religious power structures, of course, also implement changes to their
discourses in order to maintain their power in new constructions or situations, but
they do not see these as changes but rather as a return to the original fixed
meaning.
Foucault also speaks about the internal mechanisms of discourse, which a
power structure uses to keep its discourses in existence and circulation. For the
religious power structure the most important of these mechanisms is commentary
(Mills: 67). For instance, the Bible is a religious text "upon which commentaries
have been written and will continue to be written: in a sense, these commentaries
keep the Bible in existence, ensure that it keeps in circulation as legitimate
4
knowledge. Commentary attributes richness, density and permanence to the text
at the very moment when it is creating those values by the act of commentary"
(Ibid: 67-68). The same can be said about the Qur'an, or any other religious text.
However, not every commentary on the religious text is accepted by the religious
power structure. Those commentaries which are accepted, are highly valued, and
it becomes a taboo to disagree with them. Conflict occurs whenever potential
resistance challenges those commentaries, and proposes new interpretations of
the religious texts.
Discourse exists in a field of contestations. As Carabine states, "we should
not think of discourses as all 'powerful' and individuals as submissive recipients
of discourse. Instead we should think of discourse as constantly being challenged
and therefore not necessarily always omnipotent" (Wetberell, Taylor, Yates 2001:
273). These challenges come from what we call the potential resistance.
In terms of this thesis, Al-Azhar Al-Sharif University and the Roman Curia
of the Vatican are institutions producing a normative religious discourse, which
both establishes what is considered to be "true" and legitimates the ongoing
authority of their discourses as the authentic voice of the truth. As this thesis will
show, the religious power structures of the Al-Azhar Al-Sharif University and the
Vatican responded in similar manner when the discourses they produced were
faced with the resistances of the counter-discourses put forth respectively by al-
Qimni and Hans Kung.
Throughout religious history there are always thinkers who question or
challenge the normative discourses of the religious power structure with new
5
readings or interpretations that constitute a counter-discourse and by doing so
they run into serious troubles with the religious power structure. In this thesis two
case studies are selected to show that the religious power structure tends to
behave in the same manner when it is challenged by new interpretations. The
first case concerns the revision of Islamic history by the Egyptian liberal thinker,
Sayyid Mahmoud al-Qimni. The second case is the historical critical analysis of
papal authority presented by the Swiss theologian, Hans Kung. The works of al-
Qimni and Kung reveal that there are serious problems with the doctrines upon
which the present religious power structures are built.
The religious power structure in Egypt differs from the religious power
structure of the Vatican in many ways. First, in Egypt there is no centralized
religious power structure headed by a single spiritual leader such as the Pope.
Instead, many religious groups in Egypt claim to be the guardians of the faith and
this fact contributes to the lack of a centralized power structure. Secondly, there
is no Islamic institution or group in Egypt or anywhere else that has direct control
over other Muslim countries or groups. Therefore, the idea of a centralized power
structure such as the Roman Curia is absent in the Muslim world. Nevertheless,
the history of the leadership of Prophet Muhammad, the Rightly-guided Caliphs,
and the many Islamic dynasties that ruled Muslim countries show that Muslims
have the potential of falling under the leadership of one spiritual leader such as a
caliph. Moreover, many religious thinkers in Sunni-Muslim countries are
graduates of the Al-Azhar Al-Sharif University. This leads to uniformity of thinking
and common behaviour among these religious leaders. Another factor, shared by
6
all Sunni Muslim groups, which creates hidden uniformity is the belief that the era
of the leadership of the Prophet Muhammad and the four rightly guided caliphs
who succeeded him is considered to be the golden period of Muslim history.
Therefore, many Muslim groups today believe that by implementing Shari'a laws
that golden era can be repeated. However, al-Qimni argues that that early Islamic
period is not a good example to be imitated today.
In most of his writings,2 Al-Qimni is trying to prove one point: namely, that
the history of religion in general is a falsified history. In other words, what the
average Muslim is taught about the early history of Islam does not correspond to
the actual events. For instance, the four rightly guided caliphs are represented by
the religious power structure as fully righteous and divinely guided in their
leadership. However, as al-Qimni shows, the questionable deeds of caliph
Uthman, for example, incurred the wrath of some prominent Companions of the
Prophet, and led to his assassination by Muslim hands. Al-Qimni does not blame
Islam alone for sanitizing its history but includes the three main Abrahamic
families, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, in his critique. However, he spends
more time in critically evaluating Islamic history.
Al-Qimni also believes that the Islamic religious heritage as presented by
the religious power structure is responsible for the backwardness of Muslim
nations, Egypt in particular, the oppression and degeneration of women, the
creation of terrorists, the defeat of Egypt by Israel in 1977, and the distortion of
2 In his re-evaluation of the Pre-lslamic history, the history of the Prophet Muhammad, and the history of the early caliphs, al-Qimni uses sources approved by Al-Azhar Al-Sharif University such as the writings of al-Tabari, Ibn Kathir, al-Qurtobi, Ibn Sa'ad, Ibn Hisham, Sahih al-Bukhari, Sahih Muslim, etc.
7
the great ancient Egyptian civilization. His aim is to undo all those layers of
forged history in order to help the new generations in Egypt as well as in other
Arab and Muslim countries to overcome the deception of the Muslim scholars and
historians who made Islam appear as a religion of terror and backwardness.
Hans Kung's program is directed towards reforming the Roman Catholic
Church. His main goal is to reform the present system of the Roman Catholic
Church in order to achieve ecumenical relations between it and other churches.
Kung perceives that the centralized system of the Catholic Church has no basis
in history or scripture. He argues that it was not the intention of Jesus to form a
centralized Church. Moreover, the system is not based on the New Testament. It
creates a centralized power, which is often used as a political tool. It blocks
ecumenical understanding between Christian churches. Therefore, through his
writings Kung argues that the centralized system of Rome has no basis in
Scripture, is not a good system, and needs to be reformed. Kung's writings
provide enough evidence to support his arguments against the centralized
system of Rome. The system, he argues, is based on false historical claims and
forgeries. For example, the idea of Rome's supremacy over other churches is
based on a false letter from James, Jesus' brother, to the bishop of Rome.
Kung also argues against the doctrine of papal infallibility. He shows how
the doctrine was invented and how it was used as a tool to persecute other
Christians as well as followers of other religions. The papal state persecuted,
burned, and tortured many innocent people. Many scientists, philosophers, and
women were condemned as heretics and witches, and burned at the stake or at
8
least got their tongues cut off. Kung's main argument against the doctrine of
papal infallibility is that "it cannot be proved from Scripture or tradition that the
church authorities have the ability to make infallible propositions, dogmas or other
declaration" (Van Voorst, 1971, p. 618). In order to support his argument against
papal infallibility, Kung "finds considerable errors in the historical church from St.
Peter to Pope Paul" (Ibid).
Despite the fact that there are many differences between the Arab-Islamic
culture and the European-Catholic culture in which al-Qimni and Kung carried out
their works and produced their counter-discourses of revisionist readings and
interpretations, it still appears that their respective religious power structure
reacted in similar manners. Both thinkers were unjustly condemned and their
works were rejected by their respective religious power structure. Both were
condemned without being proved wrong, and the main reason in both cases was
to save the religious power structure from falling apart.
This thesis is original because no one has made this particular comparison
before. Secondly, Al-Qimni is relatively unknown in the West (his works, written in
Arabic, have not been translated into English or any other language).3 Thus,
while Kung is well known, this thesis also introduces Al-Qimni to Western
readers.
The thesis consists of five chapters: This first introductory chapter
discusses the method of discourse analysis and introduces the purpose of this
thesis including the main protagonists. Chapter two discusses the religious power
3 Since Al-Qimni's works are written in Arabic and have not yet been translated into English, all quotations from his works in this thesis are my own translation.
9
structure in Egypt and in Rome. Chapter three deals with the first case study, that
is, the works and the trial of Sayyid Mahmoud Al-Qimni. Chapter four discusses
the second case study, that is, the works of Hans Kung, especially his two
controversial books, Die Kirche (The Church) and Infallible? An Inquiry, and the
actions taken against him.
The last chapter evaluates and compares Al-Qimni and Kung's writings
and then compares them. It also compares the religious power structure and the
resistance to it of Sunni Islam in Egypt with the religious power structure and the
resistance to it of Catholic Christianity in Europe. This thesis tries to prove that
both thinkers were unjustly condemned and their works rejected by their
respective religious authority. They were condemned without being proven
wrong, and the main reason in both cases was not to save the faith but to save
the religious power structure from falling apart.
10
Chapter Two: Religious Power Structure in Egypt and the Vatican
This chapter discusses the religious power structure of Sunni Islam in
Egypt and the religious power structure of Roman Catholic Christianity in Europe.
The religious power structure in Egypt differs in many ways from the power
structure of Roman Catholic Christianity in Europe. First of all it has no definite
hierarchy headed by a single individual such as the Pope in the case of the
Roman Curia in the Vatican. Secondly, many groups in Egypt claim to be the
guardians of the Islamic faith and this fact contributes to the lack of a centralized
power structure. Thirdly, there is no Islamic institution or group in Egypt or
anywhere else that has direct control over other Muslim countries or groups.
Therefore, the idea of a centralized power structure such as the Roman Curia in
Vatican is absent in the Muslim world. Nonetheless, as we shall see, this does
not prevent certain groups from attempting to define and enforce what is to be
considered Islamically normative.
The Religious Power Structure in Egypt
In her book, No God But God, Geneive Abdo divides Muslim Egyptian
thinkers into three groups: the moderate Islamists, the 'ulama" or scholars of Al-
Azhar University, and the radical Islamists (Abdo, 2000: 6).4 These three Islamic
groups and the government of Egypt represent the religious power structure of
Sunni Islam in Egypt, all claiming to be the guardians of the Islamic faith.
4 It is important to notice that Abdo's division does not include the liberal Muslim thinkers, who represent the potential resistance to the power structure in the Egyptian society. The liberal thinkers will be introduced later.
11
Accordingly, the members of these groups come into open conflict with potential
resistance in Egyptian society. The main cause bringing Muslim liberal thinkers or
"potential resistance" into an open confrontation with the 'ulama' or professors of
Al-Azhar University and the members of these Islamic groups is the campaign to
implement the Shari'a in today's Egyptian society. On one hand, the liberal
thinkers oppose the implementation of the Shari'a on the ground that "Shari'a
rules are human implementation and application of fixed religious principles in
accordance with changing circumstances" (Najjar 2000: 178). On the other hand,
the moderate Islamists, the 'ulama', and the radical Islamists claim that Shari'a
rules "are divinely ordained and immutable, valid for all times and places" (Ibid:
178). According to the liberal thinkers, Shari'a rules were developed by later
generations after the Prophet and hence are human made and not divinely
revealed, as the Islamists would claim. So it is not necessary to follow what the
founders of the Shari'a schools had developed in their capacities as human
beings. The rules might have been acceptable in their own time but they are not
fixed and rigid and hence compulsory for every generation of Muslims. Even at
the time of the Prophet and the rightly guided caliphs after him, the rules kept
changing and developing, showing that they were not meant to be fixed for all
times and places. Therefore, most of the liberal thinkers, while not opposing the
Islamic rules as such, would want to adapt them to modern times.
12
Al-Azhar Al-Sharif University
Al-Azhar is the oldest institution of Islamic learning in the world. It was
founded by the Fatimid dynasty in the 10th century C.E. as an institution to
propagate the teachings of the Isma'iliya madhhab or "school"of Shi'a Islam.
When the Sunni Ayyubids took over Egypt, they changed Al-Azhar into a school
that taught the Sunni teachings of Islam. So from its beginning, al-Azhar has
tended to be a tool of state-sanctioned religious authority.
Al-Azhar today is headed by a rector, who is known as the Grand Mufti.
The rector's role is to define Islam for the Egyptian government and to tell people
how to live an Islamic life (Skovgaard-Petersen 1999: 1). The rector has a group
of 'ulama' or scholars to assist him in his role. For hundreds of years the 'ulama'
of al-Azhar have served the political interests of the government of Egypt. The
Friday sermon5 at al-Azhar is always conducted by a sheikh from al-Azhar, who is
popular in society and approved by the government. The government also
authorizes the Council of Islamic Affairs and the Academy of Islamic Studies of
al-Azhar to issue fatwas. A fatwa is an official opinion regarding prayer, belief,
and behaviour (Ibid: 377). However, the 'ulama' of al-Azhar have today changed
their historical role and begun to challenge Egyptian government policies on
social issues such as birth control, circumcision of girls or female genital
mutilation, and Israel. Moreover, the 'ulama' or sheikhs" of al-Azhar have
convinced the masses that they are the moral and political guardians of Egyptian
society at home and in the entire global Muslim society. The 'ulama' have
5 A sermon is preached during the Friday noon compulsory public prayer. The Friday sermon is also a mechanism whereby the state exercises religious control.
13
extended their authority beyond the strictly religious sphere to ban books and
films that they deem offensive to Islam and the Muslim community of believers"
(Abdo 2000: 6)
The Islamic Research Academy (IRA)
The Islamic Research Academy is a "branch of Al-Azhar empowered to
judge the merit of artistic work that concerns religion" (Engel, 1998: 3). In 1994
the Egyptian government authorized al-Azhar to "issue licenses for films, books,
and tapes which discuss religion" (Ibid). Therefore, the Islamic Research
Academy (IRA) has been given the right "to track and examine publications and
arts that deal with Islam" (Ibid: 2). If the IRA rules that a book or a film is offensive
to Islam then it has the right to take restrictive measures to censor the publication
of that book or film.
The collusion of al-Azhar and its branch, the IRA, with the Egyptian
government represents the institutionalization of the religious power structure in
Egypt. It is this power structure against which any new interpretations or
meanings suggested by the liberal thinkers is arrayed. To borrow the words of
Michel Foucault, official statements or rules are "those utterances which have
some institutional force and which are thus validated by some form of authority"
(quoted in Mills 1997: 61). In order to protect their fixed and authoritive
statements, the religious power structure in Egypt uses the concept of apostasy
as a tool to condemn any new interpretation or meaning suggested by the
potential resistance of the liberal thinkers
14
The Islamists
The Islamists are Muslim thinkers who also see themselves as guardians
of Islamic society and Islam. In some cases, the Islamists carry out the decisions
of the 'ulama', of Al-Azhar. For example, the murder of the intellectual liberal
thinker, Faraj Foda, was believed to be the consequence of a fatwa issued by a
scholar from Al-Azhar, which was implemented by the members of the radical
Islamist group Jamaiyat Islamiya. There is no direct connection between the
scholars of Al-Azhar and the radical Islamist groups. However, the latter look at
the former as spiritual leaders and hence their fatwas have great impact on them.
Accordingly, , it is important to mention how these groups were founded and how
they function in Islamic Egyptian society.
Hasan Al-Bana founded the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt in 1928. From
the beginning, this movement strove to reintroduce Islamic law and revive Islam.
Al-Bana was a spiritual leader rather than an intellectual thinker. It was his
disciple Sayyid Qutb who changed the direction of the movement from identifying
the colonial British as the enemy to identifying the national Nasser regime as the
enemy (Kepel 1993: 37). During his incarceration in Nasser's concentration
camps, Qutb wrote his famous work Ma'alim ff al-tarfq (Signposts on the Way),
which became the manifesto of most Islamist groups ever since. In this book,
Qutb describes Nasser's regime as a jahiliyya6 or "ignorance," a concept he
borrowed from Abu 'Ala Mawdudi (Ibid: 47). Although Qutb was arrested, tried,
and hanged by Nasser in 1966, his book remained a guide for the main three
6 The term jahiliyya is traditionally used to designate the ignorance and idolatry of the time in the Arabian Peninsula before the advent of Islam.
15
Islamist extremist groups that split from the Muslim Brotherhood, namely The
Society of Muslims, The Jama'at Islamiyya, and the Jihad group. The main cause
for the split was the commitment of the Muslim Brotherhood to peaceful means
for achieving their goals, whereas these groups saw violence as also a legitimate
means.
It was Shukri Mustafa, the leader of the Society of Muslims, who extended
the application of the jahiliyya concept to include all of Egyptian society; he thus
made his followers immigrate to the mountains in order to imitate the Prophet's
Hijra from Makka to Medina (Ibid: 72). Shukri's group was accused of kidnapping
and killing Sheikh Al-Dhahabi, a respected mainstream Islamic scholar, in 1977.
Shortly afterwards, Shukri was captured, and executed.
The Jama'at Islamiyya was a student movement, which focused its effort
at the university campuses. This group started as a peaceful group, but two
events brought it into conflict with the state: the trial of the Society of Muslims
(Shukri's group) and the visit of Egyptian president Sadat to Jerusalem in 1977
(Ibid: 147). After his return from the Camp David meetings in the U.S.A. in 1978,
president Sadat ordered the arrest of all Jama'at militants. (Ibid: 162).
The Jihad group split from the Jama'at Islamiyya. Its leader, Muhammad
Abd al-Salaam Faraj, regarded the Society of Muslims, the Jama'at Islamiyya,
and many Muslim leaders as cowards who avoided direct confrontation with the
government. He wrote and secretly published his Islamic Theory in a booklet
called AI-FarTda Al-Ghaiba ("The Hidden Imperative"). Faraj was looking for a
way to kill president Sadat because of his visit to Jerusalem and the trial of
16
Shukri's group. Khalid Islambuli, a young officer in the Egyptian army, came to
Faraj with an assassination plan. However, the assassination of Sadat in 1981,
by Khalid Islambuli and his three accomplices was not followed by a public
revolution as Faraj expected (Ibid: 211). Instead, Muhammad Abd al-Salaam
Faraj and the four assassins were put to death on April 15, 1982.
The Muslim Brotherhood, headed by its Supreme Guide, Sheikh Al-
Hudaybi and the Muslim Sister, Zayynab Al-Ghazali, sought to change society by
peaceful means before changing the government. The group used its famous
magazine, Al-Da'wah ("The Invitation"), as a means to propagate its views. In
addition, individual preachers, unaffiliated officially with any of these groups, used
the pulpit as a platform to change the hearts of their listeners. Among these
individual preachers, Sheikh Abd Al-Hamid Kish became, in the 1980's and
1990's, a shining star. These peaceful groups and individuals- the Muslim
Brotherhood and the individual preachers- made a tremendous change in
Egyptian society.
Although all the Islamist groups in Egypt differed in their means and
approaches, they were similar in making one demand: the implementation of
Shari'a. And even the 'ulama", of Al-Azhar who were represented by Sheikh
Sayyid Tantawi, rector and Grand Mufti, made the same demand, but sought the
gradual application of Islamic law.
Liberal Muslim Thinkers:
The liberal Muslim intellectuals represent the potential resistance to the
religious power structure of Sunni Islam in Egypt. They do not represent or form a 17
single group as is the case of other Islamic groups in Egypt. Each individual
liberal thinker works independently from other thinkers. Nevertheless, there are a
few common ideas shared by all of them. The most common idea is their
opposition to the implementation of Shari'a law or to establishing an Islamic state
in Egypt. Most of them call for secular laws and a secular state.
It is important to mention briefly a recent case, which received much
attention and publicity by the Arab as well as Western media. Nasr Hamid Abu
Zayd is an example of how liberal thinkers embody potential resistance to
religious authority and provoke repressive reactions from religious authority.
The Case of Nasr Hamid Abu Zayd
Abu Zayd was an associate professor of Islamic studies at Cairo
University. He suggested that some Qur'anic passages be interpreted
metaphorically. When he applied in 1992 "for promotion to the rank of professor,
based on his production of three books and many articles dealing mostly with the
critique of Islamic texts and modern Islamic discourse" (Ayalon 1999: 2), his
problems began. The University chose three key professors - Dr. Abd Al-Sabur
Shahin, Dr. Mahmoud AN Makki, and Dr. Awani Abd Al-Ra'uf - to evaluate his
work and submit a report (Najjar 2000: 179). After seven months Abu Zayd's
application for promotion was rejected on the basis of a negative report submitted
by Dr. Shahin. According to Shahin's report, "Abu Zayd's work, especially his
book, Naqd Al-Kitab AI-DTnT ("Critique of Religious Discourse"), contained words
of blasphemy" (Ayalon, 1999: 2). Shahin also delivered a fierce message
18
condemning Abu Zayd in his Friday sermon at the famous mosque of 'Umar Ibn
Al-Az. His sermon encouraged a group of Muslim lawyers to file a legal case
against Abu Zayd to separate him from his Muslim wife, professor Ibtihal Yunis.
The lawyers based their lawsuit on the law that a Muslim woman could not
remain married to a Muslim apostate (Sfeir 1998: 403).
The court determined that Abu Zayd was an apostate from Islam based on
ten reasons:
1- He denied things mentioned in the Qur'an such as the Throne of God, angels, devils, jinn, paradise and hell, describing them as myths of the past.
2- He described the Holy Book as a cultural product, denying its pre-existence in the preserved Tablet.
3- He called it a "linguistic text," implying that the Prophet lied about receiving revelations from God.
4- He described the Qur'anic sciences as a 'reactionary heritage,' and the Shari'a as the cause of Muslim backwardness and decline.
5- He described the mind that believes in the supernatural as a mind submerged in myth.
6- He characterized Islam as an Arabic religion, thus denying its universality. 7- He claimed that the final version of the Qur'an was established in the
Qurayshi idiom in order to assert the supremacy of the Qurashi tribe. 8- He denied the authenticity of the Prophet's Sunna. 9- He called for emancipation from the authority of religious texts. 10- He contended that observance of the laws in the religious texts is a form of
slavery. (Najjar, 2000, pp. 194-195)
Since Egypt does not follow Shari'a rules in criminal cases, the court could
not pass the death penalty on Abu Zayd even though it condemned him as an
apostate. However, the court used an old Islamic rule called hisba to separate
Abu Zayd from his wife. Hisba can be understood as an "Islamic personal status
law allowing Muslims to file suits against those alleged to have violated religious
law" (Annual Report of 1997: 10). According to Shari'a law "the apostate is the
one who turns away from Islam, and is subject to the death penalty. In addition, 19
he loses the capacity, to inherit and his marriage becomes void without the need
for judicial intervention" (Balz 1997: 137). As a consequence, Abu Zayd and his
wife were left with no choice but to flee the country. On July 26, 1995, they fled to
the Netherlands where they presently live under a death threat (Weaver 1998: 1).
20
The Religious Power Structure of the Vatican
The Roman Catholic Church and the Papal State:
In order to have a full understanding of the religious power structure of the
Vatican, one needs to investigate how the Roman Catholic Church developed
into a Papal State. According to Clyde L. Manschreck, in the period between 160 -
175 A. D. the churches of Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch assumed authority over
other churches (Manschreck 1985: 35). The council of Nicea (325 A.D)
"recognized the primacy of Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch" (Ibid). However,
Irenaeus (b 125 -) argued that, "When the Blessed Apostles [Peter and Paul] had
founded and built up the Church, they handed over the ministry of the Episcopate
to Linus7" (64-79 A. D.) (Ibid: 36). From this Irenaeus concluded that, "all the
other churches should agree with Rome as an unquestionable channel of pure
apostolic doctrine" (Ibid.)
According to John Deedy, "the Church's claim to infallibility is essentially
scriptural, being deduced from passages such as Matthew 28: 18-20 ("All power
is given to me in heaven and on earth... and know that I am with you all days,
even to the end of the world"), and chapters 14, 15, and 16 of the Gospel of
John" (Deedy 1990: 254). Deedy states further that, "the notion that infallibility
might reside in a single individual was altogether foreign. It was a notion that
belonged in fact to the pagan hubris... which the first Christians were anxious to
7 All the ancient records of the Roman bishops which have been handed down by St. Irenaeus, Julius Africanus, St. Hippolytus, Eusebius, also the Liberian catalogue of 354, place the name of Linus directly after that of the Prince of the Apostles, St. Peter. Pope Linus is the Linus mentioned by St. Paul in his II Timothy 4:21.
21
repudiate" (Ibid: 255). Deedy traces the claim to infallibility back to the reigns of
Damasus I (366-384) and of Leo the Great (440-461). According to him,
"Damasus stressed the link between Peter and the Bishop of Rome, a thought
fostered further by such sainted successors as Siricius (384-399) and Innocent I
(401-417). As for Leo, he assumed for himself and his successors for all time the
title of supreme pontiff ..."(Ibid: 255-256). Deedy argues further, "It was Leo, too,
who made the claim to the plenitude of power... and with that claim the ground
was prepared for the eventual locating of all authority relating to faith and morals
in the unerring and the unerrable person of the pope" (Ibid: 256).
According to Thomas Bokenkotter, Pope Leo (440-61), was the one "who
insisted on the primacy of the Roman bishop over all other ecclesiastics and
secular rulers" (Bokenkotter 2004, p. 80). Pope Gregory (known as St. Gregory
the Great 540-604), was the one who "established the Popes as de facto rulers of
central Italy"; "he strengthened the papal primacy over the churches of the West"
(Ibid: 100).
The Challenge of the Reformation
The Reformation challenged the claim of the Roman Catholic Church to
supremacy and the doctrine of papal infallibility. However, the Reformation's
challenge "dealt a blow to the concept of an unerring church head, but not in
Roman Catholicism, where the faithful continued to look upon the pope as
preserved from error whether he was formally defined infallible or not" (Deedy
1990:256).
22
The Holy Office and The Congregation for Doctrine of the Faith:
Beginning in the 12th century, various institutions of the Roman Catholic
Church starting engaging in systematic attempts to root out heresy.
Heresy is "an opinion chosen by human faculties, contrary to Holy Scripture, openly taught, and pertinaciously defended. That is, heresy was heterodox religious doctrine discovered by purely human error, contrary to orthodox authoritative teaching, but also openly taught (not secretly held) and persisted in after authoritative correction (and therefore pertinacious, a willful and public denial of the teaching authority of the Church)" (Peters 1988:487).
In 1199 Innocent III "identified heresy with the doctrine of treason in Roman
Law ... Innocent stated that convicted heretics should be turned over to secular
authority for punishment, that their property be confiscated and sold, their houses
should be leveled to the ground" (Ibid: 488). Gregory IX (1227-1241) "laid down
the rule that repentant heretics were to be imprisoned for life, while unrepentant
heretics were to be turned over to the secular arm for capital punishment" (Ibid).
The Congregation of the Holy Office of the Inquisition of the Roman
Church was created as a permanent institution by Pope Paul III (1534-1549) in
1542 (Ibid: 490). In 1908, it was renamed by Pius X the Congregation of the Holy
Office (Ibid: 491). In 1965, "Paul VI changed the name once again to the Sacred
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith" (Ibid: 491).
Conclusion
It is obvious that the conflict between the religious power structure and the
resistance to it occurs whenever the latter suggests new meaning or 23
interpretation of fixed religious doctrines. This conflict will become clearer in the
following discussion of the struggles of Sayyid Mahmoud Al-Qimni and Hans
Kung with their respective religious authorities in Egypt and the Vatican.
24
Chapter Three: A Case Study of Resistance in Egypt
Al-Qimni's Re-evaluation of Early Islamic History
Sayyid Mahmoud al-Qimni was born on March 13, 1947 in the city of Al-
Wasita, which is located in the Southern province of Egypt (Abd al-Gadir 2004:
1). His father, Sheikh Mahmoud al-Qimni, a graduate from Al-Azhar University,
was a very religious traditionalist and always dressed in a traditional way. In his
large house, Sheikh al-Qimni organized religious gatherings especially during the
month of Ramadan. Although he was a very religious man he was also open to
other people's opinions and adopted the ideas of the Egyptian reformist
Muhammad Abduh.
Sayyid Mahmoud al-Qimni was brought up in this religious home. His
childhood was not happy due to a heart problem (Ibid). Despite this, he
graduated in philosophy from A'in Shams University in Cairo and then studied
Islamic history at al-Azhar University. The defeat of Egypt by Israel in 1967 was a
turning point in his life. Wanting to find the reason for the defeat, he undertook
thorough research on Islamic sciences such as fiqh, philosophy, and kalam in
different schools of thought. Beginning in 1985, he concentrated on the critical
study of Islam and Islamic discourse.
The occupation of Kuwait by Saddam Hussein's troops in 1991 was a
second turning point, leading al-Qimni to abandon the Nassarite ideal of Arabic
unity and instead to focus on the Egyptian community. In other words, Egypt as a
unique nation replaced Egypt as an Arab country in his thought. At this juncture,
25
liberalism became a belief and dogma for al-Qimni. Although al-Qimni does not
mention it explicitly, from his interview with Asharif Al-Abd Al-Gadir and his early
writings one could deduce that al-Qimni was working in Kuwait at the time of
Saddam Hussein's invasion, an invasion which caused many foreign Arabs to
flee Kuwait leaving behind their properties and money.
Al-Qimni wanted to re-write the Prophet's Sira or "Biography" in
terms of the historical development of the foundation of a political Islamic
state at the time of Muhammad. This project he undertook in his volume,
al-lslamTyat (The Islamisms), which contains among other writings his two
controversial essays, Al-Hizb Al-Hashmi Wa Ta'sTs Al-Daula AI-lslamTya
(The Hashimite Party and The Foundation of the Islamic State), and Hurub
Al-Daulat al-Rasul (The Wars of the Prophet's State.)
These controversial writings provoked quite a reaction. In an article called
"Doubtful Books" in Al-Watan newspaper, Abd Allah al-Samti said "writers like
Khalil Abd al-Karim, Sa'id al-Ashmawi, Sayyid al-Qimni, al-Sadiq Nihum, and
Nawal al-Sa'adawi want people to believe that the Qur'an is not revealed but the
word of Muhammad", and that Muhammad was just a great man and not the seal
of the prophets (al-Samti 2004:1). In another article, Hala Mahmoud stated:
Sayyid Al Qimni deals with early Islamic history like no other Egyptian historian will dare. He saves himself from being labeled either an apostate or a tool of the West by only using sources approved by Al Azhar, but many of his conclusions would make Nasr Hamid Abu Zayd blanch. Works such as Al Hizb Al Hashimi (The Hashemite Faction), Al Dawla Al Mohamadiya (The Mohammedite State), and Hurub Dawlat Al Rasul (The Wars of the Prophetic State), trace the tenets of Islam to political pressures rather than revelation, while books like Al Nabi Ibrahim (The
26
Prophet Abraham) find a secular explanation for the myths of the earliest Prophets (Mahmoud 2004: 1)
Al-Qimni was counted by Samir Sarahan as one of the most provocative
thinkers in Egypt due to his "written revisionist histories of the era of the Prophet"
(Sarahan 1998: 1). Obviously, al-Qimni is not afraid to stir up controversy. The
thesis will now proceed by examining one of these areas of controversy, by
considering in more detail al-Qimni's program of rewriting early Islamic history.
Al-Qimni's Al-Hizb Al-Hashmi
Pre-lslamic Origins
In his book, Al-Hizb Al-Hashmi Wa Ta'sTs Al-Daula AI-lslamTya (The
Hashimite Party and The Foundation of the Islamic State), al-Qimni traces the
origin of the Islamic state and religion to Abd Al-Mutalab, the grandfather of the
Prophet Muhammad (al-Qimni 1996a: 51). According to al-Qimni, Abd Al-Mutalab
understood that the Arab tribes could not be united into one kingdom because of
a lack of tribal cohesion. The only way to unite the Arab tribes was to have a
King-Prophet to rule over them. Such a unity would not be resisted because it
would be considered of divine origin. Abd Al-Mutalab borrowed the idea of the
king-prophet from the Jewish model of King David. And so he began his religion
of Al-Hanafiya,8 which traced its origin to the ancestor of the Arabs, Ibrahim or
Abraham.
A monotheist religion in pre-lslamic Arabia. Al-Qimni believes Islam to be a continuation of that religion.
27
Abd Al-Mutalab began "to lay the foundation for a new religion in which all
hearts could be united in one God" (Ibid: 99). He called for the abolition of idols
and said that God would not accept any supplication from a person except his
good works. According to him, God was the God of Ibrahim the father of all the
Arab tribes. Abd al-Mutalab had a vision while he was sleeping in the courtyard of
the Ka'bah that the God of Ibrahim had commanded him to dig the well of
Zamzam. Then he renounced all pagan worship and practices and asked the
people of Makka to return to the religion of Ibrahim, which was the religion of
Hanafiya. When the month of Ramadan came he would go to the cave of Hirah,9
and worship. Abd al-Mutalab began to invite the people of Makka to do good and
refrain from evil because he believed in the resurrection of souls and their
judgment on the last day.
Abd Al-Mutalab, in fact, was not the first founder of the Hanafiya, but,
according to al-Qimni, some people from Yemen founded the religion in the first
century before the birth of Christ. The Yemeni people used to worship one God
whom they called Al-Rahman (Ibid: 111, quoting from Dr. Jawad 'AN and Thuria
Manquosh). Abd Al-Mutalab did not know the origin of the Hanafiya and hence
attributed it to the Hebrew prophet, Ibrahim (Ibid, quoting from al-Fakhr al-Razi
and Dr. Jawad 'Ali).
Many people accepted the religion of Abd Al-Mutalab and some of them
made further contributions to it. The most important of those Hanafiya followers
9 The Prophet Muhammad claimed that the angel Gabriel appeared to him for the first time in this Cave and gave him the first verses of the Qur'an.
28
were Qas Ibn Saiad al-la'adi,10 Suaid Ibn A'amir al-Mustalaq,11 A'wkia Bin Zohir
al-la'adi,12 Waraqa Ibn Nawfal,13 and Ala'af Ibn Shihab al-Tamimi.14
According to al-Qimni's historical research, the Hanafiya followers used to
practice "circumcision, pilgrimage to Makka, ablution after sexual intercourse,
rejection of idol worship, belief in one God in whose hands are good and bad,
and that everything in the universe is predestined and written" (Ibid: 116, quoting
from Dr. Jawad 'Ali). The only thing missing for the Hanafiya followers was a
prophet (Ibid: 116). When the Hanafiya people understood the importance of a
prophet they began to compete among themselves as to which of them was a
prophet. They thought prophecy would be revealed to the one who reaches a
high level of spirituality and holiness (Ibid: 117). Therefore, one possibility was
Zayd Ibn 'Umar Ibn Nafil who abstained from alcohol, eating of dead animals,
blood, swine, and everything which was slaughtered without calling on the name
of Allah or which was dedicated to idols (Ibid: 118, quoting from Ibn Hisham).
Another possibility was Umaiyya Ibn Abd Allah Ibn Abi al-Salt who did not accept
Islam because he expected the prophecy to come to him (Ibid: 121, quoting Dr.
10 Qas Ibn Sa'ad al-la'adi invited the people to follow "One God, who has not been begotten nor begot, and to whom all would return tomorrow" (al-Qimni 1996a: 112, quoting from al-Shahirstani). Therefore, he was the first one in the Arabian Peninsula to call for Tawhid or "Oneness of God". 11 Suaid Ibn A'amir al-Mustalaq said "man has no hand in what befalls him from good or bad. Everything was predestined by God" (Ibid, quoting from al-Awasi). Thus al-Mustalaq came with the doctrine of predestination. 12 A'wkia Bin Zohir al-la'adi claimed to be a prophet (Ibid, referring to Ibn Habib and al-Awasi). He used to go to a lower place in Makka, climb a ladder, and tell people that God spoke to him in that place. However, 'Awkia was not successful in his claim to be a prophet. 13 Waraqa Ibn Nawfal called people to worship the God of Ibrahim and followed the Hanafiya in the beginning and then became a Christian. He was the relative of the first wife of the Prophet, Khadijah and through him, she confirmed the Prophet-hood of Muhammad. 14 Ala'af Ibn Shihab al-Tamimi believed in the oneness of God, the resurrection of souls, and the reward of good and punishment of evil (Ibid: 115, referring to al-Awasi).
29
Jawad 'AN, Ibn Hisham, and Ibn Kathir). When he was told that the Prophet
Muhammad killed the people of Makka in the battle of Badr he tore his clothes
and wept and said if he were a prophet he would not have killed his relatives
(Ibid, referring to Dr. Jawad 'AN).
Al-Qimni also mentions many poetic verses composed by these two
followers of the Hanafiya, which were incorporated in the Qur'an (Ibid: 118-123).
Quoting the words of Dr. Jawad 'Ali, al-Qimni states,
There is great similarity and agreement between the views and beliefs of this poet and what has been mentioned in the holy Qur'an regarding the description of the Resurrection Day, Paradise, and Hell. More than that, we find in the poetry of Umaiyya, the same verses and the same construction of sentences as appear in the Qur'an and the book of the Hadith. Of course, we cannot assume that Umaiyya Abi al-Salt had taken them from the Qur'an because the Qur'an had not yet been revealed. Because of his death in the ninth year of Hijrah, we cannot also assume that he had stolen the verses of the Qur'an because the Qur'an had not yet been fully revealed (Ibid: 123-124).
The Prophet Muhammad
Al-Qimni argues that Muhammad continued in the Hanafiya pattern: "after
that Muhammad (prayers and peace of Allah be upon him) began to follow the
steps of his grandfather Abd Al-Mutalab to the Cave of Hirah, and this Cave was
changed into a holy place and entered history...and he believed in Hanafiya, and
before he reached the age of forty, he concluded the matter by declaring himself
30
to be the prophet of the Umma,15 after the God of Ibrahim was revealed to him"
(Ibid: 132).
According to al-Qimni, the people of Makka neither objected to nor
accepted the new religion in the beginning. However, the leaders of Makka began
to protest when the verses of the Qur'an began to insult them (Ibid: 134). For
example, in the Surah of the Qalam (the Pen), verse 13, the Qur'an called Al-
Akhnas Ibn Shariq the son of an adulteress because he described Muhammad as
a mad man or bewitched person (Ibid, quoting from Ibn Kathir).16 In the Surah of
Al-Muddaththir, verse 50, the Qur'an described the heads of the Umma as
donkeys because they rejected the invitation to Islam (Ibid).17 In the Surah of Al-
Masad 111 (The Flames) the Qur'an rebuked Muhammad's uncle, Abd al-Uzza,
and called him Abu Lahab or "Father of Flames," and described his wife, the
sister of Abu Sufyan, as the carrier of wood in hell. And in the Surah of Al-Kafirun
109 (The Unbelievers) the Qur'an called the people of Makka unbelievers (Ibid:
135). However, the heads of Makka did not see the danger in the new religion
until Muhammad started to stir slaves up against their masters. At this time the
clan of Abd Al-Dar began to call for an alliance with other tribes of Makka to join
them in their attempt to prevent the new religion from spreading (Ibid: 141). They
now saw the tribe of Hashim, Muhammad's tribe, trying to rule over all the Arab
tribes through this new prophet.
15 Community. 16 Surah 68:13 "Violent (and cruel), with all that, base-born". 17 Surah 74:50 "As if they were affrighted asses".
31
When Muhammad began to lose hope of gaining supporters in Makka he
accepted the invitation of the Yathrib18 tribes, Al-Khauz and Al-Khazrig, to come
and be their leader (Ibid: 150). According to al-Qimni's historical reconstruction,
the Yathrib tribes wanted to gain control over Makka by attacking it and
preventing the caravans, which come from Al-Sham or "Syria", from reaching
Makka. They would not be blamed for such a hostile action if they were led by a
prophet because it would then be divinely justified (Ibid). The Jewish tribes, which
also lived in Yathrib at that time, accepted the proposal of the tribes of Al-Khauz
and Al-Khazrig, and promised to fight along with them. Therefore, the verses of
the Qur'an began to praise the Jews and their prophets and exalt them above all
the peoples of the earth [see the Qur'anic Surahs Al-Baqarah 2: 62, Al-Maidah 5:
44, Al-A'raf 7: 157, and As-Saff 61: 6] (Ibid: 150).
As soon as the prophet moved to Yathrib, he made a pact19 with the
Jewish tribes and other tribes and began to attack the Makkan caravans, which
came from Al-Sham or "Syria" (Ibid: 153). The alliance of Yathrib's tribes with
Muhammad played a significant role in the defeat of the Makkan tribes.
Eventually Makka fell and the Hashimite house took control of both cities. When
Muhammad captured the Ka'bah, the Arab tribes accepted the new religion (Ibid:
154).
To conclude, it appears that in his book, -Hizb Al-Hashmi Wa Ta'sTs Al-
Daula AI-lslamTya (The Hashimite Party and The Foundation of the Islamic
State), al-Qimni wants to prove that Islam is a continuation of the political efforts
18 The prophet Muhammad later changed the name of the city Yathrib to Medina. 19 The Medina Charter or the Constitution of Medina.
32
of some Hanafiya followers, including Muhammad's grandfather. He thus
highlights tribal politics and inter-tribal competition, rather than divine revelation,
as the context for the emergence of Islam, concluding his book with a poetic
verse attributed to Mu'awiyah, the first Umayyad caliph:
The Hashimite tribe played with the leadership No report came or revelation descended from heaven
(Ibid: 154, quoting from Muhammad al-Qazooni).
Such a conclusion stands in stark contrast to the generally accepted
interpretations of Muslim commentators and scholars, who believe that Islam is
strictly a religion divinely revealed through Muhammad, the final prophet who
followed in the footsteps of the Hebrew prophets Moses, David, and Jesus.
However, al-Qimni did not end his historical reconstruction with this startling
conclusion about the context of Islam's origins, but continued his historical
investigations in his next essay, Hurub Al-Daulat al-Rasul (The Wars of the
Prophet's State).
Al-Qimni's Hurub Al-Daulat al-Rasul
The Establishment of the Islamic State
In his essay, Hurub Al-Daulat al-Rasul (The Wars of the Prophet's State),
al-Qimni analyses in detail the wars of the Prophet Muhammad and the
foundation of the first Islamic state. His analysis differs from the commonly
accepted accounts of those events. He strips the wars of the Prophet of any
supernatural or miraculous nature, believed by most narrators to be the main
reason for the victory of the early Islamic State. Instead, al-Qimni attributes the
33
victory to the successful leadership and military tactics of the Prophet. Moreover,
al-Qimni believes that the victory could also be attributed to a change in the
Prophet's message in Yathrib or "Medina." Before the emigration from Mecca to
Medina, the message of the Prophet was based on a peaceful approach with full
freedom of faith. It also admonished the faithful to be patient and wait for their
rewards in heaven. However, after the emigration to Medina, "all the followers of
the Islamic community, Ansars and Muhajireen,20 were changed to fighters and
attackers, a complete state of soldiers and invaders, exactly like the tribe, and
with its logic. This is after the allegiance has changed from the tribe and its
worshipped ancestor to the State, which represents the men of war and blood"
(al-Qimni 2001: 164). Concerning this change, which brought a sudden increase
in the number of the Prophet's followers and led to the victory of Badr, al-Qimni
states:
And here is the most dangerous material change, which played a significant role in attracting the warriors from the weak tribes, after the Prophet remained thirteen years in Makkah inviting people to his faith without gaining enough numbers from those weak tribes. At that time the invitation postponed the promise of enjoyment and abundance to the everlasting paradise... However, when it has been announced that Allah has given permission to the Prophet and the faithful to possess the wealth of the unbelievers, then the solution became an earthly and material fact, with other tempting gains before the weak among the people. These earthly and material gains attracted many weak people to join the army of the new State (Ibid: 165).
Ansars were the supporters of the Prophet who lived in Medina, and Muhajireen were those who immigrated with him from Makka to Medina.
34
Muhammad and the Jewish tribes of Arabia
According to al-Qimni, the Prophet sought the alliance of the three main
Jewish tribes in Medina, Qiniqa'a, al-Nadir, and Qurazah, when he was weak and
had less followers (Ibid: 141). At that time, the verses of the Qur'an spoke "about
the place of the children of Israel in the political history of the region, of the
kingdoms of David and Solomon, and their place in the religious history, of
groups of prophets from Noah to Abraham and Isaac and Joseph and Moses...
etc., and that in great reverence" (Ibid). The Qur'an gives great and clear respect
to the Jewish Torah (Ibid). At this time, the prophet fasted on the Jewish Day of
Atonement and used Jerusalem, the holy city of the Jews, as the Qibla21 for his
prayers.
Al-Qimni believes that the Jews of Medina accepted the alliance of
Muhammad for what it might bring to them in the future in material benefits (Ibid).
However, "the Jews of Yathrib, as they prepared themselves for gains,
discovered, especially after the Battle of Badr, their deadly miscalculation. It
became clear that the Muslims had gained in Badr material power and
confidence, and therefore did not need that beneficial alliance" (Ibid: 141-142).
As soon as the Prophet returned from his victory in Badr "he gathered the Jews in
the market of Qiniqa'a and said to them; 'oh community of the Jews accept Islam
before it befalls you what has befallen Quraysh" (Ibid: 243, quoting from al-
Bihaqi). Although the Prophet gave no choice for the Jews of Qiniqa'a except
Islam or death, al-Qimni argues that the Islamic books of the sira found
21 The direction in which the followers of Islam must face when they perform their prayers. 35
justification for this breaking of the treaty with the Jews (Ibid: 244). According to
the narrators of the sira, a Muslim woman went to the market of Qiniqa'a to shop
and a group of young Jews teased her and exposed her private parts. A Muslim
man killed one of those boys and he got killed by a group of Jews. The entire
tribe of Qiniqa'a was subsequently expelled, but al-Qimni refused to accept this
justification for their expulsion (Ibid: 246), thinking it to be too minor of an incident
to warrant such drastic action.
The second Jewish tribe, Banu Al-Nadir, was accused of planning to
murder the Prophet. According to al-Qimni, the sira of the Prophet narrated that
the angel Gabriel revealed the assassination plan, so the Prophet raided the tribe
of al-Nadir and expelled them. Al-Qimni once again expressed his doubt about
such an excuse for expelling another Jewish tribe, which allowed the Muslims to
confiscate all their properties and wealth and to distribute them among
themselves. (Ibid: 355).
The Jewish tribe of Qurazah were accused of conspiring with the enemy at
the Khazwat al-Khandaq or "the battle of the Ditch". According to al-Qimni, the
allies of the Makkans surrounded Medina and planned their deadly attack on
Muhammad and his followers. Muhammad dug a ditch around Medina to keep
the enemy forces from attacking him. The only place that had not been protected
was the area where the Jews of Qurazah lived in their strong garrisons. While the
enemy forces were surrounding Medina a rumour reached the Prophet that the
Qurazah had agreed to open their garrisons so that the enemy could pass
through and destroy the Muslim troops. However, al-Qimni doubted this rumor
36
because the Qurazah never did open their garrisons to the enemy. For al-Qimni,
even if the Jews had agreed to open their garrisons but did not actually do so,
they should not be accused of breaking their treaty with the Prophet (Ibid: 384). In
tragic and dramatic detail, al-Qimni narrates how the men of the tribe of Qurazah
were slaughtered mercilessly as traitors as soon as the allied forces left and their
women and properties were distributed among the Muslims.
After the expulsion of the two Jewish tribes of Qiniqa'a and Nadir and the
slaughter of the third Jewish tribe of Qurazah, the only remaining significant place
in Arabia with Jewish tribes was the city of Khibar. The city was entirely inhabited
by Jews and had very strong garrisons. The prophet told his followers that he had
received a promise from heaven to conquer the city of Khibar (ibid: 442). As soon
as the Prophet returned from the Treaty of Hudaybiyah,22 he decided to attack
Khibar. According to al-Qimni, at this time the Prophet had fully turned from the
Jews and their religion and began to incorporate in his religion the religious rituals
of the pagans of Makka. Of that al-Qimni says, "The Prophet knew for sure that
the existence of Jews with a heavenly book, a historical heritage, and series of
prophecies that followed one after the other, means the existence of continuous
denial of his prophethood, inside his city and in the midst of his small state.
Therefore, there followed those quick steps of cleansing Yathrib of the Jews"
(Ibid: 367).
The Treaty of Peace, which the Prophet signed with the unbelievers of Makkah. According to the articles of the treaty there would be ten years of peace between the Muslims and the unbelievers of Makka.
37
Twenty days after the Treaty of Hudaybiyah, the Prophet led his troops
towards Khibar. According to al-Qimni, Khibar was the second city in Arabia, after
Makka, in importance and military force. The Jews of Khibar had not expected
Muhammad to attack them and therefore the sudden arrival of the Muslim troops
was a great surprise to the inhabitants of the city. However, the city was well
protected by its high and strong garrisons. For this reason, the people of Khibar
felt safe inside their strongholds and refused to listen to the Prophet's repeated
call to surrender to him (Ibid: 444). When the city refused to surrender, "the
Prophet decided to use catapults" to destroy the garrisons (Ibid). According to al-
Qimni, catapults had never been used in Arabia before that day (Ibid). When the
garrisoned Jews saw the catapults, "they knew their death was near, and if the
prophet strike the city with the catapults, he will destroy it to the ground and
everyone inside the city would perish" (Ibid). In order to avoid such devastation
the leader of the city, Cananah bin Abi al-Haqiq,23 emerged out of the city,
holding the flag of surrender. The Prophet agreed on a treaty with the condition
that "they should vacate their city and leave for him their money, garrisons, and
land" (Ibid, quoting from Ibn Kathir).
When Cananah agreed to reveal everything regarding their wealth and
money, the prophet asked him about a treasure that he knew they had (Ibid). The
leader of the Jews denied the existence of such a treasure. According to al-
Qimni, the question of the prophet was a trap because "the prophet knew already
about the matter of that great treasure, and where it is hidden", having heard of it
23 Cananah was the husband of Safia bint Huia whom the Prophet would later take as a concubine.
38
through a Jew, "who sold his people and revealed the secret of that great
treasure" (Ibid: 445, quoting Ibn Sa'ad). Having refused to reveal his hidden
treasure, Cananah was tortured and the place of his hidden treasure was
extracted from him by force. He was then executed, and "the sword of Islam
moved on the surrendered Jews, and killed from them according to the words of
Ibn Sa'ad ninety-three men" (Ibid: 447). The booty and the women of the Jews
were distributed among the Muslims (Ibid: 448). According to "all the narrators of
the Sira . . . Muslim men forced the Jewish women openly, and the women of
Khibar were shared by all men, until the Prophet stopped the rape of the
pregnant women" (Ibid). As for the Prophet himself, he took Safiah bint Huiah
after he killed her husband, Cananah bin Abi al-Haqiq and her father, Huiah (Ibid:
448-449, quoting from Ibn Kathir). However, at Khibar a Jewish woman, known
as Zinab bint al-Harith, made an attempt on the Prophet's life by feeding him a
poisoned goat at the house of Safia bint Huiah (ibid: 453, quoting from Ibn
Kathir). When the prophet questioned Zinab, she said to him, "you killed my
father, uncle, husband, and brother" (Ibid: 454, quoting from al-Bihaqi). The
poison remained in the body of the prophet for three years until it finally caused
his death (Ibid: 454, quoting from Ibn Kathir). Therefore, according to tradition the
Muslims believed that their Prophet died as a martyr (Ibid).
Al-Qimni's historical revaluation of the Prophet's dealing with the Jewish
tribes in Arabia reveals that the Prophet always looked for an excuse to get rid of
those tribes. Their presence in his newly established state with their separate
religion would challenge his claim to be the final prophet and leader. The
39
narrators of the Sira do not focus on these political motivations and instead
supply various other justifications.
Repeated Attempts at Invading the Byzantine Empire
Al-Qimni narrates in detail the many raids the Muslim troops carried out
upon the Arab tribes, under the command and leadership of the Prophet. Those
military campaigns continued until most of the Arab tribes were subjected to the
new state, except for the city of Makka. The prophet also informed his troops that
Allah had promised them possession of the treasures of the Byzantine Empire
and the Persian Empire. In order to fulfill this promise, the prophet sent his
military commander, Zaid bin Harith, with three thousand of his soldiers to Syria
to invade the Byzantine Empire, and "the prophet knew exactly what they are
going to face, and what would be the results" (Ibid: 469, referring to Ibn Kathir).
When King Heraclitus of the Byzantines24 heard about the approaching
army, "he came himself to meet those who dared to come near the boundary of
his kingdom, with one hundred thousand from the Romans and one hundred
thousand from the Arab tribes that lived near his border and have allegiance with
him" (Ibid). The huge army of Heraclitus killed the three leaders of the invading
army and many Muslim soldiers. When Khalid bin al-Walid saw the defeat of the
army he took the flag of Islam and withdrew with the remaining soldiers and
returned to Medina. At the gate of the city the people threw sand on the returning
soldiers and rebuked them for fleeing from the battle (Ibid. 470). However, the
24 The Byzantines are called "Romans" in the Muslim sources. 40
prophet corrected the people and told them, "they have not run away, but they
withdrew for the time being" (Ibid: 470). According to tradition, the words of the
prophet revealed that he was still "insisting on the invasion of the Romans and
Caesar" (Ibid).
After some time the Prophet himself went to invade Syria with thirty
thousand soldiers and ten thousand horses (Ibid: 532). When the Muslim troops
reached the border of the Byzantine Empire at Syria, and saw that Heraclitus had
gathered a huge army at Humas to meet them, the Prophet changed his mind
and returned to Yathrib (Ibid, quoting from Ibn Kathir and Ibn Said al-Nas). To
justify the return of the Prophet without battling the Byzantines, the narrators of
the sira blame the Jews of a conspiracy (Ibid, quoting from al-Bihaqi). According
to al-Tabari, some of the Jews told the Prophet that all the former prophets
appeared in Syria and Palestine. No prophet ever lived in Yathrib or Makka. The
Jews' intention was to make the prophet and his followers immigrate to Syria and
hence fall in the hands of the Romans. The conspiracy was revealed to the
Prophet through the angel Gabriel, when he reached Tabuk and hence he
cancelled the invasion and returned to Medina (Ibid: 533 see Qur'an: Al-lsraa 17:
76-77). Al-Qimni did not make any comment on this story, because in my
opinion, it is supported by verses from the Qura'n. Casting doubt on it would be
interpreted as doubting the revelation of God.
According to Al-Qimni, when the Prophet was dying he again sent an army
to invade the Byzantine empire, this time under his commander, Usama bin Zaid
bin al-Harith. Along with Usama, the Prophet sent his two ministers, Abu Bakr
41
and Umar bin al-Khattab (Ibid: 553). However, al-Qimni claims that Abu Bakr and
Umar understood that the Prophet sent them along with the troops in order to
keep them away from Medina when the first caliph was selected because he
wanted 'Ali to be his successor, "but they understood what the prophet had
planned, and hence they objected to the appointment of Usama bin Zaid.
Therefore, they delayed the troops at the Jiraph25 until the prophet died. At that
time, they decided to cancel the mission and remove Usama from the leadership
of the army" (Ibid: 556). Therefore, the promise to conquer the Romans and
possess their treasures was not fulfilled during the life time of the prophet.
The Occupation of Makka
According to the Treaty of Hudaybiyah, there were to be ten years of
peace between the Muslims and the Quraysh of Makka. When the treaty was
signed, the other Arab tribes were given the option to join Muhammad or the
Quraysh (Ibid: 473). Therefore, "the tribe of Khoza'a joined Muhammad...and it
was natural for its enemy, the tribe of Bakr, to join the Quraysh" (Ibid).
A year after the treaty was signed " a war between Bakr and Khoza'a
began suddenly, which our narrators26 blamed on the treason of Bakr... and the
books said: the matter became worse when some Qurashi people supplied
weapons to Bakr, and perhaps joined them in fighting against Khoza'a" (Ibid:
474, quoting from Ibn Hisham). When the news reached the prophet, he
25 A name of a place at the outskirts of Medina. 26 Al-Qimni means the narrators of the Prophet's biography. However, he mentions only Ibn Hisham. According to tradition the narrators of the Prophet's biography were Ibn Ishaq, Ibn Sa'ad, Al-Tabari, Al-Bihaqi, Ibn Hisham, etc.
42
declared war against Quraysh, and commanded his troops to be ready for the
invasion of Makka (Ibid: 477).
When the Quraysh came to know about the matter, "it sent its leader and
the holder of its flag, Abu Sufyan Sakhar bin Hareb, to the leader of Yathrib" (Ibid:
475-476). The Qurayshi leader requested that the prophet stop his troops
because the Quraysh had nothing to do with the fight between the two warring
tribes, and that it still kept the treaty of Hudaybiyah. However, the prophet
refused. Left with no choice, Abu Sufyan uttered the Shahadah27 and became a
Muslim (Ibid: 480, quoting from Ibn Hisham). According to al-Qimni, the leader of
the Quraysh uttered the Shahadah out of fear for his life, but in his heart
continued to follow his ancestors' religion (Ibid: 481, quoting from Ibn Hisham).
Abu Sufyan wanted to save his people from the slaughter of the
approaching troops of the Muslims. Therefore, before returning to Makka, he
requested the uncle of the prophet, al-'Abass, to intercede with Muhammad to
grant the safety of the Makkans. The prophet responded by saying, "anyone who
enters the house of Abu Sufyan is saved, anyone who closes his door and
remains in his house is saved, and anyone who enters the holy Mosque is saved"
(Ibid: 481). Accordingly, when the Muslim troops entered Makka, the city was in
full curfew. As soon as the prophet entered the city he went to the Ka'aba and
ordered the removal and destruction of all the idols. Moreover, he issued death
sentences on some men and women who used to trouble or criticize him when he
was in Makka (Ibid: 487). According to the prophet's orders, those people should
27 "I bear witness that there is no God but Allah, and that Muhammad is the messenger of Allah." 43
not be spared "even if they were found hanging on the curtains of the Ka'ba"
(Ibid). However, due to the intercessions of some important personalities, some
of those people were granted forgiveness.
After the peaceful invasion of Makka, the prophet returned to his capital
city, Medina, and from there continued to send his "military missions" to invade
the remaining Arab tribes and subject them to the new State. The Arab tribes
were left with no choice except to join the powerful state and save themselves
from being slaughtered by the Muslim troops, and their women from becoming
Sabaia, or "females taken as part of the booty of war." Accordingly, the year that
followed the invasion of Makka was known as "the year of the military missions"
(Ibid: 543). Many Arab tribes sent their representatives to declare their allegiance
to the new state and to accept Islam. Al-Qimni concludes his book, Hurub Al-
Daulat al-Rasul_(The Wars of the Prophet's State), with the words of the prophet,
which he uttered in his last days, "Allah has granted me victory through terror,
and given me the treasures" (Ibid: 553, quoting from Ibn Kathir).
Al-Qimni's Rabb Al-Zaman and Bin Ladin ... Shukran!
In his two controversial collections of essays, Rabb Al-Zaman (The Lord of
Time) and Bin Ladin...Shukran! (Bin Laden...Thanks!), al-Qimni states his views
on the four rightly guided caliphs: Abu Bakr, 'Umar, Uthman, and Ali, who ruled
the Islamic state that was founded by the Prophet Muhammad. Out of the four
caliphs, al-Qimni concentrates his historical revaluation on the leaderships of Abu
Bakr Al-Sidiq and Uthman Ibn 'Affan.
44
Caliph Abu Bakr Al-Siddiq
Al-Qimni discusses Abu Bakr in his book, Shukran.. .Bin Laden!
(Thanks...Bin Laden), under an article entitled "Apostasy In Islam." He wants to
prove that the crime of apostasy was a creation of the first caliph, Abu Bakr, for
the purpose of getting rid of political rivals who opposed his leadership. In
contrast, Muslim scholars argue that the criminalization of apostasy was based
on an authentic hadith mentioned in Sahih Al-Bukhari. "Any one who changes his
religion, kill him" (quoted in Qimni 2004: 202); thus, Abu Bakr followed what the
Prophet had sanctioned, which was the execution of an apostate from Islam.
Al-Qimni doubts the authenticity of this hadith. First, if the Prophet said this
hadith, then why did the caliph Abu Bakr not refer to it when 'Umar Ibn Al-Katab
and some Companions of the Prophet stood against his Wars of Apostasy? (Ibid:
205). Moreover, if there was a hadith like this, then why did the Companions
argue against Abu Bakr's actions?
According to al-Qimni, the wars of Abu Bakr were meant to subdue the
Arab tribes who refused to accept his caliphate after the death of the Prophet
because they had not been consulted and hence had stopped paying the Zakkat.
'Umar and some of the Companions protested against those wars because the
tribes were still Muslims and killing them would contradict the saying of the
Prophet, "I have been commanded to fight all people until they bear witness that
there is no God except Allah and Muhammad the messenger of Allah" (Ibid: 214,
quoting from Sahih Muslim). During those wars, the caliph's fighters "committed
45
hideous crimes in which some Muslims were drowned in wells, others thrown
from high mountains, and yet others burnt with fire" (Ibid).
Al-Qimni argues that those early wars are falsely represented and taught
to children in schools as just wars, when they were in fact political wars, meant to
force the tribes to accept the caliphate of Abu Bakr (Ibid 219). Any Muslim who
protested against Abu Bakr's leadership was condemned as an apostate, who
deserved to be killed, his wife taken, his money robbed, and his children sold as
slaves (Ibid 248). Abu Bakr's decision then became "a horrifying and terrorist law
even today in the Shar'ia which takes away the faith of people, reaches their
necks, exposes their women, destroys their honour, enslaves their children, and
robs them of their money and property" (Ibid: 250). It is used by the 'ulama' of Al-
Azhar "to criminalize any scholarly research, forbid any new thinking, and
therefore the work of the mind becomes forbidden, and when you research and
discover some false sources for the shari'a you become an apostate and the
shedding of your blood is permissible, because you have discovered the
falsehood of the law and the falsehood of the judgment and the judge" (Ibid: 252).
Al-Qimni concludes his discussion of apostasy by saying, "on the ground
of what we said, judging a person as an apostate because he denies one of the
obligatory or necessary beliefs in religion, is nothing but a terrorist law, in the
hands of terrorists, used by terrorists, and practiced by terrorists" (Ibid: 239). Al-
Qimni considers the law of apostasy in Islam as a terrorist law used to control
and terrorize those who deny or reject some of the fundamentals of Islam
according to the shari'a schools. In fact, many of the so-called fundamentals
46
were not originally fundamentals in Islam because they are not mentioned in the
Qur'an or Sunna (Ibid). However, the law of apostasy justifies the killing of those
who disagreed with these developments.
Caliph Uthman Ibn 'Affan
In his book, Rabb Al-Zaman (The Lord of Time), under an article entitled
"We should not spoil our history and must have some wisdom and conscience"
al-Qimni criticizes the traditional Muslim portrayal of the third caliph, Uthman Ibn
'Affan (al-Qimni 1996b: 105). He was responding to an article published in Al-
Ihram newspaper, which stated "at the time of Uthman there was such an
abundance of wealth in Medina that ihejariya (female slave) was sold for a
quantity of gold equal to her weight" (Ibid 107). The most important question for
Al-Qimni was: from where did such an enormous amount of gold come? Al-Qimni
answers, "the gold came from those countries that Muslim troops invaded and
looted. Before that gold was accumulated in the hand of the buyer of the beautiful
jariya, it was scattered in the price of a goat of a poor Egyptian farmer, in the
grain of an Iraqi who lived in a hut, and in the sheep of a Syrian who grazed his
sheep in the wilderness" (Ibid). In other words, the Muslim troops robbed the
cattle and the grain of the poor shepherds, farmers, and workers of those
countries they invaded in the name of Islam. The looted cattle and grain were
brought to Medina and sold for gold, which was used to buy the beautiful jawari
or female slaves. The reign of caliph Uthman was thus marked by an unjust
accumulation of wealth through the invasions of the Muslim armies.
47
According to al-Qimni, the caliph Uthman took money from the Muslim
treasury and bribed those who opposed his rule (Ibid). Uthman appointed Ibn Abi
al-Sarh governor of Egypt even though he was suspected of unbelief. When
some Egyptians came to Medina and complained to Uthman about Ibn Abi al-
Sarh, Uthman scourged them and killed one of them. Uthman also appointed his
half brother Al-Walid Ibn 'Aqaba a governor of Kufa when Muslims knew that this
man had cheated the Prophet and had become an apostate after the death of the
Prophet. Al-Walid Ibn 'Aqaba used to lead Muslims in prayer in Kufa while he was
fully drunk, leading Ibn Al-Ashtar to rebuke Uthman in harsh words as "the caliph
who was corrupt, sinful, despiser of his Prophet's Sunna, and denouncer of the
Qur'an's rule behind his back"(lbid 108-109).
In addition, Uthman also burnt the masahifor "copies of the Qur'an" (Ibid:
109-110). There were many different masahifaX the time of Uthman, with different
arrangements of Surahs and some including different verses. Uthman burnt all
except that of Hafsa the daughter of the second caliph, 'Umar Ibn al-Khatab. This
action led "the revered Companion and the beloved of the Prophet, Ibn Masood
to protest against what Uthman was doing with the words of Allah" (Ibid: 110). In
response, Uthman cast him out of the mosque and ordered him to be beaten until
his ribs were broken (Ibid). 'Ali Ibn Abi Talib, the later fourth caliph and the
husband of the Prophet's daughter, Fatima Al-Zahara, refused to surrender his
mushaf but Uthman took it from him by force.
Al-Qimni argues, on the basis of the above examples and others, that
Uthman's corruption, nepotism, and bad rule brought calamity on him and
48
ultimately resulted in his assassination. This conflicts with the traditional accounts
that Uthman's assassination was caused by a Jew named Ibn Saba.
Al-Qimni's historical reconstruction of the leadership of the first caliph, Abu
Bakr al-Sadiq, and the leadership of the third caliph, Uthman Ibn 'Affan, differs
from the generally accepted traditional accounts of the rule of both caliphs
because he includes negative details that, while found in the Islamic sources, are
usually ignored. Abu Bakr and Uthman are counted by the normative Islamic
tradition among the four rightly guided caliphs. Al-Qimni's historical revaluation is
meant to question such a claim.
Abrogation
In his book, AI-lslamTyat (The Islamisms), al-Qimni discusses the doctrine
whereby some verses of the Qur'an are understood to abrogate other verses. He
gives many examples of abrogating verses, the most important of which is the so-
called Verse of the Sword.
Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then leave their way free. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful. (At-Touba 9: 5, Pickthall translation).
According to Ibn Al-Arabi "everything in the Qur'an which speaks about
forgiveness for unbelievers and avoiding killing them has been abrogated by the
verse of the sword... this verse has abrogated a hundred and twenty-four verses"
(quoted in al-Qimni 2002: 584). According to al-Qimni, the presence of abrogating 49
and abrogated verses in the Qur'an is not a sign of contradiction in the Qur'an but
rather points to historical developments in the early Muslim community. When the
Muslims were small in number and in a state of weakness in Mecca "the wise
verses of the Qur'an suited their weakness among the hostile majority, and
therefore the verses granted freedom of faith and that there is no compulsion in
religion and that the judgment should be left to Allah on the Day of Resurrection"
(Ibid). However, "after the immigration from Mecca to Medina, and after the Great
battle of Badr and the changing from the state of weakness to the state of power,
came the abrogating verses to abrogate the freedom of faith and command
Muslims to fight and kill non-Muslims" (Ibid). Therefore, al-Qimni resolves the
seeming contradictions in the Qur'an by placing the various verses into the
historical context of their revelation or asbab al-nuzul.
Confiscation of the book, Rabb Al-Zaman and the Trial of al-Qimni
In August 18, 1997, based on a report by the Islamic Research Academy
of Al-Azhar University (IRA) "the state security stormed print houses to confiscate
the novel Rab Al-Zaman {"The Lord of Time') by Sayyid Al-Qimni" (Engel 1998:
1). Due to an Emergency Law issued in 1981 after the assassination of Sadat
"the prosecutors at the state security are empowered to confiscate materials
before a court decision" (Ibid: 3). However, in order to make the matter more
legal, the prosecutors referred the author of the book in question to the North
Cairo Court of First Instance. The Court met on September 15, 1997. The Legal
50
Research and Resource Center for Human Rights represented Al-Qimni in Court
and reported as follows:
One book written by Islamist thinker Sayyid Al Qimni was seized by police on August 18 without a court order, after officials at the Islamic Research Center at Al-Azhar ruled that it should be banned for violating religious laws and norms (Ibid 1998: 4).
The prosecutors for the state security requested that the court ban the
book "on the basis of Article 198 of the Penal Code for the propagation in writings
of ideas resenting heavenly religion, and on the basis of the annexed report by
the Islamic Research Academy" (Ibid).
The caution that Al-Qimni exercised in writing his book, Al-Hizb Al-Hashimi
(The Hashimite Party), was not enough to protect him from the attack of the
Islamic Research Academy of Al-Azhar on his book, Rabb Al-Zaman (The Lord of
Time). In his former book, al-Qimni used sources approved by Al-Azhar
University and therefore the 'ulama' could not find substantial evidence to ban the
book. However, in his later book, al-Qimni not only criticized Al-Azhar's scholars,
but his criticisms extended to the Hadiths of the Prophet Muhammad and
the holy Qur'an.
Charges against the book, Rabb Al-Zaman (The Lord of Time):
The judge of the court, Salama Salim, mentioned many charges against
the book, Rabb Al-Zaman (The Lord of Time), which are included in the report of
the Islamic Research Academy of Al-Azhar University (IRA): However, those
51
charges most relevant to the discussion of al-Qimni's thought in the previous
pages could be summarized into two main accusations.
First, al-Qimni, is accused of reading Islamic history wrongfully in his book
Rab al-Zaman (The Lord of Time). For example, on page 67 the author states
"the prophets of God visited Egypt and learned monotheism, resurrection of the
dead, the Day of Judgment, the eternity of the soul, and then returned to their
lands and taught them to their people" (al-Qimni 1997: 57). The IRA here
interprets al-Qimni's historical critical approach as an attack on the doctrine that
the prophets received their messages purely through divine revelation. Moreover,
on pages 107, 109, and 110 the author mentions several stories about the third
caliph Uthman Ibn 'Affan which do not befit him and on page 154 the author
claims that the second caliph 'Umar Ibn al-Khattab had prohibited what had been
permissible by the Qura'n with regard to enjoyment marriage and pilgrimage
(Ibid: 58). Again, the IRA sees al-Qimni's approach as offending against the
elevated status ascribed to the early leaders of the Muslim community.
Secondly, al-Qimni is accused of discrediting authoritative Muslim
scholars. For example, on pages 111, 112, and 115, the IRA accuses him of
deriding two leading Muslim scholars namely Muhammad al-Ghazali and Abu al-
Azaym, and on pages 141, 147, and 148, of attacking the reputation of another
Islamic scholar, Sheikh Abdel Sabour Shahin (Ibid: 58). Obviously, al-Qimni's
questioning of the works of these contemporary authoritative figures was seen by
the IRA as a threat to the power structure of religion in Egypt. This is because the
IRA is a branch of Al-Azhar University where the above scholars hold high 52
positions as spiritual leaders. Therefore, an attack on them is considered an
attack on the religious power structure of Al-Azhar University.
The Decision of the Court:
The court could not find al-Qimni guilty of any of the charges brought
against his book, Rabb Al-Zaman (The Lord of Time), by the Islamic Research
Academy. Regarding the accusation that he claims that the prophets of God
visited Egypt and there learned religious doctrines which they taught to their
people upon their return, the judge ruled, "the author mentions what another
person says about these beliefs. The author neither agreed with the writer of the
article nor disagreed with him" (Ibid: 59). Regarding al-Qimni's account of the
third caliph Uthman Ibn 'Affan, the judge ruled that the he "is quoting from well
known Islamic sources" (Ibid: 61). Regarding the author's claim that the second
caliph 'Umar Ibn al-Khattab had prohibited what had been permissible by the
Qura'n with regard to enjoyment marriage and pilgrimage, the judge ruled, "we
don't have anything in our hands from the heritage books to justify this claim.
However, the author mentioned this in order to prove that there were great
Muslim scholars in Islamic history that forbade what was permissible when
necessity required it" (Ibid: 62-63).
Concerning al-Qimni's criticism of Sheikh Mohammed Al-Ghazali and
Essam Eddin Abul Azaym, the judge ruled "though strongly worded, we see it as
permissible criticism in debates between leading scholars, jurisprudents and
thinkers, and common in the history of intellectual criticism and debate" (Ibid, 62).
Moreover, the judge ruled that what al-Qimni wrote about Sheikh Abd Sabour 53
Shahin's role in the trial of Nasr Hamid Abu Zayd, "can be seen as a debate
between the author's and Shahin's views" (Ibid). The judge concluded, "we have
decided to annul the order to seize the book Rabb al Zaman written by its author
Mr. Sayyid Mahmoud Al-Qimni, and release the book and everything used for its
printing" (Ibid: 64).
Al-Qimni Recants and Returns
Al-Qimni continued to write articles in the daily newspapers and appear
on TV and criticize the 'ulama' of Al-Azhar and the extremist Islamic groups until
July 17, 2005, when he received a letter from the Iraqi branch of al-Qaida led by
al-Zarqawi. The letter threatened al-Qimni with death if he did not renounce his
past writings and promise not to write any more. Al-Qimni was forced to recant
and publish his so-called repentance in the media. A report by the Middle East
Media Research Institute (MEMRI) states;
. . . following death threats from Islamists, the reformist Egyptian author and researcher Sayyed Al-Qimni, who had a weekly column in the Egyptian magazine Roz Al-Yousef, announced that he was submitting to the demands of those who threatened him. He announced that he was retracting everything he had written in the past, and would no longer write or appear in the media. Ten days later, Al-Qimni received an additional message from the Egyptian "Jihad" group saying that he had been spared a fate similar to that of the assistant editor of the Al-Ahram daily, Ridha Hilal. Hilal disappeared in August 2003 and the Egyptian security services have been unable to locate him or to discover what befell him (Dankowitz 2005: 2).
However, two years later, al-Qimni seemed to re-emerge into public life.
On July 20, 2007 he debated the London Islamist, Hani Al-Sibai on "secularism
54
and fundamentalism in Arab World". In the debate al-Qimni attacks both the
Islamists and the military/oligarchic governments of the Middle East for using
religion to justify and bolster their authority at the expense of ordinary people:
The government flogs anyone who goes to the police station to file a complaint. The Islamists legitimize flogging... When you go to the mosque they humiliate you, saying: 'You are responsible for what happened to the nation.' This poor man merely came to fulfill his religious duties, and they pile this dirt on him in the mosque. They humiliate him and attribute all the sins of this nation to him. All the nation's defeats are due to this wretched man's defiance of God. (MEMRI July 20, 2007: 1)
While al-Qimni does not engage in historical reconstruction in this debate,
he clearly continues his controversial polemic, and his resistance to the dominant
discourses of the power structures in Egypt and the Middle East.
Conclusion
In most of his writings, al-Qimni is trying to prove one point, that the early
history of Islam as preached and taught today by Muslim preachers and scholars
is distorted. The average Muslim is not taught an accurate and comprehensive
version of the early history of Islam. Al-Qimni believes this misrepresentation of
early Muslim history to be responsible for the backwardness of Muslim nations
today, Egypt in particular, and various ills such as the oppression of women,
terrorism, and the distortion of ancient Egyptian civilization. He aims to undo all
those layers of misrepresented history in order to help the new generations in
Egypt as well as other Arab and Muslim countries to overcome the deception of
55
the religious power structure that makes Islam appear as a religion of terror and
backwardness.
In general, al-Qimni does not blame Islam as such but the interpreters of
the holy texts i.e. the Qur'an and the hadith. To put it more clearly, al-Qimni does
not blame the religion of Islam or its founder, but those Muslim leaders and
scholars who came later on and changed the original message of Islam and
made it to be what it is today (a religion of terror, backwardness, oppression of
women, etc.). He sees Islam as a creation of the historical and political events of
the time of its formation, and thus argues that it was not meant to be rigid, with
fixed rules, for all times and generations. Rather, Islam was a religion of change
and adaptation from the very beginning. The verses of the Qur'an kept changing
and developing even at the time of its founder. However, the later generation of
scholars misunderstood the changing and developing nature of the revelation and
came up with what they called the law of abrogation. However, this only made the
verses of the Qur'an look contradictory.
For example, the way Muhammad dealt with the unbelievers of Makka and
the Jews of Medina must be seen from the political perspective of the
development of Islam. In the beginning, Muhammad had no choice except to be
conciliatory with the powerful Makkan tribes and the Jews whom he needed for
alliance and support. When such an alliance with the Jews was no longer needed
because the Muslim troops defeated their enemies in the battle of Badr and
possessed weapons and strength, then the message of the Qur'an changed and
56
began to condemn the People of the Book for corrupting their religions.
Similarly, when the early Muslim community in Makka was weak and some
members emigrated to Christian Abyssinia to escape persecution, the Muslims
needed the support of the Christian ruler of Abyssinia, but later on that support
became unnecessary. The same change in attitude is clear in the verses of the
Qur'an, which at first granted freedom of faith to the unbelievers of Makka, and
then changed to consider Islam as the only acceptable religion. This
interpretation of the Qur'an and the early history of Islam by al-Qimni is not
accepted by the religious power structure because it would compromise the
particular doctrine of the divine nature of the Qur'an on which the power structure
bases its authority.
Al-Qimni's historical reconstruction of the leaderships of the caliphs Abu
Bakr and Uthman was rejected by the power structure because it threatened to
undermine the sanctity of these leaders and their strategies, strategies which the
religious power structure continues. For example, al-Qimni argues that the caliph
Abu Bakr invented the law of apostasy for political reasons. Thereafter, the
founders of the shari'a schools found hadiths to justify the killing of an apostate
after allowing three days for repentance. This law was then used throughout the
history of Islam as a tool in the hands of Muslim leaders and scholars to get rid of
their opponents. A recent example is the fatwa issued by Al-Sheikh Muhammad
Al-Ghazali of Al-Azhar Al-Sharif University against the Egyptian liberal thinker
Faraj Foda, which led two Muslim fanatics to kill him.
28 The Qur'an often refers to the Jews and Christians as the People of the Book. 57
Al-Qimni also argues that the Muslim historians and scholars made the
religious heritage of Islam stand with the Jews and not the Egyptians, thus
leading to an unjust denigration of Egyptian culture and heritage. He is also
against the idea of the Promised Land and looks at the presence of the Jews
today in the state of Israel as an unjustified occupation. Likewise, he criticizes the
invasion of other countries by the early Muslim mujahidun (fighters). These early
Muslim fighters committed atrocities such as looting the wealth of those
countries, raping the women, and enslaving the children and the women. For that
reason al-Qimni sees the Muslims' complaint against the rape of the Muslim
women in Bosnia as a kind of hypocrisy (al-Qimni 2004: 222).
In general, al-Qimni's critical evaluation of Islamic history is an expression
of Egyptian nationalism. As he said in the interview conducted with him by Asharif
Abd al-Gadir, al-Qimni believes that the cause of the backwardness of his country
was the presence of the Arabic and Islamic culture in it even until today.
However, his demand that the Arabs should leave Egypt or that Egypt cut itself
from its Arabic roots does not seem realistic.
Al-Qimni's new reading or reconstruction of early Islamic history threatens
the existence of the religious power structure in Egypt. If his reading were
accepted, Muslims today would not need fixed and rigid laws to govern them.
Just as the verses of the Qur'an kept changing and developing according to the
need of the early Muslim community, so today's Muslims could adapt new laws to
help them cope with the challenges of the present. Moreover, al-Qimni's
reconstruction of early Islamic history poses a threat to the religious power
58
structure because the 'ulama' of Al-Azahar and all the other self-professed
religious leaders would not be needed to guard rigid rules believed to be fixed for
all times and generations. Average Muslim would not need experts in those fixed
laws to teach them their religion.
For these reasons, the religious power structure rejected the new reading
of al-Qimni and strove to silence him. Al-Qimni's arguments at first seemed
irrefutable because he based them on the approved Islamic sources known as
the Mothers of the Islamic Books, namely the writings of al-Tabari, Ibn Kathir, al-
Qurtubi, Ibn Sa'ad.lbn Hisham, al-Bukhari, Muslim and so on. It was therefore
difficult for the religious power structure to criticize him as an agent of the West or
an enemy of Islam. Nonetheless, the religious authorities did manage to have
one of al-Qimni's books banned. However, the court reversed this decision. It
was not until al-Qimni's life was threatened that he was silenced. But even this
did not last long, and al-Qimni seems active again in his resistance to the
religious power structure.
59
Chapter Four: A Case Study of Resistance in Europe
Hans Kung was "born on 19 March 1928 in Switzerland, by the
Sempacher See, . . . he had a traditional Catholic upbringing, in a happy family"
(Kerr 2007: 145). Kung studied "in Rome at the Jesuit-staffed Gregorian
University from 1948 to 1955" (Ibid). After that Kung moved to Paris to do his
doctrate on the theology of Karl Barth. Kung published his dissertation in 1957
"endorsed by Karl Barth himself" (Ibid, 146). As soon as his dissertation was
published, the Vatican opened a file on him (Ibid).
In 1960, at the age of thirty-two, "Kung was offered the chair on
fundamental theology in the Catholic Faculty at Tubingen University" (Ibid). Kung
was invited by Rome to participate in the Vatican Council II (1962-65) as a peritus
or expert advisor. He was one of the most inspiring writers of Vatican II. His book,
The Council and Reform (1960) exercised significant influence on many of those
who hoped that reform would facilitate reunion of the Roman Catholic church with
other Christian denominations (Ibid).
Kung wrote many major works, but his two controversial books, The
Church (1967) and Infallible? An Inquiry (1970), led the Vatican to issue a
declaration that terminated his position as a Catholic theologian at the University
of Tubingen in Germany. Nevertheless, Kung continued to teach as a professor
of ecumenical theology at the University of Tubingen (Ibid: 147).
Kung wrote other major works, which were meant to contribute to interfaith
dialogues with the other major religions of the world; these include Paths to
60
Dialogue with Islam (1987a), Hinduism and Buddhism (1987b), Theology for the
Third Millennium (1987c), and Christianity and Chinese Religion (1988). His
recent works Global Responsibility (1996a) and In Search of a New World Ethic
(1996b) are meant to tackle "moral questions raised by globalization" (Ibid: 147).
Kung's Program of Reforming the Roman Catholic Church
Hans Kung's life work is directed towards reforming the Roman Catholic
Church in order to achieve ecumenical relations between it and other Christian
churches. Kung argues that the centralized system of the Catholic Church is not
a good system and has no basis in history or scripture. According to Kung it was
not the intention of Jesus to form a centralized Church, and the institutional
system of the Roman Catholic Church is not based on the New Testament.
Rather, the structure of the Roman Catholic Church created a centralized power,
which was often used as a political tool, and blocked ecumenical understanding
between the churches of Christ. Thus he proposed a reform of the Roman
Catholic Church so that it does not emphasize a centralized power but rather its
universality.
Kung's program of reforming the Roman Catholic Church took place in
three stages. In the first stage (1955-1957) Kung did research in Paris and wrote
his doctoral dissertation on Karl Barth in which he espoused Barth's criticisms of
some of the Roman Catholic Church's doctrines for their lack of a scriptural basis.
In the second stage (1962-1965), Kung strove to reform the Roman Catholic
Church through his writings and participation in the Second Vatican Council. The 61
results of the Second Vatican Council show that he succeeded to some extent.
However, he was not satisfied, as he wanted major changes to take place in the
Church. He believed that doctrines such as Rome's supremacy over other
churches, the doctrine of papal infallibility, and the doctrine of Mary as well as the
Roman Curia system29 needed reform. However, Kung understood that
circumstances in the Council would not allow for a major reform.
In the third stage (1967-1970), Kung wrote his controversial books, The
Church (1967), Infallible? An Inquiry (1970), and On Being A Christian (1974).
Through these books, Kung revealed his goal of reforming the Roman Catholic
Church in order to achieve ecumenical relations between it and other churches.
In these writings Kung also shows how the Roman Catholic Church came into
existence and how it developed into a papal state. He mentions the many crimes,
sins, and abuses engaged in by the Roman Catholic Church leadership, and how
the Roman Catholic Church has prevented progress, development, and the
achievement of modernity and human rights. In this thesis I will concentrate
primarily on the third stage of Kung's attempt to reform the Roman Catholic
Church.
The Roman Curia is the administrative apparatus of the Holy See. It coordinates and provides the necessary central organization for the correct functioning of the Roman Catholic Church and the achievement of its goals. The Holy See refers to the central government of the Roman Catholic Church, headed by the Bishop of Rome, commonly called the Pope.
62
Kung's Early Writings
Hans Kung and Karl Barth
The dispute between Kung and the Roman Catholic Church goes back to
Kung's doctoral dissertation on Karl Barth, entitled Justification: The Doctrine of
Karl Barth: A Catholic Reflection. As soon as Kung completed his dissertation on
Barth in 1957, the Roman Catholic Church without his knowledge placed it on the
Index of Prohibited books (Kung, 2003, p. 142). The reason for this action is the
views of Barth, which Kung discussed and espoused in his dissertation. Barth
criticized the Roman Catholic Church for the lack of scriptural evidence for some
of its doctrines such as Mariology, the doctrine of papal infallibility, and the
supremacy of the Roman Catholic Church (Carey, 1973, p. 4). Barth maintained
that the Roman Catholic Church had fallen into apostasy by following these
doctrines (Ibid).
Like many Roman Catholic scholars, Kung wanted, through his
dissertation, to respond to the attack of Barth on those doctrines. Accordingly, he
dedicated his years of theological education in Paris to studying and responding
to Barth's attack. However, Kung "was impressed with the scriptural weight of
Barth's position and, in fact, maintained that unless the Catholic position could be
supported in Scripture it could not stand against Barth's attack" (Ibid. p. 5). From
Barth, Kung learned the greater importance of Scripture over Tradition on
doctrinal matters. From Barth, Kung "sensed the centrality of the Scripture" and
understood that "Scripture is primary among the sources of Christian theology"
(Ibid. p. 1).
63
Moreover, according to John J. Carey, "Kung gained from Barth a vision of
the whole Church" (Ibid). The Church must be understood in God's plan of
salvation. Traditionally the Roman Catholic Church understood that salvation is
achieved through being a member of the Church. In contrast, in Barth's view, the
sinner stands before God alone and not through the Church. The sinner does not
need the Church to reach God. The sinner is justified by faith, which manifests
itself through good works. This new understanding of the Church opposed the
traditional understanding of the Catholic Church.
Through his research on Barth's theology, Kung found that "Barth
embodies the most consistent construction of Protestant theology, so too he
comes closest to Catholic theology" (Kung, 2003, p. 122). Kung discovered that
"from both the Catholic and Protestant side it can be asserted that the justification
of man takes place through the grace of God solely on the basis of trusting faith,
which is to be active through works of love" (Ibid. p. 123). Therefore, Kung
concluded that there is no fundamental difference between the Catholic and
Protestant doctrine of the justification of a sinner. This understanding led him to
look elsewhere for fundamental differences or obstacles that block the way to
ecumenical understanding between his church and other churches. Kung
became aware that some of those hindrances are the claims of the Church of
Rome to supremacy, infallibility of the Pope, and the doctrine of Mary.
An open conflict between Kung and Rome began to emerge during his
participation in Vatican II, 1962-1965. Two years before the beginning of the
Council, Kung published a best-selling book, The Council and Reform (1960). In
64
this book, he argued that in order to reach an ecumenical understanding, the
Roman Catholic Church must make the following reforms: -
1- A doctrinal statement on the role of the episcopate that would restore the
office of bishop to its full value and limit the tendency towards "Roman
centralism";
2- Liturgical reforms that would allow bishops and diocesan councils wide
liberty to create rites suitable for local needs;
3- Reform or abolition of the Index of Prohibited Books;
4- A declaration of principle on the role of the laity in the church and
restoration to the laity of the use of the chalice at holy communion on
certain occasions;
5- And above all, a declaration of repentance. It would be a truly Christian act
if the Pope and the Council were to express this truth: forgive us our sins,
and in particular our share in the sin of schism (Kung, 2003, p. 263).
Kung's book became one of the most important books written prior to the
Council. The book was widely circulated and read by bishops and theologians
who took part in Vatican II. Through this book, Kung introduced his program of
reforming the Roman Catholic Church. Kung himself participated in the Council
and was able to see the Roman Catholic Church accept some of his concerns. In
his biography, Kung says gladly, "I have succeeded in introducing many of my
concerns into the Constitution of the Vatican through speeches by bishops at the
Council" (Ibid. p. 368).
65
Kung could not personally deliver any speech in the Council because no
one was allowed to address the councilors except the bishops. Therefore, Kung
looked for a bishop to speak about the doctrine of papal infallibility, but found
none. No bishop was prepared to speak about such a taboo topic (Ibid. p. 366).
At that time he saw how the Holy Office of the Pope terrorized the bishops and
theologians of the Council. He called it "a Vatican Pentagon," and its authorities
analogous to "the political police of the Soviet empire" (Ibid. p. 372,374). Kung
realized that the circumstances of the Council would not allow for a full reform
and that the only way to continue his program of reform was to write books.
Kung's efforts at reforming the Roman Catholic Church during the Council
incurred the wrath of the Holy Office or the Roman Curia. While Kung was not
enabled to achieve his full vision of the New Testament Church during Vatican II,
he was considered by many to be the prophet of the Council. Many of the
proposals that he made in his book, The Council and Reform, were realized.
Nevertheless, the Roman Catholic Church remained, as before, a
centralized power with the Curia system and the Pope as its absolute ruler. Kung
had been instrumental in initiating significant reform and did not give up,
continuing to criticize the centralized system and its leadership. In his two books,
The Church (1967) and Infallible? An Inquiry (1970), which he wrote after the
Council, Kung mounted a giant attack on this system. Through these two books,
he argued that the centralized Roman Catholic Church is not a good system and
that it was not Jesus' intention.
66
Kung's The Church (1967)
Kting published his first controversial book, Die Kirche (The Church) in
1967. The first English translation of The Church also appeared in 1967. Kung's
main objective in writing The Church was to achieve ecumenical understanding
between the various Churches of Jesus. In other words, Kung wanted to achieve
unity between the Roman Catholic Church and the other Churches. However,
according to him, "A reunion of the separated Christian Churches is impossible
without critical historical analysis and a willingness to accept the responsibility of
our own Churches for the division" (Kung 1967: 277). Through his historical
analysis, Kung discovered that "the doctrine of primacy and infallibility of the
Pope . . . came to employ all the differences between the Churches of the East
and the West" (Ibid: 278). Kung saw that the failures of the Catholic Church led
to the Protestant Reformation (Ibid: 279). The failures of the Catholic Church
came as a result of "moral decadence, and misuse of their office by the
Renaissance popes, . . . absolutist centralism, extravagant financial policy and
immorality of the curia" (Ibid). In order to achieve reunion between the Roman
Catholic Church and other Churches Kung believed that "the Church itself cannot
be standard, nor can the individual Churches, otherwise we will merely
perpetuate the divisions which exist. The only standard is the "Gospel of Jesus"
(Ibid: 291, Gal. 2: 14). In other words, "The standard for unity must be the Gospel
of Jesus, taken as a whole" (Ibid). The New Testament reveals that "The early
Church was not a uniform group, but a Church that included a quite unusually
wide range of very diverse expressions both in theory and practice ... the early
67
Church is a community of Churches which are united in acknowledging the one
Lord Jesus Chr is t . . . " (Ibid: 295, Gal. 2: 11-16, 1Cor. 1).
According to Kung, "the gospels do not report any public announcement
by Jesus of his intention to found a Church" (Ibid: 73). Kung continued, "not until
Jesus is risen from the dead do the first Christians speak of a Church" (Ibid). The
Greek word ekklesia which used in the New Testament to refer to the Church
means "the congregation of those previously chosen by God, who gather round
God as their center" (Ibid: 82).
According to Kung, Ignatius (50-117 C.E), the bishop of Antioch, was the
first one to use the phrase "Catholic Church" (Ibid: 297). Ignatius was writing to
the local church at Smyrna. By 'Catholic Church', Kung maintained Ignatius
meant the whole Church, the complete Church, in contrast to the local Churches.
He did not refer to any particular local church as Catholic Church, but to the
"general" church.
It is important to ask what the phrase "Catholic Church" meant to Kung. In
the New Testament the word, "catholic" is used once (Acts 4: 18). It is used as an
adverb which means "thoroughly, completely, or totally, but the Church is never
described as 'catholic'" (Ibid: 297). The Catholic Church, here means "the whole
Church, the complete Church, in contrast to the local Episcopal Churches" (Ibid).
The doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church's supremacy over other
Churches according to Kung is foreign to the understanding of the early
Churches of the idea of "the Catholic Church" (Ibid: 300). Kung explains this
point: "as the Church in this sense of the total Church is the entire Church, it may
68
be called, according to the original usage of the word, catholic, that is the whole,
universal, all-embracing Church. Catholicity is essentially a question of totality"
(Ibid). In this way, Kung believes every local Church is entitled to the claim to be
called a Catholic Church. No single Church can claim to be alone or has the right
to be called the Catholic Church and other local Churches not (Ibid).
However, Kung states, "the great turning point came with Constantine, or
more precisely with Theodosius, for under the religious edict of 380 'ecclesia
catholica' became the only lawful official religion. Every Roman now had to be a
Christian, more particularly a 'Catholic' Christian." (Ibid: 298). At this time "the
only true Church is the 'Catholic Church', the all-embracing, total orthodox
Church. Other Churches are heretical or schismatic" (Ibid).
In his book, The Church, Kung exposed the many crimes and abuses of
the Roman Catholic Church which were embodied in the forms of "the
persecution of the Jews and the crusades, the trial of heretics and burnings of
witches, of ecclesiastical colonialism and "war of religion", of the false
condemnation of men and ideas, of the Church's frequent failures in the problems
of slavery and war and in social questions, in its identification with certain
systems of the society, government and thought" (Ibid: 26). Through his historical
analysis, Kung wanted the Roman Catholic Church to reform itself in accordance
with the New Testament's model of the universal Church. He expected that the
Roman Catholic Church would repent and accept his program of reformation.
69
Kung and the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF).
Until the Second Vatican Council, the Holy Office avoided direct
confrontation with Kung. Most probably, until that time Kung did not pose a great
threat to the Church's traditional doctrines such as the claim of the Roman
Catholic Church to primacy and the doctrine of papal infallibility. However, the
Roman Catholic Church could not keep quiet as soon as Kung began to criticize
these doctrines. Accordingly, the impact of Kung's book was intolerable and the
CDF office understood that it was high time to deal with him.
On April 30, 1968 Kung received the first letter from CDF, stating that the
CDF is subjecting his book, Die Kirche (The Church) to examination (The Kung
Dialogue, 1998, p. 19), and inviting him to come for a discussion at Rome. Kung
agreed to come to Rome for the discussion.
However, the discussion was delayed for twelve years. John Jay Hughes
believes that:
The documentation shows that Kung has had powerful friends in the hierarchy. That a final judgment by Rome was averted for so long clearly was due to the long-continued efforts of such men as Cardinals Dofner and Volk, and Bishop Moser. Though their interventions at Rome are not documented, they are obvious to anyone capable of reading between the lines (Hughes, 1980, p. 9).
The correspondence between Kung and the CDF continued for three
years until Kung published his book, Infallible? An Inquiry (1970).
70
Kung's Infallible? An Inquiry (1970)
Kung decided to write Infallible? An Inquiry in 1965. However, the book
was not published until 1970 (Kung, 2003, p. 426), probably, because Kung was
busy writing and publishing Die Kirche (The Church) (1967). According to Kung's
biography, the idea of writing Infallible? An Inquiry was born on the day when the
Grand Inquisitor, the Head of the Holy Office, cardinal Montini Ottaviani,
interrogated him. On that day, Cardinal Ottaviani lectured Kung on the
importance of the papacy (Ibid). After the interview, Kung understood that the
Roman Catholic Church considered the doctrine of papal infallibility a taboo. No
one could ever dare to talk, discuss or write about this doctrine without running
the risk of offending the Holy Office.
According to Kung, the doctrine of papal infallibility is one of the main
stumbling blocks on the way to ecumenism. If the Roman Catholic Church agreed
to reform this doctrine then one of the main causes of schism between the
Catholic Church and other churches would be removed. The doctrine of
infallibility, as it has been taught and followed by the Catholic Church, asserts
that the Pope and the episcopate are infallible by the assistance of the Holy Spirit
but only when certain conditions are met. However, Kung wondered whether
such infallibility was possible, and so he wrote his book to inquire into the matter.
71
The Definition of Infallibility by Vatican I
According to the definition of papal infallibility by Vatican I (1869-1870
C.E), four conditions must be met for the Pope to speak infallibly: -
1- The Roman Pontiff must be speaking, not as a private individual or even merely in his capacity as a Pope, but as the supreme pastor and teacher of Christendom; only then is he the subject, or perhaps better, the organ of Church infallibility.
2- Not any kind of teaching, but only doctrines on matters of faith or morals can be the object of an infallible definition.
3- The Roman Pontiff speaks infallibly, not by virtue of any new revelation or inspiration (which are confined to Scripture), but by virtue of divine aid; thus the aid of the Holy Spirit of which papal infallibility is the result is not continuous, but is operative only from case to case.
4- What is assumed here is not an infallibility granted exclusively to the Roman Pontiff, but the infallibility of the Church with which the Redeemer himself wished his Church to be endowed in final decisions on matters of faith and morals; the (primary?) subject of infallibility is here the Church, of which the Pope is the organ (Kung, 1994, p 82).
Vatican II did not reject or correct the definition of Vatican I. Instead it
added "the infallibility of the whole episcopate acting in concert with the Pope"
(Hughes, 1980, p. 16). According to Kung, "the doctrine of Episcopal infallibility
rests on shaky foundations indeed, since it assumes first that the bishops are in
an exclusive sense the direct followers of the apostles, and second that the
apostles claimed infallibility for themselves" (as quoted in Hughes, 1971, p. 6).
Kung did not reject the doctrine of infallibility of the Church but rather
located it in the universal church. He accepted that God promises the infallibility
The Council of Vatican I defines the doctrine of infallibility as the Pope becomes infallible "when he speaks as ex cathedra, that is, when, exercising the office of pastor and teacher of all Christians, he defines his supreme apostolic authority a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the universal Church, through the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, is possessed of that infallibility with which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to be endowed in defining faith and morals: and therefore such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are irreformable themselves (and not from the consent of the Church)" (Kung, 1994, p. 81).
72
of the universal church, but thinks this promise is not meant to give any human
being the right to claim infallibility for himself. Therefore, Kung's main argument
was to prove that the universal church is infallible and not the Pope.
"In every century" says Kung "the errors of the Church's teaching office
have been numerous and indisputable" (Kung, 1994, p. 28). In order to prove his
case, Kung gives as an example the encyclical Humane Vitae issued on July 25,
1968 by Pope Paul VI, which considered the use of contraception in sexual
intercourse or pills for birth control as immoral and sinful. However, many
Catholics did not obey the Pope on this issue. The main reason is that "the
argument used obviously failed to convince the majority, even within the Catholic
Church, and in the years that followed the use of the methods referred to
increased rather than decreased" (Ibid. p. 29). The argument of Humane Vitae
was based on an old erroneous belief that the male semen contains little human
beings and contraception would result in killing those human beings, thus making
contraception immoral and sinful. Kung argues that the Roman Catholic Church's
history reveals many similar scientific errors, which were nonetheless considered
infallible teachings by the Roman Curia.
According to Kung, Yves Congar provided enough evidence to prove that
"the Pope was not regarded as infallible from the seventh century to the twelfth
century" (1994, p. 20). The doctrine of infallibility is grounded on "the monstrous
ninth-century forgery of the Decretals of Pseudo-lsdiore (115 forged documents
attributed to the early bishops of Rome from Clement of Rome onwards, and 125
documents with interpolations)" (Ibid). These forgeries were used as authentic
73
documents by St. Thomas Aquinas to prepare the way for Vatican I's definition of
papal infallibility. Kung believed that St. Thomas Aquinas along with many other
theologians in the Roman Catholic Church were deceived by those forgeries.
Likewise the bishops of Vatican I and II were led to believe that the doctrine of
infallibility was in fact based on the Scripture and sound tradition (Ibid. p. 99).
Kung's Understanding of the Infallibility of the Church
Kung "does not deny infallibility but he is locating it in the historical Church
instead of the papal chair" (Van Voorst, 1971, p. 1). He preferred to use the
phrase "indefectibility of the Church" rather than "infallibility". The term
"infallibility" means, "in a decision of faith in which the truth of Jesus is involved
the Church does not fall into error" (Kung, 1994, p. 114).
The a priori infallible propositions can be understood as "the capacity by
which the Church officials, in particular the Pope, are made immune from error
prior to the utterance of certain kinds of doctrinal decisions," by the assistance of
the Holy Spirit (Chirico, 1981, p. 2). In other words, according to Kung, papal
propositions or statements can be considered infallible as statements of the
church when certain conditions regarding those statements as statements of the
church, are met.
Kung argued throughout his book Infallibility, that these kinds of infallible
propositions are not possible given the Roman Catholic Church's history "with
many, all too many, shadows; the mistakes, the sins, the crimes in that long
history are innumerable" (Kung, 1994, p. 154). But although he denies the
74
possibility of infallible propositions, Kiing accepts the doctrine of the infallibility or
indefectibility of the Church because the Lord promises to keep His Church in the
truth (Matthew 16: 18).
How can the promises of Christ to His Church be fulfilled? Kiing says,
"either Christ's promises to His Church are not fulfilled (because of the
undeniable errors in the Church's teaching, of which Humane Vitae is the most
recent and obvious example)- and this is the view of unbelievers; or certain errors
on the part of the magisterium must on no account be admitted- the answer of a
triumphalistic church" (as quoted in Hughes, 1973, p. 8). Kung rejected both
possibilities and found a middle way to solve the difficulty. He argued, "the
dilemma can be resolved by raising the alternatives to a higher level and
asserting that the Church will remain in truth in spite of all errors that are always
possible" (Kung, 1994, p. 143). The Church cannot be called a church if it does
not continue to remain in truth. For that reason, "despite all errors and because of
the promised assistance of the Spirit the Church will never prove ultimately
unfaithful to the truth revealed in Jesus Christ" (Ibid). Therefore, Kung
concluded, "that popes can err, that dogma may be wrong, but that the church in
its entirety, in time and history, finds truth, and this truth over the long haul is
infallible because of Christ's promise" (as quoted in Van Voorst, 1971, p. 3). This
is what Kung meant by his thesis of the indefectibility or permanence of the
church in the truth.
According to Kung, all Christian churches hold to a doctrine of infallibility.
The Roman Catholic Church ascribes infallibility to the Pope and episcopate, the
75
Orthodox Church to the councils, and the Protestant Churches to the Bible (or
"Paper Pope"). However, none of these are truly infallible. Kung believed that
even the earthly Jesus was not immune from error. As a human being, Jesus
erred by assuming that the end of the world was about to take place in his time.
Kung believed further that even the Bible (the Word of God) is fallible. He gives
two examples to show that the Bible is not infallible: "according to Mark 2:26, for
instance, David entered the house of God and ate the loaves of offering under
the high priest Abiathar. According to I Samuel 21:1 ff., however, this took place,
not under Abiathar, but under his father Ahimelech. Matthew 27:9 relates the
fulfillment of a prophecy of Jeremiah's which was in fact a prophecy of
Zechariah's (11:12 ff.)" (Kung, 1994, p 175). Accordingly, Kung concluded that
infallibility should neither be ascribed to the Pope nor to the Bible, "but to God
alone and to his Word, which became flesh in Jesus Christ; and to the gospel
message as such, which is the unerringly true testimony to the plan of salvation"
(Ibid p 180). It is important here to distinguish between the spoken word of God
(The Bible) and the Word of God, which became flesh in Jesus Christ. Kung
attributed infallibility to Jesus as the Word of God and not to the Bible as the
written word of God.
The Holy Office's reaction to Kung's Infallible? An Inquiry:
The CDF's reaction came as a challenge to Kung, expressed in the form of
a question, "how can anyone uphold infallibility as dogmatically defined in Vatican
I and II and still deny the possibility of infallible propositions?" (The Kung
76
Dialogue, 1980, p. 82). This question can be interpreted as an accusation that
since Kung denied the possibility of infallible propositions then he did not uphold
dogmatically the doctrine of infallibility defined in Vatican I and II.
While the first proceedings against Kung's The Church were still going on,
the CDF started another set of proceedings against his Infallible? An Inquiry. The
CDF could not refute Kung's criticisms of the Church and of the doctrine of
Infallibility, nor did it condemn him or throw him out of the Roman Catholic
Church. However, the CDF handled the issue in a long process that lasted for
twelve years (April 30, 1968 - December 18, 1979). Why did the CDF not demand
that Kung appear even without meeting his prior condition of opening his dossier?
Because Kung said that he would not appear without the Church meeting his
conditions. Why did the Holy Office tolerate Kung and his demands for so long?
Reading the correspondence between Kung and the CDF it is hard to find an
appropriate answer to this question.
Two questions from the letters of Kung to the CDF show that he did not
want to engage himself in discussion until the proceedings against his books are
discontinued. After two years Kung requested that the CDF terminate the
proceedings against his controversial book, The Church, "for various reasons I
am of the opinion that the proceedings, already underway for two years, should
be terminated. The discussion could still take place apart from these" (Kung,
Dialogues: 4). However, Kung did not explicitly mention the reasons he referred
to in his letter. On September 22, 1973, Kung answered the persistent demand of
the CDF for an answer from him by saying, "Wouldn't this be time to drop the
77
questions between us and leave to history the task of judging what the answer
should be?" (Ibid: 6). Nevertheless, the CDF did not accept his suggestion and
continued to ask for an answer:
"In spite of repeated and urgent entreaties, requests and exhortations from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and the Conference of the German Bishops to answer the question put to him and to reexamine his theological method and in spite of personal efforts on the part of Cardinal Dopfner, for example, and especially of Dr. Moser, Bishop of Rottenburg-Stuttgart, Professor Kung failed to comply. Recently, Professor Kung explicitly reiterated and in many respects sharpened his opinions, especially in regard to the infallibility of the Church, and this in spite of the fact that, in 1975, the doctrinal proceedings against these theses were terminated on condition that he would no longer profess his doctrines and would instead seek to conform with the explicit doctrines of the Church" (Ibid: 12).
However, John Jay Hughes believes that:
The documentation shows that Kung has had powerful friends in the hierarchy. That a final judgment by Rome was averted for so long clearly was due to the long-continued efforts of such men as Cardinals Dofner and Volk, and Bishop Moser. Though their interventions at Rome are not documented, they are obvious to anyone capable of reading between the lines (Hughes, 1980, p. 9).
Kung 's Writings of 1979
The CDF finally made a decision on December 18, 1979 because it
claimed that Kung broke his promise not to discuss the doctrine of infallibility
again. Did Kung really make such a promise? The correspondence reveals that
at a certain point the two parties reached an agreement to end the proceedings
against Kung's two books, The Church and Infallible? An Inquiry. The
correspondence shows also that the CDF gave Kung time to reflect on his views 78
about the Church and the doctrine of infallibility (The Kung Dialogue, 1980, p.
93).
It is necessary to quote exactly how the proceedings were terminated by
the CDF. On February 15, 1975, the CDF office issued a declaration in which it
mentioned, "the Congregation, so directed by the Pope Paul VI, for the time being
imparts to Professor Kung the admonition not to advocate these doctrines any
longer" (The Kung Dialogue, 1980, p. 93). The declaration further stated that the
proceedings against the two books were "for the time being terminated" (Ibid). It
seemed that the proceedings against the two books were ended on condition that
Kung should not advocate his views about the Church and Infallibility any longer,
and the CDF assumed that Kung accepted the condition. Nevertheless, no
document shows that Kung accepted this condition; instead the document shows
that Kung promised to use the time granted to him by the CDF to reflect on his
views (The Kung Dialogue, 1980, p. 93).
After the termination of the proceedings, Kung wrote a couple of books:
On Being A Christian (1974) and Does God Exist? (1979). For a while, he
engaged in a dispute with the German Conference of Bishops concerning his
views about Jesus in On Being A Christian. The bishops of Germany interpreted
the book as a denial on Kung's part of the divinity of Jesus. But the CDF did not
start any proceedings against On Being A Christian, and in his following book,
Does God Exist? Kung denied the accusation of the bishops of Germany and
professed the divinity of Jesus.
79
The final decision of the CDF came unexpectedly when Kung wrote an
introduction to A. B. Halser's book, How The Pope Became Infallible (1979), and
published his book, The Church-Maintained In Truth (1979). Why did these two
writings in particular bring the old problem up again? The answer is simple:
because Kung touched again on the taboo topic of papal infallibility. The CDF
was prepared to tolerate almost anything said against the Roman Catholic
Church except against the doctrine of infallibility.
In his two writings of 1979 Kung directed his inquiry to the Pope directly,
"what right do you have, what right did your predecessors ever have, to claim
infallibility?" (Kung, Introduction to A. B. Halser's book, How The Pope Became
Infallible? 1981, p. 146). Kung traced the origin of the doctrine of infallibility to
Petrus Olivi, a Fransciscan monk who died in 1298 C.E. The same doctrine was
condemned by Pope John XXII (1249-1334 C.E) as the work of the devil, but was
resurrected again in the nineteenth century (Ibid. p. 151). Without any
proceedings or correspondence the CDF issued its final condemnation of Kung.
On December 18, 1979 the CDF office issued a declaration that terminated
Kung's position as a Catholic theologian at the University of Tunbingen in
Germany. It is important to quote part of the final declaration.
This sacred congregation warned Professor Kung that he should not continue to teach such opinions, for it expected, in the meantime, that he would bring his opinions into harmony with the doctrine of the authentic magisterium. However, up to the present time he has in no way changed his opinion in the matters called to his attention. Instead he has recently proposed his view again more explicitly (namely, in his writings, 'Kirche-Gehalten der Wahrheit?' (The Church Maintained in Truth) (1979) and 'Zum Geheit', an introduction to the work of A. B. Hasler entitled [Wie derPapst Unfehlbar Wurde? (1979). Professor Kung, in his writings, has
80
departed from the integral truth of Catholic faith, and therefore he can no longer be considered a Catholic theologian nor function as such in a teaching office... The supreme pontiff Pope John Paul II approved this declaration, decided upon at an ordinary meeting of this sacred congregation, and ordered its publication (The Kung Dialogue, 1980, p201).
Through this declaration, the CDF disqualified Kung from teaching as a
Catholic theologian at the University of Tubingen and considered his theology not
a true representation of the Catholic Church. Kung responded to the declaration
with the following words,
I considered it really scandalous that a church, which appeals to Jesus Christ and wishes to defend human rights, is still resorting, in the twentieth century, to the procedure of the Inquisition. I am ashamed of my church, now that the Pope has finally admitted, after 350 years, that the authorities made a fundamental mistake in the Galileo case. And now these same authorities are depriving a Catholic theologian of his permission to teach (as quoted in Hughes, 1980, p 9).
However, Kung continues to be a faithful member and a priest of the
Roman Catholic Church until the present day.
Conclusion
Kung understood that two things needed to be achieved in order to carry
out a program of reform. First, the Roman Catholic Church must give up its claim
to lead other churches. In other words, the idea of the Catholic Church (Universal
Church) should not be equalled with a centralized government that controls and
rules all other states (churches). The Roman Catholic Church in its present form
does not differ from a governmental system in which the ruler or king (the Pope)
controls and rules all other states (bishops) of the world. Secondly, the Roman
81
Catholic Church must reform the doctrine of papal infallibility. Kung's writings
provided enough evidence to support his arguments against the centralized
system of the Roman Catholic Church. The centralized system is based on false
claims and forgeries.
Furthermore, Kung contended that Jesus did not intend to form a religion
(Kung, 1995, 18). According to Kung Christianity in the beginning was not a
religion or a church but a person and that person was Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus
was "the basic figure who holds together all the traditions" (Ibid, p. 25).
The early followers of Jesus formed local communities in different
countries and cities. The only uniting factor between those local communities was
the "Gospel of Jesus", as Kung calls it, taken as a whole. At that time there was
no centralized leadership that claimed supremacy over other churches. However,
the local churches of Jerusalem, Antioch, Rome, and Alexandria became
important due to their strategic locations and the influences of some of the
apostles of Jesus on them.
Nevertheless, by the end of the first century, the Church of Rome became
the most important church due to its location in the city of Rome, the capital of the
Roman Empire, and the belief that Peter and Paul died and were buried there. As
time passed the Church of Rome grew into a powerful centralized system that
began to dominate and rule other churches of the world. Therefore, the claim that
God alone founded the Catholic Church has no scriptural or apostolic basis. Even
the tradition of the first five centuries of Christianity does not support such a
claim.
82
Kung also argued against the doctrine of papal infallibility. He showed how
the doctrine was invented and how it was used as a tool to persecute other
Christians and followers of other religions. Through this doctrine the pope
became an emperor and ruled the world. The papal state persecuted, burned,
and tortured many innocent people. Many scientists, philosophers, and women
were condemned as heretics and witches and burned at the stake or otherwise
tortured. In an article entitled "What is the Essence of Apostolic Succession"
Kung criticized the Catholic hierarchal order of the Church, which resembles a
pyramid in which the Pope is the head followed by the bishops, priests, and laity.
Kung argued that this hierarchal order contradicts the Bible and must be
rethought today for successful ecumenical relations. (Kung, 1968, p. 22).
Kung's main argument against the doctrine of infallibility is that "it cannot
be proved from Scripture or tradition that the church authorities have the ability to
make infallible propositions, dogmas or other declaration" (Van Voorst, 1971, p.
618). In order to prove his point against papal infallibility, Kung "finds
considerable errors in the historical church from St. Peter to Pope Paul" (Ibid).
Kung wanted the Roman Catholic Church to rethink its unjustified claim to
rule and dominate other churches. By exposing the false claims, forgeries,
crimes, and sins of the Church, Kung hoped to encourage the Roman Catholic
Church to reform. The Church authorities should have either refuted Kung's
arguments or accepted them. However, the Roman Catholic Church did neither
of these and instead condemned Kung without proving he was guilty.
83
Why did the Roman Catholic Church not accept Kung's program of
reform? An answer to this question can be deduced from the criticisms of Kung's
writings. The question that bothered Kung's critics was how there could be a
Catholic Church without the claim to infallibility. Kung believed that the Catholic
Church could survive without such a claim. In order to prove his point, Kung
pointed out, "We had a Catholic Church long before we had papal infallibility. The
cornerstone of Christianity is faith in Jesus Christ, not in infallible propositions"
(as quoted in Van Voorst, 1971, p. 621). Kung replaced the term infallibility with
what he called indefectibility. For Kung, "indefectibility means that there will
always be a community of disciples living out the gospel message of faith in God
and Jesus Christ who reveals God" (Chirico 1981, p 10). However, Kung's
doctrine of indefectibility was not accepted by the Roman Catholic Church as a
replacement for papal infallibility.
In his correspondence with the CDF, Kung always requested answers to
his theological questions and objections (Hughes, 1980, p. 378). The CDF office
often replied that, "no Catholic theologian considers it legitimate, while remaining
Catholic, to doubt or deny a dogma of faith in the name of theology" (Ibid). This
reply does not answer, and only evades the objections of Kung. The CDF finally
condemned Kung and the only reason given in the declaration of December 18,
1979 was that Professor Kung "has departed from the integral truth of Catholic
faith" (The Kung Dialogue 1980: 201).
Although the power structure of the Roman Catholic Church attempted to
silence the resistance to it embodied in Kung and his writings, his writings
84
became an eye-opener for many theologians, bishops, lav people, and even
followers of other sects and religions.
85
Chapter Five: Conclusion
In the foregoing chapters, resistance to religious power structures in Sunni
Muslim Egypt and Roman Catholic Europe were analyzed. Although these two
religious traditions and their religious power structures differ, there are also some
similarities between them. A comparison will reveal how religious institutions
follow similar patterns of behaviour. It will also show how religious authority
responds to any resistance that tries to challenge the traditional interpretations of
established doctrines.
Al-Qimni's Resistance and the "Establishment's" Reaction:
In most of his writings, al-Qimni is trying to prove that the history of religion
in general and Islam in particular is a forged or falsified history. In order to do so,
al-Qimni wrote his three controversial books, Al-Hizb Al-Hashmi Wa Ta'sTs Al-
Daula AI-lslamTya (The Hashmite Party and The Foundation of the Islamic State),
(1996a), Rabb Al-Zaman (The Lord of Times) (1996b), Hurub Al-Daulat al-Rasul,
(The Wars of the Prophet's State), (2001). His first book put him into conflict with
the 'ulama' of al-Azhar al-Sharif University. According to Sivan, "in 1989, al-Qimni
published his trail-blazing book Al-Hizb Al-Hashmi, where he ventured into a
hitherto taboo area, the life of the Prophet (he interpreted the Prophet's struggle
with Mecca in terms of power politics). A leading Islamist spokesman dubbed him
'the Arab Salman Rushdie" (Sivan 2003: 39).
86
In this book, al-Qimni tried to prove that the grandfather of the Prophet
Muhammad, Abd al-Mutalab, had prepared the way for the foundation of the
Islamic State. The implication of this assertion is that the actual founder of the
Islamic State was not the Prophet, but that the Prophet completed what his
grandfather had already begun. Moreover, the book tried to prove that many
Islamic doctrines incorporated in the Qur'an were actually borrowed from ideas of
the followers of the Hanafyia, Jewish, Sabian, and pagan Arab religions. The
book also mentioned some poetic verses composed by Arab poets who either
lived before Islam or were contemporary with Muhammad, which were copied
directly into the Qur'an and became part of the holy scripture of Islam. Such an
assertion was understood by Muslim scholars as denying the divine origin of the
Qur'an and accusing the Prophet Muhammad of plagiarism. In this way, the
Qur'an becomes a "cultural product" and its "pre-existence in the preserved
Tablet" is denied (Najjar 2001: 194).
Nevertheless, the Muslim scholars of al-Azhar could not refute al-Qimni
because he relied for his historical critique on Islamic sources that have been
considered authentic by the 'ulama" themselves. Condemning al-Qimni would
mean casting doubt on these Islamic sources, which are collectively agreed upon
by all the scholars as authentic books. The most important sources that al-Qimni
uses in his writings are the works of al-Tabari, al-Qurtubi, Ibn Kathir, al-Bihaqi, al-
Halabi, al-Suyuti, Ibn Sa'ad, and Ibn Hisham. Commenting on the sources used
by Sayyid al-Qimni and by Khalil Abd al-Karim, another controversial writer,
Salwa Ismail states,
87
These are "al-Azhar approved sources." This represents a line of defense, allowing the authors to argue that the information they call upon to highlight certain aspects of the Meccan society and of the Medinan community is drawn from trusted sources. The authors, as such, do not question the reliability of their sources, as it is part of their offensive to turn their opponents' weapons against themselves. If al-Azhar finds fault with the material, then it must reevaluate the heritage books, an undertaking which is precisely what the revisionists want to see accomplished (Ismail 2004: 114).
In his second controversial book, Hurub Al-Daulat al-Rasul, (The Wars of
the Prophet's State), al-Qimni again overstepped the boundary set by the Islamic
'ulama" and ventured into the taboo area of the political life of the Prophet
Muhammad. His analysis of the political life of the Prophet shows that the
Prophet dealt deceptively with the Jews. When he needed them at the time of his
weakness, he praised their religion and prophets. When the need for the support
of the Jews became unimportant to the newly founded Islamic State, the Prophet
looked for chances to get rid of them. This portrays the prophet as a cunning
politician who followed the principle that, "the end justifies the means".
Another example was the Prophet's attitude towards the religion of his
Makkan ancestors. In the beginning of his preaching, the Prophet rejected and
condemned the pagan religion of his Arab ancestors. In doing so, he followed a
peaceful approach and gave everyone the right to choose or reject his message.
At the end of his life, al-Qimni's book shows that the Prophet had fully turned
back to the pagan religion of his ancestors and incorporated all the pagan rituals
into Islam, especially the rituals of the Hajj or "pilgrimage". At this stage the
Qur'an denied the freedom of religion, and Islam became the only open choice
for the pagan Arabs. The Muslim scholars were able to get around the 88
contradictions between these two attitudes towards the pagan rituals in the
Qur'an through the doctrine of Nasikh and Mansukh or "abrogation". However,
according to al-Qimni the doctrine of abrogation does not solve the problem. A
better and more honest solution would be to consider the various political
contexts in which the Prophet was working. Through this new reading of the
political life of the prophet and the doctrines of Islam, al-Qimni's writings divorced
themselves from the traditional interpretations of Islam.
In his third controversial book Rabb al-Zaman, (The Lord of Time), al-
Qimni tried to prove that the early history of Islam was full of forgeries. He used
as an example the wars of apostasy that caliph Abu Bakr waged against some
Arab tribes.31 According to al-Qimni, Abu Bakr's wars were political wars and had
nothing to do with religion. He waged his wars against those who refused to
accept his claim to lead the Muslim community. In order to justify his wars, Abu
Bakr clothed them with divine authority. He fabricated a hadith to justify killing of
the Muslim Arabs and attributed the hadith to the Prophet. Al-Qimni's main
objection is that those wars of apostasy are taught to the Muslims in schools and
religious institutions as just and holy wars. Al-Qimni also criticized the third caliph
Uthman Ibn 'Affan as a corrupt leader and argued that his assassination by some
of the Prophet's companions came as a result of his bad leadership. In order to
justify Uthman, the Muslim historians suppressed these facts and fabricated a
story, which placed the blame for the murder of the third caliph on a Jew!
31 The wars that the first successor of the Prophet Muhammad, Abu Bakr al-Sidiq waged against some Arab tribes that refused to pay the Zakat after the death of the Prophet.
89
With Rabb Al-Zaman (The Lord of Time), al-Qimni ran into trouble with the
Muslim scholars of al-Azhar. They could not tolerate him any longer. They
convinced the state to ban the book and bring al-Qimni to trial. Al-Qimni's
reliance on "al-Azhar approved sources" was not enough this time to protect him
from the attack of the 'ulama' of al-Azhar. By bringing him before a judge, the
'ulama' thought that they could condemn him legally and expose him publicly.
However, as the outcome of the trial shows, he was able to refute all the charges
laid aganist his book, Rab al-Zaman. His main argument was that whatever he
wrote was already mentioned in the "al-Azhar approved sources". Once again, al-
Qimni's critical historical method saved him, and his writings remain irrefutable.
In his writings, "al-Qimni represents a politics of contestation and
subversion of the claims to power and authority of Islamic 'orthodoxy" (Ismail
2004: 102). The main goal of al-Qimni is to abolish "the founding period as a
social and political ideal" (Ibid: 103). However, al-Qimni's writings "are likely to
stir the sentiments of Muslims against him. The ordinary Muslim would not accept
that his/her sacred symbols be put in question" (Ibid: 118). On the intellectual and
official levels, the al-Azhar scholars reacted for two reasons;
First, that they are the guardians of the absolute truth. Any challenge to the claims to power and authority made in the name of orthodoxy must be stamped out. Second, as guardians, they are better qualified than the ordinary believer to judge and respond to the challenge. (Ibid).
The response of al-Azhar was submitted in a lawsuit to the North Cairo
Lower Court as part of a report prepared by the Islamic Research Academy, a
branch of al-Azhar University. The report states, "the writings contain errors and 90
distortion and are a misrepresentation of what is known to be true in Islam (Ibid:
117). However, the plaintiffs were not able to prove their charges against the
writings, so "the judge dismissed the allegations made against al-Qimni by the
Academy" and "acquitted him of the charges" (Ibid). Having failed to condemn
him legally, the 'ulama' condemned al-Qimni publicly and accused him of kufr
meaning unbelief. "As a result of the takkfir charges, there were fears that his life
was in danger. He subsequently went into hiding for a period of time in 1998. The
attackers included Dr. 'Abd al-Mu'ti Bayumi, Dean of the al-Azhar University's
Faculty of the Fundamentals of Religion, along with many other leading Al-Azhar
scholars" (Ibid: 118).
Kung's Critique of the Roman Catholic Church:
In his controversial two books, The Church, and Infallible? An Inquiry,
Kung argued against the centralized system of the Roman Catholic Church.
According to him, the Roman Catholic Church's claim to lead other churches has
no support in the scriptures and the tradition, and is based on forgeries. Kung
wishes that the Roman Catholic Church continue in a leadership role, but that its
relationship to other churches should be like that of the commonwealth countries
with Great Britain, based on common shared interests.
In his second controversial book, Infallible? An Inquiry, Kung discussed
the doctrine of papal infallibility, and showed how the doctrine was invented and
how it was used as a tool to persecute other Christians and followers of other
religions. Kung strongly argued against the doctrine of infallibility "it cannot be
91
proved from Scripture or tradition that the church authorities have the ability to
make infallible propositions, dogmas or other declarations" (as quoted in Van
Voorst, 1971:618).
Kung also criticized the power of the Holy Office in Rome or what today is
called the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF). Whatever name it is
given, Kung believed that its members behave the same way they behaved when
it was known as the Inquisition. Through this office the papal state persecuted,
burned, and tortured many innocent people in the past and continues today to
torment and persecute those who criticize or disagree with it. Kung, himself fell
victim to the persecution of this office. The proceedings initiated by the CDF
following the publication of his two controversial books revealed the constraint
that the Roman Catholic Church still imposes on its theologians. For twelve years
the CDF tolerated Kung. However, when Kung reopened the topic of papal
infallibility, the Roman Catholic Church could no longer tolerate him. He had
touched on a taboo topic. It seemed as if the whole power structure of the Roman
Catholic Church stood or fell with the infallibility of its Pope. Therefore, in order to
save the power structure of the Church the CDF issued its final decision on Kung:
"Professor Kung, in his writings, has departed from the integral truth of Catholic
faith, and therefore he can no longer be considered a Catholic theologian nor
function as such in a teaching office... The supreme pontiff Pope John Paul II
approved this declaration" (The Kung Dialogue, 1980: 201). This declaration, or
rather condemnation, does not describe how Kung has departed from the integral
92
truth of the Catholic faith, and therefore gives the impression that Kung was
condemned by the CDF without being proved guilty.
Similarities and Differences
Similarities
The main underlying similarity between the religious power structures in
Egypt and the Vatican is that both of them claim to be the guardians of their
respective faiths. Both of them have established an official body for tracking down
what they deem as kufr22 or heretical teaching and condemning its author(s). The
government of Egypt and the 'ulama' of al-Azhar use the Islamic Research
Center (IRC), as a tool "to track and examine publications and arts that deal with
Islam" (Engel 1998: 2). In Rome, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith
(CDF) is empowered by the Pope to carry out investigations whenever it receives
a negative report about the activity of a priest, teacher, theologian, bishop, or
member of a religious order (Collins 2002: 34, 37).
The case studies of al-Qimni and Kung show that there are two ways that
the authority of the religious power structure can be challenged. First, the power
structure can be challenged when its claim to lead or be the guardian of the faith
is guestioned. Secondly, it is challenged when its doctrines or statements, which
have been clothed with the aura of divine authority, are shown to be of human
origin. Both al-Qimni and Kung argue that the claim of the religious power
32 Unbelief. 93
structures to be guardians of the faith is unscriptural and based on human
forgeries and contingencies.
It is important to ask how the religious power structure claims to protect
religious faith. In order to guard the faith, the religious power structure, to borrow
the words of Foucault, enforces "a set of rules which at a given period and in a
definite society defined: 1) the limits and forms of expressibility; 2) the limits and
forms of conversion; 3) the limits and forms of memory; and 4) the limits and
forms of reactivation" (as quoted in Mills 1997: 63). The history of religion shows
that there is always resistance to this imposition of social uniformity. Resistance
stems from the fact that "social phenomena are never finished or total. Meaning
can never be ultimately fixed, and this leads to constant social struggles about
definitions of society and identity with resulting social effects" (Jorgensen &
Philips 2002: 24).
In most cases, religious doctrines are believed to be divinely revealed or
guided. Therefore, by the definition of the power structure, religious doctrines
cannot be Questioned. Discourses about these doctrines then have to respect the
doctrines and the authority those doctrines represent to the established power
structures. The main task of the resistance to the power structure is to prove, first
of all, that it is not challenging the divinely revealed or guided statements or
doctrines. Unless this difficulty is solved, the resistance becomes suspect and is
condemned outright by the religious authorities as heretical. Secondly, the
resistance has to prove that those statements or doctrines it is challenging, are of
human origin. As we have seen in the cases of al-Qimni and Kung, the core of
94
their struggle is to prove that the statements and doctrines that they are
challenging are not divinely revealed or guided and as such are of human origin.
Moreover, they also insist that most of the statements and doctrines challenged
are based on forgeries. The religious power structure always argues the opposite
and tries to supply scriptural and historical evidence to support the divine origin
and authority of these statements and doctrines. It also condemns any challenge
to these statements and doctrines as kufr or heresy. By defending those
statements and doctrines the religious authority upholds its claim to lead and be
the sole guardian of the faith.
The task of the resistance becomes more challenging when the thinker in
guestion considers himself to be part of the same faith he is criticizing.
Accordingly, the conflict between the power structure and the resistance
becomes a matter of faith. On one hand, the power structure tries to prove that
the resistance is challenging or calling into question, statements or doctrines of
divine origin, and, as such, is challenging God. On the other hand, the resistance
strives to prove that it is not questioning God, but the untenable human claims of
the power structure. The conflict would be a fair contest if the power structure
allowed room for open debate with the resistance. However, the cases of al-
Qimni and Kung reveal that the religious institutions are unwilling to engage in
open debate. Both cases resulted instead in intimidation, threat, and finally
condemnation of the resistance.
95
Differences
The religious power structure in Egypt differs from the religious power
structure of the Vatican in many ways. First, in Egypt there is no centralized
religious power structure headed by a single spiritual leader such as the Pope.
Instead, many religious groups in Egypt claim to be the guardians of Islam.
Secondly, there is no Islamic institution or group in Egypt or anywhere else that
has direct control over other Muslim countries or groups. Therefore, the idea of a
centralized power structure such as the Roman Curia is absent in the Muslim
world. Nevertheless, the history of the leadership of Prophet Muhammad, the
Rightly-guided Caliphs,33 and the many Islamic dynasties show that Muslims
have the potential of falling under the leadership of a single political and spiritual
leader such as the Caliph. However, the fragmentation of the Muslim world into
many different countries, sects, divisions, and parties today makes this unlikely.
The lack of a centralized religious power structure does not mean that
there is no power structure in Egypt. The religious power structure in Egypt is
always there, but it is more covert or hidden. The various religious groups in
Egypt symbiotically work together and form the religious power structure. These
groups include the ulama or scholars of al-Azhar University, the government of
Egypt, the moderate Islamists, and the radical Islamists. These groups represent
the power structure because they share a similar and mutually supportive
discourse, language, and worldview.
33
The immediate four successors of the Prophet Muhammad, who ruled the early Islamic State. They were Abu Bakr al-Siddiq, Umar Ibn al-Khattab, Uthman Ibn 'Affan, and 'Ali Ibn Talib. These four caliphs were traditionally accepted by the Sunni Muslims to be divinely guided in their leaderships.
96
Contrast between al-Qimni's Critique and Kung's Critique
Kung is a theologian by vocation, whereas al-Qimni is " a researcher by
training and has worked mainly in the area of ancient Semitic studies" (Ismail
2004: 112). Both thinkers critically evaluated the early founding period of their
respective traditions. In this respect, both thinkers argued that the orthodox
history of their respective traditions is a forged history. Accordingly, both of them
wanted their religious institutions to rethink and reform some of its main
doctrines. Nevertheless, Kung differed from al-Qimni in his criticisms of his
religious institution. His critique was directed towards the historical development
of the Roman Catholic Church and its claim to lead other churches, which he
believed is unscriptural and based on forgeries. Al-Qimni went beyond criticizing
the Muslim institution and also criticized the life of the Prophet Muhammad and
the first caliphs.
The first point to be compared between the two thinkers is whether either
of them denied the divine origin of their respective religious texts (i.e. Qur'an and
the Bible). In other words, by stressing historicity, does either of the two deny
Revelation? Revelation is an uncovering or disclosure via communication from
the divine of something that has been partially or wholly hidden or unknown,
"which could not be known apart from the unveiling" (Goswiller 1987, p. 3)
Revelation in a religious sense is that which God, or another supernatural being
such as an angel makes known about divine will, principles, laws and doctrines.
In monotheistic religions such as Christianity and Islam, revelation is the process,
97
or act of making divine information known, often through direct ontological
realization, which transcends the human state and reaches into the divine
intellect. (Ibid).
Nowhere in his historical re-evaluation of the life of the Prophet
Muhammad and the early Islamic history, does al-Qimni deny the divine origin of
the Qura'n. By stressing historicity, al-Qimni's writings created tension between
history and revelation. The tension arises due to the fact that "by definition,
historicity negates claims to transcendence and, as such, it is not possible to
posit a past which exists outside of history" (Ismail 2004: 115). Accordingly,
Salwa Ismail observes the risk involved when one tries to historicize the
foundation of a religion; "the historicization of early Islamic history and the life of
Muhammad presents tensions and challenges similar to those faced by Christian
writers in the nineteenth century who pursued knowledge and sought to record
the life of Jesus. Once located in his time, there was a risk that Jesus would
appear alien to the modern Christian faith" (Ibid: 115).
In discussing the doctrine of infallibility, Kung believes that even the
earthly Jesus as a human being erred by assuming that the end time was about
to take place in his time (Matthew 16: 27-28 KJV). Kung believes further that
even the Bible is not free from errors. He gives two examples from the Scripture
to show that the Bible is not infallible: Mark 2: 26 vs. 1 Samuel 21:1 and Matthew
27: 9 vs. Zechariah 11: 12 (Kung, 1994: 175). Accordingly, Kung concludes that
infallibility should be ascribed neither to the earthly Jesus, nor to the pope, nor
even to the Bible, "but to God alone and to his Word, which became flesh in
98
Jesus Christ; and to the gospel message as such, which is the unerringly true
testimony to the plan of salvation" (Ibid: 180). For Kung the Bible points us to the
revelation of God as found in the person of Jesus Christ.
However, Kung does not pay much attention to the historical Jesus and
revelation. His main arguments are directed against the claim of the Roman
Catholic Church to supremacy. He also criticizes the doctrine of papal infallibility.
Kung's main objective is not to criticize the fundamentals of Christianity. In this
regard, al-Qimni is more radical in his criticisms of the fundamentals of Islam (i.e.
the life of Muhammad and the Qur'an). In fact al-Qimni's "objective of historicizing
the heritage does not proceed from a view point of upholding religious truth or a
desire to recapture the fundamentals of religion" (Ismail 2004: 119), but proceeds
instead from a desire to show that early Islamic history is not a good example to
be imitated today. Al-Qimni wants to show that the Shari'a laws, which are based
on examples from that early history, are not suitable for the contemporary world.
Instead of being ruled by rigid and unchanging Shari'a laws, Muslim countries
should rather formulate laws that fit with the needs of modern times.
The second point to be considered and compared is whether al-Qimni and
Kung are fair in their criticisms of their respective religious histories. Both thinkers
wished their critical analyses of their respective faiths to be for the betterment of
their religions and societies. Both of them followed the same critical historical
method in their approaches. Their methods depended on the available historical
data approved by the religious institutions that they criticized. In their criticisms of
traditional doctrines, neither of the two thinkers tried to reinterpret the religious
99
texts or come up with new doctrines. Both of them focused on exposing forgeries
and showing how doctrines were built on those forgeries.
Al-Qimni and Kung provided new readings and meanings of religious
historical data. Their new readings were not accepted by their respective religious
institutions. This resulted ultimately in their condemnation. However, both al-
Qimni and Kung were condemned without being proved guilty because the
religious institutions refused to engage the arguments of the writers. Therefore,
the religious institutions were unfair in condemning them. The only obvious
reason for condemning them was to keep the religious power structure as it is.
The last point to be discussed is whether al-Qimni and Kung succeeded in
their goals. As stated above, both thinkers were condemned by their religious
institutions, and therefore their proposals to reform the power structure did not
succeed. However, one can say that Kung succeeded to some extent in
reforming the Roman Catholic Church, especially during his participation in
Vatican II although that was well before his writing about the infallibility of the
church gained notoriety. In contrast, al-Qimni never had any success in reforming
the 'ulama' of Al-Azhar. Moreover, Kung became popular through his critical
writings and to some degree his views were appreciated if not fully accepted by
many people. Al-Qimni is not as popular in the Arab and the Muslim world and
many of his readers neither accept nor appreciate his views. The reason is
because of his critical analysis of the fundamentals of Islam. His criticisms are too
radical to be accepted or digested by the average Muslim. Besides that, the
critical historical method that al-Qimni follows in approaching the early history of
100
Islam is new to the Muslim world. The traditional interpretations of Islam still have
a strong grip on the minds of Muslim scholars as well as on the minds of ordinary
Muslims. In this regard, Kung has a better opportunity of being heard and
appreciated because historical critical method has already gained wide currency
in western religious circles and his criticisms of Catholic authority structures had
already been made by people like Martin Luther. In the West religion has long
ago been opened to the criticisms of the academy whereas in the Muslim world
criticism of traditional doctrines is still taboo.
In conclusion, one could say that both thinkers made new contributions
and strove sincerely to reform their religious institutions. Their lack of success, or
to be more precise their partial success, may only be temporary and may bear
fruit in the future.
101
Bibliography.
Abd al-Gadir, Asharaf Abd al-Fatah, 2004. "The Reformation of Islam is a Duty and Compulsory if we do not want to be the Last Nation emerged," Modern Discussion, Elaph Publication, March 16, 2004, http://www.rezgar.com/debat/show.art.asp?aid=.
Abdo, Geneive 2002. No God But God, Egypt and the Triumph of Islam, New York: Oxford University Press.
Annual Report 1997. "Network of Concerned Historians" (NCH # 5 & 6), Source: IOC 4/97: 15, 1997. (Accessed on April, 2005). http://odur.let.rug.nI/~nch/action6.htm#general
Ayalon, Ami. 1999. "Egypt's Quest for Cultural Orientation". The Moshe Dayan Center for Middle Eastern and African Studies: Data and Analysis. (Accessed on May 10, 2004) http://www.dayan.org/D&A-Egypt-ami.htm.
Balz, Kilian, 1997. "Submitting Faith to Judicial Scrutiny Through the Family Trial: The Abu Zayd Case". Welt des Islamus 37.2 (1997) 135-155.
Bokenotter, Thomas, 2004. A Concise History of the Catholic Church. Published by Doubleday, a division of Random House Inc., USA.
Carey, J. John, 1973. "Hans Kung and Karl Barth: one flesh or one spirit". Journal of Ecumenical Studies, 10 no 1 Wint 1973, p 1-16.
Chirico, Peter, S.S. 1981. "Infallibility; Rapprochement Between Kung and the Official Church". Theological Studies, 42 D 1981, Pp 529-560.
Dankowitz, A. 2005., "Arab Intellectuals: Under Threat by Islamists", Middle East Media Research Institute Inquiry and Analysis Series no. 254, November 23 (Accessed on July 2, 2008). http://memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=archives&Area=ia&ID=IA25405
Deedy, John 1990, Retrospect: The Origins of Catholic Beliefs and Practice. The Thomas Moore Press, Chicago, Illinois, USA.
Engel, Richard, 1998. "Book Ban Exposes Azhar Censorship," Middle East Times, May 1, 1998, (Accessed on Feb 28, 2004). http://www.dfn.org/voies/egypt/metimes/bookban.htm
Goswiller, Richard, 1987. Revelation, Pacific Study Series, Melbourne.
Hasler, August, 1981. How The Pope Became Infallible: Pius IX and the politics of persuasion. Garden City, New York, Doubleday & Company, INC.
102
Hughes, Gerard J. 1973. "Infallibility In Morals". Theological Studies, 34 S 1973, p 415-428.
Hughes, John Jay, 1971. "Infallible: An Inquiry Considered". Theological Studies, 32 Je 1971, pp 183-207.
1980. "Hans Kung and the Magisterium". Theological Studies, 41 Je 1980, p 368-389.
Ismail, Salwa. 2004. "The Politics of Historical Revisionism: New Re-Readings of the Early Islamic Period." In An Islamic Reformation? Edited by Michaelle Browers and Charles Kurzman, 101-124. New York, Lexington Books.
Kepel, Gilles. 1993. Muslim Extremism In Egypt: The Prophet and Pharaoh, Berkeley: University of California Press, 1993, c1985.
Kerr, Fergus. 2007. Twentieth-Century: Catholic Theologians. Maiden, MA, USA, Blackwell Publishing.
The Kung Dialogue: Facts and Documents. Washington DC. Publications Office, United States Conference, 1980.
Kung, Hans, 1967. The Church. Burns & Otaes Ltd, English translation 1967. New York, Manufactured in the United States of America.
1968. (editor) Apostolic Succession; Rethinking A Barrier to Unity. New York, NY, Paulist Press.
1976. On Being A Christian. Garden City, New York, Doubleday &
Company, Inc.
1987. Why I am Still a Christian? Edinburgh, T&T. Clark Ltd.
1994. Infallible? An Unresolved Enquiry. New York, NY, The Continuum Publishing Company.
1995. Christianity: Its Essence, History, and Future. New York, The Continuum Publishing Company.
2003. My Struggle For Freedom. Grand Rapids, Michigan, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.
Mahmoud, Hala and Middle East Times staff, January 15, 2004 "In Search of what went wrong," Middle East Times, (Accessed on March 21, 2004), http://www.metimes.com/issue11/cens/c3.html, p 1
103
Manschreck, Clyde L, 1985. A History of Christianity in the World. Prince-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, USA.
MEMRI: Middle East Media Research Institute, 2007 "Egyptian Liberal Sayid Al-Qimni, London Islamist Hani Al-Sibai, Debate Secularism, Fundamentalism in Arab World" Special Despatch Series no. 1661, July 20. (Accessed on July 2, 2008). http://www.memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=archives&Area=sd&ID=SP166107
Mills, Sarah. 1997. Discourse: The New Critical Idiom. London, New York. Routledge.
Al-Muhsin, Fatima, 2004. "Arabic Cultures or One Culture" Riyadh Daily Newspaper, Feb 26, 2004. (Accessed on March 23, 2004, http://www.alrivadh-np.com/Contents/26-02-2004/MainpaqefThkafa 10479.php,
2000. "Islam's Fundamentalism and the Intellectuals: "The Case of Nasr Hamid Abu Zayd". British Journal of Middle Eastern Studies. 2702 (2000) 177-200.
2001. "Book Banning in Contemporary Egypt" Muslim World 91.3/4 (2001)399-425.
Peters. E. 1989. "Inquisition" New Catholic Encyclopedia. Second Edition, Volume 7. Thomson Gale. The Catholic University of America, Washington D. C. USA.
Phillips, Louise & Jorgensen, Marianne W. 2002. Discourse Analysis: as Theory and Method. London, SAGE Publications Ltd.
Pickthall, Marmaduke, 1953. The Meaning of the Glorious Koran: an explanatory translation. New York; New American Library.
Al-Qimni, Sayyid Mahmoud 1996a. Al-Hizb Al-Hashmi Wa Ta'sTs Al-Daula Al-IslamTya (The Hashmite Party and The Foundation of the Islamic State), Makatabat Madbouli Al-Sageer, Fourth Edition, Cairo, Egypt.
1996b. Rabb Al-Zaman (The Lord of Time), Maktabat Madbouli Al-Sageer, First Edition, Cairo, Egypt.
1997. Rabb Al-Zaman, al-Kitab Wa Malif al-Qadlya, (The Lord of Time, The book and the Court's File), Dar Giba for printing, publishing, and distributing, Second Edition 1998, Cairo, Egypt.
104
2001. Hurub Al-Daulat al-Rasul (The Wars of the Prophet's State). The Egyptian Centre for Civilization Researches, First Edition, Cairo, Egypt.
2002. AI-lslamTyat (The Islamism), The Egyptian Centre for Civilization Researches, Second Edition, Cairo, Egypt.
2004. Bin Ladin ... Shukran! (Thanks...Bin Laden), Dar Misr Al-Mahrosa, First Edition, Cairo, Egypt.
Al-Samti, Abd Allah, 2004. "Doubtful Writings" Al-Watan, March 15, 2002, (Accessed on March 20, 2005), http://www.alwatan.com.sa/daily/2002-03-15/writers/writers24.htm
Sarahan, Samir, 1998. "Scribe of the Republic," Egypt Times, 5 February, Vol 2, Issue 25 (Accessed on March 20, 2004), http://www.cairotimes.com/content/culture/sarhan.html
Sfeir, George N. 1998. "Basic Freedom in a fractured Legal Culture: Egypt and the Case of Nasr Hamid Abu Zayd". Middle East Journal 32.3 (Summer 1998). 402-414.
Sivan, Emmanuel 2003. "The Clash Within Islam" Survival 45.*\ (Spring 2003) 25-44.
Skovgaard-Petersen, Jakob, 1999. "Defining Islam For the Egyptian State, Muftis and Fatwas of the Dar al-lfta", Middle East Quarterly, June 1999.
Van Voorst, L. Bruce. 1971. "Kung and Rahner: Duelling Over Infallibility". Christian Century, 88.02 My 19 1971, Pp 617-622.
Weaver, Mary Anne, 1998. "Revolution By Stealth" New Yorker June 8, 1998
Wetberell, Taylor, Yates, 2001. Discourse as Data: A Guide for Analysis, Sage Publications Inc, Thousand Oaks, California, USA.
105