Mahmoud Shaker and Wael Hallaq
Toqa Mohammad Yusuf*
Mahmoud Shaker highly rejected orientalism and orientalists. His stance towards them is explicitly stated through his (Arabic) book Risālah fiṭ Ṭareeq ilā Thaqāfatenā (English: A Message on the Way to our Culture) which he dedicated to criticising orientalism and orientalists. Throughout his book, he presented the history of orientalism and highlighted the challenges facing every orientalist in his attempts to study our heritage or culture because simply he does not understand our language or even belong to our culture. We intend throughout our research to answer a certain question. The question is: What if this orientalist, who studies the East in the light of western approaches, is well versed in the Arabic language grew up in the same environment of its people and shared the same cultural background? And what if, in addition to the conditions mentioned, he critically studies the writings of traditional orientalists, yet, criticises the categories and approaches of orientalism? How to classify such orientalist, according to Shaker, and how to deal with his writings?
Shaker: An Eye on Orientalism and Orientalists
Mahmoud Shaker was born in 1909 (AD) in a house devoted to knowledge and religion. His father is Muhammad Shaker who was one of the prominent Egyptian scholars at that time, and his eldest brother is the well-known Ahmad Muhammad Shaker who was a vicar of Al-Azhar then worked as a judge and who dedicated his life to verifying and publishing the books of Sunnah (Prophetic Sayings). During his youth, he became a student at the Faculty of Arts in an Egyptian university where he suffered from an intellectual chaos which led him to reconsider all the contemporary fixed norms. His struggle began after attending the lectures of Taha Husayn, his professor, on pre-Islamic (Arabic) poetry. He found out that Taha Husayn, throughout all his lectures, plagiarized a statement written by Margoliouth, an orientalist. Thus, Shaker decided to drop out of college and leave his homeland Egypt for a truth-seeking journey to study the issue of pre-Islamic poetry.
This was Shaker’s first step; he started alone a very long, far, hard and thrilling journey. During this stage, Shaker rejected all the prevailing contemporary literary approaches because they originate from the West and are irrelevant with our Arabic and Islamic heritage. To prove how these curricula are influenced by the orientalists’ ideas, Shaker displayed the history of orientalism and orientalists to inform us about the roots and birth of these curricula and show how they affected us.
Shaker classified orientalists into three groups: (1) the fanatics, who learned the Arabic language in churches to serve evangelization, and this group, for him is the backbone, (2) the orientalists who supported imperialism and its policies in the Arab world, and (3) the scholars who, according to some views, are apart from the above-mentioned purposes. Yet, Shaker doubted these views believing that this group may have hidden intentions! 1 Therefore, he believes that the ideal way to deal with this third group is to critically read their opinions and accept only the meanings which are in accord with human intuition. This is because this group is not well-versed in the Arabic language and could not understand its texts or meanings. They are just foreigners and intruders. In addition, Shaker warned of the possibility of their attempt to “deduce a weak and corrupt opinion which totally contradicts the essence of the Islamic and Arab history, then spread it as a fixed norms and depend on it in their other opinions, they can thus collect many supporting doubts found in a neglected history such as the Islamic history. Consequently, they convince ignorant that this is the truth as it is supported by evidence resulted from their own research.”
In addition to his three-group classification, Shaker determined three factors influencing the approach followed in studying the Islamic heritage. These factors are: Language, Culture and Whims. None of the researchers could neutralize the influence of his mother tongue, cultural background, whims or ideas even though he claims that he could. Therefore, the more the researcher is well-versed in the Arabic language and Islamic culture, the more he is capable of deeply understanding the subject under study.
Moreover, Mahmoud Shaker determined “to what extent does the orientalist meet these three prerequisites (Language, Culture and Whims) to accept him as a qualified researcher in the “pre-approach”+ field. Regarding the language, the orientalist is a foreigner who has a different mother tongue, but recently learned Arabic. Thus, whatever the level he reaches, he could not reach the level of the native Arab populace which is unreliable in studying both fields: the approach and the pre- approach. Regarding culture, the orientalist is highly influenced by his own culture to which he belongs. Thus, the orientalist could not meet the prerequisite of the Arabic culture, yet he is totally apart from it. This person knows nothing about the Arabic culture. He neither believes in it nor belongs to it. That’s why it is hard for him to taste its sweetness and fully understand its secrets. Regarding the whims, it is crystal clear. Every orientalist only studies this different culture because he has feelings of anger and hatred towards Muslims and because he is eager to steal the treasures of those Muslims. By following his whim, he fabricates an image which is totally apart from the truth.” 2 That’s why Shaker did not accept the orientalists’ studies or writings and did not consider them “academic” in any way because they are not qualified, in terms of his three prerequisites.
It was said that Shaker added a fourth prerequisite that helps in understanding the Islamic heritage which is empathy. Understanding this heritage without this sense of empathy is impossible. This feeling is described by Shaker as the belief and sense of belonging to the culture. In this regard, he states: “Salvation (from this illness) is through the culture which is the unconscious identity of every human. This is not because it includes different types of knowledge which are only realized by reason, but because it includes knowledge which depend on both reason and heart and necessary knowledge in the field of application. This is also because it builds a sense of belonging to this culture to the extent that one could realize that by abandoning it, he will be doomed and his doom will lead to the extinction of what he belongs!” Hence, the western person could not neutrally study heritage because he holds different beliefs which hinder him from creating a sense of belonging or empathy towards Islam.
If empathy and belonging are essential, many of our contemporaries in the field of orientalism show empathy towards Islam and Muslims. These feelings appear in their writings which show empathy towards Islam and criticize the orientalists’ approaches and visions. Among those intellectuals who are of Arab descent are George Makdisi who is of a Lebanese descent, and Wael Hallaq, Edward Said and Joseph Massad who are of Palestinian descents.
The question is: If those Christians are closer to the East and the Arabs more then to the West, why do they belong to orientalism even though they criticize it?
Wael Hallaq: Doubting Orientalism
Wael Hallaq is one of the prominent orientalists of Arab descent who effectively participate in changing the stereotypes about Islam and Muslims in the western academic field. From one side, Hallaq is known as an orientalist who is a professional researcher in eastern knowledge under the supervision of the western academic field. He is also a professor at Columbia University- USA. On the other side, he is well-versed in the Arabic language and Islamic culture, as he was born in Palestine in 1955 (AD) and he lived there with his middle-class family till his college graduation.
However, he immigrated to the United States to complete his postgraduate studies. There, his intellectual struggle began. He followed the advice of his professors and read the writings of Joseph Schacht out of the belief that they thought he is the most significant writer to tackle Shariah (Islamic legislation). Yet, he found nothing but new unanswered questions, as he discovered some paradoxes in the orientalists’ approach in their research on the Shariah and Islamic history. These paradoxes motivated himin choosing his PhD thesis as an overall criticism of the subjects he found difficulty in understanding and reading. Through his thesis, he tried to criticize the idea of the “rigidity of Shariah” resulted from the claims stating that the “door of independent reasoning (Ijtihād) is closed”. In fact, this is among the prevailing beliefs in western writings. Through this, he started to think that western discourse about Shariah is inaccurate as it is full of great contradictions and fallacies, thus, a complete new alternative one is a must. Thus, Hallaq is dedicated to changing the orientalists’ view on Shariah and challenging this prevailing academic discourse about Shariah3.
Although Mahmoud Shaker and Wael Hallaq belong to different ages and places, as the time span between them is about fifty years or more, we find that their premises have similarities especially those discussing the issue of orientalism. Hence, two important questions could be raised. First, to what extent we can assume that Wael Hallaq’s criticism of orientalism is complementary to that of Mahmoud Shaker? Second, Does Wael Hallaq, if we consider him an orientalist according to the technical definition, meet the three prerequisites stated by Mahmoud Shaker? And what does that mean? To answer these two questions, we have to thoroughly study some of their ideas, especially Shaker’s ideas regarding his prerequisites of the pre-approach (Language and Culture).
(1) Against the Flow
Mahmoud Shaker and Wael Hallaq both dared to reject the prevailing approaches and introduce new approaches and alternative visions. For example, Shaker rejected the prevailing contemporary literary approaches because they are western and have nothing to do with our Arab and Islamic heritage. The latter rejected the approach of orientalism which fails to present a sound view about the east.
Through his attempt to introduce alternative approaches, Shaker presented his own view about the approach or what he called “pre- approach” which consists of two axes: theoretical and practical. Theoretically, the researcher or the student should collect the subject from its authentic sources then classify the collected data and accurately analyse them to be able to clearly differentiate between the false and the sound. Practically, he should organize the subject after eliminating the falsehood and refining the sound. According to these steps, the student should be keen on collect the truths and put it in the right context.”4
Although Hallaq did not present a new approach, he emphasized that the paradoxes resulting from the orientalists’ approaches should not be considered as just exceptions that could be neglected, as they are the core of these approaches and their vision. In his book entitled: The Origins and Evolution of the Islamic Law, Hallaq stated: “This book aims to doubt the orientalists discourse….to be effective, it is not enough to spread our sceptic discourse across different audiences and readers. Yet, this discourse should study some principal assumptions and given data of this incoherent orientalist discourse.”5
Through his following books such as “Restating Orientalism: a Critique in Modern Knowledge”, and “Reforming Modernity”, Hallaq tried to add what he called the external criticism which does not mean, for him, to stay outside modernity because we are in its middle. In fact, he highlighted the importance of benefiting from the secondary domains to change the central domains of this modernity. In fact, he depended on Karl Schmitt‘s notion of central and subsidiary domains. He stated that policy and economy are replaced among the central domains at the time of modernity, while morals are added to the subsidiary domains. He is trying to regain morals to the centre. 6 Through this, Hallaq set the features of an alternative adaptable and flexible approach. He asserted that the solution could not be found inside these approaches but from outside. Hallaq also emphasized that Shariah has a comprehensive approach and theory. In other words, it is able to set a critical theory and an approach to criticize modernity by emphasizing the centrality of morals.
Accordingly, Shaker and Hallaq adopted a critical approach which resulted from their intellectual struggle which guided them to reconsider all their contemporary fixed norms and criticize the present to go beyond it and introduce alternative visions, approaches and ideas. In fact, Mahmoud Shaker harshly criticized Taha Hussayn and Louis Awad, as an attempt to protect the Arab and Islamic heritage and accordingly protect our language and culture. Obviously, he harshly criticized Taha Husayn who claimed, following Margoliouth, that the pre-Islamic poetry is not authentic as it was fabricated during the Islamic era. He also criticized Louis Awad who claimed that the Arab heritage was influenced by the Greek legacy and formulated doubts of Arabic poetry and its cultural roots.
For Hallaq, he did not depend on the orientalistic theses of Joseph Schacht and other early orientalists. Yet, he criticized these theses and presented a new vision deduced from Shariah. Hallaq did not only revise the orientalists’ writings. He also used to reconsider other theses criticizing orientalism. Criticizing orientalism through his book “Restating Orientalism: A Critique in Modern Knowledge“, he added a revision by Edward Said, as an attempt to go beyond his theses and establish new theses to criticize orientalism.
(2) Culture and the Sense of Belonging
For Shaker, culture is very significant as he set it as one of the three prerequisites for a qualified researcher who is eager to enter the pre- approach field and study Islamic heritage. In fact, this culture is full of “countless pieces of knowledge which are needed in every humanitarian society. Each person should believe in it first by reason and heart, and then apply it. It melts with the human structure and conscious. His sense of belonging towards it, by his reason, heart and imagination, preserves both of them (human and culture) from deterioration and destruction”.7
For Wael Hallaq, the influence of this culture and its manifestations in Muslims’ real life appeared in his writings as well as his belief. For example, he, in his book: “Sharī‘a: Theory, Application and Transformation“, investigated the Shariah which is considered to be the backbone of the culture and Muslim societies. He also asserted that Shariah promotes both morals and law contrary to the modern law which marginalizes the role of morals. Whereas the orientalists consider Shariah an out-dated outcome, because they just focus on the idea of evolution, Hallaq is trying to revive morals found in Shariah by considering it a point of strength rather than a point of weakness. Thus, he criticized modernity, the origin of the western culture, because it neglects and marginalizes morals and instead it sets politics and economy as central domains. Thus, he selected the Islamic system which centralizes morals.
In his book entitled: “The Impossible State“, Hallaq criticized the modern state which sets morals in a second degree yet totally neglects them in the field of economy, politics and law. Thus, he preferred the Islamic ruling over it in which the authority depends on moral rules reflecting the Divine Moral Will. Hence, Islamic culture is a culture which depends on a moral origin which is reflected in all the political, economic and intellectual fields. This moral origin is another point discussed by both of them, as shown in the next paragraph.
Shaker and Hallaq agreed that culture is an integral part of any society or nation. It is irrational to call for a “universal culture”. Therefore, Shaker tackled the issue of cultural hollowness from which his nation suffers, because of cutting it from its heritage and language. Consequently, people glorify the western culture. In addition, Hallaq emphasized how the dominant European culture was imposed on other societies through colonialism which disrespects other cultures but makes it the beginning of modernity.
(3) Moral Centrality
Shaker was really interested in what he called the “moral origin”. This origin has two main roles. First, it protects the researcher, in the pre- approach field, from being tempted by his whims which may lead the issue of approach and pre- approach to “a huge chaos in which one fails to differentiate between truth and falsehood, and sound and wrong.” Second, it preserves the nation’s culture, as “this origin is the main factor which empowers every culture as a whole. The more this origin is clear, comprehensive, dominant, and persuasive, the more it could maintain its coherence and unity day after day… Any shortcoming that weakens the effect of such origin or makes it vague, absent or encourages others to neglect it marks the beginning of the deterioration of this culture and the decline of the civilization.” In fact, this moral origin does not include reason-based rules only. This is because “the absolute reason-based rules could not alone carry all the burdens. Yet, beliefs only have the upper hand, whether they are naturally embedded or learnt, they are at the same status of his embedded beliefs.”8
For Shaker, this moral origin relies on religion or creed which is naturally embedded or learnt, yet, it has the same status of his embedded beliefs. It is a part of the heritage and Islamic culture, as early Muslims were highly interested in it. Actually, this high interest in the moral origin is what maintained the coherence of the Islamic culture for about fourteen (14) centuries.
For Hallaq, he reached similar conclusions. He stated that the modernist system has an obvious shortcoming in terms of morality, as modernity marginalizes morals and separates between knowledge and morals. Thus, he searched for an alternative moral system as an attempt to regain morals to the central domain after being marginalized by modernity. Throughout his research, Hallaq focused on Islamic moral sources for two reasons. First, Muslims’ heritage is huge, rich and full of cultural contributions across many centuries. Second, this moral inheritance reflects a real historical experience, not theoretical and philosophical ideas about an imagined society. 9 Here, he reached the same conclusion which states that morals should rely on religion.
Furthermore, Hallaq limited this Islamic moral heritage to: Quran (The Foundation), the five pillars of Islam, the five Islamic objectives, and Shariah itself. For Hallaq, Shariah is a set of moral principles supported by legal concepts.10
(4) Dilemma of Orientalism
Orientalism represents a real dilemma, according to both Shaker and Hallaq. Both of them dedicated a book to discussing this issue, although their other books tackled this issue which is, for them, connected with imperialism and other concepts. For example, Shaker, throughout his (Arabic) book “A Message on the Way of our Culture“, discussed the issue of orientalism; its history and origins and influence on the Arab and Islamic world and its role in corrupting our social and cultural lives. Hallaq, throughout his book “Restating Orientalism: a Critique in Modern Knowledge” showed the structural dimensions of the origin of science and knowledge. He also drew the attentions towards modernity which is the main reason for all illnesses, while orientalism is just one of its symptoms.
According to both Shaker and Hallaq, the European views towards the east were, in a certain way, directed by orientalism. Shaker believed that orientalists, through their writings, draw a certain image about Islam and its civilization directed mainly to those Europeans heading to the Muslim lands to merge into its society. In fact, they aim to leave this image “in their minds to protect them from division and deviation while living there and protect them from being charmed by Islam and its civilization like their previous generations.”11 Hallaq went beyond this. He believed that they did not only implant in the minds of those Europeans an image of Islam and its civilization but they designed their minds to look at the world through the eyes of orientalists. He said that before designing the European mind to build an imperialist person and send him to the colonies; this mind has been subjected to a kind of colonialism to see the world through the eyes of an orientalist.12
By criticizing orientalism, Hallaq aimed to change these stereotypes and this prevailing discourse about the east promoted in the western academia and consequently in the western culture in general. He believed that this prevailing discourse is not scientific but ideological. On the other hand, Shaker, by criticizing orientalism, aimed to enlighten the mind of the Arabic reader who is affected by the orientalists’ discourse and believed that it is somehow true or totally true. In fact, he excused orientalists as they intended by denigrating the east to protect the Europeans from being charmed by the east. However, he could not understand how those Arabs believe that orientalists’ discourse is scientific and how they spread it among the college students!
Regarding their approach in criticizing orientalism, Shaker adopted, in his criticism, a historical approach as an attempt to show the roots and the birth of orientalism. He recalled the events of the thirteenth (13th) century talking about the expeditions heading from Europe to the Muslim world which encountered two stages. The first stage began after the failure of the crusades, a war directed by few philosophers such as Roger Bacon (1214- 1294 AD), who travelled to the Arabs’ lands to learn from them and then spread his knowledge after his return, and Thomas Aquinas (1225- 1274 AD) who wanted to reform Christianity to protect his nation from being charmed by Muslims. The second stage is marked by the beginning of the European awakening through which many of them were sent to the Muslim lands to study sciences, knowledge and writings and then return back to spread what they have learnt and knew among “scholars of awakening”, monks and kings. As a result, a class of orientalists, who provide kings and monks with necessary information about the Muslim world, was designed to revive Europe.13
On the other hand, Hallaq’s criticism is philosophical, as he tried to criticize orientalism by regarding it as one of the phenomenon of modernity and one of its significant paradoxes. Thus, in his criticism of orientalism he focused on criticizing another two issues: (1) modernity and its ideas by regarding it the source of orientalism and (2) the modernist knowledge as the main problem is the modernist vision on knowledge and science in general. Thus, he generally criticized all the epistemological fields such as history, sociology and politics and not the field of orientalism only. Moreover, Hallaq depended, in his criticism, on the theses of many philosophers and theorists at the top of which are Foucault, René Guénon and others.
(5) Language as a Prerequisite
Shaker dedicated his writings to the language. This appears first when he talked about the prerequisites of the researcher in the pre- approach field, as he added language as the first prerequisite because it is the pot of the knowledge. Secondly, this also appears when he talked about his deep concern about symbolically loaded terminologies promoting a certain cultural and civilized background.
Wael Hallaq had also the same concern. This is obvious in his discussion at the beginning of his book “Ash– Sharī‘a” about the two prisons of modernity and language. His concern is about two aspects: (1) the translated terms from Arabic into English and (2) the symbolically loaded terminologies. Regarding the translated terms, Hallaq emphasized the general role of language in knowledge production and the influence of limiting the English language to the western perspectives about Islamic concepts and terminologies. To clarify this, he mentioned an example of the translation of the Arabic term “Shariah” into “Islamic law”. He thought that the English term is not equivalent, as the word “law” is translated into Arabic as “Qānoon“. This terminology is not accurate because Shariah is broader than “law”, as it includes rituals, religious worshipping acts, principles of justice, moral rules, duties of rulers and citizens and others. In addition, translating “Shariah” into “law” leads to the separation between law and morals although Shariah, in reality, does not separate between them.14
In fact, Hallaq’s prison of language echoes Shaker’s language as a prerequisite. This is because the first prerequisite for the researcher in the Islamic heritage, for Shaker, is to be well-versed in (the Arabic) language so that to avoid any deviation “which may lead to corrupted meanings as much as they are apart from the secrets found in these words and structures.” Any foreign orientalist who had different mother tongue but then learns Arabic could not meet such prerequisite. This is because he receives the language from a foreign teacher and attends with a foreign lecturer on literature, poetry or history. After few years, he becomes a certified orientalist who is entitled to criticize Arab’s language, history and religion”!15
Furthermore, religious reform (Arabic: Iṣlāḥ) is among the loaded terminologies discussed by Hallaq. In fact, this term denotes the Islamic transformation which the Muslim world witnessed due to the European dominance. It implicitly depends on an assumption stating that Shariah is limited and needs a modernized refinement. This term also refers to a kind of transformation from an uncivilized to a civilized state. This echoes Shaker’s criticism of the term “backwardness” (Arabic: Raj’iah) which is used implicitly to refer to Islam. Yet, anyone who condemns a moral, idea or lifestyle of the western civilization is described as a backward.”16
Shaker also harshly criticized a set of terms which are spreading across our Arab world in terms of “renewal”, “liberation”, “modernization” and “progress”. In fact, Hallaq focused on criticizing “progress”. He noticed that progress is introduced to children as a religion or creed. Thus, old is not gold anymore, as whosoever returns to the past is described as horse-and-buggy.
Wael Hallaq in the eyes of Mahmoud Shaker
Mahmoud Shaker doubted the intentions of the orientalists and set strict prerequisites for the seekers of the Islamic and Arab heritage, to protect heritage from any fabrication and prevent the unqualified from participating in the scientific field. This restriction was very important at that time where the spread of the contributions of fanatic orientalists and Arabs were influenced by their contributions. Consequently, we witnessed hollow generations who lost their Arabic and Islamic identity socially, culturally and linguistically. These generations completely lost their past, and this gap was filled with other’s sciences, literature, and arts! 17
Nowadays, some orientalists belong to the field of orientalism, but are actually rebellious; criticizing orientalism and its approaches and showing empathy towards the Islamic and Arab cultures. Is this group among orientalists according to Shaker’s definition? Could they meet his three prerequisites?
For example, Wael Hallaq is well-versed in the Arabic language as he was brought up in Palestine. Yet, it is difficult to assure his language proficiency and ability to deeply understand Islamic heritage, as it needs a language proficiency and accuracy in dealing with synonyms which may carry different connotations. However, Hallaq always pays attention to accuracy in studying terminology and its translation. This proves that he is aware of the importance of language to understand heritage and that any misunderstanding or any mistranslation may lead to disastrous results like the effect of the orientalists’ translation of the Shariah into “Islamic law”.
Regarding culture, Hallaq explicitly shows through his writings empathy towards Islamic culture; as he believes that it is the ideal solution to the dilemmas of modernity and its crises. For example, he repeatedly emphasizes that he would rather live as a Christian under the Umayyad or Abbasid state than living in a modern state. He sees that minorities in modern states suffer from oppression, contrary to minorities living at the time of Islamic ruling.
Hence, it is inappropriate to add Hallaq to the list as one of Shaker’s three groups of orientalists18. Perhaps, we need to add a fourth group to include empathizer orientalists or impartial orientalists who neutrally study the Islamic heritage and culture aiming to change the stereotype about Islam and Muslims in Western minds.
However, the best way to deal with this group is selectivity. One should reflect on their writings to make sure that they depend on a correct understanding and analysis. Perhaps, it is important to reflect on the writings of this fourth group for two reasons. First, they represent a comprehensive criticism of western approaches, as they deeply understand the western academia and thought; that make them able to criticize it in detail and reflect their interaction with it. In fact, when dealing with heritage, we need criticism and construction; by criticizing the western stance towards our heritage and by reviving our heritage and proposing approaches that help us to perfectly deal with it. Therefore, we can rely on their critical approach as a base to build on. Second, when this group deals with heritage, empathetically, it may notice the presence of some fixed norms regarded by the nation as its heritage which cannot be a subject of study. We can rely on such norms by reflecting on them when presenting our heritage and culture as an alternative way to solve our dilemmas or that of the west as well.
After discussing the classification of orientalists, we can go back to Shaker’s scale and the three prerequisites to think whether they are enough to evaluate orientalism nowadays or not. This is because orientalism is a really complex phenomenon that has countered many changes whether in the approach or topics under study. These changes lead to what is known as Neo-orientalism.19 In this regard, some believe that philologists and experts in the oriental language monopolized the field of orientalism. Yet, since the middle of the twentieth century, researchers from different fields, such as specialists in social sciences like economics, sociology and anthropology as well as specialists in literature and arts, have contributed to this field. This drives much attention towards studying Muslim societies and Islamic cultures.20
Therefore, we can say that the orientalist studies nowadays have changed by widening their borders compared to those studies which Mahmoud Shaker opposed and criticized. In fact, orientalist studies tackled by Shaker interpret heritage and the Texts of the Quran and Sunnah (Prophetic Tradition) in the light of the philological approach. This shows why Shaker set language as an important prerequisite and put restrictions to make it an unattainable goal (for the unqualified). On the other hand, we can evaluate the orientalist studies, which rely on the anthropological approach in studying Muslim societies and their cultures which have become an important topic, in the light of culture as a prerequisite for which Shaker set restrictions represented in the belief, sense of belonging and application.
In conclusion, we can say that Hallaq’s criticism of orientalism highlights new dimensions which can be added to Mahmoud Shaker’s. By the transformation of the western orientalism from the old to the new, it becomes more flexible than before. As a result, the old categories or ideas promoted by the traditional orientalism, whether it goes beyond it or not, can be revised. In this way, Hallaq’s criticism plays an important role in correcting the old ideas and statements and setting alternatives which are more neutral and appropriate to the Islamic reality.
Translated by: Rehab Jamal Bakri**
Revised by: Prof. Neamat Mashhour***
* A researcher in the field of political sciences.
1 محمود محمد شاكر، جمهرة مقالات محمود محمد شاكر، (القاهرة: مكتبة الخانجي، 2008). صـ127
3 وائل حلاق، الشريعة؛ النظرية والممارسة والتحولات، (الصنائع: دار المدار الإسلامي، 2018). ص14
5 وائل حلاق، نشأة الفقه الإسلامي وتطوره، (الصنائع: دار المدار الإسلامي، 2007). ص10
6 ترجمة حوار مع وائل حلاق وقصور الاستشراق، مركز نماء للبحوث والدراسات.
7 محمود محمد شاكر، رسالة في الطريق الى ثقافتنا، (القاهرة: مكتبة الخانجي، 2006). صـ28
8 Ibid., 31-33.
9 وائل حلاق، الدولة المستحيلة؛ الإسلام والسياسة ومأزق الحداثة الأخلاقي، (بيروت: المركز العربي للأبحاث ودراسة السياسات، 2014). صـ37
11 شاكر، رسالة في الطريق. صـ 57
12 وائل حلاق، قصور الاستشراق؛ منهج في نقد العلم الحداثي، (بيروت: الشبكة العربية للأبحاث والنشر: 2019). صـ175
14 كيان أحمد يحيى، “سجن اللغة وترجمة المصطلح الإسلامي الشرعي”، مجلة فصل الخطاب، العدد 23 (2018): صـ43.
15 شاكر، رسالة في الطريق. ص66، 67
16 محمود محمد شاكر، أباطيل وأسمار،(القاهرة: مكتبة الخانجي، 2005). ص404
17 شاكر، رسالة في الطريق. صـ149
18 The first: the fanatics who learn the Arabic language in churches to serve evangelization. The second: the orientalists who support imperialism and its policies in the Arab world, and (3) the scholars who, according to some views, are apart from the above-mentioned purposes, as previously mentioned.
19 The neo-orientalism appeared around the middle of the twentieth century, a stage full of a sort of neutrality and objectivity, as criticism focused on the subjects, approaches and classical orientalist methods. See:
عبد الله الوهيبي، حول الاستشراق الجديد؛ مقدمات أولية، (الرياض: البيان مركز البحوث والدراسات، 2014). ص86
20 عبد الله الوهيبي حول الاستشراق الجديد؛ مقدمات أولية، (الرياض: البيان مركز البحوث والدراسات، 2014).
** Egyptian Researcher and Translator.
*** Professor of Islamic Economics and Islamic Finance. Faculty of Commerce, Al-Azhar University.